Public Talk 5, Rajghat, 10 January 1962

Krishnamurti: … the other day about conflict and how conflict invariably dulls the mind. And I would like to approach that same problem from a different angle, because it seems to me that most of us have ideas which are much more important, much more significance than the actuality. We live in a world of ideas, totally divorced from the fact, and we’re always trying to bridge the fact to the idea. And one of the causes of conflict is this attempt to approximate the fact to the idea. Why is it that ideas, concepts, formulations have become so extraordinarily important? If you observe yourself, you will discover that ideas, the ‘what should be’, the intellectual concepts, the intellectual formulations are much more rigorous, much more important than the actual living, than the actual fact of what is taking place. If you observe yourself, you are bound to find out in what manner they have usurped the whole field of thought. And as we are not dealing with ideas, because these talks are not at all concerned with ideas; we are concerned with the understanding of the fact which is life, with all its sorrow, misery, confusion, ambitions, fears, with its death and joys, with its deception and corruption — you know? – life. We are trying to understand that, not in terms of ideas but actually how to understand life and see if we cannot be free of those travails that give us such anxiety, make us feel so guilty, and wipe away fear. That’s what I would like to discuss this evening, if I may.

You see, why do ideas take root in the mind? Why do not facts become all-important, not ideas? Why do theories, ideals, the ‘what should be’ become so significant rather than the fact? Is it that we cannot understand the fact, or have not the capacity, or afraid of facing the fact, therefore ideas, speculations, theories are a means of escape away from the fact? Do please apply this to yourself, not just listen to what is being said. What is being said is no value at all, but it has value — at least, it seems to me — when one can apply it to oneself and experience the things that are being said by directly observing oneself, otherwise these talks will be utterly empty, without much meaning. So do please give a little attention to that.

Is it that we are incapable of facing facts and therefore ideas at all levels of existence offer an escape? And the fact cannot be altered; do what you will, the fact is there; you may run away, you may do all kinds of things. The fact that one is angry, the fact that one is ambitious, the fact that one is sexual, a dozen things, they are there. You may suppress them, you may transmute them — which is another form of suppression — you may control them, but they are all suppressed, controlled, disciplined in the… with ideas. And is it possible not to live with ideas at all but with facts only? And do not ideas waste our energy? Do not ideas dull the mind? You may be clever in speculation, in quotation, but it is obviously a very dull mind that quotes, that has read a lot and quotes.

And is it possible to live all the time, every minute with fact? I do not know if you ever tried to do that — the fact of what actually is, and therefore no contradiction. I don’t know if you… You remove the conflict of the opposite at one stroke if you live with the fact and therefore liberate energy to face the fact. Because for most of us contradiction is an extraordinary field in which the mind is caught: I want to do this and I do something entirely different. But if I face the fact of wanting to do this, there is no contradiction and therefore at one stroke I abolish altogether all sense of the opposite and therefore my mind then is completely concerned with *what is* and the understanding of *what is*.

Say, for instance, most of us have fear of some form or another. We’re not concerned of what one is afraid; we’re not talking of that, but of fear itself, not fear of death, or fear of your wife or husband, fear of losing a job, fear of so many things. I’m not talking of that. We are talking of fear. Is it possible to live with the fact of fear and therefore not escape from it and create the opposite and thereby dull the mind in conflict? And has one the capacity to live with fear, and does capacity come through time? Is capacity to face a fact a matter of development, of time? You…? Am I making the question clear? I have to face fear, the fact. And when I face fear, I’ve pushed aside all conflict of the opposite. And will the actual facing fear develop its own capacity, rather than my developing capacity to face it? You are…? If I may I will go into it a little bit.

Fear is an extraordinary thing. Most of us are afraid of something or other. Fear creates illusion; fear makes us suspicious, arrogant; fear makes us seek all kinds of refuge in all kinds of stupid virtues, moralities. And I want to face fear, face it and not escape from it. Now, what is this, being aware of the fact? The fact is fear; there is the awareness of it: what does this awareness mean? Any choice, not to be afraid, or to say this should not be but that should be, which is all choice, is denied the moment I face the fact. So awareness is a state of facing a fact in which there is no choice. Awareness is that state of mind which observes without any condemnation; to observe something without condemnation or accepting it, or evaluating it; merely faces the thing as it is. As you look at a flower non-botanically, then you see the totality of the flower, but if your mind is completely taken up with the botanical knowledge of what the flower is, you’re not totally looking at the flower. Though you may have knowledge of the flower, if that knowledge takes the whole ground of your mind, the whole field of your mind, then you’re not looking totally at the flower.

