Students Talk 1, Brandeis, Massachusetts, 18 October 1968

Krishnamurti: May I ask that the lights be turned down? Would it be too much? It’s terrible, isn’t it. And also, may I take my coat off?

[Pause]

The speaker in no way represents India, nor Indian thought, nor Indian philosophy, nor Indian way of life. But, as one travels around a good bit, except behind the Iron Curtain and China, one is very much aware that human problems, though dissimilar, are more or less similar — and all similarity should be mistrusted. Human beings, right round the world, have extraordinarily complex problems — the problem of violence, the problem of freedom, the problem of how to bring about really a better relationship between man and man, so that he may live at peace, with some decency, and not be constantly in conflict, not only within himself but also with his neighbour. And also there is the problem in the whole of Asia — poverty, starvation, the utter despair of the poor — and there is the problem, like in this country and Western Europe, the problem of prosperity. Where there is prosperity without austerity there is violence, there is every form of luxurious, unethical… a society which is utterly corrupt and immoral. This one observes, not only in this country but in Europe. And there are other problems, not only the problem of freedom, peace, and whether it is at all possible for human beings to live without violence, but also there is the problem, because one has rejected organized religion right throughout the world, more or less, there is the problem of what is a religious mind. And the question — which is not a monopoly of the East — what is meditation? And of course there is the question of love and death.

These are the many interrelated problems. And as the speaker does not belong to any ideology or to any conceptual thinking — and I hope we can talk over together these many problems, not as an expert or a specialist, because the speaker is neither of those two, then we can probably establish right communication, bearing in mind the word is not the thing and the description, however detailed, however intricate, however well-reasoned out and beautiful, is not the described. So, bearing that in mind, perhaps we can talk over together this division between man and man, principally the ideological differences.

There is the whole world of the Hindu, the Muslim, the Christian, the communist ideologies, which have separated and brought about such incalculable harm — wars, division, hatred, antagonism, and this, we feel, is basically — one of the reasons — is due to ideologies. And all ideologies are idiotic anyhow, whether they are religious ideologies or political, or any other form of ideology, that is, conceptual thinking with conceptual word, which have unfortunately divided man, not only linguistically but also tribally and religiously. This is an obvious fact. Religions, whatever their ideology is, have divided the world into Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and God knows what else. And these ideologies have brought about war. There have been religious wars. There has been religious tolerance only up to a certain point, after that, destruction, intolerance, brutality, violence. There is also the tribal division of ideology, which is the Hindu nationalism, the black nationalism, and the various tribal expressions of these ideologies, which again separate man. And whether it is at all possible, living in this world, possible to live non-violently, in freedom, virtuously — if I may use that word without being spat upon — and whether the democratic world will give man freedom.

Obviously in the Communist Block there is no freedom, and freedom is absolutely necessary — not what the individual likes to do because the individual is conditioned, the individual, whether he is living in this country or in India or anywhere else, is conditioned by his society, by his culture, by the whole structure of thought — whether it is at all possible to be free from this conditioning, not ideologically, not as an idea, but actually in substance as well as psychologically, inwardly, be free. Because I don’t see how without freedom there can be any democracy or any righteous behaviour. Again, righteous behaviour is rather looked down upon, but we will use words which I hope will convey without any derogatory sense.

Freedom is not an idea. You can’t write a philosophy about freedom. Either one is free or one is not. One is in a prison, however decorative that prison is, and therefore a prisoner, and is not free; or he is free. Freedom, not being conceptual and therefore ideological, is not a state of mind that is caught in thought. Thought can never be free. We can go into that presently. Thought, though it has been stated by all the intellectuals throughout the world, written volumes about it, thought is always old; there is no new thinking. Thought is the response of memory, knowledge, experience, and therefore it is always the product of the past. And thought cannot possibly bring about freedom because freedom is something that is in the active present, living in daily life. And freedom is not freedom from something. Freedom from something is merely a reaction, therefore not freedom.

So that is one of the principal problems to talk over together, whether man, conditioned as he is, through education, through society, through culture, through everyday propaganda, radio, television, the constant flow of words from the politicians and their promises, whether, being so heavily conditioned both inwardly as well as outwardly, whether it is at all possible for man to be free.

