Public Talk 4, Poona, 19 September 1948

XII. 19-9-1948.

It is fairly obvious that most of us are confused intellectually. We see that so-called leaders in all departments of life have no complete answer to our various questions and problems. The many conflicts, political parties, whether of the Left or of the Right, seem to have not found the right solution to our national and inter-national relationships and we also see socially there is utter destruction of moral values. Everything about us seems to be disintegrating; moral values, ethical values have merely become a matter of tradition without much significance. Wars seem to be the constant recurring factor in our lives, the conflict between the Right and the Left; everywhere there is destruction, everywhere there is confusion. In ourselves we are utterly confused though we do not like to acknowledge it. We see confusion in all things and we do not exactly know what to do. Most of us, recognising this confusion, this uncertainty, want to do something so we are more confused. The more we are confused, the more anxious are we to act, to do something; so action becomes all important, specially with those people who have realised that there is confusion in themselves and about them. How can a person who is confused act? Whatever he does, whatever his course of action, whatever his pattern of action is bound to be confused and being confused naturally his action will inevitably be confused. To whatever party, institution or organization he may belong, until he clears his own sphere of confusion, obviously whatever he does is bound to produce further confusion. So, what is he to do? What is a man who is earnest and desirous of freeing the confusion about him and in himself to do? What is his first responsibility to act, to clear up the confusion in himself and therefore outside of himself. I think it is an important question that most of us are unwilling to face. We see so much social disorder, which needs immediate reform, see so much of action becomes an engulfing process. We proceed to act, we try to reform, we join political parties either of the Left or of the Right, we are anxious to do something and we see reforms need further reforms, leaders need further grouping further organization and so on. Everywhere we try to act

