Choiceless Awareness

BANGALORE 1ST PUBLIC TALK 4TH JULY,
1948

Instead of making a speech, I am going to answer as many  questions as possible, and before doing so, I would like to point out something with regard to answering questions. One can ask any question; but to have a right answer, the question must also be right. If it is a serious question put by a serious person, by an earnest person who is seeking out the solution of a very difficult problem, then, obviously, there will be an answer befitting that question. But what generally happens is that lots of questions are sent in, sometimes very absurd ones, and then there is a demand that all those questions be answered. It seems to me such a waste of time to ask superficial questions and expect very serious answers. I have several questions here, and I am going to try to answer them from what I think is the most serious point of view; and, if I may suggest, as this is a small audience, perhaps you will interrupt me if the answer is not very clear, so that you and I can discuss the question 

Question: What can the average decent man do to put an end to our communal problem?

Krishnamurti: Obviously the sense of separatism is spreading throughout the world. Each successive war is creating more separatism, more nationalism, more sovereign governments, and so on. Especially in India, this problem of communal dissension is on the increase. Why? First of all, obviously, because people are seeking jobs. The more separate governments there are, the more jobs there will be; but that is a very shortsighted policy, is it not?

Because, eventually the world's tendency will be more and more towards federation, towards a coming together, and not a constant breaking up. Surely, any decent person who really thinks about this situation - which is not merely Indian, but a world affair - , must first be free from nationalism, not only in matters of state, but in thought, in action, in feeling. After all, communalism is merely a branch of nationalism. Belonging to a particular country, to a particular race or group of people, or to a particular ideology, tends more and more to divide people, to create antagonism and hatred between man and man. Obviously, that is not the solution to the world's chaos. So, what each one of us can do is to be noncommunal:

We can cease to be Brahmins, cease to belong to any caste or to any country. But that is very difficult, because by tradition, by occupation, by tendency, we are conditioned to a particular pattern of action; and to break away from it is extremely hard. We may want to break away, but family tradition, religious orthodoxy, and so on, all prevent us. It is only men of goodwill who really seek goodwill, who desire to be friendly; and only such men will free themselves from all these limitations which create chaos.

So, it seems to me that to put an end to this communal contention, one must begin with oneself, and not wait for somebody else, for legislation, for government, to act. Because, after all, compulsion or legislation does not solve the problem. The spirit of communalism, separatism, of belonging to a particular class or ideology, to a religion, does ultimately create conflict and antagonism between human beings. Friendliness is not brought about by compulsion, and to look to compulsion, surely, is not the answer. So the way out of this is for each one, for every individual, for you and me, to break away from the communal spirit, from nationalism Is that not the only way out of this difficulty.  

Because, as long as the mind and the heart are not willing to be open and friendly, mere compulsion or legislation is not going to solve this problem. So, it is obviously the responsibility of each one of us, living as we do in a particular community, in a particular nation or group of people, to break away from the narrow spirit of separatism.

The difficulty is that most of us have grievances. Most of us agree with the ideal that we should break away and create a new world, a new set of ideas, and so on; but when we go back home the compulsion of environmental influences is so strong that we fall back - and that is the greatest difficulty, is it not? Intellectually we agree about the absurdity of communal contention, but very few of us care to sit down and think out the whole issue and discover the contributory causes. Belonging to any particular group, whether of social action or of political action, does create antagonism, separatism; and real revolution is not brought about by following any particular ideology, because revolution based on ideology creates antagonisms at different levels and therefore is a continuation of the same thing. So this communal dissension, obviously, can come to an end only when we see the whole absurdity of separate action, of a particular ideology, morality, or organized religion - whether Christianity, Hinduism, or any other organized and limited religion.

Audience: All this sounds very convincing, but in action it is very difficult; and as you say, when we go home most of us are entirely different people from what we are here. Although we may listen to you and think bout what you say, the result depends on each one of us. There is always this "but."
Audience: This move to do away with organized religion may itself form an organized religion.

Krishnamurti: How, Sir?

Audience: For instance, neither Christ nor Ramakrishna Paramahamsa wanted an organized religion; but forgetting the very essence of the teachings, people have built around them an organized religion.

Krishnamurti: Why do we do this? Is it not because we want collective security, we want to feel safe?

Audience: Are all institutions separatist in character?
Krishnamurti: They are bound to be.
Audience: Is even belonging to a family wicked?
Krishnamurti: You are introducing the word "wicked", which I never used.
Audience: We are repudiating our family system. Our family system is ancient.
Krishnamurti: If it is misused, it must obviously be scrapped.
Audience: So an institution by itself need not be separatist?

Krishnamurti: Obviously. The post office is not separatist, because all communities use it. It is universal. So, why is it that individual human beings find it important to belong to something - to a religious organization, to a society, to a club, and so on? Why?

Audience: There is no life without relationship.
Krishnamurti: Obviously. But why seek separatism?
Audience: There are natural relationships and unnatural relationships. A family is a natural relationship.
Krishnamurti: I am just asking: why is there the desire, the urge, to belong to an exclusive group? Let us think it out, and not just make statements. Why is it that I belong to a particular caste or nation? Why do I call myself a Hindu? Why have we got this exclusive spirit?
Audience: Selfishness. The ego of power.

Krishnamurti: Throwing in a word or two does not mean an answer. There is some motive power, a drive, an intention, that makes us belong to a certain group of people. Why? Is it not important to find out? Why does one call oneself a German, an Englishman, a Hindu, a Russian? Is it not obvious that there is this desire to identify oneself with something, because identification with something large makes one feel important? That is the fundamental reason.

Audience: Not always. A Harijan, for instance, belongs to a very low community. He does not take pride in it.

Krishnamurti: But we keep him there. Why don't we invite him into our particular caste? Audience: We are trying to invite him.
Audience: We are trying to invite him.
Krishnamurti: But why is it that individuals identify themselves with the greater, with the nation, with an idea which is beyond them?
Audience: Because from the moment the individual is born, certain ideas are instilled into him. These ideas develop, and he thinks he is a slave, In other words, he is so conditioned.

Krishnamurti: Exactly. He is so conditioned that he cannot break away from his serfdom. The identification with the greater exists because one wants to be secure, safe, through belonging to a particular group of thought or of action. Sirs, this is obvious, is it not? In ourselves we are nothing, we are timid, afraid to remain

alone, and therefore we want to identify ourselves with the larger, and in that identification we become very exclusive. This is a world process. This is not my opinion, it is exactly what is taking place. Identification is religiously or nationalistically inflamed at moments of great crisis; and the problem is vast, it is not just in India, it is everywhere throughout the world - this sense of identification with a particular group which gradually becomes exclusive and thereby creates between people antagonism, hatred. So, that is why, when answering this question, we will have to deal with nationalism as well as communalism, in which is also involved the identification with a particular organized religion.

Audience: Why do we identify ourselves at all?

Krishnamurti: For the very simple reason that if we did not identify ourselves with something we would be confused, we would be lost; and because of that fear, we identify ourselves in order to be safe.

Audience: Fear of what? Is it not ignorance rather than fear?

Krishnamurti: Call it what you like, fear or ignorance, they are all the same. So the point is really this: Can you and I be free from this fear, can we stand alone and not be exclusive? Aloneness is not exclusive; only loneliness is exclusive. Surely, that is the only way out of the problem; because, the individual is a world process, not a separate process, and as long as individuals identify themselves with a particular group or a particular section, they must be exclusive, thereby inevitably creating antagonism, hatred and conflict.

Question: Man must know what God is, before he can know God. How are you going to introduce the idea of God to man without bringing God to man's level?

Krishnamurti: You cannot, Sir. Now, what is the impetus behind the search for God, and is that search real? For most of us, it is an escape from actuality. So, we must be very clear in ourselves whether this search after God is an escape, or whether it is a search for truth in everything - truth in our relationships, truth in the value of things, truth in ideas. If we are seeking God merely because we are tired of this world and its miseries, then it is an escape. Then we create god, and therefore it is not God. The god of the temples, of the books, is not God, obviously - it is a marvellous escape. But if we try to find the truth, not in one exclusive set of actions, but in all our actions, ideas and relationships, if we seek the right evaluation of food, clothing and shelter, then, because our minds are capable of clarity and understanding, when we seek reality we shall find it. It will not then be an escape. But if we are confused with regard to the things of the world - food, clothing, shelter, relationship, and ideas - how can we find reality? We can only invent "reality." So, God, truth, or reality, is not to be known by a mind that is confused, conditioned, limited. How can such a mind think of reality or God? It has first to decondition itself. It has to free itself from its own limitations, and only then can it know what God is, obviously not before. Reality is the unknown, and that which is known is not the real.

So, a mind that wishes to know reality has to free itself from its own conditioning, and that conditioning is imposed either externally or internally; and as long as the mind creates contention, conflict in relationship, it cannot know reality. So, if one is to know reality, the mind must be tranquil; but if the mind is compelled, disciplined to be tranquil, that tranquillity is in itself a limitation, it is merely self-hypnosis. The mind becomes free and tranquil only when it understands the values with which it is surrounded. So, to understand that which is the highest, the supreme, the real, we must begin very low, very near; that is, we have to find the value of things, of relationship, and of ideas, with which we are occupied every day. And without understanding them, how can the mind seek reality? It can invent "reality", it can copy, it can imitate; because it has read so many books, it can repeat the experience of others. But surely, that is not the real. To experience the real, the mind must cease to create; because, whatever it creates is still within the bondage of time. 

The problem is not whether there is or is not God, but how man may discover God; and if in his search he disentangles himself from everything, he will inevitably find that reality. But he must begin with the near and not with the far. Obviously, to go far one must begin near. But most of us want to speculate, which is a very convenient escape.

That is why religions offer such a marvellous drug for most people. So, the task of disentangling the mind from all the values which it has created is an extremely arduous one, and because our minds are weary, or we are lazy, we prefer to read religious books and speculate about God; but that, surely, is not the discovery of reality. Realizing is experiencing, not imitating.

Question: Is the mind different from the thinker?

Krishnamurti: Now, is the thinker different from his thoughts? Does the thinker exist without thoughts? Is there a thinker apart from thought? Stop thinking, and where is the thinker? Is the thinker of one thought different from the thinker of another thought? Is the thinker separate from his thought, or does thought create the thinker, who then identifies himself with thought when he finds it convenient, and separates himself when it is not convenient? That is, what is the "I", the thinker? Obviously, the thinker is composed of various thoughts which have become identified as the "me". So, the thoughts produce the thinker, not the other way round. If I have no thoughts, then there is no thinker; not that the thinker is different each time, but if there are no thoughts there is no thinker. So, thoughts produce the thinker, as actions produce the actor. The actor does not produce actions.

Audience: You seem to suggest, Sir, that by ceasing to think, the "I" will be absent.

Krishnamurti: The I is made up of my qualities, my idiosyncracies, my passions, my possessions, my house, my money, my wife, my books. These create the idea of "me", I do not create them. Do you agree?

Audience: We find it difficult to agree.
Krishnamurti: If all thoughts were to cease, the thinker would not be there. Therefore, the thoughts produce the thinker.