Then the other question is: why has man given such extraordinary importance to thought? Thought which formulates a concept, and according to that concept one tries to live. The ideology and the conformity to that ideology, which is observed right throughout the world — the Hitlerian people did it, the communist people ore doing it very, very successfully, and the religious group, the Catholic, the Protestants, the Hindus have asserted an ideology, and through propaganda, whether it is of ten thousand years or of two thousand years, have made man conform, through threat, promise and so on. And so one observes right throughout the world this phenomenon, which man has accepted and given thought such extraordinary significance and importance. The more one is specialised, the more one is intellectual, the more thought becomes of serious import. And whether thought can ever solve our human problems — that is second. Third is violence.

I do not know if you are at all aware of not only the student revolt in Paris, in Rome, in London, in Colombia and all over, here and the rest of the world, there is not only that violence but this spreading of hatred — black against the white, the Hindu against the Muslim, the incredible brutality, the extraordinary violence that human hearts carry, though they have been educated, though they have been conditioned outwardly to repeat certain words of peace and prayers and all the rest of it, human beings are extraordinarily violent. This violence is not only the result of political division, racial distinction, but also religious.

So, it is this violence so imbedded in each human being, can one actually transform it, change it completely so that we live at peace? And this violence one has obviously inherited, not only from the animal but the society in which we live. Man is committed to war. Man accepts war as the way of life. There may be a few pacifists here and there, carrying anti-war slogans, but there are those who love war and have favourite wars. They may not approve of the Vietnamese war but they will fight for something else, they will have another kind of war. So man has actually accepted war, that is, conflict, not only within himself but outwardly, a way of life. And again, whether it is at all possible for human beings to discard totally this way of life, with all its ideologies, with its national divisions, religious separation. And politically there is only one problem, which is the unity of man, which cannot possibly be achieved through any politician; they thrive on division. So that is the problem, some of it at least, a few of them.

So the question is, having accustomed ourselves through education, through the acceptance of social norm and culture, whether it is possible for man to bring about a psychological revolution within himself, not mere outward revolution. What the human being is inwardly, totally, both at the conscious as well the deeper levels of his consciousness, what he is, he will produce a society, a structure corresponding to what he is, which is what man has done. So, our first question is, whether it is at all possible to bring about a psychological revolution, not in time, not gradually, because there is no… when the house is burning you don’t talk about gradually putting out the fire, you have no time; time is a delusion. So whether — I am so sorry, it is so hot in here. Aren’t you all hot? Can’t you do something about it? All right. Is it possible for human beings like you and me, human beings, to bring about within himself, psychologically, a complete revolution so that he lives at a different level? And to bring about this inner revolution, not in many years, which is duration of time, but immediately.

So what will make him change? What will make you and me, as a human being, change? Motive, either of reward or punishment? That has been tried. Psychological rewards, promise of heaven, punishment of hell — we have had abundance of motives. And apparently man has not changed — he is still envious, greedy, violent, superstitious, fearful and so on. So mere motive, whether it is given outwardly or inwardly does not change, bring about a radical change, nor finding the cause through analysis, the cause why man is so violent, so full of fear, so greatly acquisitive, competitive, so violently ambitious. Finding the cause of these, which are fairly easy, will that bring about a change? Obviously they have not, neither the uncovering of the cause nor motive. Then what will? What will bring about, not gradually but immediately, the psychological revolution? It seems to me that is the only issue, the only major issue.

Analysis… [sound of baby] …analysis by the specialists or the introspective analysis of each one doesn’t solve, doesn’t answer this issue. Analysis takes time. It requires a great deal of insight, because if you analyse wrongly, the next analysis will be wrong. If you analyse and come to a conclusion, and start from that conclusion, then you are already stymied, you are already blocked. And in analysis there is the whole problem — great Scott, it is hot, isn’t it? — there is the whole problem of the analyser and the analysed. Do you want to go into all this? Does this interest you? Not as students, not as a debating society, not intellectually, but as human beings. If this has meaning, and it must have meaning if we are human beings at all, not committed to communism or racial hatred or this or that ideology — then we have ceased to be human beings — but if we are vitally interested in this problem of radical, fundamental change psychologically, inwardly, then the problem arises: how is it to be brought about, not through motive, not through analysis and the discovery of the cause. One can easily find out why I am angry, but that doesn’t stop me from being angry. We can find out what are the contributory causes of war — economic, national, religious, the pride of the politicians and the ideologies, commitments and so on — but yet we go on killing each other, in the name of God, in the name of ideology, in the name of country, in the name of whatever it is. Neither motive nor the cause has changed man. There have been 15,000 wars in 5000 years. We have no love, no compassion.