So to look at a fact is to be aware. In that awareness there is no choice, no condemnation, no like or dislike. But most of us are incapable of doing this, because traditionally, occupationally, in every way, we have been brought up to condemn, to approve, to justify, so that’s our background. To look at something without the background is to face the fact. But as we are not capable of facing the fact without the background, we have to be aware of the background. We have to be aware of our conditioning, and that conditioning shows itself when we observe the fact. And as you are concerned with the observation of the fact and not with the background, then the background is pushed aside. If there is the main interest to understand the fact only, and the background prevents you from understanding the fact, then the vital interest in the fact wipes away the background. If I’m interested completely in fear, then I neither condemn it nor justify it; there is fear, I want to go into it. No background, no ideation will interfere with it because my interest is in the understanding of fear.

Now, what is fear? You understand? You’ve followed what I… ? Please, we are not dealing with ideas, with words. We are dealing with life, with the things that are happening inside and outside, which needs a very sharp, clear mind, precise mind. You can’t be sentimental, emotional about all these things. And to understand fear you need a clarity, clarity not of something that you will get, but the clarity that comes when you understand that the fact is infinitely more important than any idea. So what is fear? Not fear of something; is there such thing as fear *per se*, in itself, or is fear related always to something? And is there fear — I’ll take death for the moment; it doesn’t matter, you can supply your own example — is there fear if there is no thought; that is, if there is no time? I am afraid of death, as most people are. However much they might have rationalized it away, whatever their beliefs might be, there is fear. Is fear of death, is that fear caused by time – not by death – by time? Time being the interval between now and what’s going to happen, which is the process of thinking, which brings about the fear of the unknown. Is it the fear of the unknown or leaving the things that we know? You…?

We say we are afraid of death — I’m not talking of death or what happens after death; if we have time, we’ll talk about it another time — we are talking of fear in relation to death. And I say is there fear… is fear caused by the thing which I do not know? Because obviously I don’t know about death. I can know about death, but that’s not the point now. I can investigate, discover the whole beauty or the ugliness or the terror, or the extraordinary state death must be, I can discover that. If we have time, we can go into it later. But is the fear caused by death, which means facing the unknown, or the things which I know are going to be taken away from me? So the fear is of the things being taken away from me, the *me* disappearing in some… oblivion, and so I begin to protect myself of the things I know, and live in it more strongly, cling to them much more, than become aware of the unknown. I don’t know if you’re following all this. Now, what is it I know? I’m afraid of being… of not facing the unknown, but facing something which may happen to me when I’m taken away from all the things which I held dear, which are close to me; that’s what I am afraid of, not of death. Now, what is it that I have, that I am actually – factually, not theoretically – what is it?

I do not know if you have ever asked yourself a fundamental question to find out what you are. Don’t translate it in terms of the Gita, or some other guru, some other… those are all stupid nonsense. But actually what you are, have you ever asked it, and have you found an answer? And is there an answer? And if there is an answer, it is in terms of what you already know, but what you know is the past, and the past is time, and the time is not you. The *you* is changing. I don’t know if you’re following all this. To find out what you are, if you say, ‘What am I?’ either you’re asking to find out the *I* that is static and therefore you can say, ‘I know. I am this.’ You can only know of something which is static; you can’t know something which is living. I don’t know if you’ve thought about this. You can speculate about the living; you can have ideas about the living and approximate the living with the idea and therefore introduce conflict. But if you say, ‘I want to know what I am,’ is that question put in order to find out for yourself the static *me*, or is there a *me* at all which is not static. Right? You’re following…?