Audience: All the thoughts and environments are there, but that does not produce the thinker.
Krishnamurti: How does the thinker come into being?

Audience: He is there.
Krishnamurti: You take it for granted that he is there. Why do you say so?
Audience: That we do not know. You must answer that for us.

Krishnamurti: I say the thinker is not there. There is only the action, the thought, and then the thinker comes in.

Audience: How does the "I", the thinker, come into being?

Krishnamurti: Now, let us go very slowly. Let us all try to approach the problem with the intention of finding the truth, then discussing it will be worthwhile. We are trying to find out how the thinker, the "I", the "mine", comes into being. Now, first there is perception, then contact, desire, and identification. Before that, the "I" is not in existence.

Audience: When my mind is away, I shall not perceive at all. Unless there is first the perceiver, there is no sensation. A dead body cannot perceive, though the eyes and the nerves may be there.

Krishnamurti: You take it for granted that there is a superior entity, and the object it sees.
Audience: It appears so.
Krishnamurti: You say so. You take it for granted that there is. why?
Audience: My experience is that without the cooperation of the "I", there is no perception.

Krishnamurti: We cannot talking of pure perception. Perception is always mixed up with the perceiver - it is a joint phenomenon. If we talk of perception, the perceiver is immediately dragged in. It is beyond our experience to speak of perceiving, we never have such an experience as perceiving. You may fall into a deep sleep, when the perceiver does not perceive himself; but in deep sleep there is neither perception nor perceiver. If you know a state in which the perceiver is perceiving himself without bringing in other objects of

perception, then only can you validly speak of the perceiver. As long as that state is unknown, we have no right to talk of the perceiver as apart from perception. So, the perceiver and the perception are a joint  phenomenon, they are the two sides of the same medal. They are not separate, and we have no right to separate two things which are not separate. We insist on separating the perceiver from the perception when there is no valid ground for it. We know no perceiver without perception, and we know no perception without a perceiver. Therefore, the only valid conclusion is that perception and perceiver, the "I" and the will, are two sides of the same medal, they are two aspects of the same phenomenon, which is neither perception nor perceiver; but an accurate examination of it requires close attention.

Audience: Where does that take us?

Audience: We must discover a state in which perceiver and perception do not exist apart, but are part and parcel of the same phenomenon. The act of perceiving, feeling, thinking, brings in the division of perceiver and perception, because that is the basic phenomenon of life. If we can follow up these fleeting moments of perceiving, of knowing, of feeling, of acting, and divorce them from perception on the one side, and the perceiver on the other.

Krishnamurti: Sir, this question arose out of the enquiry about the search for God. Obviously, most of us want to know the experience of reality. Surely, it can be known only when the experiencer stops  experiencing; because, the experiencer is creating the experience. If the experiencer is creating the experience, then he will create god; therefore, it will not be God. Can the experiencer cease? That is the whole point in this question. Now, if the experiencer and the experience are a joint phenomenon, which is so obvious, then the experiencer, the actor, the thinker, has to stop thinking. Is that not obvious? So, can the thinker cease to think? Because, when he thinks, he creates, and what he creates is not the real. Therefore, to find out whether there is or there is not reality, God, or what you will, the thought process has to come to an end, which means that the thinker must cease. Whether he is produced by thoughts is irrelevant for the moment. The whole thought process, which includes the thinker, has to come to an end. It is only then that we will find reality. Now, first of all, in bringing that process to an end, how is it to be done, and who is to do it? If the thinker does it, the thinker is still the product of thought. The thinker putting an end to thought is still the continuity of thought. So, what is the thinker to do? Any exertion on his part is still the thinking process. I hope I am making myself clear.

Audience: It may even mean resistance to thinking.

Krishnamurti: Resistance to thinking, putting down all thinking, is still a form of thinking; therefore the thinker continues, and therefore he can never find the truth. So, what is one to do? This is very serious and requires sustained attention. Any effort on the part of the thinker projects the thinker on a different level. That is a fact. If the thinker, the experiencer, positively or negatively makes an effort to understand reality, he is still maintaining the thought process. So, what is he to do? All that he can do is to realize that any effort on his part, positively or negatively, is detrimental. He must see the truth of that and not merely verbally understand it. He must see that he cannot act, because any action on his part maintains the actor, gives nourishment to the actor; any effort on his part, positively or negatively, gives strength to the "I", the thinker, the experiencer. So all that he can do is not to do anything. Even to wish positively or negatively is still part of thinking. He must see the fact that any effort he makes is detrimental to the discovery of truth. That is the first requirement. If I want to understand, I must be completely free from prejudice; and I cannot be in that state when I am making an effort, negatively or positively. It is extremely hard. It requires a sense of passive awareness in which there is no effort. It is only then that reality can project itself.

Audience: Concentration upon the projected reality?

Krishnamurti: Concentration is another form of exertion, which is still an act of thinking. Therefore, concentration will obviously not lead to reality.

Audience: You said that, positively or negatively, any action on the part of the thinker is a projection of the thinker.

Krishnamurti: It is a fact, Sir. Comment from the Audience: In other words, you distinguish between awareness and thought. 

Krishnamurti: I am going at it slowly. When we talk of concentration, concentration implies compulsion, exclusion, interest in something exclusive, in which choice is involved. That implies effort on the part of the thinker, which strengthens the thinker. Is that not a fact? So, we will have to go into the problem of thought. What is thought? Thought is reaction to a condition, which means thought is the response of memory; and how can memory which is the past, create the eternal?

Audience: We do not say memory creates it because memory is a thing without awareness.

Krishnamurti: It is unconscious, subconscious, it comes of its own accord, involuntarily. We are now trying to find out what we mean by thought. To understand this question, don't look into a dictionary, look at yourself, examine yourself. What do you mean by thinking? When you say you are thinking, what are you actually doing? You are reacting. You are reacting through your past memory. Now, what is memory? It is experience, the storing up of yesterday's experience, whether collective or individual. Experience of yesterday is memory. When do we remember an experience? Surely, only when it is not complete. I have an

experience, and that experience is incomplete, unfinished, and it leaves a mark. That mark I call memory, and memory responds to a further challenge. This response of memory to a challenge is called thinking.

Audience: On what is the mark left?

Krishnamurti: On the "me". After all, the "me", the "mine", is the residue of all memories, collective, racial, individual, and so on. That bundle of memories is the "me", and that "me" with its memory responds. That response is called thinking.

Audience: Why are these memories bundled together?

Krishnamurti: Through identification. I put everything in a bag, consciously or unconsciously. Comment from the Audience: So, there is a bag separate from memory.

Krishnamurti: Memory is the bag.
Comment from the audience: Why do the memories stick together?
Krishnamurti: Because they are incomplete.

Audience: But memories are non-existent, they are in a state of inertia, unless somebody is there to remember.

Krishnamurti: In other words, is the rememberer different from memory? The rememberer and the memory are two sides of a coin. Without memory, there is no rememberer, and without the rememberer, there is no memory.

Audience: Why do we insist on separating the perceiver from the perception, the rememberer from the memory? Is this not at the root of our trouble?

Krishnamurti: We separate it because the rememberer, the experiencer, the thinker, becomes permanent by separation. Memories are obviously fleeting; so the rememberer, the experiencer, the mind, separates itself because it wants permanency. The mind that is making an effort, that is striving, that is choosing, that is disciplined, obviously cannot find the real; because, as we said, through that very effort it projects itself and

sustains the thinker. Now, how to free the thinker from his thoughts? This is what we are discussing. Because, whatever he thinks must be the result of the past, and therefore he creates god, truth, out of memory, which is obviously not real. In other words, the mind is constantly moving from the known to the known.

When memory functions, the mind can move only in the field of the known; and when it moves within the field of the known, it can never know the unknown. So, our problem is, how to free the mind from the known. To free ourselves from the known, any effort is detrimental, because effort is still of the known. So, all effort must cease. Have you ever tried to be without effort? If I understand that all effort is futile, that all effort is a further projection of the mind, of the "I", of the thinker, if I realize the truth of that, what happens?

If I see very clearly the label "poison" on a bottle, I leave it alone. There is no effort not to be attracted to it. Similarly - and in this lies the greatest difficulty - , if I realize that any effort on my part is detrimental, if I see the truth of that, then I am free of effort. Any effort on our part is detrimental, but we are not sure, because we want a result, we want an achievement - and that is our difficulty. Therefore, we go on striving, striving, striving. But God, truth, is not a result, a reward, an end. Surely, it must come to us, we cannot go to it. If we make an effort to go to it, we are seeking a result, an achievement. But for truth to come, a man must be passively aware. Passive awareness is a state in which there is no effort; it is to be aware without judgment, without choice, not in some ultimate sense, but in every way; it is to be aware of your actions, of your thoughts, of your relative responses, without choice, without condemnation, without identifying or denying, so

that the mind begins to understand every thought and every action without judgment. This evokes the question of whether there can be understanding without thought. 

Audience: Surely, if you are indifferent to something.

Krishnamurti: Sir, indifference is a form of judgment. A dull mind, an indifferent mind, is not aware. To see without judgment, to know exactly what is happening, is awareness. So, it is vain to seek God or truth without being aware now, in the immediate present. It is much easier to go to a temple, but that is an escape into the realm of speculation. To understand reality, we must know it directly, and reality is obviously not of time and space; it is in the present, and the present is our own thought and action.

July 4, 1948

A Dialogue With Oneself - J. Krishnamurti

A Dialogue With Oneself
J. Krishnamurti

Table of Content
A Dialogue With Oneself
Brockwood Park 1st Public Dialogue 30th August 1977

A Dialogue With Oneself

I realize that love cannot exist when there is jealousy; love cannot exist when there is attachment. Now, is it possible for me to be free of jealousy and attachment? I realize that I do not love. That is a fact. I am not going to deceive myself; I am not going to pretend to my wife that I love her. I do not know what love is. But I do know that I am jealous and I do know that I am terribly attached to her and that in attachment there is fear, there is jealousy, anxiety; there is a sense of dependence. I do not like to depend but I depend because I am lonely; I am shoved around in the office, in the factory and I come home and I want to feel comfort and companionship, to escape from myself. Now I ask myself: how am I to be free of this attachment? I am taking that just as an example.

At first, I want to run away from the question. I do not know how it is going to end up with my wife. When I am really detached from her my relationship to her may change. She might be attached to me and I might not be attached to her or to any other woman. But I am going to investigate. So I will not run away from what I imagine might be the consequence of being totally free of all attachment. I do not know what love is, but I see very clearly, definitely, without any doubt, that attachment to my wife means jealousy, possession, fear, anxiety and I want freedom from all that. So I begin to enquire; I look for a method and I get caught in a system. Some guru says: "I will help you to be detached, do this and this; practise this and this." I accept what he says because I see the importance of being free and he promises me that if I do what he says I will have reward. But I see that way that I am looking for reward. I see how silly I am; wanting to be free and getting attached to a reward.

I do not want to be attached and yet I find myself getting attached to the idea that somebody, or some book, or some method, will reward me with freedom from attachment. So, the reward becomes an attachment. So I say: "Look what I have done; be careful, do not get caught in that trap." Whether it is a woman, a method, or an idea, it is still attachment. I am very watchful now for I have learned something; that is, not to exchange attachment for something else that is still attachment.

