Public Talk 3, Rome, 6 April 1967

J. Krishnamurti

Third Public Talk in Rome

6 April 1967

(Clapping)

(Pause)

Krishnamurti: If we may, we’ll continue with what we were talking about the other day when we met here.

We were saying that we would go into this whole human problem of love, life and death. But before we go into it, it’s important to understand semantically the words we use. Because each one of us interprets the word as he pleases, according to his inclination, his tendency, or accepts the meaning of that word according to the circumstances in which he lives, to the environmental influence. And to really understand the most complex problems of our life, one must, it seems to me, be very clear in the usage of words. We use the word ‘religion’, ‘god’, ‘love’, ‘peace’ so easily, with very little meaning behind it. And when we do investigate into the meaning of the word, we find ourselves blocked by our own intelligence, by our intellectual capacity or tendency. Intellect has a certain significance. It is the capacity to investigate, to question, to doubt, never to accept, always eager to find out, and merely accept according to the dictates of one’s own inclination or under the pressure of circumstances, environment seems to me obviously a very stupid way of accepting life. And…

I’m afraid that door has to be closed otherwise we can’t…

(Pause)

What we are discussing or talking over together needs a certain serious attention. One has to be somewhat serious, and life is more potent to one who is really serious. As we were saying, mere intellectual examination of any problem has very little meaning. Intellect being only a fragment of the whole structure, psychological structure of the human being, a mere fragmentation of that whole does not bring about understanding, or direct action in life. What brings about direct action is the total comprehension. (Pause)

And as most of us use our intellect, if we have any, rather partially, with a great deal of prejudice, conditioning, then intellect becomes a barrier. And when we are examining the whole of human problem, the whole of existence, then intellect, though it has a validity, though it is essential, because it is only good intellect that can reason healthily.

(Pause)

Can we start now again?

What we are trying to say is that to understand something deeply, mere intellection is of very little significance. Mere argument or opinion or evaluation has very little value when you are confronted with an immense problem of existence. And to understand this extraordinary problem of life – ‘life’ we mean the everyday daily living, the conflicts, the struggles, the misery.

(Pause)

To understand this extraordinary complex problem of living, which you call life, with all it’s anxiety, misery, sorrow and conflict, the problems of relationship, one has to not merely approach it by the intellect or emotionally, sentimentally, but rather come to it with a mind that is capable of grasping the whole significance, not just a partial significance, and that is very difficult to do if we are guided by inclination – inclination being our particular pleasure, by our particular opinion, by our prejudice, by our conditioning – or guided by environmental pressure. And as most of us are guided and controlled by the environment, by our particular inclination, it becomes almost impossible to really understand this extraordinary thing called life.

And if we may this afternoon, we are going together, go into it. That is, you are not merely going to listen to a talk, but rather partake, share in what is being said. Your responsibility in listening is as great then as that of the speaker talking. If you merely listen to a lot of series of ideas then you say, ‘It’s all very obvious, what you are saying, nothing new.’ But if we take the journey together, not as a Catholic or a Protestant or an Italian or a European with it’s particular culture, but as a human being, a human being who is caught in the trap of this so-called life, going to the office every day of his life, having little pleasures, the travail of modern existence, the uncertainty and insecurity, then if we could go together into it then perhaps we should be able to understand how to bring about a radical revolution in the very process of living. Because a revolution is necessary. Not mere economic or social revolution but a revolution in the whole of the human consciousness, a different way of thinking, living, acting, unrelated to any particular culture. Because first we are human beings and it is the human being that has built the society, and it’s only when the human being radically changes, the social environment then changes. But merely to bring about an outward reformation, which ordinary reformers try to do, such reformation needs further reformation and so it is an endless process. Whereas if there is a human… in the human being a radical revolution, then what he does, what he thinks, how he lives will have tremendous impact on environment, on our own relationships and so on. And I hope we can go into it this evening. And as I said we can only go if we both of us take the journey together. Not you listen and the speaker goes on with his explanations, because explanation is never the actuality. You may see a picture in a museum but if you paint it yourself then it has tremendous meaning. So what we are attempting to do this evening is to understand these fundamental issues.

