Public Talk 1, Amsterdam, 11 May 1968

J. Krishnamurti

**First Public Talk in Amsterdam**

**11 May 1968**

We have got so many problems, both inward and outward. The outward problems are obviously the economic, the whole world of computer, the mechanical relationship between man and the machine, and political problems, outwardly. And inwardly we have many psychological problems. Inside the skin, as it were, there are the problems of man’s relationship to man, not only his own relationship with himself but also his relationship with fellow human beings. And we have broken up these many problems as political, economic, social and psychological. We don’t seem to be able to grapple with them all totally as a unit, but rather separately. We treat political problems on their own level, or religious problems something entirely different from the political issues, and the economic problems as though they were completely different. And one wonders, and I’m sure you’ve also asked yourselves, if it is at all possible to understand all these many issues of life totally from one source and not broken up into many fragments, whether it is at all possible as human beings to resolve all these problems, not gradually but immediately, so that the mind is completely free from all the travails, from all the pressures, from the many influences, destructive as well as constructive. And whether it is at all possible for man to be free from all problems so that he can live totally in a different dimension, with a different mind and heart. I wonder if one has asked these questions to oneself, that is, if one has seen these various problems, individual as well as collective, the social issues, political as well as economical, and the religious problems, whether one has asked if these problems have not one common source, if they do not stem from one central basic issue, or are they all fragmentary issues, each to be solved separately?

And also there is the problem of the individual and the community or the society; the individual as opposed to society, and the society suppressing or controlling the individual; if there is such a thing as individuality at all, or there is only the collective, the mass. If you observe yourself I’m quite sure you will see that what you call the individual, ‘you’, is the world, is the other human being, is the society, the community, the culture in which you have been brought up. You are really actually not separate at all; you are part of this whole social, economic, cultural influence. When you call yourself a Dutchman or an Englishman or an Indian, as an individual you are part of that whole culture, whole tradition, inwardly. Outwardly you may have your differences but actually, deeply within the structure of thought and feeling there is no individuality but a collective memory, tradition, racial residue. And one sees that the division between the individual and the community, the mass, is really utterly false. There is only a human being, whether he lives in Russia or here or in America or Vietnam. We are human beings, and as a human being we have these many problems. And if it is at all possible for a human being to be entirely free from all problems so that he can flower in goodness, in beauty.

And it seems to me that as a human being, not as an individual, not as a European or Asian, but as a human being living — it doesn’t matter what part of the world — whether such a human being living in this world can ever be free, and if he is not free then he is everlastingly slave to machinery, to society, to all the complex problems of existence. So that is one of the major problems of life, whether a human being, you and I as human beings living in this world, in a very, very complex society, whether it is at all possible to be completely free, so that our minds can look and have a different relationship, look with clarity, with a sense of otherness.

And can this human being establish for himself his relationship with reality? That is what man has been seeking for millions of years — the reality which you may call god or give any other name. Man has everlastingly been seeking that. Not because he is comfortably settled in life, not because he has got good income, his tummy full, but that is one of the essential questions man has to ask himself, otherwise life has no meaning whatsoever — to go to the office, to work in a factory, to see that all man, the whole mankind has food, clothes and shelter — and then what? Is all life mechanical, a routine? And without establishing for ourselves as a human being, the actual relationship with reality — not imaginative, not fictitious or mythical, nor romantic but actual — a relationship with reality. That is one of the basic questions we must ask, because as one observes more and more in the world, the world is becoming more and more mechanical, the computer is taking charge of everything, and if we do not find for ourselves, with great sanity, with reason, what our relationship is to that immense thing that man has sought, to that immeasurable reality, if we do not find it, obviously our life is empty. Though you may have plenty of water out of the tap, though life can be organised extensively, to live comfortably, so that each one of us has food, clothes and shelter. Then unless one finds it, life becomes utterly meaningless, empty. And that’s one of our basic questions, essential questions. We must ask and find out for ourselves, not depending on anyone, on no priest, no religion, no belief, no leader, no guru, no teacher. Because if we depend on another we’re not free; and if we depend, it breeds fear, authority.

So it is an essential question that must be asked, whether you are a communist or a socialist or belonging to any organised religious group — which is totally absurd. And we are going to ask and find, not an answer — all answers are merely verbal — but to examine it, to be involved in it totally. Then we may come upon that reality and establish a total relationship with it.

