Public Talk 1, Paris, 5 September 1961

Krishnamurti: Unfortunately I’ve lost the habit of speaking in French, so I hope you’ll be good enough to forgive me talking in English.

It’s always difficult, I think, to communicate with each other about serious things, and especially so when you speak French and I speak English, but I think we can communicate with each other sufficiently clearly if we could not merely remaining at the verbal level. Words are meant to communicate, to convey, but words in themselves are not significant, but most of us, I’m afraid, stick to words, remain at the verbal level and therefore communication becomes much more difficult, because what we want to talk about is not merely at the verbal level but also at the intellectual, emotional level. We want to communicate with each other totally, comprehensively, as a whole, and that is not possible if we remain merely either at the verbal level or at the intellectual level or at the emotional.

To really communicate with each other we need a total approach, that is, emotionally, verbally, and intellectually, to approach the problem totally. And that’s what I propose to do during these talks here, to talk things over with you, not as a speaker addressing an audience, which I think is too stupid, but two human beings talking over the many problems of life. We must both journey together, we must both travel together. You can’t remain at one level, and I go on at another level; you approach it intellectually, and I emotionally or verbally. We must both go together, and that’s extremely difficult because you may like certain ideas, certain forms of speech, certain words have familiar meaning, but if we could dispense with the familiar significance of words and look at the problem as a whole, then I think we shall be able to understand each other, b ecause first of all, the speaker is not a Hindu. He may have certain passport and nationality but he’s not a Hindu; he does not represent the Orient. We are talking of human problems, and human problems have no frontiers, either Hindu, or French, or Russian, or American.

I think that must be clearly and definitely understood from the very beginning, that we are dealing with the whole of the human problem, not from any particular point of view, not from any sectarian prejudice or point of view. We are trying to understand the problem. I’m using the word *to understand* in a very definite way. You know, we cannot understand a thing if we approach it verbally. Merely looking at the words does not give understanding, nor is understanding mere agreement or denial. If I want to understand you, I have to consider what you’re saying without prejudice, neither agreeing nor disagreeing, neither doubting nor accepting, but listen to you. In listening — which is quite an art — there must be a sense of quietness of the brain, because… but most of our brains are incessantly active, responding to a challenge, responding to a challenge of words, or to an idea, and this constant response to challenge does not bring about understanding.

What brings about understanding is to have a brain that is very quiet. Brain — I’m talking the instrument which thinks, which reacts, which is the storehouse of memory, which is the result of time and experience; to have that instrument quiet, not all the time agitating, comparing what is being said with what you already know. So it requires a quietness of the brain. That’s fairly obvious, I think. If I want to understand you, I must be quiet, I mustn’t say, ‘Well, I’ve read already what he has to say,’ or, ‘I’ll compare what he has to say with what I already know.’ In that process there is no understanding. So to listen properly, rightly, demands a certain quietness of the brain. And I believe we are here to understand and not merely to argue, to disagree. You don’t disagree or agree with a fact. A fact is that, and it would be stupid on our part to agree or disagree with a fact. You can’t agree or disagree that the sun rises. It’s a fact. So in the same way, if I may suggest, that you listen.

To listen means not to condemn, not to agree, not to interpret, but to listen, to look, to comprehend, and to do that you require a brain that is quiet, but very much alive, capable of reasoning, following rightly, not becoming sentimental, emotional. So with that… if that is understood, that we are not approaching the problems of human existence from an emotional, intellectual or verbal point of view, not through any fragmentation, but trying to understand the total process.

Probably most of us know what is happening in the world. Unfortunately, the politicians the world over are ruling our lives, which is a sad affair. Probably our lives depend on few people, which is again a very sad affair that we should be ruled by politicians, whether French, English, Russian, American or Indian, but that’s a fact. And the politician is concerned with the immediacy of things, or he is concerned with his country, or his position in the country, which dictates his policy or his ideas. So there are immediate problems as war, as the constant conflict between East and West: communism fighting capitalism, and socialism against another form of autocracy. Those are the immediate, pressing problems of war, peace, and how to manipulate, live without being crushed by these enormous historical processes of which we are a part. And I think it would be a great pity if we were merely concerned with the present, that is, with mere survival. You understand what I mean by survival: just to get through, somehow to survive, or be concerned with the immediate problems of French position in Algiers, or what’s going to happen in Berlin, if there is going to be a war, and so on. Those are the immediate pressing problems, and most of us, I’m afraid, are concerned with that because the newspapers with their constant repetition influence the mind, influence the brain and its reactions. And as most of us are concerned do read the newspapers, we are pressed in from every side by the immediacy of things.