Man has always sought, has always enquired if there is something beyond the measure of his own mind. You can see in all the various civilisations that have existed in the past, one can see that man trying to find out if there is something more permanent, something more than this everyday battle of life, something beyond the measure of thought, beyond the question of belief and dogma and ritual, beyond what he calls organised religion. Modern man obviously is thoroughly sceptical, discards, totally puts aside the present organised religious dogmas — he is anti-religious quite naturally. The more you are aware, the more you think, the more you are alive, the more you are enquiring. The whole structure of religious beliefs and dogmas, have no meaning whatsoever – you throw it aside, you are anti-religious. But even though one may be against, deny this idolatry, the authority of the church, of the organised belief and so on, yet human beings demand, they want to know, they want to find out, not according to some saviour, not according to some religious practice, preacher or dogma – he has set aside all those things long ago. The more intelligent you are the more you break through all that rubbish.

But yet you begin to enquire, you want to find out. Because we see life is a battlefield from the moment you are born till you die, there is fear, there is anxiety, there is a sense of guilt, there is sorrow and untold misery, and at the end of it all there is death. And so you say… one says to oneself, ‘Is that all? I’ve lived 40, 60 years and I have battled with my neighbour, with my wife, with my husband, with my children, with society, and I have now reached the end — I am ready for the grave.’ And one asks oneself, ‘Is that all?’ And asking that question, one begins to enquire and this enquiry, this seeking, has very little meaning if one is caught in another trap, another trap of another authority, of another series of doctrines, philosophy and theology. Because human minds can invent any kind of theology, any kind of hope. You can posit a certain formula with authority and collect few people who believe in that, do an immense lot of propaganda, and there’ll be a whole group of people believing in that particular statement. Whether it’s true or false, whether it has meaning or not it doesn’t matter. And that’s what is called religion, which is totally absurd. But there is a religious mind which has nothing whatsoever to do with any organised religion. Such a mind alone can find out if there is something more beyond the measure of thought, if there is something more, far and above the human misery. But to come upon that, not through anxiety, through fear, through sorrow, one has to understand life, the everyday existence. Without that foundation, do what you will, you can never find or come upon that truth.

So, we have to lay the foundation, and to lay the foundation one must understand life as it is, not as it should be ideologically – actually as it is. Because our life, our life is a sorrow. If you examine yourselves, not neurotically, but if you look at your own existence it is an awful mess. It is a great deal of sorrow, a battlefield, a fear. How can such a mind that is tortured, that is twisted, that has only known battle, conflict, how can such a mind ever find out if there is something? Not what the church has promised — that is too silly — but something far beyond all that.

So, the question then is: is it possible to free the mind, not only from fear, but to bring about a clarity, so that it is never – never – in conflict? Because a mind in conflict, at any level, whether it’s a conflict with society or within oneself, such conflict distorts the mind, and this distortion brings about sorrow, and in the Western countries sorrow is worshiped, symbolised and worshiped as though it was something extraordinary, thing that you must worship. You see that in every church, in every religious ceremony in this Western world. Not that it does not exist in the East, there they translate sorrow in a different… in different terms. But here you worship sorrow as though it was something to be lived with.

So to… the ending of sorrow is the beginning of clarity, which is wisdom. So how can one end sorrow? You understand the question? A mind that is not clear, that’s not vital, that’s not aware of the whole of the human problem, but is merely caught in a conflict and ends in sorrow, such a mind is a very shallow, empty mind. It may be very learned, it may quote all the books in the world – and generally the more shallow the mind is, the more capable of erudition it is, which has very little meaning. But without this clarity which can only come when there is no conflict, when there is no sorrow, then it’s only such a mind that can go beyond itself.

