موضوعات
آموزش و پرورش
ادبیات و زبان
پزشکی، دندانپزشکی و داروسازی
تاریخ و جغرافیا
داستان و رمان
دیگر
دین و فلسفه
روانشناسی
ریاضیات و آمار
سلامتی، تناسب اندام و رژیم غذایی
شیمی و پلیمر
علوم اجتماعی و حقوق
علوم زیستی و بیوتکنولوژی
فیزیک و نجوم
کامپیوتر و اینترنت
کتابهای کودکان و داستان
کسب و کار و اقتصاد
کشاورزی و دامپزشکی و غذا
معماری
مهندسی و فناوری
هنر و تئاتر
محصولات
You or Someone Like You - PDF
نویسندگان: خلاصه: Anne Rosenbaum leads a life of quiet Los Angeles privilege, the wife of Hollywood executive Howard Rosenbaum and mother of their seventeen-year-old son, Sam. Years ago Anne and Howard met studying litera-ture at Columbia—she, the daughter of a British diplo-mat from London, he a boy from an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn. Now on sleek blue California evenings, Anne attends halogen-lit movie premieres on the arm of her powerful husband. But her private life is lived in the world of her garden, reading books. When one of Howard's friends, the head of a studio, asks Anne to make a reading list, she casually agrees—though, as a director reminds her, "no one reads in Hollywood." To her surprise, they begin calling: screen-writers; producers, from their bungalows; and agents, from their plush offices on Wilshire and Beverly. Soon Anne finds herself leading an exclusive book club for the industry elite. Emerging gradually from her seclu-sion, she guides her readers into the ideas and beauties of Donne, Yeats, Auden, and Mamet, with her brilliant and increasingly bold opinions. But when a crisis of identity unexpectedly turns an anguished Howard back toward the Orthodoxy he left behind as a young man, Anne must set out to save what she values above all else: her husband's love. At once fiercely intelligent and emotionally grip-ping, You or Someone Like You confronts the fault lines between inherited faith and personal creed, and, through the surprising transformation of one exceptional, unfor-gettable woman, illuminates literature's power to change our lives.
The Collected Works of J Krishnamurti 1953-1955: What Are You Seeking? - PDF
نویسندگان: خلاصه: - Banaras 1954, Rajghat School -1st Talk To Students2nd Talk To Students3rd Talk To Students4th Talk To Students5th Talk To Students6th Talk To Students7th Talk To Students8th Talk To Students9th Talk To Students10th Talk To Students11th Talk To Students12th Talk To Students13th Talk To Students14th Talk To Students15th Talk To Students- Banaras 1954, Hindu University -1st Talk2nd Talk3rd Talk- Bombay 1954 -1st Public Talk2nd Public Talk3rd Public Talk4th Public Talk5th Public Talk6th Public Talk7th Public Talk8th Public Talk- New York 1954 -1st Public Talk2nd Public Talk3rd Public Talk4th Public Talk5th Public Talk6th Public Talk- Madras 1954 -1st Public Talk2nd Public Talk- Banaras 1955 -1st Public Talk2nd Public Talk3rd Public Talk4th Public Talk5th Public TalkTalk To Parents- Bombay 1955 -1st Public Talk2nd Public Talk3rd Public Talk4th Public Talk5th Public Talk6th Public Talk7th Public Talk8th Public TalkBANARAS, INDIA 4TH JANUARY 1954 1STTALK TO STUDENTS AT RAJGHAT SCHOOLI suppose most of you understand English. Don't you? It does notmatter if you do not, as your teachers and your elders understandEnglish. Perhaps you would ask them afterwards to explain what Ihave been talking about make a point of asking them won't you?Because what we are going to discuss for the next three or fourweeks is very important; we are going to discuss what is educationand what are its implications, not just passing examination but thewhole implication of being educated. So, as we are going to talkabout that every day please ask your teachers, if you do notunderstand what I am saying now, to explain carefully what wehave talked. Also, after I have talked, perhaps you would askquestions. Because these talks are meant primarily for students andif the older people want to ask questions, they can only askquestions that will help the students to understand, that explainfurther the problem. If the older people would ask questions so asto help students, then their questions will be useful. To askquestions with their own personal problems will not help thestudents.Don't you ask yourself why you are being educated? Do youknow why you are being educated, and what does that educationmean? As we know, education is to go to schools, learn how toread and write, to pass examinations and to play a few games; andafter you leave the school, you go to the college, there again studyvery very hard for a few months or a few years, pass anexamination and then get a job; and then, you forget all about whatyou have learnt. Is it not that, what we call education? Do youunderstand what I am talking about? Is it all that we do?If you are girls you pass a few examinations, B.A. or M.A.,marry and become cooks or something else and then have children;and all the education that you have got for a number of years isuseless. You know how to speak English, you are a little bit moreclever, a little bit more tidy, a little bit more clean, that is all, is itnot? And the boys get a technical job, or become clerks, or getsome kind of governmental job, and that finishes, does it not?You see what we call living is to get a job, to have children,raise a family and to know how to read and write and to be able toread newspapers or magazines, to discuss, to cleverly argue aboutsomething or other. That is what we call education, is it not? Haveyou noticed your own parents, your own elder people? They havepassed examinations, they have got some jobs and they know howto read and write. Is it all what we call education?Education is something much more different, is it not? It is tohelp you not only to get a job in the world but also how to meet theworld. Is it not? You know what the world is. In the world, there iscompetition. You know what competition means - each man outfor himself, struggling to get the best pushing the others aside. Inthe world, there are wars, there are class divisions and the fightbetween them. In the world, every man is trying to get a better job,to keep on rising; if you are a clerk, you try to get a little higherand so fight all the time. Have you not noticed it? If you have a car,you want a bigger So, there is that constant fight going on, not onlywithin ourselves but with all our neighbours. Then there is the warthat kills, which destroys people, like the last war millions werekilled, wounded or maimed. Our life is all this political struggle.And also, life is religion is it not? What we call religion is ritualsgoing to temples, putting on something like the sacred thread,mumbling some words, or following some guru. Life is also, is itnot?, the fear of dying, fear of living, fear of what people say anddo not say, fear of not knowing where one is going fear of losing ajob, fear of opinion. So, life is something extraordinarily complex,is it not? You know what that word `complex' means? Veryintricate, it is not just simple which you just follow; it is very verydifficult, many many things are involved.So, education is, is it not?, to enable you to meet all theseproblems. You have to be educated so as to meet all theseproblems rightly. That is what education is - not merely to pass afew examinations, some silly studies, some subjects in which youare not at all interested. Proper education is to help the student tomeet this life, so that he understands it, he won't succumb, he won'tbe crushed under it as most of us are. People, ideas, country,climate, food, public opinion - all that is constantly squeezing you,constantly pushing you in a particular direction in which thesociety wants you to go. Your education must enable you tounderstand this pressure, not to yield to it but to understand it andto break through it, so that you, as an individual, as a human beingare capable of a great deal of initiative, and not merely traditionalthinking. That is real education.You know that, for most of us, education consists in what tothink. You know you are told what to think. Your society tells youyour parents tell you, your neighbours tell you, your books tell you,your teachers tell you what to think. The machinery of what tothink we call education, and that education only makes youmechanical, dull, stupid, uncreative. But if you know how to think,not what to think, then you would not be mechanical, traditionalbut be live human beings; you may be great revolutionaries - not inthe stupid sense of murdering people to get a better job or to pushthrough a certain idea - with the revolution of how to think rightly.That is very important. But, when we are at school, we never do allthese things. The teachers themselves do not know. They onlyteach you how to read or what to read, and correct your English orMathematics. That is all their concern and, at the end of five or tenyears, you are pushed out into this life about which you knownothing. Nobody has talked to you about it; or, if they have talked,they push you in certain directions - either you are a socialist, acommunist, a congressist or some other - but they never teach youor help you to understand and how to think out all these problems,not just at one moment during a certain number of years, but all thetime - which is education, is it not? After all, in a school of thiskind that is what we must do, help you not merely to pass somebeastly examinations, but how to meet life when you go out of thisplace, so that you are intelligent human beings, not mechanical, notHindus or Mussalmans or communists or some such thing.It is very important how you are educated, how you think. Mostof the teachers do not think; they want a job, they get a job andsettle down because they have families, they have worries, theyhave fathers and mothers who tell them `you must follow certainrituals, you must do this, you must do that'. They have their ownproblems, their own difficulties; they leave all those at home, cometo the school and teach a few lessons; they do not know how tothink, and we do not know how to think. In a school of this kind,surely, it is very important for you, for the teachers, for all of uswho are living here, to consider all the problems of life, to discuss,to find out, to investigate, to enquire, so that your mind becomes sovery alert that you do not just follow somebody. You understandwhat I am talking about? Is not all that education? Education is notjust till the age of 21, but till you die. Life is like a river, it is neverstill, it is always moving, always alive and rich. When we think wehave understood a part of a river and hold to that part, it is onlydead water, is it not? Because, the river goes by. To watch all themovement of the river, all the things that are happening on theriver, to understand, to be faced with it, that is life; and we all haveto prepare for it.So, is not education really not merely passing a fewexaminations but being able to think of all these problems, so thatyour mind is not mechanical, traditional, so that your mind iscreative so that you do not merely fit into society, but you break it,create anew out of it - not a new thing according to the socialist,the communist or the congressist, but a completely new thing - thatis real revolution. And after all, that is the meaning of education, isit not?, so that you grow in freedom, so that you can create a newworld. The old people have not created a beautiful world; theyhave made a mess of the world. Is it not the function of education,of the educator, to see that you grow in freedom, so that you canunderstand life, so that you can change things and not just growdull, weary and die as most people do?So, I feel and most of us do feel who are serious about thesethings, that a place like this Rajghat should provide an atmosphere,should be a place in which you are given every opportunity togrow, uninfluenced, unconditioned, untaught, so that when you goout of this place, you can meet life intelligently, without fear.Otherwise, this place has no value; it will be like any rotten school,perhaps a little better, because it happens to be a beautiful place,people are a little more kind, they do not beat you, they may coerceyou in other ways. We should create a school where the student isnot pressed, is not enclosed, is not squeezed by our ideas, by ourstupidity, by our fears, so that as he grows, he will understand hisown affairs, he will be able to meet life intelligently. You knowwhat all this requires - not only an intelligent student, a studentwho is alive, but also an educator, the right kind of educator. Thereare not the right kind of educators and the right kind of students:they are not born, we must struggle, discuss, push till the thingcomes about. You know, to grow a beautiful rose, you require agreat deal of care, don't you? To write a poem, you must have thefeeling, you must have the words to put it in. All that requires care,considerable watching.So, is it not very important that this place should be such aplace? If it is not such a place. it is nobody's fault but yours and theteachers'. Do not say `The teachers do not do this'. It is the teachers'fault if they do not create this place. Nobody else is going to createit. Others are not going to create it; you and I and the teachers aregoing to create it. That is real revolution to have the feeling that itis our school which you and I and the teachers and all of us arebuilding together. So, it is very important, is it not?, to understandwhat we mean by education - not ideals of education; there are nosuch ideals; they are all nonsense. We must begin as we are,understand things as we are and, out of that, build. You do not havean ideal garden or school; you build the soil, you take it as it is,manure it, water it and then create something out of nothing. Asthere is nothing, you will have to create, to build together.Is it not very important for each one of us to know how to thinkrightly, not what to think, not what the book says, but how tothink? That is what I would like to discuss with you for the nextthree or four weeks, namely how to think, so that you and I at theend of it will have our minds very clear and with that clarity, withthat thinking, with that capacity, we can then go out and meet life.May I ask you the question, `What do you want to do when youleave school and when you have been to college'? Do you knowwhat you want to do? Don't you want jobs, is not you primaryconcern to get a job? You have all become dumb. It is the first dayand you are a bit shy. It will be all right in a couple of days. Pleasedo not keep your shyness too long, we shall only be here for a fewweeks.Question: What is intelligence?Krishnamurti: What do you think is intelligence? Not what thedictionary says, not what your teacher or your book has sad - leaveall that aside and think and try to find out what is intelligence. Notwhat Buddha, Sankara, Shakespeare, Tennyson or Spencer orsomebody else has said, but what do you think is intelligence? Doyou see that the moment you are ask not to think along those lines,you are stunned? Take a man who reads Sankara or the communistphilosophy or some other authority; he will tell you whatintelligence is right off because, he will quote somebody. But ifyou ask not to quote, not to repeat what somebody else thinks, notmerely to read from a dictionary what intelligence is, you are lost,are you not? Do you know what intelligence is?What do you think is intelligence? It is a very complex problem,is it not? It is very difficult in a few words to say what intelligenceis. So, you begin to find out what is intelligence. The person who isafraid of public opinion, afraid of the teacher, afraid of what peoplesay, afraid of losing his job, afraid of not passing an examination,is not an intelligent person; the mind that is afraid is not anintelligent mind, is it? What do you say? Is that very difficult? If Iam afraid of my parents, that they might scold me, that they mightdo this and that, am I intelligent? I behave, I act, I think accordingto them; because, I am afraid to think freely, to thinkindependently, to act what I think. So, fear prevents me does itnot?, from being what I am. I may be a most stupid person; fearprevents me from being what I am. I am always copying, I amalways following, trying to do things which other people want meto do, because I am afraid. So, a mind which is imitative, which iscopying, because it is afraid, is not an intelligent mind, is it? Whatdo you say?Is it not the function of education to help the student tounderstand these fears, to show how you are frightened of yourteacher, of your parents so that you may say `As I am frightened, Iwill do what I like' - which is equally stupid? Education shouldhelp us to understand these fears and to be free from these fears. Itis very difficult. It requires a great deal of digging, understanding,going into it. You know what to `to thaw' means. You know itfreezes when the weather is very cold; and when the sunshinecomes out, it begins to melt. This morning, we all feel frozenbecause we do not know each other. You are a little bit nervousbecause you may ask something which you may be ashamed of,you may ask something which the teachers may say you should nothave asked, or you are frightened of your fellow students. All thatis preventing you from thawing, from feeling natural, spontaneouseasy, so that you can ask. I am sure you have got lots of questionsbubbling inside, but you dare not ask, because you are a bitapprehensive the first morning. Perhaps tomorrow the sun willhave thawed and we can ask each other questions.January, 4, 1954.BANARAS, INDIA 5TH JANUARY 1954 2NDTALK TO STUDENTS AT RAJGHAT SCHOOLI would like to talk this morning on a topic which may be ratherdifficult, but we will try and make it as simple and direct aspossible. You know most of us have some kind of fear, have wenot? Do you know your particular fear? You might be a&aid ofyour teacher, of your guardian, of your parents, of the older people,or of a snake, or a buffalo, or of what somebody says, or of deathand so on. Each one has fear; but, for young people, the fears arefairly superficial. As we grow older, the fears become morecomplex, more difficult, more subtle. You know the words,`subtle', `complex' and `difficult', don't you? For example, I want tofulfil; I am not an old person, and I want to fulfil myself in aparticular direction. You know what `fulfilment' means. Everyword is difficult, is it not? I want to become a great writer. I feel ifI could write, my life would be happy. So, I want to write. Butsomething happens to me, I get paralysed and for the rest of my lifeI am frightened, I am frustrated, I feel I have not lived. So thatbecomes my fear. So, as we grow older, various forms of fear getcome into being, fears of being left alone, not having a friend,being lonely, losing property, having no position, and other varioustypes of fear. But we won't go now into the very difficult andsubtle types of fear because they require much more thought.It is very important that we - you, young people, and I - shouldconsider this question of fear, because society and the older peoplethink fear is necessary to keep you in right behaviour. If you areafraid of your teacher or of your parents, they can control youbetter, can they not? They can say `Do this and do not do that' andyou will have, jolly well, to obey them. So, fear is used as a moralpressure. The teachers use fear, say in a large class, as a means ofcontrolling the students. Is it not so? Society says fear is necessaryand, otherwise, the citizens, the people, will just outflow and dothings wildly. Fear has thus become a necessity for the control ofman.You know fear is also used to civilize man. Religionsthroughout the world have used fear as a means of controlling man.Have they not? They say that if you do not do certain things in thislife, you will pay for it in the next life. Though all religions preachlove, though they preach brotherhood, though they talk about theunity of man, they all subtly or very brutally, grossly, maintain thissense of fear.If you have a large class of students in one class, how can theteacher control you? He cannot. He has to invent ways and meansof controlling you. So, he says `Compete. Become like that boywho is much cleverer than you'. So, you struggle, you are afraid.Your fear is generally used as a means of controlling you. Do youunderstand? Is it not very important that education should eradicatefear, should help the students to get rid of fear, because fearcorrupts the mind? I think it is very important in a school of thiskind that every form of fear should be understood and dispelled,got rid of. Otherwise, if you have any kind of fear, it twists yourmind, and you can never be intelligent. Fear is like a dark cloudand, when you have fear, it is like walking in sunshine with a darkcloud in your mind, always frightened.So, is it not the function of education to be truly educated - thatis, to understand fear and to be free of it? For instance, supposeyou go off without telling your housemaster or teacher and youcome back and invent stories saying that you have been with somepeople, while you have been to a cinema - which means, you arefrightened. If you are not frightened of the teacher, you think youwould do what you like and the teachers think the same. But tounderstand fear implies a great deal, much more than doing exactlywhat you want to do. You know there are natural reactions of thebody, are there not? When you see a snake, you jump. That is notfear, because that is the natural reaction of the body. In front ofdanger, the body reacts; it jumps. When you see a precipice, youdo not walk just blindly along. That is not fear. When you see adanger, or a car coming very fast, you sweep out of the way. It isnot an indication of fear. Those are bodily responses to protectitself against danger; such reactions are not fear.Fear comes in, does it not?, when you want to do something andyou are prevented from doing it. That is one type of fear. You wantto go to a cinema you would like to go out of Benaras for the dayand the teacher says `no'. There are regulations and you do not likethese regulations. You like to go. So you go on some excuse andyou come back. The teacher finds out that you have gone, and youare afraid of punishment. So, fear comes in, when there is a feelingthat you are going to be punished. But if the teacher talks oversmoothly why you should not go to town, explains to you thedangers, eating of food which is not clean and so on, youunderstand. Even if he has not the time to explain to you and gointo the whole problem why you should not go, because you alsothink, your intelligence is awakened to find out why you should notgo. Then, there is no problem, you do not go. If you want to go,you talk it over and find out.To do just what you like in order to show that you are free fromfear, is not intelligence. Courage is not the opposite of fear. Youknow in the battlefields, they are very courageous. For variousreasons they take drinks, or do all kinds of things to feelcourageous; but that is not freedom from fear. We won't go into it,let us leave it at that.Should not education help the students to be free from fear ofevery kind - which means, from now on to understand all theproblems of life, problems of sex, problems of death, of publicopinion, of authority? I am going to discuss all these things, so thatwhen you leave this place, though there are fears in the world,though you have your own ambitions, your own desires, you willunderstand and so be free from fear, because you know fear is verydangerous. All people are afraid of something or other. Mostpeople do not want to make a mistake, do not want to go wrong,specially when they are young. So they think that if they couldfollow somebody, if they could listen to somebody, they will betold what to do and, by doing that, they would achieve an end, apurpose.Most of us are very conservative. You know what that wordmeans, you know what it is `to conserve'? To hold, to guard. Mostof us want to remain respectable and so we want to do the rightthing, we want to follow the right conduct - which, if you go into itvery deeply, you will see is an indication of fear. Why not make amistake, why not find out? But the man who is afraid is alwaysthinking `I must do the right thing, I must look respectable, I mustnot let the public think what I am or not'. Such a man is really,fundamentally, basically afraid. A man who is ambitious is really afrightened person, and a man who is frightened has no love, has nosympathy. It is like a person enclosed behind a wall, in a house. Itis very important while we are young, to understand this thing tounderstand fear. It is fear that makes us obey, but if we can talk itover, reason together, discuss and think together, then I mayunderstand it and do it; but to compel me to force me to do a thingwhich I do not understand because I am frightened of you, iswrong education. Is it not?So, I feel it is very important in a place like this that both theeducator and the educated should understand this problem.Creativity, to be creative - you know what it means? To write apoem is partly creative, to paint a picture, to look at a tree, to lovethe tree, the river, the birds, the people, the earth, the feeling thatthe earth is ours - that is partly creative. But that feeling isdestroyed when you have fear, when you say `this is mine, mycountry, my class, my group, my philosophy my religion.' Whenyou have that kind of feeling, you are not creative; because, it isthe instinct of fear that is dictating this feeling of `mine, mycountry'. After all, the earth is not yours or mine; it is ours. And ifwe can think in those terms, we will create quite a different world -not an American world or a Russian world or an Indian world, butit will be our world, yours and mine, the rich man's and the poorman's. But the difficulty is when there is fear, we do not create. Aperson who is afraid can never find truth or God. Behind all ourworships all our images all our rituals there is fear and, thereforeyour gods are not gods, they are stones.So, it is very important while we are young, to understand thisthing; and you can only understand it when you know that you areafraid, when you can look at your own fears. But that requires agreat deal of insight which we want to discuss now. Because it is amuch deeper problem which the older people can discuss, we willdiscuss that with the teachers. But it is the function of the educatorto help the educated to understand fear. It is for the teachers to helpyou to understand your fears and not to suppress it, not to hold youdown, so that when you leave this place, your mind is very clear,sharp, unspoiled by fear. As I was saying yesterday, the old peoplehave not created a beautiful world, they are full of darkness, fear,corruption, competition; they have not created a good world.Perhaps if you going out of this place, out of Rajghat, can really befree from fear of every kind or understand how to meet fear inyourself and in others, then perhaps you will create quite adifferent world, not a world of the communist or of the congressistand so on, but a totally different world. Truly that is the function ofeducation.Question: What is sorrow?Krishnamurti: A boy of ten asks what is sorrow? Do you knowanything of sorrow? Do not bother who is asking. But a little boyasking what is sorrow is a sad thing, is it not?, it is a very terriblething. Why should he know sorrow? It is the old peopleunfortunately who know sor- row. You as an elder person knowsorrow. Do you know what sorrow means? When you see a beggarand a rich man going by when you see death, a body being burnt,when you see a dead bird, when you see somebody crying, whenyou see degradation, poverty, people quarrelling, hitting each otherverbally and physically, all that is sorrow, is it not? When yourfather or mother dies, you are left alone and you have sorrow. Buthere we grow with death. You understand what I am saying that wegrow with death? We are never happy human beings. You see adead body being carried to the river and you are with your parents;and the parents say `Do not look, death is terrible'. So you begin.When you see a beggar - as a little boy, you cannot help seeing abeggar - with torn clothes, disease, wounds on his body and youfeel so sorry for that man the parent or older people take you awaywithout explaining. That is the calamity, a social misery, to havesuch people about. The parents are responsible as they do notexplain all these things; they want to protect you, hide you from allthat. They do not make you a revolutionary - which does not meanthat you must become a silly communist; a revolutionary is someone very very different. They do not explain to you all these things.They are frightened and so they want to protect you.Sorrow is something that has to be understood, tears have to beunderstood. There is no understanding when you are happy. Whenyou smile, you smile, that does not need explanation. But you seewe are brought up, here as well as outside unfortunately, withoutknowing how to think, how to observe, how to watch; and so weincrease sorrow and multiply our trouble. But if we know, if theeducation that we have and the teachers that we have can point outthese things, discuss, talk over these things, we may not be just theordinary, every day, stupid fathers or mothers or politicians orclerks but real human beings who are really revolutionary and outto create a new world. Then perhaps we can understand, changeand put away sorrow.Question: What is the definition of the good world?Krishnamurti: You know as I said yesterday this meeting isprimarily meant for students who want to find out, who want todiscuss. The older people, if they are interested to help the studentsto understand the problem, would do well not to ask the questionsabout their own personal problems. Probably, children are notinterested in what the definition of the good world is.Now, what is the mind that asks such a question? The mind says`what is the definition of a good world'? The statement is clear, youcan look up a dictionary and there you will find a definition. Wethink that by finding a definition we have understood the problem.That is how we are trained, we think we understand when we havea definition. Definition is not understanding. On the contrary, it isthe most destructive way of thinking. Why do you want to knowthe definition of the good world? Because you cannot think out theproblem, you go to somebody - to Sankara, to Buddha, or to me orto some one else - and say `Please tell me the meaning of the goodworld'. If you can think it out, go into it, understand it, thenperhaps you will have real enlightenment.What do we mean by `good world'? It is really very important togo into this. The word has a meaning, has it not? it has a referencerit has an extraordinary meaning. A word like `God' or `love' or`sacrifice' or a word like `India' has great significance. Because youthink you believe in God, the word `God' has a meaning to you,nervously you react to that word, psychologically you respond tothat word. If you do not believe in God, that word is nonsense toyou. If I have been trained in atheism or communism in which I donot believe, I react differently. Similarly, to you `good world'might mean something but to me it might have no meaning.What do you mean by `good world'? There is no good world.The fact is the world is rotten, because there are wars there aredivisions of people - the upper, the higher and the lower, theauthority, the prime minister and the poor cook, the big politicianand the starving man, the king who has got everything and theother fellow who has nothing. It is a rotten world. We are caughtby the words `good' and `world'. We have to understand what thatword `good' implies, we have to create a world which is good.It is no good being carried away by words. We are alwaystaught from childhood what to think, but never how to think. Thereis a science called semantics; in Greek, it means the meaning ofwords. There is a whole science being developed now becausewords have meaning. Words affect you mentally as well asphysically and it is very important to understand them and not beaffected by them. The moment the word `communism' is used, acapitalist goes into a shiver about it. Similarly, a man who hasproperty is scared of the word `revolution; if you talk aboutrevolution, he will throw you out. If you tell those who follow aguru, `Don't follow another, it is silly to follow', they get scared,they want to throw you out. This constant fear of word is due tolack of understanding. After all, education is the understanding ofwords and the understanding of communication through words.Am I wandering too far away from what you ask?There is no such thing as `good world'. We must take things asthey are and not idealize, we must not have ideals as to what theworld should be. All ideals - the ideal school, the ideal country, theideal headmaster, the ideal of non-violence - are nonsense they areridiculous, they are all illusions. What is real is actually `what is'. IfI can understand the actual thing as it is - the poverty, thedegradation, the squalor, the ambition, the greediness, thecorruption, fears - then I can deal with it, I can break it down. Butif I say `I should be this', then I wander off into illusion. Thiscountry has been fed for centuries on ideals which are all illusion.You have been fed on non-violence when you are really violent.Why not understand violence and not talk of nonviolence? Therewould be quite a revolution if you have understanding of `what is.'Question: How to get rid of fear?Krishnamurti: You want to know how to get rid of fear? Do youknow what you are afraid of? Go slowly with me. Fear issomething in relation to something else. Fear does not exist byitself. It exists in relation to a snake, to what my parents might sayto a teacher, to death; it is in connection with something. Do youunderstand? Fear is not a thing by itself, it exists in contact, inrelation, in touch with something else. Are you conscious, awarethat you are afraid in relation to something else? Do you know youare afraid? Are you not afraid of your parents, are you not afraid ofyour teachers? I hope not, but probably you are. Are you not afraidthat you might not pass your examinations? Are you not afraid thatpeople should think of you nicely and decently and say what agreat man you are? Are you not afraid don't you know your fears? Iam trying to show how you have fear, I and you have lost interestalready. So first you must know what you are afraid of. I willexplain to you very slowly. Then you must know also, the mindmust know why it is afraid. Is fear something apart from the mind,and does not the mind create fear, either because it hasremembered or it projects itself in the future? You had better pesteryour teachers till they explain to you all these things. You spend anhour every day over mathematics or geography, but you do notspend even two minutes about the most important problem of life.Should you not spend with your teachers much more time overthis, how to be free from fear than merely discussing mathematicsor reading a text-book? You have asked this question how to getrid of fear, but your mind is not capable of following it. The olderpeople perhaps can. So we are going to discuss this with theteachers.A school based on fear of any kind is a rotten school, it shouldnot be. It requires a great deal of intelligence on the part of theteachers and of boys to understand this problem. Fear corrupts andto be free from fear one has to understand how the mind createsfear. There is no such thing as fear but what the mind creates. Themind wants shelter, the mind wants security the mind has variousforms of self-protective ambition; and as long as all that exists, youwill have fear. It is very important to understand ambition, tounderstand authority; both are indications of this term which isdestruction.Question: It is true, as you said, that fear corrupts the mind,especially with old people. It is also true that corrupt mindsespecially of the older people create fear. The problem appears tobe how to eliminate such minds.Krishnamurti: You have understood the question? Thegentleman says `Should we not eliminate the older minds whichare corrupted by fear'? This means what? Destroy the older people,put them into concentration camps? All minds, whether old oryoung, are corrupted by fear, either imposed from outside or self-created. It is not a question of getting rid of somebody. That iswhat they are doing all over the world - if I do not agree with you,you liquidate me you put me in a concentration camp. That is notgoing to solve the problem. What is going to solve the problem isthe right kind of education which will help me to understand theproblem of fear, how fear comes, how it comes from the past andhow fear is created in the present, to be projected in the future.Sirs, do think about this; this is far more important than all yourexaminations, than your textbooks, than your degrees; B.A. or M.A. after your name means absolutely nothing though they may getyou a job. The problem is not how to liquidate the old people or theyoung people with corrupt minds. What is wanted now is arevolution, a mind capable of thinking of all these problemsdifferently and creating a new world.January, 5, 1954.BANARAS, INDIA 6TH JANUARY 1954 3RDTALK TO STUDENTS AT RAJGHAT SCHOOLYou know we were discussing yesterday, if you remember, thequestion of fear. Most of us are afraid of something or other; and ifwe can eliminate fear, get rid of it, perhaps we should create adifferent world altogether. It seems to me to be very important tounderstand this, specially while we are young. Because the olderwe grow, the more difficult it is to get rid of this fear, becausecircumstances are much too strong for most people to withstand theimpacts of fear. I really want to communicate, tell you somethingof this, because I feel it is very important, because fear corrupts ourminds and when we are afraid there is no love.In this world, there is no love. We talk about love, we talk aboutbrotherhood, we talk about kindliness, about life being one, butthose are just words; they have no meaning, they are a lot of wordsbamboozling, deceiving people. In fact, love does not exist. Howcan there be love when you see the appalling poverty, the miseries,the very very powerful people and the poor people?I think one of the causes of there being no love is fear. If youare afraid of your teacher, of your parents, of what people say andso on, how can you love? Without love, life has no meaning,because life becomes very dry, dull, weary; and you do not see theflowers, the trees, the birds and sunlight on the water, you do notreally live, you do not enjoy life. By `enjoyment' I do not meangoing to cinemas or having a good job or having a car - those areexternal things. The really inward joy of living, the feeling ofinternal richness whether you are materially poor or rich, thatfeeling of the earth being ours to be made more beautiful, to bringabout a different status in our relationships with each other - theseare important. But if there is fear, you cannot have these. Thesecome only when there is love in our being. Love is not a thing thatyou cultivate, it is in the thing you practise. Day after day, you maysay `I must love, I must be kind, I must be gentle'. It does not comeout of that; it comes like the sunlight in the morning, actuallywithout your knowing it; it comes only when there is no fear.Please listen to this carefully because, when we are young, if wecan understand this and have a feeling of it, then nothing candestroy us. You may be poor, you may have no capacity, you maynot look well or beautiful; but the thing that makes life rich, reallyrich, is this quality of love, stripped of all fear.So, in an educational place like this, surely our first concern, notonly of the teachers but of you and all the members of theFoundation, it seems to me, is to eliminate the real causes of fear.While you are here, it is necessary to explain to each one of youthe causes of fear just as Mathematics, Geography. or History isexplained to you. The teachers may still be afraid, the Foundationmembers may still be afraid; but for you, it is important that allthese things are explained because then you will create a newworld, a new education.I think one of the causes of fear is comparison. You know what`comparison' is? To compare you with somebody else, to compareyou with a clever boy, or to compare you with a dull boy, tocompare you with Gandhiji or Buddha or Christ or somebody else -if you are any communist, it won't be Buddha or Christ, it will beStalin or Lenin - to compare you with somebody else is thebeginning of fear. I will show you why'. I will go into it and youwill see the importance of not fearing. Our whole society is basedon comparison, is it not? We think comparison is necessary forgrowth. I compare myself to another politician and say `Well, Imust beat him, I must be better than him.' When a teachercompares you with another boy who is perhaps a little clever, whatis happening to you? Have you noticed what happens to you whenyou are compared? The teacher says to you `Be as clever as theother boy.' To make you as clever, as strenuous, as studious as theother boy or girl, he gives you grades, he gives you marks; and soyou keep on struggling, competing; you are envious of the otherboy. So, comparison breeds envy, jealousy, and jealousy is thebeginning of fear. So, when you are compared with another boy,you as an individual, as a boy or girl are not important, but theother boy is important. When you compare yourself withsomebody else, the somebody else is more important than you. Is itnot so? You, as an individual, with your capacities, with yourtendencies, with your difficulties, with your problems, with yourbeing, are not important; but somebody else is important; and soyou, as a being, are pushed aside and you are struggling to becomelike somebody else. So in that struggle is born envy, fear. Youwatch yourself in a class when the teacher compares you, gives youdifferent marks, different grades; you are destroyed, your owncapacities, your own innate being, get suppressed. You talk aboutsoul and freedom and you think you know all the rest of it; butthose are just words because when you are compared withsomebody else, you are being destroyed. You may be dull orstupid, but you are as important as the other boy or girl whom theteacher or the parent considers intelligent.So, should not a school, an educational centre of this kind,eliminate comparison altogether because you are important and notsomebody else? Your teacher has also to be much more watchfulof each individual, has he not? The difficulty is that the parents arenot interested in all these, they want you to pass an examination, toget a job; and that is all their interest. So, what do they do? Athome, they compare you with your elder brother or nephew orniece and say `Be as clever as that.' That is not love. When there iscomparison, there is no love. You know when there are manychildren the mother, if she really loves her children, does notcompare. Each is as important as the other. Is it not so? Unless themother is stupid, callous, unintelligent, she does not pick up oneboy of the family and say `He is my favourite and you must all belike him.' The real mother with love in her being does not compare.The cripple, the stupid, is as important as the clever one. In thesame way, here we must not have an ideal and say we are going towork towards it; we must eliminate all this competitivecomparison.The teacher has to study each boy and find out his capacities, inwhat way he is making progress, in what way he is studying.Perhaps you should not use that word `progress' at all. Thedifficulty is how to make, how to help, each boy or girl to bestudious, to learn. We learn now through comparison, throughcompetition, through grades; we are forced, are we not? If you arelazy in the class, what happens? You would be pointed out as beinglazy and the other boy as active. The teacher may say `Why don'tyou be like him'? You are given lower marks than the other boy orgirl, you struggle and struggle and struggle to learn mathematics,what happens? Your brain, your being, is all the time beingtwisted, because you are not interested in Mathematics. But youmay be interested in something else through which you can learnMathematics.So, to eliminate fear is extremely difficult; it must be doneradically, right from the beginning, from childhood, from thekindergarten, from the small age, till you leave this place. It is ourjob, it is not an ideal. It must be done every day and we must workout as we are doing this because, you see, in this so-called civilizedworld, competition leads to ruthlessness. Do you understand whatthat word means? It means brutality, disregard of another withoutthinking of another. Because you are ambitious, competitive, youare aggressive, you want to get more and more; like you,everybody else also has a right to get more and he struggles. Oursociety is built on this, is built on envy, is built on jealousy, is builton ambition in the name of the country, in the name of the peopleand all the rest of it, but you are the centre. This competition leadsultimately to war, ultimately to the destruction of people, to greatermisery. Seeing all this throughout the world, is it not right that afew of us who are really interested in this hind of education, shouldsit down, work out a way of teaching, of living, of educating, inwhich there is no comparison, in which there is not a sense ofsomebody being more important than you? You are as important asany one else but the teacher has not found out how to awaken yourinterest. If the teacher can find a way to arouse your interest, thenyou will be as good as the other.So, I think it is very important, while we are young, tounderstand this business of comparison. We think we learn bycomparison, but really we do not. The real inventor, the realcreative person is not comparing, he is just acting; he does not say`I must be as good as Edison or Rama', he works.When you write a poem, if you are comparing with somebodyelse, what happens to your poem? You do not write a poem if youcompare yourself with Keats, with Shelley or any other great poet;you then cease to write at all. You write because you havesomething to say. You may put it badly, what you write may nothave the right rhythm, your words may not be rich, easy,overflowing; but you have something to say and what you say - nomatter how stupid it is - is as important as what has been said byKeats or Shelley or Shakespeare. If you compare, you cannot write.Have you ever painted? Do you ever paint? When you paint atree, the tree tells you something. The tree gives you a significance,the beauty of it, the quietness, the movement, the shades, the depth,the shape, the flutter of a leaf. It tells you something and you paintit; you do not merely copy a leaf, but you express the feeling of thetree. But in expressing it, if you know your mind compare yourswith one of the great painters, then you cease to paint, don't you? Isee, you have not done any of these things. It is too bad! What youmiss in life! Probably you are very good at Mathematics or Science- which is also necessary. If you miss all the rest, Mathematics andpassing a few examinations have no meaning at all. You becomesuch dull human beings.What is important is to understand what fear is and to eliminatefear. One of the causes of fear is envy, and envy is comparison. Asociety based on comparison, envy, is bound to create misery foritself and for others. You know, a contented person is not one whohas achieved a result but one who understands the things as theyare and goes beyond them. But to understand things as they are, ifyour mind is always comparing, judging, weighing, it is no good.Such a mind can never understand things. To put it very simply, ifyou are compared with somebody else, you are not important, areyou? In that comparison, there is no love. Is there? Our society, ourschools, our education, our big people - they have no love. So, allour society, all our culture is going to pieces; everything isdeteriorating. That is why it is very important that at this place,here at Rajghat, this thing is done, that the teacher, the Foundationmembers and the students create this thing. Question: What aremanners?Krishnamurti: Did you listen to what I was saying previous toyour question, or were you so concerned with your question thatyou did not listen to what I was saying? We will talk aboutmanners.You want to know what manners are. Manners are born ofrespect. If I respect you, I am kind, I am gentle. Respect andmanners go together don't they?, manners being conduct, conductbeing behaviour, behaviour being action. That is, when I respect,when a boy or girl or an elder person comes, I get up - not becausehe is an old man, not because he is a governor, not because he issomebody from whom I can get something, but because I have thefeeling of respect for people whether they are poor or rich.Manners are conduct, behaviour; and it is necessary, is it not?, tohave manners, to be polite, not artificially - which meanssuperficial - but to have good feeling for others. Having that goodfeeling for others, you become respectful, you have good manners,you talk quietly, you consider others. That is necessary, is it not?,because when there are lots of people living together, if everyonewas thoughtless, we shall have a chaotic society. So, manners, ifthey are the outcome, the natural outflow, of deep respect andunderstanding and love, have a meaning, a significance; they are abeauty on this earth.Unfortunately, we learn superficial manners. You watch theway you talk to the servant and the way you talk to the headmaster.To the one, you are just tremendously respectful. To somebodywho, you think, has got something to give you, you almost go onyour knees; but to the cooley or to the poor beggar, you areindifferent, you do not care. But real consideration is when youhave respect both for the poor man or the poor woman as well asthe rich man; in yourself, you are rich; you have affection, youhave kindliness for another - it does not matter whether he is agovernor or a cooley.Have you ever smelt a flower? The flower is not concernedmuch whether the passer-by is a rich man or a poor man. It hasperfume, it has beauty and it gives it, it has no concern whetheryou are a boy or a governor or a cook. It is just a flower. Thebeauty of it is in the flower, in the perfume.If we have that sense of inward beauty, inward respect, inwardlove, inward feeling of being sensitive, then from that comes nice,good, happy manners without compulsion. But, without that, if weare quite superficial, it is like putting on a coat. It looks very nice,but it is very shallow. empty.Question: What is true love?Krishnamurti: Again, the same business! We want a definition,we want words.How can you love if there is fear? You see how easily we aresatisfied with words. If I tell you what is true love, it will have nomeaning to you. Is it not very important to find out if we love atall, not what is true love? Do we love a flower, a dog, husband,wife, child? Do we love the earth? Without knowing that, we talkabout true love. The love we thus talk about may be phony love; itis unreal, it is an illusion.How can I love if I have fear in me? I assure you it is one of themost difficult things to be free from fear. It is not easy. Withoutunderstanding the whole process of fear, the implications of fear -not only the conscious fears but the subtler, the deep down fears,the fears that are hidden deep down - without understanding allthat, it is no good asking what true love is. Then you can look up adictionary and find out what `true' means and what `love' means.You see, the difficulty is we have always been educated what tothink but we do not know how to think; and the greatest difficultyis to break away from what to think and to enter into the stream ofhow to think. To break away from what to think, we must know,we must be conscious, we must be aware, that our wholeeducation, our cultural upbringing is what to think. You read theBhagvad Gita, or Shakespeare, or Buddha, or some other teacher,or revolutionary leader, and you know what to think. They tell youexactly what to think and you think according to the pattern. Thatis not thinking at all; it is like a machine repeating, a gramophoneplaying over and over again. To know it and to stop it is thebeginning of how to think.Question: Is it right to copy something?Krishnamurti: Let us go step by step. When I use English, I amcopying English, am I not? When you speak Hindi, you arecopying the words, you are learning the words, you are repeatingthe words, and so it is a form of imitation. When I put on this kurta,this pyjama, it is a certain copying. When I write, when I repeat asong, when I read, when I learn mathematics, there is a certainimitation, is there not? So, there is copying, imitation at a certainlevel. At a certain other level of our life, our life is not justimitation. There are all kinds of issues, problems. Let us go intothem slowly.We copy tradition, tradition is copying. When you do Puja,when you put on sacred thread, when you do this and that, that isalso imitation. When you do Puja or some of these things, do yousay to yourself `Why should I do it?' You never question it. Youmerely accept it because your parents do it, your society does it;and you just thereby become an imitative machine. You never say`Why should I do any Puja? What is the meaning of it? Has it anymeaning?' If it has any meaning, you have to find it out, and youare not to be told by somebody else that it has such and such ameaning. You have to find out and, to find out, you must beunprejudiced, you must not be against it or for it. That requires agreat deal of intelligence, that requires fearlessness.Most old people have some guru or other, some kind of gururound the corner. Why should you have a guru merely because theold people have it? This means you have to find out why they haveit. They have it because they are afraid, they want to arrive inheaven safely. Neither they nor you know if there is a heaven.Their heaven is what they imagine it to be. So, you need a greatdeal of skepticism - not doubt - to find out and not to be smotheredby the older people and by their ideas of what is true, of what isideal, what is right and wrong.Inevitably, there must be a certain amount of imitation, like anysong, or mathematics and so on. But the moment that imitation iscarried over into psychological feeling, it becomes destructive. Doyou know what that word `psychological' means? It means the self,the ego, the subtler feelings, the inward nature. When imitationbegins there, then there is no creativeness. That is a very complexproblem because imitation means action according to a pattern.Imitation, copying means the acceptance of action according tomemory. Experience is inevitably imitation because all experienceis dictated by the past, and the past is imitation.The difficulty is to see whether imitation is inevitable and to befree inwardly of all imitation. That requires a great deal of thinking- that is real meditation. If the mind can free itself from allprojective images and thoughts which are imitative, then only isthere a possibility of that reality, God or truth being. A mind that isimitative can never find what is real.Question: How can we avoid laziness?Krishnamurti: Let us find out together how to avoid laziness.Because it is your question, I am not just going to answer it. Youand I are going to find out.You may be lazy because you are eating the wrong kind offood, or you may be lazy because you have inherited from yourparents a lethargic body, or your liver is not working properly, oryou have not enough calcium which means milk. Your laziness isan escape from the things which you are afraid of. You becomelazy because you do not want to go to the school, you do not wantto study, because you are not interested in, study. But you are notlazy if you go and play a game, you are not lazy to quarrel withsomebody. Your laziness may be due to the lack of the right kindof food or an inherited tendency from the parents or an escape. Doyou understand what I mean by `escape'? You want to escape fromwhat you do not want to do; therefore, you become lazy. You donot want to study, because you are not interested in studies,studying is a bore; and the teacher is not very good, he is also abore. So, you say `All right' and you become lazy.So, the teacher and you have to find out if you have the rightfood; perhaps with right food you will become active. Your teacherhas to find out what you are really interested in - Mathematics,geography or building something. Then, in doing that, you willbecome active. All these have to be gone into. The teacher mustnot say `You are a very lazy boy, you will be punished, you willget less marks'.Question: But for fear, we would have no respect for ourparents. How do you say fear is destructive?Krishnamurti: Do you respect your parents out of love or out offear? I am saying `How can one have respect if there is fear?' Suchrespect is not respect at all; it is an apprehension, a fear. But if youhave love, you will respect whether it is your father, or thegovernor, or a poor cooley. Is not that simple? The respect born offear is destructive, it is false, it has no meaning.Question: Why do we feel a sense of fear when we do notsucceed?Krishnamurti: Why do you want to succeed? You do somethingand in itself it is beautiful, it is sufficient. Why do you want to havethe feeling that you have succeeded? Then you have pride, andthen you say `I must not have pride.' Then you try to cultivatehumility which is all absurd. But if you say `I am doing it because Ilove to do it', then there is no problem.Question: What are the qualifications of an ideal student?Krishnamurti: I hope there is no ideal student. Look what youhave asked! You want an ideal student; you picture his image, hisways of behaviour, his ways of conduct; and you want to imitatehim. You do not say `Here I am. I want to find out about myself. Iwant to find out how to live, but not according to a picture.' Yousee, the moment you have an ideal, you become false; you say`How wrongly I have been brought up'! The ideal becomes muchmore important than what you are.What is important is what you are, not what the ideal is, not theideal student or his qualifications. You are important, not an ideal.In understanding yourself, you will find out how false these idealsare. Ideals are the inventions of the mind which runs away fromwhat the thing is. What is important is not an ideal but tounderstand `what is'. There is a beggar. What is the good of talkingto him about an ideal? You have to understand him, to help himdirectly. The ideals of a perfect society are all fictitious and unreal,and it is the old peoples' game to talk about these ideals. `What is'is the actual and it has to be faced and understood.January 6, 1954BANARAS, INDIA 7TH JANUARY 1954 4THTALK TO STUDENTS AT RAJGHAT SCHOOLDon't you think that it is very important, while you are at school,you should not feel any anxiety, any sense of uncertainty but youshould have a great deal of that feeling of being secure. You knowwhat it is to feel secure? There are different kinds of security, ofthe feeling that you are safe. While you are very young, you havethe security of relying on older people, the feeling that somebody islooking after you to give you the right food, the right clothing, theright atmosphere; you have a sense of feeling that you are beingcared for, looked after - which is essential, which is absolutelynecessary while one is very young. As you grow older and go outof the school into the College and so on into life, that security, thatfeeling that you are physically safe physically being looked after,goes into another field. You want to feel inwardly, spiritually,psychologically safe; you want to have somebody to help you, toguide you, to look after you, whom you call a guru or guide; or youhave some belief or some ideal because you want something to relyon. The problem of seeking security, safety, is very very complex,and we won't deal with that now. I think that while you are atschool, you ought to have physical and emotional and mentalstability, the mental and physical feeling that you are being lookedafter, that you are being cared for, that your future is beingcarefully nurtured, carefully being watched over, so that while youare very young, while you are at school, there is no sense ofanxiety, no sense of fear. That is essential because, to have anxiety,fear, apprehension, wondering as to what is going to happen toyou, is very bad, is very detrimental to your thinking; out of thatstate, there can be no intelligence. It is only when you feel youhave teachers who can really look after you, care for youphysically, mentally and emotionally who are helping you to findout what you want to do in life, not forcing their opinions or theirways of life or their ways of conduct, that you feel you can grow,that you can live. That is only possible when you are at school withproper environments, with proper teachers.One of the things that prevents the sense of being secure iscomparison. When you are compared with somebody else, in yourstudies or in your games or in your looks, you have a sense ofanxiety, a sense of fear, a sense of uncertainty. So, as we werediscussing yesterday with some of the teachers, it is very importantto eliminate, in our school here at Rajghat, this sense ofcomparison, this sense of giving you grades or marks, andultimately the fear of examination. You are afraid of yourexaminations, are you not? That means what? There is that threatbefore you all the time that you might fail, that you are not doingas well as you should, so that during all the years that you live inthe school, there is this dark cloud of examinations hanging overyou. We were discussing yesterday with some of the teacherswhether it is possible not to have examinations at all but to watchover you every day, month after month, to see that you are learningnaturally and happily and easily, to find out what you are interestedin and to encourage that interest, so that when you leave the school,you go out with a great deal of intelligence, not just merely withthe capacity to pass an examination. After all, if you have studiedor you have been encouraged to study in your own interest becauseyou like to do it, in which there is no fear - all the time, not just thelast two or three months when you have to spurt and read for manyhours to pass examinations - if you are watched over all the timeand cared for, then when the examination comes, you can easilypass it.You study better when there is freedom, when there ishappiness, when there is some interest. You all know that whenyou are playing games, you are doing dramatics, when you aregoing out for walks, when you are looking at the river, when thereis general happiness, good health, then you learn much moreeasily. But when there is the fear of comparison, of grades, ofexaminations, you do not study or learn so well; but, unfortunately,most of your teachers indulge in that old-fashioned theory. Giventhe right atmosphere of enjoyment, of no fear, of not beingcompelled to do something, so that he is happy or is enjoying lifein that state, a student studies much better. But the difficulty is, yousee, neither the teachers nor the students think in these terms at all.The teacher is concerned only that you should pass examinationsand go to the next class; and your parent wants that you should geta class ahead. Neither of them is interested that you leave theschool as an intelligent human being without fear.The teachers and the parents are used to the idea of pushing aboy and girl through examinations because they are afraid that ifthey are not compelled, if they have no competition or no grades,they will not study. To them, it is a comparatively new thing tobring up and educate boys and girls without comparing, withoutcompulsion, without threat, without instilling fear.What do you, students, really think will happen if you have noexaminations, no grades? When you are not being compared withsomebody else, what would happen to your studies. Do you thinkthat you will study less?A voice: `Of course'. I do not think so. It is surprising that, eventhough you are young, you have already accepted the old theory! Itis a tragedy. Look, you are young and you think compulsion isnecessary to make you study. But if you are given the rightatmosphere, if you are encouraged and looked after, you will surelystudy well - it does not matter if you pass examinations or not.They have experimented with all this in other countries. Here,we have not thought about all these things and so you, as a student,say `I must be compelled, compared, forced; otherwise, I won'tstudy.' So, you have already accepted the pattern of the old. Youknow what the word `pattern' means? It means the idea, thetradition of the older people. You have not thought it out. Look!while you are young, it is the time of revolution, of thinking out allthese problems, not just to accept what the old people say. But theold people insist on your following the tradition because they donot want you to be a disturbing factor, and you accept. So, thedifficulty is going to be because the teachers and you are boththinking that compulsion of some kind, appreciation of some kind,coercion, comparison, grades, examinations are necessary. It isgoing to be very difficult to remove all that and to find ways andmeans without all that, so that you study naturally, easily andhappily. You think it is not possible. But we have never tried it.This way - the way of examinations, appreciation, comparison,compulsion - has not produced any great human beings, creativehuman beings. The persons produced already have no initiative;they just become automatic clerks, or governors or book-keeperswith a very small mind, meagre mind, dull mind. Do you see this?You are not listening to all this because you think this isimpossible. But we have got to try it. Otherwise, you will be livingin an atmosphere of fear, of threat; and no one can live happily insuch an atmosphere. It is going to be very difficult, when one hasbeen used to this way of thinking, living, studying, to completelychange, push that aside and find a way to study, to enjoy. That canbe done only if we all agree, all the students and all the teachers,that there should be no fear and that it is essential for all of us tofeel a sense of emotional, mental, physical security while we areyoung. Such security is not when there are all these threats. Thedifficulty is that we are all not concerned with many of the deeperproblems of life. The teachers are only concerned to help you topass examinations, to make you study; but they are not concernedwith your whole being. Do you understand what I mean? The wayyou think, the way your emotions are, the outlook, the traditions,the kind of person you are as a whole - the conscious and theunconscious - all that nobody is concerned with.Surely, the function of education is to be concerned with thewhole of your being. You are not just a student to be pushedthrough certain examinations. You have your affections, yourfears; just watch your emotions, what you want to do, your sex life.Here, in the school, all that the teachers are concerned with is tomake you study even some subject in which you are not greatlyinterested and to pass through, and they think you have beenthereby educated. To be educated implies, does it not?, tounderstand the whole, the total process, the total being, of you. Tounderstand that, there must be on your part as well as on theteachers' part, a feeling that you can trust, that there is affection,that there is a sense of security and not fear. Look! this is notsomething impossible, something utopian, or a mere ideal. It is not.If all of us put our heads together, we can work this out. It must beworked out in the school; if not, the school must be a total failurelike every other school. So, you have to understand the problemthat one can really study much better, more easily, in anatmosphere in which there is no fear, in which you are notcompelled, forced, compared, driven, in which you can study muchbetter than in the old system, in the old ways. But of that, we mustbe completely sure. That is what we are doing here in theafternoons with the teachers. We talk over all this problem to seethat you go out of this school, not as a machine but as a humanbeing with your whole being active, intelligent, so that youproperly face all the difficulties of life but not merely react to themaccording to some tradition.Question: Why do we hate the poor?Krishnamurti: Do you hate the poor, do you hate the poorwoman who is carrying the heavy basket on her head, walking allthe way from Saraimohana to Benaras? Do you hate her with hertorn clothes, dirty? Or, do you feel a sense of shame that you areclothed well, clean, well-fed, when you see another with almostnothing and working day in and day out, year after year? Which isit that you feel? A sense of inward sensation, a sense of `I have goteverything, that woman has nothing', or a feeling of hatred for theothers? Perhaps we are using the wrong word `hate'. It may bereally that you are ashamed of yourself and, being ashamed, youpush away.Question: Is there any difference between cleverness andintelligence?Krishnamurti: Don't you think that there is a vast difference?You might be very clever, in your subject, be able to pass, argueout, argue with another boy. You might be afraid - afraid of whatyour father may say, what your neighbour, your sister, orsomebody else says. You may be very clever and yet have fear;and if you have fear, you have no intelligence. Your cleverness isnot really intelligence. Most of us who are in schools become moreand more clever and cunning as we grow older, because that iswhat we are trained to do, to outdo somebody else in business or inblack market, to be so ambitious that we get ahead of others, pushaside others. But intelligence is something quite different. It is astate in which your whole being, your whole mind and youremotions are integrated, are one. This integrated human being is anintelligent human being, not a clever person.Question: Does love depend on beauty and attraction?Krishnamurti: Perhaps. You know it is very easy to ask aquestion, but it is very difficult to think out the problems that thequestion involves. That boy asks `Is cleverness different fromintelligence?' Now, to really think it out, not wait for an answerfrom me, to really think it out step by step what it involves, to gointo it, is much more important than to wait for an answer from me.This question indicates, does it not?, that we are used to being toldwhat to think, what to do, and not how to think or do anything. Wehave not thought out these problems, we do not know how to think.While we are young, it is important to know how to think, notjust repeat some professor's book; we have to find out for ourselvesthe truth, the meaning, the implications of any problem. That iswhy it is very important while we are here in the school that allthese things, all these problems, should be talked over, discussed,so that our mind does not remain small, petty, trivial.Question: How can we remove the sense of anxiety?Krishnamurti: If you had no examinations, would you have theanxiety with regard to them? Think it out quietly and you will see.Suppose we are going out on a walk and we are talking about thisproblem; would you have any sense of anxiety if, in a couple ofmonths, you will have an examination? Would you have anxiety ifat the end of your examinations, B.A. or whatever it is, you wouldhave to fight for a job? Would you? You are anxious because youhave to have a job. In a society where there is keen competition,where everybody is seeking, fighting, you as a student are beingtrained from childhood in an atmosphere of anxiety, are you not?You have the first form to pass then the second form to pass and soon and on. So, you become a part of the whole social structure.Don't you? That is not what we are going to do in this school. Weare going to create an atmosphere in which you are not anxious, inwhich you have no examination, in which you are not comparedwith somebody else, even if it involves the breaking of the school.You are important as a human being, not somebody else. If there issuch an atmosphere, then examinations are not inevitable and youcan study; it would not be difficult for you to pass the Universityexaminations; because you have been intelligent during all theyears you spent in the school and college, you would work hard forfour or five months before the examination and pass theexamination. After passing the final examination, when you go outin the world, you will want a job. But the job you take won'tfrighten you; your parents, your society won't frighten you; youwill do something, even beg; you would not be anxious.At present, your life is full of anxiety because from the verybeginning of your childhood you are caught in this framework ofcompetition and anxiety. All of us want success and we areconstantly told `Look at that man, he has made a great success.' Solong as you are seeking success, there must be anxiety. But if youare doing something because you are loving to do it and notbecause you want to be successful, then there is no anxiety. Aslong as you want success as long as you want to climb the socialladder, there is anxiety. But if you are interested in doing what youlove to do - it does not matter whether it is merely mending awheel or putting a cog together, or painting or being anadministrator - but not because you want position or success, thenthere is no anxiety.Question: Why do we fight in this world?Krishnamurti: Why do we fight? You want something and Iwant the same thing, we fight for it. You are clever, I am notclever; and we fight for it. You are more beautiful than I am and Ifeel I must also be beautiful, and so we squabble. You areambitious and I am ambitious, you want a particular job and I wantthe same job, and so it goes on and on. Does it not? There is no endto squabbling as long as we want something. It is very difficult. Aslong as we want something, we are going to quarrel. As long asyou say India is the most beautiful, the greatest, the most perfect,the most civilized country in the world, then you are going toquarrel. We start in the small way, you want a shawl and you fightfor it. That same thing goes on in life in different ways and indifferent walks.Question: When a teacher or some other superior compels us todo a thing which we do not want to do, what are we to do?Krishnamurti: What do you generally do? You are frightenedand you do it. Yes? Suppose you were not frightened and you askthe superior, the teacher, to explain to you what it is all about, whatwould happen? Suppose you say - not impudently, notdisrespectfully - `I do not understand why you are asking me to dothis which I do not want to do; please explain why you want this tobe done.' Then, what would happen? What would generally happenis the teacher or superior will be impatient. He will say `I have notime, go and do it.' Also, the superior or your teacher might feel hehas no reason; he just says `Go and do it', he has not thought it out.When you quietly, respectfully ask him `Please tell me,' then youmake the teacher, the superior, think out the problem with you. Doyou understand? Then, if you see the reason, if you see that he isright, that there is sense in what he says, then you will naturally doit; in that, there is no compulsion. But to do something that thesuperior says, because you are frightened of him does not mean athing. When you do it and say `I am frightened', you would go ondoing it even when he is not there.Question: When Puja is a form of imitation, why do we do it?Krishnamurti: Do you do Puja? Why do you do it? Becauseyour parents have done it. You have not thought it out, you do notknow the meaning of all that. You do it because your father ormother or great aunt does it. We are all like that. When somebodydoes something, I copy hoping to derive some benefit from it. So, Ido Puja because everybody does Puja. It is a form of imitation.There is no originality about it. There is no consideration over it. Ijust do it hoping that some good will come out of it.Now, you can see for yourselves that if you repeat a thing overand over again, your mind becomes dull. That is an obvious fact,like in mathematics wherein if you repeat over and over again, ithas no meaning. Similarly, a ritual repeated over and over againmakes your mind dull. A dull mind feels safe. It says `I have noproblems, God is looking after me, I am doing Puja, everything isperfect; but it is a dull mind. A dull mind has no problems. Puja,the repetition of a mantram, or any word which is constantly beingrepeated, makes the mind dull. This is what most of us want; mostof us want to be dull so as not to have any disturbance. Whether itis beneficial or not is a different problem. You know that byrepeating you can make your mind very quiet - not in the livingsense, but in the dead sense - and that mind says `I have solved myproblem'. But a dead mind, a dull mind, cannot be free of itsproblems. It is only an active mind, a mind that is not caught inimitation, not caught in any fear, that can look at a problem and gobeyond it and be free of it.You are quoting somebody, because you have not thought out aproblem. You read Shakespeare or Milton or Dickens or somebodyelse and you take a phrase out of it and say `I must know themeaning of it.' But if you, as you are reading, thought things out, ifas you went along you used your mind, then you will never quote.Quoting is the most stupid form of learning.Question: No risk, no gain; no fear, no conscience; noconscience, no growth. What is progress?Krishnamurti: What is progress? There is a bullock cart andthere is a jet plane. In this there is progress. The jet plane does1300 to 1500 miles an hour and the bullock cart does two miles anhour. There is progress in this. Is there progress in any otherdirection? Man has progressed scientifically - he knows thedistance between stars and the earth, he knows how to break theatom, he knows how to fly an aeroplane, a submarine; he knowshow to measure the speed of the earth. There is progress all alongthat line. Is there progress in any other direction? Is there anylessening of wars? Are people more kind, more thoughtful, morebeautiful? So, where is progress? There is progress in one directionand there is no progress in the other. So, you say risk will bringabout progress. We make statements without seeing all theimplications. We just read some phrases; and some studentsimitate, copy those phrases, put them on the wall and repeat them.Question: What is happiness and how can it be obtained?Krishnamurti: You obtain happiness as a byproduct. If you lookfor happiness, you are not going to get it. But if you are doingsomething which you think is nice, good, then happiness comes, asa side result. But if you seek happiness, it will always elude you, itwill never come near you. Say, for instance you are doingsomething which you really love to do - painting, studying, goingon a walk, looking at the sun shine, shadows, something which youfeel `how nice to do it'. In the doing of it you have happiness. Butif you do it because you want to be happy, you will never behappy.January 7, 1954.BANARAS, INDIA 8TH JANUARY 1954 5THTALK TO STUDENTS AT RAJGHAT SCHOOLFor several days we have been talking about fear and the variouscauses that bring about fear. I think one of the most difficult thingswhich most of us do not seem to apprehend is the problem of habit.You know, most of us think that when we are young we shouldcultivate good habits as opposed to bad habits, and we are told allthe time what are bad habits and what are good habits; we arealways; told of the habits that are worthwhile cultivating and thehabits which we should resist or put away. When we are told that,what happens? We have so-called bad habits and we want to havegood habits. So, there is a struggle going on between what we haveand what we should have. What we have are supposed to be badhabits and we think we should cultivate good habits. So, there is aconflict, a struggle a constant push towards good habits towardschanging from bad habits into good habits.Now, what do you think is important? Good habits? If youcultivate good habits, what happens? Is your mind any more alert,any more pliable, any more sensitive? After all, habits imply, dothey not?, a continuous state in which the mind is no longerdisturbed. If I have good habits, my mind need not be botheredabout them, and I can think about other things. So, we say, weshould have good habits. But, in the process of cultivating goodhabits, does not the mind become dull because it functions inhabit? If you have so-called good habits and let your mindfunction, move along these rails called good habits, your mind isnot pliable, is it? It is fixed. So, what is important is not goodhabits or bad habits, but to be thoughtful. To be thoughtful is muchmore difficult, because the moment you are thoughtful, alert,aware, then it is no longer a problem of cultivating good habits.The thoughtful mind is sensitive and therefore capable ofadjustment; whereas, a mind that is functioning in habit is notsensitive, is not pliable, is not thoughtful. One of the difficulties ofa mind that is mediocre, small, petty, is that it functions in habit;and once the mind is caught in habit, it is extremely difficult to freeitself from it. So, what is important is not the cultivation of habits,good or bad, but to be thoughtful, not along a particular directionbut all round. Because, habit is thoughtlessness in a particulardirection.I hope you're following all this. Perhaps it may be a littledifficult; if it is, do please ask your teachers, and when they talknext time of cultivating good habits, discuss with them, not tocatch them in argument but to understand what they mean by goodhabits.Good habits are also thoughtless. A mind that is caught in habitis not capable of quick adjustment, quick thought or alertness. Tobe thoughtful, not merely superficially but inwardly, is far moreimportant than the cultivation of good habits. The mind is a livingthing; but it is bound, held, hedged about, controlled, shaped,pushed by various forms of habit. Belief, tradition is habit. Myfather believes in something and he insists that I also believe. Hedoes not put it that way but he creates an environment, anatmosphere, in which I have got to follow. He does puja which is ahabit, and I naturally imitate him and thus cultivate a habit.Your mind is always trying to live in habit so that it won't bedisturbed, so that it has not got to think anew or afresh, to look atproblems differently. So, the mind likes to live in a half-awakenedstate; and habits come in very useful, like tradition, because you donot have to think, you do not have to be sensitive. Tradition sayssomething and you follow - such as the tradition of puttingsomething on your forehead, the tradition of turbans, the traditionof growing beards. When you accept and follow a tradition, youare not disturbed, your mind is dull and likes to be dull. That is oureducation. We learn mathematics, geography or science in order toget a job and settle down in that job for the rest of our life. You area Christian or a Hindu or a Mussulman or whatever you callyourself, and there you function like a machine without anydisturbance. You have disturbances, but you explain them away byyour habitual thinking, so that your mind is never thoughtful, neveralert, never questioning, never uncertain, always half asleep, put tosleep by tradition, by habits, by customs. That is why, if younotice, when you are in a school, you just disappear in the mass ofpeople. You are just like anybody else. You are educated, you are aB.Sc. or an M.A. You have children, a husband a car; or you haveno car and want a car. Thus you function, thus you live andgradually die and are burnt on the ghats. That is your life, is it not?You are trained to be thoughtless, not to revolt, not to question.Any little occasional quiver of anxiety you may have is soonexplained away. This you consider to be a process of education.Surely, it is very important, is it not?, that while you are at thisschool you try and experiment with all this so that when the timecomes for you to leave this place, you do so not with a mind that isfunctioning in habits, in tradition, in fear, but with a mind that isthoughtful. This thoughtfulness is not to be along any particulardirection, communist thoughtfulness or congress thoughtfulness orsocialist thoughtfulness; the moment it is labelled, it is no longerthoughtfulness. the moment you belong to something to somesociety, to some group, to some political party, you have ceased tothink; for you think only in habit and that is not thoughtfulness.The chief concern of a school of this kind must be to create anatmosphere in which there is no fear, in which students are notcompelled or coerced or compared with one another, so that thereis freedom. This does not mean that the students are free to do whatthey want to do, but they have the freedom to grow, to understand,to think, to live, so that the mind can never function in habit, sothat the mind becomes very active, not with the activity of gossip,not with the activity of mere reading, but with the activity ofenquiry, of finding out, of searching for what is real, for what istrue. So, the mind becomes an astonishing thing, a creative thing.Surely, that is the function of education, is it not?, not to giveyou good or bad habits, not to let your mind live in traditions but tobreak away from all habits and traditions, so that your mind is freefrom the very beginning to the very end, very active, alive, seeingthings anew. You know, when you watch the river of a morning orof an evening, after you have watched for about a week, you loseall appreciation of its beauty, because you are used to it. Your mindbecomes habituated to it, your mind is no longer sensitive to thegreen fields and the moving trees; you see them and you pass themby. You are no longer sensitive, no longer thoughtful. You seethose poor women go by day after day, and you do not even knowthat they wear torn clothes and carry so much weight. You do noteven notice them because you are used to them. Getting used tosomething is to grow insensitive to it. This is destructive as such amind is a dull mind, a stupid mind. So the function of education isto help the mind to be sensitive, thoughtful so that it does notfunction in habit or tradition, so that it does not get used toanything, so that it is always fresh, alive. That requires a great dealof insight, a great deal of understanding.Question: Why do we get angry?Krishnamurti: It may be for many reasons. It may be due to illhealth, to not having slept properly, to not having the right kind offood. It may be purely a physical reaction, a nervous reaction; or itmay be much deeper. Because you feel frustrated, you feel caught,held, bound and you have no outlet, you let off steam, you getangry. Anger is not just a matter of control. The moment youcontrol, you have created a habit. You know, the so-calledmeditation of most people is the cultivation of habit; when they aremeditating they are cultivating a mind which will not be disturbed,which will function in habit; and such a mind will never find whatis truth, what is God. If you merely control anger, the process is tocultivate a habit. Perhaps you do not understand what I am saying.Perhaps if the older people understand, they could explain thiscarefully to the children, not haphazardly, not impatiently, butexplain the whole process of control, that it makes for habit and somakes the mind dull. They could explain why there is anger, notonly the physical reasons but also the psychological reasons; howthe mind which is sensitive, makes itself dull, insensible, throughfear, through various forms of desires and fulfilments; and howsuch a mind can only think in terms of habit, control, suppression.A mind that is very alert, watchful, may lose its temper, but thatis not important. What is important is to watch the mind, to see thatit does not function in habit, that it does not become insensitive,dull, weary and ready to die.Question: Stray thoughts prevent me from concentration and,without concentration, I cannot read.Krishnamurti: You do not read, not because of stray thoughtsbut because you are not interested in what you are reading. Youread a detective story or a novel; at that time your thoughts do notstray. Do they? If you are interested in what you are reading, itgives you enjoyment; then you are not disturbed by any thought areyou? On the contrary, it is very difficult to let the book go. Do youread detective stories? Do you read novels? No? Then what do youread? What you are told to read in the class, is it not? Naturally,you are not interested in those things, you are forcing yourself toread them. When you force yourself to read, your mind goes off -which shows wrong education. But if you, from childhood, aregiven an opportunity to find out what you are interested in, thenyou will have natural, easy concentration without any effort toconcentrate. But unfortunately for the older students this has notbeen possible, because they have been brought up in the old style,forced to read and to study. When your mind wanders, the problemarises. `How can I control my thoughts?' You cannot. Do notcontrol your thoughts but find out what you are interested in. Youhave to pass your examinations, unfortunately. That is what isexpected of you. But if you really want to understand the ways ofyour mind, the mind has to find out what it is interested in, vitally,for the rest of its life and not for ten days or for a few years. Forsuch a mind, when it has found what it is interested in, there will beno problem of concentration; it naturally becomes concentrated.Question: What is the outcome of meditation?Krishnamurti: The outcome generally is what you want yourmeditation to be. You understand? If I meditate on peace, I will getpeace. But it will not be real peace; it will be something which mymind has created. If I am a Christian, I meditate in a Christian way,and my mind will create a picture. If I am a Hindu devotee and Imeditate, my mind will create an image and I will see it as a livingimage. My mind projects whatever it desires, and sees the thing asliving; but it is self-delusion. The mind deceives itself. If I am aHindu, I believe in innumerable things and my beliefs control mythinking. Don't they? Suppose I am a devotee and I sit down andmeditate on Krishna, what happens? I create an image of Krishna.Don't I? My mind brought up in Hinduism has a picture of Krishnaand that picture I meditate on; and that meditation is the process ofmy conditioned thinking. So, it is no longer meditation, it is just acontinuous habitual form of thinking. I might see Krishna dancing,but it will still be the result of my tradition. So long as I have thistradition, the real thing cannot be perceived. So, my mind must freeitself from tradition. That is real meditation.Meditation is the process of the mind freeing itself from allconditioning, either of the Hindu or the Christian or theMussulman or the Buddhist or the Communist. Then when themind is free, reality can come into being. Otherwise, meditation ismerely self-deception.Question: Why do we feel sorry for the beggar when he comesto us and why do we feel angry when he leaves us?Krishnamurti: I am not sure whether you are putting the latterpart of the question rightly. Perhaps you have a different meaningwhen you say you hate when they leave. Do you get angry merelybecause he leaves the place or because he leaves the place with acurse because you do not give. I go to you as a beggar and you giveme something; and in the giving, you feel happy, you feel that youare somebody because you have given. For the majority of us,there is vanity in giving, is there not? Suppose you do not give,what happens? The beggar curses you and goes away. He getsangry and in return you also get angry. Perhaps you do not want tobe disturbed and so you get angry.I really do not understand this question. Is this what you aretrying to say? You feel kindly when you see a person, a beggar,because your sympathies are aroused and you feel it good to havethis natural sympathy; but, at the same time, you feel disturbedbecause of his poverty and your being well off; you do not like tobe disturbed and so you get agitated. Is this what you mean? Thereare several things taking place - the natural outgoing sympathy togive something; the feeling of anxiety; the feeling of anger, ofirritation that you cannot do anything, that society is rotten and youcannot help; your own natural fears that you might catch hisdisease. I do not see what you mean when you say you get angrywhen the beggar goes away.Question: The habit of getting angry and the habit of gettingvindictive - are they different psychological processes, or are theythe same but varying in degree?Krishnamurti: Anger may be immediate but it passes and isforgotten. I think vindictiveness implies the storing up, theremembering of a hurt, the feeling that you have been frustrated,that you have been blocked, hindered. You store that up andeventually you are going to take it out, you are going to be violent.I think there is a difference. Anger may be immediate and forgottenand vindictiveness implies the actual building up of anger, ofannoyance, of the desire to hit back. If you are in a powerfulposition and you say harsh things to me, I cannot get angry,because I may lose my job. So, I store it up, I bear all your insultsand when an occasion arises, I hit back.Question: How can I find God?Krishnamurti: A little girl asks how she can find God. Probablyhe wants to ask something else and she has forgotten it already.In answer to the question, we are talking to the little girl, andalso to the old people. The teachers will kindly listen and tell thegirl in Hindi, as the question is important to her.Have you ever watched a leaf dancing in the sun, a solitary leaf?Have you watched the moonlight on the water and did you see theother night the new moon? Did you notice the birds flying? Haveyou deep love for your parents? I am not talking of fear, of anxiety,or of obedience, but of the feeling, the great sympathy you havewhen you see a beggar or when you see a bird die or when you seea body burnt. If you can see all these and have great sympathy andunderstanding - the understanding for the rich who go in big carsblowing dust every where and the understanding for the poorbeggar and the poor ekka horse which is almost a walking skeleton.Knowing all that, having the feeling of it, not merely in words butinwardly, the feeling that this world is ours yours and mine - notthe rich man's nor the communist's - to be made beautiful. If youfeel all this, then behind it there is something much deeper. But tounderstand that which is much deeper and beyond the mind, themind has to be free quiet, and the mind cannot be quiet withoutunderstanding all this. So you have to begin near, instead of tryingto find what God is.Question: How can we remove our defects for ever?Krishnamurti: You see how the mind wants to be secure. It doesnot want to be disturbed. It wants for ever and for ever to becomplete;y safe; and a mind that wants to be completely safe, toget over all diffi- culties for ever and for ever is going to find away. It will go to a guru, it will have a belief, it will havesomething on which to rely and cling; and so, the mind becomesdull, dead, weary. The moment you say `I want to get over all mydifficulties for ever' you will get over them, but your whole being,your mind, will be dead.We do not want to have difficulties, we do not want to think, wedo not want to find out, to enquire. I wait for somebody to tell mewhat to do, because I do not want to be disturbed, I go tosomebody who, I think, is a great man or a great lady or a saint andI do what he tells me to do, like a monkey, like a gramophonewhich is repeating. In doing so, I may have no difficultiessuperficially because I am mesmerized. But I have difficulties inthe unconscious, deep down inside me, and these are going to burstout eventually, though I hope they will never burst out. You see,the mind wants to have a shelter, a refuge, a something to which itcan go and cling - a belief, a master, a guru, a philosopher, aconclusion, an activity, a political dogma, a religious tenet. It wantsto go to that and hold on to it when it is disturbed. But a mind mustbe disturbed. It is only through disturbance, through watching,through enquiry, that a mind understands the problem.The lady asks `Can a disturbed mind understand?' A man that isdisturbed and is seeking an escape from the disturbance will neverunderstand. But a mind that is disturbed and knows it is disturbedand begins to patiently enquire into the cause of disturbancewithout condemning, without translating the causes, such a mindwill understand. But a mind which says `I am disturbed, I don'twant to be disturbed, and so I am going to meditate on non-disturbance,' is a phony mind, a silly mind.Question: What is internal beauty?Krishnamurti: Do you know what is external beauty? Do youknow a beautiful building? When you see a beautiful building or abeautiful tree, a beautiful leaf, a lovely painting, a nice person,what happens to you? You say it is beautiful. What do you meanby `beautiful'? There must be something beautiful in you to see thebeauty outside. Must there not? You understand? Please tell thatboy. The teacher who is responsible, his housemaster, will pleaselisten to this and take the trouble to tell these boys and girls whatwe are discussing. This is far more important than the usualclasses.Please listen. The boy wants to know how to be free for everfrom all trouble. The other boy wants to know what is internalbeauty; and when I ask if you know what external beauty is, you alllaugh. But if you know that which is beautiful, if you have afeeling for beauty, you have sympathy, you have sensitivity, anappreciation of what you see - a magnificent mountain or amarvellous view - and no reaction. To have the appreciation ofbeauty, there must be something in you to appreciate and that maybe inward beauty. When you see a good person, when you seesomething lovely, when you feel real kindness, love and when yousee it outside, you must have it inside you. When you see the curveof the railway bridge across the Ganges, there must also besomething in you which sees the beauty of a curve. Most of us donot see beauty outside or inside, because we have not got it inside;inside, we are dull, empty, heavy and so we do not see the beautyin anything, we do not hear the noise on the bridge, which has itsown beauty. When you get used to anything, it has no meaning toyou.January 8, 1954BANARAS, INDIA 11TH JANUARY 1954 6THTALK TO STUDENTS AT RAJGHAT SCHOOLWe have been talking about fear and, I think, if we can go moreinto it, perhaps we shall awaken to initiative. Do you know whatthat word, initiative, means? To initiate, to begin. I will explain as Igo along.Don't you think that, in old countries like India, because ofvarious things like climate. overpopulation and poverty traditionand authority control thinking? Have you not noticed in yourselfhow you want to obey your teacher, to obey your parents or yourguardians, to follow an ideal, to follow a guru? The spirit ofobedience, the following, the being told what to do - that creates anauthority, does it not? You know what `authority' is? It impliessomeone to whom you look up, someone whom you want to obey,to follow. Because you are yourself afraid, because you yourselfare uncertain, you create an authority; and by the creation ofauthority, you not only follow but you want others to follow, youtake delight in following and in forcing others to follow.I do not know if you have noticed it in yourself that behind thisdesire to obey, to follow, to imitate, to comply with somebody'swishes, is fear - fear not to do the right thing, fear to go wrong. So,authority gradually kills any kind of initiative - which is, to knowhow to do something easily, spontaneously, freely, out of yourself.Most of us lack that because the sense of creativity is destroyed inmost of us. For instance, suppose you initiate some mischief whichis your own, you tear, you destroy, you create some mischief; thatfeeling of doing something for yourself, out of yourself, withoutbeing asked, without being told what to do, that spirit of initiativeis lost, because you are always surrounded by authority, by theolder generation who seem to think they know what they are aboutalthough they do not, and who control you. So, gradually, the senseof doing things because you love to do them goes out of yourselfand is destroyed. Have you ever walked down the road and pickedup the stone that is in the way, picked up a piece of paper or tornrag, or plant, ed a tree which you will care for? When you have notbeen told to do these, you do them yourself, naturally; that is thebeginning of initiative. When you see something to be mended,you mend it; when you see something that has to be done, withoutbeing told what to do, you do it, either in the kitchen or in thegarden or in the house or on the road. Your mind graduallybecomes free from fear, from authority; so you begin to do thingsyourself. I think it is very important to do that in life; otherwise,you become mere gramophones, playing over and over again thesame tune, and so you lose all sense of freedom.But the older generation, the past generation, because of theirnervous desires, their fears, their apprehensions of insecurity, wantto protect you, they want to guide you, they want to hold you infear, and through fear they gradually destroy in you the freedom todo things, to make mistakes to find out, so that you begin to losethis extraordinary thing called initiative. Please ask your teachersabout all this. You see how very few of us have that freedom -freedom not merely to do things but freedom out of which youwant to do things. When you see somebody carrying a greatweight, you want to help him, don't you? When you see the dishesbeing washed, you want to do it yourself sometimes. You want towash your clothes, you want to do things out of freedom. Do youknow what that means? If one goes into it very deeply, you willfind an extraordinary creativity coming into being.Truth is not something very far away, to be sought after, to bestruggled and searched for. If you have freedom from the verybeginning, from childhood, you will find as you mature and growthat, in that growth, there is initiative to do things spontaneouslyeasily, naturally, without being told what to do. It is creative towrite a poem, to be unafraid, to look at the stars, to let your mindwander, to look at the beauty of the earth and the astonishingthings that the earth holds. To feel all this is really an extraordinaryactivity; and you cannot feel it without that freedom without thatsense of initiative in which there is no authority, in which you donot obey merely because you are told what to do but you do thingsnaturally, freely, easily, happily. As you go into it, you will see thatyou begin to take tremendous interest in everything, in the way youwalk, in the way you talk, in the way you look at people, in thefeelings you have, because all these things matter very much. Ifyou have cultivated intelligence, this sense of freedom, all the timewhile at school, then a few months of intense study will besufficient for you to pass your examinations. But now, what youare doing is to be concerned all the time with studies, with books,and you do not know what is happening all round you.Have you watched those village women carrying weights ontheir heads - cow dung cakes, wood, hay, or fodder? Howextraordinarily beautiful is their walk! Have you watched the so-called well-to-do people? Do you notice how heavy they grow andhow dull, because they do not look at anything? They areconcerned only with their little worries and their desires, and withhow to control their fears and their appetites; so, they live in fear;and living in fear, they have to follow somebody, to obey, so thatthey create authority - the authority of the policeman, the authorityof the lawyer, of the government at one level; and also spiritualauthority, of books, of leaders, of gurus - so that, in themselves,they lose the beauty of living, of suffering, of understanding.That is why it is very important that while you are at thisschool, you should understand all these things. Go out one day andplant a tree and look after it all the time while you are here. Findout what kind of tree to plant, what kind of manure to give it, andlook after it. Then you will see something happening to you thatyou are close to the earth and not merely close to books. You arenot interested in books after you get a job or after you pass yourexamination, and you will never look at another book. But thereare trees, numerous flowers, living animals all around. If you donot have sensitivity to all these, you lose initiative and your mindsbecome very small, petty, trivial, jealous, envious. It is veryimportant while you are at this school to consider all these things,so that your minds become awakened to them.You know, scientists say that we are only functioning 15 percent. Our capacity to think is only 15 per cent; probably, if welearn to function 50 per cent we would do much more mischief.But without cultivating sensitivity, understanding, affection,kindliness, even with the 15 per cent capacity, we would do a greatdeal of damage and mischief; and with 50 per cent capacity wewould do monstrous things.If you understand all this, there comes a feeling of freedomfrom fear. How can you understand if you just listen to these talksand forget them? Do not listen to them that way. Listen so that youcan live without fear, without following somebody; listen to befree, not when you are old but now.To be free requires a great deal of intelligence. You cannot befree if you are a stupid person. Therefore, it is very important toawaken your intelligence while you are very young; and thatintelligence cannot be when you are frightened, when you arefollowing, when you want somebody to obey you or when youyourself obey somebody. All this requires a great deal of thinkingover and that is real education. The education that most of us nowget is only superficial.Question: How can we create a happy world when there issuffering?Krishnamurti: You did not listen to what I said. You wereoccupied with your question. While I was talking your mind waswondering how you were going to ask a question, how you weregoing to put it into words; so, your mind was occupied with whatyou were going to ask, and you did not really listen. There was nopause, no gap, between when I stopped and your question. Youimmediately jumped into it - which means, really you did notlisten, you did not see the importance of what I was saying, youwere not paying attention. It is really important to know how tolisten to people - to the old man, or to your sister or to your brotheror to the man that goes by - which means really your mind is quietso that a new idea, a new feeling, a new perception can penetrate.What I was saying is really very complex very difficult. You didnot let that penetrate, enter your mind, because your mind wasoccupied with `I must ask a question. How shall I put it?' Or youwere looking out of the window. It is nice to look out because thetrees are beautiful. But you watch somebody come in and yourmind is all the time agitated like those leaves on the trees. So,please, as I suggested, write out your questions, and when I finishtalking, wait and read your question. Then your mind will followwhat I am talking, so that you begin to listen. I think if we knowhow to listen, we will learn much more than all the time strugglingto listen, struggling to pay attention.Some one asked `What is a beautiful world, and how can onecreate it when there is so much suffering?' Let us think it outtogether why it is that most of us want to do something. We thinkthat activity, doing something, is more important thanunderstanding what the problem is, what it is all about. You see abeggar, and your instinct is to give him something. But whatgenerally happens is that, after giving, you forget all about it. Youdo not understand, you do not enquire into the whole question ofpoverty, poverty in the world. You know there are poor people andyou also know that there is inward poverty. You may have a greatdeal of money, you may live in luxurious houses, but inwardly youmay be as poor as a beggar. If you realize this you are afraid, youbegin to read books, to acquire knowledge. It is like a rich manwho covers himself with jewels and lives in a palace and thinksthat he is rich.You learn to read or quote a great many spiritual teachers andthe Bhagavad Gita. You may want to do good, but you do not stopthere. You want to help the world and to put an end to the miseryin the world. So you join groups, you join a society, or you form aninstitution. You become a secretary, you pay dues, you getgradually lost in some organization. Actually, you do very littlehelp to the world.To do good really, you must understand yourself as you aredoing good. Any action you do should help you to understandyourself, to go into yourself. Then in the transformation ofyourself, in the changing of yourself, there is a possibility ofbringing about a different world. But merely to do good or to join asociety which will do good, seems to be superficial. But if in thevery action of doing good, you begin to understand thecomplications of life, then out of that there can be a change, therecan be a world in which suffering will not exist.Question: Why is stealing considered to be bad?Krishnamurti: Why do you think stealing is bad? You have awatch and I take it away from you. Do you think it is right? I takeaway something from you, which belongs to you, which yourfather has given to you or which you have got by some othermeans. I take it away from you without telling you, without yourknowing it. Is it a good action? It may be that you have got itbecause of your greed. But I am equally greedy, equallyacquisitive. So, I take it away from you. This is called stealing.Obviously it is not right. Is it? You see there are some boys andgirls who steal as a habit, and older people do that too. Thoughthey have money, though they have things which they need, thedesire to steal overcomes them. That is a disease. It is a kind ofmental perversion, an aberration a mental twist. Withoutunderstanding that twist, the older people generally punish or hurtand say that you must not steal, that it is very bad, and that youshould be put in prison. They frighten you and so, the twistbecomes more twisted, hidden, darker. But if there was anexplanation, if the parent or the teacher took the trouble to explainand not condemn, not threaten, then perhaps the twist mightdisappear. One of the difficulties is that the teachers and theparents have no time, they have no patience; they have so manyother children; they want a result, a quick result; and so, theythreaten and hope that the boy will stop stealing. But it does notgenerally happen that way. The boy goes on quietly stealing.I think, in a school of this kind, the teachers who live with youmuch more here, should explain all these things to you. You spendan hour in a class reading mathematics or geography. Why notspend ten minutes out of that time, in discussing these problems.As you begin to talk it over, the teachers as well as you, thestudents, become intelligent. I am not saying that the teachers arenot intelligent, but they become more intelligent.Question: What is a soul?Krishnamurti: What is a soul? You are not talking about theshoe, I hope. There is also a fish called sole.You think you have a soul, don't you? How do you know? Yousee, that is one of your difficulties. You accept things from yourparents and you repeat them again and again and you say `Yes, Ihave got a soul'. What is a soul? Let us go into it slowly, step bystep, and you will see something. In Benaras which is a city of thedead, so many people die. You also have seen a dead bird. The leafin a tree, which is green, lovely, dancing, tender, withers and isblown away. Seeing all this, man says `Everything goes,everything disappears, nothing is permanent'. Black hair becomesgrey; early in life you can walk ten miles or more but, later on, youcan walk only two or three miles. Everything disappears. A treewhich has lived for two or three hundred years is struck bylightning and disappears. There are trees in California which arethree to five thousand years old; yet, they too will die. Very fewthings are permanent.Seeing this extraordinary sense of impermanence, man says`There must be something permanent, something which does notdie, which is not corrupted by time'. He begins to invent things thathave permanency, creating out of his mind, God, soul, Atman,Paramatman and so on. He himself sees that he is impermanent; sohe longs for something which is permanent, which will never die,which no thief can take away. So, his mind speculates and, in hisfear, he invents. he imagines. He says there is a soul which cannotbe destroyed. He says `My body may go I may die, I may be eatenaway by worms; but there is something in me which isimperishable'. He states that and then he worships that; then hebuilds theories round it, he writes books and quarrels about it; buthe never finds out for himself if there is really anything permanent.He never says `I know everything is impermanent. I too will die. Itoo will grow old, and disease and decay will take place. But Iwant to find out if there is something beyond. So let me not invent,let me not say there is a soul or there is an Atman or there is thisand that. But let me find out, let me enquire'. If only I make up mymind to find out, to enquire, then, through that enquiry, throughcalming my fears through getting rid of my greed, throughknowing myself, I go deeper and deeper and I may find outsomething which is not mere words.You say there is character and character may be the soul. Butwhat are you? You have certain tendencies, have you not?, certainidiosyncracies, certain ways, certain desires; all that is in you. Yousay `I am all that: and if I die, what happens to me? There must besomething which must go on and on.' We went into all this, and itis a complex business. But do not accept anything unless you havesearched out, unless you have gone into it yourself. Unfortunatelyyour mind is engaged, and you are not awakening the mind so thatit might go into this problem. When you accept, when you believe,you have stopped enquiring. So, to really enquire requires a mindwhich is very wide awake. Such a mind is not possible if you arefollowing an authority or if there is fear. If you merely accept, youwill never find out.Question: What is joy?Krishnamurti: A little boy asks `What is joy'? I wonder why heasks! Either he does not know what joy is - which would be reallyvery sad - or he knows what joy is and wants to find out moreabout it. The boy is not going to understand what I am going tosay, because unfortunately I cannot speak Hindi; but those who areresponsible for that boy will please explain carefully and help himto understand his question. Will they please do it?The boy wants to know what joy is. When you see a flower, youhave a feeling, have you not? When you see a sunset, when you seea nice person, when you see a beautiful painting, when you walkfreely up a mountain and look from the top of the mountain intothe valley and see the various shades, the sunshine, the houseswhen you see somebody smile, have you not a feeling which youcall joy? But the moment you say `I am joyous, I feel joy', the thingis gone. Do you follow? The moment you say `I am happy' you areno longer happy.You see, we live in the past; we are already dying all the time;death is always with us. Duration is always our shadow, becausewe are always living in the past moment. That is why we say `Ihave known joy and it has gone, and I want to get it back'. So, theproblem is to be conscious without the experiencing which isbecoming the past. I am pursuing much too difficult a question.Sorry!When you enjoy something, when you write a poem or read abook, when you dance or do something else, just leave it; do notsay `I must have more of it'. Because, that will become greed andtherefore is no longer a joy. Just be happy in the moment. If it issunshine, enjoy it, do not say `I must have more'. If there areclouds, let them be; they also have their beauty. Do not say `I wishI had a more beautiful day'. What makes you miserable is thedemand for the more. You listen to all this and wisely shake yourhead, but it does not penetrate, does not go down deep. When youreally stop demanding for the more, when you are no longeracquisitive, you will have joy without your knowing.Question: What is pathos?Krishnamurti: Why have you now thought of pathos? Did youread the book, `The Three Musketeers'? One of the threemusketeers is called Pathos.The boy wants to know what is pathos. I wonder why he isasking such a question. Probably somebody else has put it, throughhim. I wish the older people would not do that; they are reallycorrupting the young mind. Boys are not interested in all this, thefeeling of sorrow, the feeling of being pathetic, hopeless. I am surethe boy does not feel these things. The boy has his own problems.He wants to know why a bird flies, why there is light on the water,why his teachers or his parents are cruel to him, why he is notliked, why he must study, why he should obey some stupid oldman. Those are his problems, not pathos. He wants to know whatGod is because it is so much talked of. Do encourage them to findout, to ask questions.If you only want to know the meaning of pathos, look it up in adictionary and you will find the meaning. You do not want anyexplanation or definition from me. Our minds are so easilysatisfied with definitions and we think we have understood. Such amind is very shallow,Question: How can one listen to somebody?Krishnamurti: You listen to some body if you are interested.You have asked that question. If you really want to know how tolisten to somebody, you will find out, You are listening, aren't you?I want to know how to listen. I ask you and I listen to you becauseyou may tell me something and from that I will learn, I will knowhow to listen. There is in that very action, in that very question, anindication of how to listen You ask me how to listen. Now, are youlistening to what I am saying? Have you ever listened to a bird?Can you listen - not with a great strain, not with great effort, butjust listen - easily, happily, with interest, so that your wholeattention is there?We do not listen that way, we are only eager to get somethingout of somebody. When you read, when you talk, you want to getsomething out of it. So, you never listen easily, happily. And whenyou do listen, you translate it into what is suitable to you, or youtranslate it according to what you have already read, thus gettingmore and more complicated, never listening peacefully easilyquietly. Have you ever watched the moon for any length of time?Just watched it, or seen the waters go by, watched them without allthe paraphernalia of sitting down and struggling to watch. If you dolisten that way, you will hear much more, you will understandmuch more, of what is being said. Even if you have to listen toyour mathematics or geography or history, just listen; you willlearn much more. And you will also find out if your teacher isteaching you properly, or if he is merely becoming a gramophonerecord, repeating the same thing over and over again. Listening is agreat art which very few of us know.January 11, 1954BANARAS, INDIA 12TH JANUARY 1954 7THTALK TO STUDENTS AT RAJGHAT SCHOOLHave you ever sat still? You try it sometimes and see if you can sitvery quietly, not for any purpose, but just to see if you can sitquietly. The older you grow, the more nervous, fidgety, agitated,you become. Have you noticed how old people keep jogging theirlegs? Even little ones do it all the time. It indicates, foes it not? anervousness, a tension. We think this nervousness, this tension, canbe dispelled by various forms of discipline. You know what thatword means? Your teachers talk to you about discipline. Thereligious books talk to you about self imposed discipline. Our lifeis a process of continuous discipline, control, suppression. We areheld, blocked, restrained, so that we never know a moment inwhich there is a freedom, a spontaneity. We are controlled, self-enclosed. Listen to your teachers and ask them what these wordsmean.Did you, as I suggested yesterday, spend ten minutes of yourclass-time discussing these things? Did some of the teachers talk toyou about all these things before the class begin? Why don't youinsist on it? Why don't you make the teachers talk to you about it?The teachers and the grownup people are all anxious to get on withtheir class, with their job. They never have the time to look round.But if you insist, every morning that you spend ten minutes of yourclass-time talking about more important things, you will learn agreat deal.As I was saying, we never know a moment of real freedom andwe think that freedom comes through constant discipline, training,control. I do not think discipline leads to freedom. Discipline leadsonly to more and more self-enclosed minds. I know I am sayingsomething which probably you have not heard before.You have always heard that you must have discipline to havefreedom. But if you enquire, if you look into that word into themeaning and significance of that word, you will find that disciplinemeans resistance against something, the building of a wall, and theenclosing of yourself behind that wall of ideas. That is foolishbecause the more you become disciplined, the more you control,the more you suppress, restrain, the more your mind becomesnarrow, small. Have you not noticed that those people who arevery disciplined, have no freedom? They have no spontaneousfeelings, no width of understanding. The difficulty with most of usis that we want freedom and we think discipline will lead us to it;and yet, we cannot do what we want. To do exactly what youplease is not freedom because we have to live with others, we haveto adjust, we have to see things as they are.We cannot always do what we want. We really are not able,freely, spontaneously to do what we want; there is a contradiction,a conflict, between what we want to do and what we should do.Gradually, what we want to do begins to give way, to disappear,and the other thing remains - what we should do, the ideal - whatothers want us to do, what the teachers, the parents, the boys orgirls want us to do. Deep down within me, there is a feeling, thereis an urge, there is a demand to do something just really out ofmyself. But to find out what that action out of myself is, requires agreat deal of understanding. It is not just doing what I like.Everybody in a self-imposed prison does what he likes, but that is asuperficial action.To find out and do something which you feel deeply, inwardlyspontaneously, easily, is very difficult, because we are suppressed.Have you noticed how people say `Do this and do not do that'? Arethey not always telling you that? So, gradually you get into thehabit of doing things without much thought. So, you becomeautomatic like a machine that functions but without much vitality,without energy, without a great deal of thought, insight, love,affection, sensitivity. So, you have difficulty in finding out anddoing something that you love to do. Also, your education does nothelp you to discover what you really, deeply, inwardly want to do,because your teachers and your parents find it so much easier toimpose, through education, through control, something that youshould do. What they consider to be your duty, your Dharma, yourresponsibility, is forced on you and, gradually, the things of beauty,the things that you yourself feel you could do if given anopportunity, are destroyed. So with most of us, there is inwardly aconflict going on all the time, between the thing that I want to dodeeply - in which I am interested and which demands a great dealof understanding, a great deal of putting things aside which areworthless - and what I should do, what society demands, what theteachers have told me, what tradition has said. So, there is conflictbetween the two, and we think that freedom comes throughcontrolling one against the other, through disciplining ourselves toa particular pattern of thought.In a school of this kind, is it not very important to understandthe question of discipline? We must have order when there arethree hundred or one hundred or even ten boys and girls. But tobring order amongst many is very difficult, because every boy andgirl wants to do something of his or her own. The students here arewell-fed, young, full of vitality and pep and they want to burst out;the teachers want to hold them, to keep them in order, to makethem study, to regularise their life.Now is it not very important for the educator and also for you tofind out what discipline means, what it implies? Certainly we musthave order, but order requires explanation, intelligence,understanding, not suppression and the `Do this and do not do that.If you do not do that, you will get less marks, you will be reportedto the Principal, to the guardian, to the parents'. Suppression doesnot bring order: that really brings chaos, that really produces arevolt of the ugly mind. Whereas, if we took trouble, if we had thepatience to explain the importance of having order, then, there willbe order. For instance, if you do not all turn up for a meal at theright time, think what a lot of trouble you will give to the cook.Your food will get cold, it will be bad for you to eat cold food.Also, you will become more and more inconsiderate. That is reallythe problem. If you are considerate, if you are thoughtful - both theold and the young - then you will have order. Unfortunately, theold people are not considerate, they are concerned aboutthemselves, about their problems, their difficulties, their jobs.In this school, right from the beginning, we have intelligently tounderstand what discipline is. Discipline comes naturally out ofconsideration. Discipline is not resistance; it is really adjustment, isit not? When you consider somebody, you adjust; and thatadjustment is natural, because it is born out of thought, care,affection. Whereas, if you merely say `You must be very punctualfor a meal; otherwise you will have no meal, and will be punished',there is no understanding, no consideration. Suppose a boy doesnot get up early in the morning, the housemaster disciplines himand says `You must get up early; otherwise you will be punished;or he persuades the boy through love; these are all forms of fear, ofinconsideration. The teacher has to find out why the boy is lazy. Itmay be that the boy wants to attract the teacher, or probably he hashad no love at home and therefore wants protection, or he is notgetting the right food or enough rest or enough exercise. Withoutgoing into all this, the problem of discipline becomes very trivial.So, what is important is not discipline, control or suppression,but the awakening of that which will regard all these problemsintelligently, without fear. That is very difficult, because there arevery few teachers in the world who understand all these things.Surely, it is the job of the Rajghat School and the Foundation to seethat this thing is done, so that when the students leave this place,they are real human beings with consideration, with theintelligence that can look at everything without fear, who will notfunction thoughtlessly, but who will understand and be able to fiteven into a society which is rotten. All these questions should bethought over every day, not by mere lectures given by the teachersbut by discussion between the teachers and the students so thatwhen the students leave this place and enter life, they are preparedto face life so that life becomes something happy and not aconstant battle and misery.Question: It is said science has produced benefit as well asmisery. Is science really beneficial to man?Krishnamurti: Before I answer that question, I should like toknow if you listened to what I was saying? The very question cameright on top of what I said. There was no gap, no interval. I am notcriticizing you. I am not saying you are right or wrong. But is it notimportant to find out what the other man is saying? You reallywere not listening to what I was saying, because your question wasgoing on in your mind. You know, I have said this half a dozentimes so far and yet you go on doing it. Does it not show a lack ofconsideration? If you were really interested in what was being said,you would have listened. It requires thought, because we aredealing with difficult subjects and so if you want to listen, youcannot jump into the question. May I suggest that tomorrow youwrite out your questions? Take the trouble to put them down on apiece of paper. Then when I have spoken, wait a few minutes orseconds and then ask. This will help you to see how your ownmind is working. What I am saying is not very complicated. I amputting into words the operation of your mind. If you want tounderstand, if you want to see how your mind works - that is theonly way we can look at life - it is very important to understand mywords.You say science has brought great benefits to man and alsogreat misery and destruction. Is it on the whole beneficial ordestructive? What do you think? Communication has improved.You can send letters to America in a couple of days. You can havethe latest news from all over the world tomorrow morning or thisevening. Extraordinary miracles are going on in surgicaloperations. At the same time, there are warships and submarineswhich are most destructive. The latest submarines can go aroundthe world indefinitely, underwater, never coming to the top, run byautomatic power. There are aeroplanes with bombs that can destroythousands of human beings in a few seconds. Is it science that iswrong or the human beings that use science? I am a Hindu or aMussulman or a Christian; so I have a particular idea which I thinkis more important than anybody else's idea and I am verynationalistic. You know what that means. I feel I want to dominate,I want to control, not only individuals but also groups of people. SoI use destructive means, I use science. It is me that is misusingscience, not that science in itself is wrong. Jet planes are not wrongin themselves, but how America or Russia or England uses them. Isthis not so?Can human beings change? Can they cease to be Hindus,Mussalmans? There is a division between India and Pakistan,between Russia and America, England and Germany, France andother countries. Can we be human beings, without beingFrenchmen or Indians, so that we can live together? Can we have agovernment which looks after all of us, not India or America onlybut all of us together as human beings?When human beings misuse science, we blame science. It is youand I, the Russian and the American, the French and the German,that are responsible for all this. That is why in a school of this kind,there should be no feeling of nationality, no feeling of class, nofeeling that you are a Brahmin and I am an untouchable. We are allhuman beings whether we live in Banares or New York orCalifornia or Moscow. It is our world. This world is ours, yoursand mine, not the Russians' or the English', not the Indians' or thePakistanis'. It is ours; and with that feeling, science will become anextraordinary thing; but without that feeling we are going todestroy each