If we can look at that immediacy of problems, the immediate problems not from the present, but consider what is the total process, and where the mind is going to lead; not what is going to happen in the future but what is going to happen to the human brain, to the human mind — that is the issue, as far as I see it. What is going to happen to the quality of the brain and so to the mind, as we live in the present century, the present year? Where is it all leading to? That’s for me much more significant than be concerned with the immediate problem. But if we could understand where the human mind is evolving to, what is going to happen to the human mind, with that comprehension we can tackle the present. But if you are only concerned with the present and not concerned with the totality of the development of the human mind and its brain, then our problems will only increase, multiply, and there’ll be more confusion, more sorrow.

That is, though we have present problems pressing in upon us, what is going to happen as a whole to the brain and to the mind? Which is, we see our brain and our minds have become mechanical; we are influenced; every propaganda leaves its mark; whatever you read leaves its imprint. We are constantly being influenced by the food we eat, by the climate, by the clothes, by the thought, by the feelings. Every thought leaves its mark, and so the more and more, as one observes, the brain and the mind are becoming mechanical, repetitive, like a machine. We have the same thoughts, the same feelings, the same ideas, follow the same teachers, the same systems, same beliefs. We don’t want to be disturbed from the continuity of habit of thought, which is entirely mechanical. We function in our jobs mechanically; our relationships with each other is mechanical. Our values, which are being educated, have become mechanical, traditional. And the machines, the electronic computers are taking over the mechanical habits of the mind, of the brain. They function as we function, based on memory. Perhaps we are a little more intelligent, a little more inventive. After all, we have invented the machine. But the machine is going to take ever our habits of thought, our knowledge; they will repeat like us. They function traditionally; they function in knowledge, with certain information, like us.

So if our brains and our mind are rooted in tradition, in mechanical habits, in mere belief, then there is no freedom, and we can only then make the mechanism more perfect, running more smoothly, without any sorrow, without any disturbance, without any illusion, just to function. Perhaps that may be the end of man. Believe in God or not believe in God – which is more or less the same – whether you are a capitalist or a socialist or a communist, which eventually becomes the same, because we all want to be secure in our jobs, in our position, three meals a day, a house, some clothes. So gradually, as one perceives, throughout the world progress, mechanical progress implies security and therefore no change, no revolution. I don’t know, you must have observed this. The more prosperity there is in the world, the greater the demand for security. And the poor of Asia, who have one meal a day, they also want security. So gradually throughout the world as one observes, the mind, the brain is becoming slowly mechanical.

So the question is how to free the brain and the mind, because if there is no freedom, there is no creativeness. There is a mechanical invention: going to the moon, inventing new means of locomotion, and so on, and so on, but those are not creativeness; that is not creation, that’s invention. There is creation only when there is freedom, and as long as the brain functions mechanically there is no freedom and therefore there is no creativeness. And what I want to discuss during all these talks here is how to free the mind — not intellectually, not verbally, not emotionally, but to be free actually, not as an idea. The idea, the word is different from the actuality. Freedom is not the word; the word is entirely different from the state. The word *door* is not the actual door. But most of us are satisfied with the word and not to find out the actual state, not to find out what the word signifies and go into the meaning of the word.

So what we are going to concern ourselves throughout these talks is: Is it possible to free the mind, the brain at all, and so the mind? Whether it’s possible or not, not it is or it is not. If you say it is not possible, then there is no issue; or if you say it is possible, then there is no issue at all either way, because you don’t know, so you can’t agree or disagree. But what we can do is to find out for ourselves through experiment, through self‑knowledge, through inward inquiry, through intense search, whether it is possible to be free, and that demands the capacity to reason, the capacity to break through tradition, to shatter all the walls which one has built up as security.