And I hope we can this evening enquire into this question. Not through words, not just accept or deny and say, ‘All this is very obvious,’ but rather become aware of oneself. Because self-knowledge, knowing oneself, not according to Freud or according to some philosopher, but knowing oneself as one is actually, not saying… not accepting it as something ugly and to be put aside, or something extraordinarily beautiful and kept, but rather to see actually, factually what it is, and move with it. Such a movement is self-knowing, and without knowing yourself, both the conscious as well as the unconscious, without knowing the totality of yourself, you have no basis for any thought, for any enquiry, you have no basis for rational thinking, because rational thinking, sane observation is somewhat necessary but is not an end in itself. So, without knowing oneself, there is no basis for any psychological structure, any structure that you can go… through which you can go beyond. And it is very difficult to know oneself because we want to see ourselves as being something extraordinary different, beautiful. We idealise ourselves so we never see what actually is, and you can see what actually is only when there is no condemnation, no justification, no explanation – just to observe. As you will observe a child, whether it is crying, naughty, mischievous, whether it is sleeping, playing or eating – you observe if you would understand that child. So in the same way, to see ourselves actually, actually ‘what is’, not ‘what should be’, then only you have a basis, a foundation.

And in observing oneself, one comes upon three fundamental issues. Not according to the speaker, because the speaker has no authority in these matters – any authority at any level is evil, because it distorts the mind and creates more fear, more anxiety, more conflict. And, as we said, there are three fundamental issues in life, which is ourselves, ourselves caught in a society which we human beings have built. The society is not different from ourselves – it is the structure, a psychological structure of our own demands, of our own pursuits, of our own pleasure. And we see that life involves work. Life involves relationship in work. After all, work is relationship, whether in the office or at home. But in working… through work we are seeking status, position, domination, so we are not really interested in function but in status. And so through function we want status, and therefore what happens? Function then becomes irrelevant, therefore relationship becomes irrelevant. Whether with one’s wife or with one’s husband or with society, all that we are concerned with is the pleasure of power, prestige and position, as we observe it in daily life, which means competition, the utter ruthlessness of modern existence. All this indicates the complete lack of love.

Man has talked about love – love of god, love of man, the profane and the sacred love. These are just words. Churches throughout the world talk about peace and yet their very existence as organised body brings about war, because they separate mankind. So the way we have talked about love, we don’t know what actually it means. Because the love that we have is hedged about – jealousy, enmity, anger, brutality, and that’s all we know. And is it possible to break down these things? Is it possible never to be jealous, envious? Envy comes only when there is comparison, when one compares oneself with another, physically, psychologically, or compares oneself in status, which is ambition. It is only when there is no comparison, then there is a possibility of seeing, not only actually ‘what is’, but ending to the whole psychological structure of envy, the more.

I wonder if one understands life through comparison. If I compare myself with another, do I understand life? Do I comprehend the whole psychological structure of life by comparing myself or another with another? Or without comparison I look. So can one live a life – please do find out, not just verbally – can one live a life without comparing at all? Which does not mean that one vegetates, goes to sleep. On the contrary, when you don’t compare with anybody then your mind becomes much more sharp, much more alert, much more alive, aware, because then all the energy that one has wasted in comparison is saved, and therefore one can awaken a dull mind. And most of us are dull, insensitive, because we have wasted all our energies, not only in conflict but in this everlasting comparison. And so when there is no conflict, when there is no comparison, then you have energy to consider ‘what is’. Which is, most of us are violent. Most of us have inherited the instinct of the animal, which is to be violent. And very few of us are free totally from this violence – violence being competition, anger, envy, brutality, wanting to hurt people, and so on, so on, so on. And when there is no comparison then you can observe. It is only when the mind that compares, that you create time.

It is very interesting to observe this. Time – that is time by the watch, and there is the time, the psychological time. Psychological time ceases when there is no comparison at all. When I don’t compare myself with what I should be, I have eliminated time altogether. When I don’t compare with my sorrow to the day or some period when I was happy, then there is no time involved. Then I am dealing with ‘what is’ out of time.