I ask myself: "What am I to do to be free of attachment?" What is my motive in wanting to be free of attachment? Is it not that I want to achieve a state where there is no attachment, no fear and so on? And I suddenly realize that motive gives direction and that direction will dictate my freedom. Why have a motive? What is motive? A motive is a hope, or a desire, to achieve something. I see that I am attached to a motive. Not only my wife, not only my idea, the method, but my motive has become my attachment! So I am all the time functioning within the field of attachment - the wife, the method and the motive to achieve something in the future. To all this I am attached. I see that it is a tremendously complex thing; I did not realize that to be free of attachment implied all this. Now, I see this as clearly as I see on a map the main roads, the side roads and the villages; I see it very clearly. Then I say to myself: "Now, is it possible for me to be free of the great attachment I have for my wife and also of the reward which I think I am going to get and of my motive?" To all this I am attached. Why? Is it that I am insufficient in myself? Is it that I am very very lonely and therefore seek to escape from that feeling of isolation by turning to a woman, an idea, a motive; as if I must hold onto something? I see that it is so, I am lonely and escaping through attachment to something from that feeling of extraordinary isolation.

So I am interested in understanding why I am lonely, for I see it is that which makes me attached. That loneliness has forced me to escape through attachment to this or to that and I see that as long as I am lonely the sequence will always be this. What does it mean to be lonely? How does it come about? Is it instinctual, inherited, or is it brought about by my daily activity? If it is an instinct, if it is inherited, it is part of my lot; I am not to blame. But as I do not accept this, I question it and remain with the question. I am watching and I am not trying to find an intellectual answer. I am not trying to tell the loneliness what it should do, or what it is; I am watching for it to tell me. There is a watchfulness for the loneliness to reveal itself. It will not reveal itself if I run away; if I am frightened; if I resist it. So I watch it. I watch it so that no thought interferes. Watching is much more important than thought coming in. And because my whole energy is concerned with the observation of that loneliness thought does not come in at all. The mind is being challenged and it must answer. Being challenged it is in a crisis. In a crisis you have great energy and that energy remains without being interfered with by thought. This is a challenge which must be answered.

I started out having a dialogue with myself. I asked myself what is this strange thing called love; everybody talks about it, writes about it - all the romantic poems, pictures, sex and all other areas of it? I ask: is there such a thing as love? I see it does not exist when there is jealousy, hatred, fear. So I am not concerned with love anymore; I am concerned with `what is', my fear, my attachment. Why am I attached? I see that one of the reasons - I do not say it is the whole reason - is that I am desperately lonely, isolated. The older I grow the more isolated I become. So I watch it. This is a challenge to find out, and because it is a challenge all energy is there to respond. That is simple. If there is some catastrophe, an accident or whatever it is, it is a challenge and I have the energy to meet it. I do not have to ask: "How do I get this energy?" When the house is on fire I have the energy to move; extraordinary energy. I do not sit back and say: "Well, I must get this energy" and then wait; the whole house will be burned by then.

So there is this tremendous energy to answer the question: why is there this loneliness? I have rejected ideas, suppositions and theories that it is inherited, that it is instinctual. All that means nothing to me. Loneliness is `what is'. Why is there this loneliness which every human being, if he is at all aware, goes through, superficially or most profoundly? Why does it come into being? Is it that the mind is doing something which is bringing it about? I have rejected theories as to instinct and inheritance and I am asking: is the mind, the brain itself, bringing about this loneliness, this total isolation? Is the movement of thought doing this? Is the thought in my daily life creating this sense of isolation? In the office I am isolating myself because I want to become the top executive, therefore thought is working all the time isolating itself. I see that thought is aIl the time operating to make itself superior, the mind is working itself towards this isolation.

So the problem then is: why does thought do this? Is it the nature of thought to work for itself? Is it the nature of thought to create this isolation? Education brings about this isolation; it gives me a certain career, a certain specialization and so, isolation. Thought, being fragmentary, being limited and time binding, is creating this isolation. In that limitation, it has found security saying: "I have a special career in my life; I am a professor; I am perfectly safe." So my concern is then: why does thought do it? Is it in its very nature to do this? Whatever thought does must be limited. Now the problem is: can thought realize that whatever it does is limited, fragmented and therefore isolating and that whatever it does will be thus? This is a very important point: can thought itself realize its own limitations? Or am I telling it that it is limited? This, I see, is very important to understand; this is the real essence of the matter. If thought realizes itself that it is limited then there is no resistance, no conflict; it says, "I am that". But if I am telling it that it is limited then I become separate from the limitation. Then I struggle to overcome the limitation, therefore there is conflict and violence, not love.

So does thought realize of itself that it is limited? I have to find out. I am being challenged. Because I am challenged I have great energy. Put it differently: does consciousness realize its content is itself? Or is it that I have heard another say: "Consciousness is its content; its content makes up consciousness"? Therefore I say, "Yes, it is so". Do you see the difference between the two? The latter, created by thought, is imposed by the `me'. If I impose something on thought then there is conflict. It is like a tyrannical government imposing on someone, but here that government is what I have created.

So I am asking myself: has thought realized its own limitations? Or is it pretending to be something extraordinary, noble, divine? - which is nonsense because thought is based on memory. I see that there must be clarity about this point: that there is no outside influence imposing on thought saying it is limited. Then, because there is no imposition there is no conflict; it simply realizes it is limited; it realizes that whatever it does - its worship of god and so on - is limited, shoddy, petty - even though it has created marvellous cathedrals throughout Europe in which to worship.

So there has been in my conversation with myself the discovery that loneliness is created by thought. Thought has now realized of itself that it is limited and so cannot solve the problem of loneliness. As it cannot solve the problem of loneliness, does loneliness exist? Thought has created this sense of loneliness, this emptiness, because it is limited, fragmentary, divided and when it realizes this, loneliness is not, therefore there is freedom from attachment. I have done nothing; I have watched the attachment, what is implied in it, greed, fear, loneliness, all that and by tracing it, observing it, not analysing it, but just looking, looking and looking, there is the discovery that thought has done all this. Thought, because it is fragmentary, has created this attachment. When it realizes this, attachment ceases. There is no effort made at all. For the moment there is effort - conflict is back again.

In love there is no attachment; if there is attachment there is no love. There has been the removal of the major factor through negation of what it is not, through the negation of attachment. I know what it means in my daily life: no remembrance of anything my wife, my girl friend, or my neighbour did to hurt me; no attachment to any image thought has created about her; how she has bullied me, how she has given me comfort, how I have had pleasure sexually, all the different things of which the movement of thought has created images; attachment to those images has gone.

And there are other factors: must I go through all those step by step, one by one? Or is it all over? Must I go through, must I investigate - as I have investigated attachment - fear, pleasure and the desire for comfort? I see that I do not have to go through all the investigation of all these various factors; I see it at one glance, I have captured it.

So, through negation of what is not love, love is. I do not have to ask what love is. I do not have to run after it. If I run after it, it is not love, it is a reward. So I have negated, I have ended, in that enquiry, slowly, carefully, without distortion, without illusion, everything that it is not - the other is.

Brockwood Park 1st Public Dialogue 30th August 1977

I believe we are going to have a discussion but I am afraid that word implies that we are trying to find truth through argument, debate. And with so many people I am afraid discussion is not possible. Nor is dialogue - dialogue being a conversion between two people, people who are friendly. And that is also not possible with so many people. And also we thought of having about ten or twelve people in front here, have a dialogue with them and those who want to join in come in also. But that also is not possible. So what shall we do? Shall we have a question and answer meeting; or a dialogue with two or three people who are seriously enough concerned with their life, with their surroundings and their environment, with politics and so on to have a dialogue with those few people, and those who wish to join in can, so that they are not chosen specially or that anyone is excluded? So what shall we do?

