Public Talk 1, Paris, 10 April 1969
Krishnamurti: Perhaps after I have talked a little you might care to ask questions and then we can discuss and go in, perhaps in more detail.
I always feel that there is so much to say, so many issues that one has to go into, so many problems unresolved that weigh upon us. There are so many complications in our life, and for most of us there seems to be no solution, no way out. And here we are gathered to find out, if we can, an understanding, a way to act, a way to live that will be not only intelligent, in the highest sense of that word, but also peacefully, with great clarity and joy. But unfortunately we don’t seem to be able to do that, we don’t seem to be able to look at all the problems dispassionately and see if we could resolve them, not escape from them, not suppress them, not avoid them, but really go into them, try to find out how to live a totally different kind of life.
And to find out a way to live that is at all levels of one’s existence complete, full of meaning, with great delight and beauty. And perhaps during these five talks here we might, if we are at all serious, go into the many questions that most of us have, the many problems — intellectual, emotional, psychological and — if I may use the word — spiritual. And we seem to have solved most of the mechanical problems of existence. We have become extraordinarily clever. We have been able to mechanically conquer the world, been able to go to the moon and all the rest of that business, but apparently we have not been able to solve any of our human problems. We more or less live as we have lived for 10,000 or 100,000 years, with our petty lives, with our wrangles, with our wars, with contention, without any harmony, beauty in our life. Inwardly, we are more… perhaps as savage as we were before. Inwardly we are confused, and we don’t seem to be able to solve that confusion, that contradiction, the violence that exists in each one of us. We have lived more or less in the same category, in the same habits, accepting war as the way of life, a tribal existence but a little more polished.
And one has never asked oneself whether it is at all possible to live in this world peacefully, completely intelligently, so that we have no problems at all in any of our relationships. And we are using that word ‘intelligent’ not as an intellectual concept, as a formula, as a thing to be strived after, but rather, the meaning of that word is not to be found in the dictionary, not to be explained by the clever, intellectual philosophers and theoreticians and writers, but rather to live with such great sensitivity, to live with a feeling of great love, a life in which there is no conflict whatsoever, a life in which there is no fear of anything, inwardly, and a life of great beauty — all that is implied in that word ‘intelligent’. But to awaken that intelligence, not abstractly, not merely as a word, but actually live such a life, such a revolutionary life — I am using, again, that word ‘revolutionary’ not in the ordinary sense of that word: bloodshed, upheaval of established order and so on — that may come about naturally if there is inward, psychological revolution, which seems to me is the most important thing, not reformation, not little reforms here and there, dropping a particular theory and taking on another, but a total psychological revolution. Because our minds have been bound, have followed a tradition, have lived the way we live for so many, many centuries and millennium. We have changed very little. We are aggressive, brutal, violent, acquisitive, anxious, in sorrow, and attached to our petty little ideas, opinions, to our particular little family or to the nation.
And to us, belief, conceptual thought and theories seem to matter a great deal. We would rather live in ideas, in theories, opposing one opinion against another or one concept, formula, against another. And this conceptual thinking is considered very intellectual and very worthwhile. And the revolution, the change, the mutation, doesn’t lie through the intellect alone or through any form of emotional, sentimental explosion. I think — again, the word ‘think’ is wrong, that is only an expression of politeness — this revolution is only possible, and it must take place, in understanding not only the outward structure, the environment in which we live, but also that environment which has been created by our motives, by our activities, by our fears, uncertainties, by our acquisitiveness, because what… the outward environment is what we are. The outward environment is not different from us. What the world is we are, and what we are the world is.
May I ask if I am talking too loud? No? It sounds awfully loud.