other.Question: You say old people are fidgety and bite their nails.Have you not marked younger people also doing these things?Then how is it that the poor old people who have many drawbacksare pointedly mentioned that they are fit for nothing?Krishnamurti: Why do I point out the ugly habits of the olderand not point out the ugly points of the young?Now, you know, young people are great imitators, are they not?They are like monkeys, imitating. They see somebody doingsomething and they immediately do it. Have you not noticed thatchildren want to dress alike? In some countries, children put onuniforms, and a boy or girl who does not put on an uniform feelsout of place, feels something is wrong with him. The imitativeprocess is strong in young people, and when they watch olderpeople, they begin to copy. The old people as well as the youngpeople are not aware of what they are doing, and so the circle goeson increas- ing. The old people put on a sacred thread and theyoung people also put on a sacred thread. Some old person puts ona turban and the young men also put on turbans. I was notcriticizing the older generation. It is not my business, and it wouldbe impudent on my part to do so. But what is important is for youto watch, to be aware of yourself, to be aware of your actions -such as, when you bite your finger nails, when you scratch or whenyou pick your nose. Then you will stop doing them. You have to beconscious of all the things that are happening in you and outside ofyou, so that you do not become an imitative machine.Question: How can we suppress the inner conflicts?Krishnamurti: We have conflicts. Why do you want to suppressthem? Do listen carefully. I am not trying to argue with you, buttrying to find out, trying to understand the problem. So, I am nottaking your side or my side.We have conflicts, have we not? If we can understand them,then there would be no suppression. We suppress, when we do notunderstand. The old person suppresses the child, because the oldperson has no time or he has got other things to do. So, he says `Donot, or do', which is a form of suppression. But if the older persontook time, had patience and explained, went into the question withthe child, then there would be no problem of suppression. In thesame way, you can look at your conflicts without fear, withoutsaying `This is right; this is wrong; I must suppress; I must notsuppress.' If you see a strange animal, it is no good throwing astone at it. You have to look at it. You have to see what kind ofanimal it is. In the same way, if you can look at your feelings andyour conflicts without throwing bricks at them, withoutcondemning them, then you will begin to understand.Right education from the very beginning should eliminate thisinner conflict. It is the fault of education that makes us have theseinward struggles, inward battles, inward conflicts. Do not suppress,but try to look at the conflict, try to understand it. You cannotunderstand it if you want to push it aside, if you want to run away.You have to put it, as it were, on a table and look; and then, out ofthat watching comes understanding.Question: What is real simplicity?Krishnamurti: That lady asks for a definition. What issimplicity? What is love? What is truth? What is a good world andso on? I have explained every day and I shall explain again howour minds want a definition and how by having a definition wethink we understand.The same question could be put differently. Let us discuss whatis simplicity and then find out what is real simplicity. The meaningof the two words, real and simplicity, you can find in thedictionary. But, to understand what is simplicity, requires a greatdeal of thinking, a great deal of enquiry. Perhaps that lady meantthat, I do not know. So, she wants to talk about it, she wants toenquire, to find out what is simplicity - not real or false simplicity,but simplicity. What is simplicity? Is there real simplicity asdistinct from false simplicity? There is only simplicity - not falseor true. Now, what is simplicity? Does it consist in having a fewclothes, just one or two saris, dhotis, or kurtas, living in mudhouses, putting on a loin cloth and talking all the time aboutsimplicity? Is that simplicity? Please find out. Do not say `yes, or`no'. A man who has a great deal - power, position, clothes, houses- can also be very simple. Can't he? More clothes, more outwardappearances do not indicate that a man is not simple. Simplicity issomething entirely different. Obviously, it must begin from withinand not from without. You understand? For instance, I may havevery few clothes only a loin cloth, I may live in a mud hut; I maylive as a sannyasi; but inwardly, if I have conflicts, if I have fears,if I have gods, puja, rituals, mantrams, is that simplicity? I may puton ashes, I may go to temples; but inwardly, I may beextraordinarily complex, ambitious. I may want to be the governor,or I may want to reach moksha - which are both the same thing.For, in both the cases there is the seeking for security. But you callthe man who seeks moksha a religious person, and the man whowants to become a governor a worldly person.Though outwardly very very simple, sleeping a couple of hours,washing his clothes, living a hermit's life, a man may be inwardly avery complex person; he may be very ambitious, and so he willdiscipline himself, force himself, struggle with himself to achievethe perfect ideal. Such a person is not a simple person. Simplicitycomes when you are really inwardly simple, when you have nostruggles, when you do not want to be anybody, when you do notwant moksha, when you have no ideals, when you are not cravingfor anything. Being simple implies to be nobody here, in this worldor in the next world. When there is that feeling, whether you live ina palace, or have only a few clothes is of very little importance.We have a tradition of simplicity, on which people live andwhich they exploit. The tradition is that you must have few clothes,you must get up very early in the morning, you must do somemeditation - which is really an illusion - , you must go round tryingto improve the world, you must not think about yourself. Butinwardly, you are thinking about yourself, from morning till night,because you want to be the most perfect human being. And so, youhave ideals of violence and non-violence, you have ideals of peace.Inwardly you have battling feelings, you struggle; and outwardly,you are a very simple person. This is not simplicity. Simplicitycomes when there is a feeling of not wanting anything - which isquite arduous, which requires a great deal of intelligence. Realeducation is the education of simplicity, not the tradition of havingfew things. Now that I have answered this question, I want to knowwhether the lady has understood and how it will operate in herdaily life. Is she now going to say `I do not care very muchwhether I have ten saris or a great many things; first of all, I mustbe very simple inside'?What are you going to do? Can you leave the outside and say `Itdoes not matter, I must begin from within'? It is all one process, isit not? Because I understand the full significance of simplicity, thething comes into being. I do not have to struggle to be simple. Tostruggle to be simple is `not to be simple.' But if I see the truth thatthe outward and the inward are one process, one thing, then I amsimple; then, I do not have to struggle to be simple; that verystruggle brings complexity.Question: Why do we exist and what is our mission in life?Krishnamurti: You exist because your father and mother haveproduced you, and you are the result of centuries of man, not onlyof Indian man but of man in the world, are you not? You are theresult of the whole of India, of the whole of the world. You are notborn out of any extraordinary uniqueness; because you have all thebackground of tradition, you are a Hindu or a Mussulman. I hopeyou are not insulted when you are called a Mussulman or aChristian. You are the product of the climate, the food, the socialand cultural environments, the economic pressures. You are theresult of innumerable centuries, the result of time, of conflicts, ofpain, of joy, of affection. Each one of you, when you say you havea soul, when you say you are a pure Brahmin, is merely followingit, the tradition, the idea, the culture, the heritage of India theheritage of centuries of India.You ask what is your mission in life. If you do not understandyour background, if you do not understand the tradition, theculture, the heritage, if you do not understand the picture, then youtake an idea, a twist, out of the background, you take and call thatyour mission. Suppose you are a Hindu and you have been broughtup in that culture. Then, out of Hinduism, you can pick up an idea,a feeling, and make that into your mission, cannot you? Do youthink differently, totally differently, from any other Hindu? To findout what the innate, potential being or urge is, one must be free ofall these outward pressures, outward conditions. If I want to get atthe root of the thing, I must remove all the weeds - which means, Imust cease to be a Hindu or a Mussulman, and there must be nofear, there must be no ambition, no acquisitiveness. Then I can goin much deeper and see what the real potential thing is. But withoutremoving all this, I cannot assume something potential. That onlyleads to illusion, and is a philosophical speculation.Question: How can this be materialised?Krishnamurti: How can this come to fruition?First, there must be the centuries of dust removed and that is notvery easy. It requires a great deal of insight. You have to be deeplyinterested in it. The removal of the condition, of the dust oftradition, of superstition, of cultural influences, requiresunderstanding of oneself, not learning from a book or from ateacher. That is meditation.When the mind has cleansed itself of all the past, then you cantalk of the potential being. You asked that question. Now go onwith it, keep on operating on it till you find whether there is a real,original, incorruptible thing. Do not say `Yes, there must be' or`There is no such thing.' Keep on working at it, but not to find out,with a mind that is corrupt, something which is not corrupted. Canthe mind cleanse itself? It can. If the mind can purify itself, thenyou can see, then you can find out. The purgation of the mind ismeditation.Question: Why do we weep in sorrow and why do we laugh inhappiness?Krishnamurti: Do you know what sorrow is? I am sorrowfulwhen my brother or sister or father or mother dies. I have sorrowwhen I lose somebody whom I love. That acts on my nervoussystem, does it not? I cry, there are tears, I weep. I laugh when Ifeel very happy. It is the same reason, the laughter being thenervous reaction.Sorrow and happiness - are they different? When you hurtyourself, when the pain is very bad, you cry, don't you? You havetears in your eyes. The pain is so strong that it brings tears. That isone kind of sorrow - pain, physical pain. But there is also the painwhen you lose somebody, when death comes and takes away theperson whom you like. That gives you a shock, that gives you asense of loneliness, a sense of separation, a sense of being leftalone. That shock, the reaction of it, brings tears. You laugh whenyou see a smile. When you feel joyous, you dance, you laugh, yousmile. These are obvious reasons.We are human beings. We want to have constant happiness; wedo not want to suffer; we do not want to have tears in our eyes; butwe always want smiles on our lips, and so the trouble begins. Wewant to discard sorrow and have happiness, and so we are inconstant struggle, constant battle. But happiness is not somethingthat you get. It comes when you are not seeking. If you seekhappiness for itself, it will never come. But if you do somethingwhich you feel is right, which you feel is true, which you reallylove to do, in the very doing of it comes happiness.January 12, 1954BANARAS, INDIA 13TH JANUARY 1954 8THTALK TO STUDENTS AT RAJGHAT SCHOOLWe have heard people say that, without ambition, we cannot doanything. In our schools, in our social life, in our relationship witheach other, in anything we do in life, we feel that ambition isnecessary to achieve a certain end, either personal or collective orsocial, or for the nation. You know what that word `ambition'means? To achieve an end, to have the drive, the personal drive,the feeling that without struggling, without competing, withoutpushing you cannot get anything done in this world. Please watchyourself and those about you, and you will see how ambitiouspeople are. A clerk wants to become the manager, the managerwants to become the boss, the minister wants to be the primeminister, the lieutenant wants to become the general. So each onehas his ambition, We also encourage this feeling in schools. Weencourage students to compete, to be better than somebody else.All our so-called progress is based on ambition. If you draw,you must draw much better than anybody else; if you make animage, it must be better than that made by anybody else; there isthis constant struggle. What happens in this process is that youbecome very cruel. Because you want to achieve an end, youbecome cruel, ruthless, thoughtless, in your group, in your class, inyour nation.Ambition is really a form of power, the desire for power overmyself and over others, the power to do something better thananybody else. In ambition, there is a sense of comparison; andtherefore, the ambitious man is never really a creative man, isnever a happy man; in himself he is discontented. And yet, wethink that without ambition we should be nothing, we should haveno progress.Is there a different way of doing things without ambition, adifferent way of living, acting, building, inventing, without thisstruggle of competition in which there is cruelty and whichultimately ends in war? I think there is a different way. But thatway requires doing something contrary to all the establishedcustoms of thought. When we are seeking a result. to us, theimportant thing is the result, not the thing we do, in itself. Can weunderstand and love the thing which we are doing, without caringfor what it will produce, what it will get us, or what name or whatreputation we will have?Success is an invention of a society which is greedy, which isacquisitive. Can we, each one of us, as we are growing, find outwhat we really love to do - whether it is mending a shoe, becominga cobbler or building a bridge, or being a capable and efficientadministrator? Can we have the love of the thing in itself withoutcaring for what it will give us, or what it will do in the world? Ifwe can understand that spirit, that feeling, then, I think, action willnot create misery as it does at the present time; then we shall not bein conflict with one another. But it is very difficult to find out whatyou really love to do, because you have so many contradictoryurges. When you see an engine going very fast, you want to be anengine driver. When you are young, there is an extraordinarybeauty in the engine. I do not know if you have watched it. But,later on, that stage passes and you want to become an orator, aspeaker, a writer, or an engineer, and that too passes. Gradually,because of our rotten education, you are forced into a particularchannel, into a particular groove. So you become a clerk or alawyer or a mischief-monger; and in that job, you live, youcompete; you are ambitious, you struggle.Is it not the function of education, while you are very young,particularly in a school of this kind, to help to bring about suchintelligence in each one of you that you will have a job that iscongenial to you and which you love and want to do, that you willnot do a job which you hate or with which you are bored but whichyou have to do - because you are already married or because youhave the responsibility of your parents, or because your parents saythat you must be a lawyer when you really want to be a painter? Isit not very important, while you are young, for the teacher tounderstand this problem of ambition and to prevent it, by talking itover with each one of you, by explaining, by going into the wholeproblem of competition? This will help you to find out what youreally want to do.Now, we think in terms of doing something which will give us apersonal benefit or a benefit to society or to the nation. We grow tomaturity without maturing inwardly, without knowing what wewant to do, but being forced to do something in which our heart isnot. So, we live in misery. But society - that is, your parents, yourguardians, your friends and everybody about you - says what amarvellous person you are, because you are a success.We are ambitious. Ambition is not only in the outer world, butalso in the inner world, in the world of the psyche and of the spirit.There also we want to be a success, we want to have the greatestideals. This constant struggle to become something is verydestructive, it disintegrates, it destroys. Can't you understand thisurge to `become', and concern yourself with being whatever youare, and then, from there, move on? If I am jealous, can I know Iam jealous or envious, and not try to become non-enviousmentally? Jealousy is self-enclosing. If I know I am jealous andwatch it, and let it be, then I will see that, out of that, somethingextraordinary comes.The becomer, whether in the outer world or in the spiritualworld is a machine, he will never know what real joy is. One willknow joy only when one sees what one is, and lets that complexity,that beauty. that ugliness, that corruption, act without attempting tobecome something else. To do this is very difficult, because themind is always wanting to be something. You want to becomephilosophers, or become great writers. You may be a great writer,you want to become an M.A. But, you see, such ambition is nevera creative thing. In that ambition, there is no initiative, because youare always concerned with success. You worship the god ofsuccess, not the thing `that is.' However poor you may be, howeverempty, however dull, if you can see the thing as it is, then that willbegin to transform itself. But a mind occupied in becomingsomething never understands the being. It is the being, theunderstanding of the being of what one is, that brings anextraordinary elation, a release of creative thought, creative life.All this is probably a bit difficult for the average student. As Isaid yesterday you should discuss this with your teachers. Did youask your teachers? Did you take ten minutes of your class time forthis? What happened to you and what happened to the teacher?Could you tell me? Could you understand, through the teacher,what was said?This morning, we are talking about something which is entirelydifferent from the usual traditional approach to life. All thereligious books, all our education, all our social, culturalapproaches are to achieve, to become something. But that has notcreated a happy world, it has brought enormous misery. Hitler,Stalin, Roosevelt are all the result of that; so also are yourparticular leaders, past and present.Ambition is the outcome of an unhappy person, not of a happyperson. But to live, to do, to act, to think, to create, withoutambition is extremely difficult. Without understanding ambition,there cannot be creativity. An ambitious person is never a creative,joyous person; he is always tortured. But a man who feels the loveof the thing, the being of the thing, is really creative; such a personis a revolutionary. A person who is a communist, a socialist, acongressman, or an imperialist, cannot be revolutionary. Thecreative human being is inwardly very rich and, out of thatrichness, he acts and he has his being in it.Ask your teachers the implications of all that I have said, andfind out if one can live without ambition.We live with ambition. That is our daily bread. But that breadpoisons us, produces in us all kinds of misery, mentally andphysically, so that the moment we are thwarted and prevented fromcarrying out our ambition, we fall ill. But a man who has theinward feeling of doing the thing which he loves, without thinkingof an end, without thinking of a result - that man has nofrustrations, he has no hindrances, he is the real creator.Question: Why do we feel shy?Krishnamurti: It is good to be a little shy, is it not? A boy or agirl who is just pushing everyone without reservation, without asense of hesitation is not as tender and sensitive as a shy person. Alittle shyness is good, because that indicates sensitivity. But to bevery shy implies also self-consciousness, does it not? What doesthat word, `self-conscious', mean. To be conscious of oneself, to beconscious of one's person, to be conscious of one's own dignity.Such a person is shy in the wrong way, because he is the centre ofcomparison. He is the centre from which he looks out. When a boyis always comparing himself with somebody, he becomes self-conscious, he is conscious of himself. Most young people are self-conscious; as they grow to adulthood, they feel a little awkward, alittle shy and sensitive.I think, one has to have throughout life that sensitivity, thatsense of being tender, being slightly timid, because that impliesgreat sensitivity. This is denied when I say `I belong to this class; Ihave position, authority; I am somebody'. When you think you aresomebody, you have lost all sensitivity, all tenderness; and thebeauty of being timid goes out of life. You know, one must behesitant, timid, to enquire, to find out. If you be hesitant inapproach, very sensitive, then you will find out the wholecomplication, the beauty, the struggle of life. But without thatfeeling of hesitancy, a timidity which is not tinged with fear, youwill never see the things of life, you will never see the trees andtheir shades, or the bird sitting quietly on a telegraph post.Question: How can human beings progress when there is noambition?Krishnamurti: Do you think inventions are the result ofambition? Do you think the inventor, the scientist who really thinksout a problem, or the true research-worker has ambition? Do youthink the man who invented the jet plane, the jet engine, wasambitious? He invents; then the ambitious people come along, anduse the invention for their purpose - to make money, to make wars,to make an end for themselves.Have you done anything through ambition? You may havemoved from here to there. You may get a better job, or a betterposition; you may become the Principal or the Governor or theCollector. But is that doing, is that living, is that progress? There isthe bullock cart and there is the jet plane; that is generally calledprogress. There has really been a tremendous progress from thebullock cart to the jet plane, from the postchaise to teletype andinstantaneous communication. Our idea of progress is always inone particular direction, we do not take into account all theimplications of ambition. Suppose an oil well is discovered here.Then, what do you think will happen? There will be all themachinery of exploitation. It is not that there should not be an oil-field in Benaras, but the idea of progress is to use that oil andproduce more and more without understanding the whole complexproblem of ambition.Take a very simple. example. A missionary in the South Seasregularly held Sunday classes and read the Bible to hisparishioners. When he read the Bible stories they listened veryattentively. After some time, he thought `how good it would be ifthey all knew how to read.' So he went to America to collectmoney. He came back and taught them how to read and write. But,to his great disappointment, he found that they were reading comicmagazines, and not the Bible.So, real progress is in what is happening to your mind. Are youmaking progress there, or are you just gramophone records,repeating over and over again the same old comic, tragic, or stupidstories?Question: Why are people born in the world?Krishnamurti: For various reasons - sex passion, the desire tohave children. It is a very simple reason. You look at a tree or abush that flowers. Nature wants to keep on breeding its ownspecies, does it not? You understand? The mango tree has flowers;the flower is pollinated and becomes the fruit. There is a stone inthe mango and that stone you throw away; it falls in fertile soil andgrows into a tree which produces many more mangoes. There is acontinuity in this process, is there not? So in human beings also,there is continuity of the species. But the mangoes do not fightamongst themselves; tigers do not kill each other; only we, humanbeings, destroy each other; we are the only species that kill eachother; and the capacity to kill each other; and the capacity to kill is,by us, called progress. Is this progress?Question: Some say `Cruelty, thy name is woman?'Krishnamurti: Is this a conundrum or a puzzle that you areasking me? Do you know what a conundrum is? It is a puzzlingquestion which you have to think over and work out. Why do youbother about all this? You see, first we read something in a bookand then we try to work it out. Some say `Mystery, thy name iswoman.' What does that mean? Women are not so mysterious intheir organisms, are they? The real mystery is not that. But we aresatisfied with superficial mysteries, we like a conjurer, a darkroom, mysterious people. We look for mysteries. But, there are nomysteries. What we think are mysteries are all inventions of themind.If you can understand the workings of the mind and go beyondthem, there is the real mystery. But very few of us go beyond andreach that mystery. You are all satisfied with the superficialmysteries of a detective story or of a shrine. If one can understandthe workings of one's own mind and go beyond that, then one willfind extraordinary things.Question: How do we dream?Krishnamurti: Do you have dreams? What kind of dreams doyou have? If you go to bed with a full stomach, you have somekind of dream. There are various kinds of dreams.What do you think dreams are? A dream is a very complexthing. Even while you are awake, while you are wandering along astreet or sitting quietly, you may be dreaming because your mindthinks of various things. You may be sitting here but you think youare in your home and you imagine what your mother is doing, orwhat your father is doing, or what your younger brother is doing athome. That is a kind of dream, is it not? Though you are sittingquietly, your mind is off, imagining, speculating, wandering 47Similarly, when you are asleep, your mind goes off imagining,wandering, speculating. Then there are dreams born out of yourdeep unconscious. And there are dreams which foretell, which giveyou a warning, which give you hints. It is possible for humanbeings to have no dreams at all but to sleep very profoundly and, inthat deep profundity, to discover something which no conscious orunconscious mind can ever discover, an intimation of somethingwhich no mind can ever conjure up.The mind is such an extraordinary thing. You spend eighteen ortwenty years learning the same subjects and passing severalexaminations; but you do not spend an hour or even ten minutes tounderstand this extraordinary thing called the mind. Withoutunderstanding the mind, your passing examinations, your gettingjobs, or your becoming a minister, has very little meaning. It is themind that creates illusions; and if you do not understand the makerof illusions, your life has little meaning.Do you understand all the things that I am talking about? Thedifficulty is I am speaking in English. But I doubt very muchwhether you would understand even if I speak in Hindi. You wouldunderstand the words, but not the meaning, the implications that liebehind the words. You have to find out the implications by askingyour teachers or your parents.What I have said is a question of your whole existence. It is notenough to find out for a day or two, you have to find out theimplications as you live, throughout life. But you cannot live, youcannot find out if you are merely driven by ambition, by fear. Tofind out, there must be a sensitivity, a freedom in the psyche; andall that is denied, if you do not understand the workings of yourmind. Question: How should we think out any problem?Krishnamurti: That is quite an intelligent question - how shouldwe think out a problem?What is the answer to a problem? Most people want an answerto a problem. But that boy wants to know how to think out aproblem - which is quite different. He is not looking for an answer,at least I hope not.There is no answer at all to a problem, and so it is foolish toseek an answer. But if I know how to think out a problem, then theanswer is the very thinking out of the problem. Look, Sirs. Youhave a mathematical problem. You do not know the answer but theanswer is at the end of the book; so, you keep turning to the end ofthe book to find the answer. But life is not like that. Nobody isgoing to give you the answer. If anybody gives you the answer, heis stupid. But if you know how to think out a problem, how to lookat it, how to approach it, the very thinking, the very looking at it, isthe solution.You want to know how to think out a problem. The first thing,obviously, is not to be afraid of the problem. You understand?Because, if you are afraid, you won't look, you will run away fromit. The second thing is not to condemn it, not to say how terrible,how awful, how miserable it is. Then, not to compare that problemwith any other problem or have a comparative value when youapproach that problem. This is a bit difficult. When you have aproblem, if you have already got a clear judgment and an answer tothat problem you do not understand the problem So, to understandthe problem, there must be no comparison, no fear, no judgment;those are the essential things which will help you to understand theproblem. There is really no problem but what is created bycomparison fear and judgment.Please discuss all this with your teachers and amongstyourselves. Let these ideas, let these words, go through your mind,so that you are familiar with all these issues. Then, you will be ableto face the problems of life.January 13, 1954BANARAS, INDIA 14TH JANUARY 1954 9THTALK TO STUDENTS AT RAJGHAT SCHOOLWe have been discussing for several days the question of fear. Weshall now consider what I think is one of our greatest difficulties:how to prevent the mind from becoming imitative.We see there are obvious imitations - copying, learning a thing,eating in a certain way, putting on certain clothes, learning to ride abicycle or a motor, learning a technique and so on. These are thesuperficial, the obvious imitations which are necessary, which areuseful and essential. But, through tradition, the mind becomes aninstrument which merely functions in the groove of imitation.Perhaps I am going to talk of something that is difficult. If youfind it difficult, talk it over with your teacher. Ask them questions,because it is very important to free the mind from crystallising,from becoming dull, from merely functioning as a machine withoutmuch creative release.It is very important to understand how the mind creates for itselftradition - the tradition which has been imposed upon it, throughsocial, environmental pressures, or the tradition created byconditions, patterns, barriers. The way of imitation, is what wehave to think about, and not how to free the mind or how the mindcan free itself from its own imitative process.For most of us, experience is tradition, experience becomes atradition. Do you understand what I mean by `experience'? You seea tree; the seeing, the perception creates an experience, does it not?You see a car; the very seeing is the experiencing, and theexperience creates a tradition. Your mind is bound by tradition,tradition being memory; and the older the people, the older therace, the more oppressive are the traditions. The mind lives intradition, functions in tradition, acts in tradition. The mindbecomes an imitative mind, because it is experiencing all the time -seeing a bird, seeing a man, seeing a woman, having pain, seeingdeath and disease, seeing an aeroplane, a bullock cart, a donkeywith a huge bundle on its back, an over loaded camel, or a bullcharging at another. All these are experiences. When the mind isstirred up, it creates, out of every experience, a tradition, amemory; and so, the mind becomes a factor of imitation. Theproblem is: to be really free from imitation, from the accumulationof tradition, because without that freedom there is no creativity.Practically everybody in the world has so little freedom to live,to create, to be. I do not mean having children or writing a fewpoems, but the creative release of the mind in freedom fromtradition, freedom from the experience which makes for tradition,freedom from memory. This is, as I said, rather difficult; but youshould listen to all this, as you would listen to music as you wouldsee the beauty of the river and the lovely trees that are old andheavy and full of shade. You should see all this as you see thebeautiful pictures in a museum, the lovely statues of the Greeksand of the Egyptians. Similarly you should listen to all this and ifyou are at all serious, at all enquiring, you have to come to thisfreedom, because an imitative mind, a traditional mind can neverbe creative.You function in tradition because you are afraid of what peoplesay, of what the neighbours, or your parents or your guardians, oryour priests, say. You are afraid. So you act in the old way ofthinking. You are a Brahmin or something else and you keep onbeing the same till you die, moving in the same circle, in the samepattern, in the same framework. That is not freedom. The mind isnot then free from thought which is born of experience, oftraditions, of memory; it is anchored in the past and therefore itcannot be free.We talk a great deal about freedom of thought. There are bookswritten about how thought must be free. But thought can never befree. The mind is experiencing all the time, consciously orunconsciously, whether you are looking out of the window, orwhether you have closed your eyes, or whether you are sleeping. itis experiencing various influences, the pressure of people, ofclimate, of food. Various beliefs and thoughts keep on impingingon the mind; the mind keeps on accumulating and, from thataccumulation, from that tradition, from the innumerable memories,it acts. To expect such a mind to be free is like telling a man who isdying to be free. A dying man can never be free, he can never seeanything new, because of his memory. Memory is the result ofyesterday; and to see anything new, to create anything totally new,that which is anchored to the past, that which is the past, mustcome to an end; then only there can be freedom to think.Of course, you must have freedom to think; but tradition,governments, party politics - these do not allow you to think. Theywant you to think in a particular direction, and that thinking is alimited thing. To break away from it and to think differently is stilllimited. Say, for instance, I am a Mussulman and I break awayfrom the Mussulman habits, traditions, habits of thought, andbecome a Christian or a communist. Such a breaking away is stillthinking; it is still the process of imitation, the process ofexperience, the process of memory; and to think in the new patternof the communist instead of the old pattern of the Mussulman isstill limited thinking.So, our question is: `Can the mind be free', not free fromexperience but be free to experience and not accumulate? To befree from experience is not possible; you might as well be dead.Can the mind, in the very experiencing, cease to create tradition?Suppose you see a nice, new, polished bicycle with chromiumhandles; you see the beauty of the design, you see the polish andyou are attracted; you want it and you get it. The very getting of acycle is an experience to you, and that experience is stamped inyour mind, and you say `It is mine'. You polish it for a few days orweeks and then forget about it. But it has created in your mind, theexperience which has become a tradition, and that tradition holdsyour mind; then, from that, you want a car; if you have a car, youwant an aeroplane if you are rich enough to buy one, and so on andon, all within the field of imitation. This movement from wanting acycle to wanting a jet plane is still in the same pattern, this is notfreedom.Freedom comes when the mind experiences without creatingtradition. Do not say `How is that possible'? `How can I do it'?When you ask such a question you have already created thepattern. `The how' means the pattern. `The how' implies the way ofgetting towards that pattern, and in the very process of copying themethod, the mind has created tradition and has been caught in it.So, there is no `how' to freedom, there is no way to freedom. But ifyou merely observe, see and be conscious of the way the mindexperiences and creates tradition and is caught in it, if you just beaware of it and realize the process, out of that realization, comessomething entirely different, a freedom which is not tethered toexperience.This is important to understand because, in schools, in oureducation, all we are taught is the cultivation of memory, thelearning of formulae; the mind is trained only in the process ofimitation. When you read History, when you learn Science,Physics, Philosophy or Psychology, the teacher is merelyfunctioning in imitation; you learn from him and you also imitate.So, from childhood till you die, this process of imitation, thiscultivation of memory goes on. You are just living in a groove ofimitation, of tradition. That is all you know, that is your culture andso there are very few creative human beings. To drop all that, tosee whether memory is essential, or whether it is a detriment, ahindrance - that is the function of education. But we begin at thewrong end; we first cultivate memory and then say `How am I toget to the other'? But if the other was emphasized or talked about,seen, investigated, felt - which is real education - then the leaningof some technique for some particular job becomes immaterial,though necessary.Is not the function of education primarily to free the mind fromits own experiences that are conditioned, so that there can becreative life, that creative something which we call God or truth?Question: Why do we hate anybody and from where does thisfeeling of hatred come into being? Krishnamurti: Why does onehate and from where does this feeling come?Why does one hate? Do you hate anybody? Or, is it merely anacademic question, just a casual question? Do you dislikeanybody? I am sure you do. First of all, you dislike some personsbecause they have done some harm to you, they have insulted you,they have called you names, or they have taken away your toy, oryou do not like their face, or they do not smile nicely, or they arecrude, vulgar, heavy. So, your natural reaction is to say `Do notcome near me'. That is just a natural reaction, is it not? There isnothing wrong in this.To condemn anything is the most stupid form of action. Youmust not condemn hatred, but examine how dislike, hatred, comesinto being. If you say `To hate is wrong, it is stupid', then it is yourcondemnation that is stupid. But if you begin to question howdislike comes into being, like a flower in sunshine, then you can dosomething. If you merely condemn it and push it aside, it is stillthere.You dislike for many many reasons. It may be because of apersonal reason - because you have been hurt, you have been callednames, or something has been taken away from you, or you havebeen humiliated, or you feel jealous, envious of another and youhate the other. You may dislike somebody who is nice clean, nicelooking, because you are no that, you want to be like that but youare not. You have asked how hatred comes into being. I am tryingto show you how it comes into being. You plant a tender tree;another boy comes along and pulls it out; and you dislike that boybecause something which you love, which you care for has beendestroyed.Our life, from childhood up to old age, is a constant process ofenvy, jealousy, hatred and frustration, a sense of loneliness, ofugliness. But if the teacher, the parent, the educator, took thetrouble to show to the student how hatred comes into being, notthat it is right or wrong, not how to get over it - that is all a stupidway of dealing with it - but to create intelligence, to bring aboutclarity so that the student will see how hatred comes into being; hewill then see the conflict within himself, which is an indication thathe himself is struggling, fighting, and that fighting will leadnowhere. The understanding of all these problems and of the wholeprocess involved therein is education.Question: How to be free from indignation?Krishnamurti: What do you mean by indignation? You meanwhen a man beats a heavily laden donkey, you feel angry? You sayyou feel righteously angry when some big man beats a little boy. Isthere such a thing as righteous indignation?You asked a question, and I am not at all sure you are interestedin finding out what it means. Most of us get angry for variousreasons and we try to find out after getting angry how to get overit. But what is important is to find the way of anger, how it comesinto being and to stop it before the poison takes place. Youunderstand what I am saying? How anger arises is our problem, nothow to be free from anger, do you understand? I feel jealous,because you have something which I have not got; your wife ismore beautiful than mine and I feel jealous; I struggle and I feelmost ugly to myself, I feel bitter with myself. Then I say `I mustnot be angry, I must conquer anger. How am I to do it?' As I do notknow how to prevent it, how to prevent the arising of jealousy,how to put an end to the feeling before it arises, I go to some guru.The problem is still there.Is it possible to understand how jealousy arises so that thefeeling does not arise? You know, it is much better to eat healthyfood and be healthy rather than to eat wrong food fall ill and gothen to the doctor. We eat wrong food all the time; then we takepills or go to the doctor. But if we took the right food, we wouldnever need to go to the doctor.So, what I am saying is: `Let us find out how to eat right food,how to look at all this, so that these problems do not arise.' Surelyeducation is this, the prevention of the problem rather than findinga cure for it.Question: Does constant suffering destroy man's sensitivity andintelligence?Krishnamurti: What do you think? A mind that is constantlyoccupied with something, with puja, with following somebody,with suffering, with a theory, with a philosophy, with its ownsorrow, with its own beauty, with its own suffering, with its ownfailures and successes - surely such a mind becomes insensitive.You know, if your mind, if your attention, is fixed on something allthe time you have no occasion to look around. Can such a mind besensitive?`To be sensitive' implies to be looking all around, to see beauty,ugliness, death, sorrow, pain, joy.' So, a mind that is sufferingobviously becomes insensitive, because suffering is its occupation;the mind uses suffering as a means for its own protection. My sondies. or my husband dies and I am left alone; I have no companionand I feel my life has been blotted out. So I keep on suffering, andmy mind now is not concerned with freedom from suffering; but Imake suffering into another means of my existence. Youunderstand? The mind uses suffering as it uses joy to enrich itself,because the mind thinks that without being occupied it is poor, it isempty, dull. This very occupation of the mind creates its owndestruction. Sorrow is not a thing to be occupied with, any morethan joy. The mind must understand why there is sorrow, and notkeep on being occupied with sorrow. The mind wants security,whether it is in suffering or in joy. So, sorrow becomes the way ofsecurity. This is not a harsh thing I am saying; for, if you thinkabout it, if you look into it, you will see how the mind plays a trickon itself. It is only the unoccupied mind that is intelligent, that issensitive.It is no use asking how the mind can be unoccupied. In the very`how' the mind is playing a trick on itself.Question: How can one differentiate between memory that isessential and memory that is detrimental?Krishnamurti: The mind creates through experience, tradition,memory. Can the mind be free from storing up, though it isexperiencing? You understand the difference? What is required isnot the cultivation of memory but the freedom from theaccumulative process of the mind.You hurt me, which is an experience; and I store up that hurt;and that becomes my tradition; and from that tradition, I look atyou, I react from that tradition. That is the everyday process of mymind and your mind. Now, is it possible that, though you hurt me,the accumulative process does not take place. The two processesare entirely different. If you say harsh words to me, it hurts me; butif that hurt is not given importance, it does not become thebackground from which I act; so it is possible that I meet youafresh. That is real education, in the deep sense of the word.Because, then, though I see the conditioning effects of experience,the mind is not conditioned.Question: But why does the mind accumulate?Krishnamurti: You have asked the question `Why does the mindaccumulate?' Why do you think it accumulates? Listen to thiscarefully. Do you know the answer? Are you waiting for me toanswer, so that you can say `yes'? If you do not wait for an answerfrom me, then the problem, `why does the mind accumulate?',brings about a creativity in you.There is the problem, `why does the mind accumulate?' Youhave asked it because you do not know the answer. But if you areactually confronted with the problem, your mind becomes alert andhas to find an answer. The asking of that question thereforeawakens your own initiative, your creativity; and a release to findout comes out of you and that awakens the capacity to discover, tohave the initiative, to be creative, to have a totally differentoutlook.The problem is `why does the mind accumulate'? Please look atthe problem. Probably some religious book or some teacher orsome psychologist has told you why the mind accumulates.Whether it has been said by Ramanuja or by Sankara or by Jesus, itis what other people have said, it is not your discovery. Do youunderstand? You have to discover. For you to discover, what otherpeople have said must be put aside. Must it not? So, you have toput aside all that you have been told about it, all that you have readabout it. Then, you can find out why the mind accumulates.To begin very simply, why do you accumulate clothes? Forconvenience, is it not? Apart from the necessity which isconvenience, you also feel the gratification that goes with havingmany clothes, the feeling that you have a cupboard full of clothes,the feeling from which you get a sense of well-being, a sense ofsecurity. First there is a necessity which is convenience; fromconvenience it becomes a psychological elation; and from thatfeeling, the cupboard of clothes gives you the sense of `I have gotsomething, I am somebody.' The cupboard is your security. So, themind gathers knowledge, information, reads a great deal, talks agreat deal, knows a great deal. So, knowledge, this gradual storingup in the cupboard of your mind becomes your security. Is it notso? So, the mind accumulates because it wants to feel safe?Don't you feel very proud that you know lots of things? Youknow History, Science, Mathematics. You know how to drive acar. Does not the capacity to do something give you security andsatisfaction? That is why the mind accumulates. When youcultivate the virtue of being good or kind or loving or beinggenerous, the cultivation is the process of accumulation and in thataccumulation which you call virtue, you feel very secure. Yourmind is all the time gathering in order to be secure, to be safe. Ithas various cupboards. It has always a cupboard in which it canfeel completely safe. But such a mind is an imitative mind, anuncreative mind. If you watch the mind in operation andunderstand the process of accumulation, then your mind will ceaseto collect. You will have memory because it is necessary. But youwill not use it to feel secure, to feel that you are somebody.There are memories which are necessary. It is stupid to say `Ihave built bridges for 35 years and, now, I must forget how tobuild a bridge'. I was talking of the process of the accumulation ofthe mind, from which tradition, the background, is built, fromwhich thought arises. Such and it is only when the mind has noaccumulation and there is no thinking from accumulation, that hismind can be creative.Question: Why does a man leave society and become asannyasi?Krishnamurti: You know life is complicated and so one wants asimple life. The more cultured, the more beautiful, the morewatchful, the more alert one is, the greater is one's demand for asimple life. I am not talking of the phony sannyasi who merely putson coloured robes and has a beard, but of the real sannyasi whosees the complexity of life and puts it aside. Unfortunately, thissannyasi begins at the wrong end. Simplicity is at the other end.The two ends must meet together. You cannot begin from theouter. The feeling of simplicity arises, comes into being, when themind is free of accumulation.Generally, a sannyasi who leaves the world, says `The world istoo stupid, too complicated; there are too many things to worryabout, the family, the children and the jobs that they will get or willnot get, and so on,. So, he says `I won't have anything to do withall this', and he withdraws from the so-called worldly life. He putson a saffron cloth and says `I have renounced the world'. But he isstill a human being with all his sexual and other appetites, with allhis prejudices, with all his illusions. So, his mere renouncing of theworld is nothing.How easily we are deceived! We think we leave the `worldlylife' by merely putting a saffron cloth, which is the easiest thing todo. But simplicity comes only in understanding the complexprocess of desire, of belief, of pain, of sorrow, of envy, ofaccumulation. One may have much of worldly possessions or little;one may have children or no children. Simplicity does not lie inpossessing little. The understanding of inward beauty bringssimplicity, the inward richness. And without that inward richness,the mere giving up of some possessions or putting on of a yellowrobe means nothing.Do not be deceived by saffron or yellow robes. Do not worshipthe mere outward show of renunciation, which has no meaning.What has meaning can never be had, can never be learnt, fromanother. You can find it yourself when you are really simple -when you have, not the ashes of outward renunciation, but theinward freedom from all conflicts suppressions, ambitions,imitations. Such a person is really a creative human being who willreally help the world - not a sannyasi who sits, caught in his owndreams, on the bank of a river.January 14, 1954BANARAS, INDIA 15TH JANUARY 1954 10THTALK TO STUDENTS AT RAJGHAT SCHOOLI do not know if you have found that fear is a very strange thing.Most of us have fear of some kind or another, and it lurks behindso many forms, it hides behind so many virtues. Without reallyunderstanding the cause of fear, the root of fear, all feeling forbeauty merely becomes imitative. Without understanding thedeeper layers of fear, there is very little significance in theappreciation of beauty. For most of us, the appreciation of beautyis tinged with envy, and so is the desire for beauty. You know whatenvy is - to be envious of somebody, to be envious of another'scapacity, his position, his prestige, the way he looks, the way hewalks? For most of us, envy is the basis of our actions; removeenvy and we feel we are lost. All our effort is towards success, andin that there is envy; behind that envy there is fear. Fear is thedrive, the motive, the spirit, which moves us. Without reallyunderstanding the significance of fear and envy, we only createsocial and moral imitators.So, I think it is very important to understand this thing we callenvy. If you watch your own mind in operation, your ownactivities, you will find that there is hardly any moment which isnot towards something, towards the more, towards the greater,towards the desire for wider experience. The moment there iscomparison there must be envy. When I want more, not only of themundane things, of the worldly things but also of love, of beauty,of inward richness, the very movement towards the more, towardsthe end, towards the thing which you are going to get, has envybehind it.After all, beauty is something not tinged with envy, beauty issomething which is in itself. You do not become more beautiful ormore good - which are all the movements of envy. But you have tounderstand `what is', as things are - which does not mean you aresatisfied with things as they are. The moment you enter intosatisfaction and dissatisfaction, there is envy. You can understandthe thing as it is, whatever you are, only when you do not compare;because in comparison, there is also envy. To understand `what is'seems to me to be the real creative beauty of life, and not the meregetting some where in virtue or in respectability or in power or inposition. But all our education, all our thinking, instinctively istowards the more, which we call progress.It is, I think, very important to understand this while we areyoung, while we are not caught in the wood of responsibility, offamily, of jobs, of position, of activity, of undertakings doneblindly and foolishly. Is it not the function of education to free themind from the comparative? You understand what I mean by that?You see, our education, our social life, our religious aspirations,are all based on this urge for the more - the more spiritual life,more happiness, more money, more knowledge, greater virtue - aperfect ideal towards which I go and you go. We are brought up inthat atmosphere and so we never discover what we are, `whatactually is'.We are always trying to become something else. We are alwaystrying to become noble, to become a hero, an example, an ideal;and if we really go behind this urge to become, we will find thatthere is envy and that behind that envy there is fear, the fear ofwhat one is. We begin to cover up what we are, with all theseoutward and inward movements which we call progress, which wecall `becoming'. It is very difficult for the mind not to think interms of becoming, of moving towards the greater, the wider, themore extensive activities; and that movement is based on fear andenvy. But there is a totally different movement which is realcreativity and real understanding, namely, the movement of theunderstanding of `what is', what you actually are. In thatmovement, you do not change `what is' but you understand `whatis'.We are accustomed to think in terms of getting somewhere, ofachieving, of success, of changing this into that - of changingviolence into non-violence which is an ideal. I am inwardly poorand I want to find the inner riches which are incorruptible. That isthe movement we know; in that movement, we are brought up, weare nurtured we are conditioned. In that movement, if you observe,there is envy, there is fear, the fear of not being what one wants tobe. The urge to become has created this society, this culture, thesereligions. Our culture is based on envy. Our religion as we practiseit, as we think of it, as we know it, is the worship of success in adistant future. So, this movement is based on envy, acquisitivenessand fear.Is it not the function of education to break up that movementand to bring about a totally different activity which is theunderstanding of `what is', as one actually is? In this activity, thereis no fear, there is no envy, no desire to become something. Thisactivity is the initiative of the thing as it is.The movement of envy leads to utter discontent anddisintegration. Let me put it very simply. I am aggressive, violent;and I am told from childhood that I must change that, that I mustbecome non-violent, non-aggressive, that I must have love. All thisis a movement towards transformation of `what is', and thatmovement is based on envy, on fear, because I want to change`what I am' into something else. But if I see the truth of thatmovement which is envy and in which there is fear, then I can seewhat I am. When I see I am aggressive, I do not change `what Iam', but I watch the movement of aggression. In that watchingthere is no fear, there is no compulsion. The very watching of`what I am' brings about a totally different activity. That is surelythe function of education, that is creation.Creative activity requires a great deal of perception, insight andunderstanding. Because, it does not emphasize the self-centredactivity of the mind. At present, all our activities emphasize self-centredness, from which spring our social and economicdifficulties and miseries. Everyone can observe these twomovements in oneself. In the observation of the two, there is thedropping away of all activity based on fear and envy, and there isonly the other activity which is creative, in which there is initiativeand beauty.Question: What is experience?Krishnamurti: When you watch yourself, is it not anexperience? When you put on a kurta, is that not an experience?When you watch the boat going down the river, is that not anexperience? When you cry, when you laugh, when you are jealous,when you want to possess something and want to push othersaside, is it not an experience? Living is experience. But, we want tokeep the experiences which are pleasant and to avoid experienceswhich are unpleasant. That is not life. The choice between thepleasant and the unpleasant is not living. Life is everything fromthe dark clouds to the marvellous sunset; life is the whole thingwhich you can watch death, the song of birds, the green fields andthe barren earth, the fears, the laughters, the struggles. But, wegenerally view life differently; we say `This is life', `That is notlife', `This is beautiful', `That is not beautiful', `I am going to holdto the beautiful and push away the ugly', `I am unhappy, I wanthappiness'. When we begin to choose, there is death.If you really think about all this, you will see that when themind chooses between that which is pleasant and that which isunpleasant, and holds on to one and discards the other, thendeterioration takes place, then death comes in. But to see thiswhole process in movement, to be aware of it totally without anychoice, stirs the mind, and frees it from its self-enclosing activitiesof choice. A mind that is free from choice is wise, intelligent,capable of infinite depth.Listen to all this. These are not mere words to be listened to andput aside. Experience of various kinds are impinging all the timeon our minds, and our minds now are only capable of choice,choosing one experience and holding on to it and discardinganother experience. When a mind retains an experience, from thatexperience it creates a tradition; and that tradition becomes choiceand action. A mind that is merely caught in choice, can never findout what truth is. So, it is only the mind that sees the wholemovement of darkness and of light, that is highly sensitive,intelligent. It is only then that that which we call God can come tobe.You have been listening for some days to all that has been said.Are you aware of what is taking place in you, how your mindthinks, how your mind watches things and people around. Are youwatching more, seeing more, feeling more? Are you aware of allthis? Do you understand what I am talking about? Are you awareof what is going on within yourself, in your mind, in your feelings?Do you observe a tree? Do you ever watch the river? Do you seehow you are looking at the river? What are the thoughts that comeinto your mind, as you watch that river?If you are not aware of all that is going on in your mind, whenyou see something, then you will never know the operations ofyour mind, the workings of your mind; and without knowing them,you are not educated, You may have a few alphabets after yourname, but that is not education. To be educated, you have to findout if your mind functions in tradition, if it is caught in the usualhabitual routine. Do you do things because your parents want youto do them. Do you put on a sacred thread merely because that isthe custom? Do you go to the temple to do puja because you havebeen told to, or because you have been meditating, or because youlike it? Surely, all this indicates the operation of your mind, does itnot? And without knowing that, how can you be educated?The brain is an astounding thing if you watch it. There must bemillions and millions of cells in it, and it must be a very complexmechanism. It must be most complex and concentrated, becausewhen I ask you a question, when I look at things, the mind goesthrough such a lot to produce an answer. You understand what Iam talking about? If I ask you where you live, how quickly yourmind operates! See the astounding rapidity of memory! If you areasked a question which you do not know, again look at what themind goes through.We are so rich in ourselves; but without knowing that richness,without knowing all its beauty, its complexity, we want every otherrichness - the richness of position, of office, of travel, of comfort,of knowledge - but these are all trivial riches compared to thisthing. To know how the mind works and to go beyond it seems, tome, to be real education.The lady says that when we are confronted with somethingcomplex, when there is a problem, our mind becomes blank. Doesyour mind become blank? Do you understand what I am askingyou? Look sir, your mind is ceaselessly active, it is in constantmovement. When you open your eyes, you have variousimpressions and the mind is receiving all these impressions - thelight, the pictures, the windows, the green leaves, the movement ofthe animals and people. When you close your eyes, there is theinward movement of thought. So, the mind is constantly active;there is never a moment when it is still. That is the mind, not onlyat the superficial level but also deep down. You know, after all, theGanga is not just the surface water on which you see the ripplesand the beauty of the sunshine; there is also the great depth of it,about 60 feet of water below the surface. The mind is not just thesuperficial expression of annoyance, of pleasure, of desires, of joyand frustration; but deep down, there is the whole mind, and allthat is in movement all the time - asking questions, doubting, beingfrustrated, longing. When that movement is confronted withsomething which does not answer, it is shocked into paralysis for asecond or two, and then it begins to act.Have you not noticed when you see a beautiful thing, abeautiful mountain, a lovely river, a beautiful smile, how yourmind becomes quiet? It is too much for the mind; for a second, it isstill; and then it begins to function. That is the case with most ofus. Seeing that, is it possible for the mind to be still the whole way,not just at one level? Can your mind be totally still all the time, notthrough the shock of beauty or pain, not with any purpose becausethe moment you have purpose, there is fear and envy behind it - butbe totally still, deep down and also on the surface? You can onlyfind out, you cannot answer `yes' or `no'.There is real freedom when the mind right through knows itsactivities, its shades, its lights, its movements, its deliberations, itselations. The very knowing, by the mind, of all its movements fromdeep down to the top, the very seeing of it all, is the stilling of themind. All this has to be very intelligently thought out, watched for,unearthed, so that you know the whole thing that is the mind, sothat you are aware of the whole process; then only is the mindreally still.Question: What is jealousy?Krishnamurti: Don t you know what jealousy is? When youhave a toy and the other person has a bigger toy, don't you wantthat bigger toy? When you have a small bicycle and you see a bigbeautiful bicycle, don't you want that? That is jealousy. On thatjealousy, people live, exploit, multiply.Please, the teacher who is responsible for that boy's education,will please listen and please explain this to him. Take the time andthe trouble to point out what jealousy is, if you understand whatjealousy is, yourself.Jealousy begins in a small way and then one gets drawn into astream of action, clothed under so many names. We all knowjealousy. That little boy wants to know what jealousy is. Do notsay it is wrong or right, do not condemn it. Do not tell him it is notdesirable to be jealous, that jealousy is ugly, evil. What is evil isyour condemnation of it, not jealousy itself. Please explain to himthe whole business of jealousy, how it arises how our society isbased on jealousy, how instincts are based on it, how it shapes allour actions. You do not condemn a map, you do not say the roadshould be that way. You do not say that the villages should be hereor should not be there. The villages are there. Similarly you mustexplain, must look at jealousy and not try to push it aside, not try totransform it, not try to make it idealistic.Jealousy is jealousy. You cannot make it into something else.But if you can look at it, understand it, then it gets transformed;you do not have to do a thing about it. If you could explain thisdeeply to every boy and girl, we will produce quite a differentgeneration.Question: Why do we want to show off ourselves that we aresomething? Krishnamurti: Why do you want to assure yourself thatyou are something? Why do I want to be sure that I am something?Why do you think?You know, the Maharaja wants to show that he is something.He shows off his cars, his titles, his position, his riches. Theprofessor the Pundit, as, assures himself that he is somebodythrough his knowledge. You also want to show that you aresomebody in your class, with your friends. It is the same thing on asmall scale or a big scale. Why do we do that? Please listen to whatI am saying.If you are inwardly rich, there is no need to show off, becausethat in itself is beautiful. Because inwardly we fear we havenothing, we put on lots of airs. The sannyasi does it; the primeministers and the rich men do it. Strip them of their power, theirmoney, their position; they are dull, stupid empty. So a person whowants to show off, who wants to be assured that he is somebody, orwho tells himself that he is somebody, is really very empty. Youknow, it is like a drum; you keep on beating it to make a noise, andthe noise is the showing off, the assurance that you are somebody.But the drum in itself has no noise, it has to be beaten to producethe noise; in itself, it is empty. In yourself, you are empty, dull,uncreative; and because you are nothing, you want to assureyourself that you are somebody. That is the movement of envy. Butif you said `Yes, I am empty I am poor', and from there begin, notto change but to understand it, to go into it to delve deeply into it,then you will find riches that are incorruptible. In that movement,there is no assurance that you are somebody, because you arenobody. The man who is really nobody, who is nothing in himself,is the only truly happy man.Question: You have been talking all these days, with the idea ofbringing about a change in our lives. If you want us to thinkdifferently, how is it different from the attitude we have beenhaving so far, to be something which we are not today?Krishnamurti: The question needs to be made simpler. Yourquestion is: `You want us to change and in what way is thatdifferent from our own desire to change in the old pattern'?Do I want you to change? If you change because I want you tochange, then that change is the movement of envy, of fear, ofreward and punishment. That is, you are this and you want tochange into that because, you are being persuaded by me to changeinto that - which is the movement of jealousy, of fear, of envy. If Irealize what I am, just realize without any desire to change,without any desire to condemn, if I just be that, just see that, thenfrom that there is a totally different action. But to bring about thattotally different action, the other movement - the movement ofenvy, fear, of condemnation, of comparison - must cease. Is thatclear?Question: At present, we are not thinking in the way that youare thinking. You are talking to us with a view to making us seethat way of thinking. Is that not so? Is that not a change that youwould like us to bring about in us? There is only a subtle differencebetween the two. We are not thinking in the way you are thinking,because we do not take life in the way you are taking it.Krishnamurti: The way we generally think is the way in whichwe have been brought up; in that pattern, in that groove, in thatframework. Now, when you realize your thinking is conditioned, isthere not a breaking up of that condition? When I realize that I amthinking in terms of communism or catholicism or Hindu- ism, isthere not a breaking away from that? That is all I am talking about.There is a breaking away which is quite a different movement fromhabitual thinking in which there is no change.When we talk of change, we mean we must change from this tothat. When we change from `this' to `that', `that' is already theknown; therefore, it is not change. When I change from greed tonon-greed, the non-greed is my formulation, is my idea. Therefore,I already know the state of non-greed. Therefore when I say I mustchange greed into non-greed, the movement is still within the fieldof the known from one known to another known. Do you see that?Therefore, it is not change at all.Please listen, all of you. It is not that gentleman alone who isasking the question but all of us are involved in this. When we talkabout change, about revolution, changing from `this' to `that', `that'is the state we already know; therefore it is not change. When Ichange from Hinduism to Catholicism, I know what Catholicismis. It is a thing I want. I do not like this and I like that. That which Ilike is already what I know. Therefore, it is the same thing only ina different form.What I am talking about is not change, but the cessation of thedesire to change and the movement from that - which does notmean I am content with `what is'. There must be the cessation ofthe desire to change from the known to what I think is theunknown but which is really the known. If that movement ceases,then there is a totally different activity.January 15, 1954BANARAS, INDIA 18TH JANUARY 1954 11THTALKS TO STUDENTS AT RAJGHAT SCHOOLI think we ought to talk about something of which some of us maybe aware, namely, the peculiar desire for power over others andover oneself which most of us have.I think that power is one of the deeper desires behind whichreally lies that fear which comes from a sense of loneliness, a senseof frustration. What I am saying may be difficult, but please listen.If one can understand this and go beyond, then there is a differentkind of state in which love is. If one has not that love, life becomesdull, weary, empty, and shallow.I think it is important to understand this thing that we call power- not electric power or steam power, not the capacity to dosomething efficiently - which are all necessary. I am talking ofsomething which is of greater significance and of much deepervalue, and without understanding which, efficiency, the capacity ofdoing things, becomes a means of creating greater misery, greatersuffering for man.Most of us desire some kind of power; it may be over the son,or the wife or the husband; or, it may be over a group of people; orit may be in the name of an ideal or in the name of a country. Thispower, this desire to have power over others, is always operating -even over a servant, to order him about, to get angry with him, topush him around. Does not this desire for power spring from asense of loneliness? Have you ever felt lonely? You know what itis to be alone, to have no friends, to be completely alone, to be anisolated being? To have no friend, no sense of anyone on whomyou can rely or whom you can trust, is to be in a state of completeself-isolation. Probably, you have not felt it. Most of you avoid it,run away from it. You are only awakened to it in a great crisis, indeath; but you run away from it. Without understanding thisemptiness, the mere control of power leads to every form offrustration. Probably, it is very difficult to understand all this whileone is young; but one should talk a great deal about it becausewhen one grows older, one begins to have power over others andover oneself. The sannyasi wants to have power over himself, andso he controls himself through asceticism; that gives him a sense ofpower, a sense of domination over himself and over his desires.His wanting only a few things for himself creates in him anextraordinary sense of power, a power which is self-centred. Andyou also demand power over others and, in that, you feel a greatsense of release, of happiness, of delight. You feel capable ofdominating several thousands of people, through ideas, throughpolitical power, through words. Fear lies behind all this urge forpower.After all, when you compare yourself with somebody, with anidea, with a person, with an example, does not the desire for powerlie behind that comparison? I have no power, no position, nocapacity; and if I can imitate a hero, copy him, I shall becomepowerful, I shall be somebody. So, the very desire to be somebody,the copying, the imitation, the comparison, gives me a sense ofpower.I think it is very important, while we are young, to understandthis thing, because that is what almost everyone is seeking in theworld. The clerk wants power over his under-clerk and the boss hasinnumerable employees over whom he has power. The ministershave power to give position or to give prestige, and they have themeans of controlling others. The whole structure of society isbased on this and we think we can use power as a means ofchanging people's lives. The very possession of power is a greatdelight. The man in power says, `I am doing this for the sake of thecountry', `I am doing this for the sake of an idea'? When he saysthis, he is conscious that he is in a position of authority and that heis controlling people.When you are being educated, when you are at school orcollege, this thing has to be understood. You have to see if you canlive in this world without dominating people, without controllingpeople, without shaping their minds. Because, after all, each one ofus is as important as the politician, the wielder of power; each oneof us wants to grow in freedom so that we can be what we are, sothat we can understand what we are and, from that, act so that weare not imposed upon by society or by our teachers or by ourparents or by any other person who is trying to dominate and shapeour particular lives. It is very difficult to withstand all this becausewe ourselves, each one of us, want power. The teacher wants tobecome the Principal, because the Principal has power over somany people and he has more money.When you are controlled by another through money, throughposition, through status, the feeling that you are an individual, ahuman being, a single unit, is completely denied, destroyed.Whereas, it seems to me, it is very important in a school of thiskind, that we should create a feeling that this is our school, yoursand mine, in the sense that you, as a student, are as important as theteacher or the Principal. This feeling of ourness does not existanywhere in the world, the feeling that this is our earth, yours andmine, not the Russians' or the Americans' or the English or theAfricans', the feeling that it is our world, not a communist world ora socialist world or a capitalist world, the feeling that it is our earthin which you and I and others can live and be free to find out thewhole significance of living.The significance of living and the understanding of it is deniedif we are seeking power in any form. The mother has power overthe little child and wants him to grow in a certain way. The fathersays `This is what he should be' and pushes him into a pattern. But,education is surely the freeing of the mind to function in freedomwithout any twist, without any corruption through power, throughcomparison. We should create such a school, you and I must createit. Otherwise, you will go out of this school and college just likeany other human being, dull, with all your brains stuffed withsuperficial information; you will not have any clear initiative ofyour own, but be a machine that is driven by circumstances, bysociety, by the politician, because each one of you wants power,like the politician.So, even though you may not understand for the time beingwhat I am saying, talk to your teachers, make them explain all thisto you that it is our earth where all human beings can live,understand, exercise their capacities, if they have any, withoutdestroying any one. The moment we want to use our capacity togain power, position, prestige, we destroy. So, we ought to talkabout how to create a school at Rajghat where each one of us, thestudent, the teacher, the members of the Foundation, all togethercreate this place - with you as a student looking after the trees andthe roads, feeling and caring for the things that are of the earth, notbecause it is your school but because it is our earth.I think this is the only spirit that is going to save the world, notclever scientific inventions but the sense that you and I are creatingtogether in a world which is ours. But that is very difficult to comeby because, now, everything is mine and not yours, the mine beingdivided into many classes, many holdings, many functions, manynationalities. That feeling of ourness does not exist in this world.Without that feeling, we will have no peace in the world.Therefore, it is very important that you, while you are young,should understand this and have this feeling, so that when you goout into the world, you can create a new world and a newgeneration.Question: Why does one feel sad when someone dies, whomone knew, whom one loved?Krishnamurti: Why does one feel sad if some near relation dies?You feel sad when any friend or near relation of yours dies. Doyou feel sad for the person who is dead or for yourself? The otherperson is gone and you are left to face life. With that person, youfelt somewhat secure, somewhat happy; you felt a companionship,a friendship. That person is gone and you are left with yourinsecurity, are you not? You are constantly aware of yourloneliness. You are aware that you have been stripped ofcompanionship. There was a person with whom you could talk andexpress yourself to be what you were. When that person is gone,you feel very sad; out of your loneliness, out of your sense of nothaving any one to whom you can turn, you feel very sad; but youdo not feel sad for the person. Feeling sad you create all kinds oftheories, all kinds of beliefs.It is very important, is it not?, to understand this process ofdependence. Why does one depend on another? For certain things Idepend on the milkman, on the postman, on the man who drivesthe engine, on the Bank, or on the policeman; but my dependenceon these is entirely different from the dependence based on fearand the inward demand for comfort. As I do not know how to live,I am confused, I am lonely, I want someone to help me; I wantsomeone to guide me, some one on whom I can rely, a master, abook, or an idea. So, when that dependence is taken away from me,I feel lost. This sense of loss creates suffering.Is it not important while we are at school, to understand thisproblem of dependence, so that we may grow without dependingon anyone inwardly? That requires a great deal of intelligence agreat deal of enquiry. Surely, it is the function of education to helpto free the mind from any sense of fear, which makes fordependence. Being dependent, we say `How can I be free fromdependence'? But if one understood the process, the ways ofdependence, then there would be no problem of how to be freefrom dependence. The very understanding frees the mind fromdependence.Question: What is a star?Krishnamurti: I am sorry I cannot give you a scientificexplanation.Have you looked at a star? What do you feel when you look at astar? You can find out what a star is from any scientific book orfrom your science-teacher. When you look at the sky of an eveningand see the many thousands and millions of stars and planets, whatdo you feel? Do you just look and move away? Most of us do that.We are talking with somebody and we say `Look at the stars andthe moon, what a beautiful night!', and go on with our talk. But, ifyou were alone or with people who are not always chattering ortalking, but who want to look at things, then when you look at thestars, what do you feel? Do you feel small in this vast universe, ordo you feel that it is part of you, the whole thing - the stars, themoon, the trees and the river? Have you the time to look and findout your own feeling?How difficult it is to look at anything beautiful without the mindinterfering, without the mind with its memories saying `This is notsuch a good night as the other night. It is not as beautiful as it waslast year,' `It is too cold I cannot look.' The mind never lookswithout words, without comparison. It is only when you can lookwithout comparison or without words, that the stars and the earthand the trees and the moon and the light on the water have anextraordinary significance. In that, there is great beauty. To look,without comparison, one has to understand the mind, because it isthe mind that looks, it is the mind that interprets what it seeksgiving it a name. The very naming of a thing by the mind becomesthe way of pushing it away.So, when you look at a star or at a bird, or at a tree, find outwhat is happening to you as you look, and that will reveal a greatdeal about yourself.Question: Man has made great progress in the material world.Why is it we do not see progress in other directions?Krishnamurti: It is fairly clear why we make progress in thematerial world, specially in the new world where there is a greatdeal of energy a great release of intellectual capacity. When youare colonising a new world you have to invent, you have tostruggle. Man has made progress from the bow and arrow to theatom bomb, from the bullock cart to the jet plane that travels about1600 miles an hour; that is generally called progress. But is thereprogress in any other direction, inwardly? Have you, as anindividual, progressed inwardly? Have you found anything foryourself?We know what other people have said, what other people havefound. But have we found anything for ourselves? Are we morecharitable, more kind? Are our minds more expansive and alert,inwardly? Have we put away fear? Without that, to make progressin the world, is to destroy ourselves.Question: What is God?Krishnamurti: You know the villager, the peasant; for him, Godis that little image before which he puts flowers. Primitive peoplecall Thunder their God, and they worship trees and nature. At onetime, man worshipped the apple tree and the olive tree in Europe.There are people in India now who worship trees.You go into a temple. There you see an image, oily, withgarlands and jewels; you call that your God and you put flowersand do puja before it. You may go further and create an image inyour mind, and an idea that is born of your own tradition, out ofyour background; and that, you call your God. The man who threwthe atom bomb, thought that God was by his side. Every war lord,from Hitler and Kitchner to our little general, invokes God. Is thatGod? Or, is God something unimaginable, not measurable by ourminds?God is something entirely, totally, unfathomable by us, and thatcomes into being when our minds are quiet, when our minds arenot projecting, struggling. When the mind is still, then perhaps weshall know what God is.So, it is very important, while we are young, not to be caught bythe word God, not to be told what God is. There are many eager totell us what God is. But, we must examine what they tell. There aremany people who say there is no God. We must not be caught bywhat they say, but examine it equally carefully. Neither thebeliever nor the non-believer will ever find God. It is only whenthe mind is free of belief and non-belief, when the mind is still, thatthere is a possibility of finding God.We are never told of these things. From childhood, we are toldthere is God and you repeat there is God. When you go to someguru, he will tell you `There is God. Do this and do that. Repeatthis mantram, do that puja, practise such and such discipline, andyou will find God.' You may do all this; but what you find will notbe God. It will only be your own projection, the projection of whatyou want. All this is difficult and requires a great deal of thoughtand enquiry; and that is why, when you are in a school of this kind,you should grow in freedom so that your mind may find out foritself, may discover; then the mind becomes creative, astonishinglyalert.Question: Why does a human being suffer, though he does hisbest with whatever capacity he has?Krishnamurti: Whatever capacity I may possess, in the verydoing, why do I feel sad, when I cannot fulfil, when I am notsuccessful in carrying out my intention? Why do you, when youare doing something to the best of your capacity, feel sad? Is it notsimple, this question?We are not satisfied with just doing what we love to do. Wewant what we do to be a success. To us, the doing is not important,but the success, the result, what the doing will bring. When ouraction is not successful, when it does not bring about what wewant, we feel sorrow-laden. The drive for our action is our desirefor success, our desire for power, for recognition, for position, forstatus. We want somebody to tell us how marvellously we havedone - which means, really, we never know how to love a thingand to do it just for itself, not for what it will bring. When we dosomething with an eye on success, on the future on the tomorrow,and when tomorrow does not come, we feel miserable; this isbecause we never do anything for the love of the thing.There are many among you who are teachers, there are otherswho are professors or big business people or officials. Why are youin those professions? Not because you love what you do, butbecause there is nothing else for you to do. So, whatever you do,you want it to be successful. You want to ride on the wave ofsuccess and so you are always competing, struggling and sodestroying the capacities of the mind.Question: How can we live a life without experience andmemory?Krishnamurti: You remember what I said the other day? Youwant to know how to get rid of memory. That is, you want to find amethod, a system. The system, the method, only gives youexperience. It cultivates memory. Does it not? When I know howto do a thing, it becomes a habit. If I know how to read and write,the `how' then becomes a part of my memory and, with thatmemory, I write and I recognise every word, every syllable.What I said the other day was about something entirelydifferent. I said that life is a process of experience and memory.The very living is experience and the experience creates tradition,memory; with that tradition, memory and habit, we live. So, thereis never anything new. Is it not possible to live with experiencewhich does not corrupt, which does not merely become a memorywith which we look at life? We discussed this very carefully. Butone has to go into it over and over again from so many differentpoints, to get the whole meaning of it.Question: Does history prove the existence of God?Krishnamurti: Is it a matter of proof? History may or may notprove that there is or that there is not. Millions say there is God;and millions say equally emphatically there is no God. Each sidequotes authority, history, scientific proof. Then, what?The mind is frightened, it wants something to rely on,something on which it can depend. The mind wants something towhich it can cling, as permanent. With this desire for permanence,it seeks authority negatively or positively. When it seeks authorityin those who say there is no God, it repeats and says `There is noGod.' It is perfectly satisfied in that belief.There are those who, seeking permanency, say that there is God.So, the mind clings to that and seeks to prove through history,through books, through other people's experiences, that there isGod. But that is not reality, that is not God.The mind must be free from the very beginning to find out whatGod is. And the mind is not free when it is seeking security, whenit is seeking permanency, when it is caught in fear.January 18, 1954BANARAS, INDIA 19TH JANUARY 1954 12THTALK TO STUDENTS AT RAJGHAT SCHOOLFrom childhood, we are brought up to condemn some things orsome persons, and to praise others. Have you not heard grown-uppeople say `This is a naughty boy.'? They think that, by doing that,they have solved the problem. But to understand somethingrequires much insight, a great sense, not of tolerance - tolerance ismerely an invention of the mind to justify its activities or otherpeople's activities - but of understanding, a great width of mind,and depth of mind.I would like to talk, this morning, of something which may berather difficult, but I think it is worthwhile to understand it. Veryfew of us enjoy anything. We have very little joy in seeing thesunset, or the full moon, or a beautiful person, or a lovely tree, or abird in flight, or a dance. We do not really enjoy anything. We lookat it, we are superficially amused or excited by it, we have asensation which we call joy. But enjoyment is something fardeeper, which must be understood and gone into.When we are young, we enjoy and take delight in things - ingames, in clothes, in reading a book, or writing a poem, or paintinga picture, or in pushing each other about. But as we grow older,this enjoyment becomes a pain, a travail, a struggle. While we areyoung, we enjoy food; but as we grow older, we start eating foodthat is heavily laden with condiments, chillies, and then we lose alltaste, the delicacy, the refinement of food. When young, we enjoywatching animals, insects, birds.As we grow older, though we want to enjoy things, the best hasgone out of us; we want to enjoy other kinds of sensations -passions, lust, power, position. These are all the normal things oflife, though they are superficial; they are not to be condemned, notto be justified, but to be understood and given their right place. Ifyou condemn them as being worthless, as being sensational, stupidor unspiritual, you destroy the whole process of living. It is likesaying `My right arm is ugly, I am going to chop it off.' We aremade up of all these things. We have to understand everything, notcondemn, not justify. As we grow older, the things of life lose theirmeaning, our mind becomes dull, insensitive; and so, we try toenjoy, we try to force ourselves to look at pictures, to look at trees,to look at little children playing. We read some sacred book orother and try to find its meanings, its depth, its significance. But, itis all an effort, a travail, something to struggle with.I think it is very important to understand this thing called joy,the enjoyment of things. When you see something very beautiful,you want to possess it, you want to hold it, you want to call it yourown - `It is my tree, my bird, my house, my husband, my wife.' Wewant to hold it and in that very process of holding, the thing thatyou once enjoyed is gone; because, in the very holding, there isdependence, there is fear, there is exclusion; and so the thing thatgave joy, the sense of inward beauty is lost and life becomesenclosed. You consider the thing as belonging to you. Sogradually, enjoyment becomes something which you possess,which you must have. You enjoy doing a ritual, doing puja, orbeing somebody in the world; you are content with living on thesurface, seeking one sensation, one enjoyment, after another. Thatis our life, is it not? You get tired of one god and you want to findanother god. You change your guru if he does not satisfy you, andthen you tell him `Please lead me somewhere.' Behind all this,there is the search to find joy. You live at a superficial level andthink you can get enjoyment.To know joy one must go much deeper. Joy is not meresensation. It requires extraordinary refinement of the mind, but notthe refinement of the self that gathers more and more to itself. Sucha self, such a man, can never understand this state of joy in whichthe enjoyer is not. One has to understand this extraordinary thing;otherwise, life be- comes very small, petty, superficial - beingborn, learning a few things, suffering, bearing children havingresponsibilities, earning money, having a little intellectualamusement and then to die. That is our life. There is very littlerefinement in clothes, in manners, in the things that we eat. So,gradually, the mind becomes very dull.It matters very much, what you eat; but you like to eat just tastythings, you like to stuff yourself with a lot of unnecessary food,because it tastes good. Do please listen to all this. It matters verymuch the way you talk, the way you walk, the way you look atpeople. Search your mind, be aware, watch your gestures, watchthe meaning of your speech. If you are really very alert, the mindbecomes very sensitive, refined, simple. Without that simplicityand refinement, life is very superficial. But if you go beyond thatsuperficiality, then there is the refinement of the self. But therefinement of the self is like being enclosed behind a beautifulwall, with a great deal of decorations and pictures. That refinementof the self is still not enjoyment because, in that, there is pain; inthat, there is always the fear of losing and of gaining. But if themind can go beyond the refinement of the self, `the me', then thereis quite a different process at work; in that there is no experiencer.All this may be rather difficult, but it does not matter. Just listento it. When you grow older these words might have a meaning, asignificance; they might mean something to you later, when life ispressing on you, when life is difficult and full of shadows andstruggle. Then perhaps, these words will mean something to you.So, listen to it as you would listen to music which you do not quiteunderstand; just listen.We may move from one refinement to another, from onesubtlety to another, from one enjoyment to another; but at thecentre of it all, there is `the me', `the me' that is enjoying, thatwants more happiness; `the me' that searches, looks for, longs forhappiness; `the me' that struggles; `the me' that becomes more andmore refined, but never likes to come to an end. It is only when`the me' in all subtle forms comes to an end, that there is a state ofbliss which cannot be sought after, an ecstasy, a real joy withoutpain, without corruption. Now, all our joy, all our happiness iscorruption; behind it, there is pain; behind it there is fear.When the mind goes beyond the thought of `the me', theexperiencer, the observer, the thinker, then there is a possibility ofa happiness which is incorruptible. That happiness cannot bepermanent, in the sense in which we use that word. But, our mindis seeking permanent happiness, something that will last, that willcontinue. That very desire to continuity is corruption. But when themind is free from `the me', there is a happiness, from moment tomoment, which comes without your seeking, in which there is nogathering, no storing up no putting by of happiness. It is notsomething which you can hold on to. A mind that says `I washappy yesterday and I am not happy now; but I will be happytomorrow' - such a mind is a comparing mind, and in that mindthere is fear. It is always copying and discarding, gaining andlosing; therefore, it is not really a happy mind.If we can understand the process of life without condemning,without saying it is right or wrong, then, I think, there comes acreative happiness which is not yours or mine. That creativehappiness is like sunshine. If you want to keep the sunshine toyourself, it is no longer the clear, warm life-giving sun. Similarly,if you want happiness because you are suffering, or because youhave lost somebody or because you have not been successful, thenthat is merely a reaction. But when the mind can go beyond, thenthere is a happiness that is not of the mind.It is very important from childhood to have good taste, to beexposed to beauty, to good music, to good literature, so that themind becomes very sensitive, not gross, not heavy. It requires agreat deal of subtlety to understand the real depths of life and thatis why it matters very much, while we are young, how we areeducated, what we eat, what clothes we put on, what kind of housewe live in. I assure you that the appreciation and love of beautymatters very much, and that without it the real thing can never befound. But we go through school, through life, brutalized,disciplined; and we call that education, we call that living.It is very important, while we are at this school, to look at theriver, the green fields and the trees; to have good food, but not foodthat is too tasty, that is too hot; not to eat too much; to enjoy gameswithout competition; not to try to win for the college but to play forthe sake of the game. From there, you will find, if you are reallyobserving, that the mind becomes very alert, watchful, recollected;and so as you grow, right through life, you are bound to enjoythings. But to merely remain at the superficial level of enjoymentand not to know the real depth of human capacity, is like living in adirty street and trying to keep it clean. It always gets dirty, it willalways be spoilt, it will always be corrupt. But if one can, throughthe right kind of education, know how to think and to go beyond allthought, then, in that, there is extraordinary peace, a bliss whichthe mind, the superficial mind, living in its own superficialhappiness can never find.You have heard what I said about food and clothes andcleanliness. Try to find out for yourself something more beyond it.See if you can restrain yourself from eating food which is too hotor too tasty. After all, it is only when you are young that you canbe revolutionaries, not when you are sixty or seventy. Perhaps afew of us may be, but the vast majority are not revolutionaries. Asyou grow older, you crystallize. It is only when you are young thatthere is the possibility of revolution, of revolt, of discontent.To have that revolt, there must be discontent all through life.There is nothing wrong with revolt. What is wrong is to find anavenue which will satisfy you, which will quiet the discontent.Question: When I read something, my mind wanders. How am Ito concentrate?Krishnamurti: We answered that question the other day. Do youknow what concentration is? Do you know that you haveconcentrated when you are watching a dance which you reallylike? Listen to what I am saying. Last night, we had a dance. I donot know if you were watching it. When you watched, did youknow that you were concentrated? Did you? When you arewatching something in which you are interested - two bullsfighting, or a bird in flight, or two boats with full sail going on theriver against the current - are you conscious that you areconcentrated? Do you understand what I am talking about? Dolisten.When your mind is not attracted to something, when you areforcing yourself to listen to music which you really do not enjoy,then you are conscious of making an effort to listen. This forcing,you call concentration. But if you listen with real delight, becauseyou are really enjoying the music, then your whole mind, yourwhole being, is in it. You are not saying `Well, I must concentrate.'You are already there with the dancer, you are almost dancingyourself. But you see, we never look at or listen or read anythingthat way, we are never interested in anything so completely. Weare only partially interested. One part of the mind says `I do notwant to read that beastly book, it is boring' and the other part says`I must read it, because I have to study for my examination.' Whenone part says that you must read, the other part which knows thebook is terribly boring, wanders off. So, you have struggle, andyou say `I must begin to concentrate.'Really, you do not have to learn to concentrate. Please listen tothis. Do not force yourself to concentrate, but be interested, lovethe thing that you are doing, for itself. When you paint, paint foritself; when you look at a dance, enjoy it, look at it, see the beautyof it, so that your mind is not broken up into different parts. so thatthe mind is a whole thing, a complete thing, so that there is nofractional looking with a mind that is broken up in different partsand which says `I must look.'What is important is not concentration, but the love of the thing;the very love of the thing for itself brings an astonishing energy,energy which is attention; without that, your learning, yourlooking, has no meaning; and you merely pass examinations orbecome glorified clerks.Question: Is it true that the lunar eclipse affects our life? If itdoes, why is it so?Krishnamurti: If you are luny, perhaps it may affect you. If youare a little touched in the head, it may affect you. But I do not seeotherwise how it can affect you.This question opens up the problem of superstition. Do listen.You live in a society, among religious people who say `The lunareclipse affects the mind.' They have got all kinds of theories, andyou are brought up in them. You see all these pilgrims; thousandsof them gather and bathe at the Sangam and in the Ganga. Whenthousands of people think about something, there is an atmospherecreated, is there not? In that atmosphere, in that activity, the childwatches and is impressed. When you are young, the mind issensitive like a photo-plate that absorbs. That is why the kind ofatmosphere you live in is very important. But we do not payattention to all this.We live in this chaotic, dark, miserable world in a superficialway. You hear old people say `The lunar eclipse affects your life'.You hear and you accept. You do not question, you do not thinkfor yourself. To think simply is very difficult, because the mind isnot simple, the mind invents, it creates every kind of illusionmystery, and it gets caught in that.To have a simple mind is really to understand the complexity oflife You cannot deny the complexity of life and say `I have asimple mind'. A simple mind is not a thing to be cultivated; itcomes into being when you understand the complexity ofexistence.Question: What is the goal of our life?Krishnamurti: What is the significance of life? What is thepurpose of life?Why do you ask such a question? You ask this question when,in you, there is chaos, and about you there is confusion,uncertainty. Being uncertain, you want something to be certain.You want a certain purpose in life, a definite goal, because, inyourself, you are uncertain. You are miserable, confused; you donot know what to do. Out of that confusion, out of that misery, outof that struggle, out of those fears, you say `What is the purpose oflife?' You want a permanent something that you can struggle after,and the very struggle for a goal creates its own clarity; and thatclarity, that certainty, is another form of confusion.What is important is not what is the goal of life, but tounderstand the confusion in which one is, the misery, the tears andother things of life. We do not understand the confusion but wantto get rid of it. The real thing is here, not there. A man who isconcerned with the understanding of all this confusion does not askwhat is the purpose of life. He is concerned with the clearing up ofthe confusion, clearing up of the sorrow in which he is caught.When that is cleared, he does not ask a question like this.You do not ask `What is the purpose of sunshine'?, `What is thepurpose of beauty'?, `What is the purpose of living'? It is onlywhen life becomes a misery, a constant battle, and when you wantto escape from that misery, from that battle, you say `Tell me whatis the aim of life?' Then, you go after various people, migrate fromone teacher to another, finding out what is the purpose of life. Theywill tell you, though they are equally foolish. You can only choosea guru like yourself, who is equally confused; and from him youget what you want.If you can understand the confusion, the struggle, the misery,the deep longings that you have, then in that very understanding,you will find something about which you do not have to askanother.Question: Why do we cry?Krishnamurti: You know there are tears of joy and tears of pain.The tears of joy are very rare. When you love some one, tearscome to your eyes. But that is a very rare thing. It does not happento us, because we do not love. As we grow older, we become moreand more serious. We know at least the seriousness of frustration,the seriousness of hopeless misery in life the depths of which havenot been seen, enjoyed, known. Most of us have tears - the littlegirl and the old person. We know what those tears mean - the tearsof pain, of losing something, of losing a person, of not havingsuccess, of not being happily married. We know all those things.But to understand and go beyond all that, to go beyond everythought, requires a great deal of thought, a great deal of insight.Question: How can we deal with the unconscious?Krishnamurti: This question has been put, not by a grown-upperson but by a child. The child does not know anything about theunconscious. All that he is concerned with is to play a game, tolearn a subject, to be hungry, to bully people around him, to havefear and so on.You are a child and you cannot watch much while you areyoung. But, even if you watch a little, you will find that there arevarious things going on under the superficial ripples of your mind.Have you ever watched the river? You know there is anastonishing life going on below the river, in the deeper depths. AFrenchman went down to a depth of two hundred and thirty feetunder water and found astonishing life, fishes that you have neverseen, colours that are utterly unimaginable, darkness that isincredible, silence that is impenetrable. But we know only thesurface of the river, the tiny ripples that ruffle the water, we knowonly the currents on the surface of the river. But if we go deeper -there are artificial ways of going deep down - then you can see thenumber of fishes, the variety of life, the strange happenings belowthe water.In the same way, to see below the surface of the mind to knowthe ripples in it and all its activities, you must be capable of goingdeep down into the mind. It is important to know that the mind isnot just the little layer of superficial activity, that you are not juststudying to pass examinations, and that you are not merely tofollow some tradition in the matter of your putting on clothes,doing Puja or something else. To go below the superficialactivities, you must have a mind that can understand how to godeep.I think that is one of the functions of education, not to be merelysatisfied with the surface whether it is beautiful or ugly, but to beable to go deep like the diver with his diving dress, so that in thedepths you can freely breathe, so that you can find out all theintricacies of life, of the depths, the limitations, the fluctuations,the varieties of thought - because in oneself, one is all that - andthen go beyond all that, transcend all that.You cannot go very deep, if you do not know the surface ofyour mind. To know the surface, one has to watch; the mind has towatch the way it dresses puts on clothes, puts on a sacred thread,does puja, and understand why. Then, you can go deep. But to godeep, you must have a very simple mind. That is why a mind that isheld in conclusions, in condemnation, in comparison, can never gobeyond its own superficial activities.Question: How should we observe things?Krishnamurti: What matters is not how you should observe, buthow you actually observe.You do not know how you should observe. Many people willtell you how you should, and just to accept it would be silly. But,you have to find out how you look at things. Have you ever noticedhow you look at things? How do you look at a tree? Do you look atit fully, or do you immediately give the tree a name, look at itcasually, and wander away? When you give it a name, your mindhas already wandered away. If you look at a parrot, do you observethe red beak, the claws, the curious ways it flies? You watch; asyou watch, you observe and learn to see. The moment you say thatbird is `this', your mind has already been distracted fromobservation.We never look at anything freely, completely because we do notobserve it without comparing; we say `That bird is not as beautifulas the other bird', `That tree is not as tall or as magnificent as theother tree; we also give it a name. The process of comparison isgoing on all the time. Only that mind really looks, that can lookwithout this process. That is how a thing has to be observed. Whenyou hear it said that you should look without comparison, withoutnaming, then you will try to struggle to look that way. But, do nottry to look that way. Just see how you look, how you compare, howyou judge, how you see a beautiful object. Just watch how yourmind is always wandering, never fully looking. To look, the mindmust be quiet, not wander, not be distracted.January 19, 1954BANARAS, INDIA 20TH JANUARY 1954 13THTALK TO STUDENTS AT RAJGHAT SCHOOLOne of the greatest difficulties that we have is to find out whatmakes for mediocrity. You know what that word means? Amediocre mind really means a mind that is impaired, that is notfree, that is caught in fear, in a problem; a mind that merelyrevolves round its own self-interest, round its own success andfailure about its own immediate solutions and the sorrows thatinevitably come to a petty mind. It is one of the most difficultthings, is it not?, for a mind that is mediocre to break away from itsown habits of thought from its own pattern of action, and be free tolive, to be able to move about, to act. You will see most of ourminds are very small, are very petty. Look at your own minds andyou will see what it is occupied with - such small things as yourpassing an examination, what people will think of you, how youare afraid of somebody and your own success. You want a job; andwhen you have that job, you want to have a better job and so on. Iyou search your minds, you will find it is all the time occupiedwith this kind of small, trivial self-interested activities. Being thusoccupied, it creates problems, does it not? It tries to solve itsproblems according to its own pettiness and, not doing that, itincreases its own problems. It seems to me that the function ofeducation is to break down this way of thinking.The mediocre mind, the mind that is caught in one of the narrowstreets of Benaras and lives there, may read; it may passexaminations; it may be socially very active; but it still lives in thenarrow little street of its own making. I think it is very importantfor all of us, the old and the young to see that the mind being sosmall, whatever effort it makes, whatever struggles it may gothrough, whatever hopes or fears or longings it may have, they arestill small, they are still petty. It is very difficult for most of us torealize that the Gurus, the Masters, the societies, the religionswhich the petty mind forms, are still petty. It is very difficult tobreak this pattern of thinking.Is it not very important while we are young, to have teachers,educators, who are not mediocre? Because, if the educators aredull, weary, are thinking of little things and are caught in their ownpettiness, naturally, they cannot help to bring about an atmospherein which the student can be free and break through the patternwhich society has imposed upon people.I think it is very important to be able to know that one ismediocre, because most of us do not admit we are mediocre, we allthink that we have something extraordinary lurking behind,somewhere. But we have to know that we are mediocre, to realizethat mediocrity still creates pettiness, and not to act against it. Anyaction against mediocrity is the action born of mediocrity; to breakdown mediocrity is still petty, trivial. You see, don't youunderstand all this? Unfortunately, I speak only in English, but Iwish your teachers could help you to understand this. In explainingthis to you, their own triviality will break down. The mereexplanation will awaken them to their own pettiness, smallness.That is why a small mind cannot love, is not generous, quarrelsover trivial things. What is needed in India and elsewhere in theworld is not clever people not people with degrees or big positions,but people like you and me who have broken down the triviality oftheir mind. Triviality is essentially the thought of oneself. That iswhat makes the mind trivial, the constant occupation about its ownsuccess, about one's own ideals, about one's own desires to becomeperfect; that is what makes the mind petty because `the me', theself, however much it may expand, is still very small. So, the mindthat is occupied is a petty mind; the mind that is constantlythinking about something, worried about its own examination,worried as to whether it will get a job, what the father and motheror teachers or gurus or neighbours or society thinks, is a pettymind. The occupation with these ideas makes for respectability,and the respectable mind, the mediocre mind, is not a happy mind.Please listen to all this.You know you all want to be respectable, don't you?, to be wellthought of by somebody - by your father or by your neighbour orby your society - to do the right thing, and this creates fear; such amind can never think of anything new. What is needed in thisdeteriorated world, is a mind that is creative, not inventing, notwith capacity. But that creativeness comes when there is no fear,when the mind is not occupied with its own problems. All thisrequires an atmosphere in which the student is really free, free notto do whatever he likes but free to question, to investigate, to findout, to reason and to go beyond the reason. The student requires afreedom in which he can find out what he really loves to do in lifeso that he is not forced to do a particular thing which he loathes,which he does not like.You know that a mediocre mind never revolts; it submits togovernment, to parental authority; it puts up with anything. I amafraid in a country like this, where there is overpopulation, wherelivelihood is very very difficult, the pressures of these make usobey, make us submit, and gradually the spirit of revolt, the spiritof discontent is destroyed. A school of this kind should educate astudent to have that tremendous discontent right through life, nottruly to be satisfied. The discontent begins to find out, becomesreally intelligent, if it does not find a channel of satisfaction, ofgratification.So education is a very complex thing, it is not just goingthrough some classes and passing examinations and getting a job.Education is a life process, a constant uncovering of the wholesignificance of life. We are not prepared for it. That is why theeducator must be educated in order to educate the children. You gothrough these examinations, get jobs and then what happens toyou? You get married, you have children, you are worried, youhave little money and you are swallowed up in this whole mass ofthe average mind. That is what happens to you. All of us who havepassed the gates of any University, we just disappear; we do notrevolt and create a new society, a new way of thinking, we do notbreak down the old pattern. Instead of doing that, we just becomethe average mediocre mind. I think really the function of the schoolat Rajghat is to break down this mediocrity, so that you can be adifferent person when you leave here, a creative human being whowill create a new world. You see, that requires on the part of theteachers, on the part of the elders, on the part of the parents, a greatdeal of understanding, a great deal of affection. So, if a school ofthis kind cannot do that, it has no business to exist. It is veryimportant that all of us - the student, the teacher, the parents, everyone of us that comes here - should understand this and createconditions where the petty mind, the small mediocre mind, istransformed so that it can live and be in that creative spirit withoutfear, with great affection and understanding.Question: Why do we, boys and girls feel shy of each other?Krishnamurti: Why do you feel shy? Have you ever seen twosparrows, male and female sparrows, two birds on the window sill,chatter away? They are different, are they not? The male has ablack chest and the female has not. One is very shy; the other isvery aggressive, it attacks. Have you not noticed it? Obviously aboy and a girl are different, physically. Girls have a different bodyfrom the boys', their nerves are different. Perhaps a girl is moresensitive, shy, and the boy is not. A boy is more rough physically;a girl is differently constructed physically from the boy. There is awhole problem behind that, the problem of sex, which is nature'sway of creating babies. Nobody tells us of all these things and allthe implications. We are allowed to grow wild in this thing, beingignorant of all this; and that is why we feel shy.Also the Indian society keeps the male, the female and the littlechildren apart. The old people have great many ideas of what isright and what is wrong - that the woman must be kept in thehouse, the woman is inferior, something to be looked down upon,something to be used, made into a cook and to have children.Naturally, you grow in fear, in apprehension, in nervousness,anxiety, so that you are not a human being at all, but just a dull,hard working woman, that is all. You have no amusement, you donot paint, you do not think, you pass some examinations; they donot mean a thing to you. You become an ordinary woman like therest and the boy too exactly the same.Our education generally is the most destructive way of dealingwith human beings. We are not treated like human beings, tounderstand life, to love life, to see the enormous beauty, therichness of existence, to know of death, to know the living thing oflife. We are not shown all that. All that we are told is `do' and`don't'. Brutally or aggressively you are beaten, scolded, bullied;and naturally when you grow or when you are young, you are shy.So, the whole problem is never understood because behind it thereis fear. Is it not the function of the educator to explain, show allthese, so that you as a student understand the difficulties, thesubtleties? You can understand the difficulties, the subtleties theimmense problems involved in all these things only when there isno fear.Question: Is it right that fame comes after death?Krishnamurti: Do you think that the villager who dies will havefame after he dies?Question: A great man, after he dies, becomes famous and ishonoured.Krishnamurti: What is a great man? Find out the truth of thatquestion. Is he one who seeks fame? Is he one who would givehimself tremendous importance? Is he one who identifies himselfwith a country and becomes the leader? I he does this, he has famewile he is living. That is all what we want; we all want the samething, we all want to be great people. You want to lead theprocession, you want to be the governor, you want to be the greatideal, the great person who is going to reform India. Since youwant that, since all the people want that, you will lead the proces-sion. But is that greatness? Does greatness consist in beingpublicised, in having your name appear in the papers, havingauthority over people, making people obey because you have astrong will or personality or crook in the mind. Surely, greatness issomething totally different.Greatness is anonymity, to be anonymous is the greatest thing.The great cathedral, the great things of life, great sculpture, mustbe anonymous. They do not belong to any particular person, liketruth. Truth does not belong to you or to me, it is totally impersonaland anonymous; if you say you have got truth, then you say youhave got truth, then you are not anonymous, you are far moreimportant than truth. But an anonymous person may never be great.Probably he will never be great, because he does not want to begreat, great in the sense of the world or even inwardly because heis nobody. He has no followers. He has no shrine, he does not puffhimself up. But most of us unfortunately want to puff ourselves up,we want to be great, we want to be known, we want to havesuccess. Success leads to fame, but that is an empty thing, is it not?It is like ashes. Every politician is known and it is his business tobe known and therefore he is not great. Greatness is to beunknown, inwardly and outwardly to be as nothing; and thatrequires great penetration, great understanding, great affection.Question: If we respect any one, there is fear. Then, why do werespect?Krishnamurti: It is fairly simple. If you respect out of fear, youwant something from that person. Don't you? Therefore you do notrespect him at all. All that you want is to get something out of him.So, you bow down very low, touch his feet and put a garland roundhis neck. That is not respect, respect is something entirelydifferent. To respect another requires affection not fear. When yourespect somebody from whom you are hoping to get something,then you must despise people who are below you, you must havecontempt for others. So, a man who has contempt for another cannever be free from fear. Can he?Is it not possible to have respect, to have affection in oneselfwhich naturally expresses itself in respect to every person,irrespective of whether one gets something or not? You watch theway you treat the cooley, the labourer, the servant of your hostel,and the way you treat your housemaster or the principal or amember of the Foundation - the scale going up and up - and youwill see the manner of your behaviour. You do not get up when thecooley comes in, but when your teacher comes in you jump up; andthe teacher demands that you jump up because he thinks that youmust show respect to him. But he does not insist that you shouldtreat the servant equally, with equal words, to talk to him gentlyand kindly as you do to somebody else.Is it not important to know all this while you are young, so thatyou do not become slaves to authority, so that you have realaffection for people, you have respect, which you show to theservant as well as to the man whom you think to be a little moreimportant? But as long as there is fear and no affection, you arebound to have contempt for the one and so-called respect for theother.Question: Why does the elder brother beat the younger sister,and the younger sister the younger brother?Krishnamurti: That is a very good question. You know, haveyou ever watched the chicken? The more powerful pecks theweaker chicken and the weaker chicken pecks the still weakerchicken. You have no chickens here, you do not watch. You do notdo anything though there is life all about you. Please listen. You donot look, you do not observe - neither your teachers nor yourself.That is how life is. Among the animals, the stronger destroys theweaker. That is what we do in human society. The strong manpushes out his chest and beats everybody and the weaker one getsangry with the still weaker. You ask why we do this. For the verysimple reason that we want to do it. If we are beaten by a big man,we want to take it out of the little man.You know the desire to hurt is very strong in us. We want tohurt people. There is a pleasure in hurting people, in telling, insaying cruel things about people, ugly things, inferior things. Wenever speak to people with kindliness. We never speak to people oftheir goodness but always talk with a sneer. So, that has to beunderstood, not why the elder sister beats the younger sister and soon. The elder sister is probably beaten by the father or mother.Therefore she has to take it out of somebody. So, she beats theyounger and the younger takes it out of the little ones.To understand cruelty is very difficult and to understandanimosity and not to create animosity is very difficult for mostpeople. We never think of all these things. In our schools we arenever pointed out these acts of cruelty, because the teacher doesnot see them for himself. He has his problems, he has to getthrough the class and push the students through someexaminations. Please watch all the things that are taking placeabout you, how the chicken fight each other, how the strongbulldog dominates everything else. You will find that the samespirit of domination, anger, hatred and animosity is in each one ofus. To dispel this, we have only to be aware of it and not toconsider it as wrong or right.Question: What is freedom?Krishnamurti: I wonder if she really wants to know whatfreedom is! Does any of us know what is freedom? All that weknow is we are made to do things, we are compelled bycircumstances or through our own fears to do things and we wantto break away from them. The breaking away from restraint, fromcompulsion, from fear, or something else is what we call freedom.Please listen.The breaking away from restraint, the breaking away from ahindrance, the breaking away from some form of compulsion is notfreedom. Freedom is something in itself, not away from something.Understand this, please. The prisoner put in a prison for somecause wants to break away, and be free. He only thinks in terms ofbreaking away; If I am angry, I feel that if I can only break awayfrom anger, I will be free. If I am envious, the overcoming of theenvy is not `freedom; the breaking away, the overcoming, thesuppressing is merely another kind of expressing the same thing;that is not freedom. Freedom is in itself, not away from anything.The love of something for itself is freedom. There is freedom whenyou paint because you love to paint, not because it gives you fameor gives you a position. In the school, when you love to paint, thatvery love is freedom and that means an astonishing understandingof all the ways of the mind. Also, it is very simple to do somethingfor itself and not for what it brings you either as a punishment or asa reward. Just to love the thing for itself is the beginning offreedom.Do you spend ten minutes of your class period, talking of allthis? Or do you plunge immediately into Geography, Mathematicsand English and all the rest of it? What happens? Why don't you dothis for ten minutes every day instead of wasting your time onsome stupid stuff which does not really interest you but which hasto be done. Why don't you spend some time with the teacher in theclass, and talk about these matters? This will help you in your lifethough it might not help you to become great or successful, orfamous. If you talk over every day for ten minutes, about thesematters, intelligently, fearlessly, then it will help you all throughlife, because it will make you think and not merely repeat thingslike parrots. So, please ask your teachers to talk to you about thesematters. Then you will find both the educator and yourselfbecoming more intelligent.Question: Can nature get rid of nature's dependence? Ifdependence is equivalent to fear, can we ever get rid of nature'sdependence.Krishnamurti: When we are very young as babies, we aredependent. We depend on the mother for the milk. We aredependent when we are very young, to be protected, to be watched,to be cared for. That is inevitable for every bird, for every animal.All the puppies that are in this place are guarded by the mother.That is a natural thing. But as we grow, if we depend on somebodyfor happiness, for comfort, for guidance, for security, then, out ofthat dependence comes fear. Dependence makes us dull,insensitive, fearful. We do depend on the railway, on the postoffice, but that is not dependence; that is a function in which bothof us are partaking. But the dependence of which I am talking, isinward insight, inward seeking; and it is that dependence thatcreates fear, that clouds our mind, making it dull, heavy,insensitive.We depend because in ourselves we are so empty, in ourselvesthere is nothing, not a seed that is flowering. Because we do notknow anything of all that, it is the function of education, is it not?,to show all the implications of human existence outwardly andinwardly. Our living is not just what appears outwardly; that isvery superficial. We are much deeper; great many things arehidden in us. To understand all that, to unravel and to go beyondthat is the function of education, is it not?January 20, 1954BANARAS, INDIA 21ST JANUARY 1954 14THTALK TO STUDENTS AT RAJGHAT SCHOOLA lovely morning! Did you notice the blue sky? How extremelylimpid it is, clear, very quiet! Did you notice the river thismorning? There was no ruffle on it; and the sun early in themorning, how peaceful it was! You know, that is the kind of thingthat we want - and not only the people who live on the river side -this extraordinary peace. When we have it, we do not know that wehave it. That is the strange part of it. Those fishermen living in thatvillage, they also do not know. They have all that beauty, thatquietness, that sense of being alone with nature; but they are notsatisfied because they are hungry. They have to struggle for life;so, in spite of this extraordinary beauty and quietness, there isconstant battle going on. They want more money, their children areill, their wives, their husbands or grownup mothers are dying andso, in spite of this tranquillity, there is a great deal of disturbance.It is so with most of us too. As we grow older, we want to livealone.When we know we are not concerned with peace, withtranquillity, with beauty, but when we only want to enjoy, to havea good time, to play about, to see things as they are, we dogenerally see children, everything, factually as they are. But as wegrow older, we want so many things, we want to be happy, wewant to have virtue, we want to have good position, we wantchildren, we compete with each other for a better job, to haveposition where there is more power and so on. But underneath all,we want to be left alone, we do not want to be disturbed, we wantour thoughts to run in easy grooves; and so, we set up habits ofeasy thought, easy existence, have a comfortable job and therestagnate. So, most of us, as we grow older, want to be left alone,we do not want to be disturbed; and this state of non-disturbance iswhat we call peace. For most of us, that is peace - having a clearsky. But in this clarity there are great many things going on, a greatdisturbance in the atmosphere, which we do not see. What we seeis very superficial, is just on the surface. The kind of tranquillitywe want, is a superficial calm, an easy existence; and that we callpeace. But peace is not so easy to go by. We can only understandpeace when we understand the great disturbance, the discontent inwhich each one of us is caught, when the mind is free from easythought easy grooves of pattern of action, when we are reallydisturbed - which we all avoid.We do not want to be disturbed, we want things to remain asthey are. If you are in a comfortable position, if you own a goodhouse or car, you do not want to be disturbed. You want to letthings remain. But here is disturbance going on all the time aroundyou and in you, social disturbance; and so, you become areactionary, a conservative, you want to let things remain, you areconstantly avoiding any form of change and going back to the goodold days when things were as they were. While we are young, weare disturbed, we question, we are curious, we want to know. Aswe grow older, we want not to be disturbed, we want to find outthe answers. Our religion is a solace to us, it gives us peace, givesus tranquillity, gives us a sensation of `we shall be better off nextlife,' we accept things as they are. So, when we talk about peace, itis a state, for most of us, in which there is no disturbance of anykind. We imagine, we think upon, we meditate on that peace as astate in which there is no kind of disturbance, no kind ofrevolution, no kind of deep radical change. So, our minds becomevery dull, lethargic, also dead; what we call peace is