Public Talk 2, Rajghat, 1 December 1963

Krishnamurti: I will talk for about quarter of an hour, or for about half an hour or so, and then perhaps you’ll be good enough to ask some questions. I think it would be deeply interesting, not as a curiosity, to find out what one is deeply, vitally interested in. Perhaps that interest varies according to circumstances, pressures and strains. Either we deal with the immediacy of the strains and the problems, and therefore are merely satisfied with superficial answers, or through these superficial, intermittent, passing problems, crises and strains, there might arise — if one is persistently inquiring and is vitally interested — a deeper awakening of interest. Perhaps each one of us, not only individually but collectively, might have this interest and might be seeking an answer. Before we go into that, I think we ought to be clear that there is no collective action or individual action. We are the collective. If we understand what is action, then it won’t be collective or individual. This unfortunate division as the collective, as the individual, seems to me so utterly fallacious. I know this is a convenient way of dividing life as personal and collective, individual and universal and all the rest of it, but if one examines a little more closely and deeply, I think one finds that really there is no such thing as the individual; that may come at a much later stage, at a much later inquiry, but for most of us there is only a collective attitude and activity, collective conditioning. We are, if one looks at oneself, we are the collective. You are the result of all the society, of all the various societies, pressures, strains and cultures. So to really inquire what this… the vital interest is, perhaps one will come to it, not as an individual or as a collective and therefore answer the problems collectively or individually, but to find out what is the vital interest that must exist in a world where there is chaos, brutality, violence, upheavals, miseries, despairs — what is the real demand? And perhaps if we could really ask that, then we might be able to attack that problem and in the very understanding of the problem, it will neither be collective nor the individual. Because, after all, your problem is my problem, everyone’s problem: you’re unhappy, so is another. It isn’t your particular, individual problem which you have so carefully nurtured, cultivated or hope to resolve — it’s the problem of man. So what is man’s fundamental interest? And you can only put that question when you put it to yourself, not as an individual because you… we aren’t individuals; you may have a separate body, a certain series of reactions — nervous, neurological, psychological — but as an individual, you are not. We are a human being conditioned, shaped by society, whether the society be ten thousand years old or modern. So if we could find out what is the deep, vital, continuous interest, perhaps, in understanding that, the minor problems of everyday existence will be solved. But I’m afraid merely trying to resolve the immediate, peripheral problems, there’ll be no end to it; but perhaps you could get at the root problem, as it were — if I can so put it — then from there, explode. Then the so-called daily problems of existence may be resolved. So what is it we are really seeking? Perhaps we will say we’re seeking God, we’re seeking truth, we’re seeking happiness, or if you’re trained in a particular culture, in a particular society, you will say, ‘I want nirvana, this or that,’ but not ideationally but actually. I don’t know if we can see the difference. The idea is entirely different from the actuality. The idea is non-existent. A man who talks about liberation, to him it is an idea; it is what he has learned, what he hopes for, what he wishes, but the idea is entirely different from the actual. The actual is that we are in a state of confusion, in misery, in anxiety, in insecurity, seeking everlastingly security; we want to be loved, we want to love; fear, despair — these the actual things of our… not only daily living but deep-down in our consciousness it is there. Surely only when the mind is very clear, healthy — which means free from all these confusions, the conflicts, the miseries, the despairs, the anxieties; completely free from that — it’s only then the mind is quiet, then you can seek. Perhaps then you won’t seek at all; there may be something entirely different. So either we deal in abstraction — which has no value at all — or we deal with the fact, the *what is,* and from there proceed. That is, to put it differently, without understanding the whole psychological structure of one’s being, without inquiring, understanding, resolving the structure of the way one thinks — consciously, unconsciously — the motives, the purposes, the fears, it seems to me so utterly vain, it has no meaning at all to deal in abstractions: what is God, what is this and what is that? That… it has no meaning. Unless you have a very clear, unconfused, a mind that has totally put away all conflict, doesn’t… has never… conflict has never touched it, it’s only such a mind can discover what is truth, what is the real, what is… if there is a God. So it seems to me, our primary interest for any healthy mind has to deal with the facts as they are. The fact being a human being living is this world has not only to acquire food, clothes and shelter but also he has to resolve the psychological: the psychological conflicts, stresses, strains, fears. It seems to me that’s the first thing, and to do that one has to know oneself. To know yourself; not as an idea but actually; to understand the movement of thought, which is illogical, logical, capricious, vagrant, without purpose and occasionally with purpose. To understand this whole mechanism of thought, not logically — you understand? — but actually, what it is. Because if we are merely examining it logically, then all logic — which is never spontaneous but a reasoned, calculated process — can only produce a computer. That’s what we are becoming, if we are at all aware; we are becoming rather poor imitation of these extraordinary machines called computers. And logic has led to the computer. And if we merely look at ourselves logically, cultivate memory which will direct what we should do, what we should not do, then such logic, consecutive action will inevitably lead to a mechanistic activity, which is the computer. I do not know if you have followed all the things that are going on in the world. Because that’s what we are becoming; we human beings, whether we are religious, whether we are scientific, whether we are extraordinarily clever, that’s what we are all becoming. Because our chief concern is the cultivation of memory, logical memory: ‘I have done this, so I must do that. I should be that. I am not that but I’m going to make an effort to become that.’ It’s all based on memory, and logical memory leads to a life of the computer. And I’m not saying that we should be illogical — on the contrary — we should be aware the process of a mind that merely functions on memory. Please, I hope we can go into this, because this is very important. Unless there is a quality of spontaneity, that is, discovering yourself anew each time, seeing yourself actually as something that’s changing all the time — which it is — and you see that taking place, spontaneously, this change that’s going on within, all the time; and if one can observe it, see it spontaneously, then the mechanistic process of memory will have very little significance. I do not know if you have observed yourself. And if one has, one obviously desires certain changes, certain conformities, certain modifications, and those desires of modification, change, is really based on memory, association, the pattern which society has established, of which we are a part. And so, to understand oneself there must be spontaneity to observe… (inaudible) …and that’s one of the most difficult things to do. Because, after all, the mind, the being is in constant movement, constant change, changing under various conscious or unconscious strains, pressures; but when we look at that being which is undergoing change all the time, with a memory which is stabilised, then we shan’t be able to understand it. I don’t know if I am making my point clear. If I want to understand you, I must look at you afresh; I can’t look at you, if I wish to understand you, with all my memories — whether you have insulted me, you have flattered me, you’ve been kind or unkind and so on, so on, so on — these memories obviously prevent me from understanding you. So is it possible to look at oneself? And it is imperative to look at oneself; because if you don’t understand yourself there is no basis for any thought, for any clarity. Then we will just live in a world of words, ideas, which have no relation to daily existence, which is what’s happened in the religious world. There is a wide gulf between the idea and action, between our daily existence and all your demands about God, truth, which is all sheer nonsense. When a man is in confusion, he has to understand confusion and be… clarify all that; then out of that clarity he can look. But being confused, to seek truth, God… I mean, it’s too absurd, it has no meaning. And this whole structure of mind is confused; and to look at it, not in the mirror of memory but to look at it anew each time, to look at each thought, to look at each feeling, each reaction, as though you were meeting it for the first time. Is that possible? Otherwise, you will merely cultivate more and more memory, make it more and more refined, and ultimately become extraordinarily mechanistic; and a computer can do much better than our little mind. So if that is clear, the question is then: is it possible to look at ourselves, to look at every thought as it arises, as though you were meeting it for the first time? That’s the only way to understand it, otherwise you merely translate or interpret what you see according to your memory, therefore you won’t understand the actual movement of a thought which may have its source in the past and may appear as new, so you have to look at it anew. If this question is clear, then we have to find out if it is at all possible to find out the relationship between memory and perception, seeing. I don’t know if… That is, do you observe, see, through thought or do you actually see? Do you see me, the speaker, through various knowledge, information, reputation, ideas that you have, or actually see? Or do you merely have the opinion which you have cultivated about the speaker? You follow what I mean? I think this is very important if you could really understand this very simple fact: do we actually see, or do we see through our memories? Seeing through our memories is not seeing. And is it possible to look, to see, to observe without the whole response, the mechanism of memory in operation? Because otherwise, you see, it will be merely carrying on something of the past, a modified continuity of what has been; and therefore the mind is never fresh, never young, innocent, to look, to observe. And we need a fresh mind, not only in this world but to observe; we need a deep mutation. *Mutation* implies — the word itself, the dictionary meaning — a complete change without cause. A complete revolution. And we need such a mind because the problems are so immense, not only in India but all over the world — the problems of starvation, overpopulation; the problems of progress, the mind becoming more and more superficial, more and more mechanical; and deep-down, the agony, the despair, the frustration; wars, the longing for peace; the conflict between two powerful blocks, each demanding a certain type of action, certain type… way of living — when you look at all these enormous, complex problems, you need to have a fresh mind, not an old, traditional, decrepit mind; which… a mind that is no longer caught in any pattern of thought. It is the patterns of thought that have brought this about. So you need a fresh mind; and that means a complete mutation, not in time but out of time. And that can only take place if you can observe without the whole mechanism of memory coming into operation. Look, as a problem itself, it’s very interesting. Whether you can do it or not, that depends on you, but as an issue — you follow? — as a question, as an inquiry, it is extraordinarily interesting. We need a fresh mind, that’s… obviously, it’s an obvious fact; a mind that can look… (inaudible) …anew; and to look without awakening the whole past. And it is only possible if you can look at yourself; the self being not the high self or the low self, just the ordinary self — this division as the High with a capital H is just an idea, it’s not a fact — so to look at oneself, to see all the movements, conscious as well as unconscious movement of every desire, of every thought, of every feeling, to see the motives, to be totally aware of all that without any choice; just to observe, neither condemning nor comparing; just to see the thing in operation. Then you will see — if you can do that — out of that comes a fresh mind, a mind that’s spontaneous. And it’s only such a mind which has been… which has emptied itself of all memory — (inaudible) …with memory — it has emptied itself of all memory, it’s only such a mind that can meditate. And that is real meditation, nothing else. So perhaps now we can discuss, ask questions what we have talked about… (inaudible)