Please, this is important to understand because time is one of the most destructive things in our life. I mean by time, inward, psychological time which we have created — ‘I will be,’ ‘I will not,’ ‘I should be,’ ‘I have been,’ ‘I must arrive,’ ‘I must change,’ or ‘I am afraid of the future’ – all that involves time. And when you eliminate time then you are faced with what actually is. Then when you don’t compare, then ‘what is’ undergoes a tremendous transformation. Because one has to understand this question of time because we are going to go presently into the question of what is death. And to understand this enormous problem of death, one must understand time.

First, we see what life is — a life which we live is a battle, an endless misery with occasional joy, occasional lightness of heart and mind and beauty, but otherwise our existence is a battlefield. That is what we call life – boredom, a loneliness, a meaningless existence. Going to the office every day for the next forty years – just think of the horror of it. And we are committed to it because we say we are responsible, our family, our — you know, all that business. And at the end of it we are ready to die. That’s what we call living. In that living there is some kind of affection, some kind of tolerance, some kind of feeling for another, but it is all very shallow, empty. And in that life, what we call love is really pleasure. So love has nothing to do with pleasure, or with desire. Then it becomes merely, as it is now, superficial, sexual – not that it’s wrong or right, it is a… it is so.

So, time is one of the central factors of our life, and we use time, or we think time is necessary to bring about a radical revolution, because to us a revolution means comparing with ‘what is’ with ‘what should be’. The ‘what should be’ is already projected by the mind and therefore it is not a revolution at all – it is already known. A mutation is only possible when there is no time as future. I hope I am making this somewhat clear — it is a very complex issue. You know, the more complex a psychological problem is, the more simple one must look at, one must be capable of looking at it, and you can look at it simply when it becomes an actuality in your life, not a theory.

So, when there is comparison we cultivate time, and time is one of the major factors of sorrow. So we see life as it is and we see ourselves empty, shallow, lonely, a life that has no meaning except misery. We are not painting a picture which is very depressing – it is merely a fact. Then we say that we are afraid, afraid of death. Therefore we cling to the known; the known being the living. We cling, we hold on to this life which is sorrow, which is anxiety, which is misery, which is a battle, and are afraid of something we don’t know, which we call death. Right? Death not only of the physical organism but also the psychological ending.

So what takes place? We know living – that is our daily misery, conflict, occasional joy and pleasure – and there is the thing called death, something in the distance. The more healthy, vital you are, the further you want to put it away. You don’t even want to think about it. If you do think about it you are frightened of it, and being frightened you invent theories – that there is a resurrection, that there is a reincarnation, that there is a hope, and all the rest of that business. So time cultivates this fear because you have postponed it, you have put it away from you. You understand the problem? When you accept a challenge, it is always immediate. All challenges are immediate. You can’t say, ‘I’ll accept the challenge tomorrow.’ You cannot postpone the challenge; and one of the greatest challenges in life is death, like love. And when you postpone it, you are creating a distance between the fact of ‘what is’ and of that which you are afraid of as coming to an end. So you create a distance between ‘what is’ — the life — and the thing of which you are afraid. Right? I hope you see all this. So time is the factor of fear. Right? Because if you can face something immediately, there is no fear. And if because you are not capable of facing it, you postpone it, and in this postponement there is this fear created by thought, which is time. Right?

So the problem is… So the problem is, can we understand, not only what is living, which is to be free from conflict, and therefore bring about a revolution in life? Because we have accepted conflict as the way of life, and therefore we accept war. And that’s not life at all, it’s destruction, it’s misery. And we have also accepted as inevitable, death – psychologically. Now, is it possible to find out what it means psychologically to end? You understand? I’ll tell you.

After all, death is not only the ending of the organism, but also ending of all the psyche. (Voices)

Sir, it’s very difficult to talk about serious matters.

Have you ever died to something that has given you a great pleasure? Something that you hold precious as memory, as pleasure, to end it. Not with argument, not because you must, not because you think it is healthy, but just to end it. That’s what’s going to take place when you die, isn’t it? So, to die to everything that you know, every day, so that only when there is an ending there is a new beginning. You understand? After all, in dying is the beginning, and one has to die psychologically to the family, to all one’s aspirations, desires, demands, pleasures, anxieties, guilt — to die to everything every day, so that your mind is made fresh, young, innocent. It’s only such a mind that can go beyond itself and discover what… if there is something which is not measurable.