Q: The latter.
K: Which is, question and answer?
Q: No dialogue.
Q: A few people talking.
K: You want a few people talking? Now, who is going to choose the few people? If I choose, or if somebody else chooses, you will consider there are our favourites.
Q: Let those who wish come forward and be part of the dialogue.
Q: Questions and answers are the simplest.
K: Question and answer: would you like that?
10
So would you like a question and answer meeting? Or a dialogue between two or three people? And you choose those two or three people - not the speaker but somebody.
Q: Play it by ear.
K: How do you do that?
Can we start off, if I may suggest, with a question and answer meeting, and then see how that works out. And then out of the questions and answers we will find who can really have a dialogue, who can exchange, who can say, look, I don't understand, what do you mean by that? Let us talk about it much more so that there is a conversation between the speaker and yourself. Can we try that? Question and answer first, then a dialogue - that is, a conversation between two or three people. We will see how this works out.
Just a minute: before you put questions please, we are asking questions affecting our life, our daily life. How to bring about, or rather, is it possible to bring about a radical transformation in our daily existence, in our consciousness, a radical change in our whole way of thinking, looking, observing, acting? That is what we are concerned with. And if you ask questions, hypothetical questions, or theoretical questions I am afraid I won't answer. That is fairly simple and clear. Please ask questions directly concerning yourself because you are the rest of the humanity, and if you want to find out how to resolve your problems, how to look at life as a totally different thing, from that ask questions, then it is worthwhile. But if you discuss, ask questions which are not actual, factual but theoretical then I am afraid, at least I won't be able to answer them.
Q: I see that there is a common thing amongst us all the time. And I can't see it, I can't hear it, but I think there is something. Can you tell us what it is about?
K: What is the problem, sir?
11
Q: That there is something common amongst all human beings, what is that?
K: We have explained very carefully during these talks, and in the past, that wherever you go in the world human beings are caught in a trap of sorrow, misery, confusion, uncertainty, disorder and so on and so on. That is the common factor of all human beings living on this unfortunate earth.
Q: Do you see that the psychological fear, greed and violence in each one of us is a direct transformation of the physical violence through the other senses for profit and food? Or in other words, killing animals is a prime cause of our misery?
K: I haven't understood. Killing animals...
Q: ...for the food and profit.
K: What is the question sir.
Q: Do you think that the psychological fear, greed and violence in each one of us is a direct transformation of physical violence over the centuries?
K: Oh, I see. Biologists and others have said that in the process of evolution we are the result of the animal and so on. The animals are violent, therefore we have inherited that violence. Now what is the question? The question is, whether human beings can be free of that violence.
Q: That's right.
K: Are we really concerned about it? And that is a matter of daily occupation that you really deeply, profoundly seriously - there is an urge to be free of that? Just a minute sir. That is the question I am asking. If it is, then let's talk about it. Otherwise if you say, "Well theoretically I would like to be free but I am going to kill animals all the same", then it has no meaning.
12
So what is violence? How does violence arise? And there is not only physical violence, hitting each other, throwing bombs at each other, killing each other, but also there are various forms of violence. It is violence when human beings are in conflict psychologically. That is a form of violence, surely? It is another form of violence when we imitate, when we conform, when we follow - all those are indications, like being angry and so on, are a form of violence. Right? So when we talk about violence we are not only talking about psychological factors of violence but also the physical actions of violence - hitting each other, throwing bombs at each other and so on and so on. The terrorists, the totalitarian states which suppress people - all that is a form of violence. Right?
Now is it possible to be free of that violence, psychologically? Let's begin psychologically, not physically. We are saying is it possible? It is only possible, isn't it, when you can come face to face with it and deal with it - not have theories, ideals of non-violence and all the rest of it. Right? That is an escape from the fact. I want to be free from violence, therefore there must be an awareness of all the factors of violence, and observe them, not run away from them, not say, "I must change them", "I must become non-violent". In becoming non-violent you are in conflict. Right? Because you are violent and you want to become non-violent and therefore you make an effort and that very effort is a form of violence. Can we go on from there?
So is it possible to be free of violence and look at the whole issue, the complex problem of violence, psychologically? Which means, are we imitating, conforming, adjusting ourselves to a pattern which we or others have established for us? All those are symptoms of violence, like anger, hatred, jealousy. Now can we remain with that factor of violence and be aware choicelessly of the whole structure of violence? Will you do it? Are you doing it now? Are you doing it, sir, the questioner? Is the questioner, who put that question, is he doing it? Or is it just a theory about violence? Where there is division between man and man, woman and man, and so on there must be conflict, which is a form of violence.
13
Nationalism and so on are a form of violence. Obviously. When there are two dogmatic beliefs, each trying to convert each other, oppose each other, it is a form of violence. So are we aware of this factor in our life? And when you become aware of it what are you going to do? Do you say, "Yes, I am aware of it" but carry on with violence? Therefore it becomes a very serious matter. If one is really to be free of violence, to look at it, to live with it, to understand it, to go into it and see all the multiple forms of violence, totally to be acquainted with it - and when you are acquainted with something it flowers and then it withers away, you don't have to fight it. Will you do it?
Q: Are you saying that we become violent to understand it?
K: We are not saying we become violent - we are violent!
Q: What do you mean by flowering?
K: Sir, look: I am violent. I observe it. Because I don't run away from it, I don't suppress it, I don't transform it into something else as non-violence, which is absurd - the transformation of violence in to non-violence is stupidity, it has no meaning. So as I am violent, I let it come out - not in action. Let it flower, let it grow, as you watch it, it grows and dies. Haven't you done all this? That is sir, when you are angry, at that moment of anger you are not aware, you are full out. Then a second later you say, "I have been angry". Right? So you have divided yourself as not being angry and that you have been angry. So there is a division between the observer who says, "I have been angry, and I must not be angry". Right? So the division brings about conflict, saying "I mustn't be angry, how am I to get rid of my anger" - and so on and so on. Whereas if you are aware of anger as it arises and let it come out non-verbally, non-actively, not say, "I am going to hit you" - let it flower, let it come out, and you will see it disappears very quickly and withers away. And if you do it properly you are never angry again, finished.
Q: Can you do the same thing with fear?
14
K: Same thing with fear.
Q: Sir, when you say you should observe the totality of yourself, I find that very hard to do because I can only see what is coming up in the present moment. Now is that the totality of myself? Or is it the whole feelings, the whole of the mental consciousness?
K: Sir, now let's go into that, shall we? Is it possible to be totally aware of the whole content of one's consciousness? That is the question, isn't it? Have I misunderstood the question?
Q: In one moment.
K: I am coming to that. First I am asking if I am telling you what the questioner is saying accurately? The questioner is asking whether it is possible to see the whole of the content of consciousness at one perception and to be totally aware of the whole thing? Is it possible when you have lived a partial life all the time? Right? You look at life partially, don't you? You are a business man, you are a doctor, you are a politician, you are a scientist, you are an artist, you are a writer, you are a labourer, a woman and so on. Those are all divided parts, aren't they? And our whole conditioning is to look at life in parts. Right? Are you following this? In parts. Therefore our conditioning is going to prevent seeing the totality, the whole of consciousness at one instant. So our concern then is not how to observe the totality of consciousness, but why does the mind, or the brain observe partially? Why is the brain not capable of observing the total affair? The brain has been conditioned through millenia to look at life partially. Right? That is clear, isn't it? You are all looking at life in fragments. Then my concern is - if I have a concern about it - our concern then is why does the mind or the brain observe in fragments? Right? Why?
Q: What do you mean by observing in fragments?
15
K: Don't we live that way? In the office I am brutal, ambitious, I want success, I am ruthless. At home - I come home and say, "Darling, how are you?"
Q: Sir that seems almost optional. Whereas society seems to demand that we become more specialized.
K: Yes. Society demands that we become more specialized, which is fragmentation. Society demands it because they need more engineers and so on and so on. But psychologically we are asking why does the brain function in fragments? As we were saying, it has been conditioned that way for millenia. Now is it possible to be free of that conditioning? Not how to look at the totality, but to be free of the conditioning as a nationalist, Arab, Jew, specialist, doctor and so on? To take life as a whole. Because there is security in fragments - in fragmentation both physiologically as well as psychologically, that is obvious, isn't it? No? I specialize in becoming a guru - and I find in that specialization a great deal of security - both physical as well as psychologically. I specialize as a doctor, as an engineer, as a businessman, as a priest, as a salesman, whatever you like, in that fragmentation of life, in the fragments there is a great deal of security. And the brain and all the structure of the brain demands security. So it has found security in a fragment. Now is there security in a fragment? Follow it up please. Is there security in division - as a Hindu, as a Muslim, as a Christian, as an Arab, as a Jew, or in a specialized career? Is there security? That is for you to answer. I can't answer. If there is no security, and to find out that there is no security is the beginning of intelligence, isn't it? To say there is security in being a Communist or a Catholic - I am taking those two as an example - if I am a Catholic, in a Catholic country I feel very safe. Psychologically I believe and all the rest of it. In that belief, in that conditioning there is security. And in the same way if I am a Communist, theoretically I believe in certain concepts of society, in the power of the State and so on and so on, control, and in believing that there is a great deal of security.
16
So one has to find out if there is security in division. Right? However profitable, however pleasurable, however comforting, is there security in division, which is fragmentation? Obviously not. Now to find out that, to find out that there is no security in fragmentation is the beginning of intelligence. It is only the unintelligent who accept division and live in that division. Right?
Q: Sir, if we are serious people, can the skill you spoke of...
K: Ah, wait. We haven't finished this question? This is a very complex question, it is not just a couple of minutes. We live a fragmentary life. The essence of fragmentation is the 'me'. Right? The 'me' and the 'you', 'we' and 'they'. That is the essence of fragmentation. And we have lived that way, we are educated that way, we are conditioned to that, because in that there is tremendous idea or illusion that there is security. Now to be free of that requires a great deal of observation, living with the idea that I am really functioning in fragmentation and where there is fragmentation there must be conflict, and therefore the importance given to the 'me'. That is all.
So can you, can one be free of the fragmentary way of living daily?
Q: Sir, there seems to be no security in fragmentation, the fragmentation seems to continue as habit.
K: But it is habit. Now, all right sir. It doesn't matter if it is habit. All right if it is habit can you be free of that habit - habit being conditioning? Otherwise we live in constant battle with each other, however intimate we are with each other, husband and wife and so on, there must be constant conflict and that is why so many families break up - you know all the rest of it.
So we are asking: to observe the totality of consciousness is only possible when there is no fragmentary existence, then you see the whole thing at once. We are all so used to analysis, which is the continuation of fragmentation.
17
Q: Sir, doesn't that mean the whole of the consciousness is nothing?
K: The whole of consciousness first of all is its content, isn't it? Its content makes up consciousness - anger, jealousy, hatred, the innumerable hurts we have, nationalities, beliefs, conclusions, hopes, all that is our consciousness. Is it possible to be aware of all this, not bit by bit, but totally? And then to go beyond it, which means to be free of the content and see what happens. But nobody wants to try that!
Q: It seems impossible.
Q: Would you say to try that without compassion would have no real meaning in the transformation of mankind?
K: I don't quite follow.
Q: Well I will try and make it clearer if I can. You spoke on Saturday of three things: compassion, clarity and skill. You have shown us very clearly how skill comes into operation from clarity and compassion comes in from...
K: Yes, yes sir.
Q: Now how do we bring in compassion if we haven't got compassion? If compassion has not brought us to this tent today then what is the point of being here? My question to you was this: if we get this consciousness that you have talked about, if there is no compassion what is the point?
K: If there is no compassion?
Q: If man has no compassion.
K: Quite right sir. There is no point.
Q: It is fundamental that man hasn't got compassion.
18
K: Quite right. Man has not got compassion. Why?
Q: That is the question.
K: No, go into it sir. Why as a human being, you or I or another, who is the essence of all humanity - right sir? - psychologically he is the essence of all humanity, therefore when you are aware of yourself you are representing the whole of mankind. And you or another has no compassion - why?
Q: One of the problems is the feeling that our problems are our personal problems.
K: Our problems are not personal, it is universal.
Q: One of the factors that prevents compassion is this feeling that it is my problem.
K: No, we are trying to find out sir why have human beings who are so evolved technologically to such enormous extent, why have they not got this simple factor which is so intelligent, why have they not got compassion - why?
Q: Perhaps they are too busy.
K: No, don't answer it. Find out why you as a human being, living on this earth, which is meant for all human beings to live happily, why haven't you compassion? You - not somebody else.
Q: Sir I am too frightened.
K: Madam, that is too quick an answer, you haven't gone into it.
Q: Because I am greedy, because I want too much.
Q: You will have compassion when you see yourself...
19
K: You haven't even investigated, you haven't even looked for a couple of seconds at yourself and asked yourself why you haven't got compassion. You are already answering, throwing out words. That may be your defence. Why have you, with all your experiences, with all your knowledge, with all the civilization that you have behind you of which you are the result, why doesn't this thing exist in your daily life?
Q: Because of self preservation?
K: Is it a question of self preservation? To find out why you haven't got it, why it doesn't exist in the human heart and mind and outlook, don't you ask also the question: do you love anybody?
Q: That is a mean question, I mean for me. I wonder sir what love is all about.
K: I am asking you sir, please sir. I am asking you most respectfully, whether you love anybody at all? You may love your dog but the dog is your slave. Apart from animals and buildings and books and poetry and the love of the land, do you love anybody - which means not asking anything in return? Right?
Q: (Inaudible)
K: Just listen sir. Find out! Not asking anything from that person you love, not dependent on that person at all. Because if you are dependent then fear begins, jealousy, anxiety, hatred, anger. And if you are attached to somebody is that love? Find out! And if all that is not love - I am just asking, I don't say it is, or it is not - if all that is not love then how can you have compassion? We are asking for something much more than love. And even love we haven't got - just the ordinary love for another human being.
So what shall we do? We can go on discussing, answering this question, umpteen times, but if you, the listener, don't listen, take it in, find out, then it
20
becomes utterly meaningless to have a dialogue, or a discussion, or a question and answer meeting when you are not actively participating in the enquiry.
Q: How do you find that love?
K: I don't want to find that love. All that I want to do is to remove that which is not love, to be free of jealousy, attachment.
Q: That means we should have no fragmentation.
K: Sir that is just theory. You see you are going back again to theory. Find out if you love somebody.
Q: (Inaudible)
K: You haven't listened madam, you haven't listened to what the speaker has been saying. How can you love when you are concerned about yourself? Right? Your problems, your ambitions, your desire for success, your desire for all the rest of it. You first and the other second; or the other first and you second. It is the same thing.
Q: I would like to know whether it is possible to look at a feeling without bringing in thought.
K: We haven't finished this question madam.
Now you see we have asked so many questions, now how can we have a dialogue about this, two people - you understand? Two or three people, sitting round here, all of you can sit on this platform with me, if you want to discuss, have a dialogue. Can we do that now? Two of you, or half a dozen of you sit here together and say, "Look, let's go into this. Why am I, I understand this verbally, that love cannot exist when there is jealousy, love cannot exist when there is attachment, now is it possible for me to be free of attachment?" That is a dialogue - then I will have a dialogue with myself, shall I, and you listen?
21
Q: From the moment of conception up to the moment of being brought up, trained, people are selfish and they never learn to give. From the mother's womb up to being thrown into the world...