So, please, if you’re not prepared to do that from the very first talk to the very end, I think it would be utterly a waste… your waste of time, because we are very serious in what we are talking about. This is not an entertainment, a pleasant evening to be passed. We are going to think out the problems together, the problems that confront each one of us, like fear, ambition, death, meditation, envy, greed, and so on and so on. Every problem we’ll tackle, factually, not emotionally, not sentimentally, and that requires a precise thinking, and that demands great energy. And to be able to pursue to the very end of each thought, of each inquiry, is seriousness; not to just leave it off in the middle and think about something else, but to go to the very end of every inquiry and discover the essence of things. And that seems to me is seriousness.

So we find, as we observe, not only outside in the world but also inwardly that we are slaves, slaves to certain ideas, slaves to authority; that we are shaped by outward events; that for centuries we have been shaped through propaganda that we are Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, communists. And to find out, surely, we must not belong to any religion, neither Catholics nor Protestants nor Hindus nor Buddhists or Muslims. And that’s a very difficult thing to do, not to commit oneself to any pattern of action or thought. I do not know if you ever tried it, not to belong to anything, not to commit oneself to any form of thought, which does not mean to remain nebulous, vague, uncertain; on the contrary.

I do not know if you have denied anything, if you have denied the traditional acceptance of God, which doesn’t mean that you become an atheist — that’s equally silly — but to deny the influence of the church, with all its propaganda of two thousand years. It’s not very easy. To deny that you are a Frenchman – perhaps that’s much more difficult, or a Hindu, or a Russian; to deny, not knowing where it is going to lead you to, because it’s fairly easy to deny if you know where it’s leading to. That is, to deny one prison to be caught in another prison is not a denial, but if you deny all prisons, then you stand alone. And it seems to me that is absolutely essential, to stand completely alone, uninfluenced. Then only you can find out what is true, not only in this world of daily existence, but also what is true beyond the words, beyond measure, beyond all thought and feeling; if there is a reality which is timeless, which is beyond space. And that discovery is creation.

So to find out what is true there must be a sense of aloneness, surely, there must be freedom. You cannot travel very far if you are bound to something, if you’re bound to your country, to your tradition, to your ways of thought; if you’re bound to a belief, to a certain form of activity — that holds you; it’s like being tied to a peg. But if you want to find out what is true you must break all the tethers. So to find out, one must begin to inquire, not only outside — find out in all our relationships — but also inwardly, which is self-knowledge, the knowing of oneself, not only superficially in the waking consciousness, but also in the unconsciousness, in the hidden recesses of one’s own brain and mind. That requires constant observation, an inquiry, a searching. I do not know if you have tried it. And to see how far you can go within.

You know, there is no really an outward or inward; it’s a one movement which goes outside and comes within. It’s like a tide that is always going out and always coming in; thought is that, inquiry is that. There is inquiry into outward actions, into outward activities, into outward things, and that same inquiry as it turns inward. This whole process is self‑knowing. It is not separate from the outside and the inside. If you have done it, if you have gone into yourself sufficiently deeply, you’ll find that out.

So we are going to inquire into ourselves, not as a reaction from the outer — you understand what I mean? – as reaction, because you have rejected the outer. You can’t reject the outer. There is the world, and there is yourself. Yourself are part of the world; the world’s problem is your problem. In understanding the outer you begin to understand the inner. You cannot understand the inner, the psychology of this whole process of the inner, without understanding the world. It is the same problem, two sides of the same coin. You can’t just take one side and say, ‘I’ll inquire into that.’ You have to understand the outer as well as the inner. But if you reject the outer — as most people do who are so-called spiritual people, who are so-called religious people, like the hermits, like the monks: they reject the world and go back into a monastery with their visions, with their myths, with their superstitions, with their disciplines and all that. Surely that doesn’t lead very far it only leads to their own illusions, w hereas if we could understand the outward things and therefore in understanding the outward things, we begin to understand the inward. The two are not separate.