Questioner: We have a memory that is inherent in us, and it’s very difficult to get rid of.

K: The gentleman says, ‘Memory is inherent, a part of us, and it’s very difficult to get rid of.’ I did not say that we should get rid of it. You can’t get rid of memory. You see, look; look at it. You are logically functioning now. You say, ‘I must get rid of memory in order to have a fresh mind,’ and you will find methods of getting rid of certain memories, logically, and you will end up mechanistically. What I said was that one must understand this whole mechanism of memory. Not get rid of it — you can’t; I mean, the idea of getting rid means nothing — you must understand it. Now, what do we mean by *understand* it? To observe it in action; not to do anything about it, just to observe it: how to everything you react and there is no space between that reaction and the fact. To have this empty space in which memory doesn’t spontaneously jump into it. I don’t know if you are following… making myself clear.

Q: Sir, how can I recognise you… (inaudible)… if I have no memory?

K: ‘How can I recognise you if I have no memory?’ You can’t. Now, look sir. You met me yesterday or a week before and you say you recognise me because you have met me. But what has happened during that week, during that twenty-four hours? I have changed a great deal; there has been a change, a variation. I had various pressures, challenges to which I have answered inadequately, therefore conflict and so on. You only recognise me, the form, and nothing else; and that form too is changing. So obviously you must — I mean, unless you have amnesia — you must have memory, that capacity must exist. But if I insulted you, if I robbed you, cheated you, said things against you, when you meet me next time all that comes into operation and so you push me aside, you cut me, you say… (inaudible) So to know that I have insulted you, done you harm, consciously or unconsciously, and yet being aware of them without letting your present relationship with that person be interfered with, with the past. That’s all; it’s very clear, surely. No?

Q: Sir, (inaudible)?