dead.But I think there is another kind of peace; and that is much moredifficult to understand, a peace which is not a reaction, a peacewhich is not an opposite of conflict. Do you understand what I amtalking about? That is the peace where there is no conflict, it issomething which is not conflict. I am happy or unhappy; and whenI am unhappy, I want to be happy. So, we only know theseopposites, these dual processes. I was happy yesterday and I amunhappy today; and I would like to get back to that happinesstomorrow. So, we keep these opposites going on, working,struggling and when we have a thing which we call happiness asopposed to unhappiness, we want to remain in that state. Theremaining in that state is what we call a constant security, peace,happiness. That is all we know and we are always asking `How amI to get back to that state in which I was happy, in which I wassecure?' Because, in that primary state, I am not disturbed, I am notafraid. I won't fear that. But, I think, that is not peace. Peace is notsomething which is an opposite to conflict. It is not the outcome ofstruggle, of pain, of suffering of unhappiness. If it is, then it is nopeace; it is just the opposite reaction to `what is.' This is a bitdifficult. Please ask your teachers if they understand it. I hope theydo, because it is very important to understand this. Peace is likefreedom. Freedom is the love of a thing for itself, it is not theopposite of slavery. The love of something is not for what it willbring you - position, prestige, money, fame, notoriety or what youwill. But, it is something in itself without a reward, without beingafraid of punishment or failure or success. So, is this thing calledpeace. Peace is not the opposite of conflict, disturbance, revolution.To understand peace which is not the opposite, we mustunderstand the conflicts of the mind. Being disturbed, the mindcreates peace, it wants peace, it wants to be left alone, not to bedisturbed. So, it creates a haven, a belief, a refuge which it callspeace. But that is not peace; it is only a reaction, a movement awayfrom this to that. But life does not leave you. Life is very disturbed,life being the poor people, the rich people, the camel that sufferswith so much weight on its back, the politician, the revolution, thewar, the quarrels, the bitterness, the unhappiness, the joy and thedark shadows of life. There is also death in it. The whole of thatlife is very disturbed. Since it is very disturbed and we do notunderstand it, we want to run away to something which we callpeace; we sit on the banks of the river, close the eyes and think onsomething which we call peace. That is merely an escape, areaction, an opposite to the state of disturbance. But, if we canunderstand all these disturbances - the living, the joy, theunhappiness, the struggles, the jealousies, the envies - if you canunderstand all that, not run away from it, just look at `what is',without condemning, just understand `what is', then out of that,there will be peace which is not an opposite. In that peace, there isgreat depth, a totally different activity which is creativeness, whichis God, which is truth. But one cannot come to it or understand it,if one does not understand the disturbances. In understanding thesedisturbances, these discontents, these constant enquiries andperplexities, anxieties, the mind becomes very clear. Peace is notsomething beyond the mind, but it comes when I understand thedifficulties. To understand the difficulties, I must not condemn thedifficulties, I must not compare one difficulty with anotherdifficulty. I must not say `Ah! you suffer much more!' Or `I sufferless.' Suffering is suffering - you do not suffer more and I less or Imore and you less. If we know suffering without comparison, weshall try to understand it. Out of that understanding, the mindbecomes very simple, very clear, very innocent; and it is thisinnocence that is peace. The mind that has been throughexperience, understands the experience and does not stir it, isinnocent and it knows peace.It is rather complex for a young student to understand all this,but you should know all about this, because you will be going outof this place into a world where there is frightful competition,where everyone is out for himself, for the country, for the people,for the god. If we do not understand this process, we will be caughtin it, we will be driven by society, by circumstances. It is veryimportant while we are young to be so educated, or to educateourselves so clearly, so simply, that we can understand the battle oflife. But the difficulty is that we spend our days in things that donot really matter. Have you noticed how you spend your day as astudent? Mostly in the class room, a few hours of play, go to bedexhausted, wake up and then begin again; never spend a day, anhour or even ten minutes a day, talking about these things that doreally matter. Neither the educator nor those who are beingeducated spend any of their time going into these matters, findingout the truth of them and knowing how to improve life. That is farmore important than passing an examination. Thousands andmillions pass examinations all over the world, but they do notmature. Life is a process of learning all the time, understandingcontinuously. There is no end to understanding you cannot say `Ihave finished my examination, I will throw away my books, I amready for life.' But this is what we generally do. We never pick upthe book again after we pass examinations.If I can read rightly, then the books have much to tell. But thereis something far deeper than books; that is ourselves. In ourselves,if we know how to read the thing that we are, in it there isimmeasurable richness. Then you do not have to read a singlebook. It is all there. But it requires much greater capacity thanreading a book; and in reading the thing that you are, none of youare helped and so, you never spend time every day in coming to itand understanding it; you are bored with it. You are tired when thereal things are mentioned. Most of us do not want to be disturbed;outwardly, we have jobs, we have occupations, we are teachers andso on; we carry on; and the beauty of life passes by.Question: How can we progress in this world?Krishnamurti: Does progress in this world consist mainly ofbecoming successful, of being somebody in the ladder of success,socially? Why do we progress in this world? Why do we becometaller, bigger, why do we become more clever, more learned, whydo we become more powerful or less powerful? More money,bigger house means, to us progress; that is why we all want more.We all want to keep on climbing, don't we?, not only in this worldbut spiritually, inwardly. You see, you are not paying attention towhat I am saying; I have answered this question many times - notthat I am not answering it again. We have to see the truth of thisthing, that this so-called progress, outward or inward, does notbring tranquillity and peace but only leads to wars, to destruction,to greater misery. We do not understand ourselves, the ways of ourexistence; and so we are enamoured of this progress - the progressof the aeroplane, the very latest car, the astonishing things theinventors are producing. But these things have their own uses; butunless we change ourselves, we use these things in a manner whichcauses destruction and misery.Question: In every meeting, you tell us to have a discussionwith the teachers at least for ten minutes in the morning; but manyof our teachers do not come to the meetings. So, what are we to doin order to have a discussion?Krishnamurti: If most of them do not come to the meetings, askthe others who come. When you attend the class, you must have ateacher there. Why don't you ask him? Why don't you say `Please,before we start our classes, let us talk about what was said at themorning meeting.' But, I think the question is a little more difficult.Because, the teachers, when you ask them to discuss with youbefore the classes begin, get rather annoyed, don't they? They donot want to be questioned about these matters, because they do notquite understand. They do not want to feel that they do notunderstand. They are teachers, you know, they are great people andyou are only the students. So, they want to keep you in your place.You, being impudent, want to catch them out. So it works bothways. Does it not?I think it is important for the teacher as well as for the student tolisten to these talks and to discuss with the students. It does notmatter if the teacher does not understand. He must understand thisthing, what I am talking about, is life, this is not just a fancy, abelief, a religion, a sect. This is life and if the teachers do notunderstand it, then naturally, they cannot help the students tounderstand. If the students want to discuss with them, why shouldthey get angry or annoyed or disturbed? If they also begin to think,they also will see the problems, then they will find a way of talkingabout them. But you see, unfortunately, most of our teachers arenot interested in all this. They have their problems, they have theirjobs, they are well-established and they want you to leave themalone. The young mind, the mind of the student, wants to know, tofind out, to enquire, to disturb the teacher. That is why, sirs, you,the older people, should pay attention to what ever I am talkingbecause, in your hands, the new generation can come into being. Ifyou are not interested in all these things, you are going to producea generation as cursed as yours. You are really producing a curseon the land, if you will educate your children according to yourown pattern, and the pattern of the older generation is nothing to beproud of. It is really important that the older people, the teachers,should question all these. After all, Rajghat is primarily a place forthis kind of education.Question: What is self-confidence and how does it come intobeing in man?Krishnamurti: Sir, you dig a hole in the garden, manure it, waterit and then put a plant in it and you see it grow. You say, you feel,that you can do something at least, can't you? So, you dig anotherhole, plant another tree and that gives you a sense that you can dothings, that gives you a confidence, as when you pass anexamination, one after the other. Does not that make you feel thatyou have confidence, the capacity to plant, to drive a car. to write abook, to be very clever, to pass examinations? The capacity to doanything gives you a sense of confidence, does it not? When youwrite a poem easily, often you say `By Jove! I can do it veryeasily.' It gives you a sense of confidence. But, what happens? Thatconfidence becomes a way of self-importance, `I can do things.'So, when you use the capacity, you begin to have self-importance.That is, if I am able to speak well on a platform, which may be mysole capacity, I use the platform for my importance, as a means ofexpanding myself. I may be able to dance some silly dance and thatgives me enormous importance, because I show myself off and, outof that, I have self-importance. So, I use capacity as a means ofgiving strength to my inward subtle forms of selfishness.What is important is not the cultivation of the self, but to havethe capacity to do things without the strengthening of the self. Youunderstand? When you write a poem, when you plant a tree, do notsay `I have written a poem, I have planted a tree.' It requires a greatdeal of intelligence to see that and to stop using capacity -whatever capacity, however little it may be - for self-expansion, formaking oneself important. Question: As a boy grows, he becomescurious about sex; should it be, or not be? Why is it so?Krishnamurti: It is a natural thing. Are you not curious abouthow trees grow? Have you not seen that the cows have calves?Everything is a curious thing - how a plant grows, how a little plantgrowing, becoming a tree, fructifies and produces fruits; is that notastonishing? Please listen carefully. We do not use this interest tofind out in every direction. You understand? You would neverenquire why a tree grows, why a bird flies. You would never seethe beauty of the bird and the shades of the tree. You never dig inthe garden and you never plant a tree, a bush; you never smell aflower; you never read with enjoyment, you never create anythingout of your hands. Because you are not interested in all these thingscreatively, you become interested in one thing which you call sex;but, if you are interested in all these things, then that also is a partof your life, that also is a natural thing. That is a way of producingbabies, there is nothing wrong about it; but, that should not becomeour occupation, our mind is not to be completely concentrated onthat, as most of our minds are.When we are young, if we have not taken interest in theflowers, in the rivers, in the fish, in creating something with ourhands, then that thing, sex, becomes more important. If we can becreatively interested in everything - that is after all, education - inpainting, in music, to play an instrument, to write a poem, to playgames, to eat right food, to put on the right clothes, to see the skyof an evening and early morning, see the beauty of the trees, ourmind taking in all that, creatively enjoying, seeing the beauty of allthis, then this thing is not an ugly problem. But because we havenot been encouraged to look at all those things creatively, this thingsex, becomes a nightmare. Those of you who are the elder people,please do listen. After all, that is education, to help the students toplant trees, see that they do plant trees and care for them, leavethem to make things with their hands, to milk the cow, to go forwalks - not always everlasting games - to look at the trees, thebirds, the skies, to widen the mind creatively, extensively; that iseducation, not the passing some stupid and silly examinations.Question: When we see girls, we try to show ourselves off, whyis it?Krishnamurti: I have answered that question. We wantprotection. We are attracted to what we call the opposite sex, theopposite person, the girl. That is a normal thing. Do listen, that is anormal thing, not to be ashamed of, not to be condemned. Whenyou see a tree, are you not attracted by the tree? When you see thatlovely bird, that king fisher, blue and marvellous in the light, areyou not delighted by it? Perhaps you are not, because you neverlook. Last night, there was thunder, lightning, rain. You neverlooked, did you? You never felt the rain on your face. Did you?You see everybody running for shelter, how the roads are washedclean and how the leaves are brighter. This is also an attraction.Unfortunately, we, girls or boys, are insensitive to everything inlife except to one thing, and that becomes an enormous problemafterwards in our life, a problem with which we struggle. You haveto be sensitive to everything about us, to those poor bullocks thatare drawing the heavy carts day after day, how thin they are andhow tired the drivers are, the poor villagers, the disease, the emptystomachs. To be aware of all these things is part of education. Ifyou are sensitive to all these, then you will not want to show off.Beauty is something that only sensitive minds and heart canfind. But mere attraction, mere sensation, though it may bepleasurable at the beginning, does not completely satisfy one. So,there is pain in it. But if the mind can look at all the things of life,all the depths and heights and qualities of it, if the mind can besensitive to them, then the attraction of boy and girl has its rightplace; but without the other, this becomes a very small petty affair.Question: How can we create the feeling of necessity of manualwork?Krishnamurti: How can we feel that manual work is important?Sir, when you have to do things yourself, the question does notarise. The question arises when somebody else can sweep the floorinstead of you. When you have your own physical work to do, dayafter day, you do not put that question. The villager digging,plowing, he does not say `How can I make manual labourimportant'? He has to do it. But we are so glad, we have not got todo manual labour. We, the upper middle class, have withdrawnfrom all manual labour because we have a little money, and wehave the tradition of centuries that the educated men, the Brahmins,the upper class persons, have nothing to do with the squalid affairof doing manual labour. If you go to America, if you have livedthere, you have to do everything, wash the floors, do the laundry,cook, wash dishes, because there are no servants. There, only thevery very rich can afford servants. They are not called servants,they are called helpers and they are treated like human beings. Buthere, in this country, you have overpopulation. Thousands are therefor one job. If you have a little money, you employ somebody todo the dirty job and you gradually withdraw from doing anythingwith your hands. If you see that and if you see the importance to dosomething with your hands, then out of that you will naturally doit. The mentality of the so-called educated people, whether they areclerks or they become ministers, is the same - mediocre, petty,small.Those people who refuse to touch the earth, the flower, do notknow what they miss. If you really went into the garden, dug andplanted, saw things grow, if you milked a cow, looked afterchickens, something happens to you, there is an astonishingrichness in it. Those who have no touch with the earth, miss a greatdeal. You try and have a garden of your own, you plant a tree ofyour own, do it, organize it; then you will see what will happen toyou inwardly. It gives you a sense of release, beauty, the love ofthe earth, of the little worms inside the earth. But, unfortunately,we do not know that feeling; nor do we know the feeling of sittingstill and looking on something actually. We know none of theseinward richness and, not knowing, we acquire superficial, transientriches.Question: What is the sun?Krishnamurti: Did you ask your teacher? The sun is, accordingto scientists, a ball of fire, a light and it gives you heat, light,strength, everything. You won't ask your teachers about it.Question: How can one be satisfied with what one is?Krishnamurti: The thing is very simple if you listen to what Iam saying. You listen carefully. Dis- satisfaction comes when thereis comparison. When you see somebody else having more and youhaving less, and you compare yourself with that somebody, thendissatisfaction comes; but if you do not compare, then there is noproblem. But not to compare requires a great deal of interest andunderstanding, because all our education, all our training is basedon comparison - `That boy is not so good as you', `you are not soclever as that boy' and so on. Then, you struggle and this boystruggles like you. So we keep this game of constant comparisonand struggle. But if you love the thing which you are doing, you doit because you love it and not because somebody else is doing itbetter than you or you are doing it better than somebody else.When you have no comparison of any kind, then the thing that youare doing, that itself, begins to produce its own depths, its ownheights.Question: Why can't we see the sun?Krishnamurti: Because it is too bright. You cannot look atelectric lamp, if it is a powerful lamp. The eyes are to sensitive.January 21, 1954BANARAS, INDIA 22ND JANUARY 1954 15THTALK TO STUDENTS AT RAJGHAT SCHOOLYou know, one of the strange things of life is what we call religion.You may have wealth, success; you may be very famous, wellknown; or you may have failures, sorrows, great many frustrations;at the end of it all, there is death that awaits all of us. Whether welive to be 100 or 10 or whatever it is, there is always death. Seeingall these, seeing our own littleness and the sorrows of ours, we, youand I, want to find something beyond ourselves. Because, after all,one gets very soon tired - tired of oneself, of one's success, of one'svanities, of the things that one does, the family, the money,position. When persons get tired of these things, they feel they aredeceived. Then, in order to forget themselves, they try to identifythemselves with something greater. That is, they like to think thatthere is something greater and so they say `Perhaps, if I could thinkabout that, live in that, meditate upon that, have an image, apicture, an idol of that, then I could forget myself in that.'When man tries to go beyond himself, beyond his struggles,beyond his sorrows, beyond all the things that perish round him,beyond all the things that live and die, he begins to search, toinvent, to speculate. Actually, he does not really search, he doesnot really want to find out; but he hopes there is something whichhe calls god and clings to the belief in that which his mind hascreated, thus trying to escape from all these troubles. So, he beginsto speculate, he begins to have theories of what God is, and hewrites books. The more clever, the more cunning, the more subtleyou are, the more ideas you have about God and you will buildgreat many philosophies round it, systems of thought; and fromthat grows the thought `You must have beliefs in order to attainthat reality, you must do certain practices, you must give up theworld, you must do this and you must not do that in order to getthere, in order to forget the troubles, the sorrows and the death thatawaits all of us.' So, we have a religion which demands that weshall believe. Society also demands likewise because that is whateach one of us wants - to believe in something much greater thanourselves, because we ourselves are very small.All our conflicts, all our ambitions, are very small, very petty.So, we also want to identify ourselves, call ourselves something - ifit is not God, it is the State, the State being the whole of India orthe whole world, the government, the people who rule, the society;if it is not that, it is an utopia, a something very far away, amarvellous society that we are going to build. In the building of it,you destroy many people, and it does not matter to youfundamentally if you are going to build that marvellous society. Ifyou do not believe in any of these, you believe in having a goodtime - cars, refrigerators - thus to forget yourself in the materialthings. This one is called materialistic and the man who forgetshimself in the spiritual world is called spiritual. But both of themhave the same intention behind them, one to forget oneself incinemas and the other in books, in rituals, in sitting on the banks ofthe river and meditating, in renunciation not to have any burden, tolose oneself in some kind of action, to lose oneself in the worshipof something.So, there is the desire to lose oneself because oneself is verysmall. The self may not be small to you when you are young. But,as you grow older, you will see how little substance there is in it,how little value it has; it is like the shadow with few qualities, fullof struggles, pains, sorrows and that is all. So, one gets soon boredwith it and pursues something in order to forget oneself. That, iswhat all of us are doing. The rich, they too want to forget; onlythey forget themselves in night clubs, in amusements, in cars, intravelling. The clever ones also want to forget themselves; they areso clever that they begin to invent, to have extraordinary beliefs.The stupid ones also want to forget themselves; and so, they followpeople, they have gurus who are going to tell them what to do. Theambitious ones also want to forget themselves in doing something.So, all of us, as we mature as we grow older physically, want toforget ourselves. There is the desire to forget oneself and so wewill find something in which we can live, in which or throughwhich we can think, with which to identify, to receive somethinggreater.When we want to forget ourselves through something, through aState, through a God, through a belief, through a guru, throughaction, then it creates illusions, it creates a false thing. When Iforget myself through an idea, then the idea becomes important,because I am forgetting myself through an idea. The ideal being aninvention of the mind, it can also create illusions. So, I multiplyillusions. These illusions, superstitions, beliefs are what we callreligion, and so many books have been written about it, not how todispel illusion but how to arrange illusion in order how tosympathise, how to philosophise that. But that is not religion,surely. Religion is not beliefs and dogmas, rituals and puja, puttingon sacred threads, muttering some words, however old or howeverancient they are. All those methods are a way of escaping fromyourself through some kind of illusion. The escape which we callreligion is not religion. Religion is something totally different, andthe mystery of it is to find that which is not the invention of themind.So, we have to find out what is real religion - the true religionwhich is not merely an invention of the mind; it does not matterwhether it is the invention of Shankara or of anybody else as allsuch invention is still just a theory. Religion is something which isa state of being, which each one of us must find. That state of beingcannot be understood, it may not come into being if we do notknow how the mind creates illusions in its various subtle desires.As I said the other day, the mind is not just a superficial activity.Ganga is not just what we see on the top. Ganga is the whole riverfrom the beginning to the end, from where it starts till it goes to thesea and you will be foolish to think that Ganga is just the water onthe top. Similarly, we are very very complex entities and theinventions and the ideas, the theories, the superstitions, the rituals,the repetitions, the mantrams, those are just on the top. We have togo through and push all that aside, all of it, not just one or twoideas, not one or two beliefs or rituals that we do not like. That isvery arduous, very difficult because most of us are afraid - afraidof what society, friends, parents say. But if one wants really to findout what is reality, God, one must go beyond all that, push all thataside. You can only push it aside if you understand and so gobeyond.So religion is something which is entirely different from that inwhich we have been brought up. But, you see, very few of us arefree from fear, and it is fear that prevents the discovery of what isGod. Also, when we have fear, we become very insensitive. Afterall, when we look at a tree or a beautiful cloud or a beggar or awoman in tears or when we see something beautiful, the love ofthat thing, the love for itself, is the beginning of real religion. But,we do not live that way, we live in order to get something. I lovemy country because it is my country; this love of my country is avery subtle form of loving myself. But if you can love a tree, ananimal, a human being - not for what it will give you but just tolove it, without asking a thing in return - that is the beginning ofreligion. You can know that love only when there is no fear. Whenthe mind is no longer afraid, then the mind can go beyond its ownimaginations, its own projections, its own ideas.So, religion is something which is not an invention of the mind.It is a state of being in which the mind is not inventing as it doesnow because it functions in fear, in desire, in success, in ambition,in various forms of activities. Only when the mind has understoodthe whole working of itself, then there is a possibility of the mindbeing quiet, being very still. That stillness is not the peace of death;that stillness is very active, very alert, very watchful, intensive,passive. Then alone, one can find out; then alone that which wecall God, truth, or whatever name you like, comes into being. But,one cannot come to it. One has to understand the trees, the love ofthe trees, the love of the beautiful; one has to understand sorrow,joy and all the struggles of human existence; and then one can gobeyond all that when the mind is really a cessation of the self, `theme', it is only then that which we all worship, that which we are allseeking or trying to find out, comes into being.Question: What is emotion? Is it good or bad since humanbeings have it?Krishnamurti: Don't you know what emotions are? Whensomebody punches you, you cry; when somebody dies, you cry.When you see something beautiful, you laugh. It is a form ofsensation, it is not right or wrong.You see, sirs and ladies, we always like to think in terms ofgood or bad - `this is right,' `this is wrong', `this is bad', `this isgood' - and we think we have solved the whole problem ofexistence by giving it a name as good or bad. We want to suppressemotion in order not to feel, because emotion creates pain; or wesay it is bad. But if it was a pleasurable emotion, we do not want tosuppress it, we want to run with it, want to have more and moreand more of it.So, emotion is a thing to be understood, to be watched over, tobe cared for, so that you will understand it, so that you will not sayit is good or bad. You know the instinct or rather the conditioningof the mind; it makes us call anything good or bad, as though youhave really understood the little child if you call him good or bad,or call him naughty. If you want to understand the child, you studyhim, you watch him when he is playing when he is crying, when heis sleeping; you do not condemn him. But, you see, condemningsomething or somebody or some quality is so easy. You say `that isbad' and there it ends; but, to understand the thing requires a greatdeal of care, patience, attention; that means watchfulness.Question: What is a giant? Why are we afraid of it?Krishnamurti: You know, fairy tales are good to read, becausethey contain a lot of things very instructive. As there is always areward, a boon, you ask for something; but, after asking you arealways punished. You know, there is a fairy, a good angel or thegood judge or the good something from whom you ask something,in all fairy stories. It gives you, but there is always a snag behind.Similarly in fairy tales, there is a giant.Question: When we are on the stage and acting, why is it thatwe cannot act freely?Krishnamurti: Do you act freely and easily all the time? Doyou? When you are with older people, with people who arecriticizing you, with people who are watching, do you act freely?No. We are shy, are we not? We put on airs. We become self-conscious. What happens? On the stage, you are confronted with alot of people and you are shy. But, acting is all right when you areyoung and when you play with all this. But most of us, as we growolder, begin to act; we are posing; we think we are somebody andwe must live up to that part; and we are always putting on a mask.Have you not noticed it? You think you are a great saint, a greatidealist, and you put on that mask which is a pose. That is reallyone of our great misfortunes - which is, we are always taught tobecome something. The becoming something is posing, pretending.But if you do not become anything, if you are really simple as youare, there is no posing, there is no pretending, you are just whatyou are; and from there, you can go really far. Have I answeredyour question?Question: Why do the birds fly away when they see us?Krishnamurti: Why do you run away, when you see a big cowor when you meet a stranger? It is the same thing.Question: What is conflict and how does it arise in our mind?Krishnamurti: You want to be the captain of a Cricket team. Butthere is somebody else better than you. You do not like that. So,you have a conflict. Have you not? You want to get something andyou cannot; and so, there is conflict. If you can get what you want,then the difficulty is to keep it; so, you struggle again or you wantmore of it. So, there is always a conflict going on, because you arealways wanting something. If you are a clerk, you want to becomea manager; if you have a cycle, you want a motor car and so on andon. If you are miserable, you want to be happy. So, what you wantis not important, but what you are is important. The understandingof what you are, going into it, seeing all the implications of whatyou are - that frees you from conflict.Question: What is interest?Krishnamurti: When you have a toy, you are very interested inthe working of that toy, are you not? Your whole mind is there,you do not think about any thing else. When you are interested insomething, in a toy, in a play, in a dance, in an idea, you arecompletely absorbed in that. That is interest.Most of us have very little interest in life; as we grow older, weare not interested in anything really. So, we have trouble to preventthe mind from wandering away. So, we learn discipline, control,concentration. In a school of this kind, what we should find out -each one of us, including the teachers and the students - is what weare interested in, the thing which we love; and that creates noconflict in life afterwards. That is our vocation, that is what wewant to do. If you are an artist and your parents and society wantyou to become a clerk, then you are forced to become a clerk andall the rest of your life you are struggling, struggling. Really, youhave never been able to do what you want to do.Education is a way of helping each student to find out what hewants, which is quite a difficult thing, because we want so manythings at different times. Education of the right kind can help youto find out amongst all the various interests what really gives youinterest, that which you love, that which is one of the requisites,one of the necessities of life.Question: Why do we fear death?Krishnamurti: You have asked that question `Why do we feardeath,' and do you know what death is? You see the green leaf; ithas lived all the summer, danced in the wind, absorbed the sunlight; the rains have washed it clean; and the winter comes, itwithers and dies. The bird on the wing is a beautiful thing and ittoo withers and dies. You see human bodies being carried to theriver, to be burnt. So, you know what death is. Why are you afraidof it? Because, you are living like the leaf, like the bird - a diseaseor something else happens to you, and you are finished. So, yousay `I want to live, I want to enjoy, I want to have this thing calledlife to go on in me.' So, the fear of death is the fear of coming to anend, is it not?, your not playing cricket, not enjoying the sun light,not seeing the river again, not putting on your old clothes, notreading books, not meeting your friends constantly; all that comesto an end. So, you are frightened of death.Being frightened of death, knowing that death is inevitable, wethink of how to go beyond death, we have various theories. But, ifwe know how to end, there is no fear; if we know how to die eachday, then there is no fear. You understand this? It is a little bit outof the line, we do not know how to die because we are alwaysgathering, gathering, gathering. We always think in terms oftomorrow - `I am this and I will be that.' We are never complete ina day, we do not live as though there is only one day to be lived.You understand what I am talking about? We are always living inthe tomorrow or in the yesterday. If somebody told you that youare going to die at the end of the day, what would you do? Wouldyou not live richly for that day? We do not live the rich fulness of aday. We do not worship the day; we are always thinking of whatwe will be tomorrow - the cricket game that we are going to finishtomorrow, the examination that we are going to finish in sixmonths, what we are going to do tomorrow, how we are going toenjoy our food, what kind of clothes we are going to buy and so on- always tomorrow or yesterday; and so, we are never living, weare always really dying in the wrong sense.If we live one day and finish with it and begin again another dayas if it were something new, fresh, then there is no fear of death.To die, each day, to all the things that we have acquired, to allknowledge, to all the memories, to all the struggles, not to carrythem over to the next day - in that there is beauty even though thereis an ending, there is a renewal.Question: When we see new things, why do we like havingthem?Krishnamurti: New clothes, new toys, new bicycles, newpictures, new books, new pencils - you see something new and youwant it. It is the same thing with the young and with the old. We allwant to possess, we all want to acquire, and the shops are full ofthings we want to possess. We are never content with what wehave or what we are. If I am stupid, I want to become clever. Theman who is becoming clever is really a stupid person please thinkabout it and you will see how true it is; because, a stupid personcan never become clever, he will always remain stupid; but, if heunderstands, if he is aware that he is stupid, then that veryawareness of his stupidity is the beginning of intelligence. But, wenever think in those ways. You say `I am stupid, or I am told I amstupid. I must become clever like my brother or like that boy overthere!' So, you get to acquire, to possess. But if you see you arestupid, if you know you are stupid, then you can begin; then thatvery awareness that you are stupid, does something.If I know I am blind, then I know what to do. I will walk verycarefully, I will have a stick, move very quietly, very gently. But ifI do not know I am blind, I will go all over the place. We do notacknowledge that we are stupid. I may be a little stupid, but I amtrying to become very clever. Wisdom lies in understanding `whatis.'Question: What is love?Krishnamurti: You have listened to me for three weeks. I havetalked every morning, for five days a week, and then you ask mewhat is love? I have talked to you of love in different ways, oftruth, of the mind, of the fears. You ask what is love? It is very sad,is it not?, because you do not know how careless you are when youask that question. What matters is not what love is but not to knowyour own state, what you are. Do you mean to say that by askinganother, a man knows what love is? The man who says `I want toknow what love is' in order to have it, will never have loved. If youknow that you have no love, then love will come to you. But toknow it, you must know what you are, you must not try to becomesomething which you are not.Do think about all these things. Do not spend your days merelystudying, reading some books, playing games, but think about allthese things. We are trying to arrange for some of the teachers totalk to you every day, to have an assembly at which all the teacherstalk from time to time about all these matters. You may be boredwith the teachers and with what they say. What they say may havesome importance or no importance. But you have to listen to findout, have you not? If what they say is true or false or absurd orsilly, you have to listen to find out; and to listen, you have to payattention. So, do not accept anything they say. Find out.To be critical is very important, because it is the only way youwill find out. You merely accept or listen with a bored air, becauseyou are tired; if you are bored, you can never find out. If you payattention to everything that the teacher tells you, what everybodytells you including myself - not to accept, but to understand, to findout - then, that sharpens your mind and quickens your heart. Then,when you have finished with the school, when you go to thecollege, you have a mind which can deal with the complexities oflife.Question: How can we shake off national and provincialfeelings?Krishnamurti: First understand if you have got them, how youhave created them. It is no good saying `I must put them off.' Whyhave you got them? Because your parents, your society, yourneighbours, your teachers, your newspapers, your books, have allset up nationalism, provincialism, for various complicated andsubtle reasons - to control you, to shape you, to make you do thingsthey think you ought to do. A general will say nationalism isimportant, because then he can use you, through nationalism, tofight, to kill. There are various reasons why you have thesefeelings of nationalism, of provincialism; and also, you like them.You like to say `I am a Hindu, I am a Brahmin, I belong to thislittle part of India.' And the parties, the priests, the clever ones, useyou to get what they want.If you understand it, then there will be no problem, it will dropaway; then, you will laugh at the whole thing. If you do notunderstand, it will be very difficult to put away this stupidnationalism and provincialism.Question: Why is there danger?Krishnamurti: Is there no danger when you go near theprecipice? Is there no danger of getting drowned when you do notknow how to swim? Is there no danger when you meet a snake?Are you listening?Danger means fear of something, is it not? It is a natural thingto be aware of danger, that is a habit, protection, natural physicalresistance. Otherwise, if you have no sense of danger, you mightkill yourself any moment when a car dashes by; if you are notaware of the danger that it might destroy you, then you will bekilled.So, this kind of awareness of danger is a form of self-protection,a response which is natural; but what is abnormal is when we wantto protect ourselves inwardly; then, all the mischief, all the misery,begins.Question: Are you happy or not?Krishnamurti: The boy asks `Are you happy or not? I neverthought about it. I never thought `Am I or not?'Happiness is not something of which you are conscious, youcannot ask yourself `Am I happy?' The moment you ask thatquestion, you are unhappy. Happiness is something that comes, notbecause you are seeking it but because you are doing somethingwhich really interests you. You are doing something because youlove it; in the very doing of it, there is something which is calledhappiness; but, if you are conscious that you are happy, it isalready gone. The moment you say `I am happy', is not happinessalready gone?You understand what I am talking about? Please ask yourteachers to explain all these things; and if they do not understandand they do not explain it you search it out, do not accept anything.Do not be browbeaten, do not be bullied by the older people. Findout, enquire, search and never be satisfied; then, you will find outwhat it is to be happy.January 22, 1954BANARAS, INDIA 10TH JANUARY 1954 1STTALK AT BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITYI think it is very important to find out for ourselves what thefunction of education is. There have been so many statements, somany books, so many philosophies and systems that have beeninvented or thought of by so many people, as to what the purposeof education is, what we live for. Apparently, every system so farhas failed, including the very latest, because they have produced inthe world neither peace among human beings nor deep culturaladvance - the cultivation of the mind and the full development ofthe mind. Is it necessary to have this system?It seems to me it is very important for each one of us to find outwhat the function of education is, specially in an University, whywe are educated and at what level is our education. Obviously,when you look round the world, you find education has failedbecause it has not stopped wars, it has not brought peace to theworld nor has it brought about any kind of human understanding.On the contrary, our problems have been increased, there are moredevastating wars, and greater misery. So, is it not important foreach of us to find out what the whole intention of being educatedis? Great authorities tell us what education is or what it is not orwhat it should be; but such authorities, like all specialists, do notgive the true meaning of education. They have a particular point ofview and, therefore, it is not a total point of view. Therefore, itseems to me, it is very important to put aside all authority ofspecialists, of educationists, and to find out for ourselves what themeaning of education is, why we are educated and at what levelthis education is to take place. Is education to take place at thetechnological level - that is, to have a job, to pass through variousexaminations in order to have a job - or is education a total process,not merely at the bread and butter level and the organization levelof that kind?Is it not important for each one of us to find out what thiseducation implies, the total education of man? If we can find out,not as a group of people but as individuals, what this educationimplies, what the principles of this total education of man are, wecan create a different world. We see that so far, no form ofrevolution has produced peace in the world - even the communistrevolution has not brought about great benefit to man - nor has anyorganized religion brought peace to man. Organized religions maygive an illusory peace to the mind, but real peace between man andman has not been produced. So, is it not very important for eachone of us to find out how to improve this state of affairs?We may pass examinations, we may have various kinds of jobs;but in an overpopulated country like India where there are so manylinguistic and religious divisions, there is always a threatening ofwars, there is no security, everything about us is disintegrating. Inorder to solve this problem, is it not important to enquire - notsuperficially, not argumentatively, not by putting one nationagainst another or one idea against another - and to find out, foreach one of us, the truth of the matter? Surely, truth is entirelydifferent from information, from knowledge. Neither battles northe latest atomic destructive weapons, nor the totalitarian systemsof thought, either political or religious, have solved anything. Sowe, you and I, cannot rely on any system or any opinion, but reallytry to find out what the whole purpose of being educated is. Afterall, that is what we are concerned with.Does education cease when you pass an examination and have ajob? Is it not a continual process at all the different levels andprocesses of our consciousness, of our being, throughout life? Thatrequires not mere assertion of information, but real understanding.Every religion, every school teacher, every political system, tells uswhat to do, what to think, what to hope for. But is it not now veryimportant that each one of us should think out these problems forourselves and be a light to ourselves. That is the real need of thepresent time - how to be a light to ourselves, how to be free fromall the authoritative, hierarchical attitude to life, so that each one ofus is a light to oneself. To be that, it is very important to find outhow to be, how to let that light come into being.So, is it not the function of education to help man to bring abouta total revolution? Most of us are concerned with partialrevolution, economic or social. But the revolution of which I antalking is a total revolution of man, at all the levels of hisconsciousness, of his life, of his being. But, that requires a greatdeal of understanding. It is not the result of any theory or anysystem of thought. On the contrary, no system of thought canproduce a revolution; it can only produce a particular effect whichis not a revolution. But the revolution which is essential at thepresent time, can only come into being when there is a totalapprehension of the process in which man's mind works - notaccording to any particular religion or any particular philosophylike Marxian or any system like the capitalist system - theunderstanding of ourselves as a total process. It seems to me, that isthe only revolution that can bring about lasting peace.Surely, such a thing implies, does it not?, the unconditioning ofthe mind, because we are all conditioned by the climate, by theculture, by the religion, by the political or economic system, by thesociety in which we live. Our minds are shaped from the verybeginning till we die; and so, we meet the problems of life either asa Hindu or as a Christian or as a communist or something else. Lifeis full of complications, it is all the time moving. Yet the way ofour living is made by a conditioned mind and the conditioned mindtranslates the problems of life according to its own limitations. So,is it not important, if we would solve this problem, to find out howto uncondition the mind so that the meeting of the problembecomes much more important than. the mere solution of theproblems?Most of us seek an answer to a problem. But, what is moreimportant is how to meet the problem. If I know how to meet aproblem, then I may not seek an answer. It is because I do notknow how to meet the problem - the economic, the social, thereligious, the sexual - that we are confronted with, my mindimmediately seeks an answer, a way of how to resolve it. But if Iknow, if I am capable of meeting the problem, then I do not seekan answer. I shall meet and resolve it, or I shall know what to dowith it. But as long as I do not know or have the capacity to findout, I go to another, to a guru, to a system, to a philosophy. All thegurus, all the teachers of philosophy, have completely failedbecause they make us into automatons, they tell us what to do. Inthe very process of following them in what we do, we have createdmore problems.So, is it not very important to find out how to think - but notwhat to do - and how to free the mind from all conditioning? Aconditioned mind will translate the problems, will give significanceto the problems, according to its conditioning, and the problems,when met with a limited mind, only are increased. It is thereforeimportant to enquire if it is at all possible to free the mind from itsown self-created limitations so as to be able to meet thecomplications, problems of living? I think the real issue is notwhether you are a communist or a socialist or what not, but to beable to meet the very very complex problems of living, totallyanew, with a new mind, with a mind that is not burdened, a mindthat has no conclusions with which it meets the problems.Is it possible to have a new mind, a fresh mind, a clear mind, amind which is not polluted, so as to meet this very living problemof existence? I say it is possible. Most of us think that it isimpossible to free the mind of conditioning. We only think that themind can be conditioned better, in a better pattern, in a bettermould of action; but, we have never asked ourselves if the mindcan totally uncondition itself. I do not know if you have everthought about it, because most of us are thinking of how toimprove, how to modify, how to change - the change, themodification and the improvement being a better condition, a bettersocial relationship, a modified capitalism, a change in our attitude.But we never ask ourselves if it is possible for the mind to betotally free from all conditioning, so that it can meet life - lifebeing not only an earning of livelihood, but the problem of war andpeace, the problem of reality, of God, of death. Can all this, thewhole process, be understood by a mind which is totallyunconditioned? Or is not the function of education, from the verybeginning till we pass out of the University, to help us tounderstand the conditioning influences and to know how toimprove them, so that we shall be human beings in total revolutionall the time?It is very important to find out how the mind works. After all,education is to understand how the mind works, and not merely topass some examinations which will give us a job. It is the workingof the mind that is creating the mischief; that is what is producingwars. Though we have scientific knowledge sufficient to help manto live sanely with health and with all the things that he needs, suchliving is almost impossible because the mind of man, which isconditioned as a Christian, as a Hindu, as an Indian, as a Pakistani,as a communist, as a socialist, as the believer and the non-believer,is preventing it. So, is it not important for each of us to understandthe mind, not according to Sankara or Buddha or Marx, butaccording to ourselves, to see how our mind works? If we canunderstand, that will be the greatest revolution and, from there, anew series of action can take place.So, how is one to understand the mind? What does that word`understanding' mean? Is it merely the verbal understanding, is itmerely superficial or is it the understanding that comes when,through the process of the activities of the mind, there isawareness, knowledge, there is no judgment, there is nocomparison, but an observation in which there is the cessation ofthe movement of the mind? You understand?There is this problem of problems, the problem of war. There isthe problem of hate, the problem of love and if there is reality, ifthere is God. How is one to understand these problems? One canonly understand them if we can approach them with a free, quietmind - not a mind that has a conclusion, not a mind that says `Iknow how to deal with the problem', but a mind that is capable ofsuspending all judgment, all com- parison. You see, the difficultyis, is it not?, our minds have been trained to function along acertain line. We know there is the conscious and the unconsciousmind, and most of our activity is at the conscious level; we do notknow the unconscious process of our mind. We have to earn alivelihood, or we do puja, or we imitate - all with the superficialmind. Is it not very important to understand the unconscious mind,because that is the directive? To understand the unconscious mindrequires that the conscious mind shall be still; and this is onlypossible when through self-knowledge, through understanding themind in relationship in daily life, I discover the process of mymind, being aware of the words I use, my habits, the way I talk, thecustoms, the rituals, those which I can see only in relationship withanother.So, to understand the mind, I have to discover the total processof myself. It is that discovery in relationship with another - whichis, after all, society - that brings about a total revolution in me; andit is that revolution that can meet these constant conflicts of life,these troublesome and extraordinary conflicts of existence.Perhaps, some of you would like to ask questions. There are noanswers. There is only the problem, and if we are looking for ananswer, we shall never understand the problem. If my mind isconcerned with the solution of the problem, then I am notinvestigating the problem, I am only concerned how to find out,how to resolve it.You ask a question hoping I would give an answer. To me,there is only the problem, no answer. I will show you why. If I canunderstand the problem, I do not have to seek an answer. But theunderstanding of the problem requires an astonishing intelligencewhich is denied when I am concerned with an answer. If I canmeet, for example, the problem of death, if I can understand thewhole implication of it, the problem ceases to exist; but I canunderstand it when there is no fear.A gentleman asks how far I agree with Sankara who says`Eliminate the mind completely'. Not having read Sankara, I cannotanswer. But I think it is very important to find out for ourselves,and not repeat Sankara or Buddha. Sirs, the difficulty with most ofus is that we have read, we know what other people have said, butwe do not know at all what we ourselves think. Truth is notsomething given to you through a book, through a teacher; youmust find it out for yourself. Truth is not the ultimate truth but thesimple truth of living, the truth of how to solve this economicproblem which cannot be solved by merely having a revolution onthat level.So, it is very important to find out for ourselves how to think.You cannot think if your mind is burdened with authority, withother beliefs. The truth of the Buddha or of the Christ or of Sankarais not your truth. Truth does not belong to any of us. It must befound. It can only be found when I understand the total process ofmy mind. For, the mind is the result of time and as long as I amthinking in time, I cannot find truth. So, if you compare what I saywith what Sankara or Buddha has said, you will never find thetruth of the matter. But you will find the truth of the matter if youcan pursue your own mind in operation; that alone is the liberatingfactor, not an economic revolution or a social revolution.Question: Is there such a thing as an absolute truth, timeless,measureless and permanent.Krishnamurti: Is not truth something that is to be found frommoment to moment - not a thing which is continuous, absolute,permanent? Those very words, `absolute', `permanent',`continuous', imply time and that which is of time cannot be true.That which is true is only from moment to moment and it cannotbe continuous. What is continuous is memory. And memory canproject anything any kind of illusion. But to find what is true, mindmust be free from the process of time, from memory, from theexperiencer and the experienced. To find out what is truth, themind must be from moment to moment without continuity.Question: In your talk just now, you said that truth is beyondknowledge. Is knowledge of an unconditioned mind truth orfalsehood?Krishnamurti: I do not understand the question.One of our difficulties is, we want to go into abstractionsimmediately. We want to know what truth is, we want to knowwhat God is; but we do not know how to live withoutacquisitiveness. Instead of understanding that, we want to discusswhat truth is; but a man who is acquisitive can never find out whattruth is. But if I can begin to understand the whole process ofacquisition, the demand for the more, the experience for the more,then perhaps, I shall understand what reality is.Question: To think for oneself is to think like others. Is it so?Krishnamurti: Is that not life? Is our thinking now so verydifferent from others'? To think for oneself now is to think likeanybody else, because we are all patterned after one type oranother of belief or disbelief; so, we do not think individually,creatively; we all think alike. You think like a communist, if youare a communist; if you are a Hindu, you think like a Hindu. Tothink freely, you have to be aware of thinking alike, to understandall the implications of thinking alike, why you think alike, why youare conditioned. Obviously to think freely, completely,revolutionarily means great danger, is it not? You might lose yourjob.So, to think freely is to be unconditioned. But we are allconditioned in our own peculiar limited ways. So, If I know I amconditioned as a Hindu and if I free myself from that conditioning,then only is it possible for me to be entirely revolutionary, to be notlike this or like that. But first I must know that I am conditioned,which very few of us are willing to admit. To know one isconditioned and to set about freeing the mind from thatconditioning requires a great deal of insight, persistence, constantwatchfulness, a watchfulness in which there is no judgment, nocomparison. Then you will find the mind becomes very quiet, verystill. Then only is it possible for the mind to know what truth is,what freedom is.Question: Man lives in poverty and fear. The gods of such asociety are bread and security. What else can earnest men offer?Krishnamurti: To bring about a revolution in which bread andsecurity are given to all, is that revolution? Is revolution merely atthe economic level? You understand?We see there is poverty, hunger, every kind of economicmisery. Earnest men want to see the necessity for change now. Atwhat level is this change to be brought about? On the economiclevel only? Or is it necessary to have a total revolution in man'sthinking? If such a total revolution is possible - I say it is possible -that is the only way of solving our problems.There can be real revolution only when you understand the totalprocess of your being - which is, your thinking, the ways of yourliving - and cease to be a Hindu or a Christian when you are a totalhuman being. Then only will the economic problem be solved, andnot otherwise.Question: What is personality? How can it be built?Krishnamurti: You talk about personality as though it weresomething like building a house. The very desire of building apersonality brings about self-enclosure. We are talking ofsomething totally different from building a personality - coat, tieand trousers and clever talk, all that. We are talking of somethingentirely different, not of self-improvement, but of the cessation ofthe self - the self as a Hindu, the self as a professor, the self as apolitical or religious leader, the self that says `I must save thecountry', the self that says `I know the voice of God'. It is that selfthat must totally cease in order the world can live.Question: Agreeing that the mind is to be unconditioned, how isone to achieve it?Krishnamurti: If you agree that the mind must beunconditioned, how are you to achieve an unconditioned mind?I think most of us see the importance of the mind which is notconditioned. But actually most of us feel that the mind can be madebetter, with a better state of conditioning. That is one of the greatfallacies. The problem is not how your mind and my mind are to beunconditioned, but how the conditioning of the mind takes place.The conditioning of the mind takes place through education,does it not?, through tradition, through family, through society,through religion, through belief. But, behind tradition, belief,experience, there is a desire; there is a mind that is constantlyacquiring, possessing, dominating desire; it is that that conditions.Then, you will say `How am I to stop desire?' You cannot. But, ifyou understand the process of desire, then there is a possibility ofdesire coming to an end.Sirs, these problems are much too complex, to be discussedcasually. You see again what is happening. We want to deal withabstractions. We do not see the importance of living from momentto moment, without authority, without fear, without the desire tofind out that one is acting rightly.To find for oneself from moment to moment the way of living -the way you treat your servants, the way you talk to your superiors,the way you think and feel - it is there that the truth lies, notsomewhere behind the Himalayas. But you see, we are notinterested in all that. We are interested in discussing Sankara andother deep philosophies; that is an escape. But if I know theworkings of my mind, the ways of my heart, then there is apossibility of bringing about a total revolution, and it is thatrevolution that can bring peace and security to the world.January 10, 1954BANARAS, INDIA 17TH JANUARY 1954 2NDTALK AT BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITYIt seems to me that, without understanding the way our mindswork, one cannot understand and resolve the very complexproblems of living. This understanding cannot come through bookknowledge. The mind is in itself quite a complex problem. In thevery process of understanding one's own mind, the crisis whicheach one of us faces in life can somewhat be understood and gonebeyond.I do not know if you have heard it said that the culturalinfluence of the west is destroying the so-called culture of the east.We accept one part of the western culture - science and militarismand nationalism - and yet retain our own so-called culture. Thoughwe have taken off a part of the western culture, a section or a layerof it, this is gradually destroying, poisoning the other layers of ourbeing. This can be seen when we look at the incongruity of ourmodern existence in India. I think it is very important andindicative how we are talking of India as taking on the westernculture, without totally understanding what we are doing. We arenot adopting entirely the western culture, but retaining our own andmerely adding to it. The addition is the destructive quality, not thetotal adoption of the western culture.Our own minds are being destroyed by the adoption of certainwestern attitudes without understanding their attitude and their wayof life. So there is a mixture of the western and the eastern in ourminds. It seems to me that it is very important to understand theprocess of our own minds if we are not to be poisoned by anoutside culture. Very few of us have really gone into thephilosophies, the systems, the ideas of others, but we have merelyadopted or imitated some of them.We do not know the workings of our own mind - the mind as itis, not as it should be or as we would like it to be. The mind is theonly instrument we have, the instrument with which we think, weact, in which we have our being. If we do not understand that mindin operation as it is functioning in each one of us, any problem thatwe are confronted with will become more complex and moredestructive. So, it seems to me, to understand one's mind is the firstessential function of all education.What is our mind, yours and mine? Not according to Sankara orBuddha or someone else. If you do not follow my description ofthe mind, but actually, while listening to me, observe your ownmind in operation, then perhaps it would be a profitable andworthwhile thing to go into the whole question of thought.What is our mind? It is the result, is it not?, of climate, ofcenturies of tradition, the so-called culture, social, economicinfluences, of the place, the ideas, the dogmas that society imprintson the mind through religion, through so-called knowledge andsuperficial information. Please observe your own minds, and notmerely follow the description that I am giving, because thedescription has very little significance. If we can watch theoperations of our mind, then perhaps we shall be able to deal withthe problems of life as they concern us. The mind is divided intothe conscious and the unconscious. If we do not like to use thesetwo words, we might use the terms, superficial and the hidden, thesuperficial parts of the mind and the deeper layers of the mind. Thewhole of the conscious as well as the unconscious, the superficialas well as the hidden, the total process of our thinking - only partof which we are conscious of, and the rest which is the major partwe are not conscious of - is what we call consciousness. Thisconsciousness is time, is the result of centuries of man's endeavour.We are made to believe in certain ideas from childhood, we areconditioned by dogmas, by beliefs, by theories. Each one of us isconditioned by various influences and, from that conditioning,from those limited and unconscious influences, our thoughts springand take the form of a communist, the Hindu, the Mussulman orthe scientist. Thought obviously springs from the background ofmemory, of tradition, and it is with this background of both theconscious as well as the unconscious, the superficial as well as thedeeper layers of the mind, we meet life. Life is always inmovement, never static. But, our minds are static. Our minds areconditioned, held, tethered to dogma, to belief, to experience, toknowledge. With this tethered mind, with this mind that is soconditioned, so heavily held, we meet the life that is in constantmovement. Life with its many complex and swiftly changingproblems is never still, and it requires a fresh approach every day,every minute. So, when we meet this life, there is a constantstruggle between the mind that is conditioned and static and the lifethat is in constant movement. That is what is happening, is it not?There is not only a conflict between life and the conditionedmind but such a mind meeting life, creates more problems. Weacquire superficial knowledge, new ways of conquering nature,science. But the mind that has acquired knowledge, still remains inthe conditioned state, bound to a particular form of belief.So, our problem is not how to meet life but how can the mindwith all its conditioning, with its dogmas, beliefs, free itself? It isonly the free mind that can meet, not the mind that is tethered toany system, to any belief, to any particular knowledge. So, is it notimportant, if we would not create more problems, if we would putan end to misery, sorrow, to understand the workings of our ownminds? The understanding does not come into being by followinganybody, it does not come through authority, it does not comethrough imitation or through any form of compulsion. But it comesinto being when one is actually aware how one's mind is working.Each one of us can observe our motives, our activities, ourpurposes, understand them and solve this problem of existencewithout creating more misery, more wars, more confusion. Tounderstand the workings of the mind is the most essential thing.After all, relationship is the mirror in which the mind can be seenin operation, the way I talk to the servant, the way I create a bigmind. There, I can observe the operation of my mind and see theextraordinary intricacies of motives - for instance, when I do puja,the innumerable rituals, the absurdities of following somebodywho offers you a heavenly reward. In the process of ourrelationship, we can observe the mind; and if we can observe itwithout any sense of judgment, without any sense of condemnationand comparison, then that observation begins to free the mind fromthe thing to which it is tethered.If you would experiment with this, you would see that yourmind is tethered to a particular dogma, to a particular tradition. Inthat very observation, in that very awareness of the particulardogma or tradition to which the mind is bound - mere awarenesswithout domination, without judgment. without wanting to be free- you will see that the mind begins, without making an effort, tofree itself.Freedom comes without compulsion, without resistance,without struggle. Take, for instance, the superficial example ofyour doing a puja, a ritual as a Hindu or a Mussulman or aChristian whatever you are. You do it out of tradition, there is nothought behind it. Even if you think about it, the very thoughtabout this puja is conditioned because you do it as a Hindu or aChristian. When you think about the Puja or the `mass', yourthought is conditioned either to accept or reject; you cannot thinkabout it afresh, anew, because your whole background or wholetradition, conscious as well as unconscious, the superficial and thedeeper layers, are held in Hinduism or Christianity; and when youdo think about it, there is no clarity but only a reaction whichprovokes another form of complication, another problem.I do not know if you have observed all these in yourself. If youhave observed, how is one to be free from a ritual? I am taking thatas a superficial example without an analytical process. I do notknow if this is too complex or too difficult.When a particular issue is analysed the analysis is stillconditioned, because the thinker is conditioned; his analysis isbound to be conditioned and, therefore, whatever he does, willproduce problems more complex than the problem which he istrying to resolve. After all, in our thinking, there is the thinker andthe thought, the observer and the observed. Now, when you dopuja, the observer, the thinker, is always analysing what is wrong,what is right; but the analyser the observer, the thinker, isconditioned in himself. So, his analysis, his observations, hisexperiences are conditioned, are limited by bias. I think, till we seethis really very important point, mere self-introspection andanalysis - whether psychoanalysis or the analysis whichintellectually and theoretically you perform on yourself - areutterly useless.Is there a thinker, an observer, an analyser, different from theobservation, the analysis? Is there a thinker without the thought? Ifthere is no thinking, there is no thinker. If the thinker were not apart of the mind, part of the consciousness, then that thinker mustbe free from all conditioning, in our analysis and understanding.But if one observes, there is no thinker without thinking. When Iam thinking, I am analysing, I am observing, the I is still the resultof thought which is conditioned. I, as a Hindu or Communist,observe. The thought which produces the I is the result ofcommunist background or the result of a Hindu or Christian belief.So, the thinker is always conditioned as long as there is thought,because thought has produced the thinker, and thought isconditioned, limited by bias.Your thoughts arise. If you want to go into them deeply, thequestion arises whether thought can ever come to an end - which isnot a forgetfulness, but which is really a very deep problem ofmeditation. As long as there is the meditator, meditation is illusion;because, the meditator is the result of thought, the result of a mindthat is conditioned and is shaped by the whole process of livingwith its fears, apprehensions, ambitions, desires, longing forhappiness, longing to be able to live with success, without fear orfavour and so on. All that creates the thinker. We give a quality ofpermanency to the thinker who, we think, is above all passing,transient experience. But the thinker is the result of thought. Thereis no thinker if there is no thinking. So, there is only thought whichis the reaction to a form of experience and that experience is theresult of our condition. So, thought can never resolve ourproblems.Our problem is freedom from the conditioning which produceslimited thought. This is the whole process of meditation, not thestereotyped traditional illusory form of meditation, but themeditation that comes into being when we understand the wholeprocess of our thinking, the whole worries of our complex living,and in which there is no thinker, but only the uncovering of thatand therefore the ending of that; and therefore at the time of suchmeditation the mind is still. This quality of stillness is not justacquired through some stupid determined effort to be quiet.The mind has to understand the whole significance of thethought process and how it creates the thinker, and understand thewhole process about the stillness of the mind. It is in this stillnessof the mind that the problems are resolved, and not multiplied bythe stupidity of the thinker who is conditioned.I think really, you must go into this problem as most seriouspeople must, because the crises are much too many and theproblems that are pressing on us are much too intense.Surely, it is the function of education, not how to meet life buthow to free the mind from all its conditioning, from all itstraditional values, so that the free mind can meet and thereforeresolve the innumerable problems that arise daily. Only then is itpossible to realize what we call God, truth. It is only truth thatresolves the problems.Question: Is it wrong to be full of desires and passions?Krishnamurti: Which is more important, to understand thedesires and passions or to condemn them? The moment you use theword, `wrong' or `right' the implication is condemnation, is it not?If you are really interested, please follow it to the end. You aretrained from childhood to condemn, because the older people doso; they have no time, no interest, and condemnation is the easiestway of resolving any problem.The question is `Is it wrong to have desires and passions?' Thefirst thing to see is that any form of condemnation puts an end toevery thought or thinking, to every form of investigation andenquiry. A mind which functions in `do's' and `don'ts,' is the moststupid mind. Unfortunately, most of us are educated with stupidity;when we can get over that, we can begin to enquire into the wholeproblem of desire, not if it is right or wrong but to understand it.Because, if we understand something, then it is no longer aproblem to us. If I know how to run the motor, the engine, it is noproblem to me; I do not say it is wrong or right, I know how towork it. If I do not know, I do not condemn the motor. The same isthe case with desires. It is no use getting confused or frightenedencouraging or condemning them. If I can understand the workingsof desire, then the desire is no problem. It is only the fearfulattitude towards desire, that creates the problem.Where is this I? What is desire? Please listen without anycondemnation or justification. Desire has to be understood. In thevery understanding of it, desire becomes something else, not athing to be frightened, to be repressed.What is desire? I see a beautiful car, highly polished, new, ofthe latest model, full of power. There is perception, then there iscontact, then sensation and desire. Desire is as simple as that -perception, contact, sensation and desire. Desire is born throughthis process of seeing, touching, sensation and desire. Then withthat desire comes the urge to acquire and the identification process- which is, I desire that car. Then the whole problem arises whetherI should desire or not desire, the desire being conditioned orquestioned by my background. If you are brought up in America,you are psychologically persuaded all the time to possess a car. So,your desire to have a car is not a problem. But if your tendency istowards asceticism, towards renunciation, to turn to God, then theproblem arises. Then there is the desire for various forms ofbeauty, of sensation, for various things for which the mind cravessuch as, comfort, security, a demand for permanency. We all wantpermanency - permanency in relationship, permanency in security,in continuity. Then we think there is a permanent God, there ispermanent truth, and so on. Such an abstraction becomestheoretical, valueless, academic.If you can understand this process of desire, which is verycomplex, very subtle, then there is a possibility of the mind seeingall the significance of desire, all the implications, and goingbeyond it. But we do not understand the significance of all this butmerely say `this is a right desire', `that is a wrong desire' and `thecultivation of right desire is essential'. If we adopt such an attitudetowards desire, then the mind becomes merely an automatic,thoughtless, insensitive mechanism. Therefore, it cannot meet thiswhole complex problem of living.Question: I am afraid of death. What is death and how can Icease to be afraid of it?Krishnamurti: It is very easy to ask a question. There is no `Yes'or `No' answer to life. But our minds demand `Yes' or `No',because our minds have been trained in what to think not how tounderstand, how to see things. When we say `What is death andhow can I not be afraid of it?', we want formulas, we wantdefinitions; but we never know how to think about the problem.Let us see if we can think out the problem together. What isdeath? Ceasing to be, is it not?, coming to an end. We know thatthere is an ending, we see that every day all around us. But I do notwant to die, the I being the process: `I am thinking, I amexperiencing, my knowledge, the things which I have cultivated,the things against which I have resisted, the character, theexperience, the knowledge, the precision and the capacity, thebeauty'. I do not want all that to end, I want to go on, I have not yetfinished it, I do not want to come to an end. Yet, there is an ending;obviously every organization that is functioning must come to anend. But my mind won't accept that. So, I begin to invent a creed, acontinuity; I want to accept this because I have complete theories,complete conditioning - which is: I continue, there is reincarnation.We are not disputing whether that is continuity or not, whetherthere is rebirth or not. That is not the problem. The problem is thateven though you have such beliefs, you are still afraid; because,after all, there is no certainty, there is always uncertainty. There isalways this hankering after an assurance. So, the mind, knowingthe ending, begins to have fear, longs to live as long as possible,seeks for more and more palliatives. The mind also believes incontinuity after death.What is continuity? Does not continuity imply time, not themere chronological time by a watch but time as a psychologicalprocess? I want to live. Because I think it is a continued processwithout any ending, my mind is always adding, gathering to itselfin the hope of continuity. So, the mind thinks in terms of time andif it can have continuity in time, then it is not afraid.What is immortality? The continuity of the me is what we callimmortality - the me at a higher level, the Atma, or whatever youcall it. You hope that the me will continue.The me is still within the field of thought, is it not? You havethought about it. The me, however superior you may think it to be,is the product of thought; and that is conditioned, is born of time.Sirs, do not merely follow the logic of what I say, but see the fullsignificance of it. Really immortality is not of time, and therefore,not of the mind, not a thing born out of my longings, my demands,my fears, my urges.One sees that life has an ending, a sudden ending, what livedyesterday may not live today, and what lives today may not livetomorrow. Life has certainly an ending. It is a fact, but we won'tadmit it. You are different from yesterday. Various things, variouscontacts, reactions, compulsions, resistance, influence, change`what was' or put an end to it. A man who is really creative, musthave an ending, and he accepts it. But we won't accept it, becauseour minds are so accustomed to the process of accumulation. Wesay `I have learnt this today', `I learnt that yesterday'. We thinkonly in terms of time, in terms of continuity. If we do not think interms of continuity, there will be an ending, there will be dying,and we would see things clearly, as simple as they are, directly.We do not admit the fact of ending because our minds seek, incontinuity, security in the family, in property, in our profession, inany job we do. Therefore, we are afraid. It is only a mind that isfree from the acquisitive pursuit of security, free from the desire tocontinue, from the process of continuity, that will know whatimmortality is, but the mind that is seeking personal immortality,the me wanting to continue, will never know, what mortality is;such a mind will never know the significance of fear and death,and go beyond.Question: Thinking does not solve the problem, it is its product.Is this not a piece of thinking or is this different from the thinkingwhich you impugn?Krishnamurti: When one sees the limitations of reason, onegoes beyond reason. But one must know how to think, how toreason. But if you do not know how to reason, how to think, youcan never go beyond it. Most of us do not know what thinking is,we know what to think, which is entirely different. But to know theextraordinary complexity of the mind which cannot be learnt fromanother, to find out for yourself how the mind works, you havereally to observe. What you learn of psychology or philosophy in acollege or in a lecture hall, is not a living thing, that is a dead thing.But if you observe your own thoughts and action in daily living -when you talk to a servant, or to your wife or child, when you reactto beauty - if you see your motives in action, then, out of thatobservation, you will know the various barriers of your mind, howthe mind deceives itself, how the mind twists in the knowing of it,in the way it reasons. Seeing all that, you go beyond all thought,beyond reason, and there is freedom.This is not a thing to be casually interested in or casuallyrepeated. Some of you who have heard me may say, `Poor fellow!.He does not know what he is talking about. How can thinkingcome to an end? If there was no thinking, how could there beprogress of the questions that the mind puts in order to understandthe whole complex problem of thought?'It is very important to find out how we think. Unfortunately,most of our educationists teach you what to think, and you repeat.If you can repeat either in Sanskrit or in English or in any otherlanguage, you think you are marvellously learned. But to find out,to discover, the ways in which your mind works, and to speak ofwhat you have discovered, without repeating what another hassaid, is a tremendous thing; that is the indication of initiative; thatis the beginning of creative living.Unfortunately, in India, we are clerks from the high to the low;we have been trained in what to think. That is why we are neverrevolutionary in the deep creative sense. We are merelygramophone records, playing the same tune. Therefore, there isnever true discovery.Question: What is the significance of life?Krishnamurti: The significance of life is living. Do we live, islife worth living when there is fear, when our whole life is trainedin imitation, in copying? In following authority, is there living?Are you living when you follow somebody, it does not matter if heis the greatest saint or the greatest politician or the greatestscholar?If you observe your own ways, you will see that you do nothingbut follow somebody or another. This process of following is whatwe call `living', and then, at the end of it, you say `What is thesignificance of life?' To you, life has significance now; thesignificance can come only when you put away all this authority. Itis very difficult to put away authority.What is freedom from authority? You can break a law, that isnot the freedom from authority. But there is freedom inunderstanding the whole process, how the mind creates authority,how each one of us is confused and therefore wants to be assuredthat he lives the right kind of life. Because we want to be told whatto do, we are exploited by gurus, spiritual as well as scientific. Wedo not know the significance of life as long as we are copying,imitating, following.How can one know the significance of life when all that one isseeking is success? That is our life; we want success, we want to becompletely secure inwardly and outwardly, we want somebody totell us that we are doing right, that we are following the right pathleading to salvation, to moksha and so on. All our life is followinga tradition, the tradition of yesterday or of thousands of years; andevery experience we make into an authority to help us to achieve aresult. So, we do not know the significance of life. All that weknow is fear - fear of what somebody says, fear of dying, fear ofnot getting what we want, fear of committing wrong, fear of doinggood. Our mind is so confused, caught in theory, that we cannotdescribe what significance life has to us. Life is somethingextraordinary.When the questioner asks `What is the significance of life?', hewants a definition. All that he will know is the definition, merewords, and not the deeper significance, the extraordinary richness,the sensitivity to beauty, the immensity of living.Question: How can peace be established in the world? We andthe whole world are trying to be in peaceful atmosphere; but thedangers of the world war are approaching towards us.Krishnamurti: We want to live in peace. Do you? Don't youcompete with your neighbour? Don't you want a job, as much asyour neighbour? Don't you hate? Don't you call yourself an Indianwith all the patriotic nonsense of conflicts? How can you havepeace when you are doing the opposite thing, the thing which iscontrary to peace? As long as you call yourself a Hindu or aMussulman or a Christian or a communist, you will never havepeace in the world.Peace is in the layman. As long as one is following one party,political or otherwise, opposed to another party, as long as politicsis merely a division of power, obviously you will have no peace inthe world. Politicians are not concerned with people, they areconcerned with power; and as long as the party system exists, theremust be no peace, there cannot be any peace. This does not meanthat there must be only one party. Parties really are not concernedwith people at all; they are concerned with ideas of how to givepeople food, and therefore there is little action in the matter ofactually giving food.So, as long as we are pursuing the path of war, as long as wehave armies, police and lawyers, we will have wars. We are talkingall the time about non-violence, and yet we support armies. On theone hand, we are prepared in ourselves, through our present-dayeducation, to hate one another; and on the other hand, we wantpeace. In ourselves, we are in contradiction, each one of us - thenation, the group, the race. There can be peace in the world onlywhen that contradiction in each one of us is dissolved. What isessential is for each one of us to think out for oneself, to enquire, tosearch out. Repetition of slogans or the carrying of flags are oflittle use.We want to be nationalistic, we want to have our flag. Because,the individual through identifying with the greater gets asatisfaction, gets a sense of security. That is what is being done inIndia, America, Russia and elsewhere. So, we are preparing forcomplete and utter destruction. In schools and universities, oureducation is nothing but the cultivation of this hatred andaggressive acquisitiveness.Peace is surely something which is not a reaction to a particularsystem of society, to a particular-organization, to ideas or action.Peace is something entirely different. It comes into being, surely,when the whole total process of man is understood, which is theunderstanding of myself. This self-knowledge cannot be had froma book, cannot be learnt from another. When there is love in yourheart and when you observe and understand yourself everymoment of your life, truth comes into being; and out of that truthcomes peace.January 17, 1954BANARAS, INDIA 24TH JANUARY 1954 3RDTALK AT BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITYThe problem of knowledge and specialization, it seems to me, isvery important. Let us consider it and see if the mind which istrained in specialization and in knowledge can be free toinvestigate and to discover whether there is nothing more beyondwhat it has known, where knowledge is leading us to, and thesignificance of specialization.There are many avenues of knowledge and more and moreinformation on a vast scale is becoming available to us. Where is itall leading us to? What is the function of knowledge? We seeknowledge is essentially at a certain level, in our conscious andunconscious living, in our existence. Can such knowledge be ahindrance to further investigation of man's realization of the totalsignificance - of existence? For instance, I may know, as anindividual how to build a bridge. Will that knowledge bring about aradical change in my ways of thinking? It may produce asuperficial change or adjustment. But, at this present crisis in theworld, which is necessary a mere superficial adjustment or aradical revolution? It seems to me that the revolution born of anyparticular pattern of action is not revolution at all and that, if weare to bring about a new generation with a new way of thinking, wemust find out what the function of knowledge is. What isknowledge, not the dictionary meaning or a definition? Is it not thecultivation of memory along a particular line? Is it not thedevelopment of the faculty of gathering information to be utilizedtowards a particular end? Without knowledge, obviously, modernexistence is almost impossible. Can knowledge which is thecultivation of memory, the gathering of information and the usingof that information for special purposes - for surgery, for wars, foruncovering scientific new facts and so on - be a hindrance to thetotal understanding of human society?As I said, knowledge may be particularly useful at oneparticular level. But if we do not understand the total process ofhuman existence, will not that knowledge be a hindrance to humanpeace? For example, we have scientific information enough tocreate food for the whole of mankind, to give them shelter. Why isit that, that scientific knowledge is not used? Is that not a problemto most of us? Is not that very knowledge preventing theconsideration of human understanding and peace?What is preventing the stoppage of war, of feeding man,clothing him, giving him shelter? It is surely not knowledge, it issomething entirely different. It is nationalism and vested interestsin various forms - capitalistic or communistic or of a particularreligious group - which are preventing the coming-together of man.Unless there is a radical change in our ways of thinking,knowledge is used, is it not?, for the further destruction of man.What are the universities of learning doing, the academic as well asthe spiritual? Are they producing, bringing about, a fundamentalrevolution in our hearts and minds? It seems to me, that is thefundamental issue and not the constant accumulation of furtherinformation and knowledge.Can a total revolution take place through knowledge which is,after all the continual development of the mind through memory? Imay know about various facts, I may know the distances betweenthe various planets, I may know how to run jet planes; but, will thatknowledge, will that information, bring about a radical change inmy thinking? If it cannot, what will it bring about? Is it not aproblem for most of us? We want peace in this world, we want toput an end to envy which human individuals raise in their searchfor power, we want to put an end to wars. How is this to be done?Will mere accumulation of knowledge put an end to wars, ormust there be a radical revolution in our thinking? Will thinkingproduce that revolution? I do not know if you have considered anyof these points; but, it seems to me, a revolution based according toa particular pattern of thought is not a revolution at all. After all,thinking is the response to a particular condition, response to achallenge according to a particular background. I will respond to achallenge, according to my conditioning, to my background, to mytraining, to my upbringing as a Christian or a Hindu or aMussulman or what I am. How is that background, thatconditioning, that peculiar pattern of action to cease and a new wayof thinking to be born? Is this not a problem to most of us?Because, there cannot be a radical revolution unless the breakingtakes place of all the background, of the pattern of our constantthinking along a particular line.Will knowledge, the accumulation of information about factsbring about the breaking of my conditioning? Yet, this is what weare doing; we are constantly accumulating information, knowledge,we are training our memory. All this is important at one particularlevel. We may know or we may search out information about thewhole consciousness of man, about the psychological process ofuncovering oneself - mostly intellectual, mostly verbal - throughspecialization. But, will that bring about a radical change? It seemsto me that mere information, knowledge, will not bring about aradical change. There must be a totally different factor; and that isthe understanding of the process of consciousness, of the mind thatis constantly accumulating, gathering information.Why are we gathering information knowledge? It is for thepurpose of security which is essential at one level of our being.Some people think that knowledge is a means of discovery. Do wediscover through knowledge? Does not knowledge impedediscovery? How can the mind find this out if the whole mind istrained to merely gather information, knowledge? Must not themind examine this question free from an anchorage, from anybelief, from any knowledge? The mind having information, havingknowledge, must be free of it in order to find out otherwise, itcannot find out.After all, there is a conflict in all of us between the consciousand the unconscious, between the superficial ways of thinking andthe hidden process of motives, desires, anxieties and fears. We aregathering information, knowledge at the superficial level withoutfundamentally altering the deeper levels of our consciousness. Themost important thing at the present crisis is that the revolutionshould take place at the unconscious level and not merely at theconscious level. The revolution at the unconscious level is notpossible if merely the conscious mind is cultivating memory. Is itnot the problem with all of us how to bring about this revolutiondeep in ourselves?After all, the individual is the man; you, from me; and it is theindividual that brings about the radical transformation. Historyshows how a few individuals, different from others in their way ofliving, have wrought a change in society. Unless we individuallytransform ourselves deeply, fundamentally, I do not see anypossibility of having peace, tranquillity, in this world.How is the individual - that is, you and I - to change radically inthe deep unconscious level? Is it brought about by the practice of aparticular ideal, or a particular virtue? Is not the cultivation of aparticular virtue merely the strengthening of that consciousnesswhich is pursuing the accumulative process of memory, thestrengthening of the self, of the ego? Is not the practice of aparticular idea or an ideology still a strengthening of the self, theme, with the inevitable conflict within and without, which is thefundamental cause of wars?Can there be a revolution in `the me' through the action of will?I do not know if you have exercised will in order to bring about achange. You must have noticed that the action of will is still at theconscious level and not at the unconscious level, and merealteration or exercise of will at the conscious level does notproduce a revolution, an alteration, a radical change in our ways ofthinking. So, is it not important to find out, for each one of us, howthe mind works, not according to any particular philosophy butactually observing the ways of our mind in action, the ways of ourlife, so that through the understanding of the superficial mind, itmay be possible to go beneath the surface and understand themind?As I was saying last Sunday, unless we bring about anintegration between the thinker and the thought, mere thinking,reason, philosophy, accumulation of knowledge will be used by thethinker as a means of either self-aggrandizement of the individualor of a group, or propagation of a particular ideology. So, it isimportant for those who are really serious about these matters, tofind out how the total integration of man can take place.Obviously, it cannot be through any form of compulsion orpersuasion, or through disciplinary processes, or through anyaction of will; because, they are all, if one really looks at it, on thesurface level.So our problem then is; how is this total transformation of ourbeing to come about? We have tried through authority, throughcompulsion, through conformity, through imitation. If weunderstand the truth of compulsion, the truth of discipline, the truthof imitation or conformity, the superficial mind becomes free fromthese compulsory imitative processes; and so the superficial mindbecomes quiet. Then, the total, unconscious processes can projectthemselves into the conscious and, in their projection, there is apossibility of uncovering them, understanding them and being free.Whenever there is understanding of any deep facts of life, themind is invariably still, not making an effort to understand. It isonly when the mind is entirely still, that there is a possibility of anunderstanding which brings about a radical revolution in our life.Question: I have to study a boring book. I don't find any interestin it, yet I cannot but study it. How am I to create an interest in it?Krishnamurti: How can you create interest, sir, if you are notinterested in something? How falsely we think about life; Yourparents send you to a University, to a College. They never enquire,nor do the teachers and the professors enquire, about your truevocation, your true interests. Because of political, economic andsocial conditions, you are pushed in a particular groove, you areforced to become a mathematician, when you are really interestedin painting and so, you say `How am I to be interested inmathematics?'In a country where there is overpopulation, innumerableeconomic, social and religious conditioning, it is almost impossibleto break away and do what one really wants to do. But, to find outwhat one wants to do, to discover the capacity of each one, isextremely difficult. That requires a total revolution in oureducational process, does it not? Because most of us here aretrained to be alike, we are not able to do anything for which wehave the capacity or the inclination, and so most of us become lowpaid clerks.Interest in a book is not possible, because you have not foundyour own true vocation. I think it is far more important to livecreatively than to pass examinations, than to have a few degrees. Ithink it is much better to starve, if necessary, doing what one wantsto do than being compelled to do what one loathes. Because, whenone does under compulsion what one loathes, then one destroys themind; life then becomes a rotten, ugly thing, like the life whichmost of us are leading.Question: What is your opinion on concentration, on Sushumnaand the Chakras, and on Om? These are mentioned in booksregarded by us as most authoritative, although perhaps not read byyourself. The Tantras contain an enormous amount of informationon individual mantras, individual Pranayama, yantras, etc, as ameans of realization. All this is practically forgotten in modernIndia but is known to a few Gurus who remain hidden. What isyour esteemed opinion about this?Krishnamurti: Concentration? Fixing the mind, in a particularpuja, on an idea, giving full attention to it?If there is any form of compulsion, any form of effort inconcentration, is that concentration? Is it concentration when thereis any form of exercising will in order to concentrate? In thatprocess of doing the puja on which you concentrate, there is theentity that concentrates, that says `I must concentrate.' So, there is adual process, is there not? Perhaps, this is a little out of the wayand I hope you don't mind my discussing this, my going into thisquestion because, it seems to me, we have a wrong formulation ofwhat is concentration. If I concentrate on reading a book which Ifind boring but through which, I think, I am going to get a result orsuccess, is that concentration? In that, is there not a dual process inoperation, the concentrator and the thing upon which heconcentrates? In this dual process, is there not a conflict betweenthe concentrator and the thing upon which he concentrates? If thereis any form of effort, to push away other forms, to control the mindso that it will concentrate on one particular idea or series of ideas,is that concentration or something entirely different?In the usual concentration which we know, one part of the mindcan concentrates on another part which is an idea, which is asymbol - an image and so on. In that process, various other parts ofthe mind come and interfere and so, there is constant conflict goingon, the straying of the mind as it is called. Is it possible not tocreate this conflict but to be total attentive, to be completely onewith the thing that you are meditating upon and to reallyunderstand?It is important to find out the meditator and to understand themeditator, not the thing upon which it meditates or concentratesbut the meditator himself because this whole question is concernedwith the meditator, not the thing upon which it meditates. If onegoes really deeply into the question, we only know that themeditator is meditating upon something and in his attempt tomeditate there is a constant conflict, constant control, constantbattle going on between the meditator and the thing upon which hemeditates. When there is the understanding of the ways of themeditator not only at the conscious level but also at the deeperlevels of consciousness it is possible to find out the truth. Truthcannot be found when there is the separation and then the controlof the one over the other. It can be found only when the mind isutterly still, not through any form of compulsion, discipline; andthe mind cannot be still as long as there is the meditator as aseparate entity who is always seeking, searching, gathering,denying.Really, this question, being very complicated and subtle, shouldbe discussed very carefully, and not answered or passed off in afew of minutes. There is no answer, but only the problem. Theanswer lies in understanding what the problem is; but most of us,unfortunately, want to find the answer `yes' or `no,' and we listenwith that attitude. But if we can put away that attitude and merelyconcern ourselves with the problem, then, there is realconcentration without any effort. There may be so many methodsof concentration, advocated by others; but they are all bound to beleading nowhere.We have to understand the whole process of the entity whoconcentrates. Meditation is the understanding of the meditator.Only in such meditation is it possible for the mind to go beyonditself and not be caught in the illusion of its own projection.Question: The burning question of our time is war. You suggestedthat war can be avoided if individuals are integrated in themselves.Is this integration of the individual possible? As far as I know,there is no such individual. Even the best institutions like theLeague of Nations and the U.N.O. have been rendered ineffectiveby the egotistic self-interest of individuals or groups.Krishnamurti: The question is: is integration possible?What do we mean by integration? Integration between thevarious processes of our thinking, of our doing, of ourconsciousness; integration between hatred and love, between envyand generosity, between the various cleavages, between the variouscomponents in our total make up - is that what we mean byintegration? Or is integration something entirely different?Now, we think in terms of changing hate into love. Is thatpossible? If I hate, which is important: that I should love, or that Ishould understand what is hatred? Is it not important for me tounderstand the whole process of hate, not the ideal of love? If I amenvious, what is important is not to be free from envy, not to havethe ideal of love or of generosity and so on, but to understand thewhole process of envy The understanding of `what is` is moreimportant than `what should be'. If I am stupid, it is very importantto understand that I am stupid, to know that I am stupid, not how toarrive at cleverness. The moment I understand the whole problemof how stupidity comes into being, then, naturally, there will beintelligence.So, is integration to be brought about by the dual processinvolved in our thinking, or does integration come into being onlywhen `what is' is understood without any concern for `what shouldbe'? Integration takes place only when I understand what I amactually - not what I am according to Sankara, Buddha, or anymodern psychologist, or a communist. That actuality I can find outonly in my relationship of dual existence, the way I talk to people,the way I treat people, my ideas as I have them.Life is, after all, a mirror in which I can see myself in operation.But we cannot see what is actually taking place because we want tobe something totally different from what we are. I think integrationis possible only when I see what I am actually, without the blindingprocess of an ideology or an ideal. Then it is possible to bringabout a radical change in what I am, in `what is'.Question: How do these illuminating talks fulfil and help yourpurpose? The world has been listening since a long time to thegospel of revolt, the cult of attaining to supreme truth or burningoneself and thereby achieving the highest and the sublimest. But,what is the reaction, is it creative or recreative?Krishnamurti: What do you mean by fulfiling? You ask whetherthese talks help you to fulfil. Do you think there is such a thing asfulfilment? It is only when you are thwarted that you want to fulfil.It is only when you want to become a judge or somebody, thatthere is the fear of not fulfilling. But if you do not want to becomeanything, then there is no problem of fulfilment.All of us want to become something, either in this world or inthe next world, inwardly or outwardly; and our purpose is welldefined, because our desires are always compelling us towards aparticular end which we call fulfilment. If we do not understandthese desires and when they are thwarted, there is conflict, misery,pain, and so an everlasting search for fulfilment. But, when onebegins to understand the ways of desire, the innumerable urges,conscious as well as unconscious, there is no question of fulfilling.It is the self the me, that is always craving to fulfil, either as thegreat people of this land or to fulfil inwardly - to becomesomething, to attain liberation, moksha or what you will. But if weunderstand the implications of desire - that is, the implications ofthe self, of the me - then there is no question of fulfilling.Question: Does not the emphasis on quieting the mind reducecreativity?Krishnamurti: What is creativity and what is understanding?To understand creativity, there must be no fear. Is it not so?After all, most of our minds are imitative. We are ridden byauthority, we have innumerable fears, conscious as well asunconscious. A mind so elaborate so small, so petty, soconditioned - can such a mind be creative? It can only be creativein the deeper sense of the word - not in the sense of writing off acouple of poems or painting some pictures - when you understandthe whole process of fear. To find out fear, must you not search theworkings of your mind, must you not be watchful of the ways howthe mind imitates, why it copies authority? It is only then it ispossible for the mind to be creative.Is the mind creative or is creativeness something entirelydifferent? After all, what is the mind? Mind is the result of time,time being a process. Mind is the result of the past, the past beingthe culture, the tradition, the experience, the various economic andother unconscious influences; all that is the mind. Can the mindwhich is the result of time, be creative? Is not creativenesssomething out of time, beyond time, and therefore, beyond themind? There is no Indian creativeness or European creativeness.Culture is not Indian or European, occidental or oriental; theexpression of it may be.That creative something, that creative reality, that truth, God,what you will, is surely beyond time.The mind that is the result of time cannot conceive orexperience the unknown; so, the mind has to free itself from theknown, from the knowledge, from the various experiences,traditions; then only would it be capable of receiving the unknown.It is the unknown that is creative, not the mind that knows how tocreate.Question: When there is conflict between the heart and themind, which should be followed?Krishnamurti: Is conflict necessary? Is this not the question;what to follow the mind or the heart?First, let us understand if conflict is necessary. When theconflict arises, then the question comes into being as to which Ishould follow, this or that. Why do we have conflicts? Will conflictproduce understanding?Perhaps you think this I am not answering your question. Allthat you want to know is what you should follow. It is a verysuperficial demand, and you are satisfied if you are merely toldwhat to do. Unfortunately, as most of us are today, we know onlywhat to think, not how to think; therefore, the problem becomesvery superficial. If we want to think out a question of this kind, wemust put aside `what to think' and enquire into `how to think'. If weknow how to think, the problem is not. But, if you say, `I must fol-low this', or `I must not follow that' or `which shall I choose?', thenthe problem arises.If you once really go into it clearly, deeply, the problem `whatto do' is a choice, is it not? Will choice clarify or put an end toconflict? Is there not another way of acting, not between the two,but which is the understanding of the demands of the mind and thedemands of the heart without saying which should be done.Between them all, I must not follow one or the other butunderstand each demand, not in comparison. Then only is itpossible to free the mind from choice and therefore conflict.All this requires a mind that is really attentive not only to what Iam saying but also to its own processes and understands them. Butvery few of us want to do that. Very few of us are serious. We areserious about something superficial - diversion or excitement. Butto really go into the whole problem of existence, of the ways ofthought, requires not an hour's attention at a particular meeting butrequires the understanding of the mind all the time as it lives andacts. For that, few of us are willing. In that, there is no risk, you donot get a good job, you do not become famous, you do not becomesuccessful. As long as we want to become famous, successful,powerful, popular, we would create misery, conflict which bringsabout war.January 24, 1954BOMBAY 1ST PUBLIC TALK 7TH FEBRUARY1954I would like this evening to discuss the problem of change. It isreally quite a complex problem and I do not know if you havethought about it. If you have, you must have seen howextraordinarily difficult it is to bring about a change in oneself. Wesee the necessity of change, of a certain adjustment to life, of aradical revolution in oneself at certain moments - not along anyparticular pattern of thought or compulsion. Observing the variouscomplications of existence, one feels the immense desire ofbringing about a revolution in oneself. You must have thoughtabout it - at least those of you who are serious - how this change isto be brought about, how it will affect the relationship that one haswith another or with society, and whether this revolution will affectsociety. It is really, if you go into it, a very very complex probleminvolving a great many issues, not only on the superficial level ofour thinking, but also deeply at the unconscious level.But before I go into it, I would like to say that, as I begin toexplore the problem, you should kindly listen without resistance;then perhaps, if you are listening attentively and without anyresistance, it may be possible to find yourself in that state of totalrevolution in yourself. After all, that is the purpose of my talking -not to convince you of any particular form of change, not to saythat you must change according to a certain pattern; that is not atall change; that is merely adjustment, conformity to a particularpattern of action which is not change; that is not revolution. If youlisten without any resistance, then I am sure you will be in a stateof revolution in yourself, not because of any compulsion from me,but naturally. So I would suggest, if I may, that you should listenwithout resistance. Most of us do not listen at all. We listen with anintention, with a motive, with a purpose which indicates an effort.Through effort one never understands anything.Please see the importance of this. If you have to understandsomething you must listen without effort, without compulsion,without any form of resistance, bias, opinion or judgment. This isquite a difficult thing in itself and we do not know how to listen.The problem is not how to bring about a change. If one can listenrightly without any form of resistance, the change will come aboutwithout a conscious act. I do not think a radical change can comeabout through any conscious action, through any motivation,through any form of compulsion, through any motive.I will go on to explain how this change comes into beingwithout motivation. But to understand that, one must have anattentive attitude of listening, without any barrier, without anyrestriction, without any resistance. The moment you hear the word`revolt', `change', or `revolution', that word has a definite meaningto you, either according to the dictionary, or according to theCommunists, or according to the Socialists, or, if you are areligious person, according to your own particular pattern ofthought. These patterns of thought are constantly interfering withwhat you are listening to. So the difficulty is going to be, not theunderstanding of the problem itself but how we approach theproblem, how we listen to the problem. This is really veryimportant to understand before we can go into any problem.To bring about understanding requires no resistance to what youhear, but the following of the current of thought that one islistening to. One cannot follow if one is merely resisting,translating, putting against it barriers of one's own ideas. If we canlisten without resistance, we can think out together then, togetherwe will find the mind in a state of change, which comes into beingwithout any form of persuasion, reason, or logical conclusion.I think that, for most of us who are aware of world events andthe things that are happening in this country, some kind ofrevolution is necessary; some kind of a change of attitude, ofthought, a revolution in one's sense of values is essential. It isobvious that there must be a change to bring about peace, to havesufficient food for all the world, to bring about humanunderstanding. To cultivate the total development of man, somekind of a vital, total change is necessary. Now, how is this changeto be brought about and what does this change imply? Is therechange when the mind, thought, is merely conforming to thepattern of a particular culture - the Indian, the Christian, theBuddhist - or to the Communist pattern of thought and action? Canconformity at any level of our existence bring about change?Obviously, if one conforms to a pattern, either imposed ordeveloped by oneself, it is no longer change; because the pattern,the end, is the result of our conditioning. If I, as a Hindu or aCommunist or a Christian, change according to the plan on which Ihave been brought up, according to an idea, according to aparticular mode of thinking, surely that is not change because I ammerely conforming to a conditioned reaction. And when I changemyself according to the pattern of a fear, of a defence, of atradition, obviously that is not change; that is not revolution, that isnot a radical revolt from "what is".So, in enquiring into the question of change, must I not enquirehow my mind functions? Must I not be aware of the total processof my thought? Because, if there is any form of fear and that fearmakes me change, it is not change; the fear projects at pattern andaccording to that pattern I change; it is merely conformity to aparticular pattern projected by fear. If I wish to bring about change,must I not enquire into the many many layers of my being, both ofthe conscious as well as of the unconscious? must I not enquireinto the superficial reactions of my thoughts and motives, the deepunderlying currents from which all thought, all action, springs? If Iwish to change, can I have a pattern according to which I change?Though I repeat this, please pay attention to what I am saying;otherwise, you will miss what is coming.I see the necessity of change in myself and in society. Society ismy relationship with another, and in that relationship, which I callsociety there must be change, there must be total uprooting andcomplete revolution of thought. As I see the importance of it, myquestion is: How is this to be done? Is it a matter of intellectualreasoning, having a knowledge of history and translating thathistory, or having information of various social affairs,reformations? Will all this knowledge bring about revolution, thetotal change of me, in my thinking, in my attitude, in my activities,in my thoughts? So must I not enquire if I am serious about thismatter of change? Must I not enquire into my motivation forchange, the urge to change? Does the urge to change bring about aradical change? The urge may be merely a reaction to myconditioning, to my background, to the various social, economic,or cultural impressions. Can change be brought about through anyform of compulsion?Or is there a change which is not of time? Let me put it thisway: We know change in terms of time, being the compulsion ofvarious forms of society, of culture, of relationship, of fears, of thedesire to gain or to avoid punishment. These are all in the field oftime, are they not? They are functions, they are the results, they arethe activities of a mind which is the product of time. After all, themind is the result of time - chronological time, centuries ofcultivation of tradition, of education, of compulsion, of fear. So themind is of time. Can the mind which is the result of time bringabout a total revolution which is not of time? If we change withinthe field of time - which is, if I change because my societydemands it, or because I see the necessity through any form ofcompulsion, or because I gain something, or because of fear, whichare all surely the result of the calculation of a mind that is thinkingin terms of time, today and tomorrow - there cannot be a totalrevolution; that is fairly obvious, is it not? When the mind thinks interms of time, in relationship to change, is there change? Or isthere merely a continuity, an adjustment to a particular pattern, andtherefore no change at all?So, the problem is: Is there change, is there revolution which isout of time? And is that not the only revolution, which is not theproduct of the mind, of thought? After all, thought is the reactionof memory, memory being experience, knowledge, the storing upof innumerable reactions, of experiences; that is the mind - withthat background the mind reacts and that reaction is thought. Sothought is of time. So as long as I am changing in time - that is,according to any pattern, Communist, Socialist, Capitalist,Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist or what you will - it is still within thefield of time. When change is according to a pattern, howeverexpansive that pattern may be, it is still within time and thereforethere is really no change, no revolution. Please listen to this, andunderstand. Do not reject it, do not say `It is all nonsense, it doesnot lead us anywhere', but just listen to it though you may not beused to the idea. Perhaps it is the first time you are hearing this. Donot reject it; because, if you will really go into it, you will see theextraordinary thing in it.Change comes into being when there is no fear, when there isneither the experiencer nor the experience; it is only then that thereis the revolution which is beyond time. But that cannot be as longas I am trying to change the "I", as long as I am trying to change"what is" into something else. I am the result of all the social andthe spiritual compulsions, persuasions, and all the conditioningbased on acquisitiveness; my thinking is based on that. To be freefrom that conditioning, from that acquisitiveness, I say to myself:`I must not be acquisitive; I must practise non-acquisitiveness.' Butsuch action is still within the field of time, it is still the activity ofthe mind. Just see that. Don't say "How am I to get to that statewhen I am non-acquisitive?" That is not important. It is notimportant to be non-acquisitive. What is important is to understandthat the mind which is trying to get away from one state to anotheris still functioning within the field of time, and therefore there is norevolution, there is no change. If you can really understand this,then the seed of that radical revolution has already been plantedand that will operate; you have not a thing to do.There is difficulty in the way of that seed of real timelessrevolution operating because we are not listening, because we areopposing, because we are only concerned with immediate results.We see we need to change, but immediately we want to know howto change, what is the method; that is all what we are concernedwith. The method implies continuity of the activity of the mind,and it can only produce an action which is still according to apattern and therefore of time and producing suffering.Can there be an action which is not of time, which is not of themind, which is not conditioned by thought which is merely theexperience of knowledge? These are all of time. Therefore suchactivity can never produce a revolution, a total revolution in thehuman development of ourselves. So the problem is: Is there arevolution, is there a change which is not in the field of time? Canthere be a change without the mind interfering? I see theimportance of change. Everything changes, every relationshipchanges, every day is a new day. If I can understand the new day,if I am dead to the old yesterday completely, to all the things I havelearnt, acquired, experienced, understood, then there is a revolutionin that which is coming, there is change. But dying to yesterday isnot an activity of the mind. Mind cannot die by a determination, byevolution, by an act of will. If the mind sees the truth of thestatement, that, through an action of will or by a determinedconclusion or through a compulsion, the mind cannot bring about achange, and that what is then brought about is only a continuity,only a modified result, but not a radical revolution, and if the mindis silent only for a few seconds to hear the truth of that statement,then you will find an extraordinary thing happening in spite ofyourself, in spite of the mind; then, there is transformationinwardly without the interference of the mind, the mind being thatthought which is conditioned. That is an extraordinary state of themind when there is no experiencer, no experience. From that, thereis a total revolution. That total revolution is the only thing that willbring peace in the world. All national adjustments, all economicreformations of one group dominating another and liquidating allother groups, will fail; they all will bring greater miseries, wars.What will bring peace, understanding, love in the world, is notreason - reason being based on a conditioned reaction - but only themind which understands itself totally and is capable of being inthat state which is everlastingly, timelessly new. That is not animpossibility, it is nothing idealistic or dreamy or mystic. If youcan pursue the thing truly, you will find that it is there, you canexperience it directly; but that requires a great deal of meditationand hard research and understanding.So, what is important is the understanding of the mind, and nothow to bring about the change in oneself and so a change in theworld. The very process of understanding the problem of changebrings about a change in spite of yourself. That is why it is veryimportant to listen to these talks, not to be persuaded by what I sayout simply to listen to the truth of what is being said. It is the truththat brings revolution, not the cunning mind, not the calculatingmind. Because, truth is not of time, not of India, Europe, Russia, orAmerica; it does not belong to any group, to any religion, to anyGuru, to any follower. If there is a guru, if there is a follower, ifthere is a nationality, truth will not be there. Truth comes intobeing only when the mind has understood and is still, when onlythat reality can come into being.There are several questions. I think, before I answer them, it isimportant to find out whether you are listening with a view togetting an answer, or whether you are listening entirely to theproblem. These are two different states. It is easy to ask questionslike a schoolboy who pops up a question hoping, waiting, listeningfor an answer, and thinking that the answer is going to solve all hisproblems, and that all that he has to do is just to follow the answeror to refute the answer and discuss like a cunning debating student.It remains at that level only when we are looking for an answer,listening for an answer. But when we are concerned with theproblem and not with the answer, then the whole attitude is entirelydifferent. The one comes from an immature schoolboy, it is theresult of thoughtless education. The other requires mature enquiry.So it depends upon you how you are listening, whether with anattitude of trying to find an answer, and if there is no answer, beingdisappointed and saying `He never answers questions'. I do notintend to give an answer because life has no answer, `yes' or `no'.Life is much too immense, much too vast; everything goes into itlike into the Sea. It is like a big river that flows all the way into theSea, carrying with it the good, the bad, the evil, the beautiful, theugly. The whole of that is the Ocean, not just the superficialactivities, the ripples. To enquire into a problem with no resistance,with no barriers, with no prejudices is very difficult. We have toenquire into the problem to really understand the deeper issues ofthe problem. So there are only problems and no answers. I thinkthat if we can really understand, if we can really feel it out that lifeis a problem that it is not a thing to be concluded, that it is not arefuge where you are everlastingly safe, then our whole attitude,activities, thoughts will be entirely different. Then, we shall receiveeverything and at the same time be as nothing.Question: In India today one meets absence of beauty anddestruction of form on all fronts - political, social, psychologicaland cultural. How do you account for this, and in what manner canthis total social disintegration be met?Krishnamurti: Why is there disintegration, not only in thisunfortunate, overcrowded, miserable, starving land, but also allover the world? Why is there such disintegration? Don't find ananswer, wait. Don't give immediate reasons, because your reasonswill be according to your background, according to yourconditioning - Communist, Hindu Capitalist, Christian or what youwill. Please listen. When you are asked a question: `Why is theredisintegration?', your response is according to your background,according to your knowledge, according to your experience, is itnot? That very reaction is the cause of disintegration. We will gostep by step into it, and you will see the truth of it. Why is theredisintegration? Why does the mind become small, petty? Why arewe only concerned with our little selves? Why do we identifyourselves with a bigger self - which is still petty? Because I ampetty, I identify myself with something which is greater; but mymind is still petty. I may identify myself with God, Truth, orNation; but my mind is still petty. However much the mind mayidentify itself with something greater, the very identifying processis still petty.Sirs, why are we caught in this pettiness, in this deterioration?Are you aware that your mind is deteriorating? Or do you say `Mymind is not deteriorating it is functioning beautifully without anyeffort like a perfect machine, without any resistance, without anyfear, without thinking of tomorrow'? Obviously, only very veryfew of us can say that. If you can understand why the minddeteriorates, then you can understand why culture, social values,the various forms of expressive beauty are all disintegrating.Why is the mind deteriorating? That is the problem, not `Why isthere disintegration in India on all fronts'? Why is your minddisintegrating? If one or two of us can really understand this, oneor two of us can change the world. Because most of us are notinterested in this, we are not able to bring about a completerevolution. So it is only the few that can really understand that willbring about a tremendous revolution in the world.Why is your mind deteriorating? You say that, culturally, weare disintegrating. What is culture? Is it merely an expression, theimitation of a form conceived by the human mind? At present, inIndia, the mind is completely held, tethered, bound, by so-calledculture, by tradition, by fear, by a lack of joy, by the fear of nothaving a future, by lack of security, or by the lack of a job. Is thatthe reason why the mind, being so completely conditioned, socompletely held, has no initiative, no creative impulse? Is itbecause the mind is imitative, conforming, copying, that it isdisintegrating and therefore not intensely active, creative?How can a mind be creative when there is fear? So is that notthe problem: Is it possible for the mind, your mind, the averagemind, the mind that is troubled, the mind that is caught in familyties, caught in joy, in the routine of an office with an ugly boss, themind that is caught in tradition, in richness, can such a mind becreative? If the mind can free itself from its conditioning, it isobviously creative. If the mind sees the truth that every form ofimitation is destructive to itself, then obviously it will put allimitation aside. But we do not see the truth of that. Therefore theslow process of disintegration goes on and on and on.Can a mind be free from fear? That is the central issue becausefear is disintegration. When you frighten a boy, he complies; but inthe very imitation, in the very compulsion, you are destroying themind. Can the mind be free from fear? Fear is not in just oneparticular form - the fear of being punished, the fear of losing ajob, of being a loser. But the mind has fear in all its relationship.Can the mind be free from fear, wherever it be, in the office or inthe