K: We are saying that sir. I will have a conversation with myself, a dialogue with myself.
I realize by listening to this that I don't love. That is a fact. I am not going to deceive myself. I am not going to pretend to my wife that I love her, or to the woman or the girl, or boy. Now first of all I don't know what love is. But I do know that I am jealous, I do know that I am terribly attached to her. And in that attachment there is fear, there is jealousy, there is anxiety, there is a sense of dependency, I don't like to depend but I depend because I am lonely and I'm shoved around by society, in the office, in the factory and I come home and I want to feel comfort, companionship, escape from myself. So I am dependent, attached to that person. Now how am I - I am asking myself - how am I to be free of this attachment, not knowing what love is, I won't pretend - love of god, love of Jesus, love of Krishna, all that nonsense, throw it all out - if I have thrown it all out. So I am saying: how am I to be free of this attachment? I am taking that just as an example.
First of all I won't run away from it. Right? I don't know how it is going to end up with my wife. You understand? When I am really detached from her my relationship may change to her. She might be attached to me and I might not be attached to her or to any other woman. Please, you understand? It isn't that I want to be detached from her and join another woman. That is silly. I am having a dialogue with myself. So what shall I do? I won't run away from the consequence of being totally free of all attachment. I am going to investigate. I don't know what love is, but I see very clearly, definitely, without any doubt, that attachment to that person means fear, anxiety, jealousy, possession, all the rest of it. So I ask
22
myself, how am I to be free of attachment? Not the method, I want the freedom from it. I don't know. I really don't know.
So I begin to enquire. Then I get caught in a system. You understand? You are following this? I get caught in some guru who says, "I will help you to be detached, do this, this, this. Practise this, this". And I want to be free from it and I accept what the silly man says because I see the importance of being free, and he promises me that if I do this I will have a reward. So I want to be free in order to have a reward. You understand? I am looking for a reward. So I say, how silly I am. I want to be free and I get attached to the reward. You are following all this? Good! At last! I think I had better have a dialogue all the time with myself!
So I represent the rest of humanity - and I really mean it - therefore if I am having a dialogue with myself I am in tears - you understand? Not like you, smiling. It is a passion for me.
So I don't want to be attached and yet I find myself getting attached to an idea. You understand? That is, I must be free and somebody, or some book, or some idea, something says "Do this and you will have that." So the reward becomes my attachment - you follow? So I say, "Look what I have done. Be careful, don't get caught in that trap." Whether it is a woman or an idea it is still attachment. So I am very watchful now. I have learned something. That is, exchange for something else is still attachment - right? So I am very watchful. Then I say to myself, is there a way, or what am I to do to be free of attachment? What is my motive? Why do I want to be free from attachment? Because it is painful? Because I want to achieve a state where there is no attachment, no fear, no etc.etc? What is my motive? Please follow me because I am representing you. What is my motive in wanting to be free? And I suddenly realize a motive gives a direction. Right? And that direction will dictate my freedom. Are you following this? So why do I have a motive? What is motive? A motive is a movement, a hope, or to achieve something. So the motive is my attachment. I wonder if you
23
are following all this. Do it sir as we are talking. The motive has become my attachment, not only the woman, the idea of a goal, but my motive; I must have that. So I am all the time functioning within the field of attachment. Right? The woman, the future and the motive - to all this I am attached. So I say "Oh, my god, it is a tremendously complex thing. I didn't realize that to be free of attachment implies all this." Right?
Now, I see this as clearly as I see on a map the roads, the villages, the side roads, the main roads, very clearly. Then I say to myself: "Now, is it possible for me to be free of my motive, to which I am attached, to be free of the woman for whom I have great attachment, and also the reward which I am going to get when I am free?" To all this I am attached. Why? Is it that I am insufficient in myself? Is it that I am very, very lonely, therefore escape from that feeling of that extraordinary sense of isolation and therefore cling to something, man, woman, idea, motive? Hold on to something. Now is it I am lonely? I am taking that. Is it I am lonely? Therefore I am escaping from that feeling of extraordinary isolation, through attachment of another. Right? So I am not interested in attachment at all. I am interested in understanding why I am lonely, which makes me attached. You have understood? You are following me - my dialogue with myself? Which is: I am lonely, and that loneliness has forced me to escape through attachment to this or to that. Now I say as long as I am lonely, all the sequence is this. So I must investigate why I am lonely. What does it mean? Right? What does it mean to be lonely? How does it come about? Is it instinctual, inbred, heredity, or is it my daily activity that is bringing about this loneliness? You understand? I am going into it. I am having a dialogue with myself.
If it is inherited, if it is an instinct, which I question because I accept nothing - you understand? - I accept nothing because I don't accept it is instinct and say "I can't help it". If it is heredity, I am not to blame. As I don't accept any of these things I say, "Why is there this loneliness?" Now I question it and remain with the question, not try to find an answer. I wonder if you understand this? Is somebody
24
following all this? I have asked myself what is the root of this loneliness; and I am watching, I am not trying to find an intellectual answer; I am not trying to tell the loneliness what it should do, or what it is. I am watching it for it to tell me. I wonder if you understand this? Are we going along together somewhat?
So there is a watchfulness for the loneliness to reveal itself. It won't reveal if I run away, if I am frightened, if I resist it. So I watch it. I watch it so that no thought interferes because this is much more important than thought coming in, because my whole energy is concerned with the observation of that loneliness therefore thought doesn't come in at all. Are you following this? Because the mind is being challenged and it must answer. And when you are challenged it is a crisis. And in a crisis you have got all the energy, and that energy remains without being interfered with. I wonder if you follow all this? Because this is a challenge which must be answered.
Q: How can we hang on to that energy? How can we do something about this energy?
K: It has come. You have lost the whole thing.
Look: I have started out having a dialogue with myself. I said what is this strange thing called love. Everybody talks about it, writes about it: romantic poems, pictures and all the rest of it, sex and whole areas of it. And I say have I got this thing called love? Is there such a thing as love? I see love doesn't exist when there is jealousy, hatred, fear. So I am not concerned with love any more; I am concerned with 'what is', which is: my fear, attachment. And why am I attached? I say maybe one of the reasons is - one of the reason, I don't say that is the whole reason - one of the reasons is that I am lonely, desperately isolated. The older I grow the more isolation. So I watch it. This is a challenge to find out, because it is a challenge all energy is there to respond. That is simple, isn't it? When there is death in the family, it is a challenge. If there is some catastrophe, an accident or whatever it is, it is a challenge and you have the energy to meet it.
25
You don't say, "Where do you get this energy?" When your house is on fire you have the energy to move. You have extraordinary energy. You don't sit back and say, "Well I must get this energy" and then wait. And the whole house will be burnt then.
So there is this tremendous energy to answer this question: why is there this loneliness? Because I have rejected other ideas - you follow? - suppositions, theories, that I have inherited it, it is instinct. All that means nothing to me. It is 'what is'. So why am I lonely - not I - why is there this loneliness which every human being, if he is at all aware, goes through, superficially or most profoundly? And why? Why does this come into being? Is it the mind is doing something which is bringing it? You understand? If I have rejected theories, instinct, inheritance, I have rejected all that; therefore I am asking does the mind bring this about? You understand my question sir, or are you getting tired?
Is the mind doing this? Loneliness means total isolation. Right? So I say, is the mind, the brain doing this? The mind which is partly the movement of thought, is thought doing this? You are following all this? Thought in daily life, is it creating, bringing about this sense of isolation? You understand? Which is, in the office I am isolating myself because I want to become bigger, become the executive, or the pope or the bishop - you know. Therefore it is working all the time isolating itself. Are you watching this? You understand sir?
Q: I think it isolates itself in relation to how crowded it is.
K: Yes.
Q: As a reaction.
K: Yes, that is right, sir, that is right. I want to go into this. So I see thought, the mind, is all the time operating to make itself superior, more, working itself to this isolation, towards this isolation. Right? Clear?
26
So the problem then is: why does thought do this? Is it the nature of thought to work for itself? You understand what I mean? Is it the nature of thought to create this isolation? Does society create this isolation? Does education create this isolation? Right? Education does bring about this isolation - it gives me a certain career, a certain specialization, so it is isolation. You follow? So thought, being fragmentary, because I have found that - I have found that thought, which is the response of the past as knowledge, experience and memory, so thought is limited. Right? Thought is time-binding. So thought is doing this. So my concern then is why does thought do it? Is it in its very nature to do this?
I came here for a discussion - wait sir - I came here for a discussion, dialogue. Now I am having a dialogue by myself. Too bad! I'll go on because look what it is leading me up to - leading.
Q: This is the fourth time I have stood up to say something and you are saying that you are having a dialogue by yourself. This is silly!
K: But sir are you telling me - please sir, are you having a dialogue with me?
Q: Well I have something to say which I thought related to what you were saying.
K: Are you having a dialogue with me?
Q: I don't know.
K: We said sir, please, we said that a dialogue implies conversation between two people. Are you and I conversing together about the same thing?
Q: Well we can't be because every time I have something to say...
K: I am asking you sir, not the others, I am asking you are we having a dialogue between you and me about this thing? Which is: why does thought create this isolation, if it does?
27
Q: I want to do that. Because I thought that it came back to the beginning when you were talking about what is love. If there is a moral obligation to love a person at all costs, as there is in my family, it is an affectation. And affectation as love is nobody showing their true feelings, people are masking their violence by politeness which they call love. Therefore what is really inside is being hidden all the time and therefore thought must be deceptive, must lead to isolation because nobody knows what anybody else is feeling because of all the pretence.
K: We have been through that sir. We are coming to the point when we are not pretending. I don't know what love is. We said in the dialogue that we don't know what love is. I know when we use that word 'love' there is a certain pretence, a certain hypocrisy, putting on a certain type of mask. We have been through all that. At the beginning of this dialogue we went into all that. So we come to the point now: why does thought, being a fragment, why does it bring about this isolation, if it does? I have found it does in my conversation with myself because thought is limited, thought is time-binding, therefore whatever it does must be limited. And in that limitation it has found security. It has found security in saying, "I have a special career in my life". It has found security in saying, "I am a professor. There I am perfectly safe. After seven years." - and there you are stuck for the rest of your life. And there is great security both psychologically as well as factual.
So thought is doing this. Now the problem then is: can thought realize - please listen to this - can thought realize that it is limited and therefore the moment it understands that whatever it does is limited and therefore fragmentary and therefore isolating, whatever it does will be this. Therefore can thought - please I am having a dialogue, this is a very important point - can thought realize its own limitations? Or does thought say to itself, I am limited. You understand the difference? Are you all asleep? Thought being me - do I say, thought is limited and therefore it says, "I am limited". Or thought itself realizes I am limited. The two things are entirely different. One is an imposition, and therefore conflict,
28
whereas when thought itself says "I am limited" it won't move away from that limitation. Please this is very important to understand because this is the real essence of this thing. We are imposing on thought what it should do. Thought has created the 'we', the 'me', and thought and the 'me' have separated itself from thought and says, I will dictate, tell what thought should do. But if thought realizes itself that it is limited then there is no resistance, no conflict, it says "I am that. I am blue".
So does thought - in my dialogue with myself, I am asking - does thought realize this itself? Or am I telling it that it is limited? If I am telling it that it is limited then I become separate from the limitations. Then I struggle to overcome the limitation, therefore there is conflict, which is violence, which is not love. Are you following?
So does thought realize itself that it is limited? I have to find out. I am being challenged. I have got energy now, because I am challenged I have got all energy. Does consciousness - put it differently - does consciousness realize its content? Does consciousness realize its content is itself? Or I have heard another say, "Consciousness is its content, its content makes up consciousness"? Therefore you say, "Yes it is so" - you follow? Or does consciousness, my consciousness, this consciousness realize its content and therefore its very content is the totality of my consciousness? Right? Do you see the difference in the two? The one imposed by me, the 'me' created by thought, then if I impose something on thought then there is conflict. Right? It is like a tyrannical government imposing on someone, but the government is what I have created.
So we are asking: has thought realized its own littleness, its own pettiness, its own limitations; or is it pretending to be something extraordinary, noble? - you know, all the rest of it - divine? - which is nonsense because thought is memory, experience, remembrance. So I must, in my dialogue there must be clarity about this point: that there is no outside influence imposing on thought saying it is
29
limited. So thought then because there is no imposition - you understand - there is no conflict, therefore it realizes it is limited. Therefore whatever it does - its worship of god, its worship of Jesus, its worship is limited, shoddy, petty, though it has created marvellous cathedrals throughout Europe.
So there has been in my conversation with myself a discovery that loneliness is created by thought. And thought has now realized itself that it is limited, so it cannot solve the problem of loneliness. You understand? As it cannot solve the problem of loneliness does loneliness exist? You understand my question? Thought has made this sense of loneliness. Right? And thought realizes that it is limited and because it is limited, fragmentary, divided, it has created this, this emptiness, loneliness, therefore when it realizes this, loneliness is not. I wonder if you see this? Right?
So therefore there is freedom from attachment. I have done nothing. You understand? I have watched it, the attachment, what is implied in attachment, greed, fear, loneliness, all that, and by tracing it, looking at it, observing it, not analysing it, examining, but just looking, looking, looking, and there is a discovery that thought has done all this. Right? Thought because it is fragmentary it has created this attachment. So when it realizes, attachment ceases. I wonder if you see this? There is no effort made at all, because the moment there is effort it is back again. You understand?
So we have said if there is love there is no attachment; if there is attachment there is no love. So there has been the removal of the major factor through negation of what it is not, which is, love is not attachment. You know what it means in your daily life - no remembrance of anything, my wife, my girl-friend, or my neighbour told me, no remembrance of any hurt, no image about her because I am attached to the image, not to her. I am attached to the image thought has created about her. She has hurt me, she has bullied me, she has given me comfort - I have had a pleasant time sexually, ten different things which are all the
30
movement of thought, which has created the image, and it is the image I am attached to. So attachment has gone.
But there are other factors: fear, pleasure, comfort in that person, or in that idea. Now must I get through all these step by step, one by one, or all over? You understand my question? Must I go through, must I investigate as I have investigated attachment, fear? Must I investigate the desire for comfort? Must I observe why I seek comfort? Is it because I am insufficient, I want comfort, I want a comfortable chair therefore I want a comfortable woman - or a man, or whatever it is, a comfortable idea? I think most of us do. To have a comfortable, secure idea which can never be shaken, and to which I am deadly attached, and so anybody who says, nonsense to that I get angry, I get jealous, I get upset because he is shaking my house. So I say I don't have to go through all the investigation of all these various factors: I see it at one glance, I have captured it. You understand now?
So through negation of what is not love the other thing is. I don't have to ask what is love. I don't have to run after it. If I run after it, it is not love, it is a reward. So I have ended in that enquiry, slowly, carefully, without distortion, without illusion, I have negated everything that it is not - the other is.
Now, I have had a good dialogue with myself.
Q: May I ask a question? Maybe I didn't get it. Would you say that loneliness is created by experiencing loneliness?
K: I have explained all this Madam. Not that I have explained, I have had a dialogue with myself. If you have listened to it then you have got it.