K: Yes, yes. No, I know. The gentleman says, ‘Do you mean that we should be allowed to be robbed again?’ Is that a serious question? Or are you merely trying to defend a particular pattern of thinking?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: If it is really a serious question, naturally you will protect yourself from being robbed. You don’t want to be robbed twice by the same man; you may be robbed by another politician, by another person, but you don’t want to be robbed by the same man twice. So you say… you keep a safe distance, but you look at him with a different spirit. You follow? What were you saying, sir?

Q: (Inaudible)?

K: You have understood the question? Does mutation come about through… come about naturally, spontaneously, or through outside agency? Why do we divide the outside agency and the inward spontaneity? Now, I am telling you… t he speaker tells you something — the speaker is the outside agency — and he says that you must have a mutation, deep-down. And obviously, either what he says is reasonable and you see the necessity of it, then you begin to inquire, ‘Is it possible?’ or, ‘Is it not possible?’ If it is possible, how is that spontaneity to come about? Does it come through outside agency — that is, through outside pressures, challenges, demands, culture and all the rest of it — or does it come about when one understands these outward pressures with all their limited… with all their restrictions and so on, and thereby, b y understanding these outside influences, you are free from them and therefore you are then faced with the simple fact that you have to… that the mutation must take place without any pressure, without any cause. Otherwise you’re merely yielding to circumstances, pushed by a motive. Right? What do you say, sir? Have I…?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: I said… Sir, I just now said, why do we divide the…? You see, we don’t listen. You ask a question and then wander off. I said, very clearly, ‘Why do we divide the outer and the inner?’ It’s a total process; by understanding the outer, you will come to the inner; and by going, penetrating deeper and deeper into the inner, you will find out whether that mutation is possible at all. But merely asking a question and leaving it has no meaning. One has to grapple with this question, sir, it’s not… you’re not dependant on my answer; you have to find it out for yourself. And to find out for yourself, you must either reject the challenge or find out how you respond to that challenge. If you respond verbally — that is, intellectually — then it is not a challenge at all. But if you respond with your whole being — that is, physiologically, nervously, with your eyes, with your ears, with your heart, with your mind — then that challenge will, by the very response, that challenge will open the door to a further inquiry. But you see, unfortunately, we don’t want to listen to anything intensely; we don’t want to feel anything intensely about anything. Probably most of us have little passion, only that is reserved for physiological, sexual passion and nothing else. But you need to have passion; you need to have tremendous passion to find out what truth is. And you cannot have passion — you know? — fire, burn, that carries you, if it’s all logical, calculated, controlled, shaped, beaten; and that’s what most of us are.

Q: (Inaudible)?

K: The gentleman says, ‘If that mutation is to take place, we will lose our job, our revenue and our relationship.’ Sir, f ind out first. You are speculating, aren’t you? A hungry man doesn’t speculate, he wants food. He isn’t satisfied by words. And I’m afraid most of us are, by words; we have been fed by words for so many centuries. Here we are talking of something, of directly experiencing, directly inquiring, and not speculating.

Q: Sir, what is the use of (inaudible)?

K: Ah. He says, ‘What’s the use of your talking? Why do you talk?’ Sir, why do you learn? Why do you learn to read, why do you learn anything about history, mathematics, geography? Why do you study at all? Either you study to make the mind intelligent, sharp, clear, precise, or you study merely to pass an examination or to get a job in which you… which becomes a bore in which you die. In the same way, we are talking because one sees that one must learn about life and look at it differently. And that is as simple as that.

Q: (Inaudible)?

K: What is the aim of human life, purpose of human life. It is very simple, isn’t it? To live. To live vigorously, without conflict, without misery, without despair; to live, sir; to love people. And you can’t love if you have sorrow. Sorrow and love, they don’t go together. So if you want to find out what is this love, sorrow must end. And can sorrow end? Sorrow — you understand? — not only the little sorrows of this, but sorrow, the thing that destroys human beings — can that end? Or is that part of the inevitable process of existence? To end sorrow, one has to go into the whole problem of what is suffering — the physical pain as well as the psychological pain — and whether it can end. And without ending sorrow, you cannot possibly have or know or understand what love is. You may talk about it. Like a man who is ambitious, how can he have sympathy, affection for another? You see, you listen, you say, ‘Perfectly right, logical,’ but in your heart you’re ambitious; so the two have no relationship: what you listen and what you actually are. But if you take what you actually are and go into it, with passion — not with calculated fears and hopes — then out of that you will find out for yourself whether sorrow can end.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Ah yes, sir.