And so one asks, if one is at all serious, how to bring about this change, this revolution. And in penetrating this question — and I hope you will do it, not merely intellectually listen to a lot of words which have no meaning whatsoever. In exploring this question, not leaving it to others, to the specialist, to the philosophers, to the analysts and so on, but doing it yourself, actually, not theoretically — if you do it theoretically it has no meaning — in exploring, you come up upon this inevitable question: the analyser and the analysed, the thinker, the observer, and the thought and the observed — whether this division between the observer and the observed is real, real in the sense actual, not theoretical. Is the observer, the centre from which you look, from which you see, from which you listen, this conceptual entity who has separated himself from the observed — is there such a division, and is not the observer the observed?

When one says one is angry, is the anger different from the entity who knows he is angry? Or is violence separate from the observer? Is not violence part of the observer? Please, this is a very, if I may say so, very important thing to understand, essential thing to understand when we are concerned, as we must be, with this question of psychological change immediately, not in some future state or some future days. Is the observer, the ‘me’, the ego, the thinker, the experiencer, different from the thing he observes, the experience, the thought? When you look at a tree — and there are these lovely autumnal colours, the beauty of this land — I do not know why you fight at all. You know what beauty is? You can take all the arts, go to all the art schools in the world, learn about beauty, go to all the museums, attend all the concerts, paint yourself — is all that beauty? Or is beauty something which cannot possibly be put into words? And when it is expressed in words, it is no longer beauty — knowing that the word is not the thing. And when you look at all those colours on the hillside, reflected in the water, such perfection, when you see the bird on the wing and the evening light on the water, is the experiencer different from that which he experiences, from that which he observes?

When you look at a tree, do we ever look at it? Please do go with me a little. Do we ever look at it? Or do we look at it through the image of knowledge, experience that we have had? You say, ‘That’s an oak. What a lovely colour it is, how beautiful the shape is.’ You want to take a photograph of it or remember it, enjoy the pleasure that you have derived from looking at it. And these words, memories, enjoyment, the feeling of closeness to it, are you ever aware that the observer is different from the observed? Because unless — please — unless one goes into this profoundly, what we are going to proceed with may be missed. Because as long as there is a division between the observer and the observed, division not only spatially but also verbally, that is, the image, the knowledge, the previous experience of last year’s autumnal colours, if those come into the mind as memories, which creates a division between the observer and the observed, this very division is the source of conflict.

And thought has brought about this division. Can you look at your neighbour, at your wife or your husband or your boyfriend or girlfriend, whoever it be, can you look without the image, that is, without the previous memories? And when you do look with an image, relationship ceases. There is relationship between the two images of the woman or the man, about each other, but that’s not relationship, that is conceptual relationship not an actual relationship. And we live in the world of concepts, in the world of thought, and we try to solve all our problems, from the most mechanical to the greatest depth of psychological problems — thought.

So, is there a division between the observer, the thinker, the analyser, and those analysed, and so on? If there is then conflict inwardly and outwardly is inevitable. And it is not a question of identification. You can’t identify yourself with a tree and become the tree — that is impossible. You can’t identity yourself with a Hindu, and so on. You can’t do it. That’s a mental trick, which bears tolerance and intolerance and all the rest of it.

Which raises another problem: why this craving for identification? We identify ourselves with America, with India, with — oh! — with communism, with socialism, with the activists, with a thousand identifications — why? Ultimately of course there is the identification with an ideology, the God — why? If you go into it very closely, not verbally or theoretically but actually find out for yourself why one wants to identity oneself with anything, one will find there is the fear of being and not being. I am using those words very simply, not metaphorically or philosophically. So, we won’t go into that for the moment, but as long an there is a division between the observer and the thing observed, that division is the source of all human conflict. When you say you love somebody, is that love? Or in that love is there the observer and the thing you love, the observed? And if there is then it is the product of thought, it is a conceptual division. Then it is not love.

So, thought is apparently the only instrument that we have to deal with all our human problems. It doesn’t answer, it doesn’t resolve our problems, so it may be — I am just suggesting it, I am not dogmatically asserting it — it may be thought has no place whatsoever, except for mechanical, technological, scientific, mechanical things.

So when the observer is the observed then conflict ceases. One does this normally, quite easily, when there is danger. When there is great danger there is no observer and the observed. There is immediate action, there is instant response in action. When there is a great crisis in one’s life — and we always avoid great crises — when there is a great crisis and you have no time to think about it, that is, the old brain with all its memories does not immediately respond, then the observer ceases, as the observed, and there is immediate action. So there is immediate change, psychologically, inwardly, when this division between the two comes to an end.