JIDDU KRISHNAMURTI - FIVE CONVERSATIONS

1st Conversation

Meditation is the way of total transformation of man's mania. Man is caught in principles and ideologies which prevent him from putting an end to the conflict between himself and another. The ideology of nationality and religion and the obstinacy of his own vanity is destroying man. This destructive process goes on throughout the world. Man has tried to end it through tolerance, conciliation, through the exchange of words, and face-saving devices - but he remains entrenched in his own conditioning.

Goodness does not lie in dogma, nor in the vanity of principle and formula. These deny love, and meditation is the flowering of that love.

The valley was very still that early morning. Even the owl had stopped calling his mate; his deep hoot had ceased an hour earlier. The sun wasn't up yet and the stars were still brilliant. One star was just setting over the western hills and the light from the east was slowly spreading. As the sun rose, the rocks, with dew on them, were shining, and the cactus and the leaves became silver, highly polished. And the beauty of the land began to awaken.

The monkeys were on the veranda now, two of them, red-faced, with brown coats, and tails not too long. One was scratching the other looking for insects, and when he found them he picked them out carefully and swallowed them. They were restless, and they jumped off the veranda on to the branch of a large rain tree and wandered off into the gully.

Even though the village had awakened there was still the stillness of the night. It was a peculiar stillness. It was not the absence of noise. It was not that the mind brought about the stillness or conceived it out of its own endless chattering. It was a stillness that came without asking, without any cause. And the hills, the trees, the people, the monkeys, the crows which were calling, were all in it. And it would go on until the evening. Only man was not aware of it. It would be there again when the night came, and the rocks would know it, and the newly planted banyan tree, and the lizard between the rocks. There were four or five people in the room. Some were students, others college graduates with jobs. One of the students said:

"I listened to you last year, and again this year. I know we are all conditioned. I am aware of society's brutalities, and of my own envy and anger. I know also the history of the church and its wars and its unprincipled activities. I have studied history and the endless wars of the entrenched beliefs and ideologies which are creating so much conflict in the world. This mania of man - which is me also - seems to hold us and we seem to be doomed forever, unless, of course, we can bring about a change in ourselves. It's the small minority that really matters, that really having changed itself can do something in this murderous world. And a few of us have come, representing others, to discuss this matter with you. I think some of us are serious, and I don't know how far this seriousness will carry us. So, first of all, taking us as we are, half-serious, somewhat hysterical, unreasonable, carried away by our assumptions and vanities - taking us as we are, can we really change? If not, we're going to destroy each other; our own species will disappear. There may be a reconciliation in all this terror but there is always the danger of some maniacal group letting loose the atom bomb, and then we shall all be engulfed in it. So seeing all this, which is fairly obvious, which is being described endlessly by authors, professors, sociologists, politicians and so on - is it possible to change radically?"

Some of us are not quite sure that we want to change, for we enjoy this violence. For some of us it is even profitable. And for others, all they desire is to remain in their entrenched positions. There are still others who through change seek some form of super excitement, over-rated emotional expression. Most of us want power in some form or another. The power over oneself, the power over another, the power which comes with new and brilliant ideas, the power of leadership, fame, and so on. Political power is as evil as religious power. The power of the world and the power of an ideology do not change man. Nor does the volition to change, the will to transform oneself, bring about this change.

"l can understand that," said the student."Then what is the way of change if will, if principles and ideologies are not the way? Then what is the motive power? And change - to what?"

The older people in the room listened to this rather seriously. They were all attentive, and not one of them looked out of the window to see the green-yellow bird sitting on a branch sunning himself that early morning, preening himself, grooming his feathers and looking at the world from the height of that tall tree.

One of the older men said:I am not at all sure that I want any change at all. It might be for the worse. It's better, this orderly disorder, than an order which may mean uncertainty, total insecurity and chaos. So when you talk of how to change, and the necessity of change, I am not at all sure I agree with you, my friend. As a speculative idea I enjoy it. but a revolution which will deprive me of my job, my house, my family and so on, is a most unpleasant idea and I don't think I want it. You're young, and you can play with these ideas. All the same, I will listen and see what the outcome of this discussion will be."

The students looked at him with that superiority of freedom, with that sense of not being committed to a family, to a group, or to a political or religious party. They had said they were neither capitalist not communists; they were not concerned with political activity at all. They smiled with tolerance and a certain feeling of awkwardness. There is that gap which exists between the older and the younger generations, and they were not going to try to bridge it.

"We are the uncommitted," the student went on, "and therefore we are not hypocrites. Of course we don't know what we want to do, but we know what is not right. We don't want social, racial differences, we're not concerned with all these silly religious beliefs and superstitions, nor do we want political leaders - though there must be a totally different kind of politics which will prevent wars. So we are really concerned, and we want to be involved in the possibilities of man's total transformation. So, to put the question again: firstly, what is this thing that is going to make us change? And secondly - change to what?"

Surely, the second question is involved in the first, isn't it? If you already know what you are changing to, is that change at all? If one knows what one will be tomorrow, then `what will be' is already in the present. The future is the present; the known future is the known present. The future is the projection, modified, of what is known now.

"Yes, I see that very clearly. So there is only, then, the question of change, not the verbal definition of what we change to. So we'll limit ourselves to the first question. How do we change? What is the drive, the motive, the force that will make us break down all barriers?"

Only complete inaction, only the complete negation of `what is'. We do not see the great force that is in negation. If you reject the whole structure of principle and formula, and hence the power derived from it, the authority, that very rejection gives you the force necessary to reject all other structures of thought - and so you have the energy to change! The rejection is that energy.

"Is this what you call 'dying' to the historical accumulation which is the present?"

Yes. That very dying is to be born anew. There you have the whole movement of change - the dying to the known.

"Is this rejection a positive, definite act?"