The actor is the source of confusion and what is he to do? Is he to act when he is confused or remain inactive, that is really the problem most of us face obviously. We are afraid to be inactive, to withdraw for a period, to consider the whole problem requires extraordinary intelligence. If you say to your friends, to your associates, they consider you as an escapist if you do withdraw for consideration, for revaluation. You become a non-entity; socially you are nowhere. Wherever there is the waving of flag and you do not wave a flag, when all of them put on a particular cap and you do not have that cap, you are in the background. Most of us do not like to remain in the background, so we plunge into action. So the problem of action and inaction is quite important to understand. Is it not necessary to be inactive to consider the whole issue? Obviously we must carry on with our daily responsibility of earning the bread; all the necessities must be carried on. But the organizations, political, religious, social, rearrangement of groups and so on, need we belong to them? If we are very serious about it, must we not reconsider, revalue the whole problem of existence and to do that must you not for the time being, turn, withdraw, to look, to consider, to ponder and to meditate and is that withdrawal inaction? Is not that withdrawal really action? This so-called inaction, is it not really action? Because without that inaction, in which there is extraordinary action of considering the whole question, revaluing, thinking over the whole confusion in which one lives, why is that inaction? Why are we so afraid to be inactive? Is it inaction to reconsider? Surely, obviously, it is not. Obviously, a man who is active without reconsidering the issue is not acting. He is the real escapist. Because when he is confused, in order to escape from his confusion, from his insufficiency, he plunges into action: he joins a society, party or organization and thereby he is really escaping from the fundamental issue which is confusion. We are misapplying the word. The man who is acting, the man who considers that he reforming the world by joining a society or party, he is bringing greater confusion and greater misery, whereas the so-called inactive man who is really considering the whole question, who is serious about it, withdrawing in order to escape, to avoid, surely such a man is much more active. Specially in these times when the whole world is on the edge of a precipice and catastrophic events are taking place, is it not necessary for a few at least to be inactive to deliberately not allow themselves to be caught in this machine, this atomic machine of action, which does not result in anything except producing further confusion, further chaos? So, is it not necessary for those who are earnest to withdraw, not from life, not from daily activities, but to withdraw in order to discover, in order to study, in order to explore, investigate and find out and to discover and to explore one need not go into the innumerable plans and blueprints of what a new society should be or ought not to be. Obviously, these blueprints are utterly useless; because a man who is confused and who is merely carrying out the blueprints will bring about further confusion. Therefore, what is important in understanding is, as I said last week and several times, self-knowledge. Without understanding oneself there cannot be order in the world. Without exploring the whole process of thought, feeling and action in oneself, there cannot possibly be order, peace, security in the world. Therefore, to study oneself is of the primary importance and not a process of escape. This study of oneself is not mere inaction. On the contrary, it requires extraordinary awareness in everything that one does, awareness in which there is no judgment, no condemnation or blame, but to be aware of the total process of oneself as one lives in daily life and out this awareness which is ever expanding, not narrowing, we begin to clarify: out of this awareness comes order, first in ourselves and therefore produce order externally in our relationships. So the problem is relationship; without relationship there is no existence: to be is to be related. And in that relationship if I merely use that relationship without understanding myself, I merely contribute to further confusion, further mess. Most of us do not seem to realise that: that the world in which I live, which is my relationship, the relationship may be with one or two or three is the world. My problem is that of relationship. What I am, that I project and obviously without understanding myself the whole of relationship is one of confusion in ever widening circles. So, relationship becomes of extraordinary importance, not with the whole group of people, mass of people or the crowd, but my relationship with my wife, children and my neighbour, however small that may be. In a world that is considering vast organizations, vast mobilizations of people, mass movements, we are afraid to act on a small scale; we are afraid to be small, little people clearing up our own patch. We say to ourselves — “What can I personally do; we must join a great big mass movement in order to reform.” On the contrary real revolution takes place, not in great mass movements but in that inward revolution of relationship. There alone is real reformation, a radical continuous revolution. We are afraid to begin on a small scale. Because the problem is so vast, we think we must meet it with large numbers of people, with a great organization, with mass movements. On the contrary, we must begin to tackle on a small scale and the small scale is the ‘me’ and the ‘you’. When I understand myself, I understand you and out of that understanding comes love. It is this factor that is missing, that lack of affection, that warmth in relationship, because we lack that love, that tenderness, that generosity, that mercy in relationship we escape into that action which produces further confusion, further misery. So, we fill our hearts with blue prints, with sudden immediate problems and do not look to that one resolving factor, which is love. Do what you will, without that regenerating factor, whatever we do will produce further chaos. Because the action of the intellect is not going to produce a solution and as relationship is our problem, not which systems which blueprint, which League of Nations or United Nations, the utter lack of good-will in relationship, not with humanity whatever that may mean — the utter lack of good-will and love in relationship between two people. Have you not found how extraordinarily difficult to work with another, to think out a problem together with two or three? If we cannot think out problems with two or three, how can we think it out with a mass of people? We can think it out only when there is that generosity, that kindliness, that warmth in relationship. Deny that and we try to find the solution in the arid fields of the mind. So as relationship is our problem, without understanding it, merely to be active is to produce further confusion, further misery and relationship is action: to live is to be and to be is to understand oneself and without understanding you cannot get that relationship, do what you will, isolate yourself, withdraw to the mountains, you cannot live in isolation. You can only live in relationship and as long as relationship is not understood, there can be no right action. Right action comes in understanding that relationship which reveals the process of oneself. Therefore, self-knowledge is the beginning of wisdom, a field of affection, warmth and love, a field, therefore, rich with flowers.

Question: The institution of marriage is one of the chief causes of social conflict. It creates a seeming order at the cost of terrible repression and suffering. Is there another way of solving the problem of sex?

Mr. Krishnamurti: Every human problem requires great consideration. To understand the problem, there must be no response, no rejection, no acceptance: that which you condemn, you do not understand. So, as the problem is one of sex, we must go into it very closely, fully and carefully, step by step, which is what I propose to do. I am not going to lay down what should be or should not be done, which is silly, which is immature thinking. Because you cannot lay a pattern for life: you cannot put life into the framework of ideas and as society inevitably puts life into the frame-work of moral order, therefore society is always breeding disorder.