You know, let me assure that we are not doing any propaganda, we are not trying to convince you of anything — God forbid. We are not trying to persuade you to a certain conclusion, to certain ways of thinking. What we are engaged in is to find out for ourselves if it is at all possible to change radically, not scratch at the surface, not oppose one opinion against another or one conclusion against another, or introduce a new pattern of behaviour or a new theory, but rather to observe the actual fact of ‘what is’, which is that we are the world. The world is not different from us; our petty little worries, anxieties, the nationalistic and linguistic and religious divisions have made this world, because we are and we live in fragments, broken up, as Frenchmen, Englishmen, you know, and all the rest of that nonsense. And we belong to various religions — Catholic, Protestant, or the communist and so on — again, they have broken up the world, they have separated man into beliefs, each opposing the other or trying to convince the other that his own particular little, rotten little idea of what he considers God is better than his.
And that is the world that we have created — the war that is going on in the Far East, in the Middle East and everywhere — for that we are responsible, not abstractly, not emotionally but actually we are responsible, because of the way we live. And we don’t realise that to survive physically, apart psychologically, there must be a complete change of both the mind and the heart. And that is the only issue. There is no other issue. There is no other problem. Not to what category of belief, political or religious, you belong, not to what theories, or substitute one belief for another, or whether you are a pacifist, a socialist — all those become totally irrelevant when we are concerned with the total transformation of man.
And is that possible, not as an idea but actually? So that we live a different kind of life, a life in which there is no anxiety, no sorrow, no problem, a life of great delight and beauty and love and peace — is that possible? Man has always asked this question, in the ancient of times and also in the modern days, whether living in this world, with all the turmoil, with the extraordinary complexity of society, with the education that one receives, which is really no education at all, whether it is possible, in this confusion, in this madness, in this world of brutality, to live a life of great sensitivity, intelligence, beauty and love. That is the only issue. And whether it is possible to change, not in some distant future, not through gradual process of evolution, getting better and better and better, a little more polished, which all implies time, but rather, if it is at all possible to change immediately, so that when you wake up tomorrow morning your whole being and your whole way of life is changed. That is the question. And is that possible? And into that we are going, together. We are going to voyage together into this question.
Together — that means you are not merely listening, hearing a few words or a few ideas, but rather, sharing, working step by step, seriously, to find out. And in the very act of finding out, bringing about this change — it is not finding out first and then change, but rather the very act of exploration is the act of change. And to explore together there must be this sense of freedom, otherwise you can’t explore, if you are anchored to your particular belief, opinion, judgment, evaluation, or to a particular form of existence. Obviously you are not free, and therefore you are not capable of exploring. And it seems to me that is the main issue. In exploring, in examining freely, that very examination and that very exploration is the act of change; the two are not separate. And I think that must be very clearly understood, right from the beginning. So we are not dealing with concepts, a formula, or a series of theories or ideas, we are dealing with actuality, the fact that you cannot examine, explore, unless one is free. Even in the scientific world that is an essential requirement. One may have a hypothesis but that hypothesis must be put aside to find out something new. You don’t carry the burden of what you have discovered in the past, which will obviously prevent you from discovering something new.
So, it is only a mind — and when we are using that word ‘mind’ we mean not only the brain but also that delicate feeling, that sensitivity of care and affection and love — all that is the mind, not mere intellection, the capacity to oppose one theory against another or one opinion against another, write clever books and all that — we are using the word ‘mind’ to cover the whole of that, the whole of man’s activity and being. Therefore it is not a fragmentary approach, it is an approach that demands that the mind must be free to enquire. And in the very enquiry, in the very examination, is the act of change. Right?
If that is clear, not as a concept but in actuality, which means that you are prepared to put aside all belief, all concepts — and that is going to be very difficult, because for us concepts and formulas have become extraordinarily important. The formula of the French or the English, the formula of the Catholic, Protestant, or the Hindu or the Muslim — to detach ourselves entirely from all that nonsense. And it is nonsense. When we use that word ‘nonsense’ it is not being used intolerantly, because that word ‘nonsense’ means ‘no sense’. To call oneself now, in the world, a Frenchman or a Hindu or whatever it is, is sheer nonsense. And yet we are committed deeply, emotionally, psychologically, to these formulas.