family, wherever it functions? Don't say `No'. If I know I amafraid in my relationships in various directions, the veryknowledge, the very awareness that there is fear, will bring about atransformation. But that transformation is not possible if you wantto change that fear into something else, say love; because, thenlove is another form of fear. Please see this, Sirs. If I am aware thatI am frightened of you and if I have no wish to change that fearinto something else, if I just know that I am afraid of you and Iremain in that state, then fear begins to transform itself intosomething totally different from that which the mind wants.Sirs, let us put the problem in another way. The problem existsbecause of resistance, and if there is no resistance there is noproblem. But to understand resistance requires astounding insight,not mere determination, not an action of will which says `I am notgoing to have any resistance'. The very statement `I am not goingto have any resistance' is another form of resistance. But if youunderstand the depth, the quality, the various forms of resistancewithin the mind - which are extraordinarily difficult to uncover -then you will find that the problem of fear does not come intobeing. Therefore the mind is dying every day, it is notaccumulating. And this dying to the day, means dying toknowledge, dying to experience, dying to all the things that one hasaccumulated, one has valued, cherished. Then only is there apossibility of a new mind, of a creative mind coming into being.As long as you are a Hindu, a Communist, Buddhist or whatyou will, you cannot have a new mind. As long as your mind iscaught in fear and therefore is doing a particular routine or ritual, itis not a new mind. As long as you are doing your Puja, yourvarious forms of compulsion, which are the projections of fear, themind cannot be a new mind. By just listening to this and saying `Imust have a new mind', you cannot have a new mind. A new mindcannot come into being by desire, by compulsion. It comes only byitself when the mind has understood the whole capacity, activities,the depth of itself.It is important to understand the truth of change. Mind cannotput away fear, because mind itself is fear, and that is all you knowof the mind - fear of what people will say, fear of death, fear oflosing, fear of being punished, fear of not gaining, fear of notfulfilling. So the mind, as your mind is now, is itself fear. Andwhen such a mind wishes to change, it is still within the field offear; that is an obvious psychological fact. So the mind invents asuperior Self, the Atman that is going to alter; but it is still withinthe field of fear, because it is the invention of the mind. It does notmatter what Buddha, Sankara, or anyone else has said. It is stillwithin the field of thought and when the mind wishes to changewithin the field of thought, within the field of time, it is not change,it is still a form of the continuance of fear.A man who is pursuing an ideal can never know a new mind,and that is the curse on this land. We are all idealists wanting toconform to nonviolence, to this, or to that. We are all imitators.That is why we have never a fresh mind, a mind which iscompletely, totally new, which is yours, not Sankara's, not ofMarx, not of somebody else. That total newness, that completestate of mind, can only come into being when there is noexperiencer and no experience; that state is there only when youcan die totally to each day, to everything that you have gatheredpsychologically. Then only is there a possibility of a completeregeneration. That is not an impossibility, that is not a rhetoricstatement. It is possible if you think it out, go into it deeply; that iswhy it is important to know, to listen to what is truth. But youcannot listen to what is truth when your mind is not silent. If yourmind is continually asking, demanding, begging, wanting this orthat, putting this away and gathering that, such a mind is not aquiet mind.Just be quiet, be still. Look at the trees, the birds, the sky, thebeauty, the rich qualities of human existence. Just watch silentlyand be aware. Into that silence comes that something which is notmeasurable, which is not of time.February, 7, 1954.BOMBAY 2ND PUBLIC TALK 10TH FEBRUARY1954As we were saying last Sunday, the right kind of revolution, aradical transformation can only take place not at the physical levelbut fundamentally at the level of the spirit, and I would like thisevening to go into that matter still further.The true revolution is the religious revolution, not the merelyeconomic or social. A fundamental revolution can only take place,when man is truly religious; for, every other kind of revolution orchange is merely a continuity in a modified form of what has been.I say it is very important to understand what I mean by religiousrevolution. Unless there is a transformation at the fundamentallevel of our thinking, of our being, any superficial changes,persuasions, compulsions, or adjustments to environment are notransformation at all. Such transformation can only lead to greatermischief, to greater sorrow. So the revolution must be at the levelwhich we call religious, and I would like to discuss that.Before I go into that, it seems to me it is very important to knowhow to listen, because we do not listen. We hear the words, weknow their general meaning and we are merely satisfied with themeaning of those words. But listening is quite a different thing. Ithink if we know how to listen, that very listening will produce thatfundamental revolution. Listening is not an effort because effortimplies continuity of purpose, a continuity of memory in aparticular direction; and memory is directive, it is not creative.Listening, if we know how to listen, is really creative because, inthat, there is no memory involved at all. But most of us listen withan attitude of resistance. If I say something you do not like, or if Isay something which you like, you immediately judge, you rejectwhat you do not like and accept what you like; but that is notlistening. Listening is a process in which the mind is really quiet,not interpreting what it is hearing, not translating, but actuallyfollowing without any kind of effort because effort destroys. If youknew how to listen, then the full significance of what is being said,the truth of it or the falselessness of it, will come into being; but ifyou oppose one suggestion by another suggestion, one idea byanother idea, you will never find the truth or the falselessness of astatement, I think it is very important to understand what I amsaying now - which is, to find out the truth of what is being said,the truth or the falsehood of what is being said. You must listenand not merely oppose it by an opinion or by a memory or anexperience which you had. What we are trying to do in these talksis not to convince you of anything, not to persuade you to aparticular activity or action; because, that is merely propagandaand that has no value at all. What we are trying to do, you and Itogether, is to bring about that radical revolution not at anyparticular level of our existence but in the process of totaldevelopment of man. And so it is very important, it seems to me, toknow how to listen. I am not suggesting any particular course ofaction, I am not offering any particular pattern or thought orphilosophy. Revolution according to a pattern is not revolution. Toknow what you are changed into, is not change at all; but to changefundamentally into something which is not known, the `unknown',is revolution. And I want to discuss that, if I can, this evening,fairly simply. It is a very complex problem; but I think if we canquietly follow without any opposition or resistance in ourselves towhat is being said, in order to find out the truth or falsehood ofwhat is being said, then the truth or the falsehood will produce itsown action.For most of us, religion is dogma, belief, whether it is theCommunist, the Christian or the Hindu religion. The dogma, thetradition, the rituals, the hopes, everlasting struggle to becomesomething, the ideal - the ideal man, the ideal love, the ideal state -and the pursuit of that ideal is what we call religion. But surely thatis not religion. Religion is not conformity, religion is not thepursuit of continual thought. Religion is something totallydifferent. That is why it is very important to understand that wordnot according to you or to me, but to understand the meaning ofthat word, the significance and full implication in its totality. Mindcan create any form of illusion, and that illusion can be the ideal,the God; and the worshipping of that illusion is not religion. Theillusion, the projection of the mind that most of us worship, in anyform at any level, is born out of hope, out of desire, out of longing;and that desire can create an image; and the imitation, the pursuit,the becoming of that, ideal is still within the continuity of the mind.The mind cannot produce revolution, the radical change. What canproduce the radical revolution, the total revolution in man'sthinking is the cessation of the continuity of the mind as thought.Please listen. Don't compare what I am saying to what you havelearnt or what you have read either from a sacred book or from anyother book. Don't compare. If you compare, then you are notlistening to what is being said. What is important is to listen towhat is being said. When you compare you never find the truth orthe falseness of what is said because your mind then is occupiedwith comparison and not with the understanding of "what is". Sothe inventions of the mind whether purely physical, scientific orabstract, the inventions of its own projections, its own ideas whichit calls God, Truth, Love, the imitation of them, the pursuit ofthem, are all the continuance of the mind.We know what envy is, and we have an idea that, to be reallyreligious is to be in a state of `non-envy'. Obviously, an enviousman is not a religious man, any more than the ambitious man eitheron the physical level or the psychological level. Now, hearing thatenvy is not religious, and finding that envy is a series of struggles,pains, and that it brings about suffering, the mind says `I must notbe envious'. This is the `becoming' which is the continuity of thestate of being envious, as we call it. The ideal, the pursuit of theideal which we call `to become non-envious' are all still `envy'.We are now talking of the cessation of `becoming', in whichalone there can be that revolution which is the real religiousrevolution. I think it is important to understand this. Our wholeeducation, culture, influence and conditioning is a `becoming'. Thatis an obvious fact, is it not? I am poor, I want to become rich. I amenvious or violent or angry, I must become peaceful, I mustbecome non-ambitious - that is, I must, become something. So ourwhole social, economic, religious conditioning and culture is tobecome, is the process of becoming. That is a fact, is it not? Watchthe operation of your own minds, and you will see it is an obviousfact. The becoming is the continuity of `the me', of the idea, aconstant process; and that process can never produce a revolution.A revolution, a change, a radical transformation takes place whenthe `becoming' has ended - that is, not when I become non-enviousbut when there is no envy.Let us take the ideal of Non-violence. You say `I will becomenonviolent'. You say that you will practise the ideal of non-violence. That is, you are going to become nonviolent. You areviolent; but through a process of thought, of practice, of disciplineyou are going to become non-violent. The continuity from violenceto non-violence is not a revolution; it is merely a process ofbecoming, and so there is no radical transformation at all. Themind that is constantly becoming, pursuing being persuaded beingconditioned, can never become non-violent; in that mind, there cannever be a fundamental revolution. It is only when the mind seesthat this is the process of becoming in time, and that the cessationof becoming is the being, there can be `being', in that being alone,there can be a radical revolution.Now, if you will listen, you will see that as long as the mind -which is the centre of all becoming because the mind is the resultof time, and time is continual - is pursuing an ideal and becomingsomething, there can be no change. There can be re- volution, aradical revolution, a total revolution in the development of man,only when the becoming comes to an end - not when the mindbecomes a perfect mind; the mind can never become a perfectmind, the mind, can never be free, not becoming, because freedomimplies the cessation of the continuity of what has been. So whenyou really see the truth of that, there is the silence of the mind, notthat the mind becomes a silent mind; silence can never beachieved, mind can never become silent. But when the mind seesthat becoming is the process of struggle, is the process of effort,and that effort can never produce peace because what has been willbe in continuity, in time, there is no becoming. Only with theending of becoming is there silence of the mind.Please follow this. When there is silence, in that silence there isno becoming. You cannot become silent. If you make an effort tobecome silent, it is merely the continuity of an activity, which youcall silence now but which you called pain previously. So theunderstanding of becoming is the beginning of silence, and thatsilence is the state of being, the total understanding of man'sprocess; and that being is the revolution, the total transformation ofone's being; and then only is there a possibility of that which istimeless to come into being. Only such people are reallyrevolutionary because they are not thinking in terms of economic,social or temporary adjustments.I think it is very important to understand this, because most ofus, specially in this country, are cursed with the pursuit of theideal. We all want to become the ideal person, the perfect being;and so we practise discipline, the everlasting struggle to becomesomething, and so we never `are' at any moment. We always arebecoming, we never `are', the moment is never full, it is alwaystomorrow that is full; and so we miss the full movement of life. Ifyou observe your own mind, you will see that we never are still fora minute, but we are always trying to be still. The trying is what weknow, the becoming is what we know.We know the ideal of silence, our mind is constantly pursuingthat ideal, struggling, disciplining, controlling, shaping in order tohave that silence in which the real can take place; and the real cannever take place in that silence because that silence is a becoming.It is only when the mind understands the total process of becoming,of pursuing, of trying to shape itself into something else that therecan be the cessation of becoming, when alone there can berevolution. Only then is the mind truly religious. The religious manis not the man who becomes a Sannyasi, not the man whobecomes, who pursues virtues, or who tries to become an idealman. The religious man is the man who has stopped becoming;therefore to him there is only one day, there is only one moment -not the moment of yesterday or of tomorrow. Such a man is thereal revolutionary; for, he is of reality.It is important not merely to listen to what is being said, but togo away from here as a human being that is totally transformed -not with new ideas, not with a new outlook, not with new values,not with the putting away of tradition. Those are all childish things.They are all activities of immaturity. What is important is for themind to have no space in it except for the state of being.Our minds are continuously being shaped by ourselves, bycircumstances. We are pushed about, conditioned as the Hindu, asthe Catholic, as the Christian, or as the Communist. So long as weare in that state, we cannot produce a new world. It is only the manwho has no other religion than the religion of `being' - the state ofbeing has no space, it has no corners in which the mind canbecome something - that will produce a new world.You and I will have to produce a new world - not the new worldaccording to the Communists or the Catholics or the Capitalists - anew world that is totally different, that is a free world, that is freein being and not in becoming. The man who `becomes, is neverfree', he is always struggling, striving to become; and such a man isnever a free man. Please follow this. Please listen to this. You willsee that if you really listen, there is freedom from becoming. It isonly when there is freedom from becoming that a man is reallyhappy; he is the happy man, happy in that fundamental spirit thatcreates the new world.As I was saying, the importance in asking a question is not tofind the answer but to understand the problem because there is onlythe problem and not the answer. To ask a question is easy; but togo into the problem is extremely difficult because once you knowwhat the problem is, the very seeing of the problem is theunderstanding of the problem. The moment I can state the problemvery clearly, simply, the answer is there, I do not have to lookbeyond. But most of us do not know what the problem is. We areconfused about the problem and so naturally we look, in ourconfusion, for answers; and that will only produce furtherconfusion.Please understand once and for all that there are no answers tolife. Life is a living thing, not an ending thing, life is the problem.If I can understand the whole total process of the problem, then it isa living thing, not a thing from which to run away, to escape from,to be frightened about. So what is important is not the answer, butto state the problem clearly and simply and to see the fullimplications of the problem; then, the mind becomes acutely sharp.But when a mind is seeking an answer, it is a dull mind, a stupidmind. If the mind sees the whole problem, the subtlety, theimplications, the significance, the variations of the problem, theextension of the problem, the mind itself becomes the problem.The mind that is the problem itself, does not seek an answer. Whenthe mind is the problem, the mind itself becomes quiet; and themoment the mind is quiet, there is no problem. So what isimportant is not to enquire for an answer, but to take the journeyinto the problem.Question: In India today, man faces a growing totalitarianism.Political leaders cloak their authority in smugness, virtue and goodintentions. On the one hand, there is this growing authority; on theother hand, there is a creeping servility, corruption anddisintegration. How is man to meet this debacle except by fightingauthority on all fronts. What is your way of meeting thistotalitarian challenge?Krishnamurti: Is there my way and your way? Or is there onlythe truth that will meet the challenge? You understand, Sirs? Thereis not your way and my way of meeting the challenge; such a wayis an ugly thing. There is only the right way of meeting it. Themoment you talk of your way and my way, you are not stating theproblem at all; You are only creating another authority which ismyself. You see the question?If you can put it entirely differently, the problem is: `Why dowe follow'? That is the problem, not the politician using authorityor the religious man using authority; they cover their authority,cloak it, under sweet sounding words. People will always do thatfor their own interests, they will cloak their ambition by calling itthe `love of India', the `love of peace', the `love of God', beingambitious, they will use patriotism or the name of peace to servetheir own interests. There will be always people of that nature, butthat is not the problem.The problem is: Why do you follow? You understand, Sirs?Why do you follow - not a particular leader, a particular guru, aparticular idea, a particular experience or a particular ideal - butwhy do you follow at all? If we can understand that problem, thisproblem will be answered immediately. It is no problem at all. Weare not discussing whether you should follow or not follow, we arenot seeing whether it is good to follow or bad to follow. Whether itis immoral to follow, that is not the problem for the moment. Theproblem is: Why do I follow? Why do you follow? You may rejectoutward authority, you may have no outward guru, the example;but you have your own ideal, you have your own experience, oryour own accumulated knowledge which you follow. I amquestioning the whole total process of following, not thesubstitution of one authority for another, or of one guru for another- those are all childish activities. But if we can enquire into thequestion, into the problem `Why do we follow?', then perhaps weshall understand the problem of authority.When you are asked why you follow, you do not know thereason why you follow. The reason is fairly obvious. You followfor some satisfaction, for some motive, for some gain, for an end inview. But this whole instinctual response to follow somebody, tofollow an ideal, to follow an experience which you have ad tenyears ago and which you want how and therefore follow and striveafter in order to get that richness - this total process of following isthe problem. The moment you follow, you have a guru, you createthe authority. But if there is cessation of following there is noauthority, there is no guru; then you are a light to yourself. Pleaseput yourself this question: `Why do I follow?' You are unawarethat you are following, and that is of real importance. You aretotally unaware - not only superficially but at the deeper layers ofyour consciousness - that you follow. But if you say `I followbecause of this motive, because of this desire, with this end inview, because I am frightened, because I am this and I am that',then you are not finding out why you follow; you are only givingreasons, logical conclusions. But do you know you are aware thatin following a political leader, a guru, or a book - sacred orprofane, the Gita, the Upanishads, the Bible or Marx's - you areonly following words? Our whole process of life deeply as well assuperficially, is one of following. Following is imitation; we allknow that. How can such a mind which only knows and functionsin the field of following, imitation, creating authority, face andunderstand and break down authority? Following is destructive,following destroys. Can you see the truth or falseness of that, thetruth or the falseness of the statement that following of any kind atany level is totally destructive, is disintegrating? Either you see thetruth of it and accept it or you reject it. But you cannot reject oraccept it if you don't know that you are following. If you are notfollowing somebody, then either you are following your owndesire, or you externalize those desires and follow the politician orthe guru or the book.So, as long as there is the following of your own motives, yourown desires, you must have authority. And following isdestructive, is a disintegrating process - we know so well in Indiawhere we have nothing else but leaders and followers. Don't youfollow? You are not a free people. You may have a newgovernment, a brown bureaucracy; but you are not a free peoplebecause freedom implies `not following'. Sir, when you really thinkabout and understand all this, in that only there is freedom, there istotal revolution; then only can a new world be created. But if youfollow you are destroying yourself. When you follow your guru,you are destroying both yourself and the guru. Please listen to this,find out the truth of it. Don't say I disagree or agree - which is animmature way of thinking. If you do not know that you arefollowing, then you have no authority to give an opinion. If you donot know why you follow, if you do not know the whole process ofit, then you cannot decide whether to follow or not to follow. But ifyou understand the idea of following, then you will not create theduality of not following, then there will be no struggle to follow ornot to follow.Our mind which is so accustomed to follow, to imitate, can onlyreact by not following, by not imitating. So it sets up the problemof duality: `I have followed so far; now I must not follow.' But thatis not the answer. When you say `I must not follow', that itselfproduces its own authority. Then you become the authority or theperson who says you must not follow. But if you understand thesignificance, the total meaning - of which most of us are totallyunaware - then there is the cessation of following. Then there iscreativity, and that is what is needed - not the putting away of oneauthority and taking up of another authority, more pleasant or lesspleasant. But you have to see that all following is destructive, is aprocess of disintegration, you have to be aware of it choicelessly,so that there is no duality. Awareness is a process in which there isno duality. Awareness is a state in which there is no choice, butthere is seeing "what is" and not trying to change "what is" intosomething else. Only in such awareness is there a possibility offreedom, and only in that freedom can there be creativity.Questioner: I have heard you every time you speak in Bombay.When I hear you, I feel great clarity and understanding; when yougo, I get caught back into the innumerable habits of action andthought. Is it not necessary for me once for all either to understandyou or to give up hearing you?Krishnamurti: Sir what is important is to know how to listen,not only to me but to everything in life - to the song of birds, to theroar of the restless sea, to the voice of a bird, to everything aboutyou. Because we do not know how to listen, we keep on hearing,and hearing dulls the mind. If you keep on coming to these talksyear after year and merely hear but not listen, then your mindbecomes dull. Your coming here becomes another ritual; a yearlyperformance. That is what has happened to most of us. We havebecome dull through repetition of ideas, hearing the same thingover and over and over again, performing the same stupid vainritual, pursuing the same ideals, or substituting other ideals. Thisconstant struggle within and without, primarily within, this battle`to become', is making us dull. But if you know how to listen toone talk, really, how to listen to one idea, then you will see yourmind becoming astonishingly alert, sharp, clear, subtle. Then youcan listen to the talks over and over again, and you will see thateach talk has meaning in it afresh every time, that it hassignificance, that there is a richness - all of which you would misswhen you merely hear.Sir, you do not know how to see the beauty of a tree or of aperson. Though you pass by, every day, the beauty is there. Younever look at the stars, the skies. You never hear the child's cry.You never listen to those things, your mind is too occupied - Godknows with what - with its own anxieties, with its own becoming's,with its own fears. Through this screen of fear, anxiety, hope,frustration, you hear and decide what it is that I am saying. There isnothing, literally nothing at all, which you cannot understand. I amnot putting through new ideas, I am not giving directions for you tofollow because that would create merely another authority. Youmust forsake all authority to listen properly.If you listen after forsaking all authority, all following, then thetruth or the falseness thereof comes into being. But a mind which isoccupied, can never listen. Most of our minds are occupied withlove, with hate, with anxieties, with envy, with trying to be good.An occupied mind is a petty mind. If you listen, your mindbecomes a fresh mind, a clear mind, an unspotted mind; such amind cannot be bought, nor can it come into being through anyauthority, through any following. So one must understand what onehears, and find out the truth of the matter by observing one's ownmind. Truth is not something away from the mind. It is away nowbecause the mind is so confused. A man who seeks answers, seekstruth out of confusion, and so his answer of truth will also beconfused.Questioner: In moments of great anguish and despair, Isurrender without effort to "Him", without knowing "Him". Thatdispels my despair; otherwise, I would be destroyed. What is thissurrender and is this a wrong process?Krishnamurti: A mind that deliberately surrenders itself tosomething unknown, is adopting a wrong process, like a man whodeliberately cultivates love, humility when he has no love, nohumility. When I am violent, if I am trying to become nonviolent, Iam still violent. If I am practising humility, is it humility? It is onlyrespectability, it is not humility. You see the truth of this, Sirs?Don't smile and say how clever the statement is. It is not clever. Aman who is deliberately persuading himself into being good, whois surrendering himself to something which he calls God, or toHim, does so deliberately, voluntarily, through an action of will.Such a surrender is not surrender; it is self-forgetfulness, it is areplacement, a substitute, an escape; it is like mesmerizing oneself,like taking a drug or like repeating words without meaning.I think there is a surrender which is not deliberate, which istotally unasked, un-demanded. When the mind demandssomething, it is not surrender. When the mind demands peace,when it says `I love God and I pursue the love of God', it is notlove. All the deliberate activities of the mind is the continuance ofthe mind, and that which has continuity is in time. It is only in thecessation of time that there can be the being of reality. The mindcannot surrender. All that the mind can do is to be still; but thatstillness cannot come into being if there is despair or if there ishope. If you understand the process of despair, if the mind sees thewhole significance of despair, you will see the truth of it. There isbound to be despair when you want something and when youcannot get when you want, - it may be a car, it may be a woman, itmay be God; they are all of the same quality. The moment youwant something, the very wanting is the beginning of despair.Despair means frustration. You would be satisfied if you get whatyou want, and because you cannot get what you want, you say `Imust surrender to God'. If you got what you wanted you would beperfectly satisfied; only that satisfaction comes to an end soon andyou seek another thing. So you change the object of yoursatisfaction constantly; this brings with it its own reward, its ownpains, its own sufferings, its own pleasure.If you understand that desire of any kind brings with itfrustration, despair and so the dual conflict of hope, if you reallysee the fact of that, if without saying `How am I to be in that state?'you just see that desire makes for pain, then the very seeing of it isthe silencing of desire. Being aware choicelessly, purely, simplythat the mind is noisy, that the mind is in constant movement, inconstant struggle, that very awareness brings about the ending ofthat noise choicelessly. Awareness is the important thing, not thedispelling of despair, not the silence. Pure intelligence is that stateof mind in which there is awareness, in which there is no choice, inwhich the mind is silent. In that state of silence, there is `being'only; then that reality, that astounding creativity without time,comes into being.February 10, 1954BOMBAY 3RD PUBLIC TALK 14TH FEBRUARY1954I would like to continue with what we were talking about lastwednesday, namely, the problem of change. It is quite an importantissue which deserves to be really deeply considered; for, changeseems to produce more confusion, more travail and more sorrow,as can be observed by us from day to day. I would like to discussthis evening, whether it is possible to change, to bring about aradical breaking up of the centre, rather than merely indulging inperipheral or superficial changes. Is it possible to change at thecentre, without the action of will, without cultivating a background,and without strengthening the background in the process of change.Is change, a breaking up, a revolution, a complete transformation,possible without the cultivation of memory? Generally, in theprocess of changing, we are always breeding memory: `I was thisyesterday, and I shall be that tomorrow'. This `I shall be' is thecultivation of memory; and therefore there is no fundamental,radical change at the centre.I hope you will have the patience to listen to this.Communication is anyhow very difficult because words havedefinite meaning; consciously, we accept certain definitions and tryto translate what we hear according to those definitions. But if webegin to define every word or merely define certain words as areference and leave it at that, communication will be at theconscious level. It seems to me that what we are discussing is notmerely to be understood at the conscious level, but also to beabsolved - if I may use that word - unconsciously, deep down,without the formulations of any definition. It is far more importantto listen with the depth of one's whole being, than merely indulgein superficial explanations. If we can listen with totality of being,that very listening is an act of meditation.The meditation that we do consciously is no meditation at all; itis merely the projection of the con- scious mind, memory. Youhave to listen with the totality of your being without any effort,without any struggle, and with the intention to understand, toexplore, to discover, really to find out the truth or falseness of whatI am saying. To discover is to be in a state of mind in which thestruggle, the constant conflict to find out, to discover, must cease.It seems to me that such an act of living is meditation. To find outthe truth of something, not according to what you wish, what youlike or dislike, or according to the particular tradition in which youhave been brought up, the mind must be capable of not onlyunderstanding the superficial sound that it hears, the vibrations ofsound, but also entering much deeper through that sound.It is a very difficult problem to listen with the totality of one'swhole being - that is, when the mind not only hears the words, butis capable of going beyond the words. The mere judgment of aconscious mind is not the discovery or the understanding of truth.The conscious mind can never find that which is real. All that itcan do is to choose, judge, weigh, compare. Comparison,judgment, or identification is not the uncovering of truth. That iswhy it is very important to know how to listen. When you read abook, you might translate what you read according to yourparticular tendency, according to your knowledge or idiosyncrasy,and so miss the whole content of what the author wants to convey;you might also listen similarly. But to understand, to discover, youhave to listen without the resistance of the conscious mind whichwants to debate, discuss, analyse. Debating, discussing, analysingis a hindrance when we are dealing with matters which require notmere verbal definition and superficial understanding, butunderstanding at a much deeper, more fundamental level. Suchunderstanding, the understanding of truth, depends upon how onelistens.What we are concerned with is the necessity of change. We seethat a fundamental revolution is necessary. I am using that wordrevolution not in the political sense. In the political sense, if thereis revolution, it is no longer a `revolution', it is merely a modifiedcontinuity. But I am talking of fundamental transformation whichalone can be called change. Is it possible to bring about such aradical change by the action of will - which is what we are used to?Will is the continuity of a decision based on memory, onknowledge, or experience; will is the reaction of a conditionedmind, the mind that lives in tradition, in experience, in knowledge;and knowing decides, creates the pattern according to which itshall change. Therefore, can a change, through an action of will, bea radical change? When I know in what direction I am changing,and also the implications which are in the change based on myexperience - my experience being the reaction of my conditioning -can such a change be radical?I wish to change because I see the importance and the necessityof change, not only in myself but in society; I see the imperativenecessity of it, logically and inwardly, because society as it is andmyself as I am only produce a further mess, further chaos, furthermisery; that is an obvious fact, whether you accept it or not. As weare conditioned, any action from the conditioned mind is onlyproductive of further confusion; because, if I am confused, anyaction out of that confusion is still further confusion. We areconfused, whether we like it or not; whether we admit it or not, it isa fact. Whether you call yourself a Communist, a Socialist, aChristian, a Hindu, or a Buddhist, your mind, if you observe, is in astate of contradiction, is in a state of confusion. When you have acertain belief, a certain dogma, you hold to that dogma, to thatbelief. It is obviously, psychologically, an indication of confusion,because that belief acts as a security away from yourself; thatsecurity is your projection, the projection born out of confusion.A mind that seeks to understand the fundamental necessity ofchange must ceaselessly ask itself: `Is it possible to change withoutthe action of will?' You understand, Sir, the difficulty of thequestion? That is, my will is born out of my past, out ofknowledge, out of the experiences that I have gathered. Thegathering is the result of my conditioning. The conditioning is theculture in which I have been brought up, the religion, the socialvalues and so on. Out of that background is born the will to be, tochange, to continue. This is a psychological fact. When youobserve the action of will, you will find that the will cannot bringabout a radical change? If it cannot what else will bring about aradical transformation? What will break up the centre of thisconstant accumulation of memory, of experience, of knowledge,from which there is action? This is an important question to askyourself and to find the truth of. It is not enough if you merelylisten to what I say, because that is your problem. You have reallyto go into it.The will is the I, the process of `the me; as it cannot bring abouta radical transformation, the mind projects the idea of God andsays `God has the power to change', `There is the grace of God' andso on. That is, when the mind sees that it cannot bring about aradical change in itself through its own power, through its ownaction, through its own volition, the mind projects and identifiesitself with something which will bring about the transformation.But that projection is still the action of will, the action of `the me'that wishes to change; and as it sees that it cannot change throughits own activities, it identifies itself with an idea, or with a so-called reality which it has created relating to a Buddha, a Christ oranyone it likes, and hopes that, through that, there will be atransformation. But that projection, the activities of that projection,and the response of that projection are still part of the action ofwill; so there is no radical transformation at the centre.Surely the problem now is: `What can bring about the breakingup of that centre? Is it Grace, is it God, is it an idea?' Is itsomething totally different, which is not the projection or theactivity of the mind? That change which is the breaking up of thecentre, of the me, of the self, cannot be brought about by the actionof the self, by will. The myself which changes is the result of pain,of pleasure, of experience, of memories; and when it says `I mustchange to something', that something is the projection of `myself',the projection being the Master, the Guru, the Saviour and so on.Through the Saviour, through the Guru, which is the projection ofmyself, I hope to bring about a change.If you deny all that and say that circumstances or the control ofnature would be the only possibility of change, then your mind iscontrolled by the so-called education on the Communist lines, orthe Catholic lines, or the Hindu lines. This process controls themind, shapes the mind; and the shaping of the mind cannot bringabout that radical transformation at the centre.Do you understand the problem? I want to change. I see theimpossibility of change through action of will. I see that there canbe no change through the projection of the past into the future,through the known projecting itself into the future as the unknownwhich is however the known. I see also how the mind can beshaped by circumstances. By the way I am brought up fromchildhood, my mind can be so completely conditioned that itfunctions like a machine, that it believes, or does not believe. I alsosee that this is not change. In order to bring about a completelynew world, a new State, a new being, to understand that this worldis not a Catholic or a Hindu world but it is `our' world - to feel thatis to understand the richness of it - there must be radicaltransformation at the centre, in which there is no longer the me ormine - my India, my religion my experience. It is there that theradical change has to take place. How is that to take place?Now, please listen. Is that the right question: `How can it takeplace'? Is there a method, a system? A system, a method, impliesthe continuity of memory, cultivation of memory, and therefore noradical change at all. When I ask myself how can this centre bebroken up and when I seek a method, the very method, the verysystem produces the result which the system gives. But that is notchange; I am only following the system, cultivating the memory ofthat system, instead of the system, the method which I hadcultivated in the past, now I cultivate a new method, a new system;so the very `how' is the denial of the radical change. Please,observe your own mind. When this problem of radicaltransformation is posed, the moment you hear it mentioned, yourimmediate response is `Tell me what to do'. The telling you ofwhat to do is not change at all. You want to arrive at the stage ofsecurity or certainty through a method, and the very desire forcertainty is no change. If you understand all this, you would notsay at the end of the talk `You have not told us what to do, you aretoo vague?,There is only the problem and not the answer. If you know thedepth of the problem, the answer is at the depth. The problem itselfwill reveal the answer; but as long as you are looking for theanswer at the depth, you are dealing with the superficiality of theproblem. There is the problem of change, of radical transformationof the centre. This change cannot be brought about through anyvolition, through an act of will, through practice, through a systemof meditation. The very process of meditation, as you practise it, isthe cultivating of a certain idea, a certain discipline, and so it onlystrengthens the self, the centre; and any form of projection from thebackground or the experience of that projection as reality is still thestrengthening of the centre. When you have this problem, whenyou really are confronted with this problem, you will see that yourmind becomes completely still. It is only when you are trying tochange, to bring about a superficial change, that the mind becomesagitated, works, strives, struggles. But when you see the fullsignificance of the fundamental revolution, transformation, thenthe mind, in front of this enormous complex problem is still. If youare listening rightly and if you have understood the problemprofoundly, then you will see your mind is still. The problem itselfmakes the mind still. When the mind is still in front of thisproblem, then there is transformation at the centre. This wholeprocess of understanding the problem is meditation. Thismeditation is not the sitting down and grappling with the problem,but understanding as you go for a walk, when you look at the stars,at the sea, and the shadows of a tree, when you see a smile. It is atotal process; for, the problem involves the total understanding ofman's development. Then only the mind is still, without anymovement or projection of the mind, a wish, a hope. Silence is nota word, it is a state of being. A mind that is trying to become cannever understand that state of being. You cannot become still, dowhat you will - practise, discipline, control, subjugate. All suchaction leads only to results. Silence is not a result, it is a state ofbeing from moment to moment. So when the mind understands theproblem of radical transformation, from moment to moment, thenthere is silence which is not the silence of accumulation, which isnot the silence of memory, but a state of being; it is out of time, itis timeless. If there is such silence, you will see that there is aradical transformation of the centre.If you have listened rightly, you will find the seed oftransformation has taken root. But if you are merely verballyresisting, then you will have only resistance and not truth.Unfortunately most of us are left with the ashes of resistance andnot with reality. We are not educated from childhood to listen, tofind out, to understand; we are never confronted with the problem,we are always given answers - what should be, the example, thehero, the saint, for you to copy, to imitate. So we are never shownthe implications of the problem - such showing is real education.As we have not been educated in the subtleties of problems, in theunderstanding of problems, we become confused when we arethrown against a problem, and we want to find an answer. There isno answer to life. Life is a living thing from moment to moment,and a man who is seeking an answer to life is creating a little poolof mediocrity. So the question is not to find the answer, but tounderstand the problem; the problem holds the truth, and not theanswer.Question: The awareness you speak of must mean the strippingaway of the many facets of personality; in India, this search for self-knowledge has led inevitably to the destruction of personality, andthe sapping away of all initiative and drive which are the drivingforces of personality. That is why we see in India a refusal to fightsocial evil. Will not then your teachings only lead to furtherlethargy of the spirit?Krishnamurti: Are you individuals who have personalities? Willthe understanding and the awakening of awareness with all itsimplications deprive you of that personality? Are you anindividual, or are you a mass of conditions? When you are a Hindu,a Christian, a Buddhist, a Communist, are you an individual?When you belong to some society or group, are you an individual?And are you an individual, because you have a little property, aname, a few qualities and tendencies?Sir, what is individuality? It is something which must be totallyunique. But we are not unique. When you call yourself a Hindu, aMussalman, a Communist, you are just repeating, it is merely thetradition. You are conditioned by your society, by your culture;according to that conditioning you experience, and the experienceis the memory, is knowledge; the knowledge does not constituteindividuality, it is only the reaction of the condition. When youbecome aware of this total process of conditioning, experiencing,accumulating knowledge, and that it does not constituteindividuality but is the destruction of all creative being. when youare aware of all this, then you will not be a Christian, a Buddhist, aHindu, a Communist or what you will: you will be in a total stateof revolt. But as long as you are accepting, as long as your mind isconditioned as a Hindu, a Catholic, a Communist, you are not anindividual, you are only a cog in the machine.Look at your own mind and the operations of that mind. Areyou an individual in the sense of creating a unique state of mind inwhich there is freedom, the freedom of being? How can you haveindividuality, personality, when culture, religion, throughout theworld are based on imitation, copying? When you are pursuing theideal, when you are Gandhites, or some other `ites', how can yoube an individual? Are you aware of the total process of fear whichmakes you imitate, which makes you follow, which makes youaccept the authority of an ideal, of a Guru, of a Saviour, of a priest?It is that fear that makes you comply, conform, imitate; it is thatfear that destroys the real creative mind. It is that fear, that seeks aresult, security, a state of being in which there is no fear; andtherefore it projects. And you follow that projection as yourSaviour, as your guide, as your ideal. So your fear is compellingyou to conform. And as long as there is fear, you cannot possiblybe an individual, you cannot have a creative mind.It is very important to understand fear, specially in a countrythat is overpopulated, that is deep in tradition - whether modern orscientific or ancient. As long as there is fear, there can be nocreativity; and it is only the creative mind that is the real, that isunique. Awareness in which there is no choice, does not destroythat creative reality.Your mind from childhood is conditioned, it is educated fromchildhood in fear, it is subjugated, it is compelled, pursued,compared, various values are imprinted upon it; how can such amind be a free mind? All that it knows is fear. Therefore iteverlastingly struggles to do good and to avoid evil. The verydoing good is to overcome fear; it is not freedom from fear, but theovercoming of fear; therefore there is still fear. How can such amind be creative, be happy?The mind that is free from fear is the creative mind, such amind, through awareness, through self-knowledge, cannot lose thatreality. The mind can be free only through self-knowledge - not theself-knowledge of the specialist, not the self-knowledge ofRamanuja or Buddha or the Christ; such self-knowledge is not self-knowledge. To know yourself according to somebody, Marx orBuddha or what you will - that is not knowing yourself. You canphysically know yourself only if you are aware of yourself, awareof your actions, thoughts, feelings, words. But you cannot be awareof the total process, see the fullness of that awareness, if youcompare, if you choose, if you say `This is good', `That is bad'. Soself-knowledge through awareness does not destroy, does not sapaway initiative. You have no initiative. You just follow somepowerful personality, somebody who, you think, is a leader. Solong as you follow anybody, any authority, any book, you are notcreative. You are following because of fear, and the understandingof fear is the beginning of creativity.It is very difficult to understand fear. I am not talking of thecultivation of the opposite. The mind which is cultivating theopposite is still caught in fear. The awareness of which I have beentalking is a choiceless state in which you can see things as they areand not as you wish them to be, in which you can know exactlywhat you are, without any choice; and that awareness isintelligence. The man who is constantly choosing is not anintelligent man. A man is truly intelligent when there is no choice;for, choice is the outcome of his background, and a free mind is nota mind of choice. Choice will exist as long as there is fear, choicewill exist as long as you have any kind of authority at differentlevels of your consciousness. Therefore, to follow another isdestructive. But to be completely aware is to be the light yourself.Question: What is the true value of equality? Is equality a factor an idea?Krishnamurti: To the idealist, it is an idea, to the man whoobserves, it is a fact. There is inequality: you are much clevererthan I am; you have greater capacities; you love and I don't; youpaint, you create, you think, and I am merely an imitator; you haveriches, and I have poverty of being. There is inequality existing;that is a fact, whether you like it or not. There is also inequality offunction; but unfortunately we have brought inequality of functioninto the inequality of status. We do not treat function as function,but use function to achieve power, position, prestige - whichbecomes status. And we are more interested in status than infunction; so we continue with inequality.There is not only the psychological inequality but also theobvious outward inequality. These are all facts. By no amount oflegislation can one wipe out this inequality. But I think, if one canunderstand that there must be freedom psychologically from allauthoritarian outlook, then equality has quite a different meaning.If one can wipe away the psychological inequality which onecreates in oneself through status, through capacity, through ideas,through desire, through ambition, if there is a wiping away of thatpsychological struggle to be something, then there is a possibilityof having love. But as long as I am striving, psychologically usingfunction to become somebody, as long as there is a becoming of`the me', inequality of spirit will exist. Then there will always be adifference between me and the saviour, there will always be a gapbetween one who knows and the one who does not know; and therewill also be the struggle to come to that state. So as long as there isno freedom, all this becoming will be used for the strengthening ofthe existing inequality, which is destructive.Sir, how can a man who is ambitious, know equality or knowlove? We are all ambitious and we think it is an honourable state.From childhood we are trained to be ambitious, to succeed, tobecome somebody; and so inwardly we want inequality. Look atthe way we treat people, how we respect some and we despiseothers. It you look into yourself inwardly, you will find that thissense of inequality creates the Master, the Guru, and you becomethe disciple, the follower, the imitator, the becomer. Inwardly, youestablish inequality and dependence on another; therefore there isno freedom. There is always this division between man and man,because each one of us wants to be a success, to be somebody.always this division between man and man, because each one of uswants to be a success, to be somebody.Only when you are inwardly as nothing because you are free, isthere a possibility of your not using inequality for personalaggrandisement, and of bringing about order, peace. But to be asnothing is not a series of words; you have to be literally as nothing,inwardly; that can only be when the mind is not becoming.Question: How did you find God?Krishnamurti: How do you know, Sir, I have found God? Sirs,don't laugh. It is a serious question.Sir, is God to be known? Is God to be found? Please listen. IsGod something which is lost and is to be found? Can you recognisethat reality, that God? If you can recognise it, you have alreadyexperienced it; if you have already experienced it, it is not new. Ifyou can experience God or Truth, your experience is born out ofthe past; therefore, it is no longer truth; it is merely a projection ofmemory. The mind is the outcome of the past, of knowledge, ofexperience, of time; the mind can create God; it can say `I knowthis is God', `I know I have experienced God', `I know the voice ofGod speaks to me'. But that is all memory, that is the past reactionof your conditioning.The mind can invent God and can experience God. The mindwhich is the result of the known, can project itself forward andcreate all the images, all the visions, which is still within the fieldof the known. God cannot be known. It is totally unknown. Itcannot be experienced. If you experience it, it is no longer God,Truth. It is only when there is no experiencer, no experience, thatreality can come into being. Only when the mind is in the state ofthe unknown, does the unknown come into being. Only when thereis the wiping away of all experience, of all knowledge, is the mindtruly still, and in that stillness which is immeasurable, that whichhas no name comes into being.February 14, 1954.BOMBAY 4TH PUBLIC TALK 17TH FEBRUARY1954We have been talking, the last three times we have met here, of theimportance of a religious revolution. I mean by religion, notdogma, not belief, not rituals. Nor does revolution consist ofsubstituting one belief for another; but it is a total revolution in ourthinking and this revolution is really the freedom from the known.I would like, if I can this evening, to go into this question,because it seems to me that any activity from the known is not achange, not a radical transformation at all. It is merely a modifiedcontinuity of what has been known. Most of the political,economic, social revolutions or even the so-called scientificrevolutions are always the continuity of the known. I would like ifI can to commune with you. I am using that word `commune'expressly, for it seems to me that it is not a matter of mere mentalexchange of ideas, of trying to persuade one to a particular point ofview, of trying to lay out a blueprint for action. To commune witheach other is really quite a different thing, because we must both beinterested in the subject at the same time and at the same level.Communion is not possible if you are interested in something and Iin something else, and we talk; then there is no communion;communion is only possible when both of us, you and I together, atthe same time and at the same level, are interested not me to listento the verbal expression but also to commune with each other at adeeper level of consciousness, over things that cannot merely beput into words. That means a great deal of insight, penetration.There is no communion possible if you are obstructing thesignificance by a series of screens, objections, ideals, or prejudices.There is communion only when we both of us love, together at thesame time, at the same level; and that love is not possible if weremain at the verbal expression or at the argumentative level. Wehave to use words to communicate. I think it is possible, if we areinterested, if we love the thing we talk about, to go beyond theverbal expression and to commune with each other over things thatare of vital importance; then that communion is neither yours normine, it is understanding; it is the perception of that which is real,true, which is not personal, of the group, of the nation, neitherWestern nor Eastern.I think it is very important to know how to commune with eachother, specially in matters that are of great significance andimportance. There is no communion if we do not love the thingabout which we are talking, if we do not give our whole mind andheart to the thing into which we are enquiring. Such love does notdemand the effort of attention; it demands that state of easy, openloving, that attention which you pay when you are absorbed insomething. We are now discussing a problem which, I think, is ofgreat significance; so communion is essential. Such communion isnot possible if each one obstructs the exchange, the discovery, witha series of objections, acceptances, denials, or resistances.I would like to go into this question of freedom from the knownbecause religion is not the continuance of the known. The known isthe belief, is the discipline, is the practice, is a particular form ofmeditation invented by another as a means of attainment of aparticular state, is the practice which one has invented for oneself,or is the practice of a particular system with the experience whichthat system brings and the continuance of that system as memory.The continuance of memory is the known; and it is only in thefreedom from the continuity of the known that there can becommunion. It seems to me that religion has always been withmost of us, the practice of the known - the known being the belief,the dogma, the hope, the fulfilment of an experience of a mind thathas been brought up either in religion or in a state of denial ofeverything. The believer and the non-believer are both thecontinuance of memory, conditioned by the known.The difficulty for most of us is the freedom from the known.The continuity of an experience, of an idea, of a belief, makes formediocrity; it makes the mind live in a state of certainty. When themind is certain in knowledge or in experience or in belief, when itfeels secure, when it has taken refuge in any experience, in anydogma or in any belief, such a mind is a mediocre mind, is a smallmind. Because, through the desire to be secure, to be certain, itclings to every form of certainty invented by the mind; and such amind can only function and live and move within the field of theknown; and so the mind and the heart remain mediocre, small,petty. Our minds are conditioned by our beliefs, by ourexperiences, by our knowledge. With that mind, we try to findwhat is real, what is God, something beyond and above humaninvention and illusion.As long as there is the continuity of the known, there must be amediocre mind, not a free mind. It is very important to understandthis - not merely verbally or intellectually, because there is no suchthing as intellectual understanding. But this requires a great deal ofpenetration and understanding of the operations of one,s own mind,because our whole structure of thinking is based on the known: `Ihave had an experience yesterday and that experience is shapingme, is shaping my thought, my conduct and my outlook.' Theexperience may be not of yesterday but of a thousand years ago,which we call knowledge. So knowledge is a confusing factor inthe search for Reality. For most of us, there is confusion; we areconfused, not in what we do not know but with the knowledge ofthe things we know: it is the knowledge that creates confusion. Is itnot fairly obvious that most of us are confused? In spite of all thatthey may assert, are not most of the political leaders, religiousleaders con- fused? Is there not confusion on the part of thefollower of any leader, political or religious? Both the leader andthe follower are confused. This confusion is due to choice, becauseour knowledge is memory, and we shape our life and actionaccording to that. But we are not willing to admit we are confused.Life is a thing which is living constantly moving; we recreateaccording to our memory and are not capable of adjusting to theimmediate demands of life. So we approach Reality which isliving, which is a very complex process, with a mind that is alreadyburdened with knowledge, with experience, with ideas. A mind isnot free, which is always meeting life with memory. It seems to methat religious revolution is the freeing of action from memory.Because, after all, `the me', the Ego, the Self is the accumulation ofvarious experiences, of knowledge, of memory; `the me', is nothingbut background, the me is of time; the self, the Ego, is the result ofvarious forms of accumulated knowledge, information; it is thatbundle which we call "I". The I is the many layers of memory;though the I may be unconscious of the many layers, it is still partof the known. So when I seek, I am only seeking that which Iknow. That which I know is the projection from my past, and it isthe freedom from the known that is the real revolution. Thatfreedom cannot be brought about through any discipline.I cannot be free through any discipline, through any practice,because I am a bundle of memory, experiences, knowledge; and ifI practise a discipline to free my mind from the I, it is merelyanother continuance of memory. So there is no freedom from theme, the known, whether you are conscious or unconscious of it.That freedom can only come about when I understand, when thereis the 16 understanding of the whole process of the me - not todirect the process; because, in the me, when it directs, there is thedirector and also the thing it directs, which are both the same.There is no observer different from the observed; there is only oneentity, the experiencer and the experienced. As long as there is theexperiencer, which is the me, experiencing something which hewants, it is still the known. So our difficulty is, is it not?, that ourmind is always moving from the known to the known. How is thismovement to be stopped?Creativity is the action of the unknown, not of the known. Theunknown is Truth, God or what you like. The activity of that state,of that Reality, is creative; it is the action without memory. That iswhy I feel it astonishingly, immensely, important to find out nothow to free the mind from the known, but to be in that state whenthe mind is free from the known. The being of the freedom fromthe known is the true religious revolution.Our minds are so used to being told what to do. The religiousbooks, the Gurus, the Saints, political leaders and leaders of everyother kind are telling us what to do - how to be free, how to be ledto be free, what you should do, how you should discipline, practisevirtues, and so on. Now, if you examine, if you look at it carefully,you will see that it is the practice of the known all the time; in that,there is no creativity at all. It is merely the continuity of `the me' ina different form. That is all we know, that is our knowledge. Themovement from that state to a state in there is the freedom from theknown, cannot be brought about by any practice, by any discipline,by any thought process. I think that is the real thing to beunderstood. If one really understands it, the revolution thatextraordinary thing, is there. But as long as we think in terms ofgetting there, in terms of practice which will help us to get there, itis the continuance of the known which is in time.When one really grasps, understands, the process of themovement of the mind from the known, and that any movementfrom that known cannot be in the state of the unknown, if onereally understands, has the feeling, communes with that truth thatany movement of the known will never lead to the unknown, thenonly is there the unknown. But our mind refuses to see that fact,because our minds are so used to be told of various kinds of Yoga,the following of certain ideologies, sacrifices, the building ofvirtues, the development of character and so on.You know all the movements of the known. But if you canreally grasp the significance of this movement of the known andsee the truth of it, then the other state of being, of the unknown,comes into being. That is why it is very important to understandthe process of the mind - which is after all self-knowledge - toknow, to see the mirror image of thought, of the activity of themind, to just be aware of it without condemning it, without givingit a name. In that awareness without choice, you will see that theother comes into being. But a mind that is looking for theunknown, trying to experience the unknown, can never experienceit. When the mind itself becomes the unknown, only then, there iscreativity, and that which is timeless comes into being.Sir, what is the purpose of a question? Is the purpose to find ananswer to the problem, or to understand the problem? I have aproblem, you have a problem; do we want to understand theproblem or do we seek an answer through the problem? Do wewant a solution, or to understand the intricacies, the complexitiesof the problem?Most of us suffer; there is pain, anxiety; and most of us areconcerned with how to get rid of it, how to do away with pain, withdisturbance. So we all the time seek ways and means to overcomeit, to put it away. The inward psychological suffering of `the me' isalways trying to find an answer, a way out. But if we couldunderstand the maker of the problem, `the me', that is everlastinglyfollowing, that is frustrated, that is feeling lonely, anxious, fearful,then in the very understanding of the problem And of the maker ofthat problem, there is the answer. But to understand the problemrequires a mind that is not seeking a result, an answer. If you willobserve your own mind, you will see what is happening. If youhave a problem you want some one to tell you what to do; so youremphasis is on the solution and not on the understanding of theproblem.In answering this question we are concerned with the problemand not with the answer. If you go away disappointed because yourquestion is not answered, it is your fault, because there is noanswer to life. Life has no answer. Life has only one thing, oneproblem - which is, living. The man who lives totally, completely,every minute without choice, neither accepting nor rejecting thething as it is, such a man is not seeking an answer, he is not askingwhat the purpose of life is, nor is he seeking a way out of life. Butthat requires great insight into oneself. Without self-knowledge,merely to seek an answer has no meaning at all, because theanswer will be what is most satisfactory, what is gratifying. That iswhat most of us want; we want to be gratified, we want to find asafe place, a heaven where there will be no disturbance. But aslong as we seek, life will be disturbed.Question: Truth, to you, appears to have no abode. Surely Truthis one Absolute. Do you not, by making it a matter of perception inthe moment, reduce and limit it so that it loses its absolute nature?Krishnamurti: How do we know it is absolute, final, timeless?How do you know? Is it a guess, a speculation, or have you readabout it in books? Is truth something of time? Is it of the known, aprojection of the known? Our difficulty is, is it not?, that we wantsomething permanent. Because we see life is transient, we wantsomething fixed, permanent, absolute, changeless; becauseeverything about us is changing, we project the absolute, thechangeless, the permanent. When we are given the assurance ofthat permanency, of that absolute, we feel safe, because we wantthat absolute, that permanency. Is there anything permanent? Themind can invent the permanent, the idea of permanency, and takeshelter in that permanency; but it is still an invention of the mind, aprojection of the mind, a thing from the past, from its ownknowledge of uncertainty, from the fear of its impermanency.Is Truth something to be remembered, to be recognised? If I canrecognise truth, it is already the known. Recognising implies theaction of the known, does it not? Can the mind which is theproduct of time, the product of the past, the centre of memory, canthat mind know Truth? Or does Truth come into being when thereis the freedom from the process of the known, when there is thecessation of the process of recognition? Then there is the Truthwhich may be from moment to moment, which may have noquality, no time. But the mind experiences for a single second whatis truth, then remembers and says: `I must have that again'. Thedesire to have it again is the projection, is the continuity ofmemory, which prevents the next experience of truth. Sirs, thatwhich is Real is not to be gathered, to be held. The mind must befree from all sense of acquisitiveness. But the mind which is theonly instrument we have, is gathering, takes impressions. With thatmind, we create the unknown, we project into the future the thingswhich we want.For truth there is no path, there is no discipline; all the sacrificesof the mind are in vain - the rituals, the practices. There must befreedom, not at the end but right from the beginning - freedom toenquire, to search, to find out, to discover about truth. Throughdiscipline, there can be no freedom from fear. So our problem isnot whether truth is absolute, but how to be free from theacquisitive process of the mind, free from gathering. A man whohas great experiences, great knowledge, is never free because hisknowledge, his experience prevents that freedom which isnecessary for discovery. If one really understands this, then books,sacred or otherwise, have no significance, they are not shelters,they are no use to you as a way to Reality. They are hindranceswhen they become a means to knowledge, when they are a shelter,when they are a part of the acquisitive process. See how difficult itis for a mind that has an experience which it calls rich, to be freefrom that experience; because, it is always wanting more, more andmore, and the demand for the more - with which the mind isoccupied - prevents the immediate experience of the real.So the question is really: `Will the mind ever be free from theexperience of yesterday or from the immediate experience, andleave the acquisitive memory behind?' That is truth. A mind isnever free so long as it is acquisitive - not the acquisitiveness ofthings only, but the acquisitive pursuits of the mind that demandsmore, asks for more experience, or looks back to an experience thatit had which it calls rich. Such a mind is in constant movement ofexperience, constantly gathering; such a mind can never experienceor be in the state of the unknown - which is obviously a thing frommoment to moment, which is not in time but from moment tomoment, in which there is no action from one experience, onestate, to another state; each state is a new unknown thing and thatstate cannot possibly be understood as long as there is anexperiencer experiencing, gathering.Question: I am a businessman. I have heard you and I feel that Iwould like to do something for my employees. What am I to do?Krishnamurti: Sir this is our world, is it not? It is our earth, notthe businessman's earth or the poor man's earth. It is our earth. It isnot a Communist world nor the Capitalist world, it is our world inwhich to live, to enjoy, to be happy. That is the first necessity, tohave that feeling - which is not a sentiment, but an actuality inwhich there is love, a feeling that it is `ours'. Without that feeling,mere legislation or Union Wages or working for the State - whichis another kind of boss - is of very little meaning; then we becomemerely employees either of the State or of a businessman. Butwhen there is the feeling that this is `our earth', then there will beno employer and the employed, no feeling that the one is the bossand the other is the employee; but we have not that feeling ofourness; each man is out for himself; each nation, each group, eachparty, each religion, is out for itself. We are human beings livingon this earth; it is our earth to be cherished, to be created, to becared for. Without that feeling, we want to create a new world. Soevery kind of experiment is being made - sharing profits,compulsory work, union wages, legislation, compulsion - everyform of coercion, persuasion, is used.It seems to me that the primary thing is to have the feeling thatwe are all human beings, not businessmen, not employees. That iswhy it is important to have a religious revolution, not an economicrevolution only. The revolution must begin at the centre and not atthe periphery. I know you will say that it is impossible, that it is anUtopia, that this can never be worked out and so on. But, Sir, this isthe most practical thing. You say it is impractical and silly, out offocus, because you are looking at it from a particular point of view,you are not concerned with the total development of man. Thebusinessman asks `What can I do?' If he has that feeling, he can doa hundred things; he can make the poor rich by sharing, he canmake his employees share in the business, he can make thebusiness a cooperative concern. There are so many ways. Butwithout this extraordinary feeling that we are one humanity, thatthis is our earth, mere legislation and compulsion or persuasionwill only lead to further destruction and further misery.Question: Help us to understand this terrible fear of death, thatpursues every man and woman?Krishnamurti: Is fear to be got rid of through any reasonthrough any logical conclusion, through the assertion of anybeliefs? Even if you are told that, after death, you are going to liveyour next life, would you be free of fear? It may pacify you,quieten you for the time being; but that sense of not knowing, notbeing certain, still pursues. So is fear to be put aside through belief,through reason? You know that you will die - which is the lot ofeveryone. Logi- cally you know everything ceases; and there is apeculiar continuity, because you continue in your son, in yourdaughter, in your neighbour; and you are the continuity of yourfather and mother. Though you know logically there is death, areyou free from fear?Logically, intellectually, verbally, inwardly, can you be freefrom fear? Fear exists only in relationship, is it not? You are afraidof death, death being the unknown; you are afraid of your mindceasing to be. Though you know you are going to cease and youbelieve you will be resurrected or you will be reborn, will you beever free from fear? So, how are you to be free from fear? Is therea way to be free from fear? If I tell you how to be free, will you befree? You may practise, you may say `I know everything ends, andending may be a new beginning; and in the ending there may be acreativity; or when I cease the unknown comes into being'. Youmay persuade yourself, you may reason, but will fear cease?So fear is something not to be understood or to be put aside bythe mind, because the very mind is fear. It is the mind that createsfear, the idea of ceasing, the idea of coming to an end. It is themind that says `I have lived so long, I should not come to an end Imust experience more, I have not fulfilled.' It is the mind that asks`What is going to happen to me tomorrow?' The tomorrow iscreated by the mind. The tomorrow and the coming to an end oftomorrow are ideas which form the process of the mind. Feartherefore is created by the mind, and the mind cannot overcomefear, do what you will. If you see the truth of this - that the mindcreates fear - then there is the ending of the process of thinking ofthe tomorrow.Sir, as long as the mind operates as being in time or knowingthis ending of time, there is fear. Fear is the process of the mindand the mind cannot free itself of its process; all that it can do is tobe aware of the process that there is fear, and not try to overcome itor to do something about it, but to observe fear and not to act; for,to act is still to create fear. So only when the mind does not createtomorrow - which means, the dying of today, the ending of thethought process now - only then, is there no fear. When the mindsees this truth, then the mind is itself in a state of the unknown, andis not the accumulation of all the many yesterdays. It is only whenwe die, from day to day, to all the things that we have gathered,then only is there such a thing as the ending of fear.February 17, 1954BOMBAY 5TH PUBLIC TALK 21ST FEBRUARY1954It seems to me, that, if we could find for ourselves an ever-refreshing and refilling source of happiness or bliss, most of ourproblems would be solved. We are everlastingly searching afterthat source in all our relationships, in the things that we pursuewith motive and sometimes without motive. The things that weaccumulate as knowledge and the things of the heart and the mindare all surely an indication, are they not?, that we want to findsome inexhaustible source of bliss from which we can always liveand be happy and create. But that fountain seems to elude us. Weare always pursuing a phantom, and we never have the substanceitself. I think, perhaps if we could consider what we have beendiscussing the last few times we met here - namely, the problem ofreligious revolution - if we know how to bring about thatrevolution, it may give us that source, and bliss may come intobeing in our lives.Is total revolution a matter of process? Is it a matter of how toget there? Total revolution is not a revolution through a process,through gradual adjustments, denials, resistance and discipline.Total revolution is in the moment. Every other form of revolutionor change, it seems to me, is a process of adjustment to a particularpattern, to an ideal, to an Utopia, or what you will; it is a gradualprocess; and, it seems to me, such a process, such a gradualapproach, the so-called evolutionary method, is not religious - itmay be scientific, but it is radically not a religious approach at all.It seems to me very important to understand this religious state andbe there but not come to it. That is not possible, it seems to me, ifwe think in terms of time - as getting there, arriving, practising acertain method, having a certain approach which will graduallyreveal that astonishing, creative release of the timeless. It is amatter of dying each day to all the things that we know, all that wehave experienced, all that we have learnt. The important thing isthe dying but not how to die each day.Before we proceed further, it is very important to find out howwe listen. If you are an intellectual, if you have read a great manybooks, if you have acquired great knowledge, and if your brain andyour mind is full, can you listen? Does not that very knowledgeinterfere with what is being said, with your discovery of truth?Your brain may be very sharp, intellectual, capable of progressiverational examination; but will such a mind, the so-calledintellectual mind, come to that state? That state surely can only bewhen the activity of the mind has ceased. So, is it not important forthis so-called intellectual mind, to put aside if it can, all the thingsthat it has leant, studied, read? I am sure that, other wise, theintellectual mind will never find that which is real. The intellectualmind is capable of great deception; because, in the process ofanalysis, it discards, it puts away; there is always the fear ofuncertainty and therefore it clings to some form of belief, as mostintellectuals do.Is it not important for those of us who are not too brainy, toknow how to listen? The average person who is struggling, who ismiserable, feels lost; he does not know where to find comfort,where to find understanding, on whom to rely; because all thepolitical and so-called religious leaders have led him nowhere,there is greater confusion, greater contradiction in his life. Beingthe average, so-called mediocre mind, he is everlastingly strugglingto be something. Is it not very important for him to find out how tolisten? The mediocre man, the average man, like any other mind,really wants to find a method of immediate action; he wants toknow what to do, because he is caught in circumstances, in life thathas become a routine, a boredom, a self-revealing frustration. Is itnot important for a mind which is always striving for an end, for aresult, for something to get at, for something by which it will beguided, to know how to listen because what we hear is translated interms of action - not that action is not important? It seems to methat the happy man knows to live, and living is his action; but theunhappy man is everlastingly seeking a pattern of action.As most of us are unhappy, struggling, trying to find some lightor happiness, we are more concerned to listen in order to find apattern of action; and so we are caught in this vain search for apattern for action and we lose the art of listening, listening not onlyto what is being said here, but to everything about us - to the roarof the sea, to the song of birds, to children's voices, to the booksthat we read. We do not listen because our minds are too occupied,and our occupations are petty. Even the mind that is occupied orconcerned with the search for God, is petty because it is occupied.It is only the mind that is free, quiet and unoccupied, that has bliss,that has infinite space; to such a mind comes that which is eternal.A mind that is occupied with worries, with the salvation ofmankind, with social reforms, with knowledge - such a mind cannever listen, because there is no space, no emptiness, in which anew thing, a new seed, can come into being. I think it is veryimportant to have such a space in your mind, unoccupied, quiet,without striving; because, only in those dark moments, the light isseen dimly; but you cannot see this when the mind is constantlyoccupied, pursuing, asking begging.There are those minds which listen, which are immature - thestudents. They also listen, do they not?, in order to learn, in orderto gather information according to which they are going to live;they want examples, similes; they want to be shown the way whatto do, how to listen. Surely, all such minds - the student, theaverage, and the so-called intellectual person - are occupied, theyhave no space, no emptiness in which something real or somethingfalse can be discovered. Surely, a mind must have space in which anew seed can be born - the seed that comes, not through striving,not through a process, not through the deliberate evolution of theimitator, not through any practice in order to arrive. The mind musthave that small space in the mind, however else the mind isoccupied, and that little space must be undisturbed,uncontaminated; in that space, eternal fountain of bliss can comeinto being. But, to create that space is not an act of volition; youcannot say: `How am I going to create it'? The moment you put the`how', then your mind is occupied.If you see the importance, the sheer beauty and the necessity ofquietness, then that space is there; that space is the dying toeverything that one has known, to all the memories, to all theexperiences, to all the accumulations of knowledge, information.We do die, the body is undergoing a change obviously; there is anending to the noble, the ignoble. But the mind refuses to die to thethings of yesterday. We carry over from day to day, and thiscarrying over is memory by which we give continuity to that. Wehope that, in this continuity of learning, acquiring modifying,changing here and there, there will be a revolution, a radicaltransformation. That which can continue is never a religioustransformation. It is only when thought comes to an end and has nocontinuity, that there is a dying to the mind and, in that a radicaltransformation can take place.Just listen to this. Don't say: `How am I to get those things ofwhich you say?' I am not saying anything, I am just describing thestate of the mind, a machinery, an organism that is perpetuallymaking a noise, that can never hear silence. Our thoughts are inconstant motion, in constant movement; and thought is thecontinuity of yesterday - which is the process of time - and, in theprocess of time, there can never be a radical transformation; therecan be only a change, an escape, a modification, but not that realreligious revolution in which there is no process but there is`being'. For instance, a man who is acquisitive, however much hemay practise, control, discipline - which is the process of time -will never find a state in which that non-acquisitive state is.Freedom from acquisitiveness is not a process, it is a state whichmust happen; and the happening can only take place when there isdying; because, it is only when you come to an end that there issomething new.The mind refuses to come to an end because mind is the resultof time, of centuries of compulsion, of conformity, of imitation; themind only knows struggle, judgment, values based on that struggle;and it is trying to change by struggling, by saying: `I must change;there must be an action by me which will produce happiness.' Sowe have economic, scientific, or social revolutions, but not the realreligious revolution which is the only revolution. Religion is notthe worshipping of idols, the performance of ritual, or the pursuitof the ideals of the mind. Surely religion is something entirelydifferent to the repetition of what the ancient teachers have said inthe Vedas or in the Upanishads - all that must go, it must all end inthe fire of silence.The difficulty is we never want to be uncertain, we are afraid oflosing everything. So the mind, being uncertain, pursues certainty;thereby it creates fear; out of fear comes imitation, theestablishment of authority - political, religious, or of one's ownvolition - because the mind demands a state of continuity in whichit is certain. And a mind that is seeking certainty has never space inwhich the real can come into being. So it seems to me that those ofyou who are listening should be concerned not with `how' butrather with `being' - to be, to have some space in the mind, inwhich there is no movement of thought, thought being thecontinuity of yesterday. Thought can never produce a new world.The intellect can never produce a new state. It is only whenthought comes to an end, when I am dead to all the yesterdays, thatthere is a possibility of that religious revolution which is sonecessary to create a new world. Every God must go, for the realGod to come. We have too many Gods now in our mind, so the realGod can never come into being. Just see the truth or falseness of it,just listen to the fact whether it is true or not. Just to know the fact,in itself is liberation. To know that, there must be an ending ofyesterday, one must die to the memories, to the enrichment of one'sexperiences, to the knowledge that one pursues in order to becertain; all that must come to an end; for, they are all things madeby the mind.The mind is the result of time. You, as the self, as `the me', asthe ego, are a product of the mind. The character, the tendency, thevarious disciplines, the various controls and persuasions are all theresult of time; they are the product of time. Mind is what nature,what the environment, has made it through culture, through fear,through imitation, through comparison, through so-callededucation; such a mind - do what it will, progress, struggle - cannever bring about an action which is the outcome of bliss, which isthe outcome of the revolt to find reality. Really one has to see thesimplicity of it - not the simplicity of the external, but thesimplicity of being in that state - not to arrive, not to struggle to besomething, but to be like a flower. It is in itself perfume, it is initself beauty; there is no effort, no struggle.The mind that struggles to have the timeless beauty of thatperfume, is incapable of knowing it. The mind that struggles cannever know it; all its rituals, all its experiences, all its sacrifices,are in vain, because the self is always there and the self is thecentre of all thinking. One must die to that thinking every day. Therebirth in tomorrow is the religious revolution. Let us now considerthe problem of isolation. When you have a problem, have you notisolated yourself? You have no communion, because I You haveno communion, because your mind is so concerned with theproblem and with the solution of that problem, that you shutyourself off from the real understanding of that problem. When themind is occupied with the problem, the mind is isolating itself.Don't put your mind to work, but see what creates the problem. It isthe mind. The mind in isolation, in that state of non-communion,has a problem and then we ask questions to find an answer whichwill unlock the problem. So we are looking for a key and not at theproblem itself. A mind that is occupied with the problem can neverlook into the problem.We have so many problems in life, not only economic, social,which are all surface problems, but the unconscious problems, thedeep problems which control and shape the economic, the outerissues. They are the result, the fruit, of our confusion, of ourinward struggle. The mere superficial alteration of the economicwill not break down the inward entity which is shaping everythingto suit itself. So to really understand the problem, the mind mustnot be occupied with the problem. But most of us are so eager tosolve the problem confronting us, that we want an immediateanswer; for us the answer is very important because we think that,by having an answer, we have solved the problem. A mind thatseeks the answer is a very superficial mind, it is really a mediocremind.We are all educated to find answers, to be told what to do, tocopy, to practise what we are told to do. Surely life is a process ofliving from day to day, and living has no answer. There is only theproblem and living is the problem. A mind that is merely seekingan answer to the problem will find an answer; but the problem willstill remain and it will come in another form. So, if I know how tounderstand the problem, if I can know how to look at the problem,then the problem is resolved. Because I do not know how to look atthe problem, I seek the answer. I cannot deal with the problem if Icondemn it. That is the real basic thing that prevents us fromunderstanding the problem. The problem is there so long as wejudge, condemn, compare. Sir, when you do not condemn, whenyou do not judge or compare, is there a problem for the mind?The mind that condemns, judges, analyses, compares, createsthe problem. Do not say: `How am I to act?' If you learn a method,the method becomes the master of your mind and again there is theproblem; but if you see the truth of the statement that to condemn,to judge, to compare creates the problem, then you will see that theproblem itself has already full significance.Question: I see how wrongly I have been educated. What am Ito do? Can I re-educate myself or am I mutilated for life?Krishnamurti: Sir when the mind is diseased, when the brain isdiseased, then education is impossible, is it not? But we are livinghuman beings, and there is that quality, that intelligence which canbe awakened, which can educate itself. There is no human entitywho is so mutilated that he cannot bring regeneration to himself.To understand how wrongly we have been educated is a verydifficult thing to do. Before you say you must re-educate yourself,must you not know how you have been wrongly educated? Is it soeasy to say that you have been wrongly educated? That is, you maybe educated to a particular technological job and you find that isnot your way of life, but you are sticking there because of yourresponsibilities. To break that and to go to a new job, is thateducation? Or to learn a new language, to learn a new technique, isthat education? Surely, to find out what is wrong educationrequires a great deal of perception, insight. It is not so easily to beasserted that most of us are wrongly educated.Education from childhood has been the cultivation of fear andthat is all we know. We have ever been brought up with that.Through examination, through comparison with the clever boy,with what the father was, with the mother, with the uncle, we aremade stupid through various forms of compulsion from parents,from teachers, from society; the cultivation of fear is there. As wego out of college, we fit into a wrong pattern of life and do whatwe are told to do. Fear produces the inevitable course of life; andas we grow, life becomes darker and more confused. That is yourlife; but parents do not understand that fear destroys and that feardoes not come into being if there is no comparison from childhood,if there are no examinations but only records kept of each child.All our education has been the cultivation of fear - religious,economic, social. Everything is based on fear. You want to besomebody; otherwise you are nobody; therefore you struggle,compete, destroy yourself. Only that man is `nobody', who is notafraid. Being nobody is true education. There is the sense ofanonymity in the great things of creative life. Truth is anonymous,not yours or mine. There cannot be anonymity when the mind isfrightened. So to uncover the ways of fear and to be free - not atthe end of life but to be free from the very beginning so that Iunderstand what fear is - that is real education. From childhood,the ways of fear are to be understood so that, as one grows, one canmeet fear, can meet all the problems of life, so that one's mind,though it always meets problems, is always fresh, new, so thatthere is no deteriorating factor such as the memory of yesterday.Question: Has prayer no validity, or is true prayer the same asmeditation?Krishnamurti: Prayer and the thing that you call meditation areacts of volition. Are they not? We deliberately sit down tomeditate, we take a certain posture, concentrate in order tounderstand. We pray because we suffer. Behind prayer and theways of meditation that we know, there is an act of volition, an actof will. When you pray, obviously it is an act of will; you want,you beg, you ask; as a result of your confusion, misery, suffering,you ask some one to give you knowledge, comfort; and you dohave comfort. The asker generally receives what he asks for; butwhat he receives may not be the truth, and generally it is not thetruth. You cannot come to truth as a beggar. Truth must come toyou; then only you see the truth, not by asking. But we are beggars,we everlastingly seek comfort, we seek some kind of state in whichwe will never be disturbed; we ask for that, and we will have thereward; but the reward is death, stagnation. Don't you know thepeople who demand peace? They have peace, but their peace isisolation and they keep on repeating the same phrases which theymemorize. The mind makes them quiet. It is like a stagnant poolwith moss, the words are covered with the activities of the mind.The mind is made dull. Surely, that is not meditation.Meditation is something totally different, is it not? Pleasefollow what I am saying and see the truth of meditation. Tomeditate, there must be the understanding of the mediator; that isthe first requirement - not how to meditate; because, how tomeditate only develops concentration which is exclusion. You maybe absorbed in your exclusion, but that is not meditation.Meditation is the process of self-knowledge which is theknowledge of the mediator - not the higher mediator who ismeditating, not the higher self which is searching. To think aboutthe higher self is not meditation. Meditation is to be aware of theactivities of the mind - the mind as the mediator, how the minddivides itself as the mediator and the meditation, how the minddivides itself as the thinker and the thought, the thinker dominatingthought, controlling thought, shaping thought. So in all of us, thereis the thinker separate from the thought; the thinker has become thehigher Self, the nobler self, the Atman, or what you will; but it isstill the mind divided as the thinker and the thought. The mindseeing thought in flux, impermanent, creates the thinker as thepermanent, as the Atman which is permanent, absolute and endless.The moment the mind has created the higher self, the Atman, thathigher self is still of time; it is still within the field of memory; it isan invention of the mind, it is an illusion created by the mind for apurpose. That is a psychological fact, whether you like it or not;you may resist it, you may say that it is all modern nonsense, thatwhat is said in the Upanishads, in the Gita, is contrary to what I amsaying. But if you really examine closely and are not afraid and donot resist, you will see that there is only thinking which creates thethinker, not the thinker first and thinking afterwards.You do not think you are nobody. Because your thoughts areconditioned, because you think as a Hindu, you consider yourselfto be a separate mind, a separate state in which there is the thinker.As long as there is an experiencer experiencing, there can be notrue meditation. But the discovery that the experiencer is theexperience, is meditation.Can one discover for oneself - not according to what Shankaraor Buddha has said - can one see the truth that the experiencer andthe experience are one, that the thought and the thinker areintegral? I can only discover it by the process of meditation - whichis, to understand what is actually taking place, to observe the waysof my mind. That is not a trick, a thing to be learnt, that theexperiencer and the experience are one. You cannot glibly repeat it,it means nothing. But the moment I see, through meditation, thetruth of that, then meditation begins: then meditation is no posturefor an hour but it is a state which continues throughout the day;because, the mind is in a state of awareness, not as the experiencerexperiencing - therefore judging, weighing, clearing, evaluating -because, after all, every experience makes the experiencer, everythought makes the thinker, puts the thinker together.Look what happens when you have an experience of any kind,your mind immediately registers it, remembers; the rememberingof it is the creation of the experiencer, because then the experiencersays I must have more of it or the less of it. Watch your own mindsand see how any experience creates the thinker, the rememberer,and then the thinker, the experiencer, says `There must be more',and so it perpetuates itself. It is the process of time. The mind iseverlastingly seeking an experience - a richer, wider, nobler,deeper, purer experience - and so it receives: and the very receptionis the creation of the chains that bind humanity. Memory is `theme' which is the experiencer. So when I, as the experiencer, seekGod, when I seek truth, which I shall know, from which I shallreceive help, my mind moves from the known to the known, fromtime to time; and this process is what you call meditation. But it isan ugly practice, it is not meditation at all, it is merely theperpetuation of the self in a different way. There is no meditationin the deeper sense of the word, when there are an experiencer andthe experience.There must be the cessation of the experiencer and theexperience, the things which the experiencer recollects, recognises- which means, there must be a state in which there is norecognition; which means, dying to every experience as it comesand not creating the experiencer. If you really listen and see thetruth or falseness of it, you will know what meditation is - not howone is to meditate, but to see the full significance of whatmeditation is.After all, virtue is order. What you are, so you must be. Realvirtue is a clean thing, but it is not an end in itself. What you put inthe room is more important, not how clean your room is. So thecultivation of the mind or the building up of virtue is not important;that is not the emptying of the mind necessary to receive that whichis eternal. The mind must be empty to receive that.That which is measureless can only come into being, you cannotinvite it, it will only come into being when the mind no longerdemands, is no longer praying, asking, begging when the mind isfree, free from thought. The ending of thought is the way ofmeditation. There must be freedom from the known for theunknown to be. This is meditation, and this cannot come throughany trick, through any practice. Practice, discipline, suppression,denial, sacrifice only strengthen the experiencer, they give himpower to control himself; but that power destroys. So it is onlywhen the mind has neither the experiencer nor the experience, thatthere is that bliss which is, which cannot be sought, which comesinto being when the mind is silent and free.February 21, 1954BOMBAY 6TH PUBLIC TALK 24TH FEBRUARY1954I think, if we can understand the problem of frustration, we shallhave a mentality that is not merely, intellectual, but an integratedactivity. Our religions, our social activities are based on frustrationand sorrow. If we can go into this question of frustration, which isreally the problem of duality, we may be able, for ourselves asindividuals, to come on to this creativity, which is not a merecapacity or gift but a totally different action. If we can go into thisquestion of what is duality and the conflict between `what is' and`what should be', then perhaps we shall understand the mind that iswithout root, because most of our minds have roots.The very existence of mind indicates, does it not?, thoughthaving root in the past. It is that root which creates duality. Is itpossible not to give continuity to that root in the present or in thefuture? It is only t a mind that is without root, that can be trulyreligious and therefore capable of radical transformation, for realityto come into being. I would like to go into that, which may berather a difficult question; but if we can deal with it simply, notphilosophically, then perhaps we may be able to see andunderstand it for ourselves. But the difficulty is going to be, thatmost of us have read so much about this problem of duality; weknow the problem according to some philosophy, according tosome teacher, but we do not know it directly, without it beingpointed out. If we can discuss the problem of duality, notintellectually or philosophically, but observe the activities of ourown minds as I talk, then perhaps we will see the problem in adifferent manner. If you can listen, not to my description but to theactivities of your own minds as I begin to describe, as I begin toverbalize, then it will be a direct experience, which is far more vitaland significant than merely discovering a dual process in all of us,which some philosopher or some religious teacher or some bookhas indicated. But the difficulty is going to be that those of youwho listen, have already come to a conclusion or you have heardwhat I have said previously, and so your mind is full of the ashesof memory of what I have said; therefore it will not be a freshexperience, something real, living. Those of you who are here forthe first time will only be puzzled because I may be using wordsthat have a different significance than yours. But knowing all thedifficulties of the ashes of memory, of previous knowledge andexperience, of coming here for the first time and listening tosomething so very philosophical and difficult and thereforebrushing it aside, you have to listen with a freshness of mind. Thatfreshness of mind cannot come into being if you do not observeyour own process of thought, as I begin to talk about this problemof frustration and duality.I am not telling you anything, I am only stating facts. You and Ican understand the fact can look at is it without any condemnationwithout any judgment, can merely observe it and be aware of itentirely - not as the observer watching but to see what is actuallyhappening to actually experience the process how the mind createsduality and therefore brings into being frustration upon which ourwhole culture, religions, social activities are based. If we canunderstand this, then we shall find out what true freedom is.The difficulty is that most of you treat these talks as lectures, assomething to be listened to, something to be remembered,something in which you will have many experiences, thrills,emotional excitations. But that is not at all what is intended, at leastfrom my part. What is important is to have this religiousrevolution, a radical fundamental religious transformation, becauseall other changes have no meaning, all other revolutions merelyend in further misery. If we can see the truth of that, theimportance of a radical religious revolution, and that it alone canbring about a radical change in our relationships towards all men,then these talks will be not merely an intellectual or an emotionalexcitement or amusement but something that will have significancein our daily life. So, we have to listen as though we are hearing itfor the first time, we have to listen with a freshness; and thatfreshness cannot come into being if you do not watch your ownminds as I begin to talk, as I go into the problem.The problem is is it not? one of struggle, conflict, the constantstruggle of `what I am' and `what I should be', the conflict between`what is' and `what might be'. The mind is everlastingly striving,struggling, accommodating, adjusting, disciplining, controllingaccording to `what should be'. That is all we know. This `shouldbe' is more important to us than `what is'. We have theseideological patterns, and the mind is constantly adjusting itself tothose patterns. The adjustment is the action of will, throughcompulsion, through persuasion; and this brings about struggle,and the struggle produces frustration. This is notoversimplification. This is what actually happens with each one ofus: `I am this and, in the future, I should be that'. But the future,what should be, the ideal, is the projection of `what is', it is acontradiction of `what is'. The mind sees `I hate', and it says, `Ishould love', so the mind is everlastingly adjusting, forcing,disciplining itself into a state which it calls love. I never know lovebut my mind pursues what, it thinks, is love - which is an idea, theopposite of what I am. The projection of an idea of what love is, isnot love, because it is a reaction of what I am, which is `I hate'. Inmy struggle to capture that love, I am violent and I have the idea ofnon-violence; so I practise, I discipline, I control, I shape my lifeaccording to that background, according to that particular pattern,and that pattern I never fulfil. I can never be that because, when Ido reach it, the mind has already invented another pattern. So Ikeep on changing from one pattern to another. So my life is a seriesof frustration, sorrow, always striving for one thing after another.So my whole life is a series of struggles and unhappiness, and thatis all I know.What is important is not `what should be', but `what is'. What is,what I know, is the fact. The other is not. If the mind can pursuetotally `what is', without creating the opposite, then I will find outwhat is love - not the love as the opposite of hate. But the probleminvolved in understanding what is hate, requires awareness inwhich there is no condemnation. Because, the moment I condemn,I hate, I have created already the opposite. I hope I am making itvery clear and simple. If we can see this thing, it is really anextraordinary release from all the frustrations that we havedeveloped.We are an unhappy people; our religion is unhappy it is theproduct of unhappiness, of strife, of frustration; our Gods and thevery culture that we have is the result of this frustration. So, wehave to understand not merely verbally, intellectually, but verydeeply, the fact of what I am, the fact of what is. The fact is `I hate,I am violent', that is all. But the mind does not want to accept thatfact; therefore it creates the opposite - that is, it condemns the factand so creates the opposite. The very condemnation is the processof creating duality. Now if I can be aware that my mind condemns,that through condemnation I create the opposite and therefore bringinto being struggle, that very realization of the fact thatcondemnation creates the opposite in which there is conflict, thatvery awareness, stops the whole process of condemnation - notthrough any compulsion but merely through the awareness of thefact. So I have only the fact that I hate, without any mentalprojection of the opposite.You understand, Sirs, what an extraordinary release it is whenyou have no opposite? Then you can deal with the fact. Then thething that I have called hate, if I do not condemn it, is not hate. ButI condemn hate and wish to transform it into love, because mymind has its root in the past. The valuation is the judgment of thepast; and with that background I approach hate and wish totransform that hate into what I call love; this brings about conflict,struggle, with all its disciplines, controls, and so-calledmeditations.Now, can there be freedom from the past? Can there be freedomfrom thought projecting itself into the future? I hate; that hate is theresult of the past, a reaction; then thought condemns it and projectsit into the future as `I must love; so thought establishes a root in thepresent and in the future; thus, thought is continuous; and in thatcontinuity there is the struggle to continue in the form of theopposite. What I am trying to find out is whether the mind can everbe free totally, and not have root. The moment mind has root, itmust project, it must stretch out; the stretching out is the opposite;so thought is continuous, it never comes to an end; it is thecontinuity of my conditioning, of my background to the future; andtherefore there is never freedom. I am trying to find out if the mindcan ever be in a state in which it is not establishing roots throughexperiences. Without being in that state, the mind is never free, it isalways in conflict. Therefore, to a mind that has root, there isalways frustration; and whatever be its activity - social, cultural,religious - still it is the outcome of frustration; therefore it is notthe real religious transformation in which there is the cessation ofall projection of thought taking root in the mind.Can the mind ever be without root? You do not know. All thatyou can do is to find out, to see if the mind can be without root -like the Sea, living, having its being without root, withoutestablishing itself in a particular place, in a particular experience,in a particular thought. Sir, it is only the mind that is without root,that can know what is real. Because, the moment the mindexperiences and establishes that experience in memory, thatmemory becomes the root, the past; then that memory demandsmore and more experiences; therefore there is constant frustrationof the present. Frustration implies, does it not?, the condemnationof the state of the mind as it is. The mind as it is, is full of tradition,time, memories, anger, jealousy. Can we understand that mindwithout condemnation - that is, without the creation of theopposite? The moment we condemn `what is', we do notunderstand it. The very understanding of `what is' can only happenwithout condemnation; then only, there is freedom from `what is'.To me, a mind which has no struggle of duality, is the reallyreligious mind - not the mind which is struggling to conquer anger,not the mind ,that is struggling to become nonviolent; such a mindis only living in the struggle of the opposite. It is only the truereligious mind that has not the conflict of the opposite; such a mindnever knows frustration; such a mind does not struggle to becomesomething, it is what it is. In understanding what it actually is, themind is no longer putting roots in memory.Please just listen to this; it does not matter whether it is false ortrue, but find out for yourself. A mind that has continuity inmemory will always be frustrated, will always be struggling to besomething. The becoming is the taking root - in an idea, in aperson, in an object. Once the mind has taken root, then theproblem arises: `How is it to free itself?' The freeing of itselfbecomes then the opposite; and the struggle then is `How to freeoneself?' But if one sees, understands, is aware of the truth of howthe mind is always taking root in every experience, in everyreaction, then, in that awareness, there is no choice, there is nocondemnation, therefore no creation of the opposite, and thereforethere is no struggle. Then the mind has no root but it is living, ithas no continuity but is in a state of being in which time is not. Ithink, it is important to understand this not merely verbally orintellectually, but actually to see how the mind is creating thestruggle and the dual process.The action of the mind that is without root, is creative becausethat mind is no longer in a state of frustration, from which it paints,it writes or seeks reality. Such a mind does not seek - seekingimplies duality; seeking implies struggle, the stretching out of thepast into the future, in thought, which establishes itself in the rootof the future. If the mind can see that, be aware of it, then there isan astonishing release from all struggle; and therefore there is ahappiness and bliss; and that happiness and that bliss is not theopposite of sorrow, misery or frustration. These are not just words,they are direct states which the mind takes hold of and establishesitself in the experience. They are actually states which cannot beexperienced by a mind that is struggling to become the opposite.All this requires, does it not?, awareness of the process of themind. What I mean by awareness is of the total process ofexistence - sorrow, pain, love, hate, feeling, the emotions, all ofwhich is the mind. Is it not therefore important to see how yourmind works, how it operates, how it projects, how it clings to thepast, to tradition, to the innumerable experiences, and so preventsthe experience of reality? To be aware of all that is not what themodern or the ancient teachers or the psychologists or the gurussay; what other people have said is merely information and hasreally no significance at all; but one has to discover for oneself thiswhole process of the mind. This discovery is not possible by thewithdrawal in a dark corner of a mountain, but by living from dayto day. You have also to see that what you had discovered mayhave already become the root, from which you act - that is, youhave to discover how the mind uses the very discovery as anexperience from which it thinks, and therefore that experiencebecomes the hindrance and leads to frustration. To see all this isawareness. That awareness can only happen when there is nocondemnation - which means really the breaking down of allconditioning of the mind, so that the mind is in a state in which it isno longer establishing roots, and therefore it is a mind withoutanchor, and therefore there is real experience. It is only such amind that can know and see that which is eternal.Sirs, in answering these questions, watch your own mindscreating duality. How the mind is expecting an answer. It poses aquestion out of its own frustration, out of its own sorrow, out of itsown troubles and confusion. It puts a question and makes it aproblem, and it waits for an answer. On receiving an answer, itsays: `How am I to get there?' The `how' is the struggle - thestruggle between the problem and the answer, between `what is'and `what should be'. The method is `how', the method is thestruggle; and therefore, the method in its very nature producesfrustration. So it is the most stupid mind which says `How am I todo this?', `How am I to get there?', `I am this, but I would like to bethat and so how'?What is important is `what is' and not `what should be'. Theunderstanding of `what is' demands cessation of condemnation,that is all. Don't say: `How am I not to condemn'? Then you will beback again in the same old process. But see the truth of thestatement that condemnation produces struggle and thereforeduality and therefore the struggle towards the opposite. Just seethat, just realize that fact; then there is the revealing of `what is'which is the problem.Question: I know loneliness, but you speak of a state ofaloneness. Are they identical states?Krishnamurti: We know loneliness, don't we?, the fear, themisery, the antagonism, the real fright of a mind that is aware of itsown loneliness. We all know that. Don't we? That state ofloneliness is not foreign to any one of us. You may have all theriches, all the pleasures, you may have great capacity and bliss; butwithin there is always the lurking shadow of loneliness. The richman, the poor man who is struggling, the man who is writing,creating, the worshipper - they all know this loneliness. When it isin that state, what does the mind do? The mind turns on the radio,picks up a book, runs away from `what is' into something which isnot. Sirs, do follow what I am saying - not the words but theapplication, the observation of your own loneliness.When the mind is aware of its loneliness, it runs away, escapes.The escape, whether into religious contemplation or going to acinema, is exactly the same; it is still an escape from `what is'. Theman who escapes through drinking is no more immoral than theone who escapes by the worship of God; they are both the same,both are escaping. When you observe the fact that you are lonely, ifthere is no escape and therefore no struggle into the opposite, then,generally, the mind tends to condemn it according to the frame ofits knowledge; but if there is no condemnation, then the wholeattitude of the mind towards the thing it has called lonely, hasundergone a complete change, has it not?After all, loneliness is a state of self-isolation, because the mindencloses itself and cuts itself away from every relationship, fromeverything. In that state, the mind knows loneliness; and if, withoutcondemning it, the mind be aware and not create the escape, thensurely that loneliness undergoes a transformation. Thetransformation might then be called `aloneness' - it does not matterwhat word you use. In that aloneness, there is no fear. The mindthat feels lonely because it has isolated itself through variousactivities, is afraid of that loneliness. But if there is awareness inwhich there is no choice - which means no condemnation - then themind is no longer lonely but it is in a state of aloneness in whichthere is no corruption, in which there is no process of self-enclosure. One must be alone, there must be that aloneness, in thatsense. Loneliness is a state of frustration, aloneness is not; andaloneness is not the opposite of loneliness.Surely, Sirs, we must be alone, alone from all influences, fromall compulsions, from all demands, longings, hopes, so that themind is no longer in the action of frustration. That aloneness isessential, it is a religious thing. But the mind cannot come to itwithout understanding the whole problem of loneliness. Most of usare lonely, all our activities are the activities of frustration. Thehappy man is not a lonely man. Happiness is alone, and the actionof aloneness is entirely different from the activities of loneliness.All this requires, does it not?, awareness, a total awareness ofone's whole being, conscious as well as the unconscious. As mostof us only live on the superficial consciousness, on the surfacelevel of our mind, the deep underground forces, loneliness,desperations and hopes are always frustrating the superficialactivity. So it is important to understand the total being of themind; and that understanding is denied when there is awareness inwhich there is choice, condemnation.Question: Surely, Sir, in spite of all that you have said aboutfollowing, you are aware that you are being continually followed.What is your action about it, as it is an evil according to you?Krishnamurti: Sir, we know that we follow - we follow thepolitical leader, the Guru; or we follow a pattern or an experience.Our whole culture, our education, is based on imitation, authority,following. I say all following is evil, including the following of me.Following is evil, destructive; and yet, the mind follows, does itnot? It follows the Buddha or Christ, or some idea, or a perfectUtopia, because the mind itself is in a state of uncertainty but itwants certitude. Following is the demand for certitude. The mind,demanding certitude is creating authority - political, religious orthe authority of oneself - and it copies; therefore everlastingly itstruggles. The follower never knows the freedom of not following.You can only be free when there is uncertainty, not when the mindis pursuing certainty.A mind that is following, is imitating, is creating authority, andtherefore has fear. That is really the problem. We all know that wedo follow, we accept some theories, some ideas, an Utopia, orsomething else because, deep down in the conscious as well as inthe unconscious, there is fear. A mind that has no fear does notcreate the opposite, it has no problem of following; it has no Guru,it has no pattern; it is living.The mind is in a state of fear, fear of death, fear of something;and to be free, it does various activities which lead to frustration;then the problem arises: `Can the mind be free from fear, not howto be free?' `How to be free from fear' is a schoolboy question.From that question, all problems arise - struggle, the achieving ofan end, and therefore the conflict of the opposites. Can the mind befree from fear?What is fear? Fear only exists in relation to something. Fear isnot an abstract thing by itself, it is in relation to something. I amafraid of public opinion, I am afraid of my boss, my wife, myhusband; I am afraid of death; afraid of my loneliness; I am afraidthat I shall not reach, I shall not know happiness in this life, I shallnot know God, Truth, and so on. So fear is always in relation tosomething.What is that fear? I think that if we can understand the questionof desire, the problem of desire, then we will understand and befree from fear. `I want to be something', that is the root of all fear.When I want to be something, my wanting to be something and mynot being that something create fear, not only in a narrow sense butin the widest sense. So, as long as there is the desire to besomething, there must be fear.The freedom from desire is not the mental projection of a statewhich my desire says I must be in. You have simply to see the factof desire, just be aware of it - as you see your image in a mirror inwhich there is no distortion, in which you see your face as it is andnot as you wish it to be. The reflection of your face in the mirror isvery exact; if you can be aware of desire in that sense, without anycondemnation, if you merely look at it seeing all its facets, all itsactivities, then you will find that desire has quite a differentsignificance.The desire of the mind is entirely different from the desire inwhich there is no choice. What we are fighting is the desire of themind - the desire to become something. That is why we follow, thatis why we have gurus. All the sacred books lead you to confusion,because you interpret them according to your desire, and thereforeyou see only the reflection of your own fears and anxieties; younever see the truth. So it is only the mind that is really in a state inwhich there is no desire, that does not follow, that has no guru.Such a mind is totally empty of all movement; only then, the blissof the real comes into being.February 24, 1954BOMBAY 7TH PUBLIC TALK 28TH FEBRUARY1954I would like to discuss this evening rather a difficult problem and Ihope you will listen with consideration, not for the result, not at theend but from the beginning. I feel that neither the reformer nor theradicalist has the real solution of the problem. Their actions areborn out of confusion. Now, most of us are concerned with action;we must do something, we must change the social order radically.Our whole outlook, our whole valuation, is based, is it not?, on theresult. The reformer and the radicalist both promise us results. Bothare sure of their results; they say, they are not confused beings; andthey are clear in their pattern of action and will.Now, I would like to discuss a step which is not action at all.The action we know is born out of choice, out of determination. Aswe know, as we observe in the world, action is of various forms -acceptance of authority, liquidation, redistribution, decentralisationand so on. But I feel that there is an action which is not action at allnor is it reaction. We know the action of choice, of determination,of result, of an Utopia; but such action is not true action because itleads to conflict, to struggle between man and man. So we have tofind out a state from which action springs and which is not thereaction or the result of the action of a reformer or of a radicalist. Itseems to me very important to find out whether we are confused ornot because the action which comes out of, a confused state is nottrue action.We all know that we are confused. If we are not confused, thenour action would have been true action. But we are not certain. Nohuman being, neither the capitalist nor the Communist, nor theSocialist, is quite clear. But they all want to be clear and the verydesire to be clear creates the action of uncertainty, becausebasically they are all confused.I think that it is an important thing to admit to oneself that oneis confused. But one does not admit it. The reformist and theradicalist assert that they know and that they are clear; andtherefore their action which is born out of confusion inevitablybreeds destruction and uncertainty.Now, most of us know that we are confused, not at one layer ofconsciousness but right from the conscious to the unconsciouslayers, but we dare not admit it. If we really try to understand thequestion of action and if we go into it, not verbally, notintellectually, we would have to admit that we are confused and itis the seeing of this confusion that itself produces an action whichis not of the mind. We start all our actions on the assumption thatwe know. But we only say that we know. Beyond that do we knowanything? The reformist and the radicalist say that they know, andthey drive others into the pattern of their action, which has reallycome out of confusion. Any action of a confused mind is bound tobe a confused action.I am confused and in that confused state of mind I persuademyself to accept a particular way; but basically, I am confused andout of that confusion I try to create certainty which is essentially aconfused certainty. But I give it a name and a pattern and somepeople follow me. But the fact is, that they and I are all confused.You and I are confused. Our political, social and religious leaders,all are confused. If we can admit that, not merely intellectually orverbally but actually, we will see that the result of all this action isbound to be confused.Each one of us must see, that we are confused basically. But itis very difficult for us to admit that we are confused. Now if we areconfused, can we say that we must act? If I am confused and if Isee that I am confused, what would happen is, that my confusionwould bring about its own action which is uncertainty. I think, it isvery important t,o understand this because then action will takecare of itself. For the moment, I am not concerned with action.think that relationship must be established between you and me. Ido not believe in the action of a reformist or of a radicalist; all thatI am concerned with is confusion. Therefore there is humility andthere is no assertion.Now let us see what happens to a mind that knows that it isconfused. It has no leader because to choose a leader out ofconfusion is an action of confusion. Obviously, to have a theory, tohave a plan, to have a pattern of action born out of confusion is stillconfusion. Please don't say `What are we to do then'? If you admitthat you are confused, it means you know nothing. So it would befutile for you to follow any authority, any book, any leader, or anypattern of action with regard to what is good, what is bad, what isright, or what is wrong.A man who is confused does not know what is right and what iswrong. He has no leader. He knows no authority, no book, onwhich he can rely because his mind is fundamentally confused. Heis not in a state in which he can read a book or follow an authority.I am not mesmerizing you to admit that you are confused. But youhave to think for yourselves and see whether you are confused ornot; and if so, whether your decision as regards what is right andwrong has any meaning.Now if the whole world is in a state of confusion, you are alsoconfused because you are a part of that world. So if you are reallyaware that you are confused, then what action would be yours?Your action would be neither the action of a reformer nor that of aradicalist. So what do you do? When there is no choice, when thereis no leader, no guide, no following of any authority - because youare aware that the very choosing out of confusion is still confusion- what do you do? What happens to your mind? A man who isconfused and knows that he is confused, does not know what to do,because he is uncertain. But our social, political and religiousleaders think that if they tell us that they are confused, we mightabandon them and therefore nobody is prepared to admit that he isconfused. But once we admit that we are confused, our wholepattern would be destroyed. The very confusion of our mind bringsan action which is not a reaction of the mind but which is an actionof uncertainty; therefore there is no Utopia, no leader, no teacher.In a state of entire confusion you are trying to find out what istrue. There are many others who are like you, who are in a state ofconfusion; and all of you come together. But all of you are in astate of confusion, in a state of uncertainty, and therefore there islittle cooperation between you.Now the man who says that he knows, is really not admittingthat he is confused. But the man who admits that he is confusedand therefore is incapable of knowing anything, is a sincere man.When I say I do not know, in the deepest sense of the word, I admitthat I am confused; and therefore there is a state of humility. I donot become humble, but there is a state of humility, which, itself isan action, and that action is real action. Because I see I amconfused, leaders have no significance at all; I will not followanybody and my mind will be quiet. My mind will no longer becertain; it will be in a state of humility. That which is really humbleis in a state of love. This love is not something which can becultivated. Without this love, life has no meaning. Now most of usare concerned with problems and their solution. But we shouldalways be concerned with the understanding and the resolu- tion ofthe problem, so as not to create