Please, this is not a philosophical lecture, highfaluting stuff. Either I put that question to find out what I am, and to find out what I am is always in the past — I don’t… – the *me* is always the past, therefore I can only put the question and inquire into something static. And through the thing that is dead, static, the past, I hope to find out what I am, and so fear never goes away. I don’t know if you’re following all this. But fear goes away the moment I put that question and watch myself all the time, not direct my attention to the past but to actually what’s taking place, which is the *me*, including which is the *me* alive, and therefore the thing that is alive never engenders fear. It is the thing that’s past or the thing that should be that breeds fear.

You know, let’s look at fear the other way, in a different direction. There is the word and the thing. The word *tree* is not the tree. We’ll keep it very simply like that; we can complicate it but we’ll use only one symbol. The word *tree* is not the actual tree, but to us the word is the tree. So we must be able to see clearly that the word is not the thing. Please, this is important as… to go into this question of fear. Now, the word *fear* — the word — is not the actual state which is called fear; that’s a different emotion, a sentiment, all kinds of… but the word is not it. And why has word, like the Gita, like the… — I don’t know what – communist, etc., why has that become important and not the thing? Why? The thing called fear is not the word, and yet we are caught in words — why? Because symbol — symbol — not the fact, is an idea, and the idea becomes much more important than the fact because ideas you can play with; you can’t play with the fact. So we are slaves to words, like *the supreme being*, like *God*. If I want to find out if there is a God, obviously word must go, and with it all authority, all the saints, and all the people. I must completely destroy the word, otherwise I can’t find out. And a man who says there is God or no God, or who is caught in words, will never find. So in understanding fear there must be an awareness of the word and all the content of the word, which means can the mind be free of word? And to be free of the word is an extraordinary state. And then, being aware of the symbol, the word, the name, then there is an awareness of the fact at a different dimension, if I can use that word. You…? Am I…?

Now I am aware of the fact of fear through the word, and I know why the word comes into being: it’s an escape, it is tradition, it is the background in which I have been brought up to deny fear and to develop courage and all the rest of it, the opposite. And when I understand the whole complication of word, then there is an awareness of the fact which is entirely different. In that awareness is there fear? So to unravel — which is really self-knowing — is the process of freeing the mind from everything except the fact. And that’s part of meditation because if you don’t understand all the implications of fear or ambition, and try merely to meditate – you know? – repeating some silly words that have no meaning, it leads to illusion; it’s not rational, it’s not sanity. So facing the fact all the time without idea is like the river; into the river the city throws everything in, all the chemicals, all the dirt, all the sewer, everything goes into the river as it passes by. And three miles away from the river, the river has purified itself. The very movement of the river has cleansed it. In the same way, the mind cleanses itself all the time if it is facing the fact, if it lives with the fact and nothing else, and therefore there is no contradiction and therefore no conflict in contradiction, which is escape from contradiction and therefore there is no opposite: violence/non-violence. If I live with violence and understand completely violence, what need there be for the opposite? And as the river is always purifying itself, so a mind that faces the fact all the time. And to face the fact you need tremendous energy, and that energy is begotten when there is no conflict of the opposites, when there is no effort made to become something.

So a mind that is facing fact has no discipline, because the very fact disciplines the mind, it is not imposed upon the mind. Oh, I don’t know if you see all this, if you see the beauty of such living with fact; because you cannot go far, and one has to go very, very far, further than the moon in a rocket, to go within oneself. And you cannot go very far, as an arrow flies straight, if the basis is not laid, if there is no right foundation. And the right foundation is the fact and not idea, and then you can fly, then the mind can fly, always in a straight direction, not in illusion.

Achyut Patwardhan*:* Sir, as you said, it is the background that prevents us from seeing the fact. If the background itself becomes the fact which you are trying to see, but when you… (inaudible) background, perception is hindered. Could you throw some light?

Krishnamurti: The question is, when you’re looking at the fact, your background, your conditioning, your Hinduism, your Christianity, your scientific training or education, whatever it is, interferes, and so the fact is the background and not the fact that you are trying to understand. I don’t know if you see that. I want to understand ambition; that’s a fact. I’m ambitious; you are — I’m not, sir (laughs) — you are ambitious and that’s the fact. You want to look at it, but your whole background, your training, your society, your culture, everything is, ‘What would happen if you are not ambitious?’ So there is the fact that you are ambitious, and there is the other fact of your tradition, of your conditioning. Now, the conflict is between these two facts, isn’t it? The fact A, which is the actuality and also the fact B, which is your conditioning, which is also an actuality, but if you want to understand A, you must understand B, surely. So your whole attention is not on A but on B. Right?