To understand this problem, we must neither condemn nor justify. We will have to rethink it anew. Now what is the problem? Is sex a problem? And if it is, why is it a problem? Let us think it out: do not wait for me to answer. If it is a problem, why is it a problem? Have we made hunger into a problem? Has starvation become a problem? The obvious causes of starvation are nationalism, class differences, economic frontiers, sovereign Governments, separativeness and religious factors and so on. If we try to alter the systems [Added by hand in blue-black ink in original typescript: ‘symptoms’ WS-06] without eradicating the causes, which is nationalism, which is class division, which is a few owing the means of production: it is the same old problem. We do not tackle the root cause that produce the outward symptoms: we try to reform the outward symptoms, because it is so much easier. So, similarly, why has sex become a problem? To curb it the institution of marriage is brought about, in which institution you can do anything you like, behind the door, behind the wall and show a respectable front to outside. You can convert your wife into a prostitute and it is perfectly respectable. Under the guise of marriage you can be worse than an animal and without marriage, without restraint, you spill over. So, society, in order to put a limit tries to lay down certain moral laws which become tradition and within that limit you can be as immoral, as ugly as you like and that repression, that indulgence and that habit of sexual action is considered perfectly normal, healthy and moral. So, why is it a problem? To a married couple, is sex a problem? Not at all. The woman and man have an assured source of constant pleasure. When you have a source of constant pleasure, when you have a constant source of bank account, what happens? You become dull, weary, empty, exhausted. Have you not noticed that people who before marriage were full of vitality, energy, the moment they are married become dull: all the springs of life have gone out of them. Have you not noticed it in your own sons and daughters? Why has sex become a problem? Obviously, the more intellectual you are, the more sexual you are. Have you not noticed that the more intellectual you are, the more sexual you are and the more emotional you are, the less sexual you are? As the whole, the social, moral and educational culture is the cultivation of the intellect, the more the problem of sex, the more the confusion and conflict in sex. The question of solving the problem of sex is to understand the cultivation of the intellect. Because the intellect is not the means of creation: creation does not take place through the function of the intellect: on the contrary when the intellect is silent, there is creation. When there is creation, then only the function of intellect has a meaning.

But without creation, without that creative affection, the mere function of the intellect obviously creates the problem of sex. As most of us live in the brain, as most of us live with words and in words which is of the mind, so most of us who live in the brain are not creative. We are caught in words, in spinning new words and in rearrangement of words: that is not creation, since we are not creative and the only means of expression of that creativeness is sex and in that act there is forgetfulness. And in forgetfulness alone there is creation and that act for a split second gives you that freedom, free that self which is of the mind and therefore it has become a problem. Surely, creativeness comes into being only when there is absence of thought which is of the mind, which is of the ‘me and of the ‘mine’. I do not know if you have noticed that in moments of great crisis, in moments of great joy the consciousness of me and the mine which is the product of the mind disappear[s].’ In that moment you see there is such expansive appreciation of life, there is great intensity, the joy. At that moment there is creativeness. To put it simply, when self is absent, there is creation. And since all of us are caught in the arid intellect naturally there is no absence of the self. On the contrary, there is an exaggerated expansion of the self, naturally in that field, in that striving to be, there is no creativeness. So the sex is the only means of being creative or experiencing the absence of the self and that too becomes wearisome because sex action becomes habitual and the mere sexual act gives strength to the continuity of the self, so sex becomes a problem. To really resolve that problem, we will have to approach it from every direction, not at one level of thought, from every side, which is the educational, the religious, the moral. One has a feeling of strong sex attraction, we marry or are married by our parents as it happens here in the East, and the pair, the boy and the girl know not a thing about it: parents are only concerned in getting rid of their boys and girls.