more problems. Our solution of aproblem only serves as a root to the problem in the future. Youmay find a solution of the problem which you have today; but thatsolution is such that it carries the problem over to tomorrow andgives rise to other problems tomorrow - that is, it is not a realsolution at all.Now you have got several problems. You have the problem ofdeath, you have the problem of frustration. If you carry over theproblem of frustration into tomorrow, you add strength to it.Please, do understand the significance of all this, and the need notto give root to any of our problems in the future.How can I, how can the mind, not give root to the problem inthe tomorrow? Do you understand what I am saying? If you canreally grasp this, you will see that there is no problem at all. Today,you have a problem because you have made it a problem for thelast few days; and therefore, your mind is never fresh; it is alwaysliving in the past which is really dead. But if we really understandand not give a root to our problems in the tomorrow, there wouldbe no problem at all.Question: I am addicted to drink. You say that discipline andself-control will not save me. Can you then tell me how I can befree from the vice of drinking?Krishnamurti: Sir, there are many reasons why one drinks.There is frustration, the constant struggle in life, the strugglebetween husband and wife, family worries; and you want to escapefrom all this and therefore you drink. Now the question is how canyou stop drinking? Will mere analysis - the analysis of frustration,the analysis of your worries - free you from the habit of drinking?When you know why you have a frustration, when you are awareof it, then that awareness itself, without choice, will act, and thehabit will cease.Please see the importance of what I am saying. You know theeffects of drinking. Suppose you decide that, because you haveseen the implications of drinking, you will drop the habit fromtomorrow, then you will be creating a problem for tomorrow.Sometimes it also happens that to drop something you adopt amethod; but that very method becomes your habit. So the mind isnot really free from habit. Instead of one habit, it cultivates anotherhabit. Even the routine of performing Puja or reading sacred booksis a habit. It may be said that it is a good or respectable habit, andsome other habit might be said to be an evil habit. But,psychologically, both are habits. If you want to get rid of thesehabits, you have to go to the root of them. If you really understandthat there is no method, no system by which you can drop thehabit, then you will see the truth; and that truth will act upon you,you will not have to act upon the truth.Most of us want to act upon the truth; but if we let truth alone toact upon us, then truth will bring about its own action.Question: I am a Hindu, and you ask me to be free fromHinduism. Can I be ever free from Hinduism?Krishnamurti: This is a very complex question. We must go intoit very carefully to understand it.Now, you call yourself a Hindu. You have a certainbackground, there are certain traditions which you follow. You callyourself a Hindu, and therefore you want to follow the traditions ofHinduism. Now if you want to find out the true implications offollowing, if you want to find out whether following is evil or not,you have to see whether it is really necessary to follow yourexperience, your traditions and your culture. But in order to seethis, you must be absolutely free.Now, when you say that you are a Hindu, what do you mean bythat? Can you say that you are a pure Hindu or a pure Aryan?There is no such person because we are a mixture of others' culturealso. Most of us have the background of Hinduism with somewestern conditioning. So we are neither this nor that. But the mindwants to have a root in something. The mind wants to be secure insomething and when it feels that it will be secure in Westernculture, it gives up the Eastern culture and vice versa. That isexactly what is happening in the case of all of us; really speaking,we are in a state of confusion. It is only when we are totally freefrom any culture that we shall be able to see clearly. But if weaccept one culture, either the Western or the Eastern, then it acts asa poison.If we want to see clearly and to find out the real truth, then theremust be complete clearness of the mind; and that can only comewhen you do not belong to any society. The truth will act upon youonly when your mind is absolutely free, and that freedom can onlycome when you do not belong to any community. That means,when the mind is fearless, when it has no background, no rootanywhere, then only can you see what is the Truth.Question: Physically time has no dimension. But you speak ofpsychological time as different from chronological time. Can youtell me whether time is non-existent or it has existence which isphenomenal.Krishnamurti: This is not a philosophical question,philosophical in the sense of theoretical or verbal. The questionimplies that time has a phenomenal existence. There is a tomorrowand there was also an yesterday. So time is chronological. That is afact. But there is a difference between psychological time andchronological time. There is a time which the mind establishes, thetime as distance between me and what I shall be, me and the idea,me and death, me and the future, me as mortal and me who wouldbecome immortal. There is a wide gap between what I am andwhat I shall be. We cannot deny phenomenal time. But the timewhich the mind creates - has it reality? There is what is. I think Ishould be something else than what I am. There is the distancebetween what I am and what I shall be according to my desire - tobecome immortal and so on. In all that, there are two things, `whatis' and `what should be'. The moment I introduce the factor ofdesiring to change, I introduce time.Suppose I am stupid. My being stupid is a fact. But the momentI say I must become clever, I condemn my stupidity and introducethe factor of time. But if I do not condemn the fact that I am stupid,then there is no sense of time. But the moment I decide to becomeclever, I introduce time. Now my mind is the result of time, andthrough the mind I am going to achieve what I want to achieve. Somy mind is equivalent to time. But there is only one thing which isa fact and that is what I am today.Now let us put it the other way. The mind is the result of thethought of yesterday, of today and what it will be tomorrow. Mindis the result of the thoughts, of the traditions, of the ideas, ofcenturies of man. The mind is the I. The future is the unknown; andthe mind which is the result of the known is trying to get theunknown. Mind can never be free from the past. But if you lookinto it very closely, if you can really go into it precisely, then thepast is burnt away. Then you will see the truth.February 28, 1954BOMBAY 8TH PUBLIC TALK 3RD MARCH 1954This is the last talk of this series and there will be no morediscussions.Living has so many accidents and the mind gets so many scars.As we grow older, the accumulation of accidents, experiences, theconstant battle with life, leaves many scars on the mind. We onlyknow suffering with very little joy, and problems increase; thatseems to be the lot of most of us, whatever our capacities are -intellectual, scientific or otherwise. We seem to burden our mindswith all kinds of activity, our hearts wither away with the sense offrustration, fear and the everlasting shadow of loneliness. Very fewof us are happy, and we never know the feeling of being creative.Having been grooved, it is very difficult to heal the mind again sothat it is once again fresh and unspotted. And in the search of thishappiness, this feeling, we pursue so many things, we have somany desires unfulfilled and fulfilled. And our society, our culture,our parents, our neighbours, husbands, wives are all the timeimpinging on the mind, shaping the mind, conditioning the mind,so that we hardly are individuals, though we have a particularname, a special face. If we are lucky, we have a house and a littlebank account, and also a few capacities - that is, what we callindividuality. But beyond the name and the few little qualities andthe little puddles which we call our minds, we are not individualsat all; we are conditioned entities with very little freedom.We think we are free when we choose; but we are not, are we?Where there is choice, there is no freedom because that very choicesprings from our conditioned state. We think we have a will of ourown, and we exercise that will through choice. But, if you observe,you will see that will is the outcome of innumerable desires, ofmany forms of frustration, fears; and these frustrations, fears,desires are the outcome of our conditioning, of our background; sowhen we choose, we are never free. Choice in itself indicates thelack of freedom. A man who is really free has no choice; he is free,not to do this or that, but to be. As long as we have choice, we arereally not free and we are not really individuals.It is very important to understand this, because most of us livewith choice - choosing a virtue, a person, an action - and choiceinvariably leads to misery; there is no good choice and bad choice.Only the mind that is free from choice, is capable of perceivingwhat is true. Truth does not come through choice. Truth does notcome with analysis, with the capacity to choose between this andthat, right and wrong; on the contrary, all choice is the outcome ofour conditioning which is based on fear and acquisitiveness. We,you and I, call ourselves individuals but we are really notindividuals at all. It is only when we are free from the background,from our conditioning, that there is real individuality; and thatrequires a great deal of thought, enquiry.Let us now talk about creativeness which, I think, is essential inthis world that is so confused, where the mind is ridden with somany systems, so many methods, where, all the time, the mind isseeking certitude through methods, through action and therefore itis never free to be creative, to understand what that creative realityis. Unfortunately most of us, do not directly experience somethingtrue, because we have read so much, listened to so many talks,accumulated so much knowledge; and, having read, we compare. Ifwe can listen not only to what I am saying, but to everything inlife, with a deep inward listening, then we will see that freedomcomes in spite of all the accidents to the mind, in spite of all ourfrustrations, in spite of our stupid activity that leads us nowhere.Is it possible for the mind that is gathering so much knowledge,that has had so many experiences of centuries, and wherein everyaccident leaves a residue which is called memory, to be free of allthat, so that it is rejuvenated, it is fresh? I think, the real problemwith all of us is to be reborn anew, and not to give room tomemory, to tomorrow.I think it is very important to understand this because most ofour lives are a series of continuities, broken off and begun again.Our daily life of routine, of earning a livelihood, of doing socialactivities, of going to political, religious, social meetings, is all thesame, continuity in the same direction. There is never a breakingoff, because the mind is always afraid to live anew, not knowing athing, because mind surely is always seeking the certitude of beingsomething.Our problem is we want to be something; every one of us, thesaint as well as the sinner, wants to be something; and so wecultivate memory, and so there is no ending; and so there is neverreal discovery; there are only accidents and the choice of accidents.That is our life. Through all this confusion, through this demandfor action, there is always fear.Can we free ourselves from the past and be reborn again with afreshness of mind? Can we live happily, not doing work withintellectual demand, but living fully each day, each minute, withthe worship of that minute. If that can be done, life is very simple,because a happy man has no problem. It is the unhappy man, thefrustrated man, that seeks action to overcome his frustration.Is it possible for each one of us to wipe away the past, to put anend to it, not through a gradual process, but to cut it off? We haveto put this question to ourselves and leave it at that. If you say`How am I to do it'? then you have already destroyed it because the`how' perpetuates the memory of yesterday.I think, it is really important to completely live each day sofully, so creatively, so richly, that you have no tomorrow. After all,that is life, is it not? Love knows no tomorrow. Love is not of themind. As we have only cultivated the mind, we do not know howto love; and the continuity which we give to memory precludesevery form of love; and that is one of our difficulties.We only know unhappiness, sorrow, and frustration; and fromthat, there is action, which creates further misery, further suffering;so surely there must be freedom from the known for the unknownto be. The known is the mind and the ways of the mind. Mind canonly reason, and reason is the outcome of memory, of the known.Reason cannot lead to the unknown, do what you will, whether youpractise forgiveness, sacrifices, rituals, meditation. As long as themind has its roots in the known, the unknown can never be. So, ourproblem is really to free the mind from the known. The mindcannot free itself from the known because the mind itself is theknown, it is the result of time. So what is the problem? Youunderstand the question? My mind is the result of the known; mymind can only function in the known; and my problem is how canthe mind which is the result of time, cease? How can thought cometo an end? Thinking is the result or the reaction of the known, ofyesterday, of all the accumulations, of the wounds, of theaccidents, of frustrations, fears. How can such thinking come to anend? The mind cannot bring it to an end. Mind cannot say `I willput an end to thinking', then, thinking is separate from the entitywhich says: `I will put an end to it.' The entity that desires anending, is the product of thought.Please listen to the extraordinary mystery of something whichthe mind cannot fathom. There is the astonishing mystery of theunknown; and without letting that operate, our life has no meaning.You may be very clever, you may have the most astonishing mind;but, without realization, without that unknown coming into being,life has no meaning. All that we can know is suffering and thedangers of frustrations. So, if we can see that the mind can neverfind the unknown; that without the unknown, life has nosignificance at all, life is a travail, life is sorrow, life is pain; andthat the mind cannot do anything because any movement of themind is the outcome of the known, is the movement of the known -if the mind realizes that - then the mind becomes quiet.The realization that any movement of the mind is the outcomeof the known, is meditation. There must be meditation in life - notthe orthodox, stupid meditation; that is no meditation at all, that ismerely self-hypnosis - to be aware of this whole process of livingof choice how choice does not bring freedom, how choice deniesfreedom because choice is the outcome of the background. Thefreeing of the mind from the background, the freeing of the mindfrom all conditioning is real freeing. The mind freeing itself fromthe desire to be something, that process, is meditation. In that, thereis the freeing of the mind from the known; then the mind becomesquiet. Now this quietness, this stillness of the mind, is not a thingwhich can be experienced or known without unconditioning themind. It is not a thing to be sought after; if you do, that is merelyanother form of self-hypnotism, an illusion, it has no reality.If the mind can free itself from its conditioning, from its desires,from all the disciplines, patterns, accidents, then, there is freeing ofthe mind from the past. Out of that freedom, there comes silence, aquietness of the mind. That stillness cannot be made, but it happenswhen the mind is free. It is the stillness of great movement inwhich there is no meaning; in that stillness, there is no search ofanything, because it is not the outcome of any frustration, of anyhope, of any desire. That which is in great movement, great speed,great action, is still. Then only, out of that stillness, does thatmystery of creativity come into being, that truth which is notmeasurable by the mind; and without that, life can only mean moresorrow, more mischief, more frustration.We are unhappy human beings and we want to escape from thatunhappiness into every kind of activity; we are lonely entities, andwe want to fill that loneliness with knowledge, with action, withamusement, with scriptures; but that emptiness cannot be filled, itcan only be resolved when the mind realizes that in itself it islonely, and does not try to cover it up or to run away. One must gothrough that loneliness in order to be still; then surely the creativityof truth comes into being.This is not a matter of being continuously earnest. Anything thatis continuous is merely a determined mind, a mind that says `I willbe.' Therefore it perpetuates the memory of itself. But in momentsof seriousness, which may last half an hour - that is enough - inthat moment there is the awareness without choice, the awarenessto see oneself as in a mirror without any distortion, the thing `as is.'That very awareness of the fact brings about liberation, - freedom.But when, in that mirror of awareness, you see yourself as you are,you condemn, you want to change the image, you want to reshapeit, you want to give it a particular name; and therefore you give it acontinuity. But, if you be simply aware of the image in that mirrorof awareness, then you will see, in that awareness, there is anending of everything that has been; and that awareness bringsfreedom, a quietness of the mind in which there is bliss.What is important is not to give root to a problem. We haveproblems, they are there. Every accident is a problem; but not togive it a future, not to give it the minute in which it can take root,that is the problem - not that which we carry in our minds. Themore the mind thinks of a problem, the more it gives soil in whichthe problem can take root. Do think, do watch, do listen to this,Sirs.The problem is not how to solve a problem but how not to givethe problem that I have, a continuity. It is the continuity thatcreates the problem, not the problem of yesterday. If I know, if Isee the truth of that, then I will deal with the problem entirelydifferently; I will end the problem in myself as it arises, not givingit root - which is, not to enjoy, not to condemn; which means,really to have that astonishing quality of humility.A petty mind has always a problem; the little mind is alwaysoccupied, and this occupation goes on, day after day. The pettymind can never solve the problem, because, whatever it solves,however much it thinks about the problem, it is still petty, small,confused. All that the petty mind can do is not to give the problema future. If the mind has a problem and does not give it a future, itis no longer petty because it is not occupied; it is the occupiedmind that is small. The occupied mind is like a river that receiveseverything, all the sewage of the town, dead bodies, the good andthe bad; and because it is in constant movement, it is no longer apuddle, it is a living stream, everything is living in it, and it is notdead. So the mind that has a problem and is occupied, can neverunderstand its own problem; all that it can do is to put an end to itscontinuity, and not to give the problem soil in the tomorrow of itsmemory.All this may sound very difficult; but it is not, if you reallyobserve how your mind likes to continue with a problem, day afterday. Your mind is occupied with something - with what theneighbour says, or what the book says, or what the purpose of lifeis - everlastingly making its own grooves. An occupied mind is asmall mind, and the small mind will always have problems.Question: I feel that it is not enough for people to hear you. Inorder to understand what you are saying, people have to benurtured and educated by a careful study and explanation of yourteachings and through books about your teachings, and by theorganizations of study groups. Only then will people understandyou better. Please tell me if I am right?Krishnamurti: In this question is involved, is it not?, themediator, the interpreter, the priest - `I understand, but the othersdo not understand.' `I understand a little and I must share that little'- which is entirely different. So let us enquire into this wholequestion.Who creates the interpreter, the mediator? You. If youunderstand something directly, you don't need the interpreter, themediator, the priest. But, if I do not understand I look to somebodyelse to explain, and he will explain according to his conditioning,according to his aptitude. So, I create the interpreter, the mediator,the priest, the sub-teacher. I am lazy, I am not aware of myself -which is so simple; you don't have to read books about that, it is soclear. To be aware of yourself in all the things that you do, towatch yourself - not according to some pattern, that is notwatching, but merely to watch yourself - talking at dinner, at table,in your office; just watching and seeing how you condemn, howyou compare, how cruel you are - just to watch it all, to watchchoicelessly: that does not need interpreters, mediators. Just toknow what is happening to your mind, to know for yourself howyour mind operates - not according to somebody else - that is notdifficult; you don't need interpreters mediators, for that. But youneed interpreters, mediators, if you are frightened, if you don'tknow yourself and if therefore you look to somebody.Sir, following is evil, all following is evil. There is no goodfollowing and bad following; whether you follow politically,religiously, or whether you follow your own experiences or ideals,all following is evil, because it creates authority, it creates thefollower. The mentality that says: `I do not know, but you know; sotell me, give me a safe seat in heaven' creates the mediators,interpreters, the priests, who are going to act and save us. Thepolitical leaders, priests, commissars, or the poor Catholic priestsare all the same, because the followers say `We do not know'.Please listen though you may have heard this many times, listenas though for the first time. If you listen to this as though you werehearing this for the first time, it will have meaning, it will havedepth. But you say, `I have heard this hundreds and thousands oftimes because I have grown with you for the last twenty five yearsand I know what you are going to say', you are not experiencingdirectly the thing that is being said, and therefore your merelistening to the words has no meaning.As long as the mind seeks certitude, you must have interpreters;and a mind that is seeking certitude is never free, it is alwaysfrightened; the very demand to be certain about something - anideal, a relationship, a truth to be made certain - implies that youmust have a mediator, somebody who is going to help you. But ifwhat you have heard is truth to you - not according to somebody,but is really truth to you - then you will talk rightly, you will dancerightly, you will live, you will love, you will create; then you havenot to create authority, then you have no following, then you don'tbelong to any society.But the difficulty with most of us is that we are so uncertain andconfused in ourselves that we want help; but the help we want isthe help that a blind man can give to another blind man. But thereis help which comes when I know that I am confused, uncertain,and remain in that state. To know I am uncertain, to know I amconfused, to know that I do not know a thing, that very state is astate of humility, is it not?, a profound sense of humility, whichcreates its own action. A man who is nothing - he does notintellectually say he is nothing, but knows it inwardly, he is awarethat in the state of uncertainty he can be nothing - does not want aninterpreter.Please beware of interpreters, guard against interpreters. Theinterpreters can only give you certainty, he cannot give youfreedom. Freedom comes only amidst the total awareness of thewhole process of living.Question: You say that one must die to be reborn, that in theending there is beginning. But to us, all ending is suffering,whether it is ending of life or of a happy and rich experience. Howthen can I see the truth of the ending you talk about?Krishnamurti: Sir do you see the truth of what I am talkingabout? All that you see is the fact that, that which has continuity,that which goes on through time, is always in sorrow. That is allyou know, is it not?, with occasional rare moment of delight, a joy,but otherwise all that you know is sorrow. Sorrow comes with allthe innumerable aptitudes of the `I', or `the me' of the `ego'. Youhave to see you have to realize that that which continues psycho,logically, inwardly, brings sorrow. Sir, don't you know that thatwhich has an ending, has always a freshness, a beginning? If I donot end my thoughts of today, complete them, finish them today, Icarry those thoughts over to tomorrow; and in that, there is nofreshness, no newness; the mind becomes dead. But if I simply seethat fact, that is enough. The very perception the very awareness ofthat fact without any choice, without any condemnation, is theending in which there is a newness.But we do not want the new, we do not want to be reborn. Allthat we want is to be made certain. After all, what we want ispermanency, a continuity for us with the indications of thepermanent - a permanent house, a permanent relationship, apermanent name, a permanent family, a continuity of activity,success - that is all we want. We do not want a revolution, we donot want to die each day to everything, we want to perpetuatememory; that is why we practise, we discipline, we resist, becausethe mind abhors a state of uncertainty. Sir, it is only the uncertainmind that can discover, not a certain mind. It is only the mind thatknows that it is confused and, in that confusion, is quiet, that candiscover. But the mind that is certain, that has continuity, that is aseries of memories - everlasting - such a mind can never discovertruth.So it is only the mind that comes to an end each day, that canfind truth each day. Truth is something to be discovered frommoment to moment, truth has no continuity in terms of time. Thatwhich continues is in a state of permanency which the mind canrecognise; so the mind which has continuity, which has associationwhich is the process of recognition, such a mind can never findwhat is real. It is only the mind that sees the fallacy of all this andthere- fore choicelessly comes to an end, that can be creative; onlysuch a mind can receive the creativity of truth.Question: What is the relationship between me and my mind?Krishnamurti: Now Sirs, let us go into this so that you and Idirectly experience what is being said. It is a process of meditationand without meditation there is no wisdom. Wisdom comes intobeing through self-knowledge. When I know myself as I am - notaccording to what other teachers have said or what anybody elsehas said - when I know what I am from moment to moment, that isself-knowledge; and that self-knowledge can only come into beingthrough meditation. Meditation is to be aware of all the conflicts,in the mirror of my activities, of my relationships, of my states. Solet us enquire into this question, the relationship between me andthe mind.Is the mind different from the me? Am I different, is theobserver, the thinker different, from the thought? You understand,Sirs?I say, `I think.' Is thinking different from the entity who says, `Iam thinking'? We say that the two are separate, that `the me' thinksit is different from the thought. We assume that the me comes first;the ego, the Self is the thinker; that is the first, then the thought, themind. So we have broken up the me and the mind. But is that afact? You may break it up; but, in reality, is the me, the thinker,different from consciousness which says, which thinks, whichexists? Can you remove the qualities of the diamond and say thatwhat remains is the diamond? The me has various qualities,various memories, various activities, hopes, fears, frustrationswhich are all of the mind, are they not? Remove all your qualities;then, is there `you'? The mind is the me. The mind thinks there isthe higher Self, the Atman, Paramatman, higher and higher; it isstill what the mind projects; the mind has separated itself as the meand the thought.After all, what is the mind? The mind is surely the conscious aswell as the unconscious. The sea is not just the surface of the waterwhich you see in the sunshine, sparkling, living; it is the wholedepth that makes the Sea. Similarly, our mind is the whole content,whether we are conscious of it or not. The mind is so occupied, sotaken up with activities, problems, that it never begins to question,to enquire, to find out, to fish in the unconscious. We know what isthe unconscious; it is very simple. Our motives, our accumulatedknowledge, the collection of experiences, fears, hopes, longings,frustrations - all that is our consciousness; the desire for God andthe creation of Gods - all that is consciousness. So to divide the meand the mind has no reality.Please see this, realize this. The whole of this consciousness isthe me - the me that has a job; the me that has a wife, the husband;the me that is ambitious, envious, acquisitive; the me that values;the me that has a tradition; the me that wants to find reality, God;the me that is petty, acquisitive - all that is the mind, all that isconsciousness. That consciousness, you may push far up and call itAtman, Parmatman, or whatever you like; but it is still a product oftime, it is still consciousness. Now, with that consciousness, youwant to find something which is beyond the mind itself; but youcan never find that.You may have occasional quietness when the wholeconsciousness right up to the bottom is still, and you may dream ofsomething unimaginable, immeasurable, because in sleep yourmind, your consciousness, may perchance occasionally be quiet.But when you are aware of all this pro- cess choicelessly thispattern of consciousness is broken and then you will see there isreal stillness in the totality of your consciousness. That issomething far beyond the measure of the mind. But to pursue whatis beyond the measure of the mind has no meaning. What I say orwhat some one else says has no meaning. What has meaning is tobe completely aware of this consciousness and of all its manylayers. This awareness cannot be learnt through any analysis; oneknows the whole thing if one is observant.To know the whole process of the mind - all its inclinations,motives, purposes, its talents, its demands, its fears, its frustrations,its success - to know all that is to be quiet and not let that act. Thenonly that something which is beyond the mind, can come intobeing. That can only come when there is no invitation; that canonly come when you are not seeking. Because our search is bornout of frustration, the mind that seeks can never find. It is only themind that understands the total process, that can receive theblessings of the real.March 3, 1954NEW YORK 1ST PUBLIC TALK 22ND MAY 1954I think it is important that each one of us should not merely listento the words that are being spoken, but should actually experiencethe things we are talking about as we go along; and it seems to methat the words should convey their significance without resistance.Most of us listen to a talk and go away without directlyexperiencing what is being said, and it would be a great pity if youmerely listened without experiencing. But if we can reallyexperience what is being said, then perhaps the essential changewill come about which is so obviously necessary at the presenttime of crisis throughout the world.I do not believe in ideas, because ideas can be met with otherideas, and mere argumentation, refutation, or acceptance takesplace. Merely to listen to ideas, to accumulate new forms ofknowledge, or to acquire a particular technical capacity - all thosethings are really of no avail to meet life. What is necessary, itseems to me, is to be able to live in this mad, confused world withsurety, with clarity and simplicity, meeting life as it arises withouta thought of tomorrow. That is a very difficult thing to do, becausemost of us live in ideas - ideas being knowledge, experience, ortradition. To us, ideas are very important, they guide our life, theyshape our thinking and our future action, and so we never live acomplete life, but are always overshadowed by the past. Surely,what is important is not a change which is merely a continuity ofwhat has been in a different form, but a total revolution in ourthinking, which means letting go of the things that we have knownand being in a state of the unknown.It seems to me that most of us are utterly confused, and thereare so many new ideas, so many influences, so many experiences,so many teachers, each telling us what we should do, what patternof life, what philosophy, what teaching we should follow; or ifthese fail, we go back to the old, to the traditional. From among allthese confusing and contradictory influences and ideas we areforced to choose what we think is the truth and follow it; but in thevery process of following what we consider to be the truth, there isalso confusion. If we consider our lives closely and fairly seriously,we will see that we are confused. I think it is very important to startfrom there, and not to seek clarity. A confused mind can never findclarity, because whatever it finds will still be confused. I think it isvery important to understand that.After all, you and I are trying to find out what is true, and thediscovery of that may bring about a revolution, a liberation in ourthinking, in our being; but that discovery, that liberation cannottake place until we know what we actually are - not what we wouldlike to be, but actually what is. And it is very difficult for most ofus to accept what is, to see what we actually are. We would like tochange what we are, and with that desire, with that impulse, weapproach the state of what we are. So, we never see what weactually are.I think that is the real basis of uncovering or discovering what istrue: to know exactly what we are, to know actually what is,without any modification, without judging, without trying to alteror shape it. What is is not a permanent state, it is a constantmovement, because we are never the same from moment tomoment, and to find out what is true it is essential to see what weare from moment to moment.So, it is important to see what we are, is it not? And if we lookwe will see that we are confused human beings. We are unhappy.We are caught in innumerable beliefs, experiences. We are alwaysseeking some authority to point out the right direction, the rightaction that will lead us to some future hope, to some happiness, tosome tranquillity. Being confused, the very search to find reality,to find truth, to find happiness, to find clarity, will only lead tofurther confusion. That is an obvious psychological fact, is it not?If my mind is confused, whatever action, whatever decision,whatever book, whatever teacher I may follow, or whateverdiscipline I may impose upon myself, will still be within the fieldof confusion. That is very difficult for most of us to accept. Beingconfused we think, "If I can only find the right teacher, the rightmethod, the right discipline, if I can only understand, it will helpme to evolve, to grow, to change, to transform." But a confusedmind, whatever its action, must always be confused. Whateverdecision it may take will still be within the field of confusion. Asthat state of confusion is the reality, the actual fact, I think weought not merely to see it intellectually or verbally, but to actuallyexperience the state of confusion and proceed from there,observing the whole process of how the mind, being confused,seeks help.After all, that is why most of you are here, is it not? Most of youare here to be told, to be encouraged, or to be confirmed in yourown particular experiences. You want to be helped. Other teachers,other books, other philosophies may have failed, so you turn to anew person; but the mind that is seeking is still the confused mind,and a confused mind can never understand what is put in front of it.It will translate what it sees according to its idiosyncrasies, itsparticular pattern of thought, or its own experiences. Therefore it isincapable of seeing truly.So, if I may suggest, it is very important to know how to listen.Our minds are incapable of listening as long as they are translating,justifying, condemning, accepting or rejecting something. Surely,any such activity is not listening. If you observe your own mind -and I hope you will, during the talks that are to take place here -you will see how difficult it is to listen. Your knowledge, yourexperiences, your prejudices, your fears for the American Way ofLife, your fear of communism, and so on - all that is preventingyou from listening not only to what I am saying, but to everythingin life. What is important is that you should listen in the right way,not only to me, but to everything, because life is everything, and itis in constant movement. if you listen partially, with a particularprejudice or bias, if you listen as a capitalist, as a communist, as asocialist, as a member of any particular religion, or God knowswhat else, obviously you are only listening to what you want, andtherefore there is no liberation, no understanding of the new, thereis not the breaking away, the complete revolution which is soessential. Surely, it is only when the mind is in a state of theunknown that there can be the creativity of reality; but a mind thatis caught continuously in the field of the known, it is not possiblefor such a mind to change itself, to bring about its owntransformation and thereby find a new significance to life.So, is it not important from the outset that as we are talking weshould know how to listen? I think the whole problem is solved ifone knows how to listen, not only to what is being said here but toall the hints, the unconscious urges, the influences, to the words ofa friend, or your wife or husband, of the politician and thenewspaper. If you know how to listen, then that very listening is acomplete action in itself. I think it is important to understand this,if I may, labour the point, because I am not giving out new ideas.Ideas are not at all important. One may have new ideas, or you maylisten to something which you have not heard before; but what isimportant is how you listen, not only to ideas, to something new,but to everything, because if you know how to listen, that very actof listening is a liberation.If you really experiment with what I am saying you willdiscover the truth of it for yourself. A mind that is capable oflistening without translation, without interposing its own particularideas experiences, knowledge, or desires, is surely a tranquil mind,a quiet mind. It is only when the mind is still that the new can takeplace, the new being the eternal, or whatever name you may like togive to it, which is not important. But, you see, most of us haveinnumerable ideas, desires and longings, and so there is never amoment when the mind is really still.So, it seems to me, what matters in all these talks - which aregoing to take place here this weekend and next weekend - is toknow the art of listening, and you can be aware of that art only inobserving your own reactions to what is being said; because youwill have reactions, you are bound to have them. The mind must beaware of its reactions and yet be capable of going beyond thosereactions, so that they do not impede further discovery.Being confused, most of us want to find a way out of thatconfusion. We turn to books, we turn to leaders, we seek politicalor religious authority, or the authority of a specialist of some kind,to help us clarify our own thinking. Is that not what each one of usis trying to do? We want to find somebody who will help us out ofour confusion, out of our frustrations, out of our misery andturmoil, so we seek authority. But is not that very authority thecause of our confusion? And is it not important to shed allauthority? After all, the mind seeks authority in different forms inorder to be sure. That is what we want: to find a refuge where wecan be safe, where we shall not be disturbed, because for most ofus thinking is a pain, every action brings its own confusion, its ownmisery. Knowing that, being aware of it, we seek authority in orderto find shelter. It may not be the authority of a person, but it maybe the authority of an idea.Please follow all this, do not reject it. You may ask, is not theauthority of a policeman, of the government, and so on, essential?But if we understand the whole significance of the creation ofauthority, how authority is bred in each one of us, then we shallunderstand the details of authority and be free of authority.Now, the world is being broken up into several authorities, theleft and the right, into various political pressure groups, all havingthe sanction of some book, of some teacher, of some idea. And is itpossible for each one of us to find out how to be free fromauthority of every kind, not only external authority, but the inwardauthority of experience, of knowledge? Can we find out what istrue, not through somebody, but directly for ourselves, so that thereare no teachers, no pupils? It seems to me that this is what isnecessary, not only now but at all times.As long as the mind is seeking security of any kind, whether ina leader, in a particular way of life, in a particular nationality orgroup, or in any belief, such a mind can only create confusion inthe world and more misery, which is being shown at the presenttime. So, it is important for each one of us to find out for ourselveswhat is by shedding all authority, which is extraordinarily difficult;and seeing what is, the very discovery of what is, will be theliberating process. But, you see, most of us are afraid to be naked,completely alone, one avoids standing by oneself to find out foroneself.If that is not understood, I am afraid you will go away fromthese talks disillusioned and disappointed, because what I amsaying is not anything new; but what will be new is your discoveryof what is being said. Isn't it important to bring about a differentway of thinking? Isn't it important to find out for yourself how tolive in this extraordinarily confusing, brutal and aggressive world?And can anyone tell you how to live. or what pattern of action youshould adopt, or which leader or group you should follow, or whatbelief you should hold? All such things seem so utterly infantilewhen you are confronted with an extraordinary crisis. This crisishas been brought about by the leaders, and it is we who havecreated the leaders - the leaders being the embodiment of someparticular idea or belief, whether religious or economic.So, is it not very important for each one of us to free the mindfrom all sense of authority? - which really means, if you go into itvery deeply, from all sense of knowledge, so that the mind is new,fresh, and can therefore function in a totally different way.You see, we rely so much on knowledge. The man who writes abook about the mind, or speaks about the mind, we accept. We callhis thought by some name, and we accept it. We never investigateinto the whole process of our own thinking and discover it forourselves. That is why we have innumerable leaders, each assertingand dominating. And can one put away all that and find out foroneself? Because, you see, knowledge becomes a hindrance tounderstanding. When you want to build a bridge, for that you mustobviously have knowledge, you must have a certain technicalcapacity. But can one have knowledge of a living thing - that is, theunderstanding of it beforehand? That which you call "me", the self,is a living thing, and you cannot have previous knowledge about it.You may have experiences concerning it, or the information ofwhat others have said about it, but when you approach yourselfwith previous knowledge, you never discover what you actuallyare. If you are religiously inclined, you say, "I am the eternal I ama son of God" and so on; and if you are not, you assert that the self,the "I", is merely the result of environmental nature.So, we approach everything with knowledge, with conclusionswhich have already been made, and with these patterns of thoughtwe go through life; therefore knowledge becomes a hindrance inthe discovery of truth. If I want to know the truth about myself,surely I must discover myself every minute as I am, not as I havebeen or as I should be. Please listen to this, because more and morebooks are being written, more and more lectures are being given,everything - the radio, the television, the newspapers, the speeches,the politicians, the teachers - everything is conditioning you,shaping you to a certain pattern, and with this conditioning you aretrying to find out what is true. Conditioning is knowledge,tradition, it is what has been, the past, both the past of yesterdayand of a thousand years ago. That is our mind, and with that mindwe try to find out what is true. Surely, to find out what is true theremust be freedom from conditioning, the conditioning as anAmerican or as a Russian, as a Catholic or a Protestant, as an artistor a poet; there must be freedom from the conditioning of aparticular capacity, because identification with capacity givespride.So, a mind that is to find out what is true must be free ofknowledge. But if you observe you will see how your mind isconstantly gathering knowledge, storing it away; every experiencebecomes a further strengthening of knowledge. Our minds arenever free to be still because they are too crowded withinformation. We know far too much, and really about nothing andthrough this immense weight we are trying to be free. But you see,we are unconscious of all this; and if we are made conscious of it,we resist, because we say that knowledge is essential to liberation.Surely, knowledge is an impediment, a hindrance to the discoveryof what is true. Truth must be something that is living, it must betotally new each second, and how can a mind that has accumulatedknowledge, information, ever find out what is the unknown? Call itGod truth by whatever name you like, it is not to be sought after,because if you seek it, you already know it, and knowing it is thedenial of it.Please listen to all this. All religions are based on the idea ofknowing, experiencing, believing, and so from childhood we areconditioned to believe. We already know, and we worship thatwhich we already know. We are always frightened of the unknown.The unknown may be death, the unknown may be tomorrow. Amind that is living with the known can never be in a state ofrevolution, it can never bring about that state when truth can comeinto it.Our particular job, then, is not to seek God or truth, becausewhen we seek it we have already destroyed it. What we seek iswhat we want, it is something gratifying, satisfying - which means,really, the projection of our own desires into the future. We projectour own past into the tomorrow, and worship the past in thetomorrow.If you would really understand this, listen to it without makingan effort to free the mind from the past; merely listen to it, see howthe mind is the result of the past, not only the conscious mind, butalso the unconscious mind, the mind which functions whether weare awake or asleep. The many layers of the unconscious, thehidden fears, the impulses, the motives, the hindrances - all that isthe result of the past, as well as the conscious mind which isstruggling with the immediate.In listening to all this, if one makes an effort, it is still a result ofthe known. After all, most of us live through the action of will, dowe not? To us, will is very important, that is, will to be or tobecome. The will to become, to be, is the action of the known, is itnot? Therefore the action of will can never find what is real. Justsee the fact that all knowledge, all experience, only strengthens thewill, the known, the "me", the self, and that such a will, such a"me" can never perceive clearly what is true, can never find God,however much it may try, because its God is the known. It is onlywhen the mind is in a state of the unknown, when the mind itself isthe unknown, only then is there a possibility of creativity, which istruth.What we are talking about is not conformity to any particularpattern of thought, the acceptance of any particular belief, or thejoining of any particular group, but a total revolution which cancome about only when the mind is totally still. It comes when oneunderstands the ways of the self. With self-knowledge alone comestrue stillness of the mind. Without self-knowledge, stillness of themind is merely a deception, a convenience, a thing put together bythe mind for its own security, and in such a stillness the mind is notcapable of perceiving, of realizing or receiving the unknown.So, as we shall be discussing these things during the comingtalks, what is important at all times is to know how to listen, andyou cannot listen if there is an argumentation going on betweenyou and me. If you belong to any society, to any group, to anyreligion, if you accept any belief, you are incapable of listening,because your mind is already conditioned. A conditioned mindcannot listen; it is not free to listen. But if one can listen totally,then I think a fundamental change, a fundamental revolution willtake place which is not brought about by an action of the "me", andtherefore it will be a true transformation. That is the only problemwe have: how to bring about a complete change in ourselves, notmere adjustment to a particular society, which is infantile. It isimmature to desire to adjust oneself to a particular society, becausethe society is created by environmental influences, by our ownreactions and relationships, and merely to adjust oneself to aparticular pattern of society is not freedom.What is necessary, it seems to me, is this fundamentaltransformation that comes about through no volition, no authority,but only when we understand the total process of our own being.To know ourselves as we are, to see ourselves clearly as we see ourfaces in the mirror, without any distortion, is the beginning of truth.That requires a great deal of awareness, an awareness in whichthere is no choice. The moment you choose, you are already actingaccording to your conditioning. But to know that you are actingaccording to your conditioning, and to see the truth of it, is alreadythe beginning of that awareness in which there is no choice.All this one can observe in oneself. You don't have to go to anyphilosopher, to any teacher, or belong to any group. Your variousgroups are limiting, confusing, contradicting each other, theycreate animosity though they talk of brotherhood. If one knows,that truth cannot be found through any person, through any book,through any religion, that reality comes into being only when themind is utterly still, that stillness can come only with self-knowledge, and that self-knowledge cannot be given to one byanother but has to be discovered for oneself from moment tomoment - then, surely, there comes a tranquillity of mind which isnot death, a peace which is really creative, and it is only then thatthe eternal can come into being.May 22, 1954NEW YORK 2ND PUBLIC TALK 23RD MAY 1954As I was saying yesterday, I think it is important not merely tolisten to what I am saying, but rather to experience the thing that isbeing said, because this is not an ordinary lecture from which youare going to learn something. If you merely listen in order to learn,I am afraid you will be disappointed; but if you listen in order todiscover for yourself, then you will find astonishing results.Unfortunately, most of us are so conditioned, our thinking is soobstructed with unknown fears and anxieties, that we are incapableof really experiencing directly, and therefore we miss the deepersignificance of what is being said. Words have a limitedsignificance, they are only symbols, and I feel it is important to gobeyond the symbol; but most of us worship symbols, and we areblocked, we are hindered by merely accepting certain verbaldefinitions and living within those definitions. So, may I againsuggest that in listening to what is being said you relate it toyourself, directly experiencing it rather than merely following thedescription.I feel that as long as the world is broken up into innumerablenationalities, as long as it is divided by many faiths, many beliefsand dogmas, there can be no peace at all. There can be peace onlywhen all nationalism ceases, when all beliefs which divide mancome to an end; and that can happen only when the mind is freefrom all conditioning when the mind no longer thinks in terms ofAmerica or of Russia, when it no longer thinks as a communist, asocialist, or a capitalist, as a Catholic, a Protestant, or a Hindu. Wecan deal with the many problems that arise only when we approachthem as human beings, that is, when we are not conditioned in anyof these patterns which have been cultivated for generations; and itis very arduous, really difficult to break down the enclosures thatthe mind has built around itself. So, I would like to talk about it, gointo the matter; and if you, on your part, will take the journey, notmerely following what I am talking about, but seeing the actualstate of your own mind as we go along, then I think listening to atalk of this kind will have significance. As I said yesterday, thevery act of listening breaks down the barrier, the conditioning,because to listen implies no resistance. I am obviously not askingyou to join anything, to believe anything, or to accept anything, butto investigate your own mind, the mind that is functioning daily;and also, perhaps, to look into the unconscious.It is impossible to be aware of the total process of our being aslong as we are not aware of our own conditioning; and if we are tosurvive in this mad, chaotic world, surely it is imperative that eachone of us who is at all earnest and thoughtful should consider thisproblem of freeing the mind from its conditioning. This does notmean the cultivation of a better conditioning, but freedom from allconditioning. Each one of us is conditioned by the climate, by thefood we eat, and by other physiological influences. Those we knowhow to deal with. But of the deeper conditioning of the psyche, theinward, very few of us are aware, and it is that which dictates,controls and shapes our actions.If we are to have peace in the world, we can no longer belong toany particular nationality or religion, because it is this verydivision of nationalities, of groups, of religious faiths, that isdestroying us; and unless we are alert to this whole problem, it willbring still greater misery. Surely, if you are thoughtful, if you arealert to the problem, you will see that we have to begin byinquiring whether the mind can free itself from all conditioning.Those who are important people in the world, who have greatwealth, who have position, prestige, will naturally not experimentwith this at all, because it is too dangerous. It is only the ordinarypeople, those who have no power no position, and who arestruggling, trying to understand - it is they, perhaps, who will beginto experiment and find out for themselves.As most of us are unconscious of our conditioning, is it not firstof all essential to be aware of it? Each one of us is conditioned as aChristian, or as belonging to some other group with certain ideas,with certain beliefs and dogmas which are contrary to other beliefs,to other ideas and dogmas. Obviously, then, these very beliefs anddogmas create enmity between man and man, do they not? And,realizing that beliefs do create enmity and maintain this divisionbetween man and man, why do we cling to certain beliefs and tryto have others join our particular group?So is it not important to ask ourselves whether it is possible forthe mind to free itself from all conditioning? Is it possible not tobelong to any group, to any religion? - which does not meanentering some other conditioned state, becoming an atheist, acommunist, or something else. To be free from all conditioning isnot to seek a better conditioning. I think that is the real crux of thematter, because it is only when the mind is unconditioned that itcan tackle the problem of living as a total process, and not just onone sectionalized level of our existence.Can you and I be aware of our conditioning? Is it possible to befree of it? And will any action of the will bring about that freedom?Do you understand the problem? I realize that I am conditioned asa Hindu, or what you will, and I see the effects of that conditioningin my relationship with others, which is really a relationship ofresistance, creating its own problems. I realize that. And can I,realizing it, break down that conditioning by an act of will, bysaying to myself that I must not be conditioned, that I must thinkdifferently, that I must consider human beings as a whole, and soon? Can the conditioning be broken down through any action ofthe will? After all, what is it that we call the will? What is the will?Is it not the process of desire centred in the "me" that wants toachieve a result?Please, this is not a highbrow talk. If we can think simply aboutthe matter, we shall find the right solution to the problem; but it isvery difficult to think simply because within ourselves we are socomplex. We have so many ideas, we have read so much, so manythings have been told us, and amidst this complexity it is verydifficult to think directly and simply; but that is what we are tryingto do.I see I am conditioned, and I want to know how to break itdown, because that conditioning prevents me from thinking clearly.It prevents a direct relationship with people. It creates resistance,and resistance creates its own problems. So seeing the wholeimplication of the effects of conditioning, how is my mind to freeitself from conditioning? Do you understand the problem? Is theentity that desires to free the mind from conditioning, differentfrom the mind itself? If it is different, then the problem of effort,the action of will, comes into being. Is the "I", the thinker, theperson who says, "I am conditioned and I must be free", the "I"who makes an effort to be free, is that "I", that will, that desire,different from the conditioned state? Please, this is notcomplicated. You are bound to ask yourself this question when youlook at the problem. Am I who wish to free myself fromconditioning, different from the conditioning, or are they both thesame? If they are the same, which they are, then how is it possiblefor the mind to free itself from conditioning? Do you understand?I realize I am conditioned as a Hindu, with all its implications:the superstitions, the information, the experiences of a Hindu. Mymind is conditioned in that way. Let us take that as an example.Now, I see the importance of freeing the mind from conditioning.How is that to be done? Does freedom come through an action ofwill? If I say, "I must free myself from the conditioning of thepast", then the "I" who wishes to free himself from the pastconditioning is different from it; but is that "I" different fromconditioning, or is it still a conditioned result? And if that "I",which is the will, is not different, then in trying to break downconditioning, it is only finding a substitute for the previousconditioning.Please, as I said, what is important is for you to listen andexperiment. Perhaps this is something which you have not heardbefore, therefore you are puzzled, there is a resistance; but if youcan listen without any resistance, merely observing your mind inaction, then the very listening becomes an experiment. Your ownmind is conditioned, and it is this conditioning that is reallypreventing peace, that is creating war, destruction and misery.Unless you resolve your conditioning completely, there will be noreal peace in the world; there will be the peace of politiciansbetween two immense powers, which is terror. To have peace, themind must be totally unconditioned. One must realize that, but notsuperficially, not as insurance for your security, or for your bankaccount. Peace is a state of mind, it is not the development ofmonstrous means of destroying each other and then maintainingpeace through terror. I do not mean that. To have real peace in theworld is to be able to live happily, creatively, without any sense offear, without being secure in any thought, in any particular way oflife. To have such peace, surely the mind must be totally free fromall conditioning, either externally imposed or inwardly cultivated.And can your mind, which is conditioned - because all minds areconditioned - , can such a mind free itself from its own effects,from its own desires, from its own conditioned state? So, theproblem is, is there a part of the mind which is not conditioned andwhich can take over, control, or destroy the conditioned mind? Oris the mind totally conditioned at all times, and therefore cannot actupon itself? When it realizes that it cannot act upon itself, will notthe mind then be utterly still, without movement towards its ownconditioning?For most of us this implies freedom from something. Freedomfrom something is resistance against something, and therefore it isnot freedom. I am talking, not of freedom from something, but ofbeing free. Being free is not becoming free, being peaceful is notbecoming peaceful. There is no gradual process towards freedom,towards peace. Either you are peaceful, or you are not peaceful;and what we are trying to find out is whether the mind which hasbeen conditioned for centuries, generation upon generation,whether such a mind can free itself. Surely, it can be free onlywhen there is no action of will, when it realizes that it isconditioned and does not make any effort to free itself from its ownconditioning. When my mind knows that its way of thinking isoriental, whatever that may mean, when it fully realizes that, will itthen think along the western line, which is another form ofconditioning, or will it cease thinking in any particular pattern andtherefore be free to think?You see, I feel this is a very important point to understand, it isthe crux of the matter, because a conditioned mind can never findout what is true, a conditioned mind can never discover what Godis. It can project its own images, its own dogmas, its own beliefs,and think it has found God, but that is still the action of a limited,conditioned mind. And if I see that, if I perceive it as a fact, willany action on my part be necessary? If I know I am blind, then Ihave quite a different approach to life, I develop a totally differentperception. In the same way, when I know that I am conditioned,that my thinking is limited, and that a limited mind, whatever itsexperiences may be, however much knowledge it may acquire, isstill limited; when I realize that, is any action on my part necessaryto break down that limitation? Will not that limitation break downof itself when I know the mind is limited? Therefore, is there notan instantaneous freedom from conditioning? Most of us think thatan analytical process will ultimately bring about the freedom of themind because we are so used to thinking in terms of making effort.We say, "I must break down this conditioning, I must produce aresult, I must do something." But the "I" who is acting is itselfconditioned, the "I" is the conditioned mind, and therefore it cannotbreak down that conditioning. Now, when the whole of me realizesthat I cannot break down the conditioning, that whatever I do aboutit - discipline, worship, prayer, anything through which the "me"makes an effort to break down any part of itself - is still limited,then does not the action of the "me" come to an end? And the veryending of this effort is the cessation of conditioning.Please, you experiment with this. If you have listened rightly,you will see that the mind cannot do a thing about its conditioning.It can explore, it can analyze, it can achieve certain results, but it isalways limited. Whatever its projections, its hopes, its fulfilments,they are always the result of its own background, and thereforelimited; and when the mind realizes that, is there not aninstantaneous cessation, without any compulsion, of this "I" whichis seeking searching hoping gaining and thereby being frustrated?After all, that is meditation, which is really not through any actionof will; it is the meditation of the mind, which is tranquillity. Amind that is merely caught in desires, in achieving a result, inknowing, in experiencing can never be a still mind; and when alimited mind meditates, when it thinks of God, its God and itsmeditation are still petty. It seems to me that however much amediocre mind may be expanded. however much it may know, it isstill mediocre, small petty, and therefore its problems will alwaysremain petty, unsolvable.So, what is important is to realize all this, not merely throughhearing what I am saying, but through seeing it for yourself,experiencing directly for yourself that your mind is small, limited,and being limited however much it may know, whateverexperiences it may have, it is still limited, and therefore it cannever find out what is true, what is real. Reality comes into beingonly when there is a total cessation of all conditioning, that is,when the mind is free - not from something, but being free - andtherefore it is still.I have some questions which I will try to answer - or, rather, notanswer, because there are no answers, there are only problems.Please, this is not a witty or a clever remark, but a true thing,because a mind that is seeking an answer to a problem will find ananswer according to its own desires. Most of us have problems,and we are always groping for an answer. That is why there arechurches, these picture halls. All of us are trying to findsomewhere an answer, and we may find it, but it will not be thereal thing. What is true is the problem. If there is an understandingof the problem, there is the cessation of the problem, not an answerto the problem. Please, this is important to listen to. It is the pettymind, the shallow mind, that seeks an answer, that wants to knowwhat happens when I die; it has innumerable questions, and all it isconcerned with is the answer. But to understand this problemrequires an alert mind, a mind that is not seeking a result, anescape, or trying to cover up its own emptiness. So, the solution ofthe problem is in the problem itself, only I must know how toapproach the problem; and I cannot approach it rightly if I desire tosolve it, if I wish to find an answer to it, because then my mind isconcentrated on the answer and not on the problem. I think it isvery important to understand this, which is really a revolution inour way of thinking. You see, we create the problem by our way ofthinking, and then try to resolve the problem through furtherthinking; we begin to question, we go to analysts, to priests, to Godknows what else, trying to find an answer. So, we must know howto remain with the problem, to look at it with- out translating itaccording to our wishes, according to our belief, according to ourtradition. It is our tradition, our belief, our dogma that has createdthe problem, and if we would understand the problem we must befree from all these things and look at it directly.Question: I have always tried to be sincere to my ideals, but yousay they are destructive. What have you to offer in their stead?Krishnamurti: There are several things involved in this problem:sincerity, ideals, and if there are no ideals, whether there issomething to put in their place. Let us go into the problem slowlyand look at it.What do we mean by sincerity? To be sincere to something. If Ihave an ideal, I try to live according to that ideal; and if I live asmuch as I can according to that ideal which I have set for myself, Iam considered a sincere person. Now, the ideal is the creation ofmy mind in seeking its own security, is it not? Please follow this,don't resist it. You will go on with your ideals, you will go on withyour particular pattern of action, unfortunately, so you don't haveto resist what is being said; but you can at least listen to find out.You have an ideal because it gives you comfort. It may be adifficult ideal for you to live up to but the very struggle to live upto that ideal gives you satisfaction, it gives you a sense ofconformity, a sense of well-being, a sense of respectability. Inessence, the ideal gives you security, and that is why you projectthese ideals. If I am violent, I do not like that state of violence, so Iproject the ideal of non-violence and pursue it. The ideal and thepursuance of that ideal give me security, a sense of well-being. Iam being sincere to my own desire, I am being sincere to what Iwant; and such a man, who is pursuing what he wants, you callnoble.So, ideals are destructive because they are separative; they arethe projection of our own desires; they bring about a conflictbetween what I am, which is the actuality, and what I should be.The ideal creates a duality between what I am and what I shouldbe, and this struggle between what I am and what I should be iscalled living according to the ideal. We are afraid not to strugglebecause, being conditioned to struggle everlastingly between goodand bad, between the evil and the noble, we say, "If I do notstruggle, what will happen?" If the ideal is taken away we feelcompletely lost, and the questioner wants to know what can beplaced in its stead.To me, the idealist is one who is caught between what is andwhat should be, and is therefore in a state of hypocrisy; becausewhat should be is not. Why should I turn my attention to whatshould be? I can only understand what is. If I am violent, can I notresolve my violence rather than try to become non-violent? Insteadof pursuing the ideal and thereby creating a conflict between whatis and what should be, this conflict of the opposites which createsinnumerable problems, can I not look at what is? Instead ofprojecting the opposite and creating the conflict, can I not look atwhat I actually am? But that is the very thing we avoid, is it not?Because most of us do not want to know what we actually are.Either we are ashamed of it and we condemn it, or we are afraid ofit, or we want to change it into something else.So we never look at what is; and before we can change what is,must we not know its structure, what it is in actuality? And howcan I know what it is when I am all the time con- cerned withtrying to change it, to rearrange it, to run away from it? We are soafraid of being naked, empty, without a thing. We want to fill ouremptiness with something. If I am lonely, I run away from thatloneliness, I turn on the radio, read a book, go to church, pray,plunge into social activities, do anything to escape from it; but if Ido not escape from it, I am afraid of it.So, fear prevents us from understanding what is, fear makes uscarry on various forms of activity which act as an escape from thereality of what is. Therefore, is it not important for each one of usto put away all ideals, since they have no meaning, and see what isactually taking place in us from moment to moment? And if we areaware of ourselves from moment to moment, choicelessly, withoutcondemning, without judging, without yielding to that which wehave considered before as fearful, ugly, bad, evil, will it then exist?Fear exists only when we are running away. The very process ofrunning away is fear; and when, without running away, we canlook at the thing that we have condemned before, the thing fromwhich we have run away, the thing which we are struggling tochange, when we can look at it without doing any of these things,will not the very thing from which we have been trying to escape,cease to exist?If you really go into this question you will see that when a mindis violent, because it has the ideal of non-violence, because it isescaping from the state in which it is, because it wants to alter thatstate, therefore it is resisting violence. This does not mean that themind must yield to violence; but when the mind is free from allresistance with regards to violence, does the problem exist at all?Surely, the problem exists because the mind resists.Please, as I said, this thing has to be thought over, or, which ismuch better, directly experienced; and then you will see that whenthe mind has no ideal, when it is not trying to become something,there is a state of being in which time is not. For time is theproblem. Old age, the sense of frustration, the fear of notachieving, not becoming, not fulfilling - all that involves time, andthat is all we know, in that state we live and function, we struggle.So, this conflict between what is and what should be is aneverending process; and when the mind realizes that, then is therenot a freedom of being in which there is no becoming? Thereforeyou don't need any ideal, and I think it is very important tounderstand this. Surely, this is the real revolution, not the processof creating the antithesis, and then struggling with the antithesis toproduce a synthesis. If you can think in these terms, not ofbecoming, but of being - which is astonishingly difficult and subtleto understand - , then you will find that the many problems whichinvolve time completely cease. Therefore the mind is free touncover and to find out what is the real, and the blessing of it.May 23, 1954NEW YORK 3RD PUBLIC TALK 24TH MAY 1954As I was saying yesterday and the day before, I do not think thatideas fundamentally change our activities, though they may modifythem. Ideas play a certain superficial part, but they obviously donot affect the deeper motives, purposes, the things that we reallywant, they do not bring about a radical transformation or revolutionin our attitude towards life. And so it seems to me that what isimportant is to understand the total process of our thinking, of ourconsciousness, and perhaps in that very understanding a changecan take place, not according to any particular pattern of thought,or according to any desire, but a change from the known into theunknown.When we are confronted, as we are, with an enormous crisiswhich is probably unprecedented in history, it seems to me that atransformation, a radical revolution is necessary, but not in thepolitical or the economic sense, because I do not think we can meetthis crisis with ideas. A totally different process must be born in usin order to meet this crisis, and that birth cannot be brought aboutby the conscious mind.I would like, if I can, this evening to discuss the problem ofwhat it is that we are seeking, what it is that most of us are gropingafter in trying to find out how to meet this constant movement oflife. Life actually has no resting place, though we try to enclose itby our own conditioned thinking, by our peculiar upbringing asChristians, as Catholics, as Protestants, as Hindus, or what youwill.It seems to me that it is very important to listen to this talk, notin order to gather information, knowledge, or more ideas, or inorder to refute what is said by cunning arguments, greaterinformation and knowledge, but rather to investigate together theprocess of our own thinking. And as I am talking, if we can followtogether the ways of our own mind, which is really self-knowledge,then perhaps that transformation, that radical change can come intobeing without volition. Any act of will is conditioned by ourexperience, by our education, by our social influences, and beingconditioned, limited, it cannot bring about this change, howevermuch it may try. And yet that is what we are used to: this constanteffort, this constant struggle of ambition, of trying to change, ortrying to bring about a reformation. But if we can approach thiswhole problem of living, this extraordinary crisis, without theaction of will, then perhaps we shall be able to bring about adifferent understanding, a different set of values, values which arenot based on nationalism or on any particular religion.To understand this freedom from will, one must understand,follow the movements of one's own thinking, and that process isnot to be learned from any book, it does not depend on anypsychologist, but one has to discover it anew every day in one'srelationship with life. And to discover it, there must surely be theunderstanding of how the mind is constantly seeking some form ofsecurity. That is what most of us want, is it not? We want to besecure in order to have peace. We want to be secure in order to beable to fulfil, to live our beliefs, our morality. The various effortsthat we make to achieve, to fulfil, do they not all imply thefundamental demand of the mind to be safe, to have a security inwhich there will be no disturbance, an experience or a form ofknowledge which will be permanent, unchanging? Some kind ofpermanency is what most of us want; that is what most people areseeking, is it not? There is this urge to find security, security inrelationship, security in things, in property, in people; and if it isnot found in people or in property, then we turn to ideals, self-projected urges, demands, and there take shelter, either in the ideaof God, in a belief, in a dogma, or in virtue.When you look into your own mind closely you will find, Ithink, this constant demand to be secure. But does peace come withsecurity? Or must one find peace first, which will then bringsecurity? The effort to be something is a form of ambition, becausesocial ambition and so-called spiritual ambition are the same, andas long as there is this constant effort to be something, whichbrings about the importance of the self, surely there cannot bepeace. And yet, if we observe the ways of our thinking, oursearching, our beliefs, they all lead to this one constant demand tohave some kind of permanence. And when that permanency isdisturbed, as it is being disturbed all the time, we develop aresistance which creates innumerable problems.So, is it not important to find out for ourselves if there is such athing as permanency? The mind, the self, the "me", is constantlydemanding, seeking to establish permanency for itself throughmemory, through experience, through relationship, through the so-called search for reality. The constant urge of the mind is forpermanency, and effort is made to maintain this permanency, andso we develop will. The will is essentially the "me", the self, andwhether it pursues virtue or denies virtue, or creates various formsof experience for itself, its constant struggle is for permanency,security. Identification with any form of thought, with any idea, orexperience, will give this sense of security, of permanency, andthat is why we identify ourselves with a nation, with a group ofpeople, with a religion, with knowledge, or with an experience.This constant process of identification with something is all that weknow, this constant battle is our life, and our whole culture, all ourvalues are based on it.Now, it seems to me that peace is not the result of this battle. Amind that is ambitious, a mind that is identified with any particulargroup, nation, class, belief, religion, or dogma, is incapable ofhaving peace, because it is seeking security and therebyemphasizing, strengthening the will of the "me", of the self, whichmust naturally be an everlasting conflict.So, if one is to see that, not merely as an idea, but actually, asone is listening one must be aware of this process of the mind thatis seeking. And what is it that we are seeking? Some kind offulfilment, is it not? A fulfilment in which there will be somepermanency. There is this constant urge to fulfil, to be, to achieve,and after achieving, to further achieve. And a mind which isconstantly seeking, struggling, endeavouring to understand, toestablish itself in some form of permanence, can such a mind be atpeace at any time? And is it not essential that the mind should havecomplete tranquillity without effort, so that that creative thingwhich we call God, or what you like, can come into being?You see, what I mean is that all our life is a struggle; andthrough struggle will we find that thing which we call the real?After all, that is what we all want: a permanent state of bliss, ofhappiness, call it God, truth, or by whatever name you will. Butthat is a thing which cannot be imagined by the mind, because themind is the result of time, and any projection of time, of the mind,is still limited, it is the result of the past, and therefore there isnothing new in it, it is not the real, the creative.Now, can all of that process, - not only the conscious but theunconscious struggle to be, to fulfil, the ambition which hasactually created such havoc in the world - can that whole processcome to an end so that the mind can be truly peaceful? It is onlythen that there is a possibility of true security.You see, what is happening in the world is that each individualis identifying himself with a nation, with a group, with a religion,and so creating for himself an artificial permanency, a security asopposed to other nations, a group opposed to other groups, becauseeach one of us wants to be identified with something greater,something nobler, something much more immense than the pettylittle "me". The State, the belief, the religion, offers an escape fromthe "me", and through this escape we hope to find a permanentpeace. But that permanency is the result of our desire to be securein some form of identification, and therefore there is a constantbattle going on between individuals, between groups, religions andnations.As I was saying yesterday, what is important in listening towhat is being said is that you should not merely accept or reject,but actually listen without any form of judgment - which is not toput oneself in a hypnotic state. To listen without judgment is tolisten in order to find out, which means listening to the operation ofone's own mind, to one's thoughts, so that the mind becomesastonishingly separate and apart. When the mind is still, notartificially made to be still, then you will find that there is a senseof total insecurity in which there is complete security, becausethere is the absence of the "me", of the self which is constantlybattling. That is why it is so very important to have self-knowledge, to know for oneself the many thoughts, the manyurges, the ambitions, the frustrations in which one is caught, and beaware of them.When most of us are aware, our awareness consists in judging,condemning, choosing, accepting or denying. That is notawareness, that is merely the action of will upon thought. But ifyou can observe, be aware without any choice, just see what ishappening, then you will find that the whole process of theunconscious, which is hidden, dark, kept underground, will cometo the surface through dreams, through hints, through variousforms of spontaneous reaction, and as they arise they too can beobserved without any sense of condemnation or justification,without acceptance or rejection. Then the mind is not merely aninstrument of evaluation, of analysis; and such a mind, being nolonger moved by the will of the "me", of the self, with all itsconditionings, demands and pursuits, is really still. In that stillness,every thought, every response, every reaction, every movement ofthe self is turned away, and that, it seems to me, is important if weare to solve any of our problems in life.The understanding of the "me". the understanding of oneself, isnot a thing that can be learned immediately, all at once. But to say,"I shall learn it gradually" is again wrong, because it is not throughthe process of time that one understands. You see, we thinkunderstanding comes through accumulation, the accumulation ofexperience or knowledge. Does understanding come throughknowledge, or does understanding come when the mind is nolonger burdened by the past?As I say, experiment, think as I am talking, directly experiencewhat I am saying and you will find out for yourself. You may havea problem, and the mind has gone into it, worried over it; but themoment the mind is still, not concerned, as it were, with theproblem, then a feeling of understanding comes into being. In thesame way, if one can understand the mind, if one can simply beaware of its movements when one is riding in a bus, when one issitting at a table and talking, the way one talks, the way onegossips; the escapes, the worship, the prayers, then all those thingsreveal the depth of one's consciousness. Surely, to find that whichis eternal, that which is beyond the futile projections of the mind,the mind must come to an end, not artificially, not through anydiscipline, but through awareness of the process of thinking. So,the mind itself, though capable of the highest reason, in its reasoncomes to an end; and then only is it possible to have that inwardpeace which alone can stop these monstrous wars and bringsalvation to the world. But the difficulty is that we say, "We arenobodies, we are just ordinary people. What can we do?" I thinkwe all ought to be very thankful that we are people without anypower, without any position, without any authority, because thosewho are in power, who have position or authority, do not wantpeace. They want political peace, which is entirely different. And Ithink it depends on us, who are very simple people, though wehave a great many conflicts and miseries, though we are in travail -it is for us to start, as it were, in our own backyard to experimentwith ourselves, to know the various activities of our mind so thateach one of us becomes a centre of real peace, not the phony peacewhich the armies and governments create between two wars.Without that real peace there will be no security, there will beonly fear. Fear is the very nature of the self, for it is the self that isbeing threatened in different ways continuously, especially incrises; and being frightened, we have no answer, we run away intovarious forms of escape, or turn to leaders, political or religious.This problem cannot be solved through any leader, through anydogma. No army, no nation, no idea is going to bring peace to theworld. When each one of us understands oneself as a total process -not merely the economic problem, or the mass problem, but thewhole process of ourselves as individual people - in theunderstanding of that process there comes peace. It is only thenthat there can be security. But if we put security first, if we regardit as the most important thing in life, then there will be no peace;there will be only darkness and fear.As I was saying yesterday, I shall be answering some questions;but may I again point out, that what is important is to understandthe problem, and not seek an answer to the question. If we seek ananswer, it is an escape from the problem; but in understanding theproblem itself, the problem ceases. So, there are only problems, notanswers. It is the immature mind that seeks answers. If we knowhow to think, how to look at the problem - the problem of war, theproblem of relationship, it does not matter what the problem is - ifwe can look at it and not try to dissolve it or find a solution for it,then we shall discover that the mind itself is the creator of theproblem; but that requires a great deal of understanding,penetration, insight and awareness. You see, most of us arecrippled with ideas and explanations; we know so much, and thatvery knowledge is impeding a simple, direct understanding.So, in discussing the problem, I am not answering it, but ratherwe are exploring it together. After all, that is the function of talkingthings over. You are not merely listening to a talk, but together weare trying to find out how to resolve the problem, and that requiresa great deal of interest, attention.Question:I gave my son the very best of education, and yet hedoes not seem to be happy and cannot find his place in society.What is the cause of his failure?Krishnamurti: Why should one fit into society? (Laughter). It isnot just something to be laughed off. That is the wish of everyparent: that his son or daughter should fit into society. Why? Whyshould the child fit into society? What is this marvellous societythat we have? Please, this is not a mere superficial remark to bebrushed off by laughing it away. In India they want their childrento fit into society. Here it is the same. In Russia it is the same.Everywhere we want the present state to con- tinue, and we wantour children to fit into it.What is this thing called society? Let us think about it simply,not in the grand economic or philosophical sense. What is thissociety? This society is the outcome of acquisitiveness, ofambition, greed, envy, of the individual's pursuit of his ownfulfilment, and of his search, his everlasting search to find somepermanency in this impermanent world. Of course, in this societythere are also passing joys, various forms of amusement, and so on.That, crudely, in a few words, is our society, and we want our sonsto fit into it and make a success. We worship success. Oureducation is a process of teaching children to conform, is it not? Itconditions them to fit into a certain pattern, it teaches them certaintechniques so they will have jobs. And there is a constant threat ofwar.So, that is our society. And why do we educate our children?What is it all about? We never investigate. What is the purpose ofeducation if our sons are ultimately going to be killed or kill othersin a war?Surely, it is important that we think of this whole thing totallyanew, and not do patchwork reform here and there. Should we nottry to solve our problems, not in terms of America or Russia, orany other particular country, but as a whole? Should we notapproach this problem of man's existence, not as Americans or asEnglishmen, but in terms of human relationship? Until we do thatwe shall have constant wars, there will be starvation in the world.There is starvation, perhaps not in America, but in Asia, and untilthat problem is solved, there will be no peace here. And you cannotsolve it as an American or a Russian, as a communist or acapitalist; you can solve it only as a human being.Please don't brush all this off as though you had heard it tenthousand times before. If you really understand this as a simpleindividual, then you will be solving the problem. But if you aremerely concerned with trying to help your son to fulfil himself in aparticular society, if you are merely concerned with a particularproblem - which of course must be dealt with, but which cannot bedealt with unless you tackle the problem as a whole - , then youwill find no answer, and therefore you will have morecomplications, more misery.So, we have to tackle really fundamentally the problem of whatis education. Is it merely to teach a technique so that the youngperson will have a job? Or is it to create an atmosphere of truefreedom, not to do what one likes, but freedom to cultivate thatintelligence which will meet every experience every conditioninginfluence - meet it, understand it, and go beyond it? That requires agreat deal of perception, a great deal of insight and intelligence onthe part of each one of us. But, you see, we are all so frightened,because we want to be secure. The moment we seek security, theshadow of fear is cast, and in trying to overcome that fear wefurther condition ourselves, we condition our minds and create asociety which is bound to limit our thinking. And the moreefficient a society becomes, the more conditioned it is.To really tackle the problem of what is true education, tounderstand the whole significance of education, why we areeducated, what it is all about, is an immense thing, not just to betalked about for a few minutes. You may have read or be capableof reading many books you may have great knowledge, an infinitevariety of explanations; but surely that is not freedom. Freedomcomes with the understanding of oneself, and it is only suchfreedom that can meet without fear every crisis, every influencethat conditions; but that re- quires a great deal of penetration,meditation.Question: How can I have peace of mind in this disturbedworld?Krishnamurti: Probably, if we want peace, it is of the kind thatis a complete escape from the world, and to escape is somethingwhich most of us can successfully do. We escape through theradio, through dogma, through belief, through activity. To becomecompletely absorbed in some form of activity gives us what weconsider to be peace. Surely, that is not peace. You see, peace isnot the opposite of disturbance. But if I can understand what causesdisturbance and not seek peace, if I can understand what is theprocess that brings about disturbance in me, in my relationships, inmy values, and therefore in society - if I can understand the wholeprocess of disturbance, then in freeing myself from thatdisturbance, there is peace. But to seek peace withoutunderstanding the total process of myself, which is the cause ofdisturbance, merely becomes an illusion. That is why the peoplewho meditate in order to be peaceful, who read, who do variouspractices, who take drugs in order to be peaceful, are really seekingsleep.What brings about peace, real tranquillity and stillness of themind, is to understand the total process of oneself - which is not toseek peace, but to understand the "me" that is causing thedisturbance. This understanding of the "me", of the self, with all itsambitions, its envies, greeds, acquisitiveness, violence - tounderstand all that is the way of meditation, is it not? It is themeditation in which there is no condemnation, no choice, butheightened awareness, an observation without any sense ofidentification.You see, for most of us peace is a withdrawal, it means enteringinto a cave of darkness, or holding on to some belief, some dogma,in which we find security; but that is not peace. Peace comes onlywith the total understanding of oneself, which is self-knowledge,and that self-knowledge cannot be bought. You need no book, nochurch, no priest, no analyst. You can observe the process ofyourself in the mirror of your relationship with your boss, withyour family, with your society. If the mind is alert, watchful,without choice, then there is freedom from the limitation of theself, and therefore there is peace, which brings its own security.May 24, 1954NEW YORK 4TH PUBLIC TALK 28TH MAY 1954As I was saying last week, I think these talks will be utterly uselessif we do not know how to listen. I see some people taking notes,which indicates really that they are not listening. These notes aretaken, obviously, as pointers to be thought over; but it seems to methat if we can think together over our many problems while we arehere listening, it will be much more worth while than merely takingnotes, or comparing what I say with what you have already read orheard. When your mind is occupied with taking notes, or withcomparing what you hear with something else, you are actually notlistening, are you? You are not directly experiencing what is beingsaid; and it seems to me very important that we should directlyexperience these things. To directly experience what is being saidis not to compare it with what you know. If we know how to listen,then I think the very act of listening is a form of release. If thething that is being said is true, and one listens to it without anycomparison, without taking notes, without opposition or resistance,then that very listening acts as a release, it is the beginning offreedom, because it sets going a process of freeing the mind fromthe very things with which we are burdened.So, instead of taking notes, or comparing what is being saidwith the books you have read, or labelling it as Oriental and puttingit out of your mind, may I suggest that you listen with alertpassivity, which is quite a difficult art, and then perhaps these talkswill be worth while. We are not discussing a philosophy or asystem of ideas, but we are trying to find out and actuallyexperience how to liberate the mind from its own pettiness,because that, it seems to me, is the major problem of our life. Ourthoughts, our activities, our knowledge, our religious beliefs, arevery petty and very small. Ideas and beliefs may be vital inthemselves, but we reduce them to the size of our minds, andbecause the mind - it does not matter whose it is - is the centre ofthe "me", of the "I", the ego, the self, it is very little, very small andpetty.Being confronted with a series of crises, both racial andindividual, religious and economic, I think it is very important thatwe should be able to meet these crises with a mind that is notlimited, conditioned, already burdened with religious beliefs, withdogmas, with previous knowledge, and so on; for how can the vastproblems involved be dealt with by a petty, small, narrow mind?And if we have thought about these things at all, is it not a problemwith most of us how to free the mind from its own narrowness,from its own limitations? Surely, only with a free mind is itpossible to attack these problems anew, to comprehend them in atotally different way; because every problem, though it may appearold, is always new. There is no old problem. It is only the mindwhich is old and which, in meeting the new problem, reduces thenew in terms of the old.So, is it possible to free the mind from its own pettiness, whichmeans, really from the centre of self-acquisitiveness, of self-improvement, from the urge to become something great, noble?Because all that indicates a process of the "me", of the "I", of theego, does it not? And as long as that process goes on, it must surelycreate its own self-enclosing activity. And is it possible ever to befree from this self-enclosing activity?I am not putting this as a question for you to play with, but toactually find out about, because it seems to me that this is themajor issue in our life. We have reduced religion to mere ritual orbelief, and our gods, our self-disciplines lead, not to reality, butonly to respectability. Our gods have really no meaning at all, andreligion has become merely a series of beliefs and rituals withoutsignificance. Their influence is conditioning, like any otherorganized influence, whether it be the communist, the Christian, orthe Hindu. The influence of dogma, belief, ritual, is tyrannical,limiting because it conditions and therefore makes the mind small,petty. Being confronted by immense problems, we are meetingthem with our conditioned minds, and so we make these vastproblems stupid and petty, thereby increasing the problems.So, is it not very important to find out, actually to understandand experience for oneself, how the mind can be free from all theinfluences which religion has imposed? Because religion which isorganized obviously does not lead to reality. Reality can come intobeing only when the mind is free, when the mind is unconditioned.And is it possible not to belong to any religious group ororganization, to any church, but to stand alone and find out what istrue? Surely, religion as we know it is merely a process of make-believe. From childhood we are forced into a particular pattern ofthought, and the mind believes for its own security, for its ownsafety; but religion is something totally different, is it not? It is astate in which reality can come into being - reality, truth, God, orwhat name you will. But when the mind is conditioned, shaped bybelief, can it ever be free to receive that which is true? Is notreligion that state of mind in which the known is not, so that theunknown can come into being? Because, after all, our gods are self-projected. We create our gods, we pursue ideals and beliefs,because they give us satisfaction, comfort, solace. But surely noneof these things free the mind to discover reality and that is why itseems to me very important to strip ourselves of all theseconditionings, not as an ultimate gesture, but right from thebeginning, and to find out whether the mind can remainuncorrupted.Similarly, we accumulate knowledge, hoping that the pettymind can be enlarged and its shallowness wiped away throughmore and more learning, information. But can knowledge free themind from its pettiness? We have vast information, scientific andotherwise, about so many things, and yet our minds are petty. Weare only using this knowledge for our petty purposes, and we aredestroying each other. So, knowledge has become a hindranceinstead of a liberating process.Should we not be aware of all this, how we are influenced bythe external environment, by impulses, reactions, by knowledge,and by so-called religion? And is it possible ever to free ourselvesfrom these limitations and conditions from these self-imposedcompulsions, so that the mind remains uncorrupted and is thereforeable to meet life anew from moment to moment? I think that it ispossible if we can be aware of all these issues without reacting tothem, without being entangled in them. You see, after all, a belief,a dogma is a means of self-protection, is it not? If we had nodogma, no belief, we think we should be lost; so, dogma, belief,acts as a means of protection against that loneliness, against fear.We multiply beliefs, dogmas, to assure ourselves of security. So,our search is not for reality, truth, but for a means to be satisfied, tofeel secure. And isn't it important just to be aware of this factwithout reacting against it? Isn't it important to see how the mind isconstantly pursuing its own security through nationality, throughbelief, through dogma, through ritual, thereby making itself petty,narrow, small, and creating problems?What is being said is a fact, it is not an invention, apsychological perversion; it is actually what is taking place withineach one of us. We want leaders, we want someone to tell us whatto do. Being afraid to stand alone, we turn to some form of shelter,refuge, so the mind is made petty, and its gods, its troubles, itsdisciplines, are equally petty. If we really see that, there is arelease, there is a liberation without making an effort.I think this is the important thing, the only important thing: tofind out how to free the mind from the self, whose activities arealways narrow, limited, self-enclosing. The more we struggleagainst this limitation, the stronger the limitation; but if we see it, ifwe are aware of it, and if we know how to listen to what is beingsaid, then that very listening will set each one of us free so that wecan look at the problem anew, afresh - which is, to have a mindthat is not corrupted. The difficulty in all this is that we are afraidof the consequences of letting go, of not belonging to someorganization, of not calling ourselves patriotic; we are afraid tostand alone, not to have any support. But to find that which is real,you must be alone, mustn't you? The world is obviously caught inillusion, in hatred, in fear, with all its various absurdities andbrutalities; and surely, to find out what is true, one must shed allthat, mustn't one? - which means, really standing alone. But youcannot stand alone by volition, by an act of will. It is like seeingsomething false. When you see the false, there is that which is true.Seeing the false is not an act of volition, but it creates its ownaction. I think that is the really important thing, because what isneeded now is not more knowledge, not new beliefs, whethercommunist or any other kind, but individuals who are capable ofunderstanding all this conflict, who can look at it with clarity, witha mind uncorrupted, so that they are a light unto themselves. Youcannot be a light unto yourself if you are merely a part of the socialmechanism, which has very little significance. I think the realrevolution is not economic or political, but a deep psychologicalrevolution which makes you aware of the false as the false andthereby brings about that which is new, the real, the true.I shall answer some questions, but before I begin to discussthem, I think it is important to find out what a problem is. Aproblem exists only when it has taken root in the mind. Once anissue takes root in the mind, it becomes a problem, and then themind will have to solve the problem; but having its root in theconditioned mind, the problem becomes insoluble. And is itpossible not to allow any issue to take root in the mind, but to dealwith it directly and immediately as it arises? But we cannot dealwith it directly if we condemn it, if we are identified with it, if wein any way judge it, because our judgment, our condemnation, ourcomparison, is the outcome of our conditioning, and therefore itonly strengthens the problem.So, what is important is to look at a problem, an issue, withoutcondemnation, without comparing it with something else, and thatis very difficult, because we are brought up from childhood tocompare, to judge, to evaluate, and thereby we create a duality andhence conflict. And is it impossible to look at the problem,whatever it be, without allowing it to take root in the mind bycomparing, judging, condemning it, or by identifying oneself withthe problem?What I am saying is not very difficult if you will observe yourown process of thinking. You see, you have a problem because ithas already taken root, and to resolve it you either find an answerfor it, or you condemn it, you push it away and think aboutsomething else, escape from it, which only strengthens theproblem. But if one can really look at it without any sense ofcondemnation, without any sense of identification, then surely theproblem has quite a different significance, has it not?So, problems exist only when they have taken root in the mind;and the mind which has absorbed the problem, in which the seed ofthe problem has already taken root, is incapable of solving it,however much it may struggle with the problem. To understand theproblem, the mind must be really still, and the mind is still onlywhen there is no sense of condemnation, identification orcomparison. And when the mind is still, will there then be aproblem at all? The problem exists because we are confused, andconfusion arises when we are seeking some form of solu- tion tothe problem, or when we are following a particular system, or arecasting the shadow of some dogma or belief, or are caught inprevious knowledge. But if we can understand the process of howthe problem arises and therefore cease to condemn, compare, willthere be a problem? Obviously you cannot answer, because youhave never tried any of these things. All that you have done is tocondemn, to compare, or to identify yourself with the problem.And it is extraordinarily difficult to be free from that process,because all our training is to compare, and we think that throughcomparison we shall understand. Surely, understanding comes, notthrough comparison, not through pursuing all kinds of activities,but only when the mind is very quiet, undisturbed.You see, we are so afraid of a mind that is not occupied. A mindthat is merely occupied is a petty mind, whether it is occupied withthe highest knowledge, or with the daily activities of the kitchen orthe job. Such a mind is incapable of being free. Being occupied,when the problem arises we are incapable of dealing with it,because we have not understood the whole process of our thinking;and so we turn to leaders, or we turn to books, we turn toknowledge, we turn to religion, which are the outcome of our ownconfusion and the confusion of our leaders.So, in discussing these questions, there can obviously be no"yes" and "no". There is no answer to life, there is only living; butwe have made living into a problem. In our living there is no joy,there is not the real bliss that comes with aloneness, with thatfreedom in which alone reality can come into being.Question: How can we achieve enduring peace withoutourselves?Krishnamurti: Do you think peace is a thing to be achieved, tobe got as a result, as a reward? Or does peace come into beingwhen we understand the various factors that bring aboutdisturbance? It is like a man who is full of hatred wanting love. Hemay practise love, but it has no meaning. Whereas, if weunderstand the whole process of hatred and fear, then perhaps thatwhich is love will be.But, you see, our difficulty is that we want to find peace, thoughwe are violent. We want to find love when we are creatingantagonism, hatred. When there is fear in our hearts, withoutunderstanding fear, without understanding what that disturbance is,we run away from it in order to find peace, and so there is a dualityin us.The problem, then, is not how to attain peace, but what ispreventing us from understanding the causes that bring aboutdisturbance, chaos, misery, struggle, pain, both in us and outside ofus. Surely, if we can understand that, there will be peace, we don'thave to seek it. If we seek peace, we are running away from whatis. In the understanding of what is, the actual, there is peace.Please, this is not a theory. If we really go into this problem ofwhy the mind is disturbed and understand it, then without creatinga schizophrenic action, a dual process, a conflict within ourselves,we shall find peace. Peace is not the result of discipline; peace ofmind does not come about through any form of compulsion,through any practice, which only puts a limitation on the mind. Apetty mind can have no peace. A petty mind practising variousforms of discipline, looking for peace, will never find it. It mayfind some kind of consolation, satisfaction, but that is not peace.So, what is important is to understand why the mind is disturbedWhat is this disturbance? Basically, fundamentally, does it notcome about when there is this constant urge to be something, thedesire for a result, the desire for self-improvement, the desire toachieve a certain noble action? As long as one is competitive,ambitious, there must be disturbance, there must be conflict.Without beginning near, we want to go far, but we can go far onlywhen we begin very near. And beginning near is freedom fromambition, from wanting to be something, from the desire to besuccessful, to be recognized, to be famous - a dozen things whichare all indications of the self, the "me", the ego.As long as the ego exists, there must be disturbance; and if theego seeks peace, its peace is the result, the opposite of adisturbance, therefore it is not peace at all. If one realizes this, ifone does not merely hear it but actually experiences it, then peacewill come. But that requires a great deal of awareness, anawareness in which there is no choice; because if you choose, thenyou are back again in the process of acquiring, attaining.What is important, surely, is not to search for peace, not topursue swamis, yogis, teachers in Oriental form, but to find out forourselves how our own minds are working, how ambitious we are.You may not be personally ambitious but you may be ambitiousfor a group, for the nation, for the party you belong to, or for anidea; or you may worship God, as you call it. Having failed in thisworld you want to succeed in another world. So as long as anymovement of the self exists there must be disturbance, there can beno peace.Question: Will the practice of yoga help me spiritually andphysically?Krishnamurti: How eager we are to improve ourselves! Do youthink self-improvement will bring you bliss or reality? You mayderive from yoga certain benefits physically. But do you think self-improvement - that is, the "me" becoming better, gaining moreknowledge, more information; the self improving and becomingmore virtuous - do you think that process will bring about thetranquillity of the mind? In that process there is not the abnegationor the disappearance of the self, but on the contrary, the self, the"me" is becoming something better, and therefore it is alwaysstruggling, there is a battle going on both within and outside ofitself. And do you think that will bring tranquillity to the mind? Doyou think that is spiritual?What do we mean by the word "spiritual"? It is something of thespirit, something which is not of time, something which is notmanufactured by the mind, is it not? Surely, the real, that which istruly spiritual, is not a thing put together by the mind, and thereforeit cannot be practised by the mind. The mind is the result of manyyesterdays, of innumerable experiences, of knowledge, influences,it is put together by time. And can the mind, which is the result oftime, find that which is timeless, measureless? You may practiseany amount of virtue, but surely that is not spiritual. When themind, understanding the whole process of becoming, is totally freefrom every form of ambition - which means, really, when the mindis utterly still and is therefore not projecting itself into the future - ,only then is there that which may be called the spiritual. But aslong as we are struggling to be spiritual, we are just beingordinarily petty, that is all, only we call it by a big name.Question: I am attracted by your philosophy, but if I were tofollow you I should have to leave my church. What do you offer inexchange?Krishnamurti: Following another is evil. Please listen to this. Tofollow another is evil, because it breeds authority, fear,imitativeness. And through following you will never find anythingexcept that which you wish to find, which is your owngratification.What I am saying is not a philosophy. What we are trying to dois really to discover through our own awareness the process of ourself. To discover what is true, we have to find out what is illusoryand what is false. You cannot be led to discover. If you are led,there is no discovery. Discovery comes only when the mind is veryquiet, not demanding, not asking, not begging, unafraid.But we are afraid. That is why we worship leaders, that is whywe have churches priests and the whole gamut of moderncivilization. Being afraid, we want to escape from it, we want tofind a refuge, and so we belong to something.I am not asking you to leave your church, or to belong to achurch. To me that is all immature activity, it doesn't meananything. As nationalism separates man and causes wars, soreligions, churches separate man and create antagonism. They donot lead to truth. Though everyone says there are many paths totruth, there is no path to truth. It is to the free mind, the mind thatstands alone, uncorrupted, uninfluenced, it is only to such a mindthat truth comes - which means, really, a mind that is unafraid.So, there is nothing to be offered to one who leaves hisparticular cage and enters another. We are talking, not of thedifferent cages, the different churches and religious organizations,but of understanding oneself. The way of understanding is notmerely to be free from a particular church, from a particularorganization, nationality, or belief, but to be totally free, unafraid,and only such a mind can receive that which is ever timeless. Andit seems to me that only such a mind can solve the present problem,not a mind that is becoming more religious, which meansbecoming more entrenched in a particular dogma, or following aparticular system of thought. Such a mind is not a religious mind.The truly religious mind is a free mind, and being free, it is quiet,still; therefore reality can come into being. It is that reality, whichcreates its own action, that will solve the problems of the world,not the mind that is burdened with knowledge, or the mind that hasaccumulated experience, because knowledge, experience is theresult of our particular conditioning.When you realize all this, not merely intellectually, verbally,but when you actually experience it, then you will find that you donot have to belong to anything, that you are a total human beingwith complete self-knowledge; therefore there is no disturbance,and hence there is that peace of mind in which reality can comeinto being.May 28, 1954NEW YORK 5TH PUBLIC TALK 29TH MAY 1954It seems to me that without self-knowledge most of our beliefs andactivities have very little significance. And self-knowledge is notacquired from books, it is not a matter of learning from someonehow to know about yourself; nor is it, I think, merely a process ofgathering information about oneself. Most of us know only apositive way of thinking which I feel is the lowest form ofthinking. That is, merely to accumulate knowledge about oneselfand live according to that knowledge only leads to a furtherstrengthening of the ego, of the "me", with all its complications.The highest form of thinking is negative, is it not? Surely, negativethinking is the highest form of thinking, and the discovery of howto think negatively can come about only through awareness of theresponses of the self from moment to moment.We all know what to think, that is, we have been brought upfrom childhood to judge what is right, what is wrong to compare,and so on, which is a positive way of thinking. This positive wayof thinking is the strengthening of experience, and the more weacquire it the more we think we are learning, finding out aboutourselves. That is, we think that the strengthening of the past willgive us understanding.Isn't that the way we think? The more we can study, the morewe can analyze, the more we can store up experience and let thatexperience, that knowledge, guide our activity, the more secure,the more positive we are. That is the way we live, is it not? Andthat doesn't give any space to discover, because our experience isalways conditioning us, always telling us what to think, how toapproach life, and so on. Therefore there is never a negativeapproach to the problems of our existence, because the moreexperience we have, the more the mind is conditioned, is it not?I may be saying something which perhaps you have not heardbefore; and if so, please don't discard it or listen to it merely to findout what you think about it, because what you think about it will beaccording to your experience. To listen in order to discover thetruth of what is being said, and to listen in order to form an opinionabout it, are two different things, are they not? When I make astatement, what is important, surely, is not whether you can acceptit or how you can use it, but to find out whether in itself it is true orfalse; and to see the truth or the falseness of what is being said, onehas to suspend all one's judgments, one's reactions, which is quitean arduous task. That is why the way you listen is very, veryimportant. As I have said over and over again, these talks will beutterly useless if you are merely gathering ideas to be utilized or tobe thought over later. But if, as we proceed, we can together findout the truth of what is being said, then perhaps this, and the pasttalks, and the last talk tomorrow, may be of some significance.As I was saying, we have been trained in what to think aboutGod, about truth, we have been educated to be nationalistic, and soon. Our minds are shaped from childhood, influenced by ideas, andany experience we have must be related with those ideas, withthose beliefs. Therefore, experience never frees the mind. Doplease listen to this. Experience never frees the mind, and yet weare pursuing experience, greater, wider, more significantexperience. And when we do have an experience totallyunconnected with the past, we take that experience and hold it inmemory, which prevents the further birth of new experience. Thatis, our minds are being constantly influenced, shaped by pastexperience, and so the mind can never renew itself, it can never bea totally new instrument. Our own past experiences areconditioning both the future and the immediate, the now, becausewe are thinking positively in terms of time: what I have been, whatI am, what I shall be; and all further experience, all humanknowledge, is based on this conditioning. So, knowledge in thatsense becomes an impediment to creative understanding.It seems to me that the highest form of thinking is negative.Negative thinking is not accumulation, but the constant discoveryof what is true in relationship, which means seeing myself as Iactually am from moment to moment. This self-knowledge is not aprocess in which the mind is gathering information in order to actrightly, or to avoid wrong action. And self-knowledge is essential,because if I do not know the process of my own thinking, if I amunaware of my own reactions, of my background, of theunconscious responses, compulsions, urges, then whatever thoughtI may have is conditioned by my past, and hence there is nofreedom. So, is it not important to find out what is, to be self-awarewithout the process of accumulation? Because the moment Iaccumulate in the understanding of myself, that accumulation isgoing to dictate how I shall understand the next discovery.You see, we are concerned with how to improve ourselves, orhow to improve society, therefore, change is merely a modifiedcontinuity, is it not? I gather, I learn, and I am using what I havelearned to change; but what I have learned depends on myconditioning, my learning is always dictated by the past, soexperience is never a liberating factor. if I see that, if I see the truthof it, then I can proceed to find out without accumulation.Please, it seems to me that this is important to understand. Whydoes the mind accumulate knowledge, acquire virtue? Why doesthe mind constantly strive to become something, to perfect itself?Why? And in the process of acquisition, accumulation, is not themind burdened? Surely, all accumulation in self-knowledge is ahindrance to the further discovery of the self, and it is thisaccumulation that is making us think positively. Now, is it possibleto discover and not be acquisitive, so that the discovery does notleave an experience which will condition further discovery?I hope I am making myself clear, because I think this isimportant. This is really the freedom from the self, so that there isno accumulative entity, and therefore there is creative being.Accumulation is not creativeness. A mind which is constantlyacquiring can obviously never be creative. It is only the free mindthat is creative, and there can be no freedom if every experience isstored up, because that which is accumulated becomes the centre ofthe "me", of the "I" which thinks positively. Positive thinking is theresult of accumulation.Let me put it this way and perhaps it will be more clear. In myrelationship with another - if I am at all aware - I discover myreactions, I watch my own status and how the previous experiencesof discovery either condemn or justify what I have newlydiscovered in relationship. That new discovery is also stored up,and when next I am aware of my relationship with another and seemy reactions, which is the process of self-knowledge, the pastagain dictates, or translates in terms of the past, what I havediscovered.Surely, what I am saying is not very complicated. It is simpleenough if we look at it. You see, as long as I am accumulating,gathering, storing up, my mind is thinking in terms of what to doand how to do it, and therefore my mind can never be free, becausethe whole process of my thinking is based on past accumulation, onpast experience. So, thinking only prevents further discovery. Whatis thinking? It is the response of the past, verbalized andcommunicated, the past being the accumulations, the variousinfluences, the conditionings of the mind. Thinking can neverresolve the problem, thinking can never bring about a completelynew state, a total transformation of our being, because thinking isthe result of the past.Now, is it possible for thought to come to an end? That is theproblem. If thought can come to an end, then there is the cessationof all accumulation, and hence there is a possibility of the new.This is not as fantastic as it sounds, if you really go into the matter.When you think, surely your thinking is the result of the past, ofyour conditioning, of your belief, of your background, conscious orunconscious. According to your background you respond, and thatresponse is called thinking; and through thinking you want to solveyour problems. And the more you acquire, the more youaccumulate experience, the greater you think will be your capacityto go into the problem and resolve it.So, when you see that, then the inevitable question arises withinyourself, which is: can thought come to an end so that I candiscover the truth of the problem, and not translate it in terms ofmy experience or according to my background? Thinking is reallya positive process and not a liberating process. We are brought upfrom childhood to know what to think; newspapers, magazines,everything around us tells us what to think. We are accustomed togathering, to accumulating, which prevents us from actuallyunderstanding any particular problem totally and completely. Wecan understand a problem completely only when the mind is still,which is when there is no compulsion of any kind.If you have really listened to this, you will not ask how thoughtis to come to an end, you will not say, "Tell me the method". Thevery asking of that question, the desire for a method, is anotherform of accumulation. But if you see the truth that only with theending of thought can the problem be resolved, if you see itwithout trying to utilize it, then you will discover the significanceof the whole process of thinking. Thinking actually strengthens the"me", the self, the self which is the maker of trouble, the maker ofmischief, misery, whether it is identified with a nation, with agroup, with a religion, or with an idea. Thinking is the outcome ofthe "me", which has been accumulated for centuries; so thinkingwill not solve our problems, on the contrary, it will multiply them,bring greater misery. If we see the truth of that, if through self-knowledge we see the truth of how the mind works, the consciousas well as the unconscious, if we are aware of the total process,then that very awareness will bring about the cessation of thought,and therefore stillness of the mind.You know, we all have many problems which we seem tomultiply. The resolution of one problem produces other problems,so our minds are everlastingly caught in problems; and we arealways seeking answers to these problems, because fundamentallywe want to use everything for our own benefit. If we hearsomething which is true, which we have caught the significance of,we immediately want to utilize it we say, "How can I use it in orderto improve myself, to arrive at a more advanced stage?" So, we arealways increasing our problems. Whereas, ii we are able to seewhat is true and leave it alone, not try to utilize it, then that verytruth will operate, we don't have to do anything. As long as we aredoing something about it, we shall create problems. Please listen tothis. The difficulty is to pay attention, to give our whole being todiscover, to find out. And when we do find out what is true, wewant to utilize it, either socially, or to make ourselves happy, to bepeaceful. Whereas, if we really give our whole attention, listencompletely with our whole being, then that very perception of whatis true, if we leave it alone, will begin to operate in spite of us.Question: In this country we have always felt secure, but nowour spiritual and physical well-being is threatened and fear isshaping our thinking. How can we overcome this fear?Krishnamurti: As long as you are pursuing security in any formthere must be fear. Please listen to this, follow it. As long as you asa nation, as a group, as an individual want to be safe, secure inyour belief, in an idea, in anything, you are inviting fear, yourshadow is fear. As long as you remain an American a Hindu, aRussian, a communist, a Catholic, a Protestant, or what you will,there must be fear.You see, we know this, we are deeply aware of this fact, butsuperficially we create a system which we think will give ussecurity: nationalities which are separative, religions which aremere bigotry, dividing man against man. So, as long as we remainisolated in our nationalism, in our belief, in our own security, theremust be wars, there must be hatred there must be antagonism, andtherefore fear.And do we ever directly experience what is fear? Please listento this question. Do we ever directly experience what is fear?Knowing that we are afraid, we run away from it, do we not? Wetry to overcome it, we justify or condemn it, which are ways ofavoiding and not directly experiencing fear.Do you understand what I am saying? You experience directlyany form of pleasure, you don't let anything interfere with it; butany form of unpleasantness you try to avoid. Fear is unpleasant, soyou are never in direct relationship with it, you never directlyexperience it. When there is fear, you try to overcome it, you try tofind out what to do about it. Your mind is already occupied, notwith the direct experience of fear but with how to overcome it. Doyou ever experience fear directly, without any interpretationwithout avoidance, justification or condemnation, so that there is adirect relationship with fear and you know totally that you areafraid? Are you ever in that state? Obviously not. Because whenone is directly experiencing fear, then is there fear? It is only whenone is avoiding or running away that there is fear. As long as yourmind is seeking security in any form, physical, emotional orpsychological, there must be fear. That is a fact, whether you like itor not. As long as you are only thinking of the American Way ofLife, of improving your own standards, of having more money,more material welfare, while half the world has only one meal, orhalf a meal a day there must be fear.Now, if you know that you are afraid because of this desire tobe secure, can you look at that fear and be with it completely?Experiment with what I am saying and you will see that the thingwhich we call fear is a process in which the mind gives a name to aparticular quality, and that this very naming strengthens thequality.Suppose I am jealous envious and I am aware of that feeling.My awareness of it is a process of naming and then recognizingthat feeling through the name. So the naming of it strengthens thatparticular feeling. The process of recognition is a process ofstrengthening what is recognized. When I name fear I havestrengthened fear, and therefore I run away.Observe for yourself the process of your own thinking. Whenyou have fear, watch and you will see how you condemn it, howyou want to run away from it. You want to shape it, you want topush it away, you want to do something about it, because it isunpleasant. But when you have a pleasant thing, you are identifiedwith it totally. Identification and avoidance is the process ofnaming, is it not? And when you give a term to a particular feeling,you strengthen that feeling.Is it possible for the mind to be free from the desire to besecure, and therefore free from fear? The two go together, do theynot? You cannot get rid of fear and yet seek security. The desire forsecurity in any form - security in relationship with another, in anyexperience - can only breed fear; and after you have bred fear, youwant to overcome it. You cannot overcome fear. All that you cando is to find out the whole process that brings about the state offear, see the truth of it, and leave it alone. Then you don't have toovercome fear. The truth will operate. The fact that you are afraidand are not directly related to the fact - that is in itself the factorwhich, if you are conscious of it,is going to liberate the mind fromfear.Please, you are not learning anything from me. If you arelearning, you are accumulating, and therefore you are notdiscovering. What I am saying is actually what is happening ineach one of us. If you don't discover it, but merely learn it, then ithas no meaning. But if, as you listen, you observe your ownprocess of thinking, then you will discover it; then it is yours, notmine. Then you don't have to follow a single thing, you don't haveto follow any person or idea, because you are a light unto yourself.Then there is no fear of authority, and all the evils of following itare gone.Question: Compulsive judgment and self-incrimination hold themind in a firm grip. Since the compelling force is so strong, how isone to free oneself from these things? How are we to stay with anessential problem, since our strength of endurance is underminedby fears?Krishnamurti: You see one of the difficulties is that we want tobe free - free from fear, free from compulsive urges, free from ourbackground, free from our conditioning. That is, we want to be freefrom suffering, and hold on to pleasure. Please watch your ownmind. You are not merely listening to me, you are observing theprocess of your own mind, because I have nothing to say except topoint out how your own mind is operating and destroying freedom.As long as you want to be free, there is no freedom. But is it notpossible to know all the compulsive forces, influences, to be awareof them and not try to be free from them? If you want to be freefrom them, you resist, and that very resistance creates problems.And if you observe these compulsive forces in yourself, with theirstrength and their fears, you will see how difficult it is simply to beaware of them without condemning, without choosing, withoutsaying, "This is good, that is bad, this I am going to hold, that I amgoing to let go" - which is really not being aware. After all, eachone of us is caught in various forms of compulsive force, and whenthis is pointed out to us, or when we casually or superficiallybecome aware of it, we want to free ourselves of it; and this verydesire to be free creates a resistance against it.So, knowing that you have compulsive urges, what is importantis to look at them, live with them, and understand them; and youcan understand them only when you don't want to run away fromthem, when you don't justify, compare, or condemn them. If yousee the compulsive force and just remain there, without trying tofree yourself from it, then you will find that the thing which youwanted to be free from has dropped away from you without yourmaking an effort to be free.Question: What to you is prayer and meditation?Krishnamurti: It does not matter very much what they are to me,but let us find out what is the truth, the significance of prayer andmeditation. If I tell you what to me is prayer and meditation it willonly be an opinion, and apparently many people are interested ingathering opinions; but here we are not concerned with opinions.We want to find out what is the truth of this matter, and not look atit according to the opinion of the Catholics, the Protestants, theBuddhists, or the Hindus. That does not bring about liberation ofthe mind, but only a superficial change, a modified continuity.So, we are not concerned with opinion, whether Oriental orOccidental, but with trying to find out the implications of prayerand of the whole question of what is meditation.Is meditation synonymous with prayer? Do you pray? Why doyou pray? We are not concerned with how you should pray, orwhat is the best form of prayer, but with why you pray, becausethat is the fact; so let us start with that.Why do you pray? When there is clarity, when there is joy,bliss, or what you will, do you pray then? Surely, that very joy, thatbliss, is a form of heightened intelligence or living. We pray onlywhen we are confused, when we are in sorrow, when we wantsomething. That is so, is it not? A mind that is very clear, free,untrammelled, without any problems, why should it pray? It isitself in a state of incorruptibility. It is when we do not know whomto follow, when we have the multiplication of problems, when weare in sorrow, when we are hopelessly lost, frustrated, unfulfilled -it is only then that we want someone to help us, and therefore wepray. We repeat certain sentences, we force the mind to be still,because the very suffering compels us to be quiet.The compulsion to prayer, then, is the desire to overcome fearor sorrow, and naturally there is a response. When you ask, you aregiven, and what you receive depends on the state of your mind, ofyour desire, of your misery. When you pray, you take a certainposture, repeat certain words, and thereby quiet the consciousmind; and when the conscious mind is quiet, the unconscious mayproduce an answer to your particular suffering, to your immediateproblem, or the answer may come to the quiet conscious mind, notfrom within, but from outside yourself. But surely, that is notmeditation. Meditation is emptying the mind of the known. Afterall, meditation is not concentration. You can concentrate onanything in which you are interested, which is an obvious fact.Being absorbed in a particular idea, in the repetition of a particularword or sentence, or in projecting an image, a symbol, a saviour -surely, none of that is meditation. The projection comes from thebackground of your conditioning, and living in that image is notmeditation. And yet this is what most of us call meditation, is itnot? We want to know how to meditate. Books have been writtenabout it, and when they talk about meditation, concentration,absorption, it implies resistance, discipline, which only strengthensthe past, filling and narrowing the mind.It seems to me that meditation is something totally different,because concentration on an idea is an exclusive, acquisitiveprocess which merely brings certain forms of satisfaction andgratification. Surely, meditation is the discovery of what is truefrom moment to moment. Please listen to this. As long as I ampractising a method, the method will produce a result, but the resultis not what is true. It is a product of the mind in its desire to besafe, to be comforted; therefore the mind is never empty, it isfilled, occupied, and such a mind can never allow the unknown tocome into being. You may practise meditation for years and beable to control your mind completely, but then what? What haveyou done? Your mind is still petty, small, conditioned by the past,filled with the known and so the unknown can never come intobeing.Meditation, then, is a process of freeing the mind through self-knowledge from all the things that it has accumulated - not justfrom one form of accumulation which is painful, but from everyform of accumulation, from everything that it has known,experienced, so that not only the conscious mind, butconsciousness as a whole, is totally empty, free. It is only then thatthe immeasurable, that which is not put together by the mind,which is not sought after, comes into being. But it cannot comeinto being if you invite it, because your invitation is merely thedesire for comfort, the desire to save yourself, the desire to avoidpain.So, your mind is everlastingly struggling to become something,or wanting greater experience through meditation. But truemeditation is the understanding that comes through self-knowledge, and that understanding is not the outcome ofaccumulation. If there is any sense of the experiencer apart fromthe experience, then the mind is not empty. As long as the mind isseeking experience, there must be the experiencer, therefore thereis an urge, a compulsion to expand, to gather, to accumulate. Whenthe mind sees the whole significance of thinking, or experiencing,only then is there a possibility of emptying the mind so that themind itself is the unknown, not the experiencer of the unknown.May 29, 1954NEW YORK 6TH PUBLIC TALK 30TH MAY 1954If I may repeat what I said the other day, these talks have very littlesignificance if we do not directly experience what is being said;and that experience is immediate, it is not to be thought over orremembered and put into practice, because direct experience ofwhat is true will have its own effect without the mind seeking toact upon it. That is why it is very important to listen, not only towhat is being said, but to everything in life. When we hear anothersay something, when we read, when we hear the birds, or the soundof the restless sea, it is important to listen, because in the very actof listening there is a direct experience which is uncontaminated byany of our prejudices, our particular conditioning. It seems to methat most of us find it extremely arduous to listen because we haveread so much and we justify or compare it with what we hear; orwe try to remember what is being said in order to think it over. Sothe mind is restless and therefore not listening.Most of us have many problems, and the solution to theseproblems lies, not in searching for the solution, but in listening tothe actual content of the problem. We are all seeking happiness atdifferent levels, we want permanency, security, someone to take usover to the other side, to a permanent state of bliss. We aresearching for something, and that is our life, moving from oneobject of search to another. We are never satisfied. Consciously orunconsciously, we are always pursuing, searching, and thebackground of this search, if we go into the process, is really theurge to find some kind of satisfaction, some kind of permanency,happiness. We have made search as inevitable as breathing, living,and we say life has no meaning if we do not seek. So, we areeverlastingly pursuing, looking for something at different levels.As long as we are seeking we must create authority, we mustfollow or have a following. And it seems to me that this is one ofthe most crucial points: whether there is anyone - a saviour, amaster, an enlightened one, it doesn't matter who it is - who canever lead us to reality. Yet that is what each one of us is seeking,and we have accepted the search as inevitable. Without seeking, wesay, life has no meaning, but we never go behind that word to findout the whole significance of this urge to seek, to find. You havebeen told that if you seek you will find. But your search, if you gointo the process of it is the outcome of a desire to find some kind ofsecurity, some kind of hope, some kind of fulfilment, a bliss, acontinuity in which there is no frustration. And as long as you areseeking, you must create authority, the authority that will take youover, that will lead you, give you comfort.Is it not important to ask ourselves if there is anyone, anyauthority who can give us that truth which we think will besatisfactory? And we have never asked ourselves what is the stateof the mind if all search ceases. Search implies a process of time,does it not? So, we use time as a means of understandingsomething which is beyond time. Search implies a continuity, andcontinuity means time, a series of experiences which we hope willlead us to truth; and if those experiences do not take us to thatwhich we are seeking, then we turn to somebody else, we disregardthe old and take on a new leader, a new teacher, a new saviour.So, what I am asking is not that we should deny search, becausewe are caught in it, but will seeking lead to reality? - reality beingthe unknown, that which is not the product of the mind, which is astate of creativeness, which is totally new from moment tomoment, which is timeless, eternal, or whatever other word can beused to indicate that it is out of time.I think it is important to ask ourselves this question. You maynot find the answer. But if you are really persistent with thequestion, "Why do I seek?" and let that question reveal the contentof your search, then perhaps there may be a moment, a secondwhen all search ceases. Because, search implies effort, does it not?Search implies choice, choice from among the various systems thatwill lead you, the various methods, practices, disciplines, saviours,masters, gurus. You have to choose, and your choice invariablydepends on your conditioning and your gratification. Therefore,your search is really dictated by your conscious or unconsciousdesire.Please follow all this - not that I am trying to guide yourthinking, but I am just pointing out what it is we are doing. At themoment of rest from this constant struggle, is there not the freedomfrom search? And so inevitably, when one examines this process ofsearch, the question arises, does it not? whether anyone can lead usto what we call truth, reality, God, or whatever name you like togive it?Do you understand the problem? We are used to being led,following a saviour, a master, having someone to tell us what todo. We follow what another says because he has fasted, practiseddiscipline, become an ascetic; we think he has arrived, foundenlightenment, and so we go to him. All religions maintain thatyou must have someone who is enlightened, who knows the truth,and that in his presence, with the example of his way of life, youwill find it. But is there anyone who can lead you to truth? To me,that whole process is destructive, it is uncreative, it will not lead tothat which is timeless, because the very process of seeking impliestime. We use time to understand that which is beyond time. Andcan the mind which for centuries, generation after generation, hasbeen caught in this process of seeking, can that mind not seek?That is, can the search for any kind of gratification come to an end?