So when I… when the speaker talks about that, the inner, it is not something separate from the outer; it’s a total process, it’s a unitary process. We see outwardly we’re not free — our jobs, our relations, our country, our wives and husbands, all relationships, the ideas, the beliefs, the political activities, there too we’re not free. And inwardly, too, we’re not free because we don’t know what’s happening inwardly — our motives, our urges, compulsions, the unconscious demands. So there is neither freedom outwardly or inwardly. But that’s a fact. One has to see that fact first. And most of us refuse to see that fact. We gloss it over; we cover it up with words, with romantic ideas, with myths, and so on and on. The fact is inwardly, psychologically, we are bound, as outwardly. Psychologically we want security, as outwardly we want security. Outwardly we want to be sure of our jobs, our position, our prestige, and our relationships; inwardly we want the same security. And if one security is broken, we go to another security. If in one belief we do not find happiness, security, comfort, we break it and go to something else. It is exactly the same, only we call it by a different name.

So realizing all this extraordinary complex, potent prison in which the mind and the brain lives, how is it possible to break through? I hope I am conveying the impasse into which we have come. You know, do we ever face a fact? The fact that the mind, the brain is really… really wants security in any form, and where there is the urge, the search for security, there is inevitably fear. I wonder if we ever come face to face with that fact, or do we say, ‘That is inevitable,’ or say, ‘How to escape from this fear?’ If we come face to face with a fact without escape, without trying to interpret it, without trying to transform the fact, without opinion, then the fact acts. I do not know if psychologically you have gone that far, if you have experimented that far. And it seems to me most of us do not realize to what depth our minds, our brains have become mechanical; and whether it is possible to face completely, with intensity, that fact.

Please, let us be very clear that we’re not trying to convince you of anything; that is too immature, to convince you of something. We’re not doing any propaganda; that’s equally immature. You can leave that to the politicians, to the church, and to the people who sell things. We’re not selling ideas, because I don’t believe in ideas, they have no meaning. You can play with them intellectually, but they do not lead very far. What has significance, what has vitality, is to face a fact — to fact a fact that the mind, our whole being for centuries has been made mechanical, to face it, not try to find out how to alter it. We’ll come to that later. But to realize to what depth and to what extent all our thinking is mechanical, whether it’s the greatest intellect or the most simple person, it’s still mechanical. All thought is mechanical. And to discover that fact that thought is mechanical and to go beyond it; but to go beyond it one must first realize the fact, realize actually *what is*.

Now, how does one realize, how does one come into contact emotionally with a fact? You understand what I mean by emotionally with a fact? I can say I drink, and I know it is very bad to drink, physically, emotionally, psychologically, keep on drinking, and I say it’s very bad, and I keep on drinking. But to come into contact emotionally with the fact is quite a different thing; then the emotional contact with the fact does something. You know, if you’re driving a car for a long time you get sleepy, and you keep on driving, and you say to yourself, ‘I must wake up,’ and when you pass very closely a car, there is an emotional contact that wakes you up. Then you go to the side and go to sleep and come back. In the same way: how to get emotionally into contact with the fact? I hope I’m making myself clear. If not, we’re having three more weeks, so we’ll discuss these problems.

Have you ever seen actually a fact? Have you ever seen actually a flower? Seen, come into contact with it completely, totally? We don’t see a flower because, first of all, we categorize it, we give it a name, we say it is a rose and smell it and put it away, say how beautiful it is. The words, the opinion, the judgment, the classification prevents you from looking at the flower. I don’t know if you have tried it. The classification, the naming of the flower, the smelling of the flower, giving it a name, the species, all that prevents you from looking at the flower. In the same way to emotionally come into contact with a fact, there must be no naming, not putting it into a category. Or there must be cessation of all verbalization, then you can look. Do try some time to look at something: a flower, a child, a man, a woman, at the sky, at a tree, without naming, and you will see much more. There is not the screen of words between you and the tree, therefore there is an immediate contact with the fact. But not to condemn, not to judge, not to evaluate, not to put into a category is extraordinarily difficult because all our training for centuries has been to put it into a category. So to be aware of the process of a brain which puts everything into a category is the beginning of seeing the fact.