And the other question, equally essential, is what is man’s relationship to man, whether there is any such relationship or must we live in isolation within a self-centred activity, in a separateness. And when there is this separateness between man and man there must be conflict, war. Then the other question is — which again man for millions of years has tried to understand — what is love and what is death?

So these are the fundamental questions we are going to ask. We are going to ask of ourselves and not rely upon another to tell us the answers. There is no answer from another, there is only a communion, and in that communion one may find out for oneself the actual state.

And so, before we enter into one of the first questions, which is, what is man’s relationship to reality and if there is such a thing as reality — before we go into that, I think one must first find out, again for ourselves, what it is to listen, because we might feel the whole complex problem of life with all its stresses and strains, with the extremely subtle, mechanical way of life, this complex process of analysis, the discovery of the cause and trying to overcome the cause, the complex process of relationship, the greed, the envy, the brutality, the violence, the assertion of non-violence which again breeds further aggression, the fears, the guilt, the whole human structure, whether it is at all possible to put all that aside immediately, so that the mind is completely new, untouched, so that it can look at the heavens, the skies, the stars, the trees, the light on the water as though it were seeing for the first time the beauty of it. I think it comes when one knows how to listen.

Because man has tried in so many ways to get rid for himself of the many problems — he has withdrawn into the monasteries, he has committed himself to a particular course of action — political, religious, social or personal — he has tried to forget himself and identify himself with something greater, as the nation, as social work or doing good to others, or identify himself with an idea, with an ideology, through a saviour, through a master, through a guru, so that he can forget the immense, complex, agonising existence.

We have tried all that, and there must be a way to push aside all that with one breath, with one look. And there is. There is a way of looking, a way of hearing, seeing, so that all these problems no longer affect the mind, distort clarity. And I feel it is possible only when we know how to listen, how to see the tree, the sky, how to see ourselves as we are actually, without any distortion, without any fear, without translating it into some other ideology. And to hear the wind among the trees, to hear the voice of another, and to see the danger of a life that is divided, made fragments. To see all that at one glance; and to see it is to act, and therefore to put it all aside and be a human being who is totally transformed.

And so what we are going to talk over together during these talks is going to be hard work on your part. You are not merely listening to a series of words or ideas, because we are not indulging in words, in theories, but we are actually going to be involved. To be actually involved means work. Therefore the responsibility of this work is on you, as a human being. Then you might ask, ‘As a human being, if I change totally, if there is a complete mutation, what good will it do to society, to another man? What good will it be to drink at a fountain that quenches all thirst? What value has it in a corrupt society?’ I think that’s a wrong question, and when you put a wrong question you’ll inevitably have a wrong answer. When you put such a question it indicates, does it not, that you are not concerned with the human being as he is and bringing about a transformation within the human being who is the collective, the individual, the mass, the whole world. When he puts that question to himself — what can he do in a world that is so corrupt, so violent, so brutal — there is no answer, but if a human being brings about this transformation within himself then that is the most important thing in life — not the result, not how will it affect another. The cloud with the light of the sun, or the flower on the roadside is not thinking about what good it is to another. It is there, full of beauty, loveliness, and it is for man to look and see with the fullness of his heart.

So, we are going to take, if we may, the first essential question: man’s relationship to reality, if there is such reality. To assume that there is a reality or not to assume is both the same. To say it is impossible that a reality should exist, or say it is impossible for man to come upon that reality, to state both is to block oneself. If you say, ‘I doubt if there is a reality,’ you’ve already hindered yourself from examining, from looking, from observing. Or if you say that there is, you’ve also prevented yourself from looking, from examining, from coming upon that loveliness. So to accept or to deny is to block oneself. What is necessary is freedom, freedom from both, freedom from belief that there is a god, a reality, an immeasurable something, which some misguided saints or teachers have said there is. The moment you say, there is, it is not. The moment you say, I know, you do not know. All that you can do is to be free from the belief of believing and not believing, so that the mind is capable of freedom, so that it can look, observe. So you must first, to examine this question which man has sought for millennia, for millions of years; because he has said, is life only a conflict, a battlefield, a misery, with an occasional flash of joy? Is all life violence, brutal? — there must be something else. And in asking, he caught himself in some imagination, in some fancy, some fancy or imagination wrought out of his own conditioning.