Now, how is one to understand the background? You understand? This is really a very complex question because it involves not only the conscious, modern, educated mind – the mind that has become the clerk, the governor, the bureaucrat, the professor, the money-maker, all the rest of it — but also the mind which is the unconscious mind, the deep down, the hidden mind. You’re following all this, sir? Right, sir? So that is… the whole of that is the conditioned mind which is the past. Our concern is with B, not with A, and to understand B, I must go into the whole question of consciousness. Consciousness is not something you discover in the books because it is merely an idea in the book. Somebody says it’s assertion, somebody else says it’s so, somebody’s ideas. It may be his actual experience, and when he writes it down, it is an idea, and you to follow that idea and obey that idea prevents you from discovering your own state of consciousness. You’re following all this? So you have to find out what you are, what your consciousness is; not according to somebody else, but actually. I’m going to do it; not that you’re going to listen to my ideas, but we are going to go into it verbally, but you actually. I’m going into it verbally, but you do it actually – you understand, sir? — I am going to use words, but the word is not the thing. And the thing is for you to face the fact, and the fact is your own consciousness, not of Shankara’s, Buddha’s, mine, or X, Y, Z, that has no value at all. If that’s clear, let’s go into it.

Q*:* (Inaudible)… what I am… (inaudible)?

K: I’m doing it; I’m going… Sir, I’m… Please, I’m doing exactly… I’m answering your question exactly, if you’d kindly follow what I’m saying. You see, we don’t… we are occupied with our own questions, with our own thoughts, with our own problems. Sir, do follow this; your questions will be answered. We are dealing with life, not with my assertion of life, with my point of view. I have no point of view; I’ve no ideas. There is consciousness; what is it, your consciousness? Please follow yourself, your own mind in operation, not my mind. We see, obviously, that there are certain levels of mind, consciousness, which are the educated, the modern educated mind, the contemporary mind, the mind that is caught in knowledge, in specialization, in technique, in understanding how to live in this world at the present time – going to office, doing business with all the trickery, the knavery, the corruption — that’s one level. And you have to do that because otherwise you can’t live. Then there is below that. First of all, there is no division between the conscious and the unconscious. We divide it only for convenience. In actuality, there is no such division; it is an interplay all the time going on between the conscious and the unconscious.

The unconscious and the conscious are receiving innumerable experiences all the time; innumerable influences. But one segment of the mind has said, ‘I must be educated,’ and has educated itself in order to live in the present world at the present time, but there… the other parts of the mind, other parts of consciousness, which is the result of our race, the race being your traditions, the things that must be done, the things that must not be done, the ideas, the things that you have been told — all that is the past, hidden in the unconscious. Please, you are listening to my words but actually seeing it in yourself. The unconscious is the mechanism of habit; the unconscious is the mechanism of motive; it is where all our experiences are stored away, the experiences of the race, of man, of the experiences as a Hindu, as a Buddhist, as a Catholic, or what you will; the experiences that have been accumulated as knowledge, hidden deeply inside; the fears. I won’t go into detail; you can see; that will take too long; there are other things to talk about, too.

So there is this… you see, there is this consciousness, and the moment there is a past, it has boundaries — you understand, sir? – it has a framework the moment it is caught in the past — the past, all that which we have now described. Now, that whole background prevents you from looking at the fact. So we have to look into that background and dissipate that background. Is it possible? You’re following all this? Some say you cannot dissipate it at all, some kind of psychologists, those who think they are atheists, and those who think there is God equally feel that it cannot be dissolved; all that can be done is only to decorate the background, to give it more education, to modify it, to control it, to shape it. Now, how is one to be rid of the past, which is consciousness? The experiences of yesterday shape today, obviously, and so condition tomorrow, isn’t it? I’ve had an experience yesterday of being insulted or praised, and that conditions my thinking now, and when I meet you tomorrow, that shapes my thinking with regard to you — you…? — so, the past uses the present and becomes the future.