That is, to put it differently, we live in the past; all knowledge is the past. The whole cybernetics and computer system is based on the past, knowledge. We live there, our life is there, what has been — ‘I was’ and ‘I shall be’. And our life is based essentially on yesterday. And the yesterday makes us invulnerable, makes us not have the capacity of innocency, vulnerability. So the yesterday is the observer, the observer in which there is the whole layer of the unconscious as well as the conscious. The conscious and the unconscious, the deeper layers — please here, if I may add, I am not a psychologist, I don’t read books on psychology, on any subject whatsoever. I have been to school in England and so on, but fortunately for me I have not read books, the Indian so-called sacred literature or any other literature, but I feel the whole of human mankind is in each one of us. We are the result of a thousand years — not reincarnation, I am not going into that — it’s there imbedded in each one of us, and if each one of us knows how to delve into it, go deeply inside, one has the whole history, the knowledge of the past. That is why self-knowledge is immensely important, knowing oneself, because oneself now is second-hand — we repeat what others have told us, whether it be Freud or whatever the specialists are. If you want to know yourself you can’t look through the eyes of the specialist, one has to look at oneself.

So that is one of the problems, perhaps the major problem. Because as long as this division exists we shall not now what love is. We might talk about it endlessly, write novels endlessly about love end sex and this and that, but that is not love, for love breeds… so-called love breeds hatred, antagonism, jealousy, violence.

So, can this division disappear altogether so that you look at everything as though for the first time, not with the eyes that have been spoilt by memory, by yesterday, by tomorrow? Unless one does it, one can’t see a way out. We can become more clever, pass many more exams, take more degrees, become specialised, get a job — think of going to an office for the rest of your life, my God! — live always endlessly in conflict, with your wife, with your neighbour, with your husband, with the rest of the world, make life into a battlefield, which it is now.

Can I stop now and you can ask questions about it? We’ll continue on Monday afternoon, I believe, isn’t it?

Yes, sir?

Questioner: Could you talk about food?

K: Oh! To talk about food. If you are starving, as it happens in India — and most of us have been through that — food is not a description, it is something you bite, put your teeth into. And if you’re well-fed and talk about food there is an extravagance, enjoying a memory of something you have eaten. But if you are talking about food as a way, food as a way of life, eating the right food, not killing — I am not advocating vegetarianism, though we are, I am. Somebody wrote some time ago, and it was sent to me, some writer said in America that vegetarianism in spreading like some foul disease. He can talk about food in quite a different way.

So the whole question is, dietetics, nourishment, whether it is possible to live without killing, and killing the least thing. I wonder if you have ever considered how many animals we kill a day throughout the world to live. And would you — please I am not advocating vegetarianism, you will do what you want — and would you eat animals if you had to kill it yourself? So the whole — I do not know why you want me to discuss food, sir — doesn’t matter — all right.

Q: How can one know oneself without being an observer?

K: How can one know oneself without being an observer. Shall we tackle it?

What do you mean by knowing — I am not quibbling about words — what do you mean by knowing, to know? When do I know something? I say I know Sanskrit, I know Latin, or I say I know my wife or husband. Knowing a language is different from knowing my wife or husband. Right? I learn a language. And can I ever say I know my wife or husband? I only say I know my wife when I have an image about her. And that image is always in the past, and that image prevents me from looking at her or him, and that person may be changing. So can I ever say I know? So when we say, ‘I want to know… can I know myself without the observer?’ see what takes place. It is rather complex — please, just give a little attention to this, you will see it.

I learn about myself. I learn what I am. In learning about myself, I have accumulated knowledge about myself — right? — and use that knowledge, which is the past, to learn something more about the future, about myself. Right? With the accumulated knowledge I have about myself I look at myself and try to learn a new something about myself. Can I do that? That is impossible.

So, to learn about myself — not to know about myself, the two states are entirely different, the knowing and learning. The learning is a constant non-accumulative process, because I am changing — new thoughts, new feelings, new variations, new intimations, new hints about myself. I have to learn. I can’t say I have learnt and I am going to learn more about you. Right? So the mind must be in a constant state of learning, therefore always fresh, not with the accumulated knowledge of yesterday. Then you will see, if you go into it, that there is only learning, not acquiring knowledge. Therefore the mind becomes extraordinarily alert and aware and sharp to look. So I can never say I know about myself. And you can see any person who says, ‘I know,’ obviously doesn’t know. A man who says, ‘I have realised God,’ I mean, that’s too silly. So learning, whether you can learn mathematics or whatever it is, is a constant, active process — not having learnt I learn more in order to add to what I have already learnt.