So you’ll find, if you do it, not theorise endlessly about it, if you do it you’ll find there is an ending to the past, there is an ending to the image which you have created as the past. And that image is in relation with the other image, whether the other image is the husband, the wife or the child or the society. So when there is an ending of the image, then there is a possibility of love. Because the image is built by desire, by pleasure, by conflict, and where there is desire, pleasure, conflict, sorrow, obviously there cannot be love. So dying every day is not only the beginning of a new thing, but it is really… That is love, otherwise it is mere repetition, a routine, routine of pleasure.

So, unless one can understand this, not according to any dogma, religion, philosophy – because one must put aside all philosophies, one must die to everything so as to be born new.

And then we have laid such a foundation which is virtue, which is order, then the mind is being essentially silent, and that is meditation. Then only it can go, it can be a light to itself, and then perhaps in that silence there is… it can see what is true, something which is not, which cannot possibly be put into words.

Right, sirs.

Perhaps we can talk over together what we have discussed by asking questions, if you want to.

(Pause)

Questioner: (In Italian)

K: No, signor. You see, what is it that continues in daily life? Apart from the reincarnation — you know what it means, reincarnation? – to be reborn again in another life. That was the… I don’t know who thought this out — it was originated in India by the ancient people, and it continues now as a part of the belief, which has no reality at all, because if you believe in reincarnation, that is that you will be born next life, it means that you must behave rightly now. It means that you must be tremendously careful what you do, how you talk, how you behave, whether you hurt people, whether you kill animals. So what you are now, if you believe in reincarnation, is much more important than what you will be, because what you are will be dictated… will dictate what you will be. But they don’t… It’s just an idea – you follow? — as it’s an idea in this Christian world to be charitable. You are not charitable – just an idea. So reincarnation implies a continuity. Right? Now, take your life as it is — what is it that continues? Your memories, the memories of your pleasures, the memories of your pain, the anxiety, the hurts, the loneliness, the bitterness, the absurdities, the regrets – that’s what continues, doesn’t it, day after day adding more and more to it. Which is essentially memory. Right?

Now, that memory will be born next life if you believe in reincarnation. But if you die to that memory every day, which means never to accumulate memories, then there is no future as a continuance. But if you do not, as most people do not, because then you… because you like your memories of pleasure, you cultivate your hurts, your angers, your jealousies, your envies, and that’s the only thing that continues, which is thought. Thought identified with the particular entity as the ‘me’, as the ‘you’, whether that has a continuity is probably so – maybe — you understand the whole problem? — it maybe, and what of it? It’s like a memory continuing, like a wave continues. But if you understand the whole structure of life, as we tried this afternoon, which is the misery, the envy, the battle that one goes through, then is it possible to end it, die to everything of yesterday, to our memories? Then in that there is a new birth. Then every day becomes full of different meaning.

So reincarnation, or resurrection as it is in a different way in the West, is still the same continuance of what has been. And if you want to continue in that, of course you will continue. Which is, carry on your bundle of memories and sorrows. But a wise man – and the saint is not the wise man – the wise man dies, is free, frees himself every day from the known, so there is never a moment of accumulation.

Q: Can I ask you… (inaudible) Religion with church… (inaudible) I would like to know if there is possibly a distinction between religion and dogma and church, because for example there is supposed mystical experience — it is the same thing I think with your problem of time — all mystical experience… (inaudible)

K: Sir, sir, would you translate in Italian?

Q: Yes. (In Italian)

K: Bene. So there is a division between religious dogmas, organised beliefs, and so on. And there is an experience, a state, which may be called mystic. We know the organised dogmas, beliefs, which is called religion, which is not religion at all — it’s just propaganda of two thousand years or ten thousand years. Then there is the other, which is, experiencing something more, which is unrelated to this, to organised belief. So one must understand what is experience. Unless one understands that word and the content of that word, merely wanting to experience something beyond has no meaning. Now, what do we mean by experience? Experience means to go through something, to go through an experience, a state. Most of us experience everything… many things every day — anger, jealousy, envy, brutality, insults, all that we experience. And the more experiences you have the more we think our mind is capable of being kept awake. Right? To go through something is to keep awake, otherwise if there was no challenge you’d go to sleep. Right?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: No, sir, just listen, find out, sir, just a minute, just a minute, don’t let’s dispute, let’s see what is implied.