So we see that our whole life is bound by time and space. We see that our lives react to the immediate problems. Our lives are the immediate problems: the job, our relationships, the wife becoming jealous of the husband, the husband becoming jealous of the wife, death, old age, fear of losing and fear of gaining — that’s our problem from day to day, and whether the mind, the brain is ever capable of breaking through. For me it is possible. I say it is possible because I’ve experimented with it, gone into the very depth of it, broken through, which doesn’t mean you accept… you cannot possibly accept what the speaker says. It has no value to you. But what has value is that you also take the journey, but you can’t take the journey if there is not from the beginning the demand to find out; to find out, not to accept; not to doubt but to find out. And then you will see, as you go deeply into the question, that the mind can be free. And it’s only such a mind that can discover what is true; it’s only such a mind can discover whether there is a God or is no God.

Perhaps some of you would like to ask questions.

You know, we should keep these talks very informal. And to discuss is quite difficult. Not to discuss as a debate, not to discuss intellectually, verbally, but really to discuss to find out, which is quite arduous, it’s quite difficult. To ask questions is equally difficult because you can ask a wrong question, and you’ll get a wrong answer. But to ask the right question is extraordinarily difficult, because to ask the right question you must have the problem, you must know your problem. But most of us don’t know our problems; we skim on the surface and say that’s our problem, but we have never tackled the problem, gone into it. So to ask a right question is equally difficult, as to discuss rightly. And I hope, during these talks, we can discuss rightly and ask questions… ask the right question. Then I think it will be quite fun. One learns much more in playing than becoming too serious about nothing, as most people are.

Questioner: Sir… (inaudible).

Krishnamurti: Don’t get up, sir; you don’t have to get up.

Q: (Inaudible).

K: Yes sir, I understand.

Q: (Inaudible)… give up this emotional… (inaudible)…

K: No sir… *Vous* *savez…* *Je* *comprends si vous parlez* *français.* [You know… I understand if you speak French] (Laughter)

Q: *Est-ce que je peux poser une question ?* *Je crois que ma question rejoint celle de monsieur* *(Inaudible). Vous avez dit tout à l’heure qu’il faut affronter* *un fait émotivement. Est-ce que j’ai bien compris ?* *Pas intellectuellement mais avec l’émotion.* [Can I ask a question? I think my question is linked to that of Mr (Inaudible). You said earlier that you have to face a fact emotionally. Did I understand correctly? Not intellectually but with emotion.]

K: *Oui* *ça c’est juste.* [Yes, that’s right.]

Q: *C’est ça. Alors* *on dit que l’émotion fait partie…* [That’s it. So we say that emotion is part…]

K: Ah, écoutez-moi. I mean, we must make the questions short because I have to repeat your question. They can’t hear every question that you put to me, therefore I have to repeat every question, so please make it as brief and short as possible.

Q: *Alors l’émotion* *est le* *plan* *émotionnel* *n’est-ce pas* *et le plan astral alors…* [So emotion is the emotional plane, isn’t it, and the astral plane then…]

K: *Non, non,* *attendez, attendez! Je ne comprends pas ce mot* *’astral’.* [No, no, wait, wait! I don’t understand this word *astral*.]

Q: *Le plan…*

K: Alors, vous savez… We must stick to certain words and not use all kinds of words. You know what I said; it was very simple, I think, what I said. I said to come into contact with a fact emotionally – which doesn’t mean sentimentally, which doesn’t mean romantically — to be in contact with something demands your total approach, which is not intellectual, not emotional, nor physical. It requires a total comprehension. I’m…

Q: *S’il vous plait (inaudible).* *Est-ce que l’attention* *à* *soi-même* *comme* *vous le dites dans vos livres, comme le disent nos amis* *(inaudible) d’attention à soi-même, la prise de conscience* *de la* *qualité* *de la pensée,* *est une approche vers la connaissance de soi ?* *La prise de conscience de chaque instant,* *les deux pôles de la* *(inaudible) de la pensée.* [Please… (inaudible). Is attention to yourself, as you say in your books, as our friends (inaudible) say attention to yourself, awareness of the quality of thought, is an approach towards self-awareness Awareness of every moment, the two poles of the (inaudible) of thought.]