And within the sacred law of society, the man can repress her, destroy her, give her children year after year — and it is all perfectly all right. Under the guise of respectability, one becomes an awfully immoral person. One has to understand and educate the boy and the girl and that requires extraordinary intelligence on the part of the educator. Unfortunately our fathers, mothers and teachers all need this education: they are as dull as ditch water. They only know the do’s and don’ts and the taboos: they are not intelligent for this problem. We have to have new teacher who is really educated in order to help the boy and girl. But society, through cinema, through advertisements, through various means is giving stimulation — half-naked girls, luscious women and luscious houses all these are acting as stimulation and what do you expect? If he is married, he takes it out of his wife, if he is not married, he goes to someone under cover. It is a difficult problem to bring intelligence to the boy and the girl. On every side human beings are exploiting each other through sex, through property, through relationship and religiously, there is no creativeness at all: on the contrary, constant meditation, or rituals or Pujas or repetition of words is a mere mechanical act with certain response, but that is not creative thinking, creative living. Religiously, you are merely traditional. Therefore there is no creative enquiry into the discovery of reality. Religiously, you are regimented and obviously where there is regimentation, whether it is in the military or in religion, there cannot be creativeness. Obviously creativeness you seek through the sex. You have to free the mind, free the orthodoxy, free the ritual, free the regimentation, free the dogmatism so that the mind being free can be creative. And then the problem of sex will not be so enormous or dominant and the problem involved in the sex is that of relationship of man and woman. There is no love; man and woman is used as a mere means of sexual gratification. Surely, Sirs, love is not the product of the mind. Love is not the result of thought, love is not the end product of contract. Here in this country the boy and the girl hardly know each other, they are married and have sexual relations: the boy and girl accept each other and say “you give me this and I give you that” or “you give me your body, I give you security and I give you my calculated affection.” This calculated relationship is called love. When the husband say[s] ‘I love you’ it is merely a calculated response of the mind because he gives certain protection, so he expects it. This relationship of calculation is called love. It is an obvious fact: you may not like me to put it so brutally in words, but it is the actual fact. Such marriage is called love marriage when it is a marriage of mere exchange: it is a bania [Hindu term meaning merchant, banker engaging in traditional money lending or money-changer. WS-06] marriage, a mentality of the market. Surely, in such marriage there cannot be love. Can there be? Love is not of the mind and since we have cultivated the mind, we use that word love to cover the field of the mind. Surely, love has nothing to do with the mind. Love is not the product of the mind; it is entirely independent of calculation, of thought. When there is no love of such a kind, then the framework of marriage institution becomes a necessity. When there is love, then sex is not a problem. It is the lack of love that makes it into a problem. Don’t you know when you love somebody really, deeply — not the love of the mind — but really from your heart, you share with him or her everything that you have, not your body only, but everything. In your trouble you ask her to help and she helps you: there is no division between man and woman when you love somebody. There is a sexual problem when we do not know that love. We only know the love of the brain, thought has produced it and a product of thought is still thought, but it is not love. So, this problem is not simple to solve at its own level. To try it purely biologically is absurd or to try it through religion it is too immature, childish and stupid or to try it as though it is a mere matter of physical adjustment or to try it with taboos, contradictions and condemnations? It requires intelligence of the highest order; to understand our relationship to things requires the highest intelligence, intelligence far more subtle to understand nature. But we seek without intelligence, we want immediate response, immediate action, so the problem mounts up. Have you noticed a man whose heart is empty, how his face becomes ugly? And the children he produces are ugly and immature. They remain immature for the rest of their lives, how unformed, how sloppy — look at your faces some time in the mirror! You have brains to find out and you are caught in the brain. Love is not mere thought, thoughts are merely the external action of the brain: love is much more deep, more profound and that profundity can be discovered only in love. And without love, life has no meaning and that is the sad part of our existence. We grow old, though immature, our bodies become old, grow ugly, fat and thoughtless; we have never the perfume of life. We read about it, we talk about it: thinking, reading and verbalizing on it indicates an utter lack of that warmth of heart that enriches life and without it, do what you will, whatever society or law you may bring about, you will not solve this problem without that quality of love. To love is to be chaste and to be chaste, mere intellect is not chastity. A man who tries to be chaste in thought is unchaste, because he has no love, and it is only a man who loves is chaste, pure, incorruptible.

Question: In the modern institution of society it is impossible to live without organization. To shun all organizations as you seem to do is mighty escapism. Will you call the postal system a nucleus of power? What shall be the basis of organization in the new society?