When the students revolt it is a positive, definite act, but such action is only very partial and fragmentary. It is not a total rejection. When you ask: "Is it a positive act, this dying, this rejection?" - it is and it isn't. When you positively leave a house and enter into another house your positive action ceases to be positive action at all because you have abandoned one power structure for another, which you will again have to leave. So this constant repetition which appears to be a positive action, is really inaction. But if you reject the desire and the search for all inward security, then it is a total negation which is a most positive action. It is this action only which transforms man. If you reject hate and envy, in every form, you are rejecting the whole structure of what man has created in himself and outside himself. It is very simple. One problem is related to every other problem.

"So, is this what you call `seeing the problem'?"

This seeing reveals the whole structure and nature of the problem. The "seeing" is not the analyzing of the problem; it is not the revealing of the cause and the effect. It is all there, laid out, as it were, on a map. It is there for you to see, and you can see it only if you have no stand from which to look, and this is our difficulty. We are committed, and inwardly it gives us great pleasure to "belong". When we belong, then it is not possible to see; when we belong, we become irrational, violent, and then we want to end violence by belonging to something else. And so we are caught in a vicious circle. And this is what man has done for millions of years and he vaguely calls this "evolution." Love is not at the end of time. Either it is now, or it isn't. And hell is when it is not, and the reformation of hell is the decoration of the same hell.

2nd Conversation

In Europe spring was slipping into summer. It began in the warm south with mimosa, and then came the flowering fruit trees and the lilac, and the blue sky deepened; and you followed it north where spring was late. The chestnuts were just putting out their leaves and there were no blossoms on them yet. And the lilac was still in bud. And as you watched, the chestnut leaves became bigger, thicker, and covered the road and the view across the meadow. They were now in full bloom along the avenues in the woods, and the lilac, which had already faded in the south, was in bloom. There was a white lilac in a little yard; there were few leaves, but the white bloom seemed to cover the horizon. And as you went up north, spring was just beginning. The tulips, whole fields of them, were in bloom, and the ducks had their yellow little chicks who paddled rapidly after the mother in the still water of the canal. The lilac was still in bloom and the trees were still bare, and as the days went by spring was ripening. And the flat earth, with its vast horizon and clouds so low you felt you could touch them, stretched from side to side.

Spring was in full glory here; there was no separateness. The tree and you and those ducks with their little chicks, the tulips and the vast expanse of the sky - there was no separation. The intensity of it made the colour of the tulip, the lily and the tender green leaf, so vivid, so close, that the senses were the flowers, the man and the woman who went by on their bicycles, and the crow high up in the air. There is really no separateness between the new grass, the child and yourself: we do not know how to look, and the looking is the meditation.

He was a young man, bright, clear-eyed and urgent. He said he was thirty-five or so, and had a good job. He was not bothered by nationalism, racial disturbances or the conflicts of religious beliefs. He said he had a problem and hoped he could discuss it without being vulgar, without slipping into crude expressions. He said he was married and had a child, and the child was lovely, and he hoped she would grow up into a different world. His problem was, he said, sex. It was not the adjustment to his wife, nor was there another woman in his life. He said it was becoming a problem because he seemed to be consumed by it. His job, which he did fairly well, was wrapped up with his sexual thoughts. He wanted more and more of it - the pleasure and the enjoyment, the beauty and the tenderness of it. He didn't want to make it into a problem, as it was with most people who were either frigid or made the whole of life a sexual issue. He loved his wife and he felt he was beginning to use her for his own personal pleasure; and now his appetite was growing and not lessening with the years, and it was becoming a great burden.

Before we go into this problem I think we should understand what love and chastity are. The vow of chastity is not chastity at all, for below the words the craving goes on, and trying to suppress it in different ways, religious and otherwise, is a form of ugliness which, in its very essence, is unchaste. The chastity of the monk, with his vows and denials, is essentially worldliness, which is unchaste. All forms of resistance build a wall of separateness which turns life into a battlefield; and so life becomes not chaste at all. Therefore one has to understand the nature of resistance. Why do we resist at all? Is it the outcome of tradition, fear - fear of going wrong, of stepping out of line?

Society has imprinted its respectability so deeply on us that we want to conform. If we had no resistance at all, would we become unbalanced? Would our appetites increase? Or, is this very resistance breeding the conflict and the neurosis?

To walk through life without resistance is to be free, and freedom, whatever it does, will always be chaste. The word "chastity" and the word "sex" are brutal words; they do not represent reality. Words are false, and love is not a word. When love is pleasure, there is pain and fear in it, and so love goes out of the window, and life becomes a problem. Why is it that we have made sex into such an enormous issue - not only in our personal lives but also in the magazines, the films, the pictures, the religious which have condemned it? Why has man given such extraordinary importance to this fact of life, and not to the other facts of life, like power and cruelty?

To deny sex is another form of brutality; it is there, it is a fact. When we are intellectual slaves, endlessly repeating what others have said, when we are following, obeying, imitating, then a whole avenue of life is closed; when action is merely a mechanical repetition and not a free movement, then there is no release; when there is this incessant urge to fulfil, to be, then we are emotionally thwarted, there is a blockage. So sex becomes the one issue which is our very own, which is not second-hand. And in the act of sex there is a forgetting of oneself, one's problems and one's fears. In that act there is no self at all. This self-forgetfulness is not only in sex, but comes also with drink, or drugs, or in watching some game. It is this self-forgetfulness that we are seeking, identifying ourselves with certain acts or with certain ideologies and images, and so sex becomes a problem. Then chastity becomes a thing of great importance, or the enjoyment of sex, the chewing over it, the endless images, become equally important.

When we see this whole thing, what we make of love, of sex, of self-indulgence, of taking vows against it - when we see this whole picture, not as an idea but as an actual fact, then love, sex and chastity are one. They are not separate. It is the separation in relationship that corrupts. Sex can be as chaste as the blue sky without a cloud; but the cloud comes and darkens, with thought. Thought says: "This is chaste, and this is indulgence", "This must be controlled," and "In this I will let myself go". So thought is the poison, not love, not chastity, not sex.

That which is innocent, whatever it does, is always chaste; but innocence is not the product of thought.

3rd Conversation

"What is action?" he asked. "And what is love? Is there a link between them, or are they two different things?"

He was a big man and had long hair, almost touching his shoulders, which emphasized the squareness of his face. He wore corduroy trousers and had an air of roughness. He was soft-spoken, with a ready smile and a quick mind. He wasn't particularly interested in himself but was keen to ask questions and to find the right answers.

Love and action are not separate; they are made separate by thought. Where there is love, action is part of it. Action by itself has very little meaning. Action is the response to challenge, and the response is from the background of culture, social influences and tradition, so it is always old. Challenge is always new, otherwise you wouldn't call it challenge. Unless response is adequate to challenge there must be conflict, and therefore decay. Our actions, springing from the past, must ever lead to disorder and decay.

"So, is there an action which is not in itself the cause of decay? And is such action possible in this world?" he asked.

It is possible only when we understand the nature of challenge. Is there only one challenge, or are there multiple challenges? Or, do we translate this one challenge into diversified and fragmentary challenges? Surely there is only one, but our mind, being fragmentary, translates that one challenge into many and tries to respond to these multiple fragments. And so our actions become contradictory and conflicting, causing misery and confusion in all our relationships.

"That I see," he said,"our minds are fragmentary; I see that very clearly, but what is this one challenge?"

It is that man should be completely, totally, free. Not free from any one particular issue or from one particular bondage, but from all bondages and from all issues. When you accept the challenge - and this challenge has always been there for man to accept from the most ancient of times until now - when you accept the challenge you cannot possibly interpret it according to any cond- ition of culture or society. To deny freedom is to retrogress. Can you accept this challenge, not intellectually, but with the impact, with the intensity, of some acute and dangerous disease? If you do not accept it then you are merely acting according to your own personal pleasure and idiosyncrasy, which make for bondage, slavery, to a particular pattern of thought. If you do not accept this challenge - that man be completely free - then you deny love. Then action is a series of adjustments to social and environmental demands, with its agonies, despairs and fears.

"But can one be so completely free, living in this murderous world?"

That is a wrong question. That is merely an intellectual inquiry which has very little validity. Be free, and then you will love, in whatever society or culture it be. Without freedom man withers away, however great his work, whether in art, science, politics or religion. Freedom and action are not separate. Being free is action; it isn't that there is action to be free, doing in order to be free. Love: and hate ceases. Rut to deny hate in order to love is part of that pleasure which thought establishes. So freedom, love and action are interrelated, not to be separated, not to be cut up into political or social activity and so on. The mind, being established in freedom, acts. And this action is love.

4th Conversation

We went past the well-known village which had become fashionable both in winter and in summer, along a stream; and the car turned to the right and went through a valley with steep hills on both sides, covered with pine trees. And occasionally we saw the chamois playing about high up in the opening of the pine trees. The road went along a stream, and then we climbed, not too steeply. One could have walked up the slope very easily. And then we entered an unpaved road which was very dusty and rough, with big pot-holes, and a lovely stream full of green-blue water was by its side. The car couldn't go any further and the path went on through a thin pine wood where many of the trees had been uprooted by the recent storm. This path through the silent wood became more and more quiet and lonely. There were no birds here, there was only the song of the water as it rushed down over the rocks and fallen trees, over the big boulders. That was the only sound; and here and there the water was very quiet in deep pools where one could have bathed if the water hadn't been too cold. Here there were many wild flowers, yellow, violet and pink. It was really a beautiful place, full of the sound of the river, cascading down. But over it all there was that strange silence that exists where man has not been. There was moss under foot and a leaning tree was covered with it, end in the sunlight it was very brilliant, green and yellow. On the other side of the ravine one could see the evening light of the sun and the brilliant green of a meadow that stretched upward to the sky, which was intensely blue.

This silence enveloped you, and you remained there quietly, watching the light, listening to the water and to the intense silence which no breeze disturbed. It was a lovely evening, and it seemed a pity to return.

He was a youngish man and had probably studied human nature a little not only from books but from observation, from talking to many people. He had travelled extensively and said that he had met many people and was interested in this whole business of man's relationship to himself. He had witnessed the recent students' riots in different parts of the world, this spontaneous outburst against the established order, and apparently he knew some of the leaders, both in the south and in the north. He was concerned with the uncovering of the self that is hidden both in the subconscious as well as in the upper layers of consciousness.

He said:l see the necessity of exploring this whole field and dying to it, so that a new thing can come into being, but I can't die to something I don't know - the subconscious, the deeper layers which lie so secretly hidden, which are a fathomless storehouse of things unknown or half-forgotten, which respond and contract from a source which remains covered. Though you have said the subconscious is as trivial as the conscious, and that therefore it is of very little importance; though you have compared it to a computer and have pointed out that it is mechanical yet this subconscious is responsible for all our behaviour, all our relationships. How can you call it trivial? Do you realize what you are saying?"

To understand all this, which is quite a complex problem, it is important to look at the whole structure of consciousness and not break it up into the conscious and the hidden. We accept this division as natural, but is it natural, or is it an observation from a fragment? Our difficulty is going to be to see the whole and not the fragment. Then the problem arises as to who is the observer who sees the whole? Is he not also a fragment who can therefore only look fragmentarily?

"Are we ever the whole, or only fragments acting separately in contradiction?"