So the first thing is, if we may suggest, to be free of the word, which is quite arduous because the word plays an extraordinary part in our life. The word — take any word — ‘the family’, or the word ‘God’, or the word ‘revolution’, ‘communist’ and so on — the word has an extraordinary deep-rooted significance in our life. But the word is not the thing; it never is. That which is described is not that thing which is. But to us the description is the described, the symbol becomes the reality. So, one of the problems, perhaps quite a complex problem, is the word. And to realise all the time the word is never the thing, the description is never the described. Then we meet at a different level altogether, not at the verbal level. And we are concerned not with the word, not with the description but the thing described. And therefore the mind can look, not through words, not through ideas, not through formulas but actually look to find out. Can we go on from there? That is, we are not going to be caught by words, your word or my word. Personally, there is no belief at all with me about anything, no concepts, no formulas, and therefore the eyes can see very clearly, without any distortion.
So, as we said, the mind, that total thing called the mind, which is capable of reasoning healthily, sanely, the mind that can observe very clearly, not only visually but inwardly — the brain which is so heavily conditioned by 10,000 years, with all its tradition and memories, the brain is the past, or the result of the past. And the feeling of great care, affection, compassion, all that is included when we use the word ‘mind’.
So can one be free to examine the world and the world inside us, the world that man has built outside and the world in which he lives inside? And is there any difference between the outer and the inner, apart from the mechanical functioning of the world? Is there a division between the outer conditioning, environment, and the inward conditioning and environment? Are they not both the same? And, if and when they are the same, then the question, the individual opposing the community or the society, or the society oppressing the individual, comes to an end — there is no issue at all. Then we are dealing with the totality of man, man being the product of the environment and the energy, the drive which has created that environment. So we are both the outer and the inner, not a separate, fragmentary division but a unit. And we are concerned, therefore, with the change of that unit, and with that human being changes the world, will inevitably bring, will inevitably change — you cannot change the world without changing yourself. All the political talk and the religious paraphernalia, the priests’ wish for peace and prayers and all that nonsense has no meaning whatsoever because they are dealing with the surface, with the fragments, putting the fragments together and therefore inevitably failing and bringing about more disaster, more pain, more suffering.
Can you bear all this with me? This is not too much for all of you? Because, you see, this is a very serious matter, this is not a religious entertainment or philosophical amusement, this is deadly serious what we are talking about — not fanaticism but a quality of seriousness that will go to the very end. And it is only such a serious mind, a real dedicated mind to find out, to change, to bring about a psychological mutation and revolution, it is only such a mind that lives — not the mind that is flippant, that merely wants to be entertained, amused — then you might just as well go to a football game or to a church to be amused, entertained. But we are dealing with something much more serious that demands your attention. And that is up to you, naturally.
So, here is the question, the problem, the issue, the challenge — and each one of us must answer it, not according to our capacity but rather answer it by looking at it in freedom. Therefore the mind can only be free when there is no sense of conflict, no sense of fear, no sense of accumulated knowledge from which you are going to act in the future. Freedom means freedom, not from something, not from this particular group or from that particular quality. When freedom is from something it is not freedom. Freedom per se is not, because you must be free in order to understand. But freedom demands that it be without any motive, without any result, without any searching. Freedom is the greatest thing because without freedom the mind can’t possibly observe.
So our question then is, can the mind be free from one of the major issues, which is fear? When the mind is free from fear then there is no question of belief, then there is no question of wanting to be individually or as a group to be secure. And a mind that lives actually in fear is a dull, stupid, thoughtless mind. It lives in darkness, with all the problems of the darkness, neurotic, psychotic and all the rest of it. So can the mind be free of fear? Not only the fear of the past or of the future but fear of living, now.
I wonder, when such a question is put, what our reactions are. Probably we will say it is not possible, because fear is such a vast field. There is not only the fear of the unconscious but fear of tomorrow, fear of death, fear of insecurity, fear — there are ten thousand fears, from which springs violence. A man who is not frightened psychologically has no violence at all and therefore he is free of this ideal of non-violence, which is sheer idiotic nonsense.