And you… After all, experience is what? — there is a challenge and you respond. The response is from the background that you have. According to the background you have, you respond to the challenge, and that response is called experience, to go through. Now, as most minds are conditioned – –conditioned – that is, brought up in a certain culture, a certain climate, a certain — all the rest of it — that mind experiences according to its conditioning. It may experience a state which is called mysticism but that experience is conditioned. And is there an experience — please listen to it — when there is no conditioning at all? A light, something… a light to itself needs no experience, it is itself. I can experience various forms of so-called mysticism by taking LSD, new kinds of drugs. It gives me tremendous experiences, but those experiences are conditioned by my culture, by my anxieties, by my fears, by my struggles, by my sorrow, and all the rest of it. So if… when the mind frees itself from its conditioning, it needs no experience, and therefore it has reached a state which cannot be achieved through any experience.

Q: (In Italian)

K: Now, what does that word ‘discipline’ mean? Ah, sir, you can’t just throw it aside – you must understand what that word means. It generally means conforming to a pattern.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Wait, sir, listen to the very end of it, sir, please. One momento, please just have the courtesy to listen to the very end of it. I discipline myself according to the pattern which promises me to… promises me that experience. I discipline myself, that is, I suppress my desires, I control my desires, I translate my desires in terms of that, and so on, so on. I am conforming, imitating, restricting myself to that pattern. That is generally implied in the word ‘to discipline’ – generally. But the word ‘discipline’ means actually to learn. Which means to learn, not to conform. Which means not to suppress. To learn, which means, to learn I must be terribly awake. I must be extraordinarily alert to learn. And the very act of learning is discipline. It doesn’t mean that I have to conform to the pattern which promises an experience of the ultimate. I see, for example – take this – I see that I am violent — I observe. Now, if I discipline myself according to the pattern which has been set in order to achieve that which is non-violence – ‘you must be non violent’ – then what am I doing? I am conforming to that pattern, suppressing ‘what is’, distorting ‘what is’, whereas if I have no pattern but observe my violence – observe it, know all the structure of it — that very observation demands discipline. Therefore that discipline is freedom, not conformity. Because to find or to come upon that something which is of a totally different dimension, the mind must be not distorted. It must not be conditioned through torture. Therefore discipline in the ordinary sense of the word is slavery, whereas the other form of discipline which comes, which is in the very act of seeing, is discipline. Say for instance, if I want to see actually what this is, which is the microphone, I must be free of the word to look. And to be free of the word is in itself discipline.

Yes, signor?.

Q: (In Italian)

K: Yes, I understand. If I understand rightly, we are the result of time – right? – our mind, our body, our whole sensory perception is the result of time, centuries past. Right? That’s what is time — no?

Q: (In Italian)

K: Ah, no, no. You have misunderstood. No, no, it is not a question of eliminating — I explained, please, I explained carefully it’s not a question of eliminating. Who is the entity that eliminates? The entity that eliminates is the result of time, but if one understands the whole nature of time – understands it, not intellectually, like understanding a danger; you see a danger and you act – in the same way when you see the whole structure of time, then you… it itself comes to an end. This requires… everybody, this requires much more… Naturally I… one has not the time to go into all this detail – I’ve only generalised.

Yes, sir?

Q: (In Italian)

K: No, sir. No, sir, no, sir. Now, you see, you are affirming something which is not. You are affirming something which doesn’t exist. You are affirming that human beings are free. We are not free. That is the actual fact. You are a slave to your family…

Q: (In Italian)

K: Ah, bene, bene.

Q: (In Italian)

K: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. You see, sir, we live on concepts, formulas. We have a concept that there is a god and that we must unify with that god, and that is the purpose of life. That is, all concepts are the result of our own thinking. Why do we have concepts at all?