K: The lady says… (laughs)

(Laughter)

K: … that one… must one be aware of the dual process that is taking place in oneself? Isn’t that it? *C’est juste,* madame? Oh, c’est impossible. You know, it’s quite difficult as it is to translate what one says in French, repeat it in English, and then answer it in English, so perhaps I wonder what we could do. I understand what you say but I cannot reply it in French. I’ve lost the habit of speaking in French, so what shall we do?

Q: (Inaudible). *S’il vous plait* *vous pouvez* *bien* *nous répondre en* *anglais* *nous avons des amis qui* *pourront traduire.* [Please answer us in English, we have friends who can translate.]

K: *Bien*.

Q: *Merci beaucoup.*

K: *Qu’est-ce que vous demandez, madame?* [What are you asking, madame?] (Laughter)

Q: *Voilà, je demandais* *si le fait* *de faire,* *de porter attention au mécanisme de la pensée, c’est-à-dire* *au processus de la dualité, du bien et du mal* *etc,* *du fait* *qu’on est dans la joie (inaudible) souffrance (inaudible)* *et* *réciproquement, à chaque instant, que ce mécanisme psychologique humain,* *est-ce que c’est déjà l’approche de la connaissance de soi tel que vous l’expliquez ?* [I was asking if the fact of doing, of paying attention to the mechanism of thought, that is to say to the process of duality, good and evil etc., due to the fact that we are in joy (inaudible ) suffering (inaudible) and vice versa, at every moment, that this human psychological mechanism, is it already the approach of self-knowledge as you explain it?]

K: The lady asks…, is the…, must one be attentive to the dual process that is going on within one all the time. Is that the awareness of this dual process, is that self‑knowledge? *N’est-ce* *pas?*

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Is that the step to self-knowledge? Now, you see, we use the word *attentive*, we use the word *duality*, we use the word *the self*. Now, let us look at those three words because if we don’t understand those three words we shall not be able to communicate with each other properly. Now, what do we mean by attentive? To be attentive, what does that mean? Please, do please listen to me for a few minutes. I’m not being finicky about words, but I want to be clear that we both understand the use of words.

What does it mean to be attentive? You probably have one meaning and I have probably another meaning about that word. I mean by attentive when you give your whole attention, in which there is no concentration, in which there is no exclusion; to attend with your whole being. But if there is attention with concentration, then there is an exclusion and therefore you’re not attending. It’s like the schoolboy who wants to look out of the window and is forced to look at a book, and that is not attention. Attention implies not only what is taking place outside the window, also what is in front of you without exclusion, which is quite an arduous… which is quite a difficult thing to do. That’s one thing.

Then what do we mean by dual process? We know there is a dual process: the good and the bad, hate and love, and why do we have that process? Does it exist in actuality or is it an invention of the brain to escape from the fact? You understand what I’m… ? Look, I am violent or jealous, and I say I must be non‑violent, non‑jealous because jealousy is painful. I don’t like it, it bothers me, so I say I must be non-jealous, non‑violent, which is an escape from the fact. The ideal is an escape from *what is*. It is an invention of the brain to escape, and so there is duality. I don’t know if you are following this. But if I face the fact that I’m jealous, there is no duality. Then facing the fact implies that I can go into this whole issue of violence and jealousy. Either I can remain with it and say I like it and therefore no conflict; or go into it and be free of conflict. Then what do we mean by self‑knowledge, isn’t it? That’s the third thing.

Q: (Inaudible) …*vous avez un…*

K: *Je vous en prie. Je n’ai pas fini encore, je n’ai pas fini… d’expliquez ça.* [You’re welcome. I haven’t finished yet. I haven’t finished… Explain that.]