Now, to understand the fact, I must look at it without the background, obviously. Is this possible? You understand what I’m saying? And the fact won’t remain as a fact; it’s moving, living. And to understand it I must move with it; my mind must be as rapid, as swift, as subtle, as sensitive as the fact. And that… it is not so if I have a background, if it is conditioned. Please follow all this. So the background must be surgically operated immediately to follow the fact. Right? So there is no time to investigate into the background.

AP*:* (Inaudible)… the background… (inaudible).

K: Yes sir… Yes sir; obviously.

AP: At that time… (inaudible) something which… (inaudible) because it is in contact with the background with the fact which brings… (inaudible) so the proximity is not… (inaudible) to the background… (inaudible) that creates… (inaudible).

K: I don’t… Just a minute, Achyutji, let’s get the ideas first right; get… the words which you are using I haven’t understood. You say the background in relationship with the fact brings a tendency — let’s keep to that simple formula — the fact in relationship with the background brings out a tendency – is that so? I don’t quite understand it.

AP: (Inaudible)… background is very rich, it’s very varied. Now, one aspect of that background comes… (inaudible) by the contact of the fact and the background… (inaudible).

K: I’m afraid I don’t quite understand it, sir. Look, you’re saying this, are you? I’m not saying you’re saying it. I’m just asking you. The background has enormous history; the background is the story of all mankind, not only mankind of India, but of all mankind, which is part of India. India… the Indian background is modified but it’s the background of humanity. Right. You are saying, if that enormous history or story is wiped away, there is nothing left — one fact. And there is this enormous history, story which gives colour to the fact, otherwise the fact is barren. Is that it? Wait sir, let’s take that up; let’s take that up. I’m not quite sure you’ve gone so far; it doesn’t matter, I’ll take it. As far as I understand, part of the question is this: the background is our history; the background is all the mythology, the story, the experience of mankind, and that is very rich, and being very rich it’s also crooked, like every rich man is a crooked man. And that richness, however slightly perverse it is, distorts the fact, obviously.

I don’t say that the background is not rich; it is very rich, but being rich it must distort. Look, sir, there is ten thousand years of Gita or more — I don’t know, it doesn’t matter, date — and that has conditioned your mind, your thinking. You believe in discipline — that has told you, or some other book or guru has told you that you must discipline yourself, and ten thousand, million of people have done this, and it has left a tremendous history behind. Right. Somebody like me comes along and says, ‘Look, discipline is not necessary. Live with the fact, and the fact will discipline; you don’t have to discipline yourself to look at the fact’ – which is entirely different, because looking at the fact eliminates contradiction and therefore conflict and therefore duality. You’ve followed that much? Therefore he says, ‘Look at the fact,’ but your background says, ‘Oh, that’s impossible.’ Shankara, Buddha, your guru, Gita, everybody says, ‘Discipline, discipline, discipline,’ s o you are not looking, nor are you listening to what another is saying. Whereas you have to see your background and see whether it is true or false. If it is false, cut it with a surgeon’s knife and not have a thing to do with it, wipe it away and see if this is so. But you cannot see if this is so if you still have a background of discipline. Surely that’s very clear, isn’t it?

So your mind is the result of ten thousand years and more, or million years, I don’t know how many of them. I’m not talking of reincarnation. As a mind, the result of man living on earth, and that mind has tremendous history of experience, and you can’t wipe that mind away. But when that mind interferes in the discovery of what is true, then that mind has no relationship to what you may discover. You’re following this? Sir, there is scientific knowledge; it would be absurd and silly and stupid to wipe away all that knowledge, but a scientist who wants to discover something new can’t be burdened with it. He knows that knowledge is there, but he’s free of it to inquire. I don’t know if you’re following this. It’s so simple. In the same way, if I want to inquire into the whole process of fear, I have to cut away everything to find out the whole process, to inquire and go into it, because what I have acquired, apparently, has not solved your problem of fear: you are still afraid. Have I somewhat answered your question, sir, or not?

Q: (Inaudible).

K: Just a minute, sir; just a minute.