Q: (In Iatalian)

K: One momento, please.

Q: (In Italian)

K: Sir, look, sir, look, sir: I am unhappy. I am unhappy, I am miserable. I want to be free from that. I am hungry, I want food. We must start from what actually is, not with a concept.

Q: I’d like to know if you have any suggestion for handling… Have you any suggestion, please, for handling the opposing forces as well as trying to enquire…?

K: Yes, sir, I understand, I understand. The question is, there are opposing desires, opposing forces, opposing elements in one’s life — violence and non-violence – how does one deal with these opposites? That’s right, sir?

Q: Yes, OK. When one is trying to listen to oneself and to find out what is the right thing to do.

K: Yes, that’s right, that is, the two opposites. Now first of all, there are physical opposites – black and white, dark and day, and sun — all the rest of it. Now, is there – please listen – psychological opposites at all? We have created them, as violence and non-violence. Now, as we have bred them, it is in us – opposing desires, opposing wants, what is true, what is false, what should I do — you follow? – all this confusion. Now, to deal with that, take the one desire that comes, and don’t, if one can understand that desire, not allow other desire to interfere with it, which is the opposite, in understanding ‘what is’, and not ‘what should be’, then you eliminate the contradiction altogether.

Q: It’s within myself, the contradiction.

K: Within oneself, and therefore within outside society. Because we are the society – obviously. You are the result of the culture, of the – etc., that you have been… that you have been brought up.

Q: (In Italian)

K: No, no, no, signor, no. Sir, you see this, first of all, whether the mind can be free from all formulas, concepts — that is the fist question to ask. Not whether life is an end… freedom and… Is it possible for the mind not to function in ideologies at all? Then you are dealing with actuality, with ‘what is’, not with ‘what should be’, which is the ideal. Then you have the energy to deal with ‘what is’ and therefore transform it. And therefore there is no contradiction.

Q: (Inaudible) has become part of our conditioning, and part therefore of our minds and our… (inaudible) And so you get another conflict, and one has to eliminate that.

K: No, but I’ll show you. First of all, we are conditioned in this conflict. ‘What is’ and ‘what should be’, that is our conditioning. Now, to understand the ‘what should be’ has no validity at all, has it? What has validity is ‘what is’. Deal with that, not with ‘what should be’.

Q: But our mind is automatic.

K: I know, therefore you have to watch your mind — how it functions, how it… You have to watch it, you have to go with it, you have to study it.

Yes, sir, I think that’s enough.

Q: (In Italian)

K: Sir, I have… I have explained, sir, that it is not a question of forgetting.

You see, there is too much noise, you can’t… That’s enough.

Right, sir.

Sir, I cannot forget the office I have to go tomorrow. I cannot forget the technique that I have learnt – how to run a machine, how to run a car — obviously that would be absurd. We are talking of dying to all the psychological memories, as hate, anger, bitterness, guilt – all the psychological structure, which is memory, which is of yesterday — to put an end to it.

Q: (In Italian)

K: Ah! (Laughter) (In Italian) When you say it is not possible, you are already blocking yourself.

Q: (In Italian)

K: No, no, no, no.

Q: (In Italian) (Laughter)

K: What is… what is the importance of solitude in all this? Right? Right? Sir, to be alone is very important, but we are never alone. We carry the burdens of yesterday, even though you are by yourself. You are never alone because you have all the memories, all the conditionings, all the mutterings of yesterday. But to be really alone is one of the most important things, because then your mind then is clear of all the rubbish it has accumulated. Therefore you must die to the past to be alone.

I think that’s enough, yes, sir?

(Clapping)

Typed by Sophie Gadeyne Heverlee, 23rd April 1998 Word 6.0 line: when we were met here Page one paragraph 5 last sentence does not make sense. It seems to me that this text has been typed by someone who does not know English very well . There are many mistakes in word order and interpunction. Please be very attentive when you correct it.

Gh 23/4/98

Abhijit Padte 6/5/5

Dt 18/5