What is it to know about oneself? That’s the question, isn’t it? To know oneself, what does it mean? What does knowing mean? Please, these are all… I am not being difficult about words, but unless we understand these words we shall get quite con­fused. Knowing about oneself: do I know myself? Is the self static or always changing? A thing that is always changing, can I know? Do I know my wife? Do I know my husband, my child? Or do I know the picture of my child, which I have created, the image, the symbol of my wife and husband? But I can’t know a living thing. All that I can do about a living thing is to follow it, wherever it will lead, and when I follow it, I can never say I know it. So the knowing of the self is the following of the self, following all the thoughts, all the feelings, all the motive; following it, not saying ‘I know.’ The moment you say ‘I know,’ you can only know something which is dead. So see the difficulty of attention, of duality, of knowing. Now, if you can go… understand all these steps, and go further, then you will know what the significance of meeting a fact means. What were you going to say, sir?

Q*: Je veux poser* *(inaudible) la question suivante : existe-t-il un moyen ou des moyens pour pacifier le mental ? Le mental tel que* *(inaudible)* *il est* *comme un chien fou il veut aller dans toutes les directions. Et pour des futilités, pour des choses tout à fait simples, il* *met* *dans l’esprit des* *choses invraisemblables. (Inaudible) que je côtoie* *aussi bien* *la folie* *que* *la raison.* [I want to ask (inaudible) the following question: is there a way or means to pacify the mind? The mind such that (inaudible) it is like a mad dog, it wants to go in all directions. And for trivial matters, for quite simple things, he puts implausible things in the mind. (Inaudible) …that I rub shoulders with both madness and reason.]

K: What time is it, sir? *Quelle heure est-il?* It is time, isn’t it, to stop? I’ll answer this question and then we’ll stop after that. The gentleman asks is there a means or many means to quieten the mind? *N’est-ce pas?* *Voilà*. Now, first of all, why are you asking that question? Do you know your mind is very agitated, is never quiet? Are you aware that your mind is… your brain is constantly chattering? That’s a fact, isn’t it? It’s ceaselessly talking to itself or about something, it’s active all the time. Now, why do you say can you quieten the mind? Why do you ask that question? Do please think it out with me; don’t just listen to me, think it out. Is it to escape from the chatter? And if you are escaping, then you can take a drug, and then you can take a pill to make the mind very quiet, you can go to sleep. But if you are inquiring to find out how to… inquiring to find out why the brain chatters, then the problem is entirely different. You understand, sirs?

If you say, ‘I want to stop. I want to be quiet. Please tell me how to be quiet,’ then that’s quite a different problem; but if you say, ‘I am aware that my mind is ceaselessly chattering,’ and then go into the chatter, then that has quite a different significance. I don’t know if you see the two difference. The one is an escape, the other is to follow a chattering right to the end. Now, why does the mind chatter? What do we mean by chattering? We mean by… being occupied with something, isn’t it? It’s occupied with the radio, it’s occupied with a problem, it’s occupied with itself, its job, its fancies, its emotions, its myths. It’s occupied. Now, why is it occupied? If you can go into that really deeply, then you will find out whether the mind can be quiet or not. But if you say, ‘Please tell me the method to pacify the mind,’ then that’s an escape. Then you might just as well take some tranquilizer and go to sleep.

So why has the mind to be occupied, or the brain, why? You understand, sir? I don’t know… You’re all occupied with something, aren’t you, with your problems, with so many things. Why? What would happen if it was not occupied? Have you ever tried not being occupied.? Then you will find there is fear. Moment the brain is not occupied, there is fear – no? Because it means you have to be alone, doesn’t it? If you are not occupied with the things with which you are, and suddenly find yourself with no occupation, which means when the mind is quiet, that discovery is very painful, isn’t it? I don’t know… Sir, have you ever been alone? I doubt it. You may be walking alone, sitting in the bus alone, but your mind is occupied. Now, the cessation of occupation is to be alone. And to discover that you are completely alone, isolated is a fearsome thing, so the mind keeps on chattering, chattering, chattering. You see, that’s a really… that’s a tremendous problem, very complex problem which cannot be answered at the end of a meeting. But I think we’ll go into it during the talks that are going to take place here.