Q*:* Sir, is the fact different from the mind that… (inaudible).?

K: Is the fact different from the mind that interferes.

Q: (Inaudible).

K: Ah, is the fact different from…

Q: The many interferences of mind.

K: I understand; I understand; I understand. The lady asks is the fact different from the interferences. Right? Now, just a minute; watch it carefully. Do think it out, sirs, don’t rely… I’m not the Delphic oracle. Think it out; let’s think it out. Is the fact different from the interferences? Are they not all in the same field, on the same ground? Is not the fact part of the mind? I’m jealous — it’s part of the mind, and also it is part of the mind that says, ‘Don’t be jealous; be virtuous,’ whatever it is. ‘Jealousy is hate, so you must love, therefore wipe out jealousy.’ You follow? I am jealous, and part of the interference is that I must not be jealous — right? — they are both within the same field, aren’t they? No? Right? They are not… outside… the fact is not outside the field of the mind; it’s still within the field of the mind, as interference is still within the field of the mind. Right? Now, but with us the interferences have become tremendously strong and important, and they interfere with the fact. Right? We have emphasized the interferences and not the fact.

Now, is it possible not to allow the interferences at all to come into play when I’m looking at the fact? I say it is possible only when you have understood the whole question of interference. Right? Are you following? Right? No? I understand the difficulty. You see, the question is this: there is the fact, there is interference, and there is the attempt to understand the interference. Right? Now, the fact – interference and the urge to understand the interference in order to face the fact. This arises only when I want to face the fact. Right? If I allowed interferences to play all the time, as I do, then there is no fact; I live with the interferences. You’re following? I have said face the fact, don’t let the interferences interfere, and be aware of the interferences. Right? So there are three problems: the fact, interference, and be aware of the interference. Right? Now you say to me, ‘Are not all the three in the same field?’ And they are; they are not separate… in separated watertight compartments; they are all in the same field, in the same ground. Right? Watch it. Please follow this carefully. You are listening because you put the question.

Experiment with this, which is, to be totally aware of all this — you…? – aware of the fact, aware of the interference and aware there is no understanding of the fact if there is interference. Be totally aware of all that: aware of the significance, the meaning of the three. You’re getting it? Because in that total awareness there is no division. As I explained the other day, when there is attention there is no distraction. It’s only when there is concentration there is distraction, because concentration is exclusion. Now, to be totally aware of these three is to be attentive without the borders. Right? And so what happens? So what happens? Psychologically what takes place when you are aware of the whole three… — not… — when there is an awareness of the total thing: the fact, interference, and the understanding of the interference? Have you gone that far?

Q*:* Sir, is fear something natural or it is an acquired (inaudible)?

K: Now, sir, when you meet a snake — please be quick with it — when you meet a snake, you jump. That’s a natural self-protective fear. Without that you’d be run over by a car, by a taxi, by a bus, killed by a snake so… it’s a natural thing, don’t… but all the others are unnatural: psychological desires to be secure and all the rest of it. Ah, we’ve taken away.

Q: (Inaudible).

K: That’s just… that’s what I’m coming to. When you are totally aware of the fact, interference, and having understood, or the desire to understand interference which will not interfere with the fact, then I say when you are totally aware of all this, totally attentive — to all this, not to just one — what happens? Then is there the fact… does the fact remain then, the fact that you are afraid? I don’t know… You see, please don’t… it would be absurd if you accepted my word. We have come thus far by questioning. I have questioned, and you are merely accepting the… the result is absolutely worthless. It’s like a hungry man being fed on words, he still remains hungry. But if you have really followed inwardly, you are bound to come to this position that there is the fact, interference, and the urge to understand the interference in order to complete the fact. I say when you are totally aware of all these three and all their significance, and not merely concentrate on the fact or on the interference or on understanding the interference, when you are aware of the three, then is there a fact? Is there jealousy, envy? I say there is not. Obviously there is no… you have wiped away every form of envy and jealousy.