Q: (Inaudible)?

K: Sir, there is a question before that, which is: is it possible to be free of fear? I said we would answer that question, so we are going to go into it. Fear, not only at the conscious level, but deep-down at the unconscious level. That is, the fear of… the fears with which we are familiar, with those… to those we have become accustomed and the fears deep-down, hidden, concealed, secret fears. Is it possible to be free of all fear? Now, to understand that, one must understand the whole content of consciousness. You understand? Now, understand the fact, not what consciousness is according to somebody, whether that somebody is a great saint or a great teacher or whatever it is, or a modern psychologist. But to understand the consciousness which is you; and to… not in terms of what you have learned from some book or what you have been told, but to observe it. And that’s what we are going to do, if you are going to follow what I’m going to go into. The whole consciousness is of time, isn’t it? Time being thought. Thought being the response of memory. Memory being the past; past moving through the present to the future, in a limited way or an expansive way. The whole structure of the conscious as well as the unconscious is within the framework of time; time, not only the chronological time but the psychological time. That is a fact, whether you agree or disagree. It’s not a matter of agreement or disagreement; it is so. Now, we have divided this consciousness as the superficial and the hidden. The superficial is the educated, the modern mind. It goes to the office, however bored it is, it passes examinations, it has certain technological knowledge, it reads newspapers and reacts — you know? — to… It is that superficial mind, and then there is the hidden mind. Now, the hidden mind is all the latent factors of the past; it is dormant. Certain parts of it are awake, other parts of it are asleep. Please, I wish you would listen to it, actually observing your own state of consciousness. I’m only using the words to describe, but don’t depend on the description, but watch it. And then you can go much further, deeply… which I want, this morning. Now, you can deal with the superficial fears: either escape, take a drink or go to church or repeat some *mantram* or read a book. And reading a book, going to a temple, seeking God or taking a drink are all the same, because they are escapes from the fact of the fears of which you’re conscious. That’s one. Second, in the unconscious — of which we are very, very… of which we are not familiar, with which we are not familiar — one has to get acquainted with it, and that is difficulty. You follow? There is the hidden part of me, the hidden part of you, with which you are not familiar, as familiar as you are with your conscious mind. To become familiar, to know all the content of it is… requires an attention, an observation, which is not… which is attentive, not in terms of condemnation or justification, but merely attentive. Please; please follow this. Attention is necessary in order to find out the whole content of the unconscious. I mean by *attention* a mind that is attentive without any subjective or objective condemnation, any choice, which is merely attentive. Now, I must go into the meaning of this word *attentive*, because most of us do not know what it means; we know only what it is to be concentrated, that is, to focus your attention, focus your thought on a particular thing. And in that focusing thought on a particular thing, which is called concentration, there is an exclusive process — you are putting everything aside. Therefore, concentration is a form of resistance. And concentration is not attention, because in attention there is no resistance. Though attention can concentrate, even then it is not exclusive, resistant. So one must be very clear between these two facts: the fact of… the implication of concentration and the implication of attention. In attention there is complete emptiness, otherwise you can’t attend. Now look, if you are attentive, you listen to that noise on… the train on the bridge, listen to the hoot of that train, listen to the speaker, watch the colours of the various people, see the sparrows flying across the room, see people nodding their head or smiling, yawning, scratching. But if you are concentrated, you can’t be aware of all this extraordinary movement. So you need attention to observe the unconscious. Otherwise you can’t. Which means that the conscious mind must not seek any result; it does not wish to transform what it sees, try to interpret what it sees according to its like and dislike. So the conscious mind must be aware, must be attentively aware, which means without any preoccupation. I wonder if you’re meeting all this. I will go on; if you can’t follow it… if you follow …follow it, if you don’t, *tant pis*. Up to you. So the conscious mind must be in a state of non-interpretative, non-condemnative state, which means it must be quiet. Quiet, not forced, not compelled. And