So our question then is: can the mind, knowing the complexity of fear and its various forms of expression, from the most infantile to the most mature form of fear, from the sense of insecurity, the loneliness, the despair, can such a mind look at fear and be totally free of it? To say it will or it will not will prevent the mind from examining. If you say it is not possible then you have already blocked yourself. Or if you say it is possible, then again you are incapable of examination because your own conclusion is going to prevent you. Please do observe all this, watch it in yourself and so be aware of the trap of the possibility and the impossibility. But when you are aware of the trap then the thing that is possible becomes extraordinarily great. Please follow this a little bit. Here is an issue of fear. If we say the mind can never be free of… completely of fear, the mind being not only the past, the present and the future, the deep layers of unconscious — and if you say it can never be free you have already limited it. Your possibility then is very small. Right? Because you can only then function within the limitation of what is possible, because you have said, ‘I cannot do it.’ But if you say it is possible, again you have limited yourself because you don’t see the immensity of the problem. If you see both, the possibility and the impossibility, then your possibility is supreme. Are you getting what I…? Right? But you must see both, otherwise you can’t reach the other. Which means the mind is free from the possible and the impossible, and therefore the mind is capable of acting at a level that is beyond the impossible. Right?
Now we are going into the question of this fear — I don’t know if there is time to go into it this evening because it is nearly eight minutes to eight and probably you have already had enough of this for one evening, and we will go into it on Sunday morning if we will. Because this is really a very complex problem, because for most of us, fear is very close — fear of not being intelligent, fear of not being beautiful, fear of living a lonely, insipid, meaningless life, fear of death, fear of not making life into a great, marvellous, glorious, success. And we worship success, not being able to fulfil. And fear of what the husband or the wife or the woman will say. So this is a very complex question. And this fear has lived with us for… ever since man has come into being. And to understand the whole nature and the structure of fear demands your great attention, not just a flippant examination, or the examination of a mind that is tired.
So, to go into it, as we shall, there must be this freedom of exploration and understanding, not only verbally but non-verbally. And that is the beauty of communication. There is the verbal communication, which is necessary, but also there is another form of communication which is communion, when both of us are intensely interested, vitally, about this question of fear and the resolution of it, serious with all our being, with all our heart and mind, then there is a communion. And it is that communion that is necessary to be beyond it, beyond this enormous, complex issue of fear.
So, as we shall resume on Sunday morning — it is Sunday morning, isn’t it? Yes. Perhaps now, if you will, you might ask questions. I understand French sufficiently so you can ask it in French, or in Italian or in Spanish. But — un instant, je vous prie — don’t, please, be ready to ask questions right away [laughs], because it means you have already prepared your question and you are ready to jump into the arena. You know, it is one of the most difficult things to ask a question because in the very asking of it you are exposing yourself. And if you are willing to be exposed then you will ask. And we must ask. We must ask every kind of question. We must be sceptics completely, doubting everything, questioning, asking, but also we must know when to let scepticism lie dormant. A mind that is all the time scepting, doubting, is a useless mind, but a mind that questions, not only the things outside of itself but inwardly, questions its very motives, habits, ideas, conclusions, such a questioner, when he asks, that question has a tremendous meaning. And then such a question has its own right answer. Which doesn’t mean that we are preventing you from asking questions, only one must be aware of what the question implies and how far and how deeply, when you ask your question, you want it answered — not from an oracle or from an authority but in the very examination of that question, the answer is.
What were you going to ask, sir?
Questioner: I was going to say that when two different sets of people share two different sets of ideas they normally exclude each other. I don’t say that people here are going to be classed as a set of people who heard you speaking, but if other people want to cut them down, that is what happens. If people are afraid, they set up barriers around their own ideas, and how do you think we can cross those barriers with the other people? Because it is all right to say, ‘These ridiculous churches, these ridiculous politicians,’ but we are not going to change them in saying we have got a very good life ourselves and…
K: Yes, I understand, sir. I hope you have all understood the question.
Audience: No.
Q: Groups have ideas…
K: En Francais.
Q: [In French]
K: Ah, bien. Alors. En Francais.
Q: [In French]
Alain Naude: Groups defend themselves in their ideas; how can we get through their barriers of defence. Talk to them about what you are saying.