We must be clear on this question of the whole and the fragment. Can we ever see the whole, or have a feeling of the whole, through this fragment? Do you see the whole tree or only a branch of the tree? You can see the whole of the tree if you are at a certain distance - not too far and yet not too close. If you are too close, you see only the various separate branches. So to see the whole of anything there must be - not the space that the word creates - but the space of freedom. Only in freedom can you see the whole. We are, as you said, sir, always acting in fragments which are in opposition to each other, or in a fragment which is in harmony with one other fragment.

"Our whole life is broken up into the family, the businessman, the citizen, the artist, the sensualist, the good man, and so on. We know only this fragmentary action with its terrible tensions and delights."

These fragments have their own hidden motives opposed to other hidden motives which are different and contradictory, and the upper layers of consciousness respond according to these underground opposing elements of conditioning. So we are a bundle of contradictory motives and drives which respond to environmental challenge.

"The everyday mind is these responses in actual action, and in conflict which is actually visible."

So then what is the problem? What do you want to resolve or understand?

"The problem is that I must see the totality of all these hidden motives and conditionings which are responsible for the visible conflict. In other words, I must see the so-called subconscious. Even if I were not in conflict - and I am in conflict - even if I weren't then l'd still have to know all this subconscious in order to know myself at all. And can I ever know myself?"

Either you know what has happened or what is actually taking place. To know what is actually taking place you are looking with the eyes of the past, and therefore you don't know what is happening. Looking with the eyes of the past at the living present means not seeing it. So the word "know" is a dangerous word, as all words are dangerous and false. When you say,"l want to know myself," there are two things involved. Who is the entity who says, "I must know myself," and what is there, apart from himself, to know? And so it becomes an absurd question! So the observer is the observed. The observer is the entity who dreams, who is in conflict, who wants to know, and wants to be known, the illusion and the demand to end the illusion, the dream which he interprets on waking, and the interpretation which depends on conditioning. He is the whole, the analyzed and the analyser, the experiencer and the experience. He is the whole. He is the maker of god and its worshipper. All this is a fact which actually is, which anybody with a little observation can see. Then, what is the question? The question is this, isn't it, sir: Is there any action within this framework which will not create more conflict, more misery, more confusion, more chaos? Or is there an action outside this historical accumulation?

"Are you asking if there is a part of me which can operate on this accumulation which is not of it?"

You mean, am I positing some Atman, soul, divinity, etc., within myself which is untouched?

"It looks like it."

Certainly not, sir. Nothing of the kind. When you put this question you are really repeating an old tradition of escape. We have to think out this anew, not repeat a time-worn superstition. Within this framework of the `me', the ego, the self, obviously there is no freedom, and therefore it is always breeding its own misery, social, personal and so on. Is it ever possible to be free from this? We spend our energies discussing political, religious, social freedom, freedom from poverty and inequality, etc.

"I agree with you, sir. We spend our time asking if we can be free to act, to change the social structure, to break down social disorder, poverty, inequality, and so on, and I not at all sure we want freedom at all."

Does freedom lie within the structure of this accumulated past or outside the structure? Freedom is necessary, and freedom cannot be within this structure. So you are asking, really, is it possible for man to go beyond this structure, to be free - that is, to act not from this structure? To be, to act and to live outside this framework? There is such a freedom and it comes into being only when there is the total denial - not resistance - the total denial of what actually is, without having a secret longing for freedom. So the negation of what is, is freedom.

"How do you deny it?"

You can't deny it! If you say,"l will deny it," you are back again within the framework. But the very seeing of what is, is the freedom from it, and this may be called "denial" or any other word you care to use. So the seeing becomes all-important, not all this rigmarole of words, cunning subtleties and devious explanations. The word is not the thing, but we are concerned with the word and not with the seeing.

"But we are right back where we started! How can I see the totality of myself, and who is there to see it, since the observer is the observed?"

As we said previously, sir, you can't see. There is only seeing, not "you" seeing. The "what is" is before your eyes. This is seeing, this is the truth.

"Is it important to see the structure which operates, or the content of that structure?"

What is important is to see the whole, not as structure and content, but to see that the structure is the content and the content is the structure, the one cannot exist without the other. So what is important is to see.

5th Conversation

Thought can never penetrate very deeply into any problem of human relationship. Thought is superficial and old and is the outcome of the past. The past cannot enter into something that is totally new. It can explain the new, organize it, communicate it, but the "word" is not the new. Thought is the word, the symbol, the image. Without this symbol is there thought? We have used thought to reconstruct, to change the social structure. Thought, being old, reforms that structure into a new pattern, based upon the old. And basically, thought is divisive, fragmentary, and whatever it does will be separative and contradictory. However much it may explain philosophically or religiously the new and necessary social structure, in it there will always be the seed of destruction, of war and of violence. Thought is not the way to the new. Only meditation opens the door to that which is everlastingly new. Meditation is not a trick of thought. It is the seeing of the futility of thought and the ways of the intellect. Intellect and thought are necessary in the operation of anything mechanical, but the intellect is a fragmentary perception of the whole and meditation is the seeing of the whole. Intellect can operate only in the field of the known and that is why life becomes a monotonous routine from which we try to escape through revolts and revolutions - merely to fall back once again into another field of the known. This change is no change at all as it is the product of thought which is always old. Meditation is the flight from the known. There is only one freedom: it is, from the known. And beauty and love lie in this freedom.

It was a small room overlooking a lovely valley. It was early in the morning, the sun breaking through the clouds and giving light here and there to the hills, to the meadows, and to the flashing stream. Probably later it would rain; there would be wind, but now the valley was still and undisturbed. The mountains seemed very close, almost as if you could touch them, though they were far and hard to reach. They had snow upon them, and it was melting in the early summer sun. When the sun was out the hills cast deep shadows on the valley, and the dandelions and the bright wild flowers in the field would be out. It was not a very wide valley and a stream ran through it swiftly, with the noise of the mountains. The water was clear now, a grey-blue, and as the snow melted would become muddy and fast-moving. There was a red-coated squirrel who sat on the grass and looked at us, full of curiosity, but always on guard, ready to scurry up the tree on to a higher branch. When it did, it stopped and looked down to see if we were still there. It soon lost its curiosity and went on with its own business.

The room was small, with uncomfortable chairs and a cheap carpet on the floor. He sat on the most comfortable chair, a big man and an important man, a high bureaucrat, very high indeed. And there were others, students, the hostess and some guests. The official sat quietly, but he was tired. He had come a long way, many hours in the air, and was glad to sit in a more or less comfortable chair.

The student said:You people have made a terrible world of blood and tears. You have had every chance to make a different world. You are highly educated, hold an important position - and you can't do anything. You really support the established order with its brutalities, inequalities, and all the ugly mess of the present social world. We, the younger generation, despise all this, we're in revolt against it. We know that you're all hypocrites. We are not of any group or of any political or religious body. We have no race, we have no gods, for you have deprived us of what might have been a reality. You have divided the world into nationalities. We are against all this, but we don't know what we want. We don't know where we're going, but we know very well that what you offer us, we don't want. And the gap between you and us is very wide indeed; and probably it can never be bridged. We are new, and we are wary of falling into the trap of the old."

"You will fall into it," he said, "only it will be a new trap. You may not kill each other, and I hope you won't, but you'll kill each other at a different level, perhaps not physically but intellectually, with words, cynicism and bitterness. This has been the age-old cry against the older generation, but now it is more articulate, more effective. You may call me a bourgeois, and I am. I have worked hard to bring about a better world, helped to allay antagonism and opposition, but it isn't easy: when two opposing beliefs, ideologies, meet, there is bound to be hatred, war and concentration camps. We're also against it, and we think we can do something but there really is very little we can do." He wasn't defending himself. He was just stating simple facts as he saw them. But the student, being very bright, saw this and smiled unyieldingly.

"We're not accusing you. We have nothing to do with you; and that is the trouble. We want a different world, of love; we want matters of government decided by computers, not by personal interests and ambitions, not by power groups, religious or political. So there is this gulf. We have taken a stand, and some of us at least won't yield on this matter."

The important man must have been young once, full of zeal and brightly curious, but now it was over. What makes the mind dull? The clamorous demands of the younger generation will soon calm down when they get married, settle down and have children and responsibilities. Their minds which were once so sharp will become dull. They, too, will become bourgeois. Perhaps a few escape from this agony - if they don't become specialized and astonishingly capable.

"I suppose," he said, "my mind has lost its elasticity, its flame, because I really have nothing to live for. I used to be religious but I've seen too many priests in high positions and they have dispelled all my hopes. I've studied hard, worked hard, and I'm trying to bring opposite elements together, but it's all part of a routine now, and I'm well aware that I'm fading away."

"Yes," said the student, "there are some of us who are very bright, sharp as needles, brilliantly articulate, but I can see the danger of their becoming successful leaders. There is the hero worship and gradually the brilliance of youth and brightness of perception fade. I, too, have often asked myself why it is that everything becomes dull, worn out, and meaningless - sex, love and the beauty of the morning. The artist wants to express something new, but it is still the same old mind and body behind the paintings."

This is one of the common factors of the relationship between the old and the young - the slow contagion of time and sorrow, the anxieties, and the bitter pill of self-pity. What makes the mind dull? The mind, which is so extraordinarily capable of inventing new things, of going to the moon, of building computers - of so many things that are really extraordinary, almost magical? Of course, it is the collective mind that has produced the computer or composed a sonata. The collective, the group, is a common thought which is both in the many and in the one. Therefore there is not the collective or the one - only thought. The individual fights the collective and the collective fights the individual, but what is common to both is thought. And it is thought that makes the mind dull, whether the thought be in the interests of the one or of the many, the thought of self-improvement or the social upheaval."Thought is always in search of the secure - the security that is in the house, in the family, in the belief, or the security that denies all this. Thought is security, and the security is not only in the past from which the future security is built, but also the security that it tries to establish beyond time."

There was a silence. And a sparrow came on to the balcony where there were a few crumbs of bread and was pecking at them. Soon its young came too, fluttering their wings, and the mother began to feed them, one after the other. And a patch of blue sky, so intense, appeared over the green hill.

"But we can't do without thought," said the student."All our books, everything that's written, put down on paper, is the result of thought. And do you mean to say all this is unnecessary? There would be no education at all if you had your way. Is this so? It seems rather strange and fantastic. You appeared a few moments ago quite intelligent. Are you going back into primitivism?',

Not at all. What are you educated for, anyway? You may be a sociologist, an anthropologist or a scientist, with your specialized mind working away at a fragment of the whole field of life. You are filled with knowledge and words, with capable explanations and rationalizations. And perhaps in the future the computer will be able to do all this infinitely better than you can.

So education may have a different meaning altogether - not merely transferring what is printed on a page to your brain. Education may mean opening the doors of perception on to the vast movement of life. It may mean learning how to live happily, freely, without hate and confusion, but in beatitude. Modern education is blinding us; we learn to fight each other more and more, to compete, to struggle with each other. Right education is surely finding a different way of life, setting the mind free from its own conditioning. And perhaps then there can be love which in its action will bring about true relationship between man and man.