that is only possible — if you want to go very deeply into it — that’s only possible when there is no ambition, when the conscious mind is psychologically free from society. Then the conscious mind is completely quiet, even the brain cells, because there… being highly sensitive, highly aware, it can be quiet. It can be quiet because it is… there is no resistance. So the conscious mind must be quiet, which means the conscious mind must be attentive. And therefore, the conscious mind, having no thought, being empty but aware, then can observe. This observation is not analytical or introspective and that you must be… I mean, I won’t go into the whole question of analysis: who is the analyser and who is the analysed and all that; it is not… it will take too long. So it is not a question… this attention has no introspective or analytical quality; it merely observes. Then what is the unconscious? I am merely describing verbally. You can add more words, more description, but that will not help you to understand the unconscious. And you have to understand the whole content of consciousness — not only the superficial but also the hidden — otherwise you cannot possibly go beyond it. You might talk everlastingly about God, truth; I mean, that all becomes too childish, immature. Unless the mind can comprehend the depth, the superficiality, the movement of every conscious, unconscious thing which is in the field of time, unless you… the mind understands it, it cannot possibly, under any circumstances, go beyond itself. And it must go beyond itself to understand what is truth; even the truth of everyday, not the ultimate truth, the daily truth. So the unconscious — or the sub… or whatever name you give to that part, the hidden part — again, the word, the name is not the thing. We are talking about the thing and not the word, not the symbol. So when you are observing the thing, the word becomes unimportant. As we said, whole of consciousness is of time. The unconscious is the past, with all its traditions, authorities and experience; not only the experiences of the present, but the experiences, the knowledge, the authorities of centuries and centuries of man; because you are the result of all man, not just one man. That is too narrow, limited… (inaudible) …that you are, the unconscious is merely the result of one individual life, struggling, struggling, struggling, struggling; which is not a fact. It is the whole endeavour of man’s existence, his conflicts, his hopes, fears, the… (inaudible) — the whole of that is the unconscious, collective, as well as that collective operating through the so-called individual with his particular experience. All that is the unconscious: the motives, the urges, the hidden, unconscious recesses of the mind, where secret thoughts, of which the conscious mind isn’t aware at all, which occasionally, through dreams, come into being. I’m not going into dreams now; that, again, would take too long. So all that is time — obviously — time as the past operating in the present, the past operating in the present which becomes the future; the yesterday moving into today becomes the tomorrow. That’s how we live. Now, being attentive — I’ve gone into the question of attention — then one can observe this process of time. Time becomes mechanical: ‘I have done this yesterday; the result of that is today which will operate on the events, challenges of tomorrow.’ So as long as the mind, this consciousness, consciousness which is… the mind which is asleep or awake, hidden or open, that mind is the result put together by time. Your mind is the result of time. Now — please listen to it carefully — is it possible for that mind to be free of time? Don’t say yes or no; that’s too… Don’t be immature now, please. Don’t put a question: ‘Is it possible? Must I catch my train? And what about my lunch?’ and all the rest of that… such questions which superficially is an answer… question. But I’m talking a much… at a deeper level. Because without being free of time, you’re not free of fear. Because fear is the result of thought. Because if you did not think, if you had no thought about tomorrow, you wouldn’t be afraid of tomorrow. If there was no process of thinking with regard to something of which you think you’re afraid, there would be no fear. If death came to one instantaneously, there is no fear of death. So thought, which is the instrument of time, which is the response of memory, which is the past, that creates time, and of that there is fear. That is the origin of fear; that is… not only origin but that is the very… time gives the soil to fear. So if one would understand and be completely free of fear — not of the snake, but this deep-down fear of… fear which causes sorrow, fear which prevents affection, fear which clouds the mind, creates conflict, fear which brings darkness. For most of us live in darkness and die in darkness. If one would really understand that fear, one must understand this whole process of consciousness which is of time.

Q: (Inaudible)?