- which doesn't mean that you should be satisfied with what is.You see, the difficulty in this is that when we have gone far inour questioning, in our inquiry, we come to an impasse, and thenwe stop; but the stopping is merely a compulsion. If we could finda way out, we would pursue it. So, can you who are listening bewithout a guide, without seeking, and therefore understand thiswhole process of time?Even though one may not understand the full significance ofwhat is being said, I think it is very important to listen to it.Because, after all, life isn't merely a series of conflicts, it isn't just amatter of earning a livelihood, of living comfortably in asumptuous flat and enjoying worldly things. That isn't the wholecontent of life. That is only part of it; and if one is satisfied withthe part, then inevitably there is confusion leading to misery anddestruction.Life is a total process, is it not? It must be lived at all levels,completely, and a mind that is satisfied with any one particularlevel of existence is inviting sorrow. In its very structure, by itsvery nature, the mind is always curious, wanting to know, wantingto find out whether there is something beyond this thing that wecall living, beyond our struggles, our efforts, our miseries, ourpassing joys, sensations. But can I know what is beyond throughmere curiosity, by reading what someone has said who has hadexperience of something beyond? Or can the mind experience whatis beyond only when it is uncontaminated, totally alone,uninfluenced, and therefore no longer seeking? If you are listening,not to what I am saying, but to the process of your own mind,doesn't this question inevitably arise - the question as to whetherthis struggle to find reality, to discover something beyond thetransient, has any meaning? If we cannot find satisfaction in onedirection, don't we turn to something else? In the Orient they arestarving, therefore they turn to God. This is the process ofexistence in the Orient and in the Occident, it is not only limited tothe Oriental people.Can there be the cessation of all search, and therefore thefreedom from all compulsion, all authority, the authority created byreligions, the authority which each one creates in his search, in hisdemand, in his hope? We all want to find a state in which there isno disturbance of any kind, a peace which is not put together by themind, because what is put together can be undone by the mind.And it seems to me that as long as the mind is seeking, it mustcreate authority; and when it is completely lost in fear, in imitation,it can no longer find what is true. Yet that is what is happeningthroughout the world. Through the tyranny of governments and thetyranny of religions there is the conditioning of each child, eachhuman being, to a particular form of thinking, however wide orhowever narrow, and this conditioning, whether here or in Russia,is obviously going to prevent any discovery of what is true. And isit possible for each one of us to find out what is true withoutseeking? Because search implies time, search implies gaining anend, search implies dissatisfaction, which is the motive of yoursearch for gratification or happiness. All that implies time, thetomorrow, not only chronologically but psychologically, inwardly.And is it possible to experience, not in terms of time butimmediately, that state when the mind is no longer seeking? Theimmediacy is important, not how to arrive at that state when themind is no longer seeking, because then you introduce all thefactors of struggle, of time. And I think it is important, not only tolisten to that question, but actually to put it to yourself and leave it,not try to find an answer to it. According to the way you put it, andthe earnestness of your question, you will find the answer. For thatwhich is measureless cannot be caught by a mind that is seeking,by a mind that is full of knowledge; it can come into being onlywhen the mind is no longer pursuing or trying to becomesomething. When the mind is completely, inwardly empty, notdemanding anything, only then is there that instantaneousperception of what is true.In discussing some of these questions we are not trying to solvethe problem; we are together taking the journey of investigation.As long as we are limited by our own experience and knowledge,the problem can never be solved. And is it possible for the mind tolook at the problem, not in terms of its own cognizance, but just tolook at it, without any resistance? Surely, resistance is the problem.If there is no resistance there is no problem. But our whole life is aprocess of resistance; we are Christians or Hindus, communists orcapitalists, and so on. We have built walls around ourselves, and itis these walls that create the problem; and then we look at theproblem from within our particular wall. Don't ask, "How am Igoing to get out of the enclosure"? The moment you put thatquestion you have brought in another problem, and so we multiplyproblem after problem. We don't see the truth simply and clearlythat resistance creates problems, and leave it there. Surely, whatmatters is to be aware of the resistance, not how to break down theresistance. And awareness is not something extraordinary, beyond.It begins very simply: by being aware of your talk, of yourreactions, just seeing, watching all that without judgment orcondemnation. It is very difficult to do this, because all ourconditioning for centuries is preventing awareness without choice.But be aware that you are choosing, that you are condemning, thatyou are comparing, just be aware of it without saying, "How am Inot to compare?" Because then you introduce another problem. Theimportant thing is to be aware that you do compare, that you arealways condemning, justifying, consciously or unconsciously - justbe aware of that whole process. You will say, "Is that all"? You askthat question because you hope through awareness you will getsomewhere. Therefore your awareness is not awareness, but aprocess in which you are going to get something, which means thatawareness is merely a coin which you are using. If you can simplybe aware that you are using awareness as a coin to buy something,and proceed from there, then you will begin to discover the wholeprocess of your own thinking, of your being in the relationship ofexistence.Question: You have said that nationalities, beliefs, dogmas areseparative. Is the family also a separative force?Krishnamurti: As long as there is any form of identificationwith the family, with a national group, with a dogma, with a belief,obviously it is separative. If I identify myself with India, with itspast, with its religion, with its dogmas, with its nationality, I amobviously building a wall around myself through identificationwith what I think is greater than myself.Surely, the question is not whether the family or the group isseparative, but why the mind identifies itself with something andthereby creates division? Why do I identify myself with India?Because if I do not identify myself with India, with America, withthe Orient, or the Occident, or what you will, I am lost, I feel alone,deserted. This fear of being lonely, alone, compels me to identifymyself with my family, with my property, with a house, with abelief. It is that that is bringing separation, not the family. If I donot identify myself with something, what am I? I am nobody. Butif I say I am an Indian with Oriental wisdom and all that nonsense -you know the whole business of it - , then I am somebody. If Iidentify myself with America or with Russia, it gives me prestige,it makes me feel worth while, it gives me a sense of significance inlife, because I do not want to be nobody, I do not want to beanonymous. I may bear a name, but the name must bringimportance. I am unwilling to be really nobody, to have noidentification of the "me" with something which I call bigger: God,truth, country, family, or ideology.It is this process of identification that is separative, destructive.Please listen to this. This is your problem, because the world isbeing divided now into two dogmatic identifications which areincreasing the separative force. We are human beings, not Indians,or Americans, or Russians; and is it possible to live withoutidentifying, to be nobody in this world where everyone isstruggling to be somebody? Surely it is possible. Your trying to besomebody is leading to misery, to wars, all of which implies thesearch for power; and when you seek power as an individual, as agroup, or as a nation, you are bringing about your own destruction.This is a fact.Can you and I remain in solitude inwardly, without seekingpower, without identifying with anything - which means, really,having no fear? You will find the answer for yourself if you go intothe problem.Question: Do you deny the value and integrity of saints in allages, including Christ and Buddha?Krishnamurti: This raises a very interesting question. Why doyou want saints? Why do you want heroes? Why do you wantexamples? And who is a saint? Because a church canonizessomebody, is he a saint? And what is your measure of a saint?Your measure will be according to your desires, hopes andconditionings. But, you see, the mind wants somebody to cling to,something beyond itself. You want leaders, saints, examples tofollow, to imitate, because in yourself you are poor, insufficient, soyou say, "If I can follow somebody, I shall be enriched". You willnever be enriched, you will be made the poorer; because it is onlywhen the mind, when your whole being is empty, not seeking, thatthe creativeness of reality comes into being.You don't have to believe what I am saying. Your saints, yourleaders have led you nowhere. You have only wars, misery, strife,a continuous battle within and without. But if you can see what youare, that you are inwardly poor, that you are caught in struggles,miseries, see it and not try to change it into something else, whichonly modifies it; if you can remain with what is without any desireto transform it, then there is transformation. But as long as themind is trying to imitate, to adjust, to measure with itspreconceived ideas who is a saint and who is not, then it is merelypursuing its own fulfilment, which is vanity.Question: I am a young man without any religion. I do notconsider any system of government as my authority. I lackambition and I do not have a job, nor can I keep one for very longbecause I am not ambitious. I create misery in my home because Iam financially dependent on my parents, and they are notsufficiently well off to support me. How might we look at thisproblem?Krishnamurti: You are living in a society whose structure,morality and ethics, though it may say the contrary, are based onacquisitiveness, on envy. Not to fit into that society implies eitherthat you are totally free from ambition, and are therefore notacquisitive, or that mentally there is something wrong; because tobe without ambition is astonishingly difficult. I may not beambitious in the worldly sense, but I may be seeking somethingelse: I want to be happy, I want to fulfil myself in my children, inmy activity, and so on. So, it is a very rare thing to find someonewho is not ambitious, competing, striving.But it is comparatively easy to be lazy. Please don't laugh atthis, or misinterpret what you have heard to suit your particularmode of thinking. If one is not ambitious even though one lives ina world that is full of ambition, where every individual, group andnation is seeking power, position, prestige, then to find out whyone is not ambitious is very important, is it not? It may be adisease; it may be a weakness of mind. Or you may have imposedupon yourself the condition that you must not be ambitious.To understand the whole problem of ambition, of strife, and tofind out what it really means to live in a competitive societywithout striving to be somebody, is a very difficult thing to do;because if we fail in this world, we want to succeed in the nextworld, we want to sit at the right hand of God. Not to seek anyform of fulfilment requires great understanding, for each one of usis seeking fulfilment; and when we seek fulfilment, there isfrustration. You may be aware of that frustration beforehand andtherefore try to avoid all kinds of ambition, all desire to fulfil, butthat only imprisons you in your own conclusion. Whereas, tounderstand the process of fulfilment, to go through it, to be awarethat one's whole drive, urge, compulsion, is towards fulfilment, andthat thereby there is frustration and sorrow, and to ask oneself ifthere is any such thing as fulfilment at all - surely, all that requiresself-knowledge.Question: If we could experience immortality, would there befear of death?Krishnamurti: Is it possible for the mind, for you, to experiencesomething which is not mortal, which is not created by the mind,which is not of time? Obviously, if we could experience that, therewould be no fear of death. But is it possible? Is it possible for amind which is afraid, which functions within the field of time - is itpossible for such a mind to experience that which is beyond time?Perhaps if you did various tricks you might experience something,but it would still be within the field of time.So, let us leave for the moment the question of what is theimmortal, because we do not know what it is. But we do know thefear of death, of old age and withering away, we are quite familiarwith that; so let us take that and examine it, go into it, and not askif we can be free of fear by experiencing immortality. Such aquestion has very little meaning.We are afraid of death, which means we are afraid of coming toan end. All the things we have acquired, the experiences we havegathered, the knowledge, the relationships, the affections, thevirtues we have cultivated - we are afraid of all that coming to anend. You may have a hope, a belief that there is a resurrection inthe future, but fear is there, because the future is uncertain.Through your religions, your priests, your hopes have said thatthere is a continuity in some form or other, there is still uncertainty.You do not want to die. That is a fact. So, is there theunderstanding of fear in relation to death?Is it possible to die while living? Please listen. If I am notaccumulating, if I am not living in the future, in tomorrow, if I amcontent in the rich worship of one moment, there is no continuity.Continuity implies time: I was, I am, and I shall be. As long as Iam sure that I shall be, I am not afraid; but the "shall be" is veryuncertain, and so I seek immortality, a confirmation that I shallcontinue.In continuity is there a transformation? Can anything thatcontinues in time be in a state of complete revolution? Can acontinuity have newness? And is it not important inwardly to dieeach day, not theoretically, but actually not to accumulate, not tolet any experience take root, not to think of tomorrowpsychologically?As long as we think in terms of time, there must be fear ofdeath. I have learned, but I have not found the ultimate, and beforeI die I must find it; or if I do not find it before I die, at least I hope Ishall find it in the next life, and so on. All our thinking is based ontime. Our thinking is the known, it is the outcome of the known,and the known is the process of time; and with that mind we aretrying to find out what it is to be immortal, beyond time, which is avain pursuit, it has no meaning except to philosophers, theoristsand speculators. If I want to find the truth, not tomorrow, butactually, directly, must not I - the "me", the self that is alwaysgathering, striving and giving itself a continuity through memory -cease to continue? Is it not possible to die while living - notartificially to lose one's memory, which is amnesia, but actually tocease to accumulate through memory, and thereby cease to givecontinuance to the "me"? Living in this world, which is of time, isit not possible for the mind to bring about, without any form ofcompulsion, a state in which the experiencer and the experiencehave no basis? As long as there is the experiencer, the observer, thethinker, there must be the fear of ending, and therefore of death. Aslong as I am seeking further experience, giving strength to my owncontinuity through the family, through property, through thenation, through ideas, through any form of identification, theremust be the fear of coming to an end.And so, if it is possible for the mind to know all this, to be fullyaware of it and not merely say, "Yes, it is simple; if the mind canbe aware of the total process of consciousness, see the wholesignificance of continuity and of time, and the futility of this searchthrough time to find that which is beyond time - if it can be awareof all that, then there may be a death which is really a creativitytotally beyond time.May 30, 1954MADRAS 1ST PUBLIC TALK 5TH DECEMBER1954I think it is very important, especially now in this unprecedentedcrisis throughout the world, to know how to listen, not only to aspeaker, to the human voice, but also to the birds, to the sound ofthe sea, to everything about us. It seems to me that it has becomeextraordinarily urgent for each one of us to find out what is trueand what is false irrespective of the innumerable teachers here andin the West, and of all the sacred and other books that have beenand are being published. Surely one must be able to listen withoutbeing converted to any particular point or view, to any particularphilosophy or ideology, and discover for oneself beyond the words,beyond the similes and intricate thoughts, exactly what is truebehind all this verbiage.First of all, do we ever listen to anything? Are we capable oflistening? If you observe yourself you will see how difficult it is tolisten, because you have preconceived ideas, opinions andjudgments based on your own tradition, your own experience andcultural influences, and these constantly intervene. They are likescreens between you and that which you are trying to hear; so thereis no listening at all but merely a translation of what you hear interms of your own conditioning.Do observe, watch your own mind when you are listening towhat is being said, and you will see this extraordinary processactually taking place. You are really not listening. You havealready an opinion about what is going to be said; you haveconclusions, formulations, certain definite ideas, and theknowledge of the experience you have gathered is corrupting yourmind. So your mind is never quiet, never still to find out what istrue.Is it not essential for a man who wants to find out for himselfwhat is true to put aside all the things he has gathered, all theknowledge, the conclusions based on his own experience, so thatthe mind can perceive directly what is true without the screen ofinterpretation? Can you be told by another what is true? Fromchildhood we have been taught not how to think but what to think,not how to listen but what to listen to. So we must now endeavourto find out how to listen, which means really how to think anewabout all the problems of life, how to look at things very clearlywithout the prejudices of any race or culture, without theinterpretation of our particular conditioning.As I said, we are in an extraordinary crisis both historically andculturally. In a fortunate way there are no leaders any more,because you can no longer trust any leader. You do follow leaderswhen you want to get something from them spiritually orpolitically, but if you are intelligently observant you will be awarethat the process of leadership does not bring about a fundamentalrevolution. The revolution of a leader is merely the continuation ofthe old in a different form, To change one pattern into anotherpattern is no change at all, it is merely a modified continuity. Tobring about an inward revolution, a revolution in the whole processof our thinking and in the ways of our behaviour, demands on thepart of each one of us a putting aside of all our preconceived ideas,a freeing of ourselves from every kind of thought - pattern in orderto find out what is true. That is the only thing you and I can have incommon, because what I am saying is neither Eastern nor Western;our problems are too colossal to be divided as Indian and British,Russian and American. These divisions are merely political and areabsurd. Our problems are enormous and they cannot be solvedfrom any political or sectarian point of view because they vitallyconcern us all as human beings, whether we live here or there.Do you understand? To discover, first of all, what is our majorproblem, we cannot think in terms of the Orient or the Occident,we can, not think as Hindus, Moslems or Christians. If we do wecreate from the major problem innumerable secondary problemswhich have no significance at all. Please understand this onesimple thing, listen to and see the truth of it. We cannot think interms of the Hindu, the Christian, the Islamic or any other culture,because the problem is much too vast to be dealt with according toa religious dogma or a particular pattern of philosophy. That isobvious, is it not? But can your mind put aside all that, actually andnot merely verbally? Theoretically you will spin words about it inorder to discuss, but actually you are caught in the web of yourown traditions, your own conditioning; therefore it is impossible tolook at any problem comprehensively.What is happening in the world at the present time, and perhapshas always happened? There are various political leaders eachwanting to reform the world in a particular way, to push it to theleft or to the right, or to maintain neutrality. Innumerable religiousleaders are saying that there is a God, a divine end for man, andthat a particular path will lead to it. Then there are the economicgurus who offer an earthly Utopia in the future if you will workhard for the party and conform to the authority of the book. Thereformers, the historians, the politicians, the religious teachers,with their various patterns of thought, all point in differentdirections and say what is the right thing to do, and the greater theauthority the more the followers.Now, all that is happening in the world is a projection of ourown confusion and misery, is it not? We want to have bothphysical security and inward peace, we want to be without conflict,sorrow and pain, without the constant battle between the opposites,between what is and what should be, we want a haven from thisceaseless strife within ourselves. Seeing this whole process goingon, don't you ask what it is all about? This may seem a verychildish question, but you have never found the answer, have you?Nor can great philosophers answer it for you. What Sankara,Buddha and others have said may be false, it may be utterlyinadequate. To find the truth you must first understand theproblem, which means that you must be capable of looking at itwithout any conditioning.So, don't you ask yourself what this conflict and misery is allabout? You strive, you add a degree to your name after passing anexamination, you go to the office every day to earn a few rupees,and there is the endless struggle between the rich and the poor.What is it all about? Must you not find out for yourself and not relyon any person, on any book? It is not a question of capacity, it is aquestion of interest and drive. The moment you are reallyinterested in this you will find that you have the enthusiasm, thepassion to find out, and therefore you are willing to examineanything that may help you to discover the truth. What isimportant, then, is not the solution of any problem, but how weapproach the problem, because practically all of us have lost thespirit of creative search, creative exploration to discover what istrue, which cannot exist if there is any form of acceptance.Please listen to this, but do not merely accept what I say. I amtelling you nothing, literally nothing, because wisdom cannot beconveyed through words. You have to discover it for yourself, andto discover it your mind must be free. But your mind is not free, isit? Your mind is obviously hedged about by every form of fear,tradition, hope and anxiety. So, can your mind free itself from fearand tradition, from the accumulated knowledge of a thousandyears? Can you put aside all the gurus, the religious teachers,whether ancient or modern, and look at these things for yourself?That is the real problem, is it not?Civilizations and cultures do not bring about religion, they existfor religion, their proper function is to help man to find out what istrue, what is God. But you cannot find truth, God if you are notinwardly free. Freedom does not come about through thecultivation of any particular practice, because the moment youpractise you are already caught in the `how'. A man who meditatesaccording to a system can never find out what is true; but when themind becomes aware of the habit in which it is caught and setsabout freeing itself from the practice, the thoughtlessness that isperpetually creating habit, such a mind is in meditation. It meansreally a complete inward revolution - which most of us are notwilling to undergo because we want to be respectable. I do notmean the respectability of Mylapore, a suburb of Madras; that isabsurd, but the respectability of feeling that we are progressing,advancing spiritually, that we are moral, safe. All this indicatesabsorption in oneself, does it not? However modified, refined, it isstill self-concern.So our problem, not only here but throughout the world, is this:Can the mind free itself from the past, from all its accumulatedknowledge - knowledge, not of the machine, not of technology, butthe knowledge of what we should be, the theories, the dogmas, thebeliefs - and with that freedom consider the whole issue ofexistence? And when the mind is free from dogma, belief, fear,will there be any problem? After all, what is the mind, the mindwhich you have? What is your response when you are asked thatquestion? Please experiment with what I am saying, if only for thefun of it. What is your mind? When you are asked such a question,observe how your mind operates. Its instinctive response is to lookfor an answer, either what Sankara said, or what the modernpsychologists say, or what has been said by the scientists or byyour favourite guru or newspaper. You are looking for an answeramong the various records which you have collected, are you not?You do not observe your own process of thinking, and it is only inwatching that process that you find out what the mind is, not byquoting somebody.To find out what the mind is: is that not meditation? If the mindcan understand the total process of its own existence, then perhapsit can go beyond itself and discover what is true. But reason andlogic are not passionate, vital, and that is why, to understand andtranscend itself, the mind must go beyond reason and logic. Themind that is passionate to find out what is true - only such a mindcan come to know the whole process of reasoning, with its illusionsand falseness, and so transcend itself. A mind that is logical,reasoning, traditional, fearful, may be enthusiastic in terms of adogma, creed or political formula, it may be keen to bring about aparticular reform; but it can never be vitally free to find out what istrue.Do experiment with this, because after all, why are youlistening to me? If you are listening to find out what is true, youwill never find it. If you are listening to be told how to meditate,you will never know meditation. God is not to be found throughwords, through any book or philosophy, through any of the systemsof meditation which you practise. That which is true can only befound from moment to moment, and the mind that has a continuitycannot find it. Our mind is the result of time, is it not? It is theoutcome of many yesterdays, an accumulation of both experienceand knowledge. The mind as we know it has a continuity, which ismemory, so it can only function in time, and with that continuitywe approach the timeless, we try to find out what is true; thereforewhat we find will be in terms of our own continuity, our own habit,our own conclusions. We cannot be free of continuity as long aswe do not understand the whole process of the mind, of the `I'. Themind is not separate from the `I'. Whether it is high or low, whetheryou call it personality, soul, or Atman, the `I' is the self, the mindthat is capable of thinking. Please listen to this. As long as yourGod, Paramatman and all the rest of it, is within the field ofthought it is still in time, and therefore it is not true. That is why itis very important to understand the whole process of the mind, notonly of the superficial everyday mind, but also of the unconscious.What is true can only be found from moment to moment, it is not acontinuity, but the mind which wants to discover it, being itself theproduct of time, can only function in the field of time; therefore itis incapable of finding what is true.To know the mind, the mind must know itself, for there is no `I'apart from the mind. There are no qualities separate from the mind,just as the qualities of the diamond are not separate from thediamond itself. To understand the mind you cannot interpret itaccording to somebody else's idea, but you must observe how yourown total mind works. When you know the whole process of it -how it reasons, its desires, motives, ambitions, pursuits, its envy,greed and fear - , then the mind can go beyond itself, and when itdoes there is the discovery of something totally new. That qualityof newness gives an extraordinary passion, a tremendousenthusiasm which brings about a deep inward revolution; and it isthis inward revolution which alone can transform the world, notany political or economic system.If you listen rightly to what is being said, that very listening is aprocess of revolution. I assure you of this fact - not that you mustaccept it, but you will find out for yourself if you listen rightly thatthere comes an astonishing revolution in your life because you willhave discovered the truth, and the truth brings about its owncreative enthusiasm, its own creative action from moment tomoment. That discovery is the highest form of religion, it is that forwhich all civilizations exist and every individual strives, andwithout it we are going to create an appalling world; without it weare going to destroy each other with the hydrogen bomb, and ifthere are no wars we will destroy each other through separativebeliefs, through dogmas, through false gods such as nationalism,through religions that no longer have any meaning but are meresuperstition.So the problem is to free the mind to discover what is true,because truth cannot be handed to you by another. You cannot readit in books, it is not contained in any theory, it is not born ofspeculation nor of experience or the translation of experience.Truth comes into being only when the mind is quiet, utterly still,not hedged about by fear, by hope, by dogmas, by any form ofritual or belief. Mind is still only when it is free, and there isfreedom only when the total process of the mind is understood.There are several questions to answer. What is the point ofputting a question? Is it to solve the problem or to explore theproblem? Do you see the difference? With which are you mostlyconcerned when you put the question? Are you not mostlyconcerned with the answer? And when I answer in one way youcan go to someone else for a different answer, and then choose theanswer according to your judgment, your evaluation, whichdepends on your conditioning, on your desires and hopes; so youare really wanting the question to be answered to suit your theoriesand prejudices. But if the question is put in order to explore theproblem together and find out what is true, then our relationship isentirely different. Then there is no lecturer, no division of speakerand listener, no guru, sishya, disciple and all that nonsense. Thenyou and I are two human beings confronted with a problem ofwhich we are unafraid and into which we are inquiring to find outwhat is true; and such inquiry gives tremendous enthusiasm, does itnot? Then the inquiry is neither yours nor mine, neither Hindu,Mussulman, Christian nor Buddhist. There is only the mind that isinquiring to find out what is true.Please, sirs, if you listen to all this very casually it has very littlesignificance; but if you listen to it with your whole being as thoughyour life depended on it, then it will have a totally differentmeaning.Question: Religious ascetics give up worldly things, political`sanyasis' dedicate themselves to work of various kinds forbettering society, while others are active in their own way tochange conditions in the educational, social and political fields.Similarly, the people associated with you. though not belonging toany organization, are apparently dedicated to your work. Is thereany difference between all these persons?Krishnamurti: I hope there are none who are dedicated to mywork, and that is very important to understand first. You cannot bededicated to another's work. And what is my work? To publish afew books? Surely not. The inquiry to find out what is true issurely your own work, it is not mine. It is your life, your sorrowand misery that have to be understood, whether you live in avillage, in Mylapore, in New York, London or Moscow. If youunderstand your everyday life as an individual and bring aboutfreedom in yourself, you will create a revolution in the collectivewill which is called civilization; but if you cannot bring about thisfundamental revolution in yourself, which is your own work, thenhow can you be dedicated to someone else's work?So what is it that we are trying to do? The political reformers,the sanyasis, those who belong to welfare societies, those whoserve various Masters, who meditate, who quarrel and then try tobe peaceful - what is it that they are all trying to do? Have you everquestioned it? Have you ever asked yourself what it all means?Religious, political and social reform is all part of what is calledcivilization, is it not? And what is civilization? Surely it is theproduct of the action of collective will. That is fairly clear.Civilization comes into being through the action of collective will,and that civilization either rises and goes beyond the secular todiscover what is ultimately true, or it declines and goes under.There can be a radical revolution in civilization only when there isa fundamental change in the action of collective will, and theaction of collective will cannot change if the individual will doesnot undergo a transformation in itself. So you and I must discoverwhat is true for ourselves, and we cannot discover what is trueunless we free ourselves from the collective, which is tradition, thehopes, fears, superstitions and anxieties with which the mind isburdened. But we do not want to do that; all that we want to do isto carry on in the traditional way, hoping by some miracle therewill be a revolution that will bring us happiness and peace.There are many social and political reformers, many yogis,swamis and sanyasins, all struggling in their different ways tobring about some kind of change, collective or individual. Butchange without an understanding of the total process of the mindcan only lead to further misery. These reformers, political, socialand religious, will only cause more sorrow for man unless manunderstands the workings of his own mind. In the understanding ofthe total process of the mind there is a radical inward revolution,and from that inward revolution springs the action of truecooperation, which is not cooperation with a pattern, withauthority, with somebody who `knows'. When you know how tocooperate because there is this inward revolution, then you willalso know when not to cooperate, which is really very important,perhaps more important. We now cooperate with any person whooffers a reform, a change, which only perpetuates conflict andmisery; but if we can know what it is to have the spirit ofcooperation that comes into being with the understanding of thetotal process of the mind and in which there is freedom from theself, then there is a possibility of creating a new civilization, atotally different world in which there is no acquisitiveness, noenvy, no comparison. This is not a theoretical Utopia but the actualstate of the mind that is constantly inquiring and pursuing thatwhich is true and blessed.December 5, 1954.MADRAS 2ND PUBLIC TALK 12TH DECEMBER1954I think it must have struck most of us that problems all over theworld are on the increase. There is always patchwork reform, amediocre struggle to solve our many problems, but we do not seemable to solve them in their entirety. And why is it that we humanbeings keep on suffering indefinitely without ever solving theproblem of sorrow? We have explanations for it depending uponour reading, explanations which suit our particular conditioning. Ifwe are Hindus we look at the problem in one way, if we areChristians or Communists we look at it in another, andexplanations seem to satisfy the majority of us. This satisfaction, itseems to me, is the fundamental cause of mediocrity - which doesnot mean that we should reject everything without thought. But thedesire to be satisfied does breed a mediocre outlook, a narrowobjective, the acceptance of superficial answers to our immenseproblems, and if we could deliberately and radically set aside thedesire for satisfaction and go behind the verbal explanations, then Ithink we should be able to solve our many problems.So, if I may ask, with what desire, with what intention are youlistening to me? Are you listening merely for an answer, or to findout if you and I together can investigate some of the manyproblems that confront us and discover the truth for ourselvesirrespective of any authority, of any book or ideology? If we can soexplore our human problems, then I think the narrow walls ofmediocrity will be broken down and the desire to accept things asthey are with patchwork reform here and there will give way to aradical inward revolution.Though many of our problems are petty, superficial, if we are tosolve them fundamentally is it not very important to askfundamental questions? In understanding the fundamental, thesuperficial will be solved; but if we ask questions merely with thedesire to find the most satisfactory explanation, this satisfactionwill not fundamentally alter our struggles, fears and sorrows. Mostof us just intellectually enjoy quoting a few phrases from Marx orthe Bhagavad Gita, we like to show our knowledge or offer reasonswhy we should support a certain form of society, or a certainreligious or political movement, and that is why we never find afundamental answer to our many problems.Please, if I may point out, this is quite an important issue, youcannot just brush it aside and go on to something else; you mustreally ponder over it. In asking fundamental questions, will you notsolve the so-called superficial, the immediate social problems? Itall depends on how we ask, does it not? A petty mind can ask afundamental question, but its answer will be very superficialbecause such a mind will not know how to penetrate, how toexplore, inquire into the question, and it will accept an answer thatis reasonable and logically satisfying. So, when we do askfundamental questions - questions like what is God, what is death,what is this conflict, this contradiction within oneself? - , is it notvery important for each one of us to observe how easily we aresatisfied by some explanation, whether psychological, sociologicalor religious? And is it possible to explore a fundamental questionwithout accepting or being satisfied with any superficial response?Now, let us take the problem of self-contradiction and seewhether we can explore it in this way; for if we can understand thecontradiction within ourselves, then perhaps we shall be able aunderstand the contradiction in relationship, which is society.What brings about self-contradiction, this dual morality, thisconflict within oneself? Most of us, I am sure, are unaware of it.When we are aware of it, it is a torture, and then begins the processof trying to overcome the contradiction, of trying to find asynthesis in the conflict between thesis and antithesis. Can themind think without contradiction, without this conflict of theopposites? Is it capable of thinking without an ideal? It is the idealthat brings about the contradiction, is it not? And yet all ourphilosophies, all our religions insist on ideals as a means ofimprovement, as a means of change. Can the mind cease to think interms of what should be, which is the ideal, and be free to pursuewhat is? Can it give complete attention to what is and not bedistracted by what should be, the ideal?It is really very important to follow this to the end, actuallyexperience it, and not merely consider it intellectually. Why isthere in all of us this contradiction? Do you understand what Imean by contradiction? It is the inner conflict between what is andwhat should be, the ceaseless attempt to better oneself, the constantcomparison of oneself with another. And can the mind functionwithout comparison? Does understanding come about throughcomparison and condemnation?Is it not very important for each one of us to understand thesefundamental issues directly and not just accept what another says?It is our own lives we are concerned with, and if we do notunderstand the fundamental issues, merely to indulge in political orsocial reform has very little significance. What is needed, surely, isan integrated outlook, which does not come about through conflict,adjustment or resistance, but only when the mind understands thewhole problem of self-contradiction.Is it not also very important to find out for ourselves if there issuch a thing as God? If we are able to find out what is God, truth,or what name you will, it may bring about a fundamentalrevolution in our inward lives which will then express itselfoutwardly; but surely that requires some freedom, and the mind isnot free when it is burdened with knowledge. Therefore the wholeconception of experiencing reality through knowledge becomesutterly fallacious, does it not? Mere description of what God is, thebelief or the knowledge you have acquired in reading variousreligious books, or the rejection of these things because youhappen to be an atheist, a non-believer - is not all this animpediment to discovery? Must not the mind be free to explore,and is the mind free when it is burdened with knowledge, with thedogmas of belief or non-belief? After all, what is it that we callreligion? When you really come to think of it, it is nothing but aformulation of rituals and dogmatic beliefs, and whether the dogmais Christian or Hindu, Buddhist or Communist, is of very littlesignificance.So merely to ask what God or truth is, is not the solution,because different people will give you different answers and youwill choose the one which is most rational, most convenient orsatisfactory; but that is not the discovery of God or truth. Itrequires extraordinary insight to put aside all authority, allknowledge, and discover for yourself what is true. Knowledge isuseful only as a means of communication or as a means of action.Before you act you must first be capable of investigating, must younot? In action you need knowledge. But can a mind burdened withknowledge discover what is true? Or must it be free of knowledgeso as to investigate, and use knowledge only after discovery? Withmost of us knowledge has become a hindrance because we thinkthat by reading certain books, attending certain talks and all the restof the nonsense, we shall find out what is truth. To discover what istruth the mind must be stripped naked, must it not? Surely that isthe fundamental question one must ask and explore for oneself.I feel that the present world crisis is not merely social oreconomic, but much more fundamental. If you look within yourselfand about you, you will see how little creative thinking there is,how little understanding. Most so-called thinking is not original, itis merely repetitive, what Sankara, Buddha, Christ, Marx orsomebody else has said. Actually to put aside all authority, allbooks and try to find out for oneself what is true, requires a greatdeal of creative intelligence, does it not? Acceptance may merelybe the reaction of a conditioned mind; so is it not important, notonly to ask what is truth, what is God, but to explore the questiondirectly for oneself? And to do that, must not the mind be free fromall conditioning, Hindu Buddhist Christian, Communist, or anyother This requires a tremendous inward revolution, rebellionagainst everything, does it not? It demands revolt, not for revolt'ssake, but a revolt which sets the mind free to discover.When we talk about revolt, we generally mean revolt accordingto a certain formula, do we not? We revolt in order to bring aboutadjustment to a chosen pattern of thought, or to establish aparticular type of society. What we call revolt is a process ofresistance, suppression. Now, can the mind revolt withoutaccepting any formula, the formula being a reaction, a conditionedresponse? Can it put all that aside and discover what is truth? It isonly such revolt that brings about creative thinking, creativeunderstanding, and that is what is essential now, not more leaders,spiritual or political. Each one of us must actually discover forhimself what is truth, and we cannot find out what is truth unlesswe are in total rebellion. You listen to all this, you shake yourheads in assent, but if you merely go home and carry on as beforeit will have no meaning. You see, sirs, unless we accept thechallenge of the new we are already dead; and the mind cannotunderstand the new if it is not free, if it is burdened with aparticular belief or formula.So, can the mind be in total revolution and not merely acceptand be satisfied with an economic revolution such as theCommunists offer? Can there be a total revolution in our thinking?It seems to me that our only salvation is to be a light untoourselves. A ship which is anchored cannot go out to sea, and amind which is tethered to any belief or ideology is incapable ofdiscovering what is truth. One must become conscious, aware thatone's mind is entrenched in certain forms of security, not onlyphysically but much more psychologically, that is caught inphrases, in beliefs, in ideas, in various manifestations of fear.Acceptance of a belief may give us great satisfaction, a sense ofsecurity, and in that security there is a certain power; but such amind obviously cannot find out what is truth. It may repeat whatSankara, Buddha or other ancient teachers have said, but that is notindividual, creative discovery.Not to seek any form of psychological security, any form ofgratification, requires investigation, constant watchfulness to seehow the mind operates; and surely that is meditation, is it not?Meditation is not the practice of a formula, or the repetition ofcertain words, which is all silly, immature. Without knowing thewhole process of the mind, conscious as well as unconscious, anyform of meditation is really a hindrance, an escape, a childishactivity; it is a form of self-hypothesis. But to be aware of theprocess of thinking, to go into it carefully step by step with fullconsciousness and discover for oneself the ways of the self - that ismeditation. It is only through self-knowledge that the mind can befree to discover what is truth, what is God, what is death, what isthis thing that we call living.Do you understand, sirs? Why do we suffer, why do we obey,why is there this conflict within ourselves and in society? After all,living for most of us is suffering, it is a constant battle or theboredom of a routine. And is that life? The desire for fulfilmentwith its frustrations, the battle of ambition with its fear andruthlessness, this constant struggle within oneself and with one'sneighbour, the agony of relationship - is this living? Or have wecreated this appalling society because we do not understand whatliving is? So is it not important to find out the real significance ofall these things? And can the mind find out? What is the mind, themind that is capable of reason, logic? Reason and logic depend onmemory, memory being conditioned by past experience; and cansuch a mind discover what is truth? Or is the discovery of truthpossible only when the mind understands the whole process ofexperience, of memory, of knowledge, reason and logic, and bygoing beyond itself brings about a stillness in which reality can be?But it is impossible for a mind that is everlastingly caught in theacquisition of knowledge and experience to discover what is truth.All this raises an immense question: whether you are really anindividual, or merely a movement of the collective. Civilization,whether Hindu, Christian or Communist, is obviously the result ofthe collective will, and a mind which is absorbed in the collectivecan never find out what is truth. To be an individual the mind mustunderstand and be free of the collective, and only then is it capableof discovering the highest. This means really a total revolution,because the collective is tradition, belief, knowledge, experience,and the authority of the book.Unless we understand these problems fundamentally, merereformation becomes further misery. Have you not noticed thatpoliticians all over the world are trying to establish peace and yetpreparing for war? Every problem they touch brings otherproblems, and so it is in our own lives. There is a multitude ofproblems, a multitude of sorrows, and never a moment of deephappiness, of quietness, of full rejoicing. Happiness and enduringpeace cannot be brought about by any legislation, by anysuperficial reform. When the mind, being aware of itself andknowing its collective movement, is in total revolution against thecollective and is therefore discovering its own incorruptibility -only then is it able to discover what is truth, and this discovery isthe only solution to all our human problems.Question: What is the true spirit of cooperation? If it is not bornof a common work or a common interest, then how does it arise?Krishnamurti: Sirs, what is it that you call cooperation? Youcooperate with authority, with those who you think have the rightideas, the right plan, do you not? Is that cooperation? When youaccept and cooperate with any kind of authority, is thatcooperation? When you drive on the left as the law requires, areyou co-operating? Surely we must first find out what we mean bythat word. If we understand what cooperation is we shall also knowwhen not to cooperate, and both are important, for to cooperatewith another under certain circumstances may lead to destructionand misery.To cooperate is to work together, is it not? But if there is a plan,a blueprint enforced by authority, that is not cooperation, it ismerely compulsion. Working together through tear, throughreward, through necessity, through enforcement is obviously notco-operation. Then what is cooperation and how does it come intobeing?Now, is there a form of cooperation in which you and I arecapable of working together without authority? We may build ahouse together, and for that a blueprint, the architect's plan isnecessary, but what you do and what I do is not psychologicallyimportant to us. I may carry the bricks and you may put them inplace, but our intention is to build the house together and thereforethere is no authority, no compulsion. We cooperate because wewant to work together to produce something. Can you and I worktogether in that spirit? Surely this is not a Hindu world, nor aCommunist world, nor an English or American world. This earth isours, it is yours and mine to live in, a place to work and buildtogether, and what you do in building, matters as infinitely as whatI do. Can we be free of nationalistic twaddle, of racial and religiousseparatism and have this spirit of cooperation in building together?This is entirely different from the so-called cooperation throughany form of compulsion or fear of punishment, is it not? It reallymeans the absence of the self, of the `me'. And when there is thisspirit of cooperation there is at the same time an awareness ofwhen not to cooperate, which is equally important. When a leadercomes along and offers some marvellous utopian plan, a completesociological revolution without a fundamental inner revolution,should one cooperate with such a person? And when there is a totalrevolution of one's whole being, is there not cooperation in whichone is not out for one, self, in which one is not ambitious? Surelythis is the revolution of love, which is not mere sentiment, not justa word; therefore it is capable of cooperating, and also of notcooperating when cooperation is futile.Question: You have talked about entering the house of deathwhile living. Can one experience the feeling of dying while stillalive?Krishnamurti: Most of us are interested in finding out whathappens when we die, are we not? You want to know whathappens after death; but I think that is a wrong question, becausethen you are satisfied by mere explanations. The explanation ofreincarnation may satisfy you more than any other, but it is stillonly an explanation. The mind frightened by death accepts a beliefthat gives it continuity. Surely, our living is a form of deathbecause we are strangely afraid of dying, inwardly fearful of theuncertainty which lies beyond. But if we put the questiondifferently, perhaps we can find the right answer.Can one while living, while full of life and vigour, being alertand fully conscious, enter the house of death? Can you experiencedeath, not at the moment of unconsciousness when the physicalorganism is gone, but while living, conscious, wide awake? Whatis death? I am not going to give an explanation of what happenswith the ending of the physical organism, whether thepsychological mind, the bundle of instinctive responses, racial,inherited and acquired, continues as memory. You can inquire intothat and there will be innumerable answers which will satisfy you.But surely that is not the discovery of what death is. Can you whileliving - putting away all the fears, the longings, the explanations,the hope that there will be a continuity, and so on - find out whatdeath is? The acceptance of any form of belief as to what death is,is not the solution. The mind that is satisfied, that has some kind ofpsychological security is incapable of finding out the truth aboutdeath, is it not?So, what is death? We know the obvious physical cessation. Isthat all? Can you strip the mind of all the things you have learntabout death, the knowledge you have acquired from books, thebeliefs that have given you comfort in the hope that you willcontinue? Explanations have no value because they do not give youthe real significance of death. Can you put them all aside and findout what death is? Can the mind be unburdened of all knowledgewith regard to death? Only then is it free to find out what death is,is it not? After all, you do not know what death is, do you? And tofind out what death is, must not your mind free itself of allknowledge and say, `I do not know'? In the presence of somethingit does not know is it not important to find out if the mind iscapable of saying, `I do not know'?Do you understand, sirs? You have explanations of death basedon your hopes, fears and prejudices, on what other people havesaid or on your own desire to continue; but that is not theexperiencing of what death is, is it? The fact is that you do notknow; and can you really, honestly say that you do not know?When the mind can say, `I do not know', has it not already freeditself from the known, and is it not therefore capable ofunderstanding the unknown, which is death? After all, we areafraid of death because we cling to the known. Death is theunknown, and we function only within the field of the known. `Myname', `my family', `my job', `my virtue', `my temperament' - allthat is in the field of the known, in which the mind functions andhas its being. Now, can the mind free itself from the known, fromthe past, from all tradition, from all knowledge? And when it does,is not the mind in a state of not knowing? Being free from theknown, is it not capable of understanding or experiencing theunknown, which is death? If we can experience the unknownimmediately and directly, it will have an extraordinary significancein our relationships; then we shall create quite a different socialorder.Our present society, whether communist or capitalist, is basedon acquisitiveness; there may not be the acquisitiveness ofproperty, but there is the acquisitiveness of power, position,prestige. A man who really understands this problem of death is nolonger concerned with acquisition in any form; though he may holda little property, his mind has lost its acquisitiveness. There, fore itis really very important to understand these fundamental issues,because in understanding them we shall experience an inwardrevolution which will have a far reaching effect in our socialrelationships. To bring about social reformation in any formwithout this inward revolution will not solve our problems, becauseour problems are much deeper, they are much more psychologicalthan economic.Now, sirs, you have listened for nearly an hour, and what willyou do about it? If you merely go back to your old routine you willbe incapable of responding to the challenge of the new. The worldis in a tremendous, unprecedented crisis, and if you merely act asthe collective your response will not be new, therefore it will notproduce that creative action which the challenge demands. Yourresponse can be new only when you are completely out of yourtradition, when you are no longer a Hindu, a Christian, a Buddhistor a Communist, when you no longer belong to any particularsociety. Only then are you capable of being free and thereforeresponding truly.December 12, 1954.BANARAS 1ST PUBLIC TALK 9TH JANUARY1955If we can begin by considering what it is to be serious, thenperhaps our investigation into the whole process of our thinkingand responding to the various challenges of life will have deepersignificance.What do we mean by being serious? And are we ever reallyserious? Most of us think very superficially, we never sustain aparticular intention and carry it through, because we have so manycontradictory desires, each desire pulling in a different direction.One moment we are serious about something, and the next it isforgotten and we pursue a different object at a different level. Andis it possible to maintain an integrated outlook towards life? I thinkthis is a fairly important question to consider cause I wonder howmany of us are serious at all? Or are we serious only about thosethings which give us satisfaction and have but a temporarymeaning?So I think it would be very interesting, not merely to listen to atalk which I happen to be giving, but earnestly to try to find outtogether what it means to be serious. When a petty mind gives itseffort to being serious, its seriousness is bound to be very shallow,because it is without any understanding of the deeper significanceof its own process. One may give one's energies to a particularobject, spiritual or mundane, but as long as the mind remains petty,complex, without any understanding of itself, its serious activitieswill have very little significance. That is why it seems to me veryimportant, especially at this time when there are so many complexproblems, so many challenges, that a few of us at least should havea sustained interest in trying to find out if it is possible to beearnest or serious without being distracted by the superficialactivities of the mind.I don't know if you are interested in this problem, but it is surelyquite important to find out why most people are not really serious;because it is only a serious mind that can pursue a particularactivity to its end and discover its significance. If one is to becapable of action which is integral one must understand the waysof one's own mind, and without that understanding, merely to beserious has very little meaning. I wonder if any of you arefollowing all this, and whether I am explaining myself?We see the disintegrating process that is going on in the world.The old social order is breaking down, the various religiousorganizations, the beliefs, the moral and ethical structures in whichwe have been brought up, are all failing. Throughout our so-calledcivilization, whether Indian, European, or whatever it be, there iscorruption, and every form of useless activity is being carried on.So, is it possible for you and me to be aware of this whole processof disintegration and, stepping out of it as individuals, be serious inour intention to create a totally different kind of world, a differentkind of culture, civilization? Do you think we could discuss thisinstead of my giving a talk?The problem is this: being caught up in this social, religious andmoral disintegration, how can we as individuals break away andcreate a different world, a different social order, a different way oflooking it life? Is this a problem to any of you, or are you contentmerely to observe this disintegration and respond to if in thehabitual manner? Can we this evening discuss this problemtogether, think it right through and resolve it in ourselves? Do youthink it would be profitable to discuss what we mean by change?Questioner: Let us discuss seriousness.Krishnamurti: What do we mean by seriousness? To be serious,to be earnest, surely implies the capacity to find out what is true.Can I find out what is true if my mind is tethered to any particularpoint of view? If it is bound by knowledge, by belief, if it is caughtin the conditioning influences that are constantly impinging uponit, can the mind discover anything new? Does not seriousnessimply the total application of one's mind to any problem of life?Can a mind which is only partially attentive, which is contradictorywithin itself, however much it may attempt to be serious, everrespond adequately to the challenge of life? Is a mind that is tornby innumerable desires, each pulling in a different direction,capable of discovering what is true, however much it may try? Andis it not therefore very important to have self-knowledge, to beserious in the process of understanding the self with all itscontradictions? Can we discuss that?Questioner: Would you kindly tell us if life and the problems oflife are the same?Krishnamurti: Can you separate the problems of life from lifeitself? Is life different from the problems which life awakens in us?Let us take that one question and follow it right through.Questioner: What about the atomic and the hydrogen bombs? Canwe discuss that?Krishnamurti: That involves the whole problem of war and howto prevent war, does it not? Can we discuss that so as to clarify ourown minds, pursue it seriously, earnestly, to the end and therebyknow the truth of the matter completely?What do we mean by peace? Is peace the opposite, theantithesis of war? If there were no war, would we have peace? Arewe pursuing peace, or is what we call peace merely a spacebetween two contradictory activities? Do we really want peace, notonly at one level, economic or spiritual, but totally? Or is it that weare continually at war within ourselves, and therefore outwardly? Ifwe wish to prevent war we must obviously take certain steps,which really means having no frontiers of the mind, because beliefcreates enmity. If you believe in Communism and I believe inCapitalism, or if you are a Hindu and I am a Christian, obviouslythere is antagonism between us. So, if you and I desire peace, mustwe not abolish all the frontiers of the mind? Or do we merely wantpeace in terms of satisfaction, maintaining the status quo afterachieving a certain result?You see, I don't think it is possible for individuals to stop war.War is like a giant mechanism that, having been set going, hasgathered great momentum, and probably it will go on and we shallbe crushed, destroyed in the process. But if one wishes to step outof that mechanism, the whole machinery of war, what is one to do?That is the problem, is it not? Do we really want to stop war,inwardly as well as outwardly? After all, war is merely thedramatic outward expression of our inward struggle, is it not? Andcan each one of us cease to be ambitious? Because as long as weare ambitious we are ruthless, which inevitably produces conflictbetween ourselves and other individuals, as well as between onegroup or nation and another. This means, really, that as long as youand I are seeking power in any direction, power being evil, wemust produce wars. And is it possible for each one of us toinvestigate the process of ambition, of competition, of wanting tobe somebody in the field of power, and put an end to it? It seems tome that only then can we as individuals step out of this culture, thiscivilization that is producing wars.Let us discuss this. Can we as individuals put an end inourselves to the causes of war? One of the causes is obviouslybelief, the division of ourselves as Hindus, Buddhists Christians,Communists, or Capitalists. Can we put all that aside?Questioner: All the problems of life are unreal, and there mustbe something real on which we can rely. What is that reality?Krishnamurti: Do you think the real and the unreal can so easilybe divided? Or does the real come into being only when I begin tounderstand what is unreal? Have you even considered what theunreal is? G pain unreal? Is death unreal? If you lose your bankaccount, is that unreal? A man who says, `All this is unreal,therefore let us find the real', is escaping from reality.Can you and I put an end in ourselves to the factors thatcontribute to war within and without? Let us discuss that, notmerely verbally, but really investigate it, go into it earnestly andsee if we can eradicate in ourselves the cause of hate, of enmity,this sense of superiority, ambition, and all the rest of it. Can weeradicate all this? If we really want peace, it must be eradicated,must it not? If you would find out what is real, what is God, whatis truth, you must have a very quiet mind; and can you have a quietmind if you are ambitious, envious, if you are greedy for power,position, and all that? So, if you are really earnest, really serious inwanting to understand what is true, must not these things be putaway? Does not earnestness, seriousness consist in understandingthe process of the mind, of the self, which creates all theseproblems, and dissolving it?Questioner: How can we uncondition ourselves?Krishnamurti: But I am showing you! What is conditioning? Itis the tradition that has been imposed upon you from childhood, orthe beliefs, the experiences, the knowledge that one hasaccumulated for oneself. They are all conditioning the mind.Now, before we go into the more complex aspects of thequestion, can you cease to be a Hindu, with all its implications, sothat your mind is capable of thinking, responding, not according toa modified Hinduism, but completely anew? Can there be in you atotal revolution so that the mind is fresh, clear, and thereforecapable of investigation? That is a very simple question. I can givea talk about it, but it will have no meaning if you merely listen andthen go away agreeing or disagreeing. Whereas, if you and I candiscuss this problem and go through it together to the very end,then perhaps our talking will be worth while.So, can you and I who wish to have peace, or who talk aboutpeace, eradicate in ourselves the causes of antagonism, of war?Shall we discuss that?Questioner: Are individuals impotent against the atomic andhydrogen bombs?Krishnamurti: They are going on experimenting with thesebombs in America, in Russia and elsewhere, and what can you andI do about it? So what is the point of discussing this matter? Youmay try to create public opinion by writing to the papers about howterrible it is, but will that stop the governments from investigatingand creating the H-bomb? Are they not going to go on with itanyhow? They may use atomic energy for peaceful as well asdestructive purposes, and probably within five or ten years theywill have factories running on atomic energy; but they will also bepreparing for war. They may limit the use of atomic weapons, butthe momentum of war is there, and what can we do? Historicalevents are in movement, and I don't think you and I living here inBenaras can stop that movement. Who is going to care? But whatwe can do is something completely different. We can step out ofthe present machinery of society, which is constantly preparing forwar, and perhaps by our own total inward revolution we shall beable to contribute to the building of a civilization which isaltogether new.After all, what is civilization? What is the Indian or theEuropean civilization? It is an expression of the collective will, is itnot? The will of the many has created this present civilization inIndia; and cannot you and I break away from it and think entirelydifferently about these matters? Is it not the responsibility ofserious people to do this? Must there not be serious people who seethis process of destruction going on in the world, who investigateit, and who step out of it in the sense of not being ambitious and allthe rest of it? What else can we do? But you see, we are not willingto be serious, that is the difficulty. We don't want to tackleourselves, we want to discuss something outside, far away.Questioner: There must be some people who are very serious, andhave they solved their problems or the problems of the world?Krishnamurti: That is not a serious question, is it? It is like mysaying that others have eaten when I myself am hungry. If I amhungry I will inquire where food is to be had, and to say that othersare well fed is irrelevant, it indicates that I am not really hungry.Whether there are serious people who have solved their problemsis not important. Have you and I solved our problems? That ismuch more important, is it not? Can a few of us discuss this mattervery seriously, earnestly pursue it and see what we can do, notmerely intellectually, verbally, but actually?Questioner: Is it really possible for us to escape the impact ofmodern civilization?Krishnamurti: What is modern civilization? Here in India it isan ancient culture on which have been superimposed certain layersof Western culture like nationalism, science, parliamentarianism,militarism, and so on. Now, either we shall be absorbed by thiscivilization, or we must break away and create a differentcivilization altogether.It is an unfortunate thing that we are so eager merely to listen,because we listen in the most superficial manner, and that seems tobe sufficient for most of us. Why does it seem so extraordinarilydifficult for us seriously to discuss and to eradicate in ourselves thethings that are causing antagonism and war?Questioner: We have to consider the immediate problem.Krishnamurti: But in considering the immediate problem youwill find that it has deep roots, it is the result of causes which liewithin ourselves. So, to resolve the immediate problem, should younot investigate the deeper problems?Questioner: There is only one problem, and that is to find outwhat is the end of life.Krishnamurti: Can we discuss that really seriously, go into itcompletely, so that we know for ourselves what is the end of life?What is life all about, where is it leading? That is the question, notwhat is the purpose of life. If we merely seek a definition of thepurpose of life, you will define it in one way and I in another, andwe shall wrongly choose which is the better definition according toour idiosyncrasies. Surely that is not what the questioner means.He wants to know what is the end of all this struggle, this search,this constant battle, this coming together and parting, birth anddeath. What is the whole of existence leading to? What does itmean?Now, what is this thing which we call life? We know life onlythrough self-consciousness, do we not? I know I am alive because Ispeak, I think, I eat, I have various contradictory desires, consciousand unconscious, various compulsions, ambitions, and so on. It isonly when I am conscious of these, that is, as long as I am self-conscious, that I know I am alive. And what do we mean by beingself-conscious? Surely, I am self-conscious only when there issome kind of conflict; otherwise I am unconscious of myself.When I am thinking, making effort, arguing, discussing, putting itthis way or that, I am self-conscious. The very nature of self-consciousness is contradiction.Consciousness is a total process, it is the hidden as well as theactive, the open. Now, what does this process of consciousnessmean, and where is it leading? We know birth and death, belief,struggle, pain, hope, ceaseless conflict. What is the significance ofit all? To find out its true significance is what we are trying to do.And one can find out its true significance only when the mind iscapable of investigation, that is, when it is not anchored to anyconclusion. Is that not so?Questioner: Is it investigation, or reinvestigation?Krishnamurti: There is reinvestigation only when the mind istethered, repetitive, and therefore constantly reinvestigating itself.But to be free to investigate, to find out what is true, surely thatrequires a mind that is not held in the bondage of any conclusion.Now, can you and I find out what is the significance of thiswhole struggle with all its ramifications? If that is one's intentionand one is serious, earnest, can one's mind have any conclusionabout it? Must one not be open to this confusion? Must one notinvestigate it with a free mind to find out what is true? So, what isimportant is not the problem, but to see if it is possible for the mindto be free to investigate and find out the truth of it.Can the mind be free from all conclusions? A conclusion ismerely the response of a particular conditioning, is it not? Take theconclusion of reincarnation. Whether reincarnation is factual or notis irrelevant. Why do you have that conclusion? Is it because themind is afraid of death? Such a mind, believing in a certainconclusion which is the result of fear, hope, longing, is obviouslyincapable of discovering what is true with regard to death. So, ifwe are at all serious our first problem, even before we ask what thiswhole process of life means, is to find out whether the mind can befree from all conclusions.Questioner: Do you mean that for serious thinking the mindmust be completely empty?Krishnamurti: What do we mean by freedom? What does itmean to be free? You assume that if the mind is free, not tetheredto any conclusion, it is in a state of vacuum. But is it? We aretrying to find out the truth of what is a free mind. Is a mind freethat has concluded? If I read Shankara, Buddha, Einstein, Marx - itdoes not matter who it is - and reach a conclusion or believe in acertain system of thought, is my mind free to investigate?Questioner: Has comparison no place in the process ofinvestigation?Krishnamurti: Comparing what? Comparing one conclusionwith another, one belief with another? I want to find out thesignificance of this whole process of life with its struggle, its pain,its misery, its wars, its appalling poverty, cruelty, enmity; I want tofind out the truth of all that. To do so must I not have a mind that iscapable of investigation? And can the mind investigate if it has aconclusion, or compares one conclusion with another?Questioner: Can a mind be called free if it has only a tentativeconclusion?Krishnamurti: Tentative or permanent, a conclusion is already abondage, is it not? Do please think with me a little. If one wants tofind out whether there is such a thing as God, what generallyhappens? By reading certain books, or listening to the arguments ofsome learned person, one is persuaded that there is God, or onebecomes a Communist and is persuaded that there isn't. But it onewants to find out the truth of the matter, can one belong to eitherside? Must not one's mind be free from all speculation, from allknowledge, all belief?Now, how is the mind to be free? Will the mind ever be free if itfollows a method to be free? Can any method, any practice, anysystem, however noble, however new or tried out for centuries,make the mind free? Or does the method merely condition themind in a particular way, which we then call freedom? The methodwill produce its own results, will it not? And when the mind seeksa result through a method, the result being freedom, will such amind be free?Look, suppose one has a particular belief, a belief in God, orwhat you will. Must one not find out how that belief has come intobeing? This does not mean that you must not believe; but why doyou believe? Why does the mind say, `This is so'? And can themind discover how beliefs came into being?You see insecurity in everything about you, and you believe in aMaster, in reincarnation, because that belief gives you hope, asense of security, does it not? And can a mind that is seekingsecurity ever be free? Do you follow? The mind is seekingsecurity, permanency, it is moved by a desire to be safe; and cansuch a mind be free to find out what is true? To find out what istrue, must not the mind let go of its beliefs, put away it's desire tobe secure? And is there a method by which to let go of the beliefswhich give you hope, a sense of security? You see this is what Imean by being serious.Questioner: Are there periods of freedom in the conditionedmind?Krishnamurti: Are there periods or gaps of freedom in theconditioned mind? Which is it that you are aware of, the freedomor the conditioned mind? Please take this question seriously. Ourminds are conditioned, that is obvious. One's mind conditioned as aHindu, as a Communist, this or that. Now can the conditioned mindever know freedom, or only what it imagines to be freedom? Andcan you be aware of how your own mind is conditioned? Surely,that is our problem, not what freedom is. Can you just be aware ofyour conditioning, which is to see that your mind functions in aparticular manner? We are not talking of how to alter it, how tobring about a change; that is not the question. Your mind functionsas a Hindu or a Communist; it believes in something. Are youaware of that?Questioner: Freedom is not an acquisition but a gift.Krishnamurti: That is a supposition. If freedom were a gift itwould only be for the chosen few, and that would be intolerable.Do you mean to say that you and I cannot think it out to be free?You see sir, that is what I am saying: we are not serious. To knowhow one is conditioned is the first step towards freedom. But do weknow how we are conditioned? When you make a red mark onyour forehead, when you put on the sacred thread, do puja, orfollow some leader, are not those the activities of a conditionedmind? And can you drop all that so that in dropping it you will findout what is true? That is why it is only to the serious that truth isshown, not to those who are merely seeking security and are caughtin some form of conclusion. I am just saying that when the mindtethered to any particular conclusion, whether temporary orpermanent, it is incapable of discovering something new.Questioner: A scientist has data. Is he prepared to give up thatdata?Krishnamurti Are you talking as a scientist or as a humanbeing? Even the poor scientist, if he wants to discover anything,has to put aside his knowledge and conclusions, because they willcolour any discovery. Sir, to find out we must die to the things weknow.Questioner: Can the unconditioning of the mind be done at theconscious or unconscious level, or both?Krishnamurti: Sir, what is the mind? There is the consciousmind and the unconscious mind. The conscious mind is occupiedwith the everyday duties, it observes, thinks, argues, attends to ajob, and so on. But are we aware of the unconscious mind? Theunconscious mind is the repository of racial instinct, it is theresidue of this civilization, of this culture, in which there arecertain urges, various forms of compulsion. And can this wholemind, the unconscious as well as the conscious, uncondition itself?Now, why do we divide the mind as the conscious and theunconscious? Is there such a definite barrier between the consciousand the unconscious mind? Or are we so taken up with theconscious mind that we have never considered or been open to theunconscious? And can the conscious mind investigate, probe intothe unconscious, or is it only when the conscious mind is quiet thatthe unconscious promptings, hints, urges, compulsions come intobeing? So, the unconditioning of the mind is not a process of theconscious or of the unconscious; it is a total process which comesabout with the earnest intention to find out if your mind isconditioned.Please look at this and experiment with it. What is important isthe total, earnest intention to find out if your mind is conditioned,so that you discover your conditioning and do not just say that yourmind is or is not conditioned. When you look into a mirror you seeyour face as it is; you may wish that some parts of it were different,but the actual fact is shown in the mirror. Now, can you look atyour conditioning in a similar way? Can you be totally aware ofyour conditioning without the desire to alter it? You are not awareof it totally when you wish to change it, when you condemn it orcompare it with something else. But when you can look at the factof your conditioning without comparison, without judgment, thenyou are seeing it as a total thing, and only then is there a possibilityof freeing the mind from that conditioning.You see, when the mind is totally aware of its conditioning,there is only the mind, there is no `you' separate from the mind.But when the mind is only partially aware of its conditioning, itdivides itself, it dislikes its conditioning, or says it is a good thing;and as long as there is condemnation, judgment, or comparison,there is incomplete understanding of conditioning, and thereforethe perpetuation of that conditioning. Whereas, if the mind is awareof its conditioning without condemning or judging, but merelywatching it, then there is a total perception; and you will find, ifyou so perceive it, that the mind frees itself from that conditioning.This is what I mean by being serious. Experiment with this, notjust casually, but seriously watch your mind in action all the time,when you are at the dinner table, when you are talking, so that yourmind becomes entirely aware of all its activities. Then only canthere be freedom from conditioning, and therefore the total stillnessof the mind in which alone it is possible to find out what is truth. Ifthere is not that stillness which is the outcome of a totalunderstanding of conditioning, your search for truth has nomeaning at all, it is merely a trap to fall into.January 9, 1955BANARAS 2ND PUBLIC TALK 16TH JANUARY1955If we could pursue earnestly and deeply the question of self-contradiction, perhaps it might have great significance in our dailyexistence.Why is it that human beings are torn by self-contradiction? Whyis there in most of us such compulsion, resistance, and this constantdemand to adjust oneself to a particular pattern? I don't know if anyof us are at all aware of this contradiction within ourselves, but Ithink it would be very profitable and worth while if we couldseriously go into the matter, because this may be the clue to theintegrated action which is so obviously essential to a creative, acompletely good life. Unless one is deeply aware of thiscontradiction within oneself, sees from where it springs and findsout whether one can really efface it, mere patchwork reform, eitherpolitical, religious, or any other, can only lead to further mischief. Ithink it is very important for us to understand this, because ourunderstanding of it may be the solution to all the ills that surroundus - which are the result of our own self-contradictory nature, arethey not?Most of us are driven by various compulsions, various desireswhich are contradictory, and even if we are aware of thiscontradiction in ourselves, we never seem able fundamentally,deeply to trace and eradicate the cause of it. And it seems to methat if we can understand what it is to have an integrated life, acompletely good life, a life in which there is no contradiction, nocompulsion of any kind, no resistance, no form of adjustment to apattern, then perhaps we shall be able to create a new culture, anew civilization, which is after all what the world in its presentstate of conflict is demanding.To respond adequately to the challenge of life, one must beentirely integrated. How is this integration to be brought about?And why are we torn by self-contradiction? Most of us are notaware of this contradiction. We blindly force ourselves into aparticular pattern of action, or we follow an ideal; we are full oftensions, of conflicting desires, wanting to do one thing and doingthe opposite, thinking along one line and acting in a totallydifferent manner, and we are unconscious of this self-contradiction.We either justify or condemn what we do, and that very judgmentis another contradiction in ourselves.Now, if one can listen to what is being said, not analytically orto achieve an integrated state, but listen without any opinion,without the accumulation of previous conclusions, that is, if onecan listen innocently, with a fresh mind, then perhaps what is beingsaid will have significance. Otherwise it will become anotheropinion, another theory, something to be carried out; and in thevery carrying out of an idea one has already created a contradictionin oneself. The mere acceptance of a new idea is a contradiction ofwhat has already been established, and it only further increases thestruggle; but if we can totally understand what is contradiction andhow it comes about, then in the very act of listening, integrationwill take place without any struggle.I think it is very important to understand that merely to accept anew idea, a new philosophy, a new teaching, only creates acontradiction with what already exists, and then the problem arisesof how to bridge the old with the new, or how to interpret the newin terms of the old. So, is it possible to listen without creating thiscontradiction between the new and the old? Can one discover foroneself how contradiction arises, and merely see the fact withoutmaking the fact into an idea, an opinion, thereby creating anothercontradiction? That is the problem: can you listen to what is beingsaid and perceive the new fact without making it into an idea or aconclusion as opposed to the old, thereby creating a furthercontradiction within yourself?Surely, this is sufficiently important to discuss a little: how themind, being conditioned, never looks at a new fact without eitherinterpreting, judging, or having a conclusion about it. And can themind look at the new fact without a conclusion? Which means,really, can the mind be free of conditioning, cease to think in termsof a Hindu, a Buddhist, or a Christian, and look at the new factwithout interpretation? If it can, then perhaps there will be anaction which is not contradictory.Now, how does this contradiction arise in each one of us? Doesit not arise when the mind is incapable of a fresh response to thenew, that is, when the mind is conditioned? Our minds areconditioned by the Hindu culture or the Western culture, byreligion, by certain patterns of thought, by the weight of knowledgeacquired through education or experience, that very experiencebeing the response of a particular conditioning. Such a mindobviously cannot adequately respond to the new, and hence thecontradiction. Life is a process of the new all the time,continuously. It is like a flowing river. The waters of the river maylook the same, but there is a continuous flow, a constant change;and if the mind is incapable of responding fully to the flow of life,or if it responds to this ceaseless movement in terms of itsconditioning, then there must be contradiction, not only in thesuperficial mind, but also in the deeper layers of consciousness. Soour problem is not how to be integrated, but rather to find out if theconditioned mind can uncondition itself.Can the Hindu mind, if there is such a thing, with its religiosity,its superstitions, its patterns of thought, its social impacts,unburden itself of all this conditioning? Only then, surely, can itfully respond to the new and thereby free itself from self-contradiction.But most of us are concerned, not with unconditioning themind, but rather with a better, a wider, a nobler conditioning. TheChristian wants the mind to be conditioned in a certain pattern, andso does the Communist, the Hindu, the Buddhist, and so on. Theyare all concerned with bettering the mind's conditioning, decoratingthe interior of the prison, and not with breaking away from theprison totally. And is it possible to break away totally from one'sconditioning? The question is not put for you to say `yes' or `no',because such an answer has no meaning. But if each one of usreally desires to find out whether the mind can be free from thepast, which is to understand the whole content of the mind, then Ithink it may be possible to bring about a state of mind in whichthere is no contradiction.So it is really essential, if one is to respond anew to thechallenge of life, to respond to it totally. When there is only apartial response, any civilization or culture must inevitablydisintegrate, which is obviously what is happening in this countryand elsewhere. So, can we be aware of our conditioning, which ispreventing a total response to the challenge of life? By being awareI mean just seeing the fact of one's conditioning as a Hindu, aMoslem, or what you will, without condemning or trying to bringabout a change in that conditioning; because the moment we desireto bring about a change in our conditioning, we have alreadycreated a contradiction. Please, if we can really see this very simplefact, then our whole understanding of conditioning will have analtogether different meaning.Life, which is the everyday existence of relationship, ofoccupation and all the things that we do, is a constant challenge; inits response to that challenge the conditioned mind brings aboutself-contradiction, and a self-contradictory mind, however noble,however reformatory or idealistic its activities may be, is bound tocreate mischief, not only at the political or social level, but alsopsychologically and religiously, at the deeper levels of existence.Whereas, the person who breaks away from the collective, which isthe prison of conditioning, is truly individual, creative, and onlysuch a person can help to bring into being a different kind ofcivilization, a new culture, because in himself there is nocontradiction. His action is entire, whole, he is not torn apart byideas, there is no gulf between action and thought, no division ofmentation and the carrying out of a certain idea. Only such aperson is integrated and can understand this whole process ofcontradiction, not he who is trying to be integrated, because thevery effort to be integrated is a contradiction.The man who sees the prison of his own conditioning andrevolts, not within the prison, but totally, so that his very revoltpushes him out of the prison - it is he who is really a revolutionary,and I think this is very important to understand. But only theserious will understand it, not those who are trying to interpretwhat is being said to suit some philosophy or belief. If you actuallyperceive your own conditioning as factual without either acceptingor trying to adjust that conditioning to a new pattern, you therebybecome a revolutionary in the deepest sense of the word, and it isonly such individuals who can bring about an altogether differentculture, a new civilization in this suffering world.Question: Our minds are the result of the past, they are shapedby the tradition of Shankara and Buddha. Will mere self-awarenesshelp us to free ourselves from this conditioning?Krishnamurti: If you had listened your question would havebeen answered by my introductory talk. Sir, is it possible to start onthe journey of exploration without previous knowledge, withoutany book, without quoting philosophers, scientists, orpsychologists? Do you understand the question? After all, to findout what is truth, what is God, or what name you will, the mindmust be completely alone, uncontaminated by the past, must it not?So, don't translate what I am saying in terms of what you havealready read.The mind, your mind, is the result of time, of many yesterdays,it has this extraordinary burden of knowledge, of experience withinthe field of time. And can one put all that aside and say, `I knownothing'? Though one has read, though one has experienced, is itpossible to put all that totally aside because one sees thatknowledge is an impedi- ment to exploration and the discovery oftruth? This demands a mind that is astonishingly unafraid, that hasno end in view, that does not want to achieve a result; whichmeans, really, a mind capable of unconditioning itself, of beingfree from its past because it sees that any conditioning is ahindrance, a source of contradiction.You see, sir, the difficulty for most people, and probably for allof us here, is that we have read too much, and what we read wetranslate in terms of our conditioning; therefore knowledge orexperience becomes a further hindrance. And what I am asking is,can you put aside every, thing of the past, all the things that youhave learnt, and look at life anew? I am not talking about puttingaside knowledge of the mechanical world, but the knowledgewhich has for the mind a psychological significance, so that youare your own teacher. Then there is no longer a guru and a disciplebecause you are finding out all the time, and when there is thatkind of learning there is no need for a teacher.Question: But the mind is burdened by the past, and how is oneto shake it off? What is the method?Krishnamurti: You want a method because you desire toachieve a result, you want to get somewhere, and that is all you areconcerned with. It is like the bank clerk wanting to become theexecutive. Your mind is climbing the ladder of success, worldly orso-called spiritual, and such a mind will not understand because itis only concerned with attaining an end. What is important, surely,is to find out why your mind desires to achieve a result, why itwants to be free of the past. Why do you want to be free from thepast? And can the mind, being itself the result of time, make aneffort to be free of time? If it does, it is still within the field of time,obviously; by making an effort to be free, to arrive somewhere, ithas created a contradiction in itself. The mind is the result of time,and whatever movement it makes to free itself is still within thefield of time. If one sees that simply and clearly, only then is itpossible for the mind to be completely still. The very perception ofthat fact makes the mind quiet, it does not have to make an effort tobe quiet. When the mind makes an effort to be quiet its meditationis really a bargaining, a thing of the market place.Question: An ancient civilization like that of India has left adeep impress upon our patterns of social behaviour, which are nowin a process of decay. How can we retain the best features of ourculture and revive the ancient spirit?Krishnamurti: Sir, a dead thing must be buried, you can't reviveit, you can't go back to it; but that is what you are trying to do.Because in yourselves you are confused, you say, `Let us go backto the rishis, let us revive the ancient spirit, the dances, the rituals',all the things that are dead and gone. There is a challenge directlyin front of you, and you say, `Let us go back'. If you do go back, ifyou respond by turning your back on the new, your civilization isgoing to decay - which is exactly what is happening. You may goback to your temples, to Shankara, to the sacred books, to thepriests, to images carved by the hand, and all the rest of it, but theyare dead things and will have no meaning.So you cannot go back. You can only respond anew to the new,and you cannot respond anew if you keep some of the old. Youmust let go of the old completely and respond fully to the new. Ifyou respond partially, keeping the good things of the Indian cultureand making a mixture of the old and the new, then you areobviously creating mischief. A new civilization can be brought intobeing only by people who are capable of responding totally to thenew, and you cannot respond totally to the new if you cling to theancient culture or to some of its good things. Surely, sirs, torespond fully to the new, the mind must be free of the prison of theold, its freedom cannot be in terms of the prison. You may revoltwithin the prison by demanding certain intramural reforms andadjustments, but in the process of understanding the whole prisonof conditioning there comes a total revolution which is neitherIndian nor Western; it is something totally new, and therefore amovement of the real. It is the movement of the real, not therevival of the old, that creates the new civilization. Sirs, the revivalof the old is merely a modified continuity of the present, and thisresponse of the old is not freedom. Freedom comes into being notthrough the pursuit of freedom, but when each one understands thetotal conditioning of his own mind.Question: But conditioned as we are, it is not possible to listenwithout contradiction.Krishnamurti: I am afraid, sir, you have not followed what Ihave said. I have said, do not listen with opinions, withconclusions, which only creates opposition, but listen to find outwhat is the actual process of the mind, listen to understand theprocess of your own conditioning. Do not ask how to be free ofyour conditioning, but be aware of your conditioning withoutjudgment.Please, what I am saying is very simple, and it is this. The mindis made up of the past, it is the result of the past, and we don't haveto explore that fact because it is obvious. The mind is made up ofthousands of yesterdays, innumerable experiences; when it makesan effort to free itself from this conditioning, there is inevitably acontradiction. But if the mind is aware of its conditioning withoutany judgment, if it merely perceives that it is conditioned withoutwishing to change or be free of that conditioning, then the veryperception of that fact in itself brings about a total revolution.Experiment with this and you will see how extraordinarilydifficult it is just to be aware of your conditioning without wishingto change or be free of it. Your mind is made up of contradictions,you are educated to compare, to condemn, to evaluate, thereforeyou have already formed an opinion about your conditioning. Yousay that you must not be conditioned, or that an unconditioned statecan never exist, which is what the Communists will say; so youhave already concluded. But to be aware of one's conditioningwithout any conclusion is in itself the revolution.Question: The factor that stifles all attempts at creativeexpression is mediocrity. Drabness and mediocrity appear to be theinescapable curse of a classless society. Is there a way to establishequality and yet I keep alive the creative fire?Krishnamurti: Sir, what do we mean by a classless society? Aslong as status goes with function, it is bound to create a society ofclass distinctions. As long as the principal of a school has status,with all its implications, and does not keep his job merelyfunctional, it inevi- tably brings about a class-conscious society.And it is very difficult for the mind not to bring in status when it isfunctioning, because the moment you set out to create a classlesssociety the commissar becomes important, and with his job goesstatus, which means privileges, position, authority."Is there a way to establish equality and yet keep alive thecreative fire?" What do we mean by equality? I know we all saythere must be equality; but can there ever be equality? Is thereequality of function? I may be a cook, and you may be a governor.If the governor despises the cook, which he generally does becausehe feels himself to be much more important than the cook, then tohim it is status that matters and not function; so how can there beequality? You have, by chance, a better brain than I have, you meetmore people than I do, you have greater capacity, you paint, youwrite poems, you are an artist or a scientist, while I am merely acoolie or a clerk. How can there be equality?Or perhaps we are not looking at this problem at all rightly. Willinequality matter very much if each one of us is doing somethingwhich he really likes, something which he loves to do with hiswhole being? Do you understand, sir? If I love what I am doing, inthat action there is no contradiction, no ambition. I am not seekingapprobation, applause, titles, and all the rest of the nonsense. I amreally in love with what I am doing, therefore the whole problem ofcompetition, of ambition, and this antagonism which arises fromcomparing one craft or function with another, will cease to exist.Surely, the creative fire is lost when status becomes important,or when there is the imposition of the pattern of equality, which ismerely a theory. But if we can educate the student from childhoodto love what he is doing, whatever it is, with his whole being, thenperhaps there will be no contradiction and therefore antisocialactivities will cease.Sir, I think equality comes into being when there is love in ourhearts, when the heart is empty of the things of the mind. Whenthere is love there is no sense of the great and the small, you don'ttouch the feet of the governor or bow more deeply to him than youdo to the cook. It is because we do not love that we have lost thewhole significance of equality. But love is not a thing to be madeto order by Marx, it is not to be found in Communist theory, nor inthe pattern of a new culture. It comes into being when weunderstand the ways of the mind. With self-knowledge comes love,not love as the sensuous or the divine, but just that feeling ofloving in which there is goodness, respect, and in which there is nofear.You hear all this, but when you go away you will salute thegovernor very humbly, and kick your servants; so the verylistening to this becomes a contradiction. Whereas, if you listen,not to achieve a result, but to understand the whole significance ofwhat is being said, which is to understand the ways of your ownmind, then you will know the beauty of that extraordinary thingcalled love.January 16, 1955BANARAS 3RD PUBLIC TALK 23TH JANUARY1955I think it would be worth while if we could go into the question ofwhat it is to be really creative, because it seems to me that this isthe major problem in the world at the present time. Merely to begift- ed, or to have talent in any one particular direction, isobviously not creativeness. I think creativeness comes aboutthrough the capacity to see life as a totality, not in fragments, tothink and feel as a completely integrated human being. It may bethat this sense of completeness, in which there is no contradiction,is the experiencing of reality, God, or what you will, and I thinkone would understand this state if one could distinguish myth fromfact.May I suggest that you kindly do not take notes. If you takenotes you are only partially listening, and I think it is much moreimportant to experience now what we are discussing than to takenotes and remember it at a future time. If we can be fully aware ofand directly experience what one is talking about, it will surelyhave much greater significance than if we merely remember certainphrases and then try to relate them to the ordinary events of dailylife.It seems to me that what is important is to understand theeveryday facts of our life, and to do this ,we must obviouslydistinguish them from the mythology that we create about the facts.If we could distinguish fact from myth, then perhaps the majorproblem of life would be solved, which is this constant effort, thestruggle to become, and which is really destroying a completeunderstanding of what life is.If we are at all conscious of the ways of the mind, we know thatthere is always a contradiction in our thinking, an effort to patch upor bridge over the gap between what is and what should be. Thisconstant struggle to become is what we know, and if we couldreally understand and dissolve it, then perhaps there would be astate of integration, a life of being and not of becoming.After all, do we understand anything through effort? Tounderstand, surely the mind must be quiet, and it cannot be quietwhen it is in a state of effort. If you look at the fact through thescreen of your opinions, biases, or knowledge are torn between thefact and what you yourself think is true, this contradiction betweenthe fact and the myth brings about a continuous effort on your partwhich is destructive. The fact is one thing, and the myth about thefact is another, and effort comes into being when there is this mythapart from the fact. If we can once really grasp that all such effortis destructive, and can remove the screen of the myth from betweenourselves and the fact, then our minds will be given wholly tounderstanding the fact.When we are confronted with a fact, we all have differentopinions about the fact, different ways of looking at it, and thisbreeds contention, antagonism between us. Whereas, if I can lookat the fact without any opinion, without the myth, then the factitself will have its own effect without my making an effort tocomply with or adjust my mind to the fact.So, can the mind look at the fact without having an opinion, anidea, a judgment about it, without bringing in its knowledge andprevious experience? Because life is one thing, and what we thinklife is, is another. Life is obviously impermanent, not static, it isalways in movement, in flux; but we want to make that transientthing permanent, we want to make that constant movementgratifying to ourselves. So the fact is one thing, and the myth isanother; and can we free the mind from the myth of what we wouldlike the fact to be? Can we be free of all the philosophies whichpeople who cannot look at the fact have created and which haveconditioned the mind? If we can, then there is no conflict. I thinkthat is the real crux of the whole matter. It is very interesting towatch how the mind operates, to see how difficult it is for the mindto put away the myth, the opinions, the various philosophies, andmerely observe the fact; but if we can really do this, I think it willbring about a total revolution in our thinking, because it willremove the whole process of mentation which is building the myth,the self, the `me'.After all, the `me' is totally impermanent, is it not? What is theIt is a series of memories, experiences, a process of conditionedthinking apart from the fact, and it is this separation of the mindfrom the fact through various forms of conditioning that breeds theeffort which destroys creativeness. I do not think this is anoversimplification, and if we can really grasp it we shall find thatthe mind then becomes merely an observer of the fact, and that theobserver is not something separate from the fact.What is the mind? It is the constant movement of thought, is itnot? It is the movement of thought which is the outcome of aparticular conditioning, either as a Communist, as a Christian, orwhat not, and the accumulated experiences based on thatconditioning. All that is the mind. That mind cannot look at a factdirectly because it is shaped by various forms of knowledge, bypersonal satisfactions, by opinions, judgments, all of which preventit from looking directly at the fact. If one really understands this, Ithink it will have a tremendous sociological effect. The mind isconstantly seeking some form of security, some form ofpermanency; but there is no permanency at all. Psychologically themind is ambitious, acquisitive, and so it creates a society which isbased on acquisitiveness, society being the collective will. The factis that there is no permanency, but the mind is seeking it, whichcreates the myth away from the fact; hence there is a contradiction,and so an everlasting effort by the mind to adjust the myth to thefact, and in this conflict we are caught.So, our problem is, can the mind be free from all forms ofopinion, conclusion, judgment, hope, and look directly at the fact?And if the mind is thus free, then is there any fact except thefreedom of the mind? Let us go into that a little bit.You see, the mind is the result of time, of many yesterdays, andthe thinking process is the outcome of a certain conditioning. Thisconditioned mind is everlastingly seeking some form ofconsolation, some form of permanency. That is the state of themind of almost everybody. But the fact is that life is notpermanent, life is not secure; it is a rich, timeless movement. Now,when the mind is free from its own conditioning, from itsjudgments, opinions, from all the things that society has imposedupon it, is the mind then different from the fact of life? Then life isthe mind; then there is no separation between the fact and themind. This is really a tremendous experience if one can do it, andsuch a mind, being in a state of revolution, can bring about adifferent culture altogether. I don't know if you see the significanceof this.You see, the mind is seeking truth, God, as something apart, andseeking implies a separation, a direction, even semantically. Themind wants God to be permanent, static, and therefore its God isself-created; but the truth of God may be entirely different, it maybe something which is not the product of the mind at all. So thefact may be one thing, and that for which the mind is seeking maybe another. The search may lead you, not towards the fact, butaway from the fact - which means, really, that the mind must ceaseto search. It searches because it is seeking comfort, security,permanency, and all the rest of it, therefore it is moving in adirection totally apart from the reality which may never be still, thereality which the mind may have to discover every minute, everysecond. When the mind realizes that its search is the outcome of aparticular conditioning, of a desire for security, permanency, andso on, then without any enforcement or compulsion there is anatural cessation of the movement of search, of going towards anend to be gained. Then is not the mind itself the movement of thefact, and not the movement of a desire or a hope about the fact? Itis then really the movement of truth, of creativeness, because thereis no contradiction; the mind is whole, completely integrated, thereis no effort to be, to become.This is really very important to understand. Perhaps we candiscuss it.Question: Is there anything permanent in us?Krishnamurti: If I may say so, you have not listened to what Ihave been saying. The fact is that everything is impermanent,whether you like it or not; but it is not a matter of acceptance. Yousee, that opens up an enormous question. What is acceptance?Acceptance implies that there has been disagreement between us.What have we disagreed about? Obviously, about opinions.Opinions can be accepted or rejected. But are you `accepting' thetruth that life is impermanent, or merely seeing the fact that it isimpermanent, which has nothing to do with acceptance? You don'thave to `accept' the depth of the sea: it is deep. Nobody has toconvince you of the fact that a bullet is very dangerous. We`accept' when we have not really seen the fact. There is no questionat all of accepting what I am saying. I am just describing the actualprocess of our thinking, which is that in everything we want a stateof permanency, in the family, in property, in position. But life isnot permanent. That is so obvious, it does not need acceptance. Thefact is that life is impermanent. Now, can the mind put away all thephilosophies, the practices, the systems of discipline which itfollows, hoping thereby to arrive at a permanent state? Can themind be free of all that and see what the fact is? And if the mind isfree to see the fact, is the fact then separate from the mind? Is notthe mind itself the movement of the fact?You see, sir, the difficulty is that we don't listen to what is beingsaid; and we don't listen to it because we are listening to theopinions, the judgments which we have and with which we aregoing to contradict or accept what is being said. Just to listen towhat is being said is one of the most difficult things to do. Haveyou ever tried really listening to somebody? Experiment with it, tryactually listening to somebody as you would listen to a song, or tosomething with which you neither agree nor disagree, and you willsee how extraordinarily difficult it is, because just to listen tosomebody the mind must be very quiet. To find out if what is beingsaid is true or false, you must have a very silent mind, and notinterpose between the mind and what is being said your ownjudgments about it.The questioner wants to know if there is anything permanent inus. How will he find out? He can find out only through a directexperience. To say that there is or is not a permanent state merelycreates contradiction, because it conditions the mind to think in acertain way. If the mind wishes to find out what is true it must befree from all previous knowledge, experience, and tradition. That isan obvious fact.Question: In giving talks, your ideas are born of your thinking.As you say that all thinking is conditioned, are not your ideas alsoconditioned? Krishnamurti: Obviously, thinking is conditioned.Thinking is the response of memory, and memory is the result ofprevious knowledge and experience, which is conditioning. So allthinking is conditioned. And the questioner asks, `Since allthinking is conditioned, is not what you are saying alsoconditioned?' It is really quite an interesting question, is it not?To speak certain words, there must be memory, obviously. Tocommunicate, you and I must know English, Hindi, or some otherlanguage. The knowing of a language is memory. That is one thing.Now, is the mind of the speaker, myself, merely using words tocommunicate, or is the mind in a movement of recollection? Isthere memory, not merely of words, but also of some other process,and is the mind using words to communicate that other process? Isthis too complicated? It is really a very interesting problem if youactually follow it through.You see, the lecturer has his store of information, of knowledge,and he deals it out; that is, he remembers. He has accumulated,read, gathered, he has formed certain opinions according to hisconditioning, his prejudices, and he then uses language tocommunicate. We all know this ordinary process. Now, is thattaking place here? That is what the questioner wants to know. Thequestioner says, in effect, `If you are merely remembering yourexperiences, your states, and communicating that memory, thenwhat you say is conditioned' - which is true.Please, this is very interesting, because it is a revelation of theprocess of the mind. If you observe your own mind you will seewhat I am talking about. Mind is the residue of memory, ofexperience, of knowledge, and from that residue it speaks; there isthe background, and from that background it communicates. Thequestioner wants to know whether the speaker has that backgroundand is therefore merely repeating, or whether he is speakingwithout the memory of the previous experience and is thereforeexperiencing as he is talking. You see, you are not all observingyour own minds. Sirs, to investigate the process of thought is adelicate matter, it is like watching a living thing under amicroscope. If you are not all watching your own minds, you arelike outside observers watching some players in the field. But if weare all watching our own minds, then it will have tremendoussignificance.If the mind is communicating through words a rememberedexperience, then such remembered experience is conditioned,obviously; it is not a living, moving thing. Being remembered, it isof the past. All knowledge is of the past, is it not? Knowledge cannever be of the now, it is always receding into the past. Now, thequestioner wants to know if the speaker is merely drawing from thewell of knowledge and dealing it out. If he is, then what hecommunicates is conditioned, because all knowledge is of the past.Knowledge is static; you may add more to it, but it is a dead thing.So, instead of communicating the past, is it possible tocommunicate experiencing, living? Do you follow? Surely, it ispossible to be in a state of direct experiencing without aconditioned reaction to the experiencing, and to use words tocommunicate, not the past, but the living thing which is beingdirectly experienced. I don't know if this has at all communicatedto the questioner what he wanted to know.When you say to somebody, `I love you', are youcommunicating a remembered experience? You have used theaccustomed words, `I love you', but is the communication a thingyou have remembered, or is it something real which youimmediately communicate? Which means, really, can the mindcease to be the mechanism of accumulation, storing up andtherefore repeating what it has learnt?Question: Is total forgetfulness possible?Krishnamurti: We are not talking about total forgetfulness. Thatis amnesia. I know the way to the station. I can recognize variouspeople.Question: The moment the thought process is active, it isconditioned.Krishnamurti: But is it active apart from the use of words as ameans of communicating what is true?Question: Does one not choose expressions whilecommunicating what is true?Krishnamurti: But the thought process is active only in theverbal sense. After all, if I know French, Spanish, or whateverlanguage it be, I can use it to convey what is true, and then it is justa means of communication, like the telephone, is it not? But herewe must be very careful not to deceive ourselves, because self-deception is now tremendously easy if we are not very alert.If you tell me something and your telling is the result of anexperience which is over, then your description, your thought isfrom the past, is it not? Therefore thought is conditioned. But isthere thinking when you are experiencing and communicating? Ifyou are experiencing and communicating the state of love, is therethinking then in the sense which we have understood?Question: I find that when the experiencing process is going on,communication totally stops.Krishnamurti: Does it stop? When you love your son, your wife,a dog, a flower, does communication stop in that moment ofexperiencing? You ask me a question and I reply. There isexperiencing, but communication has not stopped. This is reallyvery complex, so please pay attention. It is not a matter of opinion,you have to find out.All book knowledge, and the communication of that knowledge,is conditioned. That is simple, is it not? Then why are youcollecting knowledge? You have to read certain books in preparingto earn a livelihood, but why do you read the Vedas, theUpanishads? Why do you accumulate knowledge about God,reincarnation, philosophies, and all that?Question: When you are talking, who is speaking? Are you notconscious that you are speaking?Krishnamurti: I am not at all sure that I am conscious that I amspeaking. Something is being said. But we are going off at atangent.All accumulated knowledge, whether about machinery, jetplanes, or about philosophy, is conditioned, which is obvious, andyou want to know if I am speaking from knowledge. If I amspeaking from knowledge, then what is communicated isconditioned; and if I am not speaking from knowledge, then youask, `From what are you speaking?' What is happening