So, to find out if there is such a thing that is imperishable, that is not to be put into words, one must first be free of all belief. That means to be free of all religious organisations. And that is one of the most difficult things, apparently, for man, not to have any belief in anything. Not out of cynicism or out of despair, but one can observe how through propaganda of two thousand years in the West and perhaps five thousand years and more in the East, how man has been conditioned through propaganda to believe, to be… to believe in a saviour, in a particular form of ritual, dogma, church — accept. And then when you accept, you are violent. When you obey, you bring about aggression. You can see this is happening when the whole world is divided, not only into nationalities but also into religious groups — as the Christian, the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Muslim, each with its own dogma, with its own ritual, with its own belief, its own nonsense. And when you believe, you are against another belief, therefore you separate yourself and this separation breeds antagonism, though you may pretend to be tolerant. That is an intellectual feat that has no validity at all.

So a man who would find that reality, or not, must be completely free deeply within himself psychologically of the influence of the word, the propaganda, the symbol. Because when you believe, there is fear behind that belief. Belief is unnecessary for a mind that is free, and it is only in freedom you can look to examine any political system or any… anything — an article you read in a newspaper, or to listen to the talk now that is going on; you must be free to listen. If you are not free, you merely accept or deny. And when you do accept, what value has it? Or when you deny, what do you hear, what significance has it? But if you are free and you can listen, that is, free from prejudice, free from your own particular conclusions, dogmas, prejudices, free from your particular experience, knowledge, then you can listen, then you can observe.

So, a mind that is not free, which means freedom from fear, is utterly incapable to come upon this reality — if there is such a reality. Because one must have tremendous scepticism, doubt. To doubt, to question, not to accept the whole social, economic, religious structure, the established order, which is essentially disorder. To question that means that there must be no fear within oneself. So to find out for oneself, there must be freedom from this fear. And most human beings have never gone into this question deeply within themselves, they have never asked whether it is at all possible to be completely free of fear at all levels of our existence, at the political, economic, and also inwardly in all relationships. And to find out this corroding fear there must be no escape.

You know, it is one of the most difficult things not to escape, not to avoid. One is fully aware of one’s own fears, and we have developed a network of escapes, from the most simple to the most complex. When one is afraid, one wants to get rid of it, one wants to put it aside, and you do it by turning on the radio, taking a drink or reading a novel or going to the church or committing yourself to a particular course of action. Anything rather than to face that absolute reality of fear.

So to face that reality of fear, every form of escape must come to an end, not gradually but immediately. That is the whole meaning of existence, to end something immediately and not carry it over to the next day or to the next minute. And that is only possible when you can see that fear, actually feel that fear completely without any escape or without any desire to run away from it or to translate it or to get rid of it — actually to look at it.

You know what fear does. When you are afraid of something, you cannot think clearly. It becomes dark, it’s like living in a chamber without light. I am sure most of us have experienced this fear. We have accepted it, we say, ‘That’s natural, that’s part of our existence.’ That is the result of the society in which we live, each man seeking his own security, and so building a society which assures a security, outward security. And in this very assurance of outward security it creates divisions. Those who are not secure and those who are secure, those who have and those who have not. And so there is a battle, so there is war, and the very thing that you sought after, which is to be secure, is denied. When you have armies, nationalities, separate flags and all the confusion of different nationalities, governments, armies, the butchery that is going on is the result of this deep fear of human beings. And we don’t realise the responsibility, our individual human responsibility of the war that is going on in Vietnam. We are responsible for it, each one of us, not the Americans, not the Vietnamese, not the communists, but each one of us because our life… our life is a battlefield — we are Dutchmen, we are Catholics, we are Hindus, we are Muslims, we are god knows what else, living in a separate compartment, isolated, unapproachable. And naturally when there is a division there must be conflict, and that is what happens in human relationship, between husband and wife, between the neighbour and yourself, and there is this division, this separation, this self-isolating self-interest. We all know this. And yet we accept it, we go on. We talk about non-violence and sow the seed of violence all the time. So this part… this is part of that fear.

You know, you listen to a statement of that kind and you say, ‘Yes, we are afraid.’ We are afraid of which you know consciously fear or unconsciously. And what actually takes place when you hear? Do listen, please, and observe yourself. What actually takes place when you hear that you are really afraid of life? Fear — what is your actual response to it as a human being? Obviously the first is, you wouldn’t know what to do with it. All that we do know is how to avoid it, how to overcome it, how to suppress it, how to control it, how to forget it. But that is no answer. It is there, like a festering wound. So we don’t know what to do. And that is the first thing to realise: we don’t know what to do with something to which we have become so accustomed. It has become part of our life, this thing called fear. And a mind that is afraid must have belief, must have every form of escape. So the first thing is to know that one is afraid and not escape.