K: What sir? Ah yes, your destiny. Really sir, is that very…? The gentleman asks, ‘Are we the creatures of destiny?’ Is that of very great importance? Aren’t you the creatures of environment? When you’re a Hindu, a Muslim and when you are so conditioned, obviously you can foresee that you are the creatures of your condition, therefore of time, of a particular culture. You see, sir, wWhat is important, sir, to you to ask that question, to find an answer to it? Is it to find an answer to it? Or to, have you put the right question; not that…… obviously it’s ? That is not the right question because thait has no meaning. WeI live in this world, you and I. We are confused, we are miserable, unhappy; there is immense struggle, conflict. Is it possible to be free of all this? Or, are we everlastingly destined to live in itlike this? If you say that we are destined to live in this chaos, in this confusion, in this conflict, thatand it’ is inevitable, then there…… you have is no problem; once you accept that as inevitable, you have no problem. YThen you have the problem: how to decorate your conflict, how to make it a little more refined,— but, deep- down, you have no problem. But if you say, ‘”Is it possible to step out of it completely?'” then it becomes an astonishing, vital, question. And to answer thait, not verbally, not theoretically, but to answer ithat actually, in daily living, you need tremendous vitality. And to have that vitality,, you have to observe, you have to be alive, you have to be intensely sensitive.

Q: (Inaudible)?

K: ‘Is everything preordained? What is the truth of it?’ Obviously sir, if you’re lazy, if you accept, if you function mechanically, you become a poor imitation of the computer. That is your destiny, obviously. That is a truth. But if you reject that –; To be free of destiny, you have to reject it. Aand to reject psychologically, you need vitality. You follow? You can’t just say, ‘”Well, I’ll… (inaudible).’ T” To reject society, psychologically; I’ am not talking ofabout putting on clothes, I don’t… (inaudible) or doing the silly, absurd things that people do — i. If yYou havereject psychologically to reject the whole structure of society of which you are a part, that is…… if you—not reject it, but deny it. If you reject it, deny it, in life, and not in idea, then you are free of all destiny,, nnothing is ordained. Yes, sir?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: What is…? I’m sorry, sir; I don’t think I’ve explained myself or I’ve not understood. I said a man who functions within the psychological field of a social structure, his destiny is almost certain; he will function like a cog in a machine. But a man who rejects — that is, psychologically: not being ambitious, not being greedy, not following, not accepting authority and so on — all the psychological structure of a society of which I am, when I reject it, understand it — not reject it as revolt — because I understand it, I deny it; then I am… there is no destiny, then I am not a slave to circumstances.

Q: There is no middle course?

K: There is no middle course. Either you are that or this, no halfway. That’s what we all want. We want the darkness of security and the freedom of life; you can’t have both. We want to be hot and cold. Sir, you know what happens when you mix very hot water with very cold water? You become lukewarm. And that’s what you are: you have become lukewarm. And you need to have fire.

Q: But lukewarm may be the truth.

K: What sir?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Yes, ‘Lukewarm may be the truth,’ the gentleman says. Yes, if you like lukewarm water, lukewarm emotions, lukewarm feelings… that’s all right, sir.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Ah, just a minute. Is that the middle path? No sir! Don’t use words. You know what t he middle path means? To see the false, and see the truth in the false and walk in the middle. That is, when you know what is truth and when you’ve seen what is false, then out of this perception you walk. It’s neither the middle nor the centre nor the… (inaudible)

Q: (Inaudible)?

K: Yes sir; yes sir. ‘What’s the relationship between the mind and the brain?’ The brain we know what it is, the brain: the cells, the nervous response — you know, all that — biological; the brain is the inherited, animal instincts. Yes, yes; don’t deny it; biologically they have… it is so. And the mind. The mind is the quality of the brain — obviously — the brain is part of the mind. The mind is the whole and the brain is the fragment. Between the fragment and the whole, the relationship is tenuous. When you understand the whole structure of man — the brain, the mind, the feeling, the struggles, the conflict — the mind then has no limits, no frontiers. What is the relationship of darkness and light?

Q: But in the physical body, sir, the brain is the medium.

K: We all know that, sir. In the physical body the brain is the medium; I mean, these are obvious things.

Q: Sir, you said that we should look at life as… (inaudible)?