So, to learn about myself there must be freedom to look, and this freedom to look is denied when I look through the knowledge of yesterday. Right, sir?

Yes, sir?

Q: Why does the separation between the observer and the observed necessarily lead to conflict?

K: Oh — why does the separation between the observer and the observed lead to conflict. Why do you think it does, sir?

Q: Well, you might say that it frustrates some sort of basic experience.

K: No, go into it a little deeper, look at it.

Why is there, why did we say that there is conflict between the observer and the observed when there is separation — why?

Who is the maker of effort? Effort exists as long as there is conflict, as long as there is contradiction. Right? As long as there is contradiction there must be effort, and therefore conflict. So, is there not a contradiction between the observer and the observed when there is a division? Look at it, sir. Please, this is not a matter of argument or opinion, you can look at it. When I say, ‘This is me, this is mine,’ whether property, whether sexual right, or whether it is my work, there is a resistance which separates and therefore there is conflict. When I say, ‘I am a Hindu and a Brahmin,’ and this and that, I have created a wall round myself, identified myself, which breeds division. Surely, sir, when one says one is a Catholic — finished — you have already separated oneself from the non-Catholic.

So all division — and this is an enormously complex question — all division, outwardly as well as inwardly, does breed antagonism. So the problem arises: can I own anything — you understand, sir? — can I own anything without creating antagonism, without creating this definite contradiction which breeds conflict? Or is there a different dimension altogether where this sense of non-ownership exists? And therefore freedom. One has to go into it a great deal.

Yes, sir?

Q: Yes, but is it possible to act at all without having mental concepts and without having divisions? Could you have even walked into this room and sat down in that chair in the proper place without having a concept of what a chair is?

K: Quite. Now wait a minute. This is a very familiar question, sir, so we’ll try to…

Q: I may be misunderstanding but you seem to be implying that the person should have no concepts at all.

K: No, I said — perhaps I may not have explained it more, in detail — I said one must have concepts. If I ask you where you live, unless you are in a state of amnesia, you will tell me. The telling me is born of a concept, of a remembrance. And one must have remembrances concepts. But these very concepts, which have bred ideologies, are the source of mischief. You an American, I a Hindu, Indian. You are committed to one ideology and I am committed to another ideology, which are conceptual. And we are willing to kill each other. But we may cooperate scientifically, in the laboratory. But in human relationship, has any conceptual thing any place, conceptual thinking any place in relationship?

Sir, you see, this brings in a much more complex problem, if you are willing to go into it now, or perhaps we can go into it on Monday, Monday morning.

All action is conceptual — right? — all action. I have an idea and according to that idea I act.

Q: Either conceptual or automatic.

K: Conceptual, automatic, instinct and so on — it is first an idea, a formula, a norm, and according to that act. So there is a division between the ideology, the idea, and the action. The conceptual is the observer — please go into it a little bit — and the action is something non-observed, it’s something outside of you, and hence there is a division between the act and the idea, and hence there is conflict. That is obvious.

So that brings in a question, whether a mind that has been conditioned, brought up, educated, socially, all the rest of it, whether such a mind can free itself from conceptual thinking and yet act non-mechanically. You follow? That is, can a mind be in a state of silence and act?

Q: Yes. Can I make one point? When you say free from conceptual distinction, say in the case of human relations, do you mean being in a state where you understand what limits your concepts you are imposing on you, and by understanding you are able…

K: That’s right, sir, that’s right.

Q: Or you seem to be implying a state where you just abolish the concepts and you are operating without the concepts.

K: That’s what I am saying.

Q: The second one?

K. Yes, operate without concepts.

Q: Yes. Is that possible?

K: Sir, I say it is possible — it has no value. You follow? If I say it has, it has no value.

Q: No, I just say it because it seems to me that it’s not possible.

K: I say it is possible. And this is meditation. You follow, sir? To see — it is a tremendous question, I can’t take it up now because it’s… Whether the mind, which includes the brain, whether the whole quality of mind can be so utterly silent, which means free from conceptual thinking, therefore free from thinking altogether. So that when thought is necessary, it thinks. You follow? After all, when I am talking English there is an automatic process, going on. But is it possible to be so utterly silent, free from all concepts, and act from that silence? [Laughs]

That is, sir — look — isn’t it time for you to go, or is it all right? Can you go on? All right.