K: You have understood the question?
Q: Bien.
K: Bene.
I wouldn’t bother about the groups who have built round themselves ideas, barriers. Leave them alone. Be concerned, if I may suggest, to find out whether oneself is free from these barriers. What can I do or what can you do to me if I believe in certain formula or belief? That is my refuge, that is my barrier, that is my resistance, and you are not going to break it down. If you do break it down, I will take on another belief. So seeing how human beings are, that they cannot possibly be pushed into some kind of non-ideational world, you leave them alone. You find out for yourself whether your own mind is free from any formula. And I assure you, sir, that requires enormous energy and watchfulness. So the mind is completely empty of the conceptual way of living, which means the ideal, the idea of nation, God, the whole separative energy with which we live — you and I, we and they — they have the ideas and I have no idea, no barrier. Moment I am aware that I have no barrier I already have one. Freedom is to be free from concepts and also freedom means total non-existence of idea — which we will discuss another time; that requires a great deal of going into.
Q: Can you say what we mean by looking at fear, and what is psychological revolution, and what is the state which leads to psychological revolution?
K: What does it mean to be in a state of psychological revolution — is that it, sir?
Q: Looking at fear.
K: Looking at fear. I am going to go into that question of looking at fear another time, next time we meet here. But what does it mean, psychological revolution — isn’t it fairly simple, that word, what it means?
Look, psychologically, that is, inwardly, there is a self-centred activity going on — right? — me with my family, with my God, with my opinion, with my problems, with my fears, acquisitiveness, and my house — me. The activity of that, of that mind, creates division between people, and therefore conflict in relationship. And we are saying a total revolution in that field so that the mind is no longer burdened with the ‘me’, and therefore capable of acting without the limitation of ‘me’. ‘Me’ includes not only the family, the house, but the ‘me’ of the past, the ‘me’ that holds on to various memories, traditions, hopes, the ‘me’ that is occupied with itself everlastingly. To bring about a change in that, not a surface change but a radical, deep-rooted change. Only in that change can man live at peace with another. That is what we mean by psychological revolution.
Q: Excuse me. You said that if one man attacks your idea you would change your idea or your view or your belief, but that is not living at peace with that man, that’s ignoring him.
K: No, sir, no, sir, I don’t… Look, sir, it is fairly simple, isn’t it? What will you do if I believe in the Church — let’s take that — or I believe communism is the highest form of social organisation? I believe in it. To me that is the most important thing; I have given my life to it. How are you going to change me? Hit me on the head? Cut my head off?
Q: No, try and understand your way of thinking, and not to say you are stupid.
K: Look, I refuse to be changed because all my life, all my investment, psychologically, financially, job, everything is in that Church or in a political organisation. And you come along and say, ‘Look my friend, change!’ First, a change implies that I must listen. I must listen, and I cannot listen if I am committed. And if we want to listen there must be freedom from any form of commitment, obviously. That is why we said freedom is necessary, not at the end but right at the beginning.
Q: In social terms that might not go on exactly, first.
K: All right, sir, history. There is the movement of history all the time. How can… Look at it, sirs. The army, the navy, the present sovereign governments throughout the world have tremendous investment in these things, haven’t they — the people in the army, navy, in the air — they have poured money into it. And you and I come along with our crazy ideas and say, ‘Please change, old boys, will you?’ and they are not going to change. And therefore what happens? Then we say we must change the establishment, the revolution is necessary. And so those people who have their money invested, their prestige, their position, being an admiral and all the rest of that business, they are going to fight back. So it then becomes a physical revolution. And that has never solved a thing.
Q: And so physically we must have evolution, but in our heads we must have revolution — is that what you mean?
K: Yes, psychologically there must be revolution. And if all of us in this hall, sir, this evening [laughs] were really transformed, do you think we would not have a tremendous effect? Because it is after all a small nucleus that brings about change. And we are afraid to be part of that nucleus — let somebody else do it. So the thing is really, whether it is possible for us to so transform ourselves. We will do that.