inwardly,inside the skull? Psychologically, what is taking place? Let us goslowly into this and try to find out.Now, is it possible not to have the burden of accumulatedknowledge? If that is possible, then communication at a differentlevel is also possible, surely. If you say that it is not possible to freethe mind from all knowledge, knowledge being accumulation, thenthinking and communica- tion are conditioned. But if it is possiblefor the mind to be free of all accumulation, which means dyingeach day, each minute to the previous experience, then, though thewords may have a binding or conditioning quality, what is beingsaid is not conditioned. I think that is the fact, it is not just a clever,logical conclusion.Question: I am terrified of death. Can I be unafraid of inevitableannihilation?Krishnamurti: Sir, why do you take it for granted that death iseither annihilation or continuity? Either conclusion is the outcomeof a conditioned desire, is it not? A man who is miserable,unhappy, frustrated, will Thank God, it is soon going to be all over,I won't have to worry any more'. He hopes for total annihilation.But the man who says, `I have not quite finished, I want more', willhope for continuity.Now, why does the mind assume anything with regard to death?We shall presently go into the question of why the mind is afraid ofdeath, but first let us free the mind of any conclusion about death,because only then can you understand what death is, obviously. Ifyou believe in reincarnation, which is a hope, a form of continuity,then you will never understand what death is, any more than youwill if you are a materialist, a Communist, this or that, and believein total annihilation. To understand what death is, the mind must befree of both the belief in continuity and the belief in annihilation.This is not a trick answer. If you want to understand something,you must not come to it having already made up your mind. If youwant to know what God is, you must not have a belief about God,you must push all that away and look. If one wants to know whatdeath is, the mind must be free of all conclusions for or against. So,can your mind be free of conclusions? And if your mind is free ofconclusions, is there fear? Surely, it is the conclusions that aremaking you afraid, and therefore there is the inventing ofphilosophies. I don't know if you are following this.I would like to have a few more lives to finish my work, tomake myself perfect, and therefore I take hope in the philosophy ofreincarnation, I say, `Yes, I shall be reborn, I shall have anotheropportunity', and so on. So, in my desire for continuity I create aphilosophy or accept a belief which becomes the system in whichthe mind is caught. And if I don't want to continue because life forme is too painful, then I look to a philosophy that assures me ofannihilation. This is a simple, obvious fact.Now, if the mind is free of both, then what is the state of themind with regard to the fact which we call death? Do youunderstand, sirs? If the mind has no conclusions, is there death?We know that machinery wears out in use. The organism of X maylast a hundred years, but it wears out. That is not what we areconcerned with. But inwardly, psychologically, we want the `I' tocontinue; and the `I' is made up of conclusions, is it not? The mindhas got a series of hopes, determinations, wishes, conclusions - `Ihave arrived', `I want to go on writing', `I want to find happiness' -and it wants these conclusions to continue, therefore it is afraid oftheir coming to an end. But if the mind has no conclusions, if itdoes not say, `I am somebody', `I want my name and my propertyto continue', `I want to fulfil myself through my son', and so on,which are all desires, conclusions, then is not the mind itself in astate of constant dying? And to such a mind, is there death? Don'tagree. This is not a matter of agreement, nor is it mere logic. It isan actual experience. When your wife, your husband, your sisterdies, or when you lose property, you will soon find out how youare clinging to the known. But when the mind is free of the known,then is not the mind itself the unknown? After all, what we areafraid of is leaving the known, the known being the things that wehave concluded, judged, compared, accumulated. I know my wife,my house, my family, my name, I have cultivated certain thoughts,experiences, virtues, and I am afraid to let all that go. So, as long asthe mind has any form of conclusion, as long as it is caught in asystem, a concept, a formula, it can never know what is true. Abelieving mind is a conditioned mind, and whether it believes incontinuity or annihilation, it can never find out what death is. Andit is only now, while you are living, not when you are unconscious,dying, that you can find out the truth of that extraordinary thingcalled death.January 23, 1955BANARAS TALK TO PARENTS 27TH JANUARY1955What is the responsibility of a parent? Perhaps it might be ofinterest to discuss that, even though there are very few parentshere. Why do we, as parents, want to educate our children at all? Itis generally understood that parents desire their children to beeducated to fit into society, to adjust themselves and adapt theirthoughts to society, which really means helping them to prepare fora profession of some kind so that they can earn a livelihood. Theywant their children to be educated to pass examinations, to take adegree at some university, and then to have a fairly good job, asecure position in society. That is all most parents are concernedwith. To put their children through college they pay so muchmoney, easily if they are wealthy, with great difficulty if they arenot; and to them, education is a matter of adding a few letters afterthe student's name, which they hope will make him a so-calledgood citizen, a respectable member of society. What parents areprimarily interested in, especially in a country like this where thereis overpopulation and a heavy burden of tradition, is to help thestudent have a job so that he won't starve. I am not criticizing, butmerely stating a fact. Here, fortunately, the problem of war is notimminent, whereas in Europe and America conscription in variousforms has been introduced and the boys have to go through themilitary system; they are trained in a particular military unit tofight, to destroy, and are released only after three or four years toenter a civilian occupation and carry on their life. In India this isnot insisted upon.So, what is the responsibility of parents? Does theirresponsibility end the moment the boy or the girl has taken adegree and is married off? What do we mean by responsibility? Towhat are we responsible? Is it our responsibility to see that theyoung people fit into a particular society irrespective of whetherthat society is good or bad, revolutionary or corrupt? Is it ourresponsibility to make the boy or the girl conform, regardless ofwhat he or she wants to do and is capable of? Is that what we meanby responsibility?Question: Whether he lives in America, in Russia, or in India, aparent who really loves his child will be deeply concerned to insurethat he has an ingrained sense of social obligation which will benatural to him and which, as he grows up, he will express in acertain way according to his capacities.Krishnamurti: The parent spends so much money on theeducation of his child, which means putting him through theuniversity and all that. Such education may enable the student to fitinto society, but will it help him to be creative?Questioner: The parent will judge education on the basis ofwhether or not it makes his child an asset from the social point ofview.Krishnamurti: That brings up the complex question of what isthe cultural or social background of the parent and the educator,does it not? It means, really, investigating to find out what societyis, and whether education is merely a matter of conditioning thechild to serve society according to the established pattern. On theother hand, when he grows up and leaves the university, should thestudent be in opposition to society? Or should he be capable ofcreating a new kind of society altogether? As parents, what is itthat we want?Questioner: There is one thing we don't want: that a young manwho has had a good education in an expensive school should justdemand comforts from society. Such people give nothing in return,and they are impoverishing the country.Krishnamurti: That is, how can education help the student, fromchildhood right through adolescence to maturity, not to beantisocial? Now, what do we mean by being antisocial? If a boy iseducated not to be antisocial in Russia, it means conditioning himto fit into the Communist society. Here, when we talk of educatinghim not to be antisocial, we also mean conditioning him not tobreak out of the established pattern. As long as he conforms andstays within the pattern of a particular society, we call him a socialasset, but the moment he breaks away from the pattern we say he isantisocial.So, is it the function of education merely to mould the student tofit into a particular society? Or should education help him tounderstand what society is, with its corrupting, destructive,disintegrating factors, so that he comprehends the whole processand steps out of it? The stepping out of it is not antisocial. On thecontrary, not to conform to any given society is true social action.Questioner: If education makes the student so self-centred thatwhen he leaves college he has a complete disregard of poverty andno feeling for the poor, then surely that education is wrong, and athoughtful parent will be concerned to see that such a thing doesnot happen.Krishnamurti: Then how can education help the student not tobecome mediocre, not to fall into the mediocrity of the rich, of thepoor, or of the middle class? What kind of education should therebe in order to break up the mediocrity of the mind, if we can put itthat way? Not to be mediocre, surely, the boy must be able to dothings with his hands as well as with his mind, he must not say,`This is good', `That is bad', he must be neither Brahmanical noranti-Brahmanical, neither pro-this nor contra-that - which means,really, that there must be an environment in which the student isstimulated all around and not merely on the intellectual side.Questioner: As a father, what can I do at home to preventmediocrity in the child?Krishnamurti: If the father is mediocre, that is, if his tastes areconventional, if he is traditional in his outlook, if he is afraid of hisneighbours, of his wife, of losing his position, then how can hehelp to prevent mediocrity in the child?Questioner: Granting that the parent is mediocre, how is he toapproach the problem of his relationship with his child?Krishnamurti: Education, surely, is the understanding of therelationship between oneself and the child, between oneself andsociety. The understanding of relationship is education. But is itpossible to understand relationship if the mind has a fixed point?Questioner: What do you mean by having a fixed point?Krishnamurti: Having a belief in something, a religious opinion,a dogmatic conclusion, a narrow attitude to life. And will such aparent be able to understand the relationship between himself andhis neighbour or his child? Obviously not, because he starts from afixed opinion, his thought is already formed. After all, relationshipis a living thing, whether it be one's relationship with people, withproperty, or with ideas, and if one starts with a preformed attitudetowards people, property, or ideas, then there is no understandingof relationship.Now, what is our relationship with people? If I am a parent,what is my relationship with my child? First of all, have I anyrelationship at all? The child happens to be my son or my daughter;but is there actually any relationship, any contact, companionship,communion between myself and my child, or am I too busyearning money, or whatever it is, and therefore pack him off toschool? So I really have no contact or communion at all with theboy or the girl, have I? If I am a busy parent, as parents generallyare, and I merely want my son to be something, a lawyer, a doctor,or an engineer, have I any relationship with him even though Ihave produced him?Questioner: I feel I ought to have a relationship with my child,and I am hoping to establish one on which he can depend. How amI to proceed? Krishnamurti: We are discussing the relationship ofthe parent with his child, and we are asking ourselves if there isany relationship at all, though we say there is. What is thatrelationship? You have produced the child and you want him topass through college, but have you actually any other relationshipwith him? The very rich man has his amusements, his worries, andhe has no time for the child, so he sees him occasionally, and whenthe child is eight or ten years old, he packs him off to school, andthat is the end of it. The middle class are also much too busy tohave any relationship with the child, they have to go to the officeevery day, and the poor man's relationship with the child is work,for the child must also work.So, let us establish what the word `relationship' means in ourlife. What is the relationship between myself and society? After all,society is relationship, is it not? And if I really had a feeling ofdeep love for my child, that very love would create quite arevolution, because I would not want my child to fit into societyand have all his initiative destroyed, I would not want him to beweighed down by tradition, by fear and corruption, bowing to thehighly-placed and kicking the lowly. I would see to it that thisdecaying society ceased to exist, that wars and every form ofviolence came to an end. Surely, if we love our children, it meansthat we must find a way of educating them so that they do notmerely fit into society.Questioner: How best can we equip the child to meet the presentsociety?Krishnamurti: We know what society is, with its corruption andall the rest of it. Is it the function of education to help the child tofit into any particular society, whether Communist, Socialist, orCapitalist? When he does fit into society, he is in constant rebellionthere, is he not? Are we not at each other's throats in society,actually or psychologically?Questioner: How can we help the child not merely to rebelwithin society, but to break away from this society altogether?Krishnamurti: That is just the point. Do you as a parent wantyour child to rebel in the deepest sense of that word? Do you wantto help him to free himself from this society and create, not asociety which is Communistic, this or that, but an altogetherdifferent kind of society, a new culture?Questioner: We can help him with our limitations.Krishnamurti: Then we shall limit the child also. Is it possible toeducate the child not to conform to your limitations or mylimitations, but to understand himself and create his own society?Is it possible for us all, both inside and outside the school, to helpthe student to bring about an atmosphere of freedom in which thereis no fear, so that he understands the whole social structure andsays, `This is not a true society, I shall step out of it and help tobuild a society which is totally new'? Otherwise he merely falls inline.So, what is the function of education? Is it not to help thestudent to understand his own compulsions, motives, urges, whichcreate the pattern of a destructive society? Is it not to help him tounderstand and break through his own conditionings, his ownlimitations?Questioner: I think it is first necessary for the child tounderstand the society in which he is, otherwise he cannot breakaway from it.Krishnamurti: He is part of society, he is in contact with it everyday and sees its corruption. Now, how are you going to help him,through education, to understand the implications of this societyand be free of it, so that he can create a different kind of socialorder?Questioner: A common child inevitably conforms to the patternof society.Krishnamurti: There is no such thing as a common child, butthere may be a common teacher who is scared stiff. That is why theeducator needs educating. He also must change and not merelyconform to society.Questioner: Since we have our own limitations, should weimpose them on the child? Questioner: It is not imposition, it ishelplessness.Krishnamurti: So, being aware of our limitations and ourhelplessness, how shall we bring about the right kind of education?Questioner: We want to hear that from you, that is why we arehere.Krishnamurti: Unless the educator himself is educated, it is notpossible to help the student to break down his limitations, is it? Theeducation of the educator is the one essential factor. Now, is theeducator willing to educate himself? That means, really, is hewilling to understand his own status, to be aware of his limitationsand break through them as much as he can, thereby helping the boyor the girl to break through?Questioner: One can try.Krishnamurti: If the educator himself does not see the necessityof breaking down his own limitations as much as he can, he willobviously impose those limitations on the child.Questioner: He sees the necessity of breaking down his ownlimitations, but however much he may try, he is still limited.Krishnamurti: So what do we propose to do? Are we preparedas grownup men and women, so-called mature human beings, tounderstand our limitations and break them down? Otherwise,through our influence, we are bound to impose these limitations onthe children. First of all, as parents and educators, are we aware ofour limitations?Questioner: I am aware that the limitations are there, but I don'tknow how to get out of them.Krishnamurti: Do we know what the word `limitation' implies?Is it a limitation to call ourselves Hindus?Questioner: That cannot be a limitation.Krishnamurti: But it is, because it divides people. Are weprepared to break through all that and cease to be Hindus orMoslems?Questioner: I think one is prepared to go that far.Krishnamurti: If the teachers, the educators are prepared to dothat, then the implications are tremendous. After all, when you callyourself a Hindu, what does it mean? There is not only thegeographical division, but also the division that is created by beliefin certain forms of religion, in certain traditions, in a certain kindof social order. Are we as educators prepared to drop these beliefs,which means going against the present society? Are we prepared togo that far? Unless the educator dedicates himself to education, andparticularly if he has daughters to be married off, as he generallyhas, he will merely conform. Should not the educator dedicatehimself to education in the right sense of the word? And will theparent help the teacher to dedicate himself to right education?I think most people throughout the world recognize that thepresent system of education has failed, because it has producedwars, moral decay, and all the rest of it; and also, except among avery few people, all creative thinking has ceased. So, what is theright kind of education, and how are we to bring it about? Itobviously cannot be brought about through somebody saying,`This is right education', and all of us merely agreeing andfollowing the pattern, but rather the teacher and the parent, thewhole lot of us, must sit down together and find out what righteducation is, which means that the parent and the teacher have tobe educated as well as the student.It seems to me that right education is to help the student to befree, because it is only in freedom that one can be creative.Freedom implies, not courage, but having no fear, which is entirelydifferent. To have no fear is a state in which there is no conformity,no imitation, and therefore no following of any authority. All thatis implied in freedom? To find out what it means to have noauthority in education, one has to go into the implications of it.Having no authority does not mean that the boy does exactly whathe likes; but the moment the boy knows there is authority, he isafraid, therefore we have already introduced the initiative process.Now, are we as parents prepared to relinquish our authority sothat the boy is really free, not just to pursue superficial distractions,but free to find out what is true, to question all tradition, toquestion the very authority of the parents? If we really mean thatthe boy should be free, all that must follow.Questioner: Unless we are free we cannot give freedom to thechild.Krishnamurti: That means you will have to wait for centuries. Iswhat you say an actual fact, or merely a speculative idea? Allinitiative and creative thinking are obviously destroyed if there isno freedom for the child - which does not mean allowing the boy todo whatever he likes. But is the parent willing to let go of hisauthority, with all its implications, so that the child finds out whatis true? Are the parents willing to educate themselves to thatextent?You see, the parent must feel the necessity of this as strongly ashe feels the necessity of his next meal. Freedom implies self-knowledge. To understand oneself is the first step towardsfreedom. And are we prepared to say, `I want to understand myselfso that the child will understand himself and create a new society'?Or are we only concerned with helping the child to conform? Willthe parents help to create an educational centre where there is nofear? Superficially that means no examinations, becauseexaminations do bring about a state of fear, a sense of competition.Are the parents prepared to create an educational centre where theboy is not taught to surpass some other boy, where the students arenot given marks and divided as the stupid and the clever, but whereeach boy and each girl is an individual to be helped to find his orher vocation? If the parents are not prepared to create educationalcentres of this kind, then how do you expect them to come intobeing?That is why, sirs, I raised the question of whether parents haveany relationship with their children. If the parent loves the child,this will be the consequence. He will want the child to be free inthe deep sense of the word, not merely to do amusing andsensational things which are destructive. As parents, are weprepared for all this? It is because the parents do not demand it thateducational centres of this kind do not exist; but the parents dodemand that the children pass examinations, and so you have thething you demand.January 27, 1955.BANARAS 4TH PUBLIC TALK 30TH JANUARY1955If each one of us could really solve any given human problem, Ithink a great deal of our misery and incapacity to meet life wouldcome to an end. Is it that we don't know how to go about solving aproblem and must therefore depend on others to solve ourproblems, or is it that we are not really aware of the problems thatwe have? I think it would be worthwhile if we could at thismeeting find out if there is an actual problem which all of us have,a problem which is significant, and then see if together we cannotresolve it; because if we can once resolve for ourselves any humanproblem, then we shall have the capacity to resolve all futureproblems as they arise. As long as we are not capable of resolvinga problem, we neglect, suppress, or escape from it, thereby givingroot to a multiplicity of other problems. When we don't know howto tackle a problem and merely escape from it, that very escapebecomes another problem, so one problem breeds several more;whereas, if we could attack and understand any given problem,then perhaps we should be able to bring about a mind which is notburdened with problems, but is capable of meeting each humanproblem as it arises. Such a mind, being silent, always gives thetrue response, and it is because we cannot give the true response toevery challenge that our problems increase.After all, a problem which all of us have, if we are conscious ofit, is the inadequacy of our response to any challenge. Not beingcapable of responding adequately to challenge, we give rise to aproblem, and having a problem, we escape from it or try to find animmediate or convenient solution, which again becomes anotherproblem. So one problem always breeds several other problems,which is what is happening, not only in the life of the individual,but also in the collective life of the group, of the nation. This isobvious, is it not? We go after peace, individually or collectively,and in the very search for peace we are introducing variouselements which produce conflict, misery, strife.Now, can we understand how to meet any human problem? Ifwe are at all aware of a problem, how do we actually meet it?Could we dwell on that for the moment? Because I think the reallyimportant thing is not what the problem is, but how we approach it.Surely, the problem is one thing, and our approach to the problemis another. Can one be conscious of one's approach to any problem,actually and not theoretically? What is one's process of thinkingwhen one is confronted with a problem? Please don't merely listento me, but watch your own mind and see how you approach yourown problems. Don't you always approach any problem with aconclusion, that is, with your mind already made up about theproblem? In other words, you have various theories, opinions,formulas with regard to the problem, and with that mentality youapproach the problem or seek an answer. Either the mind isapproaching the problem with a conclusion, with a formula, with abelief, or it is seeking an answer, so its approach is essentially anevasion of the problem, is it not? If you watch your own mind youwill see this process in operation.What is the state of a mind that is seeking an answer, asolution? Obviously, it is seeking in terms of its own gratification.Please watch your own mind, because I am only describing what isactually taking place. If you are merely listening to me, what I amsaying will be utterly superficial; but if you are following thedescription of your own mind, which means being aware of yourown mental processes, then what is being said will havesignificance.When the mind seeks a solution to a problem, its approach isinvariably a process of choice, its choice being based on its owngratification; it wants an easy solution, an answer in which noeffort will be needed. In its search for a solution to the problem, themind is looking through the various memories it has collected, theexperiences it has gathered, and it chooses from among thoseexperiences the answer most suitable to the problem. So yourapproach to the problem is that of choosing the most gratifyingsolution, is it not? Please watch, investigate your own mentalprocesses, and you will see that your mind approaches any problemwith opinions, conclusions, or it seeks an answer, or it tries to findways and means of avoiding the issue. That is our general approachto every problem, which means that the mind is not tackling theproblem directly but is translating the problem in terms of its oldmemories, its conclusions, concepts, formulas. So the problemremains and takes root in the soil of the mind, because the mind isnot fresh in its approach. If the mind could be made fresh, then itsresponse to the problem would be entirely different.Now, can we proceed from there? The question is, not how toresolve the problem, but whether the mind can be fresh in itsapproach, for the problem exists only because of the inadequacy ofthe mind's response to the challenge. However much the mind maywish to solve the problem, as long as its response is inadequatethere will be a problem. It is because the mind is inadequate, notfresh in its response, that it is incapable of dealing with theproblem in its totality, and hence there must be a furthermultiplication of problems, which means an increase of pain,misery and suffering. Psychologically, this is what is actuallytaking place, is it not? To see it does not require much thought, andthere need not be a great ado about it.So, is it possible to approach any problem afresh, with a mindthat is not burdened with conclusions, that is not seeking an answeror a means of evasion? Can the mind make itself fresh, innocent, sothat it is capable of meeting the problem anew? Innocence is notthe cutting off of experience, because you can, not cut offexperience. But the mind is the result of experience, of the processof time; and how can the mind, being the result of time andtherefore of experience and knowledge, make itself new, fresh,innocent to understand the problem? If the approach is innocent theproblem will be tackled with wisdom, with understanding; but aslong as the mind comes to the problem with previous knowledge,the problem multiplies. I don't know if you have ever watched thisprocess in your approach to a human problem. Even inmathematical problems it works, I believe.You have a problem. If the mind approaches the problem asthough it had never thought about it before, if it comes upon theproblem being fully aware of its own bondages and hindrances sothat it is free of them, then is there a problem? I hope I am makingmyself clear. We say that we must understand the problem, wemust find an answer to it, we must search out the cause and resolveit, but the very instrument that is seeking the cause and is trying tofind an answer is itself the problem; the problem is not outside ofitself. So, how does the mind of each one of us approach aproblem? Go very slowly and investigate how your own mindapproaches any problem. Be aware of the process.Now, can the mind ever confront a problem without seeking asolution, without having any conclusions about it, and withoutrunning away? That is, can the mind face the problem and not lookback upon its own experiences, not delve into the pigeon-holes ofmemory in order to choose the answer most suitable to theproblem? Can the mind ever say, `I don't know how to tackle theproblem'? Do you understand, sirs? Because it is very importantactually to feel and not just to say that in front of any given humanproblem the mind, which is the result of the past, is confrontedwith something new and therefore cannot answer with thememories of the old.So, can the mind be in a state of not-knowing? And should notthe mind always be in that state? Surely, the man who says, `Iknow', does not know. He knows only the things that haveoccurred and are over, and therefore he is burdened with memory.But the man who says, `I do not know' is in a process ofinvestigation, of constant inquiry, therefore his mind neveraccumulates and then responds from that accumulation. Beingactually and not theoretically in the state of not knowing, is not hismind really experiencing out of silence? And to such a mind, isthere a problem to be solved? Such a mind is not in a condition oflethargy, it is completely alive, therefore it neither has a problemnor is it creating a problem. Then begins, I think, an extraordinarything, which is the whole sense of what is holy, what is sacred.You see, further inquiry in this direction will only be adescription, therefore a speculation, unless you are actuallyexperiencing as we go along. One may have an occasionalcomprehension of what is holy, of what is true, but a second later itbecomes memory, and therefore it has already turned to ashes; andI think one is inevitably caught in sorrow, in misery, as long as onedoes not understand this whole problem. Therefore it is essentialthat the mind should know itself and its workings, which is self-knowledge. Without self-knowledge, any verbal statement, anybelief or non-belief really has no value at all. The mind must start,not with what should be, but with what is, it must begin bywatching itself from moment to moment, seeing its actualresponses and not getting lost in speculative hopes and fears.Actually moving with each response as it takes place brings aboutan astonishing aware- ness of the mind in which every thought,because it moves slowly, can be completely understood, all thedetails being immediately perceived. Without such a mind, allsearching for reality, going to priests, doing puja, is really rubbish,it has no meaning; but for most of us the rubbish has becomeextraordinarily significant. To put away all that rubbish is tounderstand the ways of the mind and how it operates in relation tothat rubbish. Then the mind can go extraordinarily far; then themind itself becomes a limitless, timeless thing.Question: Throughout my working day the mind masks itsmediocrity behind socially useful ends, but during the time ofmeditation is faced with its mediocrity, it is in torture and despair.What am I to do about it?Krishnamurti: Sir, what do you mean by meditation? And towhat are you giving importance? To everyday work, with its socialresponsibilities and so on, or to meditation? I am not puttingmeditation in opposition to the operation of the mediocre mindwhile it is working or helping to bring about various socialreforms. I am asking why the mind separates the two and givesgreater significance to one than to the other.Question: In the ordinary working day one is conscious of theusefulness of the social ends to which the mind is directed,therefore the attention is not on mediocrity; but when one sitsquietly for awhile the mask is down, so one is conscious ofmediocrity and nothing else.Krishnamurti: You are saying that when it is not occupied themind is aware of its mediocrity; all the masks having fallen away,the mind is confronted and tortured by its own pettiness, so what isone to do? As long as the mind is occupied with social and otheractivities, it is unaware of itself; but the moment it stops beingoccupied, the whole content of the mind is revealed to itself.Questioner: Not necessarily.Krishnamurti: The moment the noise stops, one is aware of themediocrity of the mind, and you are asking what one is to do aboutit.Now, is not an occupied mind mediocre? Surely, an occupiedmind is petty, whether it is occupied with business, with physics,with the kitchen, or with the sacred books and the pursuit of God.Please go slowly with me, sirs, let us go into it together. The mindof the housewife, that is, of a lady, who is concerned with thekitchen, with food, with children, with keeping the householdclean, and so on, you would consider very trivial, whereas the manwho is seeking God, who does puja and all the rest of it, is lookedupon as being very noble; but his mind also is occupied, is it not?Only the occupation is different, that is all. The object ofoccupation is at a different level, but the mind is still occupied.And is not the mind that is everlastingly occupied, with itself orwith anything else, mediocre? What does mediocrity mean?Average, ordinary - which is what our minds are, is it not? Ourminds are constantly occupied, the student with his examination,the father with his job, and so on.Now, can the mind be free from occupation? Can it do thekitchen work, study physics, or what you will, and still not beoccupied, so that the mind has space and is not filled withoccupation? Can the mind ever stop producing thoughts - which isoccupation, is it not? When the mind is occupied with the kitchen,with God, with sex, with this or that, this or that, it is obviouslyproducing thoughts, thinking. And is not thinking itself mediocre?Because after all, what is thinking? It is the response of thebackground, the response of memory, of experience; and is not theinvestigation of that process, which is what we have done just now,real meditation? To meditate is to find out whether the mind canreally stop producing thoughts one after another, which meansbeing aware of and observing the processes of one's own thinkingso that the mind sees and understands the fact that its thinking isconditioned, and therefore thought comes to an end. Only then isthere not a state of mediocrity. Then the mind can act totallydifferently for any social end.Sir, after all, there is space, there is silence between two words,between two notes, but to most of us the word or the note isimportant, not the silence. If there were no silence there would beone continuous noise, and that is the state of the mind which isceaselessly occupied; like a machine that is kept in constantoperation, it wears itself out. But the mind that has space, that haswide gaps of silence, renews itself in that very silence, andtherefore its action in any direction has quite a differentsignificance.Question: Can the mind work and at the same time not beoccupied?Krishnamurti Try it, sir. For most of us, work is occupation. Themoment the mind `works', as one calls it, it is thinking, andtherefore it is occupied.Sir, the difficulty in answering these questions is that in yourlistening you are not aware of what is actually taking place, you donot see the process of your own mind in operation. You arelistening to me, that is all, and saying that it does not work; you arejust sitting there while somebody else is speaking, and therefore ithas no meaning. When you go to a football match in which you arenot participating, you sit on the seats and criticize the players.Similarly, you are here merely as spectators at a game which is alecture or a talk. Whereas, if you were not mere spectators butthrough the description of the speaker you were actually watchingyour own minds in operation, then you would find an extraordinarything happening to you, the coming into being of a state in whichthere is neither the spectator nor the player. You see, that is why itis very important to have self-knowledge.Have I answered your question?Question: You said the teacher should have the intention not toinfluence the child. Is it possible to avoid influence altogether?Krishnamurti: What do you think, sirs? Are you waiting for me?Again you are assuming the role of the spectators.What is influence? Don't you know what influence is? Are younot influencing your children? The teacher, the parents, thegovernment, the Bible, the Upanishads, the sun, the food we eat,the words we use - everything is influencing us, is it not? Take theword `love'. What an extraordinary neurological influence merelythe word itself has on us. So everything is influencing us, and wein turn are influencing others. When we read a newspaper we arebeing influenced by the proprietors, by the columnist, by thepictures; we are influenced by propaganda, by the so-calledspiritual magazines, by books, by lectures, by the way we dress,the way we sit. Everything is influencing us, and the questionerwants to know whether there can ever be the cessation of influence,even when one has the intention not to influence the child. This isreally a complex question, so let us take time to go into it.We see that everything, physical and mental influences us.Where is one to draw the line? I may not want to influence mychild, but influence is going on, conditioning his mind; themagazines he reads, his friends at school, his teachers, everythingaround him is influencing him. Consciously or unconsciously I ammyself influencing the child, and the whole culture or civilizationin which we live is conditioning his mind to be a Communist or aCapitalist, a Hindu or a Christian, and so on. So the question is notwhether it is possible to stop all influence, but whether one canhelp the child to understand and be free of the influences which areconditioning him. Is it possible for education to help the student tobe so intelligent that he will see and understand for himself thoseinfluences which are conditioning his mind, and put them away?Surely, that is our inquiry, not how to stop influence, or what kindsof influence the child should have.Now, what is it that conditions the mind? If the mind werecompletely secure, it would have no fear, would it? And when themind has nothing to lose, it is completely secure, is it not? Whichmeans that in its own insecurity there is security. As long as themind demands to be secure, as long as it is seeking permanency inany form, it creates influences which will condition it. But cannotthe mind be aware of total insecurity, of being completely insecure- which in fact it is? Life is insecure, impermanent. The resistance,the denial of the fact that life is completely insecure producesopposition between the desire to be secure and the fact, therebycreating fear, and it is this fear that conditions the mind, the fearthat comes into being when you do not accept the fact. This fearmay be described in different terms as the fear a boy has towardshis parents, or the fear of not passing an examination, or the fear ofbeing scolded, or the fear which arises when the mind wants tofulfil and is denied. The mind which is ambitious at any level hasalways with it the shadow of fear, because however much itsambition is being fulfilled it may at any moment be thwarted.So, can the student be given an environment of completesecurity? - which means, really, an environment in which he is notcompared with the less clever or the more clever, in which there isno sense of condemnation, so that he feels completely at home. Hegenerally does not feel at home with his parents because they donot know what it means to give the child that feeling of completesecurity. The parents want the boy to be something, they say, `Youare not studying as well as your brother, who is so clever', and sothey destroy the poor boy by instilling fear. When the mind of thestudent feels completely secure he can study more easily; but thatmeans the educator must be totally free of his own demand to besecure, because the moment he demands security he instills fear.That is why teaching is a dedication, not a job.Question: I am an engineer by profession, and I think it isobvious that your idea of truth goes far beyond the standard orcommon place meaning of that word. Could you kindly explainfurther?Krishnamurti: Sir, an engineer is surely concerned with facts,not with speculations. If he has to build a bridge he must examinethe proposed site and not imagine what the site should be. He maybe aware of the aesthetic value of a certain line in building abridge, which may be entirely different from what is called for bythe actual facts he discovers at the site. With ourselves it is not likethat. We think we are something, the Atman, the Paramatman, wehave theories, speculations about the permanent and theimpermanent, a vast number of beliefs, and so we are a mass ofunreality which we are unwilling to face and look at. The fact isone thing, and our thoughts or opinions about the fact are entirelydifferent. Only the mind that is capable of looking at the fact findsout what is true. The fact is that there is no such thing aspermanency, and if the mind makes permanency into a fact, thenthat permanency is an opinion, it is what the mind would like thefact to be. It is as simple as that. If we can look at the fact withoutthe myth of opinion, of knowledge, of judgment and evaluation,then the truth of the fact will have its own evaluation and produceits own action. To approach the fact with evaluation, withjudgment, is entirely different from approaching it withoutjudgment, without evaluation, and therefore understanding the fact.Now, can one look at the fact that one is greedy, that one is aliar, that one is ambitious, without evaluating it, withoutcondemning or saying it is all right? If the mind can just see thefact, then the truth of the fact operates on the mind in the mostunexpected manner, and that operation is its own evaluation, notthe mind's evaluation. But a mind which has gathered the truth ofthe fact and acts from what it has gathered is surely incapable oflooking at the fact, because it is looking through the screen ofmemory, of knowledge, of experience, of evaluation. That is whythe mind must die each day to itself, to every experience, to all theknowledge it has gathered. The mind objects to that death, becauseexperience and knowledge are a means of its own security,permanency; and a mind that has permanency, a sense of security,is never creative. It is only for the mind which is totally secure andis therefore no not wanting a state of security that reality comesinto being.January 30, 1955.BANARAS 5TH PUBLIC TALK 6TH FEBRUARY1955Perhaps it might be worthwhile to find out what is the function ofour thinking, because without understanding the whole process ofour thought, conscious as well as unconscious, the mind cannot befree to discover what is true. We may search for truth, but oursearch will be in vain if we do not understand the content or thebackground of the reaction which we call our thinking. Ourthinking is obviously supposed to guide our action, but our actionis now so automatic that there is hardly any thinking at all. Besides,through various forms of education, the education that we receiveat school and college, as well as the whole education imposed bysociety, our minds are conditioned to adjust or submit to thedemands of a particular culture. We accept certain things asinevitable, depending on our sociological, religious, or economicbackground, and having accepted, we act; hence our actionbecomes almost automatic. Thinking is hardly necessary any more,and it seems to me very important to re-examine the whole processof our thinking and see if we cannot totally break away from thebackground in which we have been brought up, thereby bringingabout a revolution in our lives which will in turn create a differentkind of culture altogether. Real revolution is not Communist,Socialist, Capitalist, or anything of that kind, because it can only bebased on the search for reality, for God, or what you will. Thatsearch is in itself the revolution, but such revolution cannot takeplace as long as our thinking is merely the repetitive reaction of acertain form of conditioning.So, it is obviously very important for all of us to find out howour minds operate, which is to have self-knowledge. If we don'tknow the ways of our own thinking, if we are unaware of ourreactions and of how our thought is conditioned by the culture inwhich we have been brought up; if the mind does not penetratedeeply into the whole problem of its own background, which isreally the `me', the self, then surely all knowledge, except perhapsmechanical knowledge, becomes detrimental and mischievous. Is itnot possible, then, to investigate the process of our thinking, notaccording to any formula, guide, or guru, but for ourselves, andthereby find out how the mind works? Now, what is thinking? Canthinking ever be original, or is it always a repetitive process, thereaction of a background? Can thought lead us to reality, to God, tothat extraordinary something which is beyond the process of themind and which we call the ultimate, the absolute, or is thought ahindrance to the discovery of that reality?Please, may I suggest that you are not merely listening to a talk.You cannot help listening because you are here and I am talking,but if in the very process of listening you observe how your ownmind works, then these talks will have significance. What I amsaying is nothing extraordinary, it is merely a description of theways of the mind so that as we are listening each one of us can beaware of the process of his own thinking. If one merely listens to aset of words and phrases and tries to catch their meaning, a talk ofthis kind will have no great depth; but if in the process of listeningone can pursue one's own thinking and discover from what sourceit springs, then listening will be a self-revealing process, not just anacceptance or denial of what is being said.Can thinking ever be the means to find out what is true, what isGod? Surely, if we do not find out for our, selves what that realityis, mere reform or amelioration within the social structure can onlylead to further misery. After all, man exists to find that supremething which is the foundation of all foundations; and withoutsearch, inquiry, without the constant watchfulness of our reactions,our thoughts and feelings, to see if they lead to that ultimate reality,to that something beyond the mundane, all our beliefs and religiousactivities become utter nonsense, mere superstitions leading tofurther mischief.Does thought lead to reality, that reality which is neverconstant, which cannot be qualified in terms of time but must bediscovered from moment to moment? To seek that reality, the mindmust also be of that quality, otherwise it cannot have thecomprehension or the feeling of what is true. So, can thinking helpto discover that reality? And can thinking be original, or is allthinking imitative? If thinking is imitative, then obviously thinkingcannot lead to that reality, it is not the way out, it is not a processby which to uncover what is true. And yet our whole process ofsearch is the cultivation of thinking, of various practices,disciplines, which are all based on thought. If thought can open thedoor to reality, then it has significance; but thought may be abarrier to reality, so one must find but the truth of the matter foroneself, and not merely accept or reject.Surely, what we call thinking is the response of memory. That isfairly obvious. You have been brought up in a certain tradition; asa Hindu, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Communist, or whatever it be,you have various associations, memories, beliefs, and thatbackground responds to any challenge, which is called thinking. Sothe background is not different from thinking; thinking is thebackground. When you are asked a question about your religion,what you believe in, immediately your mind responds according toyour conditioning, in terms of the various traditions, experiencesand beliefs that you have. You respond according to your particularbackground, as a Christian or a Communist also does. So thinkingis an impediment in the sense that it is merely the response of thebackground, of a particular conditioning. Surely, that again isobvious. Such a response, which we call thinking, definitely cannotopen the door to reality. To find out what reality is, one musttotally cease to be a Hindu, a Christian, a Communist, this or that,so that the mind is no longer conditioned and is therefore free todiscover what is true.Is it possible for the mind to be free from its whole conditioningas a Hindu, a Moslem, a Christian, or whatever it be? And who isthe entity that is going to free the mind from its background? Doyou understand the question? When you say, `I must be free frommy conditioning as a Hindu', who is the entity that is going to bringabout this freedom? Who is the analyzer of the background? Canthe analyzer break up the background? Am I making myself clear?As a Hindu I have certain formulas, concepts, beliefs, traditions,and I see the necessity of being free from them all, for if I am not,it is obviously impossible to find out what reality is. If I amconditioned as a Communist, or if my mind is moulded accordingto any other belief, how can I ever find out what is real? Such amind can only experience that to which it has been conditioned.Unless the mind is free from all conditioning, its search is merely asociological reaction and it will find only what it has beenconditioned to. Then how am I to free myself from allconditioning? Is there an entity who is going to help me to freemyself from conditioning? That is, is there in me a thinker, ananalyzer, an observer, who is not contaminated by myconditioning?You see, so far we have assumed that there is a thinker apartfrom thought, have we not? We are used to the idea that there aretwo separate processes, one being a permanent state as the thinker,the analyzer, the observer, and the other being the movement ofthought. We have always believed that there is the Paramatman, apermanent spiritual entity who by analyzing the process of thinkingis going to reject whatever is false and keep only what is true.Now, is there such a permanent entity apart from impermanentthought? Or is there only thinking, which is entirely impermanentand therefore creates the thinker in order to make itself permanent?Surely, thinking creates the thinker, it is not the thinker whocreates the thought. This is really very important to understand foroneself, it is not a thing to accept or reject. Has not thinkingcreated the thinker, and not the other way round?After all, if there were no thinking, would there be a thinker? Itis thinking that gives rise to the thinker, and the thinker thenbecomes the permanent analyzer, the observer who is untouched bytime; but that entity has been created by thought, surely. It is like adiamond. The qualities of the diamond make the diamond. Removethe qualities of the diamond, and there is no diamond at all.Similarly, various desires, urges, compulsions create in theirmovement the entity which becomes the actor, the embodiment ofwill, which is the `I' of assertive action, of assertive thought. Butthat will is made up of many desires. If there were no desires, therewould be no will, no `I'.So, if there is only thinking and not the thinker, then the thinkerwho says, `I will free myself from my conditioning' is himself theoutcome of conditioned thought; therefore the thinker, theobserver, the analyzer, the experiencer, cannot free the mind fromits conditioning. The mind may separate itself as the thinker andthe thought, as will and desire, as the good and the bad, as thehigher self and the lower self, but that whole process is still withinthe field of thought, it is only a self-deception leading to a greatdeal of mischievous action. The question then is, can the mind freeitself from its own conditioning when there is no censor, noanalyzer, no superior self who is going to cleanse the mind?Are you following this? Please, if this much is not clear, to gofurther will have no meaning. It is essential to understand this,otherwise you will cling to the idea of a higher self, a spiritualsomething which is God given, timeless, but encased in ignorance,and which is always pushing away the ignorance that is comingupon it - which is all absurd. And if there is no permanent self atall, but only thinking which creates the permanent self in differentforms, then can thinking free the mind to find out what is true?As long as we have not found out what is true, what is God,what is that extraordinary something which fills life with greatness,goodness and beauty, all our activities at whatever level can haveonly a superficial meaning. Unless we are directly experiencingthat which is true from moment to moment, our culture becomesmechanical and therefore destructive. Surely, man exists to findGod, not merely to earn a livelihood and adjust himself to aparticular pattern of society. Society does not help man to findtruth. On the contrary, society prevents man from discovering whatis true, because society is based on the desire to be secure, to havepermanency, and a mind that is secure, safe, that is seekingpermanency, can never find reality. But the man who understandswhat is true, who is experiencing reality from moment to moment,helps to bring about a totally new society. Reformation,adjustment, or any form of revolution within the framework ofsociety can only lead to further misery and destruction as is shownin the world at the present time, where every effort to solve oneproblem leads to a hundred more. Whereas, if the mind canunderstand what is true, experience it directly, then that veryunderstanding creates its own action which brings about a newculture.Our question then is, can the mind free itself from its ownconditioning? If there is no `I', no self, no Atman to free it, thenwhat is it to do? Do you follow the problem? We have invented the`I' which is going to free the mind from conditioning. But as weinvestigate the process of the `I', we discover that the `I' has noreality, it is merely a product of thought, which is a reaction of thebackground. So there is only thinking, thinking according to thebackground. Thinking is the response of the background, which isthe mind's conditioning as a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, and soon. If thought is the response of the background, and allbackground is conditioning, then thought cannot lead to freedom;and it is only in freedom that you can find out what is true. So, tofind what is God, what is true, thought must come to an end.Please, this is not only logical, it is factual. Thought must come toan end. But the moment you ask, `How am I to end thought?', thereis an entity who operates, who practices the `how' in order to put anend to thinking. So there is no `how' at all, and this is veryimportant to understand, because for all of us the `how' is the mostimportant thing. We say, `How am I to do this, what is thediscipline I must practise?' and all that business, which we now seehas no meaning. So at one sweep we get rid of this whole problemof the `how'.This may sound too facile, but it is not facile, it is not easy; onthe contrary, it demands a great deal of attention, not concentrationbut attention. Concentration is exclusive because it implies amotive, an incentive, whereas attention has no motive and istherefore not exclusive. In the mind's observation of itself therecomes self-knowledge, which is not the knowledge of the higherself. The higher self is an invention of the mind that wants toescape from the actuality of thought in relationship to people, tothings, and to ideas. When it wants to escape from what is, themind goes off into all kinds of absurdities. But when the mindbegins to inquire into the process of its own being, when it sees theimplications of thought and how thought comes into being, thenthat very perception puts an end to thought. There is no thinkerwho puts an end to thought, therefore no effort is involved. Effortarises only when there is an incentive to gain something. If themind as an incentive the desire to break away from itsconditioning, then that incentive is the reaction its conditioning in adifferent direction.So, it is very important to understand the whole process of ourthinking, and the understanding of that process does not comethrough isolation. There is no such thing as living in isolation. Theunderstanding of the process of our thinking comes when weobserve ourselves in daily relationship, our attitudes, our beliefs,the way we talk, the way we regard people, the way we treat ourhusbands, our wives, our children. Relationship is the mirror inwhich the ways of our thinking are revealed. In the facts ofrelationship lies truth, not away from relationship. There isobviously no such thing as living in isolation. We may carefullycut off various forms of physical relationship, but the mind is stillrelated. The very existence of the mind implies relationship, andself-knowledge lies through seeing the facts of relationship as theyare without inventing, condemning, or justifying. In relationshipthe mind has certain evaluations, judgments, comparisons, it reactsto challenge according to various forms of memory, and thisreaction is called thinking. If the mind can just be aware of thiswhole process, you will find that thought comes to a standstill.Then the mind is very quiet, very still, without incentive, withoutmovement in any direction, and in that stillness reality comes intobeing.Question: It is difficult to follow you, and I find it much easierto follow people who have understood your teachings and canexplain them to us. Don't you think there is need for such people tospread your teachings? It was recently pointed out in a newspaperarticle that you are intolerant of all beliefs and guides which helpus.Krishnamurti: As long as one wants to follow there will be aguide, and following destroys the possibility of finding out what istrue. If the mind follows anybody it is following its own interest,which is not to understand what is true. You are surely notfollowing me, because I am only trying to point out the operationsof your own mind. If you follow somebody you are not inquiringinto the ways of your own mind, and without understanding theways of your own mind, to follow another can only lead you tomore misery. To follow another is it does not matter who it is,whether it be Christ, Buddha, myself, or anybody else. Followingis destructive, for imitation breeds fear. It is fear that makes youfollow, not the search for truth. We don't understand the miseriesof life, the transient happiness, the mystery of death, theextraordinary complexities of relationship, and we hope that byfollowing somebody all this will somehow be explained anddisappear. But to understand all these complexities is not to followanybody. This mass of complexities has been created by each oneof us, and we have to understand the cause of it, which is our ownthinking.The questioner says, "I find it much easier to follow people whohave understood your teachings and can explain them to us", whichis to have interpreters. For God's sake, sirs, keep away frominterpreters, because the interpreter is bound to interpret accordingto his conditioning and his vested interest. This again is so obvious,it does not need much thinking. But you see, you want somebodyto help you, and the moment you demand help you have broughtinto being the whole process of corruption, which really indicatesthat you have no confidence in being able to go to the source ofthings for yourself. The source is not me, but you, the way youthink. The source is yourself, and why should you follow anybodyor listen to interpreters to understand yourself? What is it theinterpreters understand which you don't understand? They mayhave a better command of words than you or I, but keep away frominterpreters, do not become a follower, because the source ofmischief is in yourself, in the ways of your own thinking, and aslong as you are imitating, following someone who is interpreting,you are escaping from yourself. The escape may be pleasant, itmay temporarily give you gratification, but there is always in thatescape the sting of sorrow.And you don't have to spread my teachings, because if you don'tunderstand yourself you cannot spread them. You may be able tobuy and distribute a few books, but surely that is not at all soessential as to understand yourself. When you understand yourself,then you will spread understanding in the world, you will bringgreater happiness to man. But if you are spreading somebody else'steachings you are creating more mischief, for then you are merelypropagandists, and propaganda is not truth."It was recently pointed out in a newspaper article that you areintolerant of all beliefs and guides which help us." Sirs, what istolerance? Why should you be tolerant or intolerant? Facts don'tdemand either tolerance or intolerance. Facts are there for us totake them or leave them. Why do we beat this drum of tolerance?All beliefs, the Christian, the Hindu, the Moslem, are a source ofenmity between people. Is it being intolerant to point out thatobvious fact? But if you cling to your belief you will say I amintolerant, because you are unwilling to look at the fact. The fact isso patent that as long as we are divided as Moslems, Hindus,Christians, it is bound to create antagonism. We are human beings,not a mass of conflicting beliefs. But you see, we have a vested in-terest in our belief. Belief is profitable. Societies are founded on it,religions with their priests thrive on it, and to them any questioningof belief is intolerance. But the man who faces facts as they are issurely not concerned with either tolerance or intolerance.Belief is not reality. You may believe in God, but your beliefhas no more reality than that of the man who does not believe inGod. Your belief is the result of your background, of your religion,of your fears, and the non-belief of the Communist and others isequally the result of their conditioning. To find out what is true themind must be free from belief and non-belief. I know you smileand agree, but you will still go on believing because it is so muchmore convenient, so much more respectable and safe. If you didnot believe, you might lose your job, you might suddenly find thatyou are nobody. It is being free of belief that matters, not yoursmiling and agreeing in this room.With regard to guides, gurus, and all the rest of it, you followbecause you have a motive, an incentive, which is that you want tobe happy, to find God. So you are always seeking, and the guru issupposed to help you to find. But can a guru help you to find whatis real? Reality must be outside the field of time, it must besomething totally new, uncontaminated by the past or the future. Ifit is outside the field of time, then the mind which is the result oftime can never find it. As long as you are following somebody inorder to find reality, God, you are merely following the desires ofyour own mind. You are following because it gratifies you,therefore it is not leading you to truth. That is why it is importantnot to follow, not to have gurus. When you seek, your search is theoutcome of your desire, and your desire projects that which you areseeking. It is only when the mind is not seeking, when it is reallyquiet, completely still, without any form of incentive, that there isthe coming into being of that thing which is not caught by themind, which is not found in books, and of which no guru knows;because to know is not to know.Question: When you say that discipline is destructive, how canyou obviate the danger of producing an army of sanctimoniousnincompoops?Krishnamurti: I don't know what the questioner means, but wecan see for ourselves the effects of so-called discipline. Now, whatdo we mean by discipline, and why should there be discipline? Wehave accepted discipline as necessary in schools, in daily life, inthe political party, we discipline ourselves to find reality, and soon. There are various forms of discipline at different levels of ourconscious and unconscious activities. Discipline is a process ofresistance, of submission or adaptation, is it not? You adaptyourself to society's demands, because if you don't you will bedestroyed; you suppress yourself and submit to society in order tobe a good or moral citizen, and so on. Surely, discipline impliesshaping the mind to a certain formula, either externally imposed, orimposed by yourself. Through tradition, the evaluations of religion,culture and all the rest of it, society imposes a certain discipline onthe mind. It says, `Keep within the limits, otherwise you will not berespectable, you will become dangerous', and so on, which one canunderstand. But the idea of imposing a discipline on oneself seemswholly absurd, because who is the entity that disciplines? Themind has divided itself as the one who disciplines and the partwhich is to be disciplined, but it is all the same mind playing atrick on itself. Surely, that is obvious. For its own convenience themind has divided itself as the one who disciplines and the part thathas to be disciplined, and we play this game with ourselves, whichis absurd, because it has no reality at all. It is a convenient form ofself-deception.Now, can a mind which is so disciplined, which is controlled,shaped through tradition, through certain evaluations which societycalls moral - we are not now questioning whether they are moral orimmoral - , can such a mind ever find out what is true? Or does themind, in seeking what is true, create its own way of life which isdisciplinary? Obviously, the man who is seeking truth must bevirtuous, but virtue is not an end in itself. Virtue is to bring order, ithas no validity in itself. If virtue has validity in itself it leads torespectability, which society loves. But the mind that isunderstanding itself creates its own order, which is not animposition, not an adjustment to any form of compulsion. Themind that is aware is all the time bringing order within itself, whichis not the order imposed by society or religious sanctions, thoughoutwardly they may seem to correspond. But a mind that is merelycontrolled through fear of going wrong, through fear of whatpeople will say, that is imitating, trying to live according to whatShankara or anyone else has said, such a mind can never find outwhat is real. It is only the free mind that can discover the real, andto be free the mind has to understand itself. But merely to state thatthe mind is free has no meaning. It is like the schoolboy wanting todo exactly what he likes, which he calls freedom. That is obviouslynot freedom. Whereas, if the mind is aware of its own ways inrelationship, if it is capable of watching its own movementswithout condemnation or evaluation, then it will understand what itis to be free, and only such a mind can discover that which iseternal.February 6, 1955BOMBAY 1ST PUBLIC TALK 16TH FEBRUARY1955I think that one of the greatest problems confronting man at thispresent time is the question of creativeness, how to bring about thecreative release of the individual; and if we can consider thequestion, not merely verbally, but go into it very deeply, perhapswe shall be able to discover the full significance of that word`creativeness'. It seems to me that this is the real issue, not whatkind of political reform to work for, or what kind of religion tofollow. How is it possible to bring about the creative release of theindividual, not only at the beginning of his existence, butthroughout life? That is, how is the individual to have abundantenergy rightly directed so that his life will have expansive andprofound significance? If this evening we can really go into thismatter, I think we shall be better able to understand the subsequenttalks.I feel that revolution is necessary at the most profound level, notfragmentary revolution, but integrated revolution, a total revolutionstarting not from the outside but from within; and to bring aboutthat total revolution, surely we must understand the ways of ourown thought, the whole process of our thinking, which is self-knowledge. Without the foundation of self-knowledge, what wethink has very little meaning. So it is important, is it not, that fromthe very beginning we should understand the process of ourthinking, the ways of our mind; and the revolution must take place,not in any given department of thought, but in the totality of themind itself. But before we go into that, I think it is essential to findout what it means to listen.Very few of us listen directly to what is being said, we alwaystranslate or interpret it according to a particular point of view,whether Hindu, Moslem, or Communist. We have formulations,opinions, judgments, beliefs through which we listen, so we areactually never listening at all; we are only listening in terms of ourown particular prejudices, conclusions or experiences. We arealways interpreting what we hear, and obviously that does notbring about understanding. What brings about understanding,surely, is to listen without any anchorage, without any definiteconclusion, so that you and I can think out the problem together,whatever the problem may be. If you know the art of listening youwill not only find out what is true in what is being said, but youwill also see the false as false, and the truth in the false; but if youlisten argumentatively, then it is fairly clear that there can be nounderstanding, because argument is merely your opinion againstanother opinion, or your judgment against another, and thatactually prevents the understanding or discovery of the truth inwhat is being said.So, is it possible to listen without any prejudice, without anyconclusion, without interpretation? Because it is fairly obvious thatour thinking is conditioned, is it not? We are conditioned asHindus, or Communists, or Christians, and whatever we. listen to,whether it is new or old, is always apprehended through the screenof this conditioning; therefore we can never approach any problemwith a fresh mind. That is why it is very important to know how tolisten, not only to what is being stated, but to everything. It isclearly necessary that a total revolution should take place in theindividual, but such a revolution cannot take place unless there iseffortless comprehension of what is truth. Effort at any level isobviously a form of destruction, and it is only when the mind isvery quiet, not making an effort, that understanding takes place.But with most of us, effort is the primary thing; we think effort isessential, and that very effort to listen, to understand, preventscomprehension, the immediate perception of what is true and whatis false.Now, being aware of your conditioning, and yet being free of it,can you listen so as to comprehend what is being said? Can youlisten without making an effort, without interpreting, which is togive total attention? For most of us, attention is merely a process ofconcentration, which is a form of exclusiveness, and as long asthere is the resistance of exclusive thinking, a total revolutionobviously cannot take place; and it is operative, I feel, that such arevolution should take place in the individual, for only in thatrevolution is there creative release.So, the mind is conditioned by modern education, by society, byreligion, and by the knowledge and the innumerable experienceswhich we have gathered; it is shaped, put into a mould, not only byour environment, but also by our own reactions to that environmentand to various forms of relationship.Please bear in mind that you are not merely listening to me, butare actually observing the process of your own thinking. What I amsaying is only a description of what is taking place in your ownmind. If one is at all aware of one's own thinking, one will see thata mind that is conditioned, however much it may try to change, canonly change within the prison of its own conditioning; and such achange is obviously not revolution. I think that is the first thing tounderstand: that as long as our minds are conditioned as Hindus,Moslems, or what not, any revolution is within the pattern of thatconditioning and is therefore not a fundamental revolution at all.Every challenge must always be new, and as long as the mind isconditioned, it responds to challenge according to its conditioning;therefore there is never an adequate response.Now, we all know that there is a great crisis in the world at thepresent time; there is enormous poverty and the constant threat ofwar. That is the challenge; and our problem is to respondadequately, completely, totally to this challenge, which isimpossible if we do not understand the process of our ownthinking. Our thinking is obviously conditioned; we alwaysrespond to any challenge as Hindus, Moslems, Communists,Socialists, Christians, and so on, and that response isfundamentally inadequate; hence the conflict, the struggle, not onlyin the individual, but between groups, races and nations. We canrespond totally, adequately, fully, only when we understand theprocess of our thinking and are free from our conditioning, that is,when we are no longer reacting as Hindus, Communists, or whatyou will, which means that our response to challenge is no longerbased on our previous conditioning. When we have ceased tobelong to any particular race or religion, when each one of usunderstands his background, frees himself from it, and pursueswhat is true, then it is possible to respond fully; and that responseis a revolution.It is only the religious man that can bring about a fundamentalrevolution; but the man who has a belief, a dogma, who belongs toany particular religion, is not a religious man. The religious man ishe who understands the whole process of so-called religion, thevarious forms of dogma, the desire to be secure through certainformulas of ritual and belief. Such an individual breaks away fromthe framework of organized religion, from all dogma and belief,and seeks the highest; and it is he who is truly revolutionary,because every other form of revolution is fragmentary andtherefore inevitably brings about further problems. But the manwho is seeking to find out what is truth, what is God, is the realrevolutionary, because the discovery of what is truth is anintegrated response and not a fragmentary response.Is it possible, then, for the mind to be aware of its ownconditioning, and thereby bring about freedom from itsconditioning? The mind's conditioning is imposed by society, bythe various forms of culture, religion and education, and also bythe whole process of ambition, the effort to become something,which is itself a pattern imposed on each one of us by society; andthere is also the pattern which the individual creates for himself inhis response to society.Now, can we as individuals be aware of our conditioning, and isit possible for the mind to break down all this limitation so that it isfree to discover what is truth? Because it seems to me that unlesswe do free the mind from its conditioning, all our social problems,our conflicts in relationship, our wars and other miseries, are boundto increase and multiply - which is exactly what is happening in theworld, not only in our private lives, but in the relationship betweenindividuals and groups of individuals which we call society.Taking that whole picture into consideration and knowing allthe significance of it, is it possible for the mind to be aware of itsconditioning and liberate itself? Because it is only in freedom thatthere can be creativeness; but freedom is not a reaction tosomething. Freedom is not a reaction to the prison in which themind is wrought, it is not the opposite of slavery. Freedom is not amotive. Surely, the mind that is seeking truth, God, or whatevername you like to give it, has no motive in itself. Most of us have amotive because all our life, in our education and in everything thatwe do, our action is based on a motive, the motive either of self-expansion or self-destruction. And can the mind be aware of andliberate itself from all those bondages which it has imposed uponitself in order to be secure, to be satisfied, in order to achieve apersonal or a national result?I think the revolution of which I am talking is possible onlywhen the mind is very quiet, very still. But that quietness of themind does not come through any effort; it comes naturally, easily,when the mind understands its own process of action, which is tounderstand the whole significance of thinking. So the beginning offreedom is self-knowledge, and self-knowledge is not in thewithdrawal from life, but is to be discovered in the relationships ofour everyday existence. Relationship is the mirror in which we cansee ourselves factually, without any distortion; and it is onlythrough self-knowledge, seeing ourselves exactly as we actuallyare, undistorted by any interpretation or judgment, that the mindbecomes quiet, still. But that stillness of mind cannot be soughtafter, it cannot be pursued; if you pursue and bring about stillnessof mind, it has a motive, and such stillness is never still, because itis always a movement towards something and away fromsomething.So there is freedom only through self-knowledge, which is tounderstand the total process of thinking. Our thinking at present ismerely a reaction, the response of a conditioned mind, and anyaction based on such thinking is bound to result in catastrophe. Todiscover what is truth, what is God, there must be a mind that hasunderstood itself, which means going into the whole problem ofself-knowledge. Only then is there the total revolution which alonebrings about a creative release, and that creative release is theperception of what is truth, what is God.I think it is always important to ask fundamental questions: butwhen we do ask a fundamental question, most of us are seeking ananswer, and then the answer is invariably superficial, because thereis no `yes' or `no' answer to life. Life is a movement, an endlessmovement, and to inquire into this extraordinary thing called life,with all its innumerable aspects, one must ask fundamentalquestions and never be satisfied with answers, however satisfactorythey may be, because the moment you have an answer, the mindhas concluded, and conclusion is not life; it is merely a static state.So what is important is to ask the right question and never besatisfied with the answer, however clever, however logical,because the truth of the question lies beyond the conclusion,beyond the answer, beyond the verbal expression. The mind thatasks a question and is merely satisfied with an explanation, averbal statement, remains superficial. It is only the mind that asks afundamental question and is capable of pursuing that question tothe end - it is only such a mind that can find out what is truth.Question: In India today we see a growing disregard of allsensitive feeling and expression. Culturally we are a feeble,imitative country; our thinking is smug and superficial. Is there away to break through and contact the source of creativity? Can wecreate a new culture?Krishnamurti: Sir, this is not only a question for Indians. it is ahuman question, it is asked in America, in England and elsewhere.How to bring about a new culture, a creativity that is explosive,abundant, so that the mind is not imitative? A poet, a painter longsfor that; so let us inquire into it. Naturally I cannot discuss thisquestion with so many, but we are going to inquire into it, soplease listen.What is civilization, what is culture as we know it now? It is theresult of the collective will. is it not? The culture we know is theexpression of many desires unified through religion, through atraditional moral code, through various forms of sanction. Thecivilization in which we live is the result of the collective will, ofmany acquisitive desires, and therefore we have a culture, acivilization which is also acquisitive. That is fairly clear.Now, within this acquisitive society, which is the result of thecollective will, we can have many reformations, and we dooccasionally bring about a bloody revolution; but it is alwayswithin the pattern, because our response to any challenge, which isalways new, is limited by the culture in which we have beenbrought up. The culture of India is obviously imitative, traditional,it is made up of innumerable superstitions, of belief and dogma, therepetition of words, the worship of images made by the hand andby the mind. That is our culture, that is our society, broken up intovarious classes, all based on acquisitiveness; and if we do becomenon-acquisitive in this world, we are acquisitive in some otherworld, we want to acquire God, and so on. So our culture isessentially based on acquisitiveness, worldly and spiritual; andwhen occasionally there is an individual who breaks away from allacquisitiveness and knows what it is to be creative, weimmediately idolize him, make him into our spiritual leader orteacher, thereby stifling ourselves.As long as we belong to the collective culture, collectivecivilization, there can be no creativeness. It is the man whounderstands this whole process of the collective, with all itssanctions and beliefs, and who ceases to be either positively ornegatively acquisitive - it is only such a man who knows themeaning of creativeness, not the sannyasi who renounces the worldand pursues God, which is merely his particular form ofacquisitiveness. The man who realizes the whole significance ofthe collective, and who breaks away from it because he knowswhat is true religion, is a creative individual, and it is such actionthat brings about a new culture. Surely, that is always the way ithappens, is it not?The truly religious man is not the one who practices so-calledreligion, who holds to certain dogmas and beliefs, who performscertain rituals, or pursues knowledge, for he is merely seekinganother form of gratification. The man who is truly religious iscompletely free from society, he has no responsibility towardssociety; he may establish a relationship with society, but societyhas no relationship with him. Society is organized religion, theeconomic and social structure, the whole environment in which wehave been brought up; and does that society help man to find God,truth - it matters little what name you give it - , or does theindividual who is seeking God create a new society? That is, mustnot the individual break away from the existing society, culture, orcivilization? Surely, in the very breaking away he discovers what istruth, and it is that truth which creates the new society, the newculture.I think this is an important question to ponder over. Can theman who belongs to society - it does not matter what society - everfind truth, God? Can society help the individual in that discovery,or must the individual, you and I, break away from society? Surely,it is in the very process of breaking away from society that there isthe understanding of what is truth, and that truth then creates theripples which become a new society, a new culture. The sannyasi,the monk, the hermit renounces the world, renounces society, buthis whole pattern of thinking is still conditioned by society; he isstill a Christian, or a Hindu, pursuing the ideal of Christianity or ofHinduism. His meditations, his sacrifices, his practices are allessentially conditioned, and therefore what he discovers as truth, asGod, as the absolute, is really his own conditioned reaction. Hencesociety cannot help man to find out what is truth. Society's functionis to limit the individual, to hold him within the boundary ofrespectability. Only the man who understands this whole process,whose action is not a reaction, can find out what is truth; and it isthe truth that creates a new culture, not the man who pursues truth.I think this is fairly clear and simple; it sounds complicated, butit is not. Truth brings about its own action. But the man who isseeking truth and acting, however worthy and noble he may be,only creates further confusion and misery. He is like the reformerwho is merely concerned with decorating the prison walls, withbringing more light, more lavatories, or what you will, into theprison. Whereas, if you understand this whole problem of how themind is conditioned by society, if you allow truth to act and do notact according to what you think is truth, then you will find thatsuch action brings about its own culture, its own civilization, a newworld which is not based on acquisitiveness, on sorrow, on strife,on belief. It is the truth that will bring about a new society, not theCommunists, the Christians, the Hindus, the Buddhists, or theMoslems. To respond to any challenge according to one'sconditioning is merely to expand the prison, or to decorate its bars.It is only when the mind understands and is free from theconditioning influences which have been imposed upon it, orwhich it has created for itself, that there is the perception of truth;and it is the action of that truth which brings into being a newsociety, a new culture.That is why it is very important for a country like this not toimpose upon itself the superficial culture of the West nor, becauseit is confused, to return to the old, to the Puranas, to the Vedas. It isonly a confused mind that wants to return to something dead, andthe important thing is to understand why there is confusion. Thereis confusion, obviously, when the mind does not understand, whenit does not respond totally, integrally to something new, to anygiven fact. Take the fact of war, for example. If you respond to itas a Hindu who believes in ahimsa, you say, `I must practise non-violence', and if you happen to be a nationalist, your response isnationalistic. Whereas, the man who sees the truth of war, which isthe fact that war is destructive in itself, and who lets that truth act,does not respond in terms of any society, in terms of any theory orreform. Truth is neither yours nor mine, and as long as the mindinterprets or translates that truth, we create confusion. That is whatthe reformers do, what all the saints have done who have tried tobring about a reformation in a certain social order. Because theytranslate truth to bring about a given reform, that reform breedsmore misery and hence needs further reform.To perceive what is truth, there must be a total freedom fromsociety, which means a complete cessation of acquisitiveness, ofambition, of envy, of this whole process of becoming. After all, ourculture is based on becoming somebody, it is built on thehierarchical principle: the one who knows and the one who doesnot know, the one who has and the one who has not. The one whohas not is everlastingly struggling to have, and the one who doesnot know is forever pushing to acquire more knowledge. Whereas,the man who does not belong to either, his mind is very quiet,completely still, and it is only such a mind that can perceive whatis truth and allow that truth to act in its own way. Such a mind doesnot act according to a conditioned response, it does not say, `I mustreform society'. The truly religious man is not concerned withsocial reform, he is not concerned with improving the old, rottingsociety, be- cause it is truth, and not reform, that is going to createthe new order. I think if one sees this very simply and very clearly,the revolution itself will take place.The difficulty is that we do not see, we do not listen, we do notperceive things directly and simply as they are. After all, it is theinnocent mind - innocent though it may have lived a thousandyears and had a multitude of experiences - that is creative, not thecunning mind, not the mind that is full of knowledge andtechnique. When the mind sees the truth of any fact and lets thattruth act, that truth creates its own technique. Revolution is notwithin society but outside of it.Question: The fundamental problem that faces every individualis the psychological pain which corrodes all thinking and feeling.Unless you have an answer and can teach the ending of pain, allyour words have little meaning.Krishnamurti: Sir, what is teaching? Is teaching merelycommunication, words? Why do you want to be taught? And cananother teach you how to end pain? If you could be taught how toend pain, would pain cease? You may learn a technique for endingpain, physical or psychological, but in the very process of endingone particular pain, a new pain comes into being.So what is the problem, sirs? Surely, the problem is not how toend pain. I can tell you not to be greedy, not to be ambitious, not tohave beliefs, to free the mind from all desire for security, to live incomplete uncertainty, and so on; but those are mere words. Theproblem is to experience directly the state of complete uncertainty,to be without any feeling of security, and that is possible only ifyou understand the total process of your own thinking, or if youcan listen with your whole being, be completely attentive withoutresistance. To end sorrow, pain, either one must understand theways of the mind, of desire, will, choice, going into thatcompletely, or else listen to find the truth. The truth is that as longas there is a point in the mind which is moving towards anotherpoint, that is, as long as the mind is seeking security in any form, itwill never be free from pain. Security is dependency, and a mindthat depends has no love. Without going through all the process ofexamination, observation and awareness, just listen to the fact, letthe truth of the fact operate, and then you will see that the mind isfree from pain. But we do neither; we neither see, observe to findout what is truth, nor do we listen to the fact with our whole being,without translating, twisting, interpreting it. That is, we neitherpursue self-knowledge, which also brings an end to pain, nor do wemerely observe the fact without distortion, as we look at our face inthe mirror. All that we want is to know how to end pain, we want aready-made formula by which to end it, which means, really, thatwe are lazy, there is not that extraordinary energy which isnecessary to pursue the understanding of the self. It is only whenwe understand the self - not according to Shankara, Buddha, orChrist, but as it actually is in each one of us in relation to people, toideas and to things - that there is the cessation of pain.February 16, 1955.BOMBAY 2ND PUBLIC TALK 20TH FEBRUARY1955One of our greatest difficulties is the understanding of the wholesignificance of desire, For most of us, de- sire has become an urgewhich must be controlled, guided, shaped, and given impetus in acertain direction, but I would like to talk about it this evening froma different point of view altogether, which to me is the truth. If wecan understand desire, which is really very complex, then perhapswe shall be able to bring about quite a different action in our dailylife. If instead of trying to control, sublimate, or transcend desire,we can be confronted with the fact of desire and begin tounderstand its ways, then I think there will come about a totallydifferent kind of attention. But the difficulty is going to be thatmost of us have opinions about desire, we want to suppress it inorder to achieve a state of desirelessness, or we are caught up in itso vehemently and persistently that the mind becomes a confusingfield of contradictory thoughts.Now, I am not going to indulge in any theory, in anyspeculation, I am going to deal only with the fact and not withanything else. So, if I may suggest, please just listen to what isbeing said here without relating it to your previous conclusions;just let your mind follow it without interfering, and I think you willfind that an extraordinary thing takes place in spite of yourself. Ifyou can listen in that manner so that you are confronted with thefact and do not translate what you hear in terms of what you know,or in terms of what has been said by Shankara, Buddha, or anyoneelse with regard to desire, then you will find that a peculiar thinghappens: the very fact itself brings about an action. The mind maygive opinions or ideas about the fact, but it cannot deal with thefact. All it can do is to look at the fact, and in the very process ofobservation, in the very awareness of the fact, there begins aradical transformation. It is the fact itself that alters the way ofthinking, and not the multiplication of opinions or conclusionsabout the fact.So, let us quietly talk over together this whole problem ofdesire. After all, desire is energy, energy which is outward going,and because it is assertive, dominating, powerful, society tries tocontrol and shape it. Society is the product of that desire, whichseeks to shape itself in order to be more efficient and to functionwithin the limits of social morality. Again, that is a simple fact.This outward-going desire, which is energy must be controlled,shaped, guided, disciplined - at least, that is what society, whatreligions and our own compulsive urges demand. But in the veryprocess of disciplining desire, there is frustration, because anythingthat is blocked must find a way out.Surely, sirs, everywhere there are blockages of desireestablished by society: thou shalt do this and not that, this is rightand that is wrong, and so on. All the religious books, all theteachers, and our own pain and pleasure, indicate that desire mustbe shaped, controlled, disciplined, and in that very process there isfrustration, there is conflict, not only at the superficial level, butalso at the deeper levels of our consciousness. If there were noblockages, if this outward-going desire, this outward going energywere given freedom, there would be no frustration; but society,conventional morality, our whole education, and our own fears, allshape, control and block it, and that very blocking is frustration.This is a very simple psychological fact in our everyday life, it isnot a philosophical speculation.So this outward-going energy meets a wall of social morality, ofso-called religion, and all the rest of it and then it begins to recoilinwardly. This inward recoil is not a free movement, it is merely areaction. That is outward-going energy has met a blockage in itsforward movement, so it reacts inwardly and says, `I must benoble, I must be good, I must be unselfish, I must find God'.Whether this inward movement is superficial or deep, it is still onlya recoil, and this whole process of outward-going and inward-going energy is the movement of the self, the `me'. Again, this is anobservable, experienceable fact, it is not a theory, an opinion. Thisoutward and inward movement of desire creates a society, aculture, a religion and a relationship based on the `I', the self, andin this movement, energy becomes less and less, because it is aprocess of self-enclosure. When desire is controlled, disciplined, itmay act efficiently, but it loses its tremendous vitality.Please just listen to what I am saying, don't translate it in termsof what you have learnt. Our problem is this. In the process of itsoutward and inward movement, this extraordinary energy, desire,gets throttled, because through pain and pleasure the `I' learns tocontrol, to shape, to guide desire; that is, by its own activity,energy is conditioning itself. Watch this process actually takingplace in yourself, and you will quickly see what it means. Themoment thought says, `I must suppress, shape, discipline desire, Imust canalize energy to make it efficient, moral, sociallyrespectable', and all the rest of it, in that very process energy isdecreased, destroyed; and one needs tremendous free energy, notdisciplined energy, to find out what is truth or God. So it is not amatter of suppressing, sublimating, controlling desire, but whatmatters is for this outward and inward movement of desire to cometo an end.Is this all too difficult, sirs? I do not think so. You see, ourminds want examples, details, practical applications, but that is notthe first question. The first question is to understand the wholeprocess, and then we can work out the details. So let us look at thiswhole thing, and not ask how it is to be made practical. Once youunderstand the full significance of this extraordinary phenomenonof the outward and inward movement of desire, which is energy,you will find that that very understanding brings about its ownaction which is much more practical than the `practicality' wepractise now.What is it that we are doing now? There is outward-goingenergy, which is desire, which is thought, and in its outwardmovement this energy is blocked, so there is frustration, there ispain, suffering. Therefore desire withdraws and seeks inwardly fora state in which there will be no pain, a permanent state of peace.This turning inward of the mind in search of a state in which it willnot be disturbed, in which it will have a sense of peace, security, ismerely a reaction; so the opposites are created. Meeting frustrationin its outward movement, desire turns inward, and this very turninginward sets going the dual process of the outer and the inner, thewhole conflict of duality.Now, must not this outward and inward movement of desirecease in order that energy shall be released in a totally differentdirection? Do you understand the question, sirs? I have a desire,and that desire is frustrated by society, and by my own moralsanctions; being frustrated, there is fear, pain, suffering, and thendesire seeks inwardly for a state in which there will be nosuffering, in which there will be peace, a permanent tranquillity,and so on. Once it went outward, and now it is recoiling within, butit is still the same movement of desire. This movement is the self,the `me', it is self-enclosing, and therefore energy is becoming lessand less. Desire, instead of releasing energy like a river, instead ofcreating tremendous vitality, complete abandonment, through thevery disciplining of itself destroys energy, and that is what ishappening to most of the people in the world. But you must havecomplete abandonment, tremendous attentive energy to find outwhat is truth, God.Our problem, then, is not how to be without desire, or how tosuppress or sublimate it, but to understand this outward and inwardmovement of desire, which creates its own narrowing discipline inthe shape of individual and social sanctions, thereby graduallydestroying this extraordinary energy. That is what is happening inour daily life, is it not? I put out my hand in friendship tosomebody, and he hits it; but I have ideals, and instead of attackingthe man I withdraw my hand and begin to cultivate compassion,goodness, kindness. Therefore that energy is not set free, but isbeing dissipated through inner conflict.So our problem is how to bring about a state of energy which iscompletely still, so that that energy can be used by reality in anydirection it wishes. At present we only know this outward andinward movement of desire which has produced all kinds ofmisery, mischief, passing joys, and a culture based on the searchfor security; and whether that desire is seeking within or without, itis essentially the same movement. Now, can that outward andinward movement come to an end? Please listen. The mind cannotmake it come to an end, because any effort on the part of the mindto bring that movement to an end is still the same desire moving inanother direction, and therefore a dissipation of energy. So themind has got into a vicious circle. But if this energy, which iseverlastingly going outward or recoiling within, can become stillwithout any form of compulsion, if it can be quiet, free from alloutward and inward movement, then you will find that, like a river,this energy creates its own right action because it is free from theself. Being still, energy perceives what is truth; then energy itself istruth, and that truth creates its own movement, which is not themovement of going out or recoiling within.If one has understood all this, then discipline will have quite adifferent meaning; but at present discipline is merely conflict,conformity, and is therefore destroying energy. Look at what hashappened to almost all of us. We have conformed to such an extentthat we no longer have any creative energy, there is no initiativeleft in us; and it is only the man who has this creative energy, thisenormous initiative, that finds out what is truth, not the man whoconforms, who disciplines, shapes his desires.What I am describing is a fact, not a theory or a mere idea, andif you listen to the fact, perceive it as it actually is without anyjudgment or conclusion, without any sense of resistance, then thefact itself will operate, and that is true revolution. The revolutionbrought about by a cunning mind, whether it be the mind of aMarx, a Shankara, or a Buddha, is no revolution at all. There isrevolution only when this outward and inward movement of desirecomes to an end without compulsion. Any form of compulsion, anyeffort of the mind to shape desire in a particular direction, is stillpart of the same movement. It is only when this movement stopsthat there is a quietness which is rich, full, vital, and in thatquietness there is abundance of energy and not the diminution ofenergy. Then that which is quiet is the real, and the real producesits own action, its own activity.So, it is not a matter of suppressing desire; but don'timmediately ask, `Then can I do what I like?' You try doing whatyou like and you will see how difficult it is. Your parents, yourgrandmother, your neighbours, your religion and society,everything about you says `do' and `don't', so your mind is alreadyconditioned; and any movement of a conditioned mind, whetheroutward or inward, is still part of its conditioning. Only when thatmovement ceases - but not in terms of discipline or the edicts ofsociety - is there freedom. Freedom is not a reaction, it is notfreedom from something; it is a state of being, and it is only in thatstate that energy is free to create.This is very simple to understand, it does not need a great dealof mental training or the reading of books on philosophy, and ifyou really grasp it you will see that there is a totally different kindof action taking place in your life. Then there is no conflict, andwhere there is no conflict there is more energy, greater vitality. Inthe mind that is free from this outward and inward movement.there is immense attention, not fixed at any point. Attention whichis directed is not attention at all, it is concentration; but attentionwithout a fixed point is total awareness, and in that state the mindis creative, awake. And to find what is real, the mind must havethis extraordinary energy, which is really the capacity to givecomplete attention without having any incentive. Our attentionnow is always with an incentive, a motive, and in that there is fear,conflict, strain, and the dissipation of energy.Question: Please tell us plainly who you are and by whatauthority you speak. Your presence and your words intoxicate me.Is not intoxication bad in any form?Krishnamurti: Surely, sir, who the speaker is, or by whatauthority he speaks, is not very important. There is no authority, heis only explaining what is the fact. He is not giving any system ofphilosophy, any method of meditation, or panacea, but is merelydescribing the fact, because the fact is the truth. Our minds aregenerally incapable of looking at facts without distorting them, butthe mind that can look at a fact without opinion, without judgment,without a conclusion, such a mind is free, and a free mind bringsits own authority. Not that you must obey, follow it, or beintoxicated by it; on the contrary, you must not follow, nor mustyou be intoxicated, for then you might as well take a drink. It is thelazy mind that so easily gets intoxicated, whether by a ritual, by aspeech, or by some person in authority."Is not intoxication bad in any form?" Surely. But why do welook at everything in terms of good and bad, sirs? What isimportant is to see that intoxication in any form distorts one's ownthinking, whether it be the intoxication of a Hitler or of any otherperson. the intoxication of an Utopia according to the Communists,or the intoxication of drink. And if you listen to the truth but do notlet it operate, it poisons you. Please follow this. If you listen andsee the truth for yourself, yet do not give it freedom to operate,then that very perception breeds the poison of conflict which isgoing to destroy you. That is, if you see what is true and dosomething else, the contradiction is a poison which destroys allyour energy. That is why it is much better not to come to thesemeetings, sirs, if you want to remain as you are. It is good to bewithout the affliction of conflict, contradiction, pain, suffering; butto have that goodness, that tranquillity in which there is no conflict,you must allow the truth to operate, it must not be you who operateon the truth. To follow another, to be mesmerized by words, bybooks, by a strong personality, creates conflict and dissipates thatextraordinary energy which is necessary to find out what is truth.What is important is to find out what is truth and let that truth bringabout its own action.Question: What is this self-knowledge of which you speak, andhow can I acquire it? What is the starting point?Krishnamurti: Now again, please listen carefully, because youhave extraordinary ideas about self-knowledge: that to have self-knowledge you must practise, you must meditate, you must do allkinds of things. It is very simple, sir. The first step is the last stepin self-knowledge, the beginning is the end. The first step is whatmatters, because self-knowledge is not something you can learnfrom another. No one can teach you self-knowledge, you have tofind out for yourself; it must be your own discovery, and thatdiscovery is not something tremendous, fantastic, it is very simple.After all, to know yourself is to watch your behaviour, your words,what you do in your everyday relationships, that is all. Begin withthat and you will see how extraordinarily difficult it is to be aware,just to watch the manner of your behaviour, the words you use toyour servant, to your boss, the attitude you have with regard topeople, to ideas and to things. Just watch your thoughts, yourmotives, in the mirror of relationship, and you will see that themoment you watch you want to correct, you say, `This is good, thatis bad, I must do this and not that'. When you see yourself in themirror of relationship, your approach is one of condemnation orjustification, therefore you distort what you see. Whereas, if yousimply observe in that mirror your attitude with regard to people, toideas and to things, if you just see the fact without judgment,without condemnation or acceptance, then you will find that thatvery perception has its own action. That is the beginning of self-knowledge.To watch yourself, to observe what you do, what you think,what your motives and incentives are, and yet not condemn orjustify, is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do, because yourwhole culture is based on condemnation, judgment and evaluation;you have been brought up on `Do this and not that'. But if you canlook in the mirror of relationship without creating the opposite,then you will find that there is no end to self-knowledge.You see, the inquiry into self-knowledge is an outwardmovement which later turns inward; first we look at the stars, andthen we look within ourselves. In the same way, we look forreality, for God, for security, happiness, in the objective world, andwhen it is not found there, we turn inward. This search for theinner God, the higher self, or what you will, completely ceasesthrough self-knowledge, and then the mind becomes very quiet, notthrough discipline, but just through understanding, throughwatching, through being aware of itself every minute withoutchoice. Don't say, `I must be aware every minute', because that isjust another manifestation of our foolishness when we want to getsomewhere, when we want to arrive at a particular state. Whatmatters is to be aware of yourself and to keep on being awarewithout accumulating, because the moment you accumulate, fromthat centre you judge. Self-knowledge is not a process ofaccumulation, it is a process of dis- covery from moment tomoment in relationship.Question: I am old and I can no longer escape from theimminent approach of death. How can I face it unafraid?Krishnamurti: I do not think this is a problem only for the old, itis a problem for all of us. Now, what is death, and why is there fearof death? Either that fear exists because of the unknown tomorrow,or because death means letting go of the known. Do youunderstand? Either we are afraid of the unknown future, of whatlies beyond, or of losing the known, the known being `my family',`my virtue', `my bank account', `my friends', all the things whichwe have gathered and which we cherish, the things we cling to. Allthat is the known, and we are afraid to let go of that; or we areafraid of the unknown something which lies beyond. That is thefact.Now, we always want to know what happens beyond death,whether there is survival or annihilation. think that is a wrongquestion, sirs. The right question is whether it is possible to knowdeath while living, to enter the house of death consciously whileyou are vital, full of health, not when you are drugged by diseaseor when you are losing your consciousness through the inevitableprocess of old age. Can you know what death is now, while you areliving, conscious, while you have vitality, energy, while you haveno overwhelming disease? That is the question, sirs; because whenyou know what death is, then there is no fear of death, then all thetheories, the beliefs, the hopes and fears are gone.So let us go into this question together, you and I. The questionis not what life will be like in the unknown future, or whether youwill continue beyond death, or how to let go of the known, butwhether it is possible to know death while living, to enter the houseof death while fully conscious, with complete awareness. That isthe question, and it is an extraordinarily vital one, is it not?The old man full of years, and the young man who is going tobe full of years, will both have the same end; and can they bothknow now what death means? You put yourself that question, sir. Iam putting it for you, but you put it to yourself; and if you put it toyourself with vigour, with attention, with earnestness, you will findthe answer.What does death mean? Please listen. What does death mean?Not the unknown, but letting the known go completely. the knownbeing the thousand yesterdays with all their memories, experiences,knowledge, joys and pains. To let all that go is to be completelyalone which is not loneliness, with its fear and ugliness, but a stateof complete dissociation from the past. That state of aloneness isthe death which we fear. We are afraid to be cut off from theknown cut off from our families, our friends cut off from all thethings which we want. But aloneness is not mere isolation, it is anextraordinarily rich state, a state of incorruption, because alonenessimplies the cutting away of all knowledge, all experience,experience being a form of continuity through memory.Do listen, sirs, and don't say, `I must be alone, and how am I tobe in that state?' It is the foolish mind, the lazy mind that asks how.But a mind that is really attentive to what is being said, that is notmesmerized by words, will be in that state in which the mind is nolonger contaminated by the past, or by the edicts and compulsions,of society. Then the mind is totally innocent, it is a fresh mind, anew mind, and such a mind alone has no fear of death.If you have really listened to this you will find that, simply andwithout any kind of problem, an awakening comes, and then youwill observe that your mind is cleansed by the very strange miracleof listening to what is a fact. When you listen to the fact withoutresistance, you have a fresh mind, a mind no longer caught by theconclusions of the past, and only such a mind is without fear.Because it is alone, such a mind is the external, the real, for truth isalone from moment to moment. Truth is not continuous. Themoment you think in terms of continuity, you have alreadyaccumulated a fact of yesterday. Only the mind which is fresh,innocent, alone, can see the truth, and such a mind is in a state ofconstantly is renewed discovery of what is truth.February 20, 1955.BOMBAY 3RD PUBLIC TALK 23TH FEBRUARY1955One of the fundamental issues that we are all faced with is thechoice between good and bad. Choice implies conflict, andconflict, surely, is a destructive element, a waste of energy. Weknow this conflict in our daily existence, the everlasting struggle tomaintain the good and to avoid evil; and it seems to me not onlythat this conflict is a dissipation of energy, but that the verystruggle to choose and maintain the good destroys creative release.And is it possible not to choose, and thereby have no conflict, butalways to maintain that which is good?I do not know if you have thought about this problem at all.Most of us are caught in the conflict created by the choice betweengood and bad, but if one is at all alert and awake to the issue, oneobserves that this conflict is a continual waste of energy; andsurely one needs a great deal of energy to find out what is truth.The attempt to maintain the good through effort, through struggle,through choice invariably dissipates energy, and the good thenbecomes merely a non-creative action, a reaction to the bad, whichis a form of frustration.So, the conflict between good and bad is destructive,degenerative, as all conflicts are; and is it possible not to haveconflict between good and bad, but always to maintain that whichis good without introducing the element of choice? This is really avery important question, because it is this maintenance of the goodwithout choice that brings about the fullness of energy, and onlythen is it possible for the mind to be still. That is, to have a quietmind, a still mind, one needs a great deal of energy, and thatimmense energy cannot come into being as long as energy isdissipated through conflict of any kind. Any form of choice isconflict, and is it possible to lead a life in which there is no choiceat all?Now, how is one to maintain the good without conflict? Perhapsyou have never put this question to yourself, because you are usedto the everlasting struggle between that which is evil and thatwhich is good. Your whole outlook, your way of life, your socialand religious structure, all condition the mind to choose betweengood and evil; and is it possible not to have this struggle at all, butat the same time to maintain that which is good?Do you understand the question? Most of us are used toconflicts, and all conflict is obviously a waste of energy. One needstremendous energy for the mind to be still, and only a still mindcan find that which is the truth, the eternal, the highest. Stillness ofmind is not the outcome of practice, of choice, of the struggle toachieve a result; but our whole life, from childhood till we die, is aconstant battle between that which is good and that which is evil,between what is and what should be. Our life is a ceaseless effortto become something; and is it possible for the mind to be withoutthis conflict?I think this is an important question to ask ourselves: not how toachieve and maintain goodness, but whether it is at all possible tomaintain goodness and yet not be caught in the conflict of theopposites? It is possible only when we realize what anextraordinarily destructive thing conflict is, not only withinourselves but outwardly. After all, the conflict without is aprojection of the conflict within. But we do not see the falseness ofconflict. We accept conflict as part of life, and we think it isnecessary for various reasons, for progress, for inquiry, for everyform of achievement; we are used to it, we are conditioned to thinkin that way.Now, is action without conflict at all possible? Surely it ispossible only when we love what we are doing; but in our heartswe love nothing, and so action is this process of conflict which iscontinually going on. I do not know if you have noticed that whenyou love to do something there is no conflict in it at all, action isentirely stripped of conflicting elements; there may be variousforms of obstruction, but that very action is the overcoming of theobstruction.So, is it possible to love the good, and not have this endlessconflict between the good and the bad? Please, there is no method.The moment you have a method, that very method is a process ofstruggle to achieve a result. What matters is for the mind to befairly quiet so that it is capable of receiving that which is true.Now, I am saying that every form of struggle is destructive, that inconflict there is no love, and that when you love somethingcompletely, all conflict ceases. Just listen to this, see the fact as itis, neither accepting nor rejecting it; let your mind inquire, go intoit, see the truth of it without effort, without resistance. Then youwill find that the maintenance of the good is not such anextraordinary thing, that it is possible to love and to maintain thegood without conflict; and this implies attention. When you lovesomething or some person, you are full of attention, and it is thatattention which has the quality of goodness.Desire is energy, and when we treat it as something evil, to besuppressed, controlled, shaped according to the sanctions ofreligion and society, desire becomes destructive - which does notmean that we must yield to every form of desire. Mere control ofdesire, without understanding the whole process of desire, destroysthat extraordinary energy which is required to find the eternal. Increative energy lies a life of goodness, a life in which the eternal isnot absent; but such a life is possible only when we understand thewhole process of conflict.Conflict exists as long as there is the outward movement ofdesire, which meets with frustration and then recoils. Thismovement, with its frustration and recoil, sets going the conflictbetween good and bad, and as long as there is this movement therecan be no goodness. Goodness can come into being only when themind is really very still, and that stillness arises only when there isabundance of energy. That is why the question of discipline is veryimportant. We use discipline to achieve a result. Psychologically,inwardly, we discipline ourselves in order to maintain the good,and the discipline itself is a process of conflict. It is a conflictbetween one desire as opposed to another, and this conflict ofdesires is a dissipation of energy.So, is it possible for the mind to inquire, to go into and see thetruth of all this, and then to let that truth operate without pursuingor operating upon the truth? This whole process is true meditation.Sirs, why do we ask questions? Is it to find an answer, asolution to a problem, or is it to explore the problem? If the mind ismerely concerned with the solution, with seeking an answer to theproblem, it is restricted and therefore incapable of exploring theproblem. In considering these questions we are concerned, surely,with the exploration of the problem, and that very exploration ofthe problem is its own answer. It is not necessary to seek a solutionto the problem, for in the very process of exploring the problemyou will find the solution. And that is what we are going to do: toexplore, to investigate the problem together. But to be capable ofexploring any problem, the mind must be free of conclusions, itmust not be tethered to any form of experience or belief. And whenthe mind is free of conclusions, of experiences, when it is no longertethered to a belief, then has it any problem? It is only the mindthat clings to a belief, that has a conclusion, that approaches lifethrough a series of experiences which are the reactions of aparticular conditioning it is only such a mind that creates problems.But if the mind is aware of how problems are created and iscapable of exploring, of inquiring into a problem without aconclusion and without seeking a solution, then surely the problemceases.Question: You say that to be creative there must be completeabandonment, and yet there must also be austerity. Can the twoexist together?Krishnamurti: Sir, what is beauty, and how does the state ofcreative beauty come into being? Obviously, there must be love.And love means total abandonment, does it not? Not abandonmentthrough desire, but the abandonment in which there is no sense ofrestriction, no hope of achieving a result, and therefore no fear.There can be complete abandonment only when there is no self, no`me; and when there is no self, in that abandonment is there notausterity, simplicity?To most people austerity means the destruction of beauty aboutthem. Outwardly they deny all worldliness and have only a fewthings, but inwardly they are not at all simple; on the contrary, theyare extraordinarily complex, full of burning desires, longing toachieve a certain result. Surely, that is not austerity. But to beaustere does not mean the denial of desire. Please listen.Abandonment comes only when the self is not, but the self cannotbe destroyed by merely suppressing desire. After all, desire isenergy, and if you destroy energy, nothing is possible. You needtremendous energy for the mind to be still, to find out what is God,what is truth, and if that energy is controlled, shaped through fear,through every form of conditioning, then it cannot flow withabandon it cannot be free; and yet when that energy is free, it willcreate its own austerity.It is this abandonment with austerity that makes for beauty, andthen it is love. If one has no love, how can one appreciate beauty orcreate that which is beautiful? But there is no love as long as thereis no abandonment, and that abandonment will come into beingonly when there is no `me', no self. So this creative state can ariseonly when there is love, abandonment and austerity; but mereausterity without abandonment, without love, has no meaning atall.The problem, then, is not how to be austere, not how to abandonor put away the self, but to inquire into what we mean by love. Yousee, we have divided love as the divine and the earthly, and so wehave created a battle between the urge of the flesh and the urge toseek the divine, between the noble love and the physical love. Andis it possible to love, not divinely or physically, but just to have thegoodness and the perfume of love in one's heart with all the thingsof the mind removed from it? Surely, that is possible only when wegive our hearts to something completely; then there is no conflict,then there is abandonment, and that very abandonment creates itsown austerity, as a river creates the banks which hold it.But the respectability of society has no place in this austereabandonment. What society demands is respectability, control,mediocrity; but a mediocre mind cannot abandon itself, it is neitherhot nor cold, it is full of fears, apprehensions, and such a mindcannot possibly know what love is. Most of us are merelycontrolled by the sanctions of society, by the social morality whichsays, `This is good and that is bad; we are caught in the conflictbetween what is and what should be, and that is why we haveceased to love. We are merely imitative machines, so we neverknow that state of abandonment in which there is austerity andwhich is the only creative state. You cannot find God, that which istruth, without total abandonment, without being free of all belief,all dogma, all fear, which means opening your heart completelyand not filling it with the things of the mind. There can begoodness, generosity, only when the mind is quiet; beauty, thatsomething which is really God, which is love, which is truth,comes into being only when there is complete abandonment of theself. And the self cannot be abandoned by any regulation, by anypractice, by any meditation. The self must cease through awarenessof its own limitation, the falseness of its own existence. Howeverdeep, wide and extensive it may become, the self is always limited,and until it is abandoned, the mind can never be free. The mereperception of that fact is the ending of the self, and only then is itpossible for that which is the real to come into being.Question: You spoke the other day of the urgency of totalattention. Please explain what you mean by total attention.Krishnamurti: It is not a question of what I mean by totalattention, but let us inquire into it together, and then perhaps weshall be able to find out what total attention is.What do we mean by attention? You are listening to what isbeing said, and you have other thoughts; your mind goeswandering off, and you pull it back in order to listen. Is thatattention? You want to look out of the window because you arebored with what is taking place in the room, but politeness andcourtesy demand that you listen, so you pull your thought backfrom the sea and listen. Is that attention? Is there attention whenyou make an effort to listen, when you try to concentrate in orderto understand, in order to find out? That is what you do, is it not?You make an effort to listen, and that process of concentration isreally exclusion; you want to think of other things, but you forceyour mind to come back because you want to get somewhere orachieve a result.Is there attention as long as there is incentive? A schoolboypays attention when the teacher tells him to because he has theincentive of passing an examination. Such attention is effort,concentration, which is the exclusion of every other thought andputting your mind on a particular thought in order to achieve aresult. So there is an incentive, a motive; and as long as there is thismotive to achieve something, is there attention? That is theconcentration which we all know and in which there is obviouslyexclusion, the shutting out of everything else in order toconcentrate on a particular subject. Surely, that is not attention, isit? If there is effort, is there attention? And there must be effort aslong as there is incentive.Now, is attention possible without incentive, without motive?We know attention or concentration through motive; I want tomeditate, or I want to pass an examination, or I want to achieve acertain position, so I exclude everything else and concentrate. If Ido not exclude, I dissipate, so in order not to dissipate I forcemyself to concentrate, which is a process of exclusion. Thisinvolves a constant strain, a constant waste of energy, becausethere is effort, resistance; and where there is resistance, is thereattention? Attention, surely, means a state of mind in which there isno resistance. The moment you create resistance you are merelyconcentrating, which is entirely different from attention.How, if you are listening to what is being said, not in order afind God, or to get somewhere, or to achieve a result, but withoutany incentive so that there is no strain of any kind, then you willdiscover that your mind is so extensively aware that you are alsolistening to the crows, to the train, to the noise of busses, to all thevarious sounds; and when there is this attention without motive,without incentive, it can turn to concentration without exclusion, itcan look, observe, watch, without resistance.You try and you will find out for yourself that as long as there ismere concentration there must be effort; even though you are sointerested in what you are doing that you are absorbed in it, suchconcentration is a process of exclusion and therefore there isresistance. Absorption is not attention, because in absorption thereis exclusion. Concentration is not attention, because in it there isincentive, motive; and where there is incentive, motive, there mustbe resistance. Whereas, if you listen to this, which is an obviousfact, and understand the truth of it, then you will see that there isattention without incentive, attention without any fixed point; themind is not resisting, it is completely open, and such a mind, beingfull of attention, can turn and concentrate without resistance.Sirs, when there is a moment of creativeness, of great joy, thereis no resistance. In that moment of creative reality the mind iscompletely quiet and attentive, it has no motive. The translation ofwhat it has seen into words, into a poem, into some form ofcommunication, may require concentration, a focussing - let usleave out the word `concentration' - , but that focussing is notresistance. All that we know is resistance, which means really thatwe are doing things which we do not love; our hearts are not inwhat we do, and so the mind has to invent motives or incentives inorder to achieve. But if you understand the whole process ofincentive, concentration, effort, see the actual fact of it, how yourmind operates, then you will also see what an extraordinary thing itis to have attention without motive, a mind that is completely alert,fully aware, sensitive. Only such a mind can focus withoutresistance.Question: What do you mean by aloneness?Krishnamurti: Sir, let us find out. Now, to find out, please giveattention, if I may use that word - attention, not merely to what Iam saying, but to the working of your own mind. Be aware of yourown mind, not in order to alter it, not in order to make it morebeautiful, more this and less that, but just be aware, attentive, andwe shall find out together what it means to be alone.I think most of us know what it means to be lonely, we arefamiliar with that extraordinary fear, anxiety, which comes fromthe self-enclosing process of the mind, and which we callloneliness. Have you not felt, at one time or another in your life, asense of complete isolation? There comes a certain barrier, a senseof destruction, of frustration, or the cessation of all relationships.Surely we have all felt this; and having felt it we are afraid of it, werun away from it, so we turn to religions. Please watch your ownmind, you are not merely listening to me. This is actually what ishappening to all of us, to human being everywhere. Because we arelonely we want to be loved; because we are lonely we turn on theradio, go to the cinema, and seek every other form of distraction,noble and ignoble, religious and non-religious. This is our life. Wedo not want to face the state of loneliness, which is extraordinarilyfearful - at least we think it is fearful - , so we run away, weescape, we take flight from that loneliness. We seekcompanionship, love, we have a wife or a husband, we worship anauthority, and so on, always depending on another through someform of attachment, because then we do not have to face inourselves that which is lonely, which is empty, which is socompletely self-enclosing. Whether you accept it or not, that is theactual fact, it is what is happening psychologically to most people.Now, if you can look at the emptiness, that sense of being cutoff from all relationships, without escape, if