Mr. Krishnamurti: Again, Sir, it is a complex question. All organizations exist for efficiency, do they not? Post office is an organization for the efficiency of communication, but when the postmaster becomes a quasi-type of tyrant over his clerks, the post office becomes a means of power, does it not? The Postmaster General is interested in the efficiency of communication or he should be, it is not a means of power, position, authority, self-aggrandisement obviously, which it is. So, every institution or organization is used by human beings as a means of power and that is what I am objecting to, not for efficiency of communication or distribution. The post office, the tramway and various other organizations surely they are a necessity in modern society: they must be organized, the power house which creates electricity, needs organization, but when that organization is used for political purpose as a means of aggrandisement, as a means of exploiting, obviously the organization becomes the means of extraordinary brutality. Similarly with religious organizations which are wholly unnecessary: they are not for efficiency. These organizations as Hinduism, as Catholicism, or Buddhism, they become pernicious. They are the extraordinary means of exploiting men, the priest, bishop, the church and the temple. They exploit you through fear, through tradition, through ceremony. Obviously such organizations are unnecessary: for religion obviously and truly is search for reality. The search for reality does not lie through organized people. On the contrary, organized people become a hindrance to reality. Therefore, church, Hinduism, Christianity as organized belief is a hindrance to truth. Why do we need such organizations They are not efficient for the search for truth lies in your own hands, not through an organization, not through gurus or his disciples, when they are organized for power. We need obviously technical organizations, such as the post office, tramway, but surely every other organization is unnecessary when man is intelligent. Because we are not intelligent we give over to those people who call themselves intelligent the power to rule us. An intelligent man does not want to be ruled. He does not want any other organization than the organization for the efficiency of existence. The need to be cannot be truly organized when it is in the hands of the few, a class or group, when the few as representing the many act, surely there is the same problem of power. When organizations are used as a means of power, there is criticism either of the individual, or of the group or of the party or State or of the country. It is this expansion through organization as a State identifying with sovereign Governments with which goes nationality, which affects the individual. It is that expansive, aggressive, self-defending power that is objectionable. Surely for me to come here I must organize: I must write a letter and that letter must reach you and there must be distribution: all this is right organization, but when that organization becomes the means of exploiting men by the clever, by the cunning, it is that organization which must be eradicated. It can only be eradicated when you yourself in your little circle are not seeking power, or seeking dominance. As long as power exists there must be a hierarchical process, as Government, as Minister, as clerk, priest, bishop, General or a Common soldier. Surely, we can have a decent society where the individual, you and I, are not seeking power, power in another direction, power through poverty, power through relationship, power through an idea. It is this search for power that is the cause of this disaster and disintegration of society. It is all power politics, dominance in the family, by the male or by the female, dominance of an idea and an idea always dominates because they are separative, an idea can no longer be inclusive and there is only search for power, by the individual, by the State which indicates the expansion of the intellect, the cultivation of the intellect. Therefore there is no love. When you love another, you organize, you are very careful: don’t you know how watchful you are and how efficient you are in helping that one? When there is no love then organization as a means of power comes into being. When you love somebody, full of that affection and of that generosity, then organizations have a different meaning. They are kept on their own level. But when the man becomes all important which is the power craving, then organizations become the means for that power and power and love do not exist together. Love is its own power, its own beauty and it is because that our hearts are empty we fill it with the power of the mind and the things of the mind are not things of the heart. Because our hearts are full with the things of the mind we look to organizations as a means of bringing order, of bringing peace to the world. It is only love that can bring order and peace to the world, not organizations. It is only good-will that gives the conciliation between people, not blueprints of any Utopia. Because we have no warmth of love, we are beginning organizations and the moment we have organizations, the clever and the cunning come to the top of it and use it. We start an organization and before you know where you are, somebody is using it. We create revolutions, bloody, disastrous revolutions to create world order and before we know where we are about anything, it is in the hands of the few who are powerful, maniacs after power and they become a new class, a new group, new Commissars, dominating secret Police are established and love is driven out. How can man live, Sir, without love? We can only exist: existence without love is control, pain, it is confusion and that is what most of you are doing. You want to exist, you organize for existence, you accept that existence as inevitable because it is that existence which demands power. But surely, when you love, organization has its own place, its right place and without love, organization becomes a nightmare, merely mechanical and efficient like the army. If there is love there will be no army. As modern societies are based on mere efficiency, you have to have armies and the purpose of the army is to create war. In peace the more efficient you are intellectually, the more ruthless, the more brutal, the more callous. That is why bureaucracy is more and more powerful and that is why there is confusion and more totalitarian Governments are becoming. We submit to all this as being inevitable because of our brain — we live in the brain and not in our hearts, love does not exist. It is the most dangerous and uncertain element in life and because we do not want to be uncertain, because we do not want to be dangerous we live in the mind. A man who loves is dangerous: we do not want to live dangerously: we want to live efficiently: we want to live merely in the framework of organization, because organizations are going to bring order in the world! Organizations have never brought order: it is only love, only good-will, only mercy that can ultimately and therefore now bring order.

Question: Why is woman prone to permit herself to be dominated by man? Why do communities permit themselves to be bossed over by the leader or the Fuehrer?