Now, sir, you see, this is real meditation, because without this, without the fact ceasing to be, the fact of jealousy, envy, completely ceasing to be, how can you go very far? How can you find something which is not measurable, which is beyond time? For you to find it, not for Shankara, Buddha, or X, Y, Z — that has no meaning; that’s too stupid to rely on somebody else’s assertion. But if you want to find out if there is or if there is not, you must go through this; you must be totally free of fear. And to be totally free, completely free of fear, you must face the fact that you are afraid, and the fact also that you are conditioned, which interferes with the fact, and the urge to get rid of the background in order to understand the fact. To be totally aware of all this is the beginning of meditation, not sitting on the banks of the Ganga and repeating a lot of stupid phrases and all the rest of the nonsense, piffle that goes on in the name of meditation. Because this… you must lay the right foundation, otherwise your building will totter; it has no meaning; it can’t remain straight.

And what we have done this evening is the inquiry into oneself in which there is no assumption of any kind, not saying there is an atman, or no atman, or it is permanent, impermanent… You have wiped away all that, and therefore beginning to find out for yourself. So self-knowing, as we did, is the beginning of meditation. And you can go infinitely, endlessly into this marvellous thing called meditation if you have the right foundation, otherwise you get lost, you’re caught in visions and excitements and sensations and all kinds of absurdities, which have no validity for a man who is seeking. Then you will find, if you’ve gone so far, that not only you are moving with fact all the time and therefore the ending of fact all the time, and thereby your mind then becomes astonishingly supple, extraordinarily sensitive, and that is an absolute basis for meditation. Then you will find out, if you have gone into it, that your mind then is… — not… – then your brain becomes astonishingly sensitive, therefore very quiet. You understand, sir?

A brain that is sensitive is very quiet. It’s like a most delicate instrument, every breath moves it but it is quiet, it’s sensitive. You must have a brain that is completely quiet, uncontrolled, because the moment you control it, you have shaped it, and therefore lost sensitivity. And it’s only when the brain is completely quiet, uninfluenced, un-drugged, not disciplined, not controlled in order to achieve a still brain, which is all immature, utterly vain, and has no meaning. It’s only when the brain is completely still, then you will find out whether there is or whether there is not; and the movement beyond that. And there is a movement beyond that, and that movement is creation, is God, whatever you like to call it — it’s irrelevant what name; you can call it biscuit — and it is that movement that is necessary in this world at the present moment, because we are becoming machines, scientific or technological or specialized machines. And a mechanical brain, do you think it’s going to find anything?

Q*:* (Inaudible).

K: Yes sir; I understood, sir. The gentleman says he finds it extremely difficult to… not to let the word be the thing – that’s right, sir?

Q: Yes.

K: Sir, why is it difficult? Is the door which you see there, the word *door*, is that word not different from the thing?

Q*:* (Inaudible).

K: I’m never?

Q*:* (Inaudible).

K: The gentleman says he never forgets the word, the word is never absent; it’s always there. Why? For most people it is so. The word is there, not the thing. Why? Well, sirs? Psychologically you can see very simply why it has become so important: the word is a means of escape from the fact. Jealousy, envy — let’s use that word *envy*, take envy — the word is not the thing, and the word *envy* has become extraordinarily important to us. Psychologically, inwardly, we don’t know what to do with envy; it’s respectable. All our social structure is based on envy. Our education from the childhood up to whatever you are… reach, is still based on envy, and envy is the symbol of position, authority. Psychologically we all want all that, and the symbol, that thing has become respectable, popular, means success, position, power, and all the rest of it, and so we avoid the envy but worship the symbol, the word.

Q*:* (Inaudible)… one possibility… (inaudible).

K: Yes sir.

Q: (Inaudible).

K: Yes. The gentleman says there are two states with regard to envy: one is completely oblivious of envy, one doesn’t know one is envious, and if one lives in that state, obviously it leads to insanity, ill health. Then, if one is aware of it, if one recognizes there is envy. Then, sir?

Q*:* (Inaudible).

K: Ah. If one is not aware, as most people are, that one functions, one motive power, the drive is envy, if one is not conscious, as most people are, then that leads to mental illness, but when one becomes conscious of it, then the whole mechanism of thought is set going, and the mechanism of thought is verbal making — the word *making*. Thought is the structure of words, so to look at the thing without the word. All these are explanations but they don’t