When you listen to this, does it mean anything at all? Because, as we said, a mind that is afraid can never find light. It may invent a thing called light out of fear, imagine a heaven or hell out of its own darkness. But fear still remains. And so there are these two things are involved: freedom to look, to observe, clearly; and the capacity to look is not possible when there is fear. And is it at all possible for human beings living in a very complex society to be free of fear completely at all levels of our being? We are going to find out, not through analysis, not through speculation but actually come into contact with the thing called fear. And I doubt very much if any one of us have actually come into contact with it, contact in the sense, touch it. You know, to be in contact with something means to be sensuously aware, to touch something, to feel it, to smell it, to taste it; and then only you are in communion with it, then you are related to it. And I doubt, if I may, whether one is actually in contact with any fear. Or you may be in contact with it after it is over.

So, to understand this question of fear, which again is… to understand is not something intellectual, verbal. To understand that a precipice is a dangerous thing is a fact, not an intellectual assumption — there it is in front of you, deep chasm. In the same way to be aware of this fear. And we are saying, unless the mind is totally free of this fear, the uncovering of reality, the flowering of that immeasurable thing is not possible. Do what you will, go to all the churches in the world, read all the sacred books, which have meaning whatsoever, or accept a political course of action, communist or otherwise, and reduce all life to political state; unless man is free of this thing, there is no love. So we must find out for ourselves if it is at all possible to be free.

What is fear?

It’s already twelve o’clock — I’m sorry.

What is fear? How does it come about? One can understand physical fears — fire burns, disease hurts. Physical pain and the avoidance of physical pain is a very complex problem, too. I had pain yesterday — listen to this thing, very simple — I had pain yesterday and there is a remembrance of it and I hope it will not happen again tomorrow or today. An experience of pleasure yesterday and I hope it will come again today and I want it again tomorrow. Pain which happened yesterday I want to avoid today and I hope it will not come tomorrow. But the pleasure which I had yesterday, I want it today and tomorrow. And there is the origin of fear; fear brought about by thought. The pain, which happened actually yesterday, thought remembering… there is the remembrance of that pain as memory, as experience, as knowledge, and out of that there is the response of thought which says, ‘I hope I will not have it today or tomorrow.’ Please do observe this very simple fact in yourself and you will see. And I had great joy yesterday — whether it is sexual or looking at a cloud or a flower or listening to the wind among the trees — and that is a remembrance of something pleasurable yesterday and I want it to repeat, and thought says, ‘I must have it today again,’ and thought says, ‘Tomorrow also’.

So thought is the origin of fear. Thought being memory of thousand experiences of pleasure and thousand experiences of pain, there is that memory, the memory which is the result of experience, many experiences, and the knowledge of all that. That is the computer, the electronic brain, which we are. We are the past, the thousand memories associated with every experience, with every remembrance. And when that is challenged, thought responds as pleasure and pain. Thought says, ‘This I must have, this must continue, this must be repeated’ — whether it be sex or other forms of pleasure. Or thought says, ‘That was pain. It hurt tremendously. I don’t want it repeated today or tomorrow.’ So thought is mechanical, like the computer, the electronic brain that answers all questions immediately, more rapidly than the human brain.

So, thought, which is old — thought is never new, thought is never free — never. The idea, freedom of thought is just a political thing. When you examine this whole business of thinking, go into it deeply, you will find for yourself thought is the response of memory, of yesterday, or ten thousand yesterdays, and so it is very old, and there is nothing new. Thought can never discover anything new. And so thought is the origin of fear. And then one asks, can thought come to an end? Can thought, which is the very structure of our brain calls, the matter, can that whole structure of ten thousand years become quiet? You have to ask this question. You have to work at it hard, as we are doing now — I hope you are working with me.

So, thought is time. Time — the interval between ‘what is’ and ‘what should be’, the pain and the fear of pain, of having pain tomorrow. The interval between ‘what is’ and ‘what should be’ or ‘what may be’ is the projection of thought. And so out of thought there is the thinker, the thinker who says, ‘This is pleasure and this is pain.’ And the whole complex fear begins. And perhaps, if you will allow, we’ll go into it tomorrow morning when we meet here.