Mr. Krishnamurti: Now, Sir, why do you ask this question? Why don’t you look into your own mind why you want to be dominated, why you dominate and why you seek a leader? Why do you dominate the woman or the man? And this dominance is called also love, is it not? When the man dominates the woman likes it and considers it as affection and when a woman bosses over the man he also likes it. Why? That is an indication that the domination gives you a certain sense of closeness of relationship. If my wife dominates me, I am very close to her: if she does not dominate I feel she is indifferent. You are afraid of indifference from you wife or from the woman or from the man. You will accept anything as long as you do not feel someone is indifferent. Don’t you know how closely you want to keep to your guru, you will do anything, sacrifice your wife, honesty and everything if you are close to him because you want to feel that he is not indifferent to you. That is we want relationship to act as self-forgetfulness. That is as long as relationship does not what we actually are we are satisfied. That is why we accept domination of a person. When my wife or husband dominates me it does not reveal what I am: it is a source of gratification. If my wife does not dominate me and I discover what I am really, it is very disturbing. What am I? I am an empty being, dour, sloppy with certain appetites and I am afraid to face all that emptiness. Therefore I accept the dominance of my wife or the husband, because I feel I am very close, because I do not want to see myself as I am. And this dominance gives a sense of relationship, this dominance bring jealousy, the moment you do not dominate you are looking at somebody else. Therefore I am jealous, therefore I have lost you — still on the plane of the brain. You do not know how to get rid of jealousy, still on the plane of the brain. A man who loves, Sir, is not jealous. Jealousy is of the brain, love is not of the brain and where there is love, there is no domination. You love somebody: you are not dominating: you are a part of that person. There is no separation, complete integration. It is the brain that separates and creates the problem of domination. Why do communities permit themselves to be bossed over by the leader? What are communities? Two or three people living together; a group living together and seeking a leader. Why? To put it differently you the individual in your relationship is society, is community, which is an obvious fact. You in relationship with another is society, a group. Why do you seek a leader? You do it because obviously you are confused, is it not? A man who is very clear, who is integrated does not want a leader. To him a leader is a nuisance, a factor of disintegration in society. You seek him because you are confused and you do not know what to do. You want to be told what to do: you seek modes of conduct, socially, politically and religiously. Being confused you seek a leader. Follow the implications, Sir. Obviously, being confused, you seek, which means that you do not seek clarity, you seek a leader who will lead you out of the confusion. You do not seek the cause of confusion, you seek one who will lead you out of that confusion. Being confused, you will choose a leader who is also confused (laughter). Do not laugh but please see the importance of this. You won’t seek a leader who is clear because he will tell you to look to your own confusion, not to escape in your confusion: he will see the cause of confusion in yourself. But you do not want that, you want a leader who will lead you out of confusion. Because your mind is confused, you will seek one who is also confused. How can a confused mind seek anything but confusion? A mind that is confused must have a leader who is also confused and this is very important to understand. Therefore all leaders are inevitably confused because you create him out of your confusion. When you realise this fact, you will not seek a leader. Then you will become responsible for clearing your own confusion and therefore you would not look for a leader. It is only a confused man that does not know how to act seeks a leader who will help him to act. The leader is also confused and that is why leaders are disintegrating factor in your lives. Because the leader is projected out of your own confusion, therefore he is yourself in a different form, as your Governments are. It is self-projection that creates the leader: a national hero is yourself exemplified externally. What you are or what you want to be so your leader is. Therefore, such a leader cannot bring you out of your chaos. The resolution of the chaos lies in your own hands, not in the hands of another. Regeneration comes in understanding yourself, not following somebody, when that somebody is yourself with greater power of words, equally confused, equally tyrannical, equally traditional. So the problem is then not the leader, but how to eradicate the confusion. Can another help you in removing confusion? If you seek another to remove the confusion, he can only help you to strengthen your confusion because a confused man can never choose that which is capable, since it is confusion it can only choose that which is confused. If you wish radically to get rid of confusion you will set your own mind and heart in order: then you will consider the causes that bring about confusion. I have no time to go into that. Confusion arises only when there is no self-knowledge. When I do not know myself and do not know what to do or what to think, naturally I am caught in the whirlwind of confusion. But when I know myself, the whole total process of myself which is extraordinarily simple if you have the intention to know yourself, then out of that understanding comes clarity and out of that understanding comes conduct and right behaviour. To understand oneself then is of highest importance, not [to] follow the leader. To understand oneself bring that quality, that love, that brings order. Chaos exists only in relationship to something and as long as I do not understand that relationship there must be confusion and to understand that relationship is to understand myself and to understand myself is to bring about that quality of love which there is well-being. If I know how to love my wife, children or neighbour I know how to love everyone. Since I do not love the one I merely am on intellectual or verbal level with humanity. The idealist is a bore: he loves humanity with the brain, he does not love with his heart. When you love there is no leader necessary. It is the emptiness of heart that seeks a leader to fill that emptiness with words, with the ideology, with Utopia in the future. In the present there is only love, not in the future. In the present, in the now, alone, is eternity, not in time and love is its own eternity.