K: The question is… — I understand — ‘You have said you must look at the unconscious without interpretation, but the interpretations arise from the unconscious. Aren’t you contradicting yourself?’

Q: (Inaudible)

K: No, no; that’s perfectly all right. I’m putting that question; I’m adding that. I said very carefully: the conscious mind has to be quiet — unenforced, not drilled into quietness — and it is only possible for the conscious mind to be still when it has understood the psychological structure of the society in which it is living, and nothing more. The interpretation comes much later. That is… — must I go through it all again? Must I go through it all again? All right; I will. *Avanti.* What is the act of interpretation? When do we interpret? When we do not see things directly, then interpretation takes place. When I see that, I don’t need interpretation. This is an object. But then I begin to interpret, and say, ‘This is a microphone.’ The interpretation comes or interferes later; but I’m saying look at it without interpretation; that can be done at any level, at any… at any time. To look at a flower — please sir, try it; do it sometime — to look at a flower without interpretation. Interpretation is a distraction. The word… when you see the flower, which happens to be a rose, and you say, ‘That’s a rose,’ the word that arises when you see that flower is a distraction from your observation of that flower. And when you are interpreting, saying, ‘That is beautiful; I wish I had it’ — this, that and… — again, an interpretation which becomes a distraction from seeing. Oh surely; that can. Moment you have understood this process, that interpretation can stop. With regard to the deeper interpretation, I said that first you must make the superficial mind quiet — not make it; it must become quiet. Then whatever interpretation, hints, intimations that come from the unconscious, then it will be able to deal with it through its attention and discard it, break it down. But if you don’t understand how the conscious mind interprets everything, even the minutest thing, then you won’t be able to understand the other. Have I made myself clear? Not quite. Is that it? Not quite.

Q: Sir, to understand a flower and to understand a human being without interpreting, but how can you understand a human being without interpreting?

K: Sir, have you ever noticed when the state of understanding comes? Have you ever noticed how, when you say, ‘I understand something,’ how does it come?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Instantly. What did you say, sir? Did you say, ‘Instantly’?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Ah no, no. This… I don’t know what that word *intuition* means.

Q: (Inaudible) …understand… (inaudible) …what I say.

K: I’m showing you… I’m asking you how… what is the state of the mind that says, ‘I understand’? You say, ‘I understand what you’re talking about. I see it. By Jove, what you say is very clear; I understand it immediately.’ What do you mean by that word *understand* and what is the state of the mind which says, ‘I’ve understood’?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: You haven’t gone into it, which I’m going… I’ll show you; if you will go into it with me, you will see it. Sir, what we are asking is: what is the state of the mind that understands, that says, ‘I understand; I see’? First of all, such a state of mind has no distraction — right? — it’s not distracted by the noise, by the colour, by any movement; there is no sense of distraction, no sense of distraction, therefore there is no distraction. Get it, sirs? There is no distraction because each distraction it has understood, it has seen; therefore, there is no… the word *distraction* doesn’t exist in such a mind. So then there is no distraction; there is no distraction, or the… even the word doesn’t exist, the meaning of that word. Then what takes place? When there is no distraction, there is attention; and that attention is silent. There is no operation of thought at all; it is completely empty and therefore silent. And when you say something true, I say, ‘I understand’; when you say something false, I say, ‘That’s false.’ So there is understanding only possible when there is empty, silent attention in which state there is no sense of distraction at all. Therefore, before we understand what is the state of the mind that understands, you have to go into the question of distraction. That means you want to be concentrated on something, and your mind goes off… your thought goes off; the going off you call distraction. I don’t; because I want to know why it goes off. Which indicates that particular thought has some interest… (inaudible) So the mind examines every thought, every wandering off, never saying it is a distraction. Therefore, such a mind becomes astonishingly awake, very intelligent, sharp, clear, because it is not in a battle with concentration and distraction. Therefore, it is watching everything.

Q: (Inaudible) …nothing to do after watching?

K: There is nothing to do after watching; all that we have to do is merely watch. That is the greatest action. And out of that is action; that’s the only action.

I think that’s enough, sir, isn’t it?