you can be with itwithout fear, without trying to fill it or alter it in any way, then youwill find that it is really the complete abandonment of society, analoneness which is not an escape, but which has no recognition bysociety. Do you understand what that means? Society is a processof recognition; one is recognized as a saint, as a writer, as a goodman, as a bad man, as a Capitalist, a Communist, or whatever youlike. In breaking away from all that the mind is completely alone,not lonely, but alone. It is no longer influenced by society, it iscompletely dissociated from all recognition, therefore it is capableof being alone. Surely, there must be such aloneness for reality tobe. Only the mind that is alone, incorrupt, innocent, though it mayhave thousands of years of experience - only such a mind iscapable of perceiving that which is God, truth. And that is possibleonly when we face loneli- ness, this loneliness in our hearts whichwe try to cover up by every means: by so-called love, bydistraction, through worship, through amusements, throughknowledge. When the mind sees the futility of all that and remainswith that which is completely self-enclosing, limiting, empty, thenin that emptiness there comes aloneness. Then the mind is fresh,alone, innocent, and it is only such a mind that receives the eternal.February 23, 1955BOMBAY 4TH PUBLIC TALK 27TH FEBRUARY1955I think most of us must be greatly concerned with the problem ofaction. When we are confronted with so many issues - poverty,overpopulation, the extraordinary development of machinery,industrialization, the sense of deterioration inwardly and outwardly- what is one to do? What is the duty or the responsibility of anindividual in his relation to society? This must be a problem to allthoughtful people; and the more intelligent, the more active one is,the more one wants to throw oneself into social reform of somekind or other. So what is one's real responsibility? I think thisquestion can be answered fully and with vital significance only ifwe understand the whole purpose of civilization, of culture.After all, we have built the present society, it is the outcome ofour individual relationships; and does this society fundamentallyhelp man to find reality, God, or what name you will? Or is itmerely a pattern which determines our response to the issue as towhat kind of action we should take in our relationship to society? Ifthe present culture, civilization, does not help man to find God,truth, it is a hindrance; and if it is a hindrance, then every reform,every activity for its amelioration is a further deterioration, afurther hindrance to the discovery of reality, which alone can bringabout true action.I think it is very important to understand this, and not merely beconcerned with what kind of social reform or activity one shouldidentify oneself with. Surely that is not the problem. The problemis obviously much deeper. One may very easily get lost in somekind of activity or social reform, and then it is a means of escape, ameans of forgetting or sacrificing oneself through action; but I donot think that will solve our many problems. Our problems aremuch more profound and we need a profound answer, which Ithink we shall find if we can go into this question as to whether theculture we have at present - culture implying religion, the wholesocial and moral framework - helps man to find reality. If it doesnot, then the mere reformation of such a culture or civilization is awaste of time; but if it is helpful to man in the true sense, then allof us must give our hearts completely to its reformation. On that, Ithink, the issue depends.By culture we mean the whole problem of thought, do we not?With most of us, thought is the outcome of various forms ofconditioning, of education, of conformity, of the pressures andinfluences to which it is subjected within the framework of aparticular civilization. At present our thought is shaped by society,and unless there is a revolution in our thinking, the merereformation of a superficial culture or society seems to me adistraction, a factor which will ultimately bring about greatermisery. After all, what we call civilization is a process of educatingthought in the Hindu mould, in the Christian or the Communistmould, and so on; and can thinking so educated ever create afundamental revolution? Will any pressure, any shaping of thought,bring about the discovery or the understanding of what is truth?Surely, thought must free itself from all pressure, which meansreally from society, from all forms of influence, and thereby findout what is truth; then that very truth has an action of its ownwhich will bring about an altogether different culture.That is, does society exist for the unfolding of reality, or mustone be free of society to find reality? If society helps man to findreality, then every kind of reformation within society is essential;but if it is a hindrance to that discovery, should not the individualbreak away from society and seek what is truth? It is only such aperson who is truly religious, not the man who performs variousrituals, or who approaches life through theological patterns; andwhen the individual frees himself from society and seeks reality,does he not bring about in his very search a different culture?I think this is an important issue, because most of us are merelyconcerned with reformation. We see poverty, overpopulation,every form of disintegration, division and conflict; and seeing allthat, what is one to do? Should one start by joining a particulargroup, or by working for some ideology? Is that the function of areligious man? The religious man, surely, is he who seeks reality,and not the man who reads and quotes the Gita, or who goes to thetemple every day. That is obviously not religion, it is merely thecompulsion, the conditioning of thought by society.. So what is theearnest man to do, the man who sees the necessity for and desiresto bring about an immediate revolution? Shall he work forreformation within the framework of society? Society is a prison,and shall he merely reform the prison, decorating its bars andgetting things done more beautifully within its walls? Surely, theman who is very much in earnest, who is really religious, is theonly revolutionary, there is no other; and such a man is he who isseeking reality, who is trying to find out what is God or truth.Now, what is to be the action of such a man? What shall he do?Shall he work within the present society, or shall he break awayfrom it and not be concerned with society at all? The breakingaway does not mean becoming a sannyasi, a hermit, isolatinghimself with peculiar hypnotic suggestions; and yet he cannot be areformer, because it is a waste of energy, of thought, of creativityfor the earnest man to indulge in mere reformations. Then whatshall the earnest man do? If he does not want to decorate the prisonwalls, remove a few bars, introduce a little more light, if he is notconcerned with all that, and if he also sees the importance ofbringing about a fundamental revolution, radical change in therelationship between man and man - the relationship which hascreated this appalling society in which there are immensely richpeople, and those who have absolutely nothing, both inwardly andoutwardly - then what is he to do? I think it is important to put thisquestion to oneself.After all, does culture come into being through the action oftruth, or is culture man-made? If it is man-made, it will obviouslynot lead you to truth. And our culture is man-made, because it isbased on various forms of acquisitiveness, not only in worldlythings, but also in the so- called spiritual things; it is the outcomeof the desire for position in every form, self-aggrandizement, andso on. Such a culture obviously cannot lead man to the realizationof that which is the supreme; and if I see that, what shall I then do?What will you do, sirs, if you actually realize that society is animpediment? Society is not merely one or two activities, it is thewhole structure of human relationship in which all creativeness hasceased, in which there is constant imitation; it is a framework offear where education is mere conformity and in which there is nolove at all, but merely action according to a pattern described aslove. In this society the principal factors are recognition andrespectability, because that is what we are all striving for - to berecognized. Our capacities, our knowledge must be recognized bysociety so that we shall be somebodies. When he realizes all thisand sees the poverty, the starvation, the fragmentation of the mindinto various forms of belief, what is the earnest man to do?Now, if we really listen to what is being said, listen in the senseof wanting to find out what is truth so that there is not the conflictof your opinion opposed to my opinion, or your temperamentopposed to mine; if we can set all that aside and try to find outwhat is truth, which requires love, then I think in that very love, inthat sense of goodness we shall find the truth which creates a newculture. Then one is free of society, one is not concerned with thereformation of society. But to find out what is truth requires love,and our hearts are empty, for they are filled with the things ofsociety. Being filled, we try to reform, and our reformation iswithout the perfume of love.So what is a man to do who is earnest? Shall he seek truth, God,or what name you will, or shall he give his heart and mind to theimprovement of society, which is really the improvement ofhimself? Do you understand, sirs? Shall he inquire into what istruth, or shall he improve the conditions of society, which is hisown improvement? Shall he improve himself in the name ofsociety, or shall he seek truth, in which there is no improvement atall? Improvement implies time, time to become, whereas truth hasnothing to do with time, it is to be perceived immediately.So the problem is extraordinarily significant, is it not? We maytalk about the reformation of society, but it is still the reformationof oneself. And for the man who is seeking what is real, what istruth, there is no reformation of the self; on the contrary, there isthe total cessation of the self, which is society, therefore he is notconcerned with the reformation of society.The whole structure of society is based on a process ofrecognition and respectability; and surely, sirs, an earnest mancannot seek the reformation of society, which is the improvementof himself. In reforming society, in identifying himself withsomething good, he may think he is sacrificing himself, but it isstill self-improvement. Whereas, for the man who is seeking thatwhich is the supreme, the highest, there is no self-improvement; inthat direction there is no improvement of the `me', there is nobecoming, there is no practice, no thought of `I shall be'. Thismeans really the cessation of all pressure on thought; and whenthere is no pressure on thought, is there thinking? The verypressure on thought is the process of thinking, thinking in terms ofa particular society, or in terms of a reaction to that society; and ifthere is no pressure, is there thinking? It is only the mind that hasnot this movement of thought which is the pressure of society - it isonly such a mind that can find reality; and in seeking that which isthe supreme, such a mind creates the new culture. That is what isnecessary: to bring about a totally different kind of culture, not toreform the present society. And such a culture cannot arise unlessthe earnest man pursue completely, with total energy, with love,that which is real. The real not to be found in any book, throughany leader; it comes into being when thought is still, and thatstillness cannot be bought by any discipline. Stillness comes whenthere is love.In considering some of these questions. I think it is importantthat we should directly experience what is being said, and youcannot do that if you are merely concerned with an answer to thequestion. If we are to go into the problem together, we cannot haveopinions about it, my theory against your theory, because theoriesand speculations are a hindrance to the understanding of a problem.But if you and I can quietly, hesitantly penetrate deeply into theproblem, then perhaps we shall be able to understand it. Actuallythere is no problem. it is the mind that creates the problem. Inunderstanding the problem one is understanding oneself. theoperations of one's own mind. After all, a problem exists onlywhen any issue or disturbance has taken root in the soil of themind. And is not the mind capable of looking at an issue, of beingawake to any disturbance, without letting that disturbance take rootin the mind? The mind is like a sensitive film, it perceives, it feelsvarious forms of reaction; but is it not possible to perceive, to feel,to react with love, so that the mind itself does not become the soilin which the reaction takes root and becomes a problem?Question: You have said that total attention is good; what thenis evil?Krishnamurti: I wonder if there is such a thing as evil? Please,give your attention, go with me, let us inquire together. We saythere is good and evil. There is envy and love, and we say thatenvy is evil and love is good. Why do we divide life, calling thisgood and that bad, thereby creating the conflict of the opposites?Not that there is not envy, hate, brutality in the human mind andheart, an absence of compassion, love; but why do we divide lifeinto the thing called good and the thing called evil? Is there notactually only one thing, which is a mind that is inattentive? Surely,when there is complete attention, that is, when the mind is totallyaware, alert, watchful, there is no such thing as evil or good; thereis only an awakened state. Goodness then is not a quality. not avirtue, it is a state of love. When there is love there is neither goodnor bad. there is only love. When you really love somebody youare not thinking of good or bad, your whole being is filled with thatlove. It is only when there is the cessation of complete attention, oflove, that there comes the conflict between what I am and what Ishould be. Then that which I am is evil, and that which I should beis the so-called good.Now, is it at all possible not to think in terms of fragmentation,not to break life up into the good and the evil, not to be caught inthis conflict? The conflict of good and evil is the struggle tobecome something. The moment the mind desires to becomesomething, there must be effort, the conflict between the opposites.This is not a theory. You watch your own mind and you will seethat the moment the mind ceases to think in terms of becomingsomething, there is a cessation of action which is not stagnation; itis a state of total attention which is goodness, but that totalattention is not possible as long as the mind is caught in the effortto become something.Please do listen, not only to what I am saying, but to theoperations of your own mind, and that will reveal to you with whatextraordinary persistence thought is striving to become something,everlastingly struggling to be other than it is, which we calldiscontent. It is this striving to become something that is `evil',because it is partial attention, it is not total attention. When there istotal attention there is no thought of becoming, there is only a stateof being. But the moment you ask, `How am I to arrive at that stateof being, how am I to be totally aware?' You have already enteredthe path of `evil' because you want to achieve. Whereas, if onemerely recognizes that as long as there is becoming, striving,making an effort to be something, one is on the path of `evil', if oneis able to perceive the truth of that, just see the fact as it is, thenone will find that that is the state of total attention; and that state isgoodness, there is no strife in it.Question: Great cultures have always been based on a pattern,but you speak of a new culture which is free of pattern. Is a culturewithout pattern ever possible?Krishnamurti: Must not the mind be free of all patterns to findreality? And being free to find that which is real, will it not createits own pattern, which the present society may not recognize? Canthe mind which is caught in a pattern, which thinks in a pattern,which is conditioned by society, find the immeasurable which hasno pattern? This language which is being spoken, English, is apattern developed through centuries. If there is the creativity whichis free of patterns, then that creativity, that freedom can employ thetechnique of language; but through the technique, the pattern oflanguage, reality can never be found. Through practice, through aparticular kind of meditation, through knowledge, through anyform of experience, all of which are within a pattern, the mind cannever understand what is truth. To understand what is truth, themind must free itself from patterns. Such a mind is a still mind, andthen that which is creative can create its own activity. But you see,most of us are never free from patterns. There is never a momentwhen the mind is totally free from fear, from conformity, from thishabit of becoming something, either in this world or in thepsychological, spiritual world. When the process of becoming inany direction completely ceases, then that which is God, truth,comes into being and creates a new pattern, a culture of its own.Question: The problem of the mind and the social problem ofpoverty and inequality need to be tackled and understoodsimultaneously. Why do you emphasize only one?Krishnamurti: Am I emphasizing only one? And is there such athing as the social problem of poverty and inequality, ofdeterioration and misery, apart from the problem of the mind? Isthere not only one problem, which is the mind? It is the mind thathas created the social problem; and having created the problem, ittries to solve it without fundamentally altering itself. So ourproblem is the mind, the mind that wants to feel superior andthereby creates social inequality, that pursues acquisition in variousforms because it feels secure in property, in relationship, or inideas, which is knowledge. It is this incessant demand to be securethat creates inequality, which is a problem that can never be solveduntil we understand the mind that creates the difference, the mindthat has no love. Legislation is not going to solve this problem, norcan it be solved by the Communists or the Socialists. The problemof inequality can be solved only when there is love, and love is notjust a word to be thrown about. The man that loves is notconcerned with who is superior and who is inferior, to him there isneither equality nor inequality; there is only a state of being whichis love. But we do not know that state, we have never felt it. So,how can the mind that is wholly concerned with its own activitiesand occupations, that has already created such misery in the worldand is going right on creating further mischief, destruction - howcan such a mind bring about within itself a total revolution? Surely,that is the problem. And we cannot bring about this revolutionthrough any social reform; but when the mind itself sees thenecessity of this total redemption, then the revolution is there.Sir, we are always talking of poverty, inequality andreformation, because our hearts are empty. When there is love weshall have no problems, but love cannot come into being throughany practice; it can come into being only when you cease to be,that is, when you are no longer concerned about yourself, yourposition, your prestige, your ambitions and frustrations, when youstop thinking about yourself completely, not tomorrow but now.This occupation with oneself is the same, whether it be that of theman who is pursuing what he calls God, or that of the man who isworking for a social revolution; and a mind so occupied can neverknow what love is.Question: Tell us of God.Krishnamurti: Instead of my telling you what God is, let us findout whether you can realize that extraordinary state, not tomorrowor in some distant future, but right now as we are quietly sittinghere together. Surely, that is much more important. But to find outwhat God is, all belief must go. The mind which would discoverwhat is true cannot believe in truth, cannot have theories orhypotheses about God. Please listen. You have hypotheses, youhave beliefs, you have dogmas, you are full of speculations; havingread this or that book about what truth or God is, your mind isastonishingly restless. A mind which is full of knowledge isrestless, it is not quiet, it is only burdened; and mere heavinessdoes not indicate a still mind. When the mind is full of belief,either believing that there is God or that there is not God. It isburdened, and a burdened mind can never find out what is true. Tofind out what is true, the mind must be free, free of rituals, ofbeliefs, of dogmas, knowledge and experience. It is only then thatthe mind can realize that which is truth, because such a mind isquiet, it no longer has the movement of going out or the movementof coming in, which is the movement of desire. It has notsuppressed desire, which is energy. On the contrary, for the mindto be still there must be an abundance of energy; but there cannotbe ripeness or fullness of energy if there is any form of outwardmovement, and thereby a reaction inward. When all that hascalmed down, the mind is still. I am not mesmerizing you to bestill. You yourself must see the importance of relinquishing,putting away without effort, without resistance, all theaccumulations of centuries, the superstitions, knowledge, beliefs;you must see the truth that any form of burden makes the mindrestless, dissipates energy. For the mind to be quiet there must bean abundance of energy, and that energy must be still. And if youhave really come to that state in which there is no effort, then youwill find that energy, being still, has its own movement, which isnot the outcome of society's compulsion or pressure. Because themind has abundant energy which is still and silent, the mind itselfbecomes that which is sublime: there is no experiencer of thesublime, there is no entity who says, `I have experienced reality'.As long as there is an experiencer, reality cannot be, because theexperiencer is the movement to gather experience or to liquidateexperience: so there must be a total cessation of the experiencer.Just listen to this, don't make an effort, just see that theexperiencer, which is the outward and inward movement of themind, must come to an end. There must be a total cessation of allsuch movement, and that requires astonishing energy, not thesuppression of energy. When the mind is completely still, that is,when energy is neither dissipated, nor distorted through discipline,then that energy is love; then that which is real is not separate fromthat energy itself.February 27, 1955.BOMBAY 5TH PUBLIC TALK 2ND MARCH 1955I think it is important to consider the question of what is learning,and also to understand what is creativity; because, in the deepestand most profound sense, creativity and learning are closelyrelated. To most of us that word `creativity' means very little, eitherpainting a picture, or writing a poem, or having children, orenjoying the sunset on the river; but surely, creativity is not themere expression of a feeling or a technique. Creativity issomething entirely different. It is a state of mind in which allthought has completely ceased, and which may be called reality,God, or what you will; and I think this state of creativity comesinto being when we understand what it is that we call learning. Soplease have the patience to go with me into the problem.Do we learn anything? And what is it that we learn? Deeply,fundamentally, is there anything to know? Is it not important toponder over this whole question of teaching and learning? Beyondall expression. beyond all verbal statement and explanation,beyond all the restless activity of the mind, is there anything toknow. to learn? And what do we mean by learning?Learning is the accumulation of experience, it is skill in action.One learns a language, a craft, a skill, one learns how to drive acar, how to draw. how to read, how to build a dynamo, or sail aship. Learning is also the accumulation of knowledge, knowledgeof various philosophies, of science, and so on. And is thereanything more to learn? Can one learn about oneself? Or is theunderstanding, the knowledge of oneself only from moment tomoment and not from accumulation to accumulation? Must not themind understand this whole process of accumulating knowledge,with its imitative capacity, and go beyond it?What do we actually know? What we call knowledge is theeducation imparted at different levels of our existence by society,by religion, and with its help we try to survive. In the process ofsurvival our lives are nightmares of ambition, of corruption, ofcompetition, of the struggle to be something; there is a constantbattle a conflict going on within ourselves and around us. Modernexistence which is based on self-survival greed, jealousy, violence,war, is an everlasting struggle which we all know. That is our life,and we have learnt how to survive within that culture of ambition,of ruthlessness of belief, of quarrels, of fragmentary thought; wehave learnt how to manipulate our way through this chaos, thismess. And what is it that we have learnt? We have learnt varioustechniques, various forms of expression. We are always gathering,and expressing what we have gathered. One learns the technique ofpainting, or of building a bridge, and from that learning there isexpression. We are constantly learning, accumulating knowledge,information. This is an obvious fact. And if we go beyond all that,what is it that we know? Do we know anything? We know thedistance between the stars, how to build airplanes, how to split theatom, and so on; but apart from that, do we know anything at all?Do we know anything except technique, skills, facts? And must notthe mind go beyond all knowledge, all learning?Now, if without being mesmerized by words we can listen tothe description of what lies behind this extraordinary struggle toacquire knowledge, learning, and let that struggle come to an end,then I think a totally different state will come into being and weshall find out what is true creativity. We have acquired many formsof technique, we are familiar with the complex machinery ofliving, of survival, and we may have studied various philosophiesand be capable of scholarly disputations with erudite people; but aslong as one merely practices a technique, or lives along the lines ofany particular philosophy, one is obviously living according to apattern, and therefore there must be imitation, copy. And is itpossible to experience that state in which there is no copy, noimitation? Surely, to find out if such a thing is possible, we mustbegin by inquiring what it is that we know.Have you ever considered what it is that you know? You maybe scholars, very clever people who have read, who have studied,and who have suffered in the battle of life; but what is it that youknow? Do you actually know anything? You know how to survive,how to do a particular job, you know a certain technique and haveacquired the skill which comes with experience. But beyond that,do you know anything at all? Can the mind ask that question andremain with it, without trying to justify itself or answer thequestion? Because the moment you have explanations, the momentyou answer that question, you have already entered the field of theknown. So, is it not important for the mind to inquire and remain inthat state of inquiry, which is not to seek an answer but simply tosee if you know anything at all beyond the knowledge which hasalready been accumulated? I hope I am making myself clear.All that we learn and all that we know is accumulation. It is theaccumulative memory which acts, therefore it is imitation. And is itpossible to find a state of being in which all knowledge has ceasedand there is only that state of being? It seems to me very importantto find this out, because we approach existence, not with theunknown, but always with the known. We translate everyexperience in terms of the known, in terms of the past, andtherefore living becomes a series of reactions based on the known;and as the known is mere imitation, copy, our lives become verydull, empty.Now, is it possible for the mind to live in a state of notknowing? After all, what is it that we know? Everything that weknow is based on experience, on conformity, fear; we know inorder to survive, and with that same mentality we approach theunknown, which is reality, God, or what you will. And can themind be totally free of the known?Sirs, this is an important question to ask oneself, is it not?Because we are always content with the known, and when youscratch the surface of the known there is nothing, there isemptiness, a void. And surely it is very important for the mind tolive completely in that void, in that silence, and from that void, thatsilence to think, to express, to invite thought and thereby action.That is why we must understand what it means to learn. Beyond acertain point we cannot learn any more, because there is nothing tolearn, there is no teacher to teach, and we must come to that point -which means, really, being completely free from all sense ofbecoming something, from all sense of the more. It is only whenthe mind is in that state of void in which there is no knowledge, inwhich there is no longer the experiencer who is learning, who isgathering, who is accumulating - it is only then that there is thiscreativity which can express itself through various skills and craftswithout causing further misery.What I am saying is not difficult. The difficulty is to ask thequestion and keep on asking it. If you are waiting for an answer tothe question, you are not concerned with the question at all.So, we must come to this point where there is nothing to learn,for then the mind is free from society, free from all impositions,from this struggle for social recognition, and so on; and it is only inthat state of freedom from society that we can create a new culture,bring about a new civilization. We may learn how to reform aparticular society, how to adjust ourselves to the prison of aparticular culture, and that is what most of us are occupied with;therefore our response to challenge is always limited, inadequate.Whereas, it the mind is completely free from society, from everyform of social conditioning, which means that it is a truly religiousmind, then it is in a state of silence in which there is no acquisitionof knowledge, no experiencer; and it is the action of such a mindthat produces a new culture, a new civilization.Question: Can I be free from the past?Krishnamurti: Now, if we can actually listen to what is beingsaid, listen to find the truth of the matter without verbal disputationor the complications of a cunning mind, then that very truth freesthe mind from the past.So, let us inquire. Can the mind be free from the past? To saythat it can or cannot be free would have no validity, because youdon't know. All that you can do is to inquire. Some people will saythat the mind can never be free from the past, others that it can befree ultimately, in the future; but a man who really wants to findout for himself will have an entirely different attitude, an attitudeneither of acceptance nor of denial.What is the mind? The mind is essentially the product of time,of many thousands of yesterdays; it is the result of tradition, and inits development through the desire to survive it has created variousforms of culture, it has gathered knowledge, information. Being theproduct of time, the mind has the possibility of growth, and it goesfrom one target to another, from one purpose to another, changingwithin the pattern of the known; it develops through desire andthrough changing the objects of desire. A child desires toys; lateron its desires become those of a young man or woman; and laterstill, as the mind matures, it wants to know what is beyond mereeveryday existence. This process of inquiry, of wanting more, iswhat we consider to be growth, progress. Being the product oftime, the mind develops in moving from the known to the known.Now, the questioner wants to know whether the mind can befree from the past. And what is the past? The past is tradition,memory, the various impositions, sanctions, compulsions ofsociety; the past is all the accumulated knowledge of how to run amotor, how to build a railway, how to split the atom, and so on. Tobe creative, to bring a new thing into being, even the technicianmust be free from the past, otherwise he merely remains atechnician. And can the mind, which is the result of time, cease tothink in terms of time? Surely, that is what it means to be free fromthe past. Can the mind cease to think in terms of time, time beingthe pursuit of the more, the whole process of moving from oneobject or conclusion to another?Sirs, your mind, which is obviously the result of manythousands of yesterdays, can only function in the field of theknown; and when such a mind says, `Can I be free from theknown?', what is its response? Its response can only be, `I do notknow'. That is, when the mind asks itself whether it can be freefrom the results of all its yesterdays, from its memories, its pains,its joys, its experiences, its virtues, its money, its position, surelythe only answer is that it does not know.Now, can the mind remain in that state, actually and nottheoretically, in which it says, `I do not know'? Can you actuallyexperience the fact that you do not know? Do you understand whatI am saying, sirs? Here is a question: can the mind be free from thememories, from all the accumulations of the past? If you don'ttheorize, if you don't either positively or negatively assert, then youcan be in only one state, which is that you do not know. Now, if themind can remain there, not merely verbally, but if it can actuallyexperience that state of not knowing, then is not the mind free fromthe past? It is very interesting to inquire into this question; because,if the mind is merely in the field of the known, which it is, thenunless it has the experience of not knowing and profoundly feelsthat state, all its inquiry will be the reaction of the known andtherefore a further development of the known. To put it differently,the mind must be quiet, completely still; and the moment the mindis still, it is in the state of not knowing. Any movement of the mindis a reaction of the known, and it is only when the mind is silent,without movement, that it is capable of being innocent, fresh,totally aware.You may ask what all this has to do with our daily living, withour daily conflicts, miseries, quarrels and ambitions. It has nothingwhatsoever to do with it. You cannot use this to overcome that. Toexperience this there must be the total cessation of all ambition,greed, jealousy, of all the competitive pur- suits of self-preservation by which we have built up this rotten society which isdisintegrating and for which there can be no reformation. The trulyreligious man is he who is free of society and the recognition ofsociety, who in his inquiry into whether he can be free from thepast has come to that state of mind in which there is no movement.It is only such a mind that is capable of creating a new culture. Toreform the old culture is merely to decorate the prison.Question: What have you to say about the possibility ofintegrating one's personality?Krishnamurti: I do not think what I have to say about it hasmuch value; but if you and I together can find out what it is to beintegrated, if we can actually experience the state of integrationand not merely define or describe it, then it will have somesignificance.Now, to experience, to know what is the state of integration, wemust first see that we are disintegrating, which is a fact. We aretorn apart by desires which are in conflict with each other. There isthe conflict of good and bad, of distraction and attention. I am thisand I want to be that, which is the everlasting struggle betweenwhat I am and what I should be, between the fact and the ideal.This torn-apart-entity which we call the `me', with its differentmarks, its conflicting attractions and pursuits, is what we actuallyare, and merely to put together what is torn apart is not integration.Contradictory desires may be brought together through conformity,tied together by fear, by incentive, but that is not integration.So, first we have to be aware of the fact that we are made up ofdifferent entities with different masks, different poses; and to beaware is not merely to say that we are aware, but actually to seethis extraordinarily contradictory thing which we are without tryingto transform or control it. Because the moment we realize that weare in contradiction, we want to bring about a state of non-contradiction, which is another form of contradiction; it is merelyto have another mask, another desire. And is it possible just to beaware that we are made up of different beings? The higher self, thelower self, the Atman, the Paramatman, and the ambitions, thefears, the jealousies, the envies, are all within the field of the mind,of thought. One desire is in opposition to another desire, and anyeffort to bring about integration within the field of contradiction isitself a contradiction. The moment the mind desires to besomething there is already a division, a process of effort, which isobviously a process of disintegration.In this question is also involved the whole content of theunconscious, is it not? If we are at all alert we know howextraordinarily contradictory we are on the conscious level. Whenwe do not fulfil our desires, there is frustration, sorrow. And is theunconscious also contradictory? In the unconscious, in the manylayers of the mind below the conscious level, are there hiddenpursuits, incentives, urges that are opposing each other, or is thereonly one constant drive? The unconscious is also the result ofcenturies of accumulation, it too has been shaped by racial andcultural influences, by beliefs, by fears; and in that vast field ofhalf-imagined, half-felt consciousness, is there not alsocontradiction? Is not the whole consciousness a field ofcontradictory desires? And when there is conflict, whether at theconscious level or at the deeper level, there is no attention, is there?Attention, total attention, is the good, and there cannot be totalattention as long as there are contradictory desires. If contradictorydesires are brought together by an effort of will, the will itself isthe result of another desire, and therefore it creates still anothercontradiction.Now, can the mind see this whole process, not merely verbally,descriptively, imaginatively, but can it actually be aware of thistotal mass of opposing desires, of which the mind itself is thebattlefield? Can it be aware and not wish to bring about a state ofintegration? Can it just be choicelessly aware and remain there,neither hoping nor despairing, but merely observing the fact? Then,being aware of confusion, and not making effort to alter it, or tobring about an integrated state, no longer wishing to produce anyresult, is not the mind still? And is not that stillness, thattranquillity, the quieting of all energy, energy being thecontradictory desires which have been opposing each other? And isnot that cessation of all movement a state of integration fromwhich action takes place which is not contradictory, and whichtherefore does not dissipate energy?But you see, ladies and gentlemen, unless you directlyexperience all this, unless you feel out the truth of what is beingsaid, it will have very little significance.Question: What is right meditation?Krishnamurti: I think the right question would be, not what isright meditation, but what is meditation? And it is surely veryimportant to find out what meditation is, because it will bring abouta definite action in our daily life.Now, to find out what meditation is, must you not first see whatyou think about meditation? When you use that word `meditation',you already have various conclusions about it, have you not? Youmeditate according to a pattern, according to what some book orsome teacher has said. So you already know what meditation is;and if you already know what meditation is, then you are not reallyinquiring.Do you understand what I am talking about, sirs? If you areinquiring into what is meditation, then the formulas, the repetitions,the japams, the various things that you do must be put aside, andthe mind must be entirely quiet. Either what you are doing now ismeditation, or it is not. It is meditation, than there is no problem.But to find out if what you are doing is meditation, you must befree to look at it, to question it, you cannot merely accept it. Toinquire into what is meditation, surely that freedom is the firstnecessity. So, can you be free from all your practices, from all yourdisciplines, from all your various conclusions and compulsions?And if you are freeing yourself from those things because you areinquiring into what is meditation, then that very inquiry ismeditation, is it not?Why do you discipline your mind, and who is it that disciplinesthe mind? Who is it that meditates, and what is it that he meditatesupon? What is the drive, the urge, the incentive to meditate? Youmust inquire into all that, must you not? If you have the incentiveto find God and your meditation is the result of that incentive,which is a form of compulsion, then you will never find God. Themind disciplines, controls, shapes itself because it has alreadyconceived what God, is, what truth is, and it thinks that if it treadsa certain path, does certain things, it will achieve an end, and thatin the achievement there will be perfect happiness. But as long asthe mind is seeking to achieve a result it will never find that whichis truth, reality, God, that which is immeasurable, timeless, becausethe mind itself is the result of time. So meditation has quite adifferent significance. When the mind is no longer being driven byany incentive, when it is no longer conditioned by any discipline,when it is no longer seeking any result, then is not the mind in astate of meditation?Is it not also important to inquire who is the meditator, and whatit is that he is meditating upon? Is there such a thing as themeditator separate from meditation? When you discipline yourself,who is the entity that disciplines? You may say it is the higher self.Is it? Or is it merely the invention of thought, one thoughtcontrolling another thought? You may call that controlling thoughtthe higher self, but it is still within the field of thinking, thereforewithin the field of time. So, to inquire into what is meditation, mustnot the mind be free of conclusions? If any conclusion, anyexperience already exists, it is within the field of time. For afleeting second you may have an experience of what you think isreality, happiness, bliss, but to cling to that is to hold the mindwithin the field of time and therefore make it incapable of anyfurther experiencing of what is truth.To inquire into what is meditation, then, the mind must first findout if it is free from all the technical approaches which it has learntin order to meditate. The mind has learnt certain practices becauseit wants to achieve a result, and that result it has alreadypreconceived. But that which it has preconceived is not the real,and to meditate upon what it has preconceived, to control,discipline itself in order to achieve what it has imagined, which is amere speculation or the reaction of its own past, is utterly uselessand has no meaning; it is a process of self-hypnosis. But if themind begins to inquire into its various practices by being aware ofits own incentives, its own pursuits, then that very inquiry ismeditation. Then you will find that the mind becomesextraordinarily full of energy because there is no dissipation ofenergy through effort, through control, through shaping itselftowards a particular end. To find out what is true there must beabundant energy, and that energy must not be in any movement, itmust be still. That stillness comes into being when the mind is freefrom all effort, when it is no longer caught in the pattern ofdiscipline, fear and achievement. Then there is no accumulation ofmemory, no residue, no experiencer, there is only a state ofexperiencing. When the mind is still, when there is no movementof effort, no demand for more, no gathering of memory, only thenis there the truth which is from moment to moment.March 2, 1955.BOMBAY 6TH PUBLIC TALK 6TH MARCH 1955Is it not important to consider the question of what it is that we areseeking, and why we seek at all? Why is there this extraordinaryanxiety to seek and to find, and why do we waste so much energyin that struggle? And what is it that we are individually orcollectively seeking? If we can go into this matter diligently wemay find that the whole process of seeking truth, perfection, God,and so on, is a hindrance; the search itself may be a distraction. Itmay be that the mind can find that which is beyond the measure oftime only when it is no longer seeking - which does not mean thatit must be contented, satisfied. So I think it is important to go intothis question.In its anxiety to find, in its restless activity to discover what istruth, the mind is never quiet; and is not this process of search ahindrance to that very discovery? Is it not possible for the mind tobe quiet and yet full of vigour, to be intensely aware without thisconstant strife, this anxiety to find? And what is it that we are all soanxiously seeking? Each one may interpret differently theintention, the urge that lies behind this search; but what is itfundamentally that we all want to find, what is it that we hope togain at the end of our search?In the movement of this search we join a society, a religiousbody, hoping thereby to find some kind of release, some kind ofquietness, and we are soon caught, enmeshed in the dogmas, thebeliefs, the rituals, the taboos and sanctions of that particularreligion. So the search has led nowhere. but only to a series ofinward and outward conflicts, adjustments in conformity to apattern, and in this process of struggle and adjustment we growold. Or if we already belong to a particular group or pattern, webreak away from it and join something else, leaving one cage, onebondage to enter another. We continue in that way year after year,struggling, conforming, taking vows, adjusting, hoping thereby tofind. The earnest read the Gita, the Bible, this or that. hoping tofind; and the light-hearted, the easygoing seek on a different level,to them what is important is going to the club, listening to theradio, having a good job, a little money. We are all beingrelentlessly driven to seek; and what is it that we want to find? Ithink it is important for each one of us to find out what it is that heis seeking. I may be able to describe it in different ways, but theverbal expression is not the actuality of your own perception ofwhat you are seeking. So, if I may suggest, listen to what is beingsaid, not with exclusive concentration, but listen in that silencebetween two thoughts. When the mind is trying to listen to aparticular thought, many other thoughts come in, and then youpush those thoughts away and try to listen. But instead of doingthat, perhaps you can listen in the gap between two thoughts. whenyou are just attentive and therefore able to listen without effort.To put it differently, what is important is not merely to listen towhat is being said, but to be aware, to be conscious of what you arethinking while you are listening. and to pursue that thought to theend. If your mind is occupied with resisting one thought by anotherthought, you are not listening at all. I think there is an art oflistening, which is to listen completely without any motive,because a motive in listening is a distraction. If you can listen withcomplete attention, then there is no resistance either to your ownthought or to what is being said - which does not mean that youwill be mesmerized by words. But it is only the very silent, quietmind that finds out what is true, not a mind which is furiouslyactive, thinking, resisting. Putting out its own opinions andconclusions.So, is it possible to listen with that ease of attention which iswithout motive? If you can listen in that way, then I think you willfind out for yourself the true answer to the question, what is it youare seeking? There may be an immediate response to that question,with many words, phrases, conclusions, but the true answer liesmuch deeper than the immediate response. If you are able to listensilently, that is, without the intense activity of a mind which isceaselessly projecting its own thoughts, then perhaps you will findout what it is that you are seeking.Obviously, we all want to be happy, because our lives are verydisturbed, anxious, fearful. There is nothing permanent, and formost of us, life is a series of conflicts in the action of survival. Thevery desire to survive has its own destructive by-products. Andwhat is it that we want to find, each one of us? The very humbleclerk who goes to an office every day, the lady who has plenty ofmoney and who goes to the club or to the races, the woman who ismarried and has many children, the man who has a certain capacityto learn - what is it they are all seeking? And why do we seek? Is itbecause we are so disturbed. so discontented with what we are?Being ugly we want to be beautiful; being ambitious we want tofulfil our ambition; having capacity we want to make that capacitymore vigorous; being good we want to be better; being mediocrewe want to shine; being intellectual we want to give significance tolife; being religious we seek to find that which is beyond the mind,inquiring, begging, praying, sacrificing, cultivating, disciplining,and so on. This strain, this process of conformity, is our life, is itnot? Our life is an everlasting battlefield from morning till night,and not knowing what it is all about, we look to somebody else totell us the goal, the end, the purpose of life. We turn to beliefs, tobooks, to leaders, and when they offer us something, though wemay be momentarily satisfied, sooner or later we want somethingelse.So, what is it that we want? Being disturbed we want to findpeace, being in conflict we want to end conflict. If we are veryalert, watchful, we see the futility of all thinking, of all theideological Utopias, the different systems of philosophy; and yetwe go on seeking, seeking to find something that is real, somethingthat has no confusion, something that is not man-made or mind-made, something beyond our immediate anxieties, fears and wars.We struggle to gain something, and when we have gained it weproceed further, we want still more. Our life is a series of demandsfor comfort, for security, for position, for fulfilment, for happiness,for recognition, and we also have rare moments of wanting to findout what is truth, what is God. So God or truth becomessynonymous with our satisfaction. We want to be gratified,therefore truth becomes the end of all search, of all struggle, andGod becomes the ultimate resting place. We move from onepattern to another, from one cage to another, from one philosophyor society to another, hoping to find happiness, not only happinessin relationship with people, but also the happiness of a restingplace where the mind will never be disturbed, where the mind willcease to be tortured by its own discontent. We may put it indifferent words, we may use different philosophical jargons, butthat is what we all want: a place where the mind can rest, where themind is not tortured by its own activities, where there is no sorrow.So our life is an endless search, is it not? And if we don't seek wethink that we shall deteriorate, stagnate, that we shall become likeanimals, that we shall die.What is the intention of your seeking? Surely, on that dependswhat you will find. If your intention is to find peace, you will findit; but it will not be peace, because the mind will be tortured in thevery process of finding and maintaining it. To have peace you mustdiscipline, control, shape your mind according to a particularpattern - at least, that is what you have been told. Every religion,every society, every book, teacher, guru, tells you to be good, toconform, to adjust, to comply, to discipline your mind not towander, and so there is always restriction, suppression, fear. Youstruggle because you have to achieve that which you want, thegoal.Now, does not this search seem utterly futile? To be caught inthe cage of a particular discipline, or to be driven from one cage,from one system, from one discipline to another, obviously has nomeaning. So we must inquire, not into what it is you are seeking,but why you seek at all. Seeking may be a totally wrong process.The very search may be a waste of energy, and you need all thatenergy to find. So it may be that your approach is entirely wrong,and I think it is, no matter what your Gita, your guru, or anybodyelse says. You are disciplined, you meditate, you gather virtue asyou gather grain, and yet you are not happy, you have not found,there is not this inward joy, this creative revolution. It may be thatGod can never be found by a mind which is seeking, because itsmotive is to escape from the torture of daily existence. Whereas,the mind that ceases to struggle because it has understood thiswhole problem of seeking, that puts aside the conflict of searchbecause it sees what extraordinary energy is required to be open tothat which is timeless - it may be that only such a mind can find,can discover or receive that which is truth, God.It is possible, then, to have a very alert mind which at the sametime is peaceful, not seeking? Surely, a mind which is seeking isnot a quiet mind, because its motive is to gain something. As longas there is a motive in search, it is not the search for reality, it isonly a search for what you want. All our human search, all ourhuman endeavour to find out, is based on a motive, and as long aswe seek with a motive, whether good or bad, conscious orunconscious, the mind can never be free and therefore still. To seekhappiness is never to find happiness because one is seeking with amotive and therefore there can be no cessation of fear.Now, can one perceive and understand immediately that allsearch is vain when there is a motive? Can you listen to what isbeing said and grasp it, see the significance of it at once, not atsome future date? Truth is not in the future, and if in the very act oflistening you discover the futility of your search, then that very actof listening is the experiencing of truth and therefore your searchwill stop. Then your mind is no longer caught in motives,intentions.So, it is not a question of how to free the mind from motive.The mind can never free itself from motive, because the mind initself is cause-and effect, it is a result of time. When the mind says,`How am I to free myself from motive?', again the search with amotive begins, again you are entering the field of strain, ofdiscipline, of control, of this endless struggle which leads nowhere.But if you can listen and see the truth that as long as there is amotive in search, such search is utterly vain, meaningless, and onlyleads to more misery, more sorrow - if you see that and are reallycomprehending it now, as you are listening, then you will find thatyour mind has stopped seeking because it no longer has a motive.You are not being mesmerized by words, or by a person. You haveperceived for yourself the futility of this everlasting search with amotive, therefore your mind is still, quiet, there is no movement ofsearch at all; and that total stillness of mind may be the state inwhich the timeless comes into being.You see, the mind is so restless, it is afraid to be still, it is afraidnot to know all the latest things, it is afraid not to be at all, to besimply nothing; but it is only out of nothingness that wisdomcomes, not out of much learning. Wisdom comes only to the mindthat is silent. A mind that is full of its own conflicts and its ownworkable knowledge can only produce its own misery.Question: How can I cease to be mediocre?Krishnamurti: You must first know what mediocrity is, mustyou not? What is mediocrity? The mediocre may have cars,luxurious houses, or they may live in a slum. They may be morepowerful in their minds, and generally they are. So what is thismediocrity that you want to escape, to get away from? If I realize Iam mediocre, stupid, dull, and I want to become less mediocre,more intelligent, more learned, is not that very demand for themore, and the effort to become the more, a mediocre state of mind?Please listen to this, don't agree or disagree.The mind that has a motive, that is pursuing the ideal of what itthinks it should be, that is disciplining, controlling, shaping itself,struggling to be other than it is - is not such a mind mediocre? Doyou understand? Seeing that it is mediocre, stupid, dull, that it isgreedy, envious, ambitious, ruthless, or whatever it be, the mindsays, `I must become non-mediocre', and is not that effort tobecome non-mediocre the very essence of mediocrity? In trying tobecome something, the mind escapes from the actual fact into theideal, and that is what you have all done. You are pursuing,worshipping the ideal which you have projected. Therefore there isnever an overflowing, there is never a creative abundance withausterity, because your energy is constantly being dissipated in thestruggle to fulfil, to become something.That is our way of life, is it not? We are ambitious and we wantto fulfil, and in the very pursuit of that which we desire we arebecoming mediocre. Virtue is essential, but the process ofacquiring virtue is mediocre. The man who ceaselessly practicesvirtue, who deliberately disciplines his mind to be virtuous, merelybecomes respectable, and that is what society wants. Society wantsyou to be respectable, to conform, not to be creatively abundant,revolutionary in the right sense of that word. Real revolution is notthe communist or some other stupid revolution of economic andsocial upheaval; it is a revolution in thought, and that can comeabout only when you abandon society completely. In that freedomyour mind is no longer conforming, adjusting, defending,suppressing, therefore it is truly religious; and a truly religious manis the only revolutionary. Then truth acts, and such action is not inthe pattern of any particular culture.So, mediocrity cannot be changed into something morebeautiful. If you are aware of being stupid and try to becomeclever, in the very process of becoming clever there is mediocrity,so all such effort is a waste of energy. Whereas, if you can livewith and understand that which you see to be stupid, go into it fullywithout judging or condemning it, then you will find that therecomes a state which is totally different; but that requires completeattention, not the distraction of trying to become something.Question: How can I understand the significance of my dreams?Krishnamurti: The question is not how you can understand thesignificance of your dreams, but why do your dream at all? Surely,that is the problem, not how to translate the symbols, the visions,the images which the unconscious projects when the consciousmind is asleep. Because your conscious mind is wholly occupiedduring the day, you dream when you are asleep; and when youwake up you say, `How am I to translate those dreams?' There areinnumerable ways of translating dreams. You can translate themaccording to Freudian or some other philosophy and get lost in thestudy of symbols, chasing from one authority to another, which isso utterly futile. But if you ask yourself why you dream at all, thenI think it will have significance.What is a dream, and why do you dream? Have you everthought about it? Without turning to any philosophy, to any book,to any expert on dreams, let us find out together why you dream atall.After all, your consciousness is not just the superficial mind thatgoes to the office every day, that has a few virtues, clothes, this andthat; your consciousness is the unconscious as well. When you aresleeping the superficial mind is somewhat at rest, so theunconscious acts, and you have dreams; and when you wake upyou say, `What am I to do now?' But if you ask yourself why youdream at all, and whether dreaming is necessary, you will presentlysee that there is something more important than interpretingdreams.During the day, your conscious mind is occupied withtrivialities, with the struggle to survive, to be something, to fulfilyour ambitions, to be loved, and so on; there is never a moment ofquietness, of observation, of awareness of things, not as you wouldlike them to be in imagination, but as they actually are. Whereas if,during the waking hours, you can be aware of everything about youand your response to it, if you can observe your own thoughts andlet your mind slow down so that easily, without friction, it isacquainted with every emotion, every reaction and the significanceof it, then you will see that you no longer dream, because yourwhole mind is occupied in understanding all the time, not justwhen you are asleep, therefore symbols have no meaning. If duringthe daytime you are passively aware of every thought, of everyfeeling, of every reaction, watching it without interpreting,condemning, or judging it, so that it is understood, then the mindbecomes very quiet, and when you sleep there are no dreams. Inthat sleep the mind can go much deeper, and can experiencesomething which the waking consciousness can never touch.So, to experience that which is beyond the mind, the mind mustbe still during the day and must have understood all the conflicts ofthe day, without suppression, sublimation, or escape; and you arebound to suppress, sublimate, escape, as long as you arecondemning, judging, evaluating, translating. But if you canmerely observe so that your observation flows with your thought,then you will see that life is not a tortuous process, and that out ofit comes a great energy which enables you to break away fromsociety with all its stupidities. This does not mean that you becomea hermit or a sannyasi. Such a man has not broken away fromsociety, because he is still caught in his conditioned mind. But ifyou can break away from society in the true sense, then in the verybreaking away there is understanding of that which is eternal.Question: You seem to question the validity of time as a meansto the attainment of perfection. What then is your way?Krishnamurti: You see, the very idea of the attainment ofperfection and the way to it implies time, and in wanting to knowwhat my way to it is, the questioner is still thinking in terms oftime. Sir, there may be no way at all. Let us go into it.What do we mean by time? Let us think about it, notphilosophically, but very simply, quietly, easily. There is obviouslychronological time. I must have time to catch train, time to go fromhere to where I live, time to receive a letter, time to talk, time totell you a story, time to write a poem or carve an image out ofmarble. But is there any other form of time? You say there is,because there is memory. If I had a certain experience yesterdaywhich gave delight, it has left a memory, and I want more of thatdelight. So the `more' is time in the psychological sense. I musthave time to fulfil, to achieve, to gather, to become: I must havetime to bridge the gap between myself who am not perfect, and thatwhich is perfect over there, the `over there' being in my mind. Sothere is space in my mind, a distance between what is and whatshould be, the perfect ideal. There is a fixed point as the `me', and afixed point as the `non-me' which I call perfection, the higher self,God, or what you will; and to move from this fixed point as the`me' to that fixed point as the `non-me', I need time. So the mindhas not only the chronological time which is necessary to catch atrain or keep an appointment, but also psychological time, time tofulfil, to achieve. If I am ambitious I must have time to attain, tobecome famous, and so on, and in the same way we think ofperfection. Having divided itself as the imperfect, the mindconceives a state of perfection and establishes the distance betweenitself and that state; and then it says, `How am I to get from here tothere?' Do you understand, sirs?I am miserable, and I think I must have time to become perfect,to find happiness, if not in this life, then in some future life; but themind is still within the field of time, however much that field maybe extended or narrowed down. All your sacred books, all yourreligions say that you need time to become perfect, and that youmust take a vow of celibacy, of poverty, you must resisttemptation, discipline, control yourself in order to get there. So themind has invented time as a means to perfection, to God, to truth,and it thinks in those terms because in the meantime it can begreedy, brutal, saying that it will polish itself up and eventuallybecome perfect. I say that way is totally wrong, it is no way at all.It is merely an escape. A mind that is caught in perfection, instruggle, can only conceive of what perfection is, and that which itconceives out of its confusion, its misery, is not perfection, it isonly a wish.So, in its effort to be that which it thinks it should be, the mindis not approaching perfection, it is merely escaping from what is,from the fact that it is violent, greedy. Perfection may not be afixed point, it may be something totally different. As long as themind has a fixed point from which it moves, acts, it must think interms of time, and whatever it projects, however noble, howeveridealistically perfect, is still within the field of time. All itsspeculations on what Krishna, Buddha, Shankara, or anyone elsehas said, all its imaginations, its desires for perfection, are stillwithin the field of time, therefore utterly false, valueless. A mindwith a fixed point can only think in terms of other fixed points, andit creates the distance between itself and the fixed point which itcalls perfection. Though you may wish otherwise, there may be nofixed points at all. In actuality, there is not any fixed `you' or fixed`me', is there? The `I', the self is made up of many qualities,experiences, conditionings, desires, fears, loves, hates, variousmasks. There is no fixed point; but the mind abhors this fact,therefore it moves from one fixed point to another, carrying theburden of the known to the known.So time is an illusion when we think in terms of perfection.Desire has time, sensation has time, but love has no time. Love is astate of being. To love completely, simply, without either seekingor rejecting, is not to think in terms of perfection or of becomingperfect. But we do not know such love, therefore we say, `I musthave something else, I must have time to reach perfection'. Wediscipline ourselves, we gather virtues, and if we don't sufficientlygather in this life, there is always the next life; so this movement ofbackwards and forwards is set going.When you think in terms of time you are really pursuing the`more', are you not? You want more love, more goodness, morepleasure, more ways of avoiding pain, more of the experiencewhich delights, which brings a fleeting happiness; and the momentthe mind demands more it must have time, it must of necessitycreate time. This demand for the `more' is an escape from theactual. When the mind says, `I must be more clever', that veryassertion implies time. But if the mind can look at what is withoutcondemnation, without comparison, if it can just observe the fact,then in that awareness there is no fixed point. As in the universethere is no fixed point, so in us there is no fixed point. But themind likes to have a fixed point, so it creates a fixed point in name,in property, in money, in virtue, in relationships, in ideals, beliefs,dogmas; it becomes the embodiment of its own desires. The mind'sidea of perfection is not the opposite of what is. Perfection is thatstate of mind in which all comparison has ceased. There is nothinking in terms of the `more', therefore no struggle. If you canjust know the truth of that, if you can merely listen and find it outfor yourself then you will see that you are free from timealtogether. Then creation is from moment to moment withoutaccumulation of the moment, because creation is truth, and truthhas no continuity. You think of truth as continuous in time, buttruth is not continuous, it is not a permanent thing to be known intime. It is nothing of that kind, it is something totally different,something that cannot be understood by a mind that is caughtwithin the field of time. You must die to everything of yesterday,to all the accumulations of knowledge, experience, and only thenthat which is immeasurable, timeless, comes into being.March 6, 1955BOMBAY 7TH PUBLIC TALK 9ND MARCH 1955It seems to me that most of us are bewildered and confused, notonly with regard to what we should do, but primarily in the matterof what is right thinking, and we are groping to find a way out ofthis confusion. We want a leader, someone to help us out of ourdifficulties. Being confused we are very gullible, and we are easilymade to accept things that are irrational; or we turn to pastteachers, to Christ or Buddha, to the Vedas, to the Bible, hoping tofind an answer to our problems. But I think such a way of thinkingmakes confusion more confounded. Confusion comes, really, whenwe are incapable of looking at the fact without having an opinionabout the fact. We never look at the fact directly, but always cometo it with a conclusion, and the result is confusion. If we can seethis one very simple thing, then I think we shall be able tounderstand the much more complex and comprehensive problem ofwhat is religion, what is truth, what is God.We are confused, and we do not know what we are confusedabout, or how confusion arises. Surely, confusion exists only whenwe are not capable of looking at the fact stripped of all evaluations,that is when we have not the capacity to recognize the fact withoutopinion, without the traditional values which we give to it. It is thetraditional value, the opinion, the judgment with regard to the fact,that brings about confusion. If you look into it you will find thatthis is so. We are never able to look at a fact as it is, but alwayscome to it with judgments, with values, and hence the confusion.Now, can the mind look at the fact without the evaluatingfactor? The fact is always new, whereas the evaluating factor isalways old. When the mind looks at the fact with the values, theopinions, the judgments it has acquired, which are all the outcomeof the past, there is bound to be confusion.So our problem is to look at the fact without evaluation; andthat requires a great sense of humility, does it not? But none of usare humble; we all have values, we do not come to the fact withoutknowing. Not knowing is a state of humility, and I think this isvery important to understand. Knowledge has nothing to do withwisdom. Wisdom comes into being without knowledge, that is,only when the mind has no evaluating factor, when the mind is notthe entity that evaluates, that judges, that compares. Humility isnecessary to understand a fact, and to have this sense of humility,there must be total freedom from all knowledge; for knowledge isthe process of evaluation, and the fact being the new, when youapproach it with a mind that is burdened with knowledge, out ofthat comes confusion.Now, if the mind can be stripped instantaneously of all the past,so that it is able to meet the present without the burden ofknowledge, then there is no confusion. It is like a doctor observingthe patient; he does not come to the patient with foregoneconclusions, with his mind already made up as to what illness thepatient has. But most of us approach the fact with conclusions. Wehave certain beliefs, certain dogmas, certain formulas, and ourapproach to the problem, how to deal with it, is already clearly laidout in our minds; so our minds are never fresh, never able toapproach the problem anew.We say that we need time to free the mind from allaccumulative, self-protective knowledge, to unburden ourselves ofall sorrow, misery, strife. But I do not think time is necessary at all.On the contrary, time is merely the outcome of our not meeting thefact without knowledge. For centuries the mind has been acquiringknowledge with which to meet the fact, and has thereby introducedconfusion. So, can the mind be free from all the values it hasaccumulated and meet the challenge anew, the challenge being thefact? It is because we do not meet the fact fully, withoutconclusions, that there is confusion, there is sorrow. To be free ofsorrow we say we must have time, and therefore we havedeveloped philosophies, disciplines, various ways and means toovercome it. But sorrow is the result of this very process ofmeeting the fact with a conclusion.So, to be free from sorrow, must not the mind approach the factwithout a belief, without a conclusion? That is, must there not beimmediate freedom from memory as the evaluating factor? When Imeet you, for example, if I already know you, I do so with certainvalues, opinions, judgments about you which memory has retainedand which are based on my previous experiences with you. Now,can I look at you, have the memory of you, and yet be free of alljudgment? Can I meet you, know who you are, and yet have novalues, no opinions concerning you? Surely, it is our values, ourjudgments that bring confusion, sorrow; and being confused, beingin sorrow, we say we must have time to overcome this sorrow. Butis that so? Will time resolve our sorrow?Do you understand, sirs, what sorrow is? Sorrow is ourincapacity to meet the fact completely, without judgment, withoutbelief. It is because we do not meet the fact afresh and move with itthat there is sorrow. Being in sorrow, as most people are, we wanttime to be free from sorrow, and so we have various philosophies,schools of thought, disciplines, meditations, to overcome it. I donot think sorrow can be overcome through, any discipline, throughtime, for sorrow is the result and not the cause, and as long as youare merely dealing with the symptom and not with the cause, theremust be the prolongation of confusion, conflict and sorrow.So, can sorrow be overcome immediately? I think this is animportant question to put to oneself, because the man who is happyis not antisocial. It is the man who is frustrated, confused,miserable, and also the man who is seeking God, truth - it is suchpeople who are antisocial, because truth cannot be found as long asthe mind is seeking. So, for the man who is seeking truth, as wellas for the man who is confused, who is in sorrow, the problem is:can the cause of sorrow be dissipated immediately? Is there anentirely different way of looking at it, thinking about it, so that itcan be understood, not in some distant future, but now? Surely,there is the ending of sorrow only when I free my mind from allevaluation, from all comparison, from all social sanctions. strip itof all its accumulations, so that it is in a state of humility, the statein which the mind is aware and knows nothing, and is thereforeable to look at the fact without judgment.After all, what do we mean by religion? Religion is not belief, itis not the capacity to quote sacred books, it is not the worship of animage or a symbol, it has nothing to do with the performance of aparticular ritual. Religion is that state of mind in which there is nolonger any search, in which there is no longer any movementwhich is a cause. And surely, being so confused. our problem is notto be resolved by going back to the past, to what Shankara,Buddha. Christ, or your own guru has said, but only by being ableto meet life, with all its challenge, anew, afresh; and you cannotmeet the challenge, the fact in that way as long as the mind isburdened with any evaluation. It is meeting the fact with evaluationthat creates confusion and sorrow. So, can the mind have memoryand yet be still, thus meeting the fact without evaluation? Can themind be free of all its many yesterdays?Now, there is no way to be free, is there? There is no method,because the very method imprisons the mind and therefore themind is no longer free. The pursuit of the method, of the `how', hasa cause, and so long as there is a cause, an incentive, a motive, themind is incapable of meeting the fact anew, and hence there isconfusion and sorrow. So there is no way, no method, no system tofree the mind.Please listen to this without agreeing or disagreeing. I am notsaying anything which you have to think about in a complicatedmanner or make a philosophy of. I am just describing to you a fact,and if you don't meet directly the fact which I am describing, youare going to be more confused. I say there is no way of freeing themind, no method, because any method, any discipline, any practicebinds the mind, conditions it further. When you suffer, all that youare concerned with is to find a way out, and the `way out' is themethod, the system, the discipline, the practice with which youmeet the fact; therefore you are incapable of understanding thefact, so your confusion and sorrow increase.What is important, then, is to see the truth in a flash, to be sosensitive that the fact instantly reveals the truth. But that requires agreat deal of humility; and the man who has experienced, who hasstudied, the man who worships and practices, has no humility atall, therefore his leadership, his advice, his learning, bring moresorrow, more confusion to the world.So our question is, can your mind now, at this minute while youare listening to me, be entirely striped of all the evaluating factors,of all the many yesterdays, so that it can see what is truth? Theperception of truth is not a state of experience, because toexperience there must be the experiencer, the evaluator. Pleaselisten, it is very simple. As long as there is an experiencer, who isthe evaluator, there is no perception of what is truth. Truth has nocontinuity; it is only the evaluator, the observer, the experiencer,that has continuity, not truth. That which continues is the processof evaluation.Now, as one is sitting here quietly of an evening, or when one iswalking or taking the bus, is it possible to see all this vastconfusion and sorrow in one's own heart and mind, and, realizingthe whole process of sorrow, not give it soil in which to take root,the soil of knowledge, evaluation, but look at the facts withoutjudgment? Which means, really, looking at the facts in all humility.If you say, `I must be humble, I must remove the previousunderstanding from my mind and be free of all it knowledge,evaluation', then the `how' becomes important and you will neversolve the problem. But if you see the truth now, as you arelistening, that the mind is free from sorrow only when it looks atthe fact without any judgment, without any evaluation, that is,when it meets the challenge completely, totally - if you see thetruth of that immediately, then you will find there is the cessationof sorrow. It does not matter whether one is learned or ignorant, ifone can just listen to what is being said and see the truth of it, thenthat very act of listening is the liberation from sorrow. But thedifficulty is for most of us that we want an experience of joy orecstasy to continue; having seen clearly, we want to have anabiding sense of clarity, and the desire for the `more' is thebeginning of vanity. It is only in complete humility - which is astate in which you know nothing, a state in which there is noexperiencer, no evaluator - that the mind can instantaneouslyreceive the truth. There is no path to truth, no system by which youcan attain it. You may read the Gita, the Bible, all the sacred booksin the world, or even Marx, but none of them will lead you to truth.The mind that has achieved, that knows, that has practised andexperienced, that is full of its own knowledge - such a mind cannever find truth or God, but only the very simple mind, the mindthat is really humble and therefore able to meet the fact withoutany evaluation. What is important is to look at life, at everymovement of life, without the burden of many yesterdays, therebyceasing to create confusion and sorrow.Question: How can I be free from fear?Krishnamurti: What is fear? Fear exists only in relationship tosomething, it does not exist by itself. Fear comes into being inrelationship to an idea, to a person, with regard to the loss ofproperty, and so on. One may be afraid of death, which is theunknown. There is fear of public opinion, of what people will say,fear of losing a job, fear of being scolded, nagged. There arevarious forms of fear, deep and superficial, but all fear is inrelationship to something; so when we say, `Can I be free fromfear?', it really means, `Can I be free from all relationship?' Do youunderstand? If it is relationship that is causing fear, then to ask ifone can be free from fear is like asking if one can live in isolation.Obviously, no human being can live in isolation. There is no suchthing as living in isolation, one can live only in relationship. So, tobe free from fear one must understand relationship, the relationshipof the mind to its own ideas, to certain values, the relationshipbetween husband and wife, between man and his property, betweenman and society. It I can understand my relationship with you, thenthere is no fear; because fear does not exist by itself, it is self-created in relationship. Our problem, then, is not how to overcomefear, but to find out first of all what our relationship is now, andwhat is right relationship. We do not have to establish rightrelationship, because in the very understanding of relationship,right relationship comes into being.I think it is important to see that nothing can live in isolation.Even though you may become a sannyasi, put on a loin cloth andseclude yourself, isolate yourself in a belief, no human being canlive in isolation. But the mind is pursuing isolation in the self-enclosure of `my experience', `my belief', `my wife', `my husband',`my property', which is a process of exclusion. The mind is seekingisolation in all its relationships, and hence there is fear. So ourproblem is to understand relationship.Now, what is relationship? When you say, `I am related', whatdoes that mean? Apart from the purely physical relationshipthrough contact, through blood, through heredity, our relationshipis based on ideas, is it not? We are examining what is, not whatshould be. Our relationship at present is based on ideas, on ideationas to what we think is relationship. That is, our relationship witheverything is a state of dependency. I believe in a certain ideabecause that belief gives me comfort, security, a sense of well-being, it acts as a means of disciplining, controlling, holding mythought in line. So my relationship to that idea is based ondependence, and if you remove my belief in it I am lost, I do notknow how to think, how to evaluate. Without the belief in God, orin the idea that there is no God, I feel insecure, so I depend on thatbelief.And is not our relationship with each other a state ofpsychological dependency? I am not talking about physiologicalinterdependence, which is entirely different. I depend on my sonbecause I want him to be something which I am not. He is thefulfilment of all my hopes, my desires; he is my immortality, mycontinuation. So my relationship with my son, with my wife, withmy children, with my neighbours, is a state of psychologicaldependency, and I am fearful of being in a state in which there isno dependence. I do not know what that means, therefore I dependon books, on relationship, on society, I depend on property to giveme security, position, prestige. And if I do not depend on any ofthese things, then I depend on the experiences which I have had, onmy own thoughts, on the greatness of my own pursuits.Psychologically, then, our relationships are based ondependence, and that is why there is fear. The problem is not hownot to depend, but just to see the fact that we do depend. Wherethere is attachment there is no love. Because you do not know howto love, you depend, and hence there is fear. What is important is tosee that fact, and not ask how to love, or how to be free from fear.You may momentarily forget your fear through variousamusements, through listening to the radio, through reading theGita or going to a temple, but they are all escapes. There is notmuch difference between the man who takes to drink and the manwho takes to religious books, between those who go to thesupposed house of God and those who go to the cinema, becausethey are all escaping. Whereas, if as you are listening you canreally see the fact that where there is dependency in relationshipthere must be fear, there must be sorrow, that where there isattachment there can be no love - if as you are listening now youcan just see that simple fact and comprehend it instantaneously,then you will find that an extraordinary thing takes place. Withoutrefuting, accepting, or giving opinions about it, without quotingthis or that, just listen to the fact that where there is attachmentthere is no love, and where there is dependency there is fear. I amtalking of psychological dependency, not of your dependence onthe milkman to bring you milk, or your dependence on the railway,or on a bridge. It is this inward psychological dependency on ideas,on people, on property, that breeds fear. So, you cannot be freefrom fear as long as you do not understand relationship, andrelationship can be understood only when the mind watches all itsrelationships, which is the beginning of self-knowledge.Now, can you listen to all this easily, without effort? Effortexists only when you are trying to get something, when you aretrying to be something. But if, without trying to be free from fear,you are able to listen to the fact that attachment destroys love, thenthat very fact will immediately free the mind from fear. There canbe no freedom from fear as long as there is no understanding ofrelationship, which means, really, as long as there is no self-knowledge, The self is revealed only in relationship. In observingthe way I talk to my neighbour, the way I regard property, the wayI cling to belief, or to experience, or to knowledge, that is, indiscovering my own dependency, I begin to awaken to the wholeprocess of self-knowledge.So, how to overcome fear is not important. You can take a drinkand forget it. You can go to the temple and lose yourself inprostration, in muttering words, or in devotion, but fear waitsaround the corner when you come out. There is the cessation offear only when you understand your relationship to all things, andthat understanding does not come into being if there is no self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is not something far away, it beginshere, now, in observing how you treat your servants, your wife,your children. Relationship is the mirror in which you see yourselfas you are. If you are capable of looking at yourself as you arewithout any evaluation, then there is the cessation of fear, and outof that comes an extraordinary sense of love. Love is somethingthat cannot be cultivated; love is not a thing to be bought by themind. If you say, `I am going to practise being compassionate',then compassion is a thing of the mind, and therefore not love.Love comes into being darkly, unknowingly, fully, when weunderstand this whole process of relationship. Then the mind isquiet, it does not fill the heart with the things of the mind, andtherefore that which is love can come into being.Question: You postulate an understanding that is absolute. Toyou there is no place for gradualists. How can we with our limitedminds grasp your teachings?Krishnamurti: Sir, we have invented this process of gradualismfor our convenience. When you go to a doctor to have an operation,do you say that the thing which necessitates operation will beeradicated gradually? When you have a bad tooth, do you say thatit will gradually be extracted? You go to the dentist for animmediate extraction, or you go to the surgeon to be put on a tableand cut open. But you see, we do not think in those terms. We wantboth pleasure and pain, and that is why gradualism exists. We haveinvented a philosophy of life, a so-called way of love, that gives usboth pleasure and pain, and hence the conflict between good andevil. We say, `I am violent, and I must have time to overcome thatviolence', therefore we have the ideal of nonviolence, and througha process of gradualism we hope eventually to become non-violent,which is just a lot of nonsense. Either we are or we are not violent,there is no becoming non-violent.Now, being violent, what is important is to have the capacity todeal with violence immediately and not give it time to take root inthe mind and become a problem. Do you understand, sirs? To befree of violence one has to meet violence within oneself andunderstand it immediately, and that immediacy of understanding isnot possible if one thinks in terms of time, which is the soil inwhich the problem takes root. But not having the capacity to meetour violence, our greed, we invent a way of dealing with theproblem which has no reality, which is not a fact, it is just anideation.So, is it possible for you and me to meet anger, violence, orwhatever it be, without making it into a problem, that is, withoutgiving soil in the mind for the problem to take root? The problemcomes into being only when we are not capable of dealing with thefact immediately, and therefore we give soil for that issue to takeroot, which then becomes a problem. When this problem arises, wesay, "How am I to deal with it?', and so we have inventedgradualism, the idea that gradually we shall get rid of it. I hope Iam making myself clear.If I am capable of dealing instantly with anger, with jealousy,with violence, if I am able to meet it immediately, factually, thenthere is no problem. The problem arises only when, not knowinghow to meet that feeling, I give it shelter in the mind, soil in whichto take root, and insist that to be free from it gradualism isnecessary.Our question is, then, can you and I deal with the factimmediately without making it into a problem? Please listen. Can Ijust look at the fact of anger, envy, ambition, or what you will,without any evaluation, without condemning or accepting it? Thatis, can I look at anger without giving it a name? There is a feeling,that feeling is immediately termed as anger, and the very word`anger' is a condemnation. So, can I look at that feeling withoutnaming it, without condemning, judging, or comparing it, withoutidentifying myself with it? That means, really, looking at the factand retaining the memory of the fact without all the evaluatingfactors.Let us approach the question differently. The questioner says,`You talk about an absolute understanding, but we cannotunderstand immediately, we need time'. Let us find out if that is so.You think somewhere there is God, truth, that extraordinary thingwhich man seeks everlastingly, and that between that thing and the`me' there is a gap, a thick wall of vanity, greed, ambition, fear, andso on. So you say, `I must have time to tear down the wall, to wearit out, or to make it transparent to that beauty, that goodness'. But Isay time will never do it. Whether you have one life or a hundredlives, as long as you are thinking in terms of time you will never doit. All your sacred books, all your gurus have said that you musthave time; but who is the entity that is taking time to polish thewall day after day, or to pull it down, who is it that says, `There isdistance between me and that reality'? That very entity is thecreator of time, because he wants to achieve something andtherefore thinks in terms of `getting there'. So he has created thisidea, this illusion that there is space between the `me' and thatreality, and having created this space, this gap which is time, heasks, `How am I to bridge it?'Please see this. Any movement on the part of the mind towardsthat which it calls reality, creates time, and therefore it can neverbridge the gulf. As long as there is the entity who says, `I am goingto discipline, control myself, I am going to practise virtue everyday in order to break down the wall between myself and reality',that very entity is creating the wall, the distance between itself andreality. Virtue is essential, for virtue brings freedom, order, butvirtue alone does not lead to reality. Virtue is recognition bysociety, and to live in society you must have virtue. Perhaps manyof you are virtuous, good, kindly, compassionate, unassuming, andyet you have not that extraordinarily creative thing without whichvirtue has very little meaning, it is merely a social oil whichenables society to run smoothly.So, as long as the mind thinks in terms of becoming; as long asit says, `I am here and I must get there'; as long as it wants to besomething the governor, the big executive; as long as it says, `I amgoing to fulfil, reach God', it must have time. Now, if you can seeand understand this fact, then at that moment you are not, you arenothing, and for you there is no time. Then there is no gap, there isno `me' and `that reality', but only a state of being, and out of thatcomes an extraordinary joy. Then there is no striving, nodissipation of energy. You must have an abundance of energy, butnot through control. If you say, `I am going to take the vow ofcelibacy, I am going to discipline myself in order to have moreenergy', that is merely another bargain. Those are all the ways andtricks of the mind in order to achieve something, to get somewhere.The person who has taken the vow of celibacy knows no love,because he is concerned with himself and his own fruition.So, what is important is to see all this, how the mind deceivesitself, how the mind has created the distance between itself and thatreality which it thinks exists. As long as there is any movement ofthe mind towards a goal there must be gradualism, there must betime. Merely to listen to this fact, to meet and understand it inoneself, frees the mind from time. But you can listen to it,understand it only when there is no sense of becoming, when youdon't want to be anything. only when your mind is stripped of allexperiences - and it is as you are listening now. You are not beingmesmerized by me, you are quiet because you are listening tosomething that is true. And if you can listen quietly even for aminute, for a second, then you will find that that very quietness, thevery silence of that second has within it the whole abundance, therichness and the beauty and the goodness of truth. In that momentthere is complete attention without any motive, and that completeattention does not wish to have something more, it does not wish tobe better. That complete attention is the good, and therefore thereis no better.I say that the mind can be free immediately, and that there is nogradual process by which to free the mind through time. It is onlythe mind which is very quiet that can be free, and that quietnesscannot be purchased by the accumulation of knowledge or virtue, itcannot be known through any discipline or sacrifice. It is onlywhen you are listening to everything in life, when you are watchingin the mirror of relationship the reflection of your own thoughts,wants, greeds, envies, purposes, just watching it withoutacceptance or condemnation - it is only then that the mind becomesreally still. For the mind to be still there must be abundant energyand therefore the cessation of conflict. It is only when conflictceases at every level that the mind is still. When there is nodissipation of energy through conflict, through effort, throughdiscipline, the mind becomes totally quiet, and that very quietnessis the abundance of energy. Only then does that reality whichcannot be put into words, which has no symbol, that somethingwhich cannot be described or speculated upon, come into being.March 9, 1955.BOMBAY 8TH PUBLIC TALK 13TH MARCH 1955Krishnamurti: Surely, the most important thing that all of us haveto do is to understand our life and not escape from life; but ourwhole pattern of thinking, it seems to me, is a process of escapingfrom our daily conflicts, from our daily miseries andresponsibilities, from the utter chaos we find ourselves in. We haveto understand this confusion, and not look for someone to help usto escape from it. The facts of our life are important, not theideological escapes which all religions and most philosophiesoffer. We seem to find it extraordinarily difficult to live with deepfullness of thought, with intense, abundant love, and most of us arenot concerned with that; we are concerned with trying to becomesomething.If you observe, all our religions, all our leaders, political and so-called spiritual, all our organizations, the worldly as well as thereligious, offer ways of becoming something, either here or in theso-called world of the spirit. In striving, in struggling to becomesomething, we have lost the beauty of living, and if we canunderstand the problem of effort, then perhaps we shall be able tounderstand our lives and live richly, worshipping the one day. withabundance, with deep passion, and not looking to tomorrow. It isbecause we do not understand the eternal present that we try to findsomething beyond the present, tomorrow. And what is it thatprevents us from understanding our life, which is so fraught withsorrow, with conflict, with ambition, with this extraordinarydivision between man and man? Why is it that we do notunderstand this whole process of living and are always lookingsomewhere else for truth, for life, for something which isimmeasurable, beyond the limits of thought? What is it that blocksour understanding? Is it that we want to find an answer away fromthe facts of everyday living, something which will be much moresatisfactory, more permanent, something that will give us a senseof well being? What is it that each one of us wants out of life?Can life offer anything but conflict and misery as long as weuse life as a means to something else? Yet that is what we are alldoing, is it not? We are using life, our daily living, which is anextraordinary thing in itself, to get somewhere, to reach heaven, tofind truth, God; and the various philosophies, the religious teachersand systems offer the means of escape from our living and from theunderstanding of that living.Now, it seems to me that the understanding of life is not adifficult problem at all, but what makes it difficult is theinterpretation, the opinions, the values, the judgments that we have.It is this conditioning of the mind that creates wars, that makes fordarkness and myths, and if we can actually wipe it away, not in theprocess of time, but from day to day, then I think we shall find thatlife is not a stepping stone to something greater. There is nothinggreater. If I know how to live, then living itself is the truth. But it isnot a question of how life should be lived. There is a vastdifference between actual living and the what I should be. It is thiscurse of the ideal, that what should be, that has rotted our thinking.And is it possible to wipe away all our conditioning? I think thatthis is the real question, not how to improve our conditioning, orwhich is the better way of thinking. All thinking is a form ofconditioning, whether it is Communistic, Socialistic, Capitalistic,Catholic, Hindu, or what you will. And if it is possible to wipeaway this whole evaluating process, to retain memory without thecondemnatory and justificatory values, then we shall see that lifehas a tremendous significance.So, is it possible to wipe away the many values, the ambitionsthat one has set up for oneself, and live a life without effort? Effort,which is based on the evaluations of memory is a process ofdegeneration, it destroys the clarity of thinking and living. If youcan listen without evaluation to what is being said here, then yourproblem is immediately solved, because you perceive the truth, notsomebody's interpretation of the truth. But you cannot possibly actto free the mind from evaluation, from condemnation, justification,comparison, from all the accumulated knowledge which makes youthink this way or that, for any pressure on thought is anotherdeviation. All of us think under pressure, do we not? Our thinkingis a process of pressure because we want to become something,positively or negatively, and we thereby bring about frustration.Pressure on thought leads to frustration, to misery, to sorrow; andis it possible to live without pressure?Surely, that is our problem, is it not? Our problem is to liverichly, happily, sweetly, without all this sorrow. Our lives are fullof sorrow, and what most of us are concerned with is how toescape from sorrow; and if we cannot escape from it, we usesorrow as the means to truth, saying that we must suffer in order tounderstand that which is joy, that which is necessary. But sorrowdoes not lead to ecstasy, sorrow does not lead to life, to beauty, tolight.We are in sorrow because we are always trying to becomesomething. If you watch your own mind you will see that everymovement of thought is towards something or away fromsomething, and so your life is a series of battles, conflicts andmiseries. Don't agree with me, but watch your own life and seehow miserable it is, how petty, mediocre, uncreative. The mind islimited, everlastingly occupied, and with that mind we try to findsomething which is beyond the whole process of thought.Realizing that, we say we must silence the mind, so we begin todiscipline, to control, to shape the mind, thereby dissipating theenergy which is so necessary if the mind is to be still. So we havemade our life into a tortuous affair; and can we sweep away thethings that are making us into thoughtless, uncreative, imitativemachines, all the repetitive phrases which have very littlemeaning? Can we wipe all that away, be simple and begin anew?It is possible to do that only when we do not think in terms oftime. We are used to thinking in terms of time, in terms ofbecoming something, are we not? Being confused, in sorrow,without love, being full of the bitterness of frustration in theeverlasting struggle to become something, we say, `I must havetime to be free from all that', and we never put to ourselves thequestion, `Can I be free, not in time, but immediately?' It isnecessary to ask fundamental questions always and never seekanswers to them, because to fundamental questions there are noanswers. The question itself, with its depth and clarity, is its ownanswer. But we never put fundamental questions, and one of thefundamental question is whether it is possible not to think in termsof time.The mind is the result of time, of centuries of memory, it is theoutcome of innumerable experiences and evaluations; and can thatmind think, can that mind find, without becoming something? Ifyou are good now, there is no problem; but if you are thinking interms of becoming good, then the problem arises. If there is nolove, the question is not how to love eventually, but what is love?If you are asking what love is, that is a fundamental question, andthe answer is not to be sought, for it depends on the seriousnessand depth of the questioner.So, what is important in our daily living is not what to seek andwhat to find, but to stop all search, because in search there ispressure on thought. All search as we know it has a motive, and aslong as there is a motive, an incentive in your search, what you areseeking is obviously the fulfilment of that motive; therefore it is nolonger search.Now, can the mind stop seeking? Surely, any movement of themind in any direction has an incentive, and the incentive breeds itsown result; therefore that result is not truth. Truth comes into beingwhen the mind has no movement at all, when it is completely still.But you see, the difficulty is that all of us have been educatedwrongly, we have lost the initiative in thinking, we want to behelped, and probably most of you are here for that reason. Sirs,there is no help, and please realize this. There is no help - whichdoes not mean that you must remain in despair. On the contrary.But the moment you begin seeking help you have lost the initiative,and initiative is the beginning of that extraordinary thing calledcreativity, which is truth. Remaining within the walls of yourparticular prison, the walls of your own thinking, your ownconditioning, your own ambition and confusion, you want to behelped by an outside agency, and so you lose the initiative to jumpover the wall. Him who you think will give you a hand to jumpover the wall you call your guru, or the one who loves you, or thetruth; but if you are helped you have lost that creativity. Life is aprocess of discovery, and in living from day to day you have tofind out for yourself its beauty, its extraordinary depth; and it isbecause you do not look, because you want to be helped, that youlose the confidence, the initiative which is so essential to theprocess of discovery. The sense of individual discovery of what istruth is destroyed, taken away from you, so you read the Gita, youturn to Shankara, Buddha, or Christ, you follow the book or theleader, and having established authorities, you are lost. That is asimple fact. You are lost because you have leaders, philosophies,disciplines. If they did not exist you would not be lost, becausethen you would have to find out from day to day, rom moment tomoment, you would have to discover for yourself.There is a difference between self-confidence and the state ofmind which is constantly inquiring without a motive. Self-confidence breeds aggression, arrogance, its action is a self-enclosing process; but for the mind that is in a state of constantinquiry there is no accumulation of discovery, and only such amind can find that which is truth. The mind that is led can neverdiscover what is truth, but only the mind that is free from society,from all conditioning, and is therefore in a state of revolution. Thatis why only the truly religious man is a revolutionary, not thereformer.So it seems to me that our problem is not to seek that which youcall truth or God, but to free the to mind from all conditioning as aHindu, a Moslem, a Christian, or whatever it be, and also from theconditioning which comes about when you are ambitious, envious,all of which is within the pattern of society. Society is based onreformation, and reformation is continuation of the past; and it isonly when the mind is aware of all this and understands it thatthere is a possibility of the coming into being of that for which weall hunger and without which life has not much meaning, which isthe real. But for the experiencing of the real, there must be noexperiencer. The experiencer is the result of the past, he is made upof many accumulations, of many memories, and as long as there isthe experiencer, the thinker, there cannot be that which is truth.When the mind is free from the thinker, from the experiencer, fromthe `me' as accumulated memories with their evaluations - it is onlythen that the mind can be still.Stillness of the mind is not to be thought of in terms of time.That stillness has no continuity, it is not a state to be achieved andcontinued or perpetuated. When the mind wants to continue anexperience, there is the experiencer, and that experiencer is greedfor the more. The more creates time, and as long as the mind isthinking in terms of the more, the real is not there.Perhaps you have listened to all this quietly and easily. Themere hearing of the words is not the understanding of the words.But if you listen to the words without any effort to capture orexperience something, if you just listen and do not grasp at it, thenyou will find that that very listening brings about in you anunconscious revolution. That is the only revolution, because aconscious revolution of desire, of effort, is merely reformation. Ifyou can listen quietly, easily, without interpretation, to what isbeing said, and to everything about you then you will find that youare listening not only to that which is very near but also to thingsthat are very far away, to that which has no measure, no space, thatwhich is not caught in words, in time. But to listen to that which isbeyond measure to that which is truth, the mind must be very quiet,and it cannot be quiet as long as it is seeking, because seeking is aform of agitation. When the mind is really still because it is caughtup in the song of its own listening, only then the immeasurable,that which is eternal, comes into being.Question: All our problems seem to be rooted in the dust of thepast. Is it possible to be aware of the full content of theunconscious and die to it, so that the mind is fresh, new?Krishnamurti: Sirs, it is very interesting to find out, when youask a question, why you are asking it. What is the urge that makesone ask a question? Surely, it is not the answer to the question thatis very important, but to find out why one seeks an answer, what isthe motive, the incentive, and who the entity is that is seeking ananswer, because on the motive of the question depends the answer,and if you don't know the motive, any answer is valueless. And themoment you begin to discover the motive, with all its extraordinarydeviations, you are already in the field of self-knowledge, you arealready understanding yourself in the mirror of your own thoughts,in the mirror of relationship; therefore you have no questions at all.Every problem is an issue in which truth can be discovered; but ifyou merely put a question and wait for an answer, wait to behelped, then you have lost the initiative in the action of discovery.Please listen, because this is really important. I feel thathappiness lies in our own hands, and the key to that happiness isself-knowledge - not the self-knowledge of Freud, or Jung, orShankara, or somebody else, but the self-knowledge of your owndiscovery in your relationship from day to day. In the mirror ofrelationship you can discover everything without reading a book,and then you will not want leaders, then leaders become destroyers.Through observation, through awareness without effort of themovement of your own thought from day to day, as you get into abus, while you are riding in a car, when you are talking to yourservant, to your wife, to your children, to your neighbour - throughobserving all that as in a mirror you begin to discover how youtalk, how you think, how you react, and you will find that inunderstanding yourself you have something which cannot be foundin books, in philosophies, in the teachings of any guru. Then youare your own guru and your own disciple. But such observationneeds attention, and there can be attention only when where is noincentive to alter that which you discover. As long as there is anyintention to alter that which you discover, you are not totallyaware. Total attention is the good, and there cannot be totalattention it there is any sense of condemnation, comparison, orjustification of that which you discover. Nobody can give you thekey to the ending of sorrow, but it is in your own hands if you seeyourself in the mirror of relationship without judging what you see.Then no religions, no books, no temples are necessary, for you willfind that out of deep self-knowledge there comes a timeless thing,and therefore the creations of the mind have little importance. Thenyou will know love.Now, the questioner says that all our problems seem to berooted in the past, and he asks if it is possible to be fully aware ofthe whole content of the unconscious and die to it, so that the mindcan be fresh, new.To uncover the various depths of the unconscious there is theprocess of analysis and there is introspection. You can watch andevaluate everything you think and say, or you can analyze themind, both conscious and unconscious, going step by step into allits deviations and interpreting every dream.Now, it seems to me that all this is very tedious and not a trueway to go about it; because, after all, in the process of introspectionand in the process of analysis there is always the analyzer, the onewho introspects, evaluates, so there is always a division in themind. There is always this duality of the one who watches and thatwhich is watched, the part of the mind which introspects analyzes,and the other part which is examined, analyzed; hence there isalways interpretation, evaluation, conflict. And since thisseparation of the analyzer from the thing analyzed only leads toeverlasting conflict, then what is the other way?Perhaps it is not a way, because there is no way, no path totruth, there is no system of meditation, no discipline which willbring that extraordinarily creative thing into our daily life. Butthere is a possibility, if you really pay attention to something, ofbeing in a state when there is no thinker at all, but only thinking.This is not just a theory of mind, it is a fact. Thought is fleeting,transient, in constant flux, and when there is total attention, thoughtcan never create the permanent as the thinker, as the experiencer,as the one who has accumulated experience or property; there isonly thinking and not the thinker.Please listen and you will see how to put away this wholeprocess of analysis and transcend the unconscious, therebybringing into the so mind the freshness of youth, of innocency;because it is only the of innocent, the fresh mind that can receivethe new, not the mind that is. tortured by analysis, that is shaped,controlled by discipline. So, there is only thinking, and thinking istransient; therefore all the things that are gathered by thinking thevalues of achievement, of ambition, of desire, are also transient. Aslong as there is accumulation as experience, as knowledge, astradition, as values, there must be the unconscious with all itsintimations of fear, of hidden motives; and the moment you areaware of that fact clearly, simply, the moment you really see thatthinking is transient, in flux, all accumulation ceases.After all, the unconscious is the accumulation of yesterday andthe many thousands of yesterdays; it is not only the accumulationof centuries of tradition, but also the accumulation that is going onin the movement of the present, in the mind's contact with thepresent. All that is the unconscious. The mind clings to itsaccumulation because it thinks in that there is clarity, in that thereis hope, the cessation o but that very accumulation is the cause offear. In its accumulation the mind finds a sense of permanency; butthe fact is that thought is transient, and whatever it accumulates isalso transient. The mind may think that there is a permanentAtman, a permanent entity, permanent reality, but that verythinking of the permanent, is impermanent. Thought, beingtransient, can only create the impermanent, though it may deceiveitself by believing that it has created the permanent If you see thetruth of that simply, immediately you will free the whole content ofthe unconscious, and the mind will never accumulate again; andthe moment the mind ceases to accumulate, ceases to continue asthe accumulator, it is fresh young innocent, totally new.You see, the difficulty is that we do not really want to besimple; we are lazy, therefore we invent the process of time. But ifyou are not lazy, if your mind is alert, if you see very simply thatall thinking is transient, that thought has no abiding place, thatthere is no fixed point around which you can think, that the fixedpoint is created by thinking and is therefore as transient as thethinking which created it - if you really see that simply anddirectly, then you will find that all evaluation ceases. Then there ismemory uncontaminated by values, and therefore the mind is freshthough it may remember.Question: Truth or reality appears to be just around the cornerwhen one is listening to you, but afterwards it is as far away andbeyond reach as ever, and one feels utterly frustrated. What is oneto do?Krishnamurti: Why is it that when you are listening, as thequestioner says, you seem to understand? Why is it that your mindis now very clear and simple? Is it that my voice is mesmerizingyou? Or is it that both of us are earnest for an hour, earnest withoutany motive, not seeking, not wanting to achieve anything, butsimply listening without any sense of being distant or near? Bothof us are in a state of attention, are we not? Obviously, the speakeris not trying to convert you to anything, to any system, to anyphilosophy, he does not want you to join any organization, take upany discipline, and he is not offering you a thing. He is merelydescribing the fact, and the fact is much more significant than youropinion, than your interpretation or judgment of the fact. Thespeaker says, `Abstain from judgment, put away comparison,evaluation, and merely listen to the fact'. He is presenting the factwithout wanting you to do anything about the fact. Just be awarethat you are ambitious and that as long as there is ambition theremust be fear, frustration, the agony of unfulfilment. That is a fact.As long as you are ambitious in any direction, in this world or inthe so-called spiritual world, as long as you are gathering virtue asa means to heaven, fear is inevitable. Virtue as a means to heavenonly leads to respectability, which is an ugly thing, a thing to beput aside.So, what is important is to be aware, just to see the fact thatambition in any form breeds envy, antagonism, and that in itsfulfilment there is fear. And you are seeing that fact now, as youare listening. But what happens? You see the truth of the fact andfor the moment that fact is real and you cease to be ambitious,there is no fear; but when you go away from here you are caughtagain in the wheels of respectable society, so you have created adivision. While listening to the fact you are free, but after goingaway from here there is contention, and then you say, `How am I toget back to the fact? I saw it very clearly yesterday, but now I don'tsee it.' That very wanting to see the fact is creating the disturbance,the gap. But if you are deeply aware that you are craving to see thatfact again, which is another form of ambition, then you will findthat you don't have to attend a single meeting. Then you are yourown teacher and your own disciple; then life is open and you willmeet it every day fully, richly, happily. But that is not possible ifthere is any form of accumulation. Just to see the fact withoutevaluation brings freedom. You cannot translate the fact, it is a factwhether you like it or not, and when you are confronted with thefact there is no problem.Question: Love, death and God are three unknowables, but lifeis without meaning unless the significance of the three isunderstood. How can the mind comprehend what it cannot know?Krishnamurti: The mind can comprehend only that which itknows, it cannot comprehend what it does not know. That is verysimple. The mind can understand only that which it has gathered,that which it knows; because the mind itself is the result of theknown, is it not? Your mind is now the result of the known, ofmany yesterdays, of many experiences of all the traditionalmemories, values, judgments, opinions, fears. Being the result ofthe known, how can such a mind know the unknown? It mayinvent, it may speculate, but its speculation is merely a reaction ofthe known; like any theory, like any Utopia, like any philosophy, itis the reaction, the res
Prejudice (Issues That Concern You) - Original PDF
نویسندگان: خلاصه: P rejudice is essentially any negative attitude held by a member of one group of people toward another group. Typically, people are subjected to prejudice because of their race, ethnicity, reli- gion, gender, or sexual orientation. In the United States, people in these categories—with sexual orientation being the exception in many cases—are protected from discrimination in schools, the workplace, and elsewhere by the rights spelled out in laws and in the U.S. Constitution. While institutional prejudice can be protected against, personal prejudices are more subtle and harder to combat. For example, research has shown that persons responsible for hiring decisions have unconscious prejudices that influence them. One study showed that employers made assumptions that people who spoke with a Southern accent were less intelligent than those who did not. Because such prejudices are often unconscious, they are dif- ficult to change. Many studies have attempted to determine the origins of prejudi- cial attitudes. Some such attitudes are definitely learned. Children raised in a household where parents dislike a particular minority, for example, grow up hearing disparaging comments about that minor- ity. They may then find themselves believing what their parents believe. The same is true of the influence of peer groups: A young person may absorb the beliefs of an influential friend and begin expressing such beliefs as his or her own. New research, however, is showing that prejudice may also be an innate part of the human brain. Essentially, humans may cat- egorize other humans into groups without thinking about it. This response may have helped early humans survive by enabling them to determine quickly who was an enemy and who was a friend. Although this research sheds light on the origins of prejudice, it does not offer a justification for prejudicial behavior. People can clearly learn to overcome prejudice, whatever its origins.
Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter - PDF
نویسندگان: خلاصه: From the author of the New York Times bestseller Mind Wide Open comes a groundbreaking assessment of popular culture as it's never been considered before: through the lens of intelligence. The $10 billion video gaming industry is now the second-largest segment of the entertainment industry in the United States, outstripping film and far surpassing books. Reality television shows featuring silicone-stuffed CEO wannabes and bug-eating adrenaline junkies dominate the ratings. But prominent social and cultural critic Steven Johnson argues that our popular culture has never been smarter. Drawing from fields as diverse as neuroscience, economics, and literary theory, Johnson argues that the junk culture we're so eager to dismiss is in fact making us more intelligent. A video game will never be a book, Johnson acknowledges, nor should it aspire to be-and, in fact, video games, from Tetris to The Sims to Grand Theft Auto, have been shown to raise IQ scores and develop cognitive abilities that can't be learned from books. Likewise, successful television, when examined closely and taken seriously, reveals surprising narrative sophistication and intellectual demands. Startling, provocative, and endlessly engaging, Everything Bad Is Good for You is a hopeful and spirited account of contemporary culture. Elegantly and convincingly, Johnson demonstrates that our culture is not declining but changing-in exciting and stimulating ways we'd do well to understand. You will never regard the glow of the video game or television screen the same way again.
Marketing to the Campus Crowd: Everything You Need to Know to Capture the $200 Billion College Market - PDF
نویسندگان: خلاصه: David A. Morrison, founder and president of TWENTYSOMETHINGв„ў Inc., is an internationally acclaimed expert and pioneer in young adult consulting. In this groundbreaking book, Morrison shares his unparalleled insights on one of the most important subsets of the 15-34 year old consumer demographic: the highly coveted, yet incredibly elusive, college market. Marketing to the Campus Crowd has been universally hailed as the irrefutable ''bible'' for college marketers. Whether you're an experienced campus marketer or new to the field, this work represents the world's definitive resource for savvy marketers, advertisers, promoters, entrepreneurs, institutional buyers, designers, and other key decision-makers. If your responsibilities include the youth/young adult market, this book should be a permanent fixture on your desk. Learn how to maximize your on- and off-campus initiatives when targeting the elusive, yet highly desirable, campus crowd. This intelligent, witty book is essential reading for any business executive interested in generating maximum returns and avoiding costly mistakes. Marketing to the Campus Crowd features: - Invaluable case studies across numerous industries and business models - Commentary on over 22 leading media and promotional channels - Key statistics & charts - Extensive advertising examples - Trending data (emerging trends and future predictions) - Unparalleled insights and strategic recommendations This ''must have'' book also takes a critical look at the pre- and post-college markets as well as gatekeepers, key influencers, and institutional buyers. Best in Classв„ў case studies have been provided by: American Express, American Management Association, America West, Car and Driver, Cingular Wireless, City of Philadelphia, The College Board, DaimlerChrysler, DeVito/ Verdi (eCampus.com), Domino's, Financial Times, General Motors, IBM, Ikea, Kaplan, Macy's, MasterCard, McCann-Erickson, McDonald's, NCAA, NestlГ©, New York University, Notre Dame, Penn State, Pepsi-Cola, U.S. Navy, University of Phoenix, Upromise, Vespa, Villanova University, Visa, Westinghouse, and more! Buy this book and see why the The Washington Post hails David Morrison, author of Marketing to the Campus Crowd , as the consummate marketing insider .
From Chocolate to Morphine: Everything You need to Know About Mind-Altering Drugs - PDF
نویسندگان: خلاصه: This essential, authoritative source book is newly revised and updated and covers a wide range of substances, from coffee to marijuana, from antihistamines to psychedelics, from steroids to the new ''smart'' drugs. In a way that neither condemns nor condones drug use, the authors describe the likely effects of each drug and discuss precautions and alternatives, allowing readers to make informed and intelligent choices. Illustrations.![Living with Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith (Philosophy in Action)[2009] - Original PDF](https://dl.libsan.ir/images/1/12/8_6468ecbbeb85c.jpg)
Wertschöpfung hybrid gestalten Geschäftsmodellentwicklung und Arbeitsgestaltung in der Digitalisierung - Original PDF
نویسندگان: خلاصه: V Vorwort Die fortschreitende vernetzte und intelligente Digitalisierung verändert bestehende Möglichkeiten und eröffnet neue Chancen, um Daten in Unternehmen wertschöpfend zu nutzen. Die daraus entstehenden Informationen können dazu beitragen, Kundinnen und Kunden innovative, datenbasierte Dienstleistungen zu bieten. Diese sogenannten Smart Services sind eine zusätzliche, hybride Wertschöpfung und helfen bspw. bei der Prozess- optimierung, Ressourceneinsparung und Planungseffizienz. In dem vom Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung geförderten Projekt „AnGeWaNt – Arbeit an geeichten Waagen für hybride Wiegeleistungen an Nutz- fahrzeugen“ wurde die Entwicklung und Gestaltung hybrider Wertschöpfung durch ein breites Konsortium aus Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft erforscht. Von 2019 bis 2022 wurden drei Anwendungsbetriebe bei der Entwicklung und Pilotierung hybrider Geschäftsmodelle unterstützt. Hybridisierung erfordert Digitalisierung und geht einher mit Veränderungen in der Arbeitsgestaltung in den Betrieben. Insbesondere Prozesse und organisatorische Strukturen können sich durch die Hybridisierung verändern, sodass überprüft werden sollte, ob derzeitige Führungsleitlinien sowie Zusammenarbeit und Kompetenzen zukunftsfähig sind. Darauf aufbauend dient eine ganzheitliche, sozio- technische Gestaltung, bei der die Bedarfe von Führungskräften und Beschäftigten sowie die Rahmenbedingungen des Betriebs berücksichtigt werden, als Basis für die erfolg- reiche Implementierung hybrider Geschäftsmodelle. Diese Buchpublikation soll Unternehmen und weiteren Institutionen die Vorgehens- weise zur Entwicklung von hybriden Geschäftsmodellen sowie ihrer Umsetzung im Betrieb aufzeigen. Eine soziotechnische Gestaltung hybrider Wertschöpfung sowie ein geeigneter Umgang mit Veränderungen, welche durch Digitalisierung und Hybridisierung entstehen, werden aufgezeigt. Die in diesem Werk vorgestellten Inhalte und Ergebnisse basieren auf den im Projekt AnGeWaNt gesammelten Erfahrungen und liefern Ihnen Hinweise und Methoden, mit denen eine Entwicklung, Umsetzung und Gestaltung hybrider Geschäftsmodelle unterstützt wi
Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species - Epub + Converted PDF
نویسندگان: خلاصه: If Darwin were to examine the evidence today using modern science, would his conclusions be the same? Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published over 150 years ago, is considered one of history's most influential books and continues to serve as the foundation of thought for evolutionary biology. Since Darwin's time, however, new fields of science have emerged that simply give us better answers to the question of origins. With a Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology from Harvard University, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson is uniquely qualified to investigate what genetics reveal about origins. The Origins Puzzle Comes Together If the science surrounding origins were a puzzle, Darwin would have had fewer than 15% of the pieces to work with when he developed his theory of evolution. We now have a much greater percentage of the pieces because of modern scientific research. As Dr. Jeanson puts the new pieces together, a whole new picture emerges, giving us a testable, predictive model to explain the origin of species. A New Scientific Revolution Begins So what comes next? Darwin's theory of evolution may be one of science's longest standing, but the latest genetics research is casting doubt on it. Are these new discoveries cause to critically reexamine Darwin's theory? Replacing Darwin asks you to give serious consideration to modern scientific advances and reevaluate the problems that have surfaced in Darwin's theory of evolution."
Objections To Evolution - Epub + Converted PDF
نویسندگان: خلاصه: Preface Evolutionary theory is the dominant scientific explanation for how all species came into existence. We are told there is such overwhelming evidence for the theory that it has become irrefutable. It is taught as fact in most science classrooms in the Western world, and the consensus in the scientific community is that the theory is true beyond doubt. In Western civilisation, if you do not subscribe to it, you are considered unintelligent or uneducated. However, there has been significant controversy and debate over the theory since it was first brought into the public domain about 160 years ago. This book attempts to explore this controversy and bring forth a case against evolutionary theory using various perspectives. It should be noted that this case does not attempt to disprove evolutionary theory, as this would appear to be a futile task, analogous to trying to disprove the existence of God. It only aims to demonstrate the flaws of the theory and address the pertinent question of whether the theory has been proven to a reasonable degree, such that it should be considered fact. This book is purely a collection of ideas and arguments designed to promote critical thinking and offer an alternative perspective. It critiques evolutionary theory primarily from a philosophical point of view. No new research, data or observations are provided. The focus is on criticising the reasoning that is being used and the conclusions that are being drawn from the information that evolutionists themselves use to formulate their theory. The majority of contemporary anti-evolution books are written from a religious point of view. Please note that this book is dissimilar in this regard: it attempts to discredit evolutionary theory without promoting religion or God. It is not advocating an alternative doctrine, nor advocating an active denial of the theoryآیا کتاب مورد نظر هنوز بر روی سایت قرار نگرفته است؟ جای نگرانی نیست! کافی است بر روی گزینه سفارش کتاب کلیک کرده و درخواست خود را ثبت کنید. در کمتر از چند ساعت کتاب شما را آماده خواهیم کرد.