Is it possible to look, listen or see without any concept? Can you listen to me, and I listen to you — knowing you are speaking English, I am speaking English, which is necessary to communicate — whether I can look at you and you can look at me completely silently, without any interference of thought.

Q: It is difficult, especially when you are trying to deal with [inaudible].

K: Ah, you see, that’s just it, the moment you try to do, you are already in thought. [Laughter]

So, is it possible to look — sir, take a tree, take something, the microphone — can you look at it without the word? The word being the thought, the concept — can you look at that? That is fairly easy, to look at a tree without concept is fairly easy. But to look at a friend, to look at somebody who has hurt you, who has flattered you, to look without a word, without a concept, which means the old brain — you follow? — the old brain is quiet. It has its responses, its reactions, it is quick, but it is quiet, so that it can look completely, totally out of silence. And it is only in that state you understand and act. And then action is non-fragmentary.

Q: Yes, I think I know what you are saying, but…

K: Good, that’s… [laughs]

Q: It’s something that you’ve got to see for yourself.

K: You have to do it. Therefore, that’s why one has to know oneself, not according to some specialist, to know oneself. Then arises the problem of the observer and the observed, analyser, and so on, so on.

So, is there a look — please listen to this — is there a look without all this? Which is instant understanding.

Q: Well, that’s what I asked you.

K: I say there is.

Q: Sir?

K: Yes, sir.

Q: I wonder if you could explain this puzzle to me. You are trying to communicate to us through words something which you say is impossible to do through words. How come you have chosen this medium of communication, which is a contradiction, really, in terms of what you want us to try to come to an experience of…

K: Sir, all right. Wait, sir.

Q: …rather than doing it through action, which is what you are trying to have us experience.

K: Yes, quite.

There is verbal communication because you and I, both of us understand English. And to communicate with each other properly you and I must be both intense, urgent and have the capacity of that quality of intensity at the same time, you and I, otherwise we don’t communicate. If you are looking out of the window and I am talking, or if you are serious and I am not serious then communication ceases. Right? Now, to communicate something… about something which you or I have not gone into, is extremely difficult. So, is there a communication which is not verbal? Which is, when you and I are both serious, both intense, and immediate at the same time, at the same level, then there is communion which is non-verbal. So then we can dispense with words. Then you and I can sit in silence, but it must be not my silence or your silence — both of us. Then perhaps there can be communication. But that is asking too much.

Q: You just spoke of the difference between the observer and the observed, and then you were talking to this fellow about eliminating concepts. You know, we have a mechanism which takes in information but not all of this gets to us — it’s filtered through concepts and through lack of attention. And what you are suggesting is that you somehow clean up the path between…

K: Ah, you can’t clean up the past. The past you can’t clean up. What is the past?

Q: Excuse me, the path.

K: Ah! Pardon.

Q: The path between the information that comes into us is what my mind, my brain has to deal with. In other words, to get rid of this conceptualising. Now, what is it in me that can see this conceptualising take place, recognise it, and thus get rid of it?

K: Ah, I see, yes.

Surely that thing is intelligence, intelligence being sensitivity. You are listening attentively and therefore you are giving to that attention your highest form of intensity, listening. And in that state you understand. It is that intelligence that says, ‘I have understood it.’ And you can only understand when there is great sensitivity. And one cannot be sensitive if I am committed to an ideology or to a concept.

I think that is enough, isn’t it?

I beg your pardon, madame.

Q: Do you feel that it is possible to adapt, change the normal state of mind… [inaudible]

K: You can’t do it like that, no.

Q: I believe you said earlier you have to change it right now.

K: No, no. One can, if you give your attention to it.

Q: Yes but still it is then difficult to…

K: But you see we have already blocked ourselves by saying it is very difficult. We are not simple. We don’t see things as they are. We don’t see ‘what is’. We want to change ‘what is’ into something else.

Oui, madame?

Q: Would you speak about meditation relative to the change? The possibility of bridging the gap between the observer and the observed through meditation.

K: Ah, you want to know what meditation is?

Q: [Inaudible]

K: I am afraid you can’t go into it in two minutes. It requires a whole hour or many hours to know what it means to communicate. It is one of the most complex problems to meditate, not just to repeat some mantra, a few words, which has been the fashion lately, which to absurd. But to really understand what meditation is, I mean… We’ll discuss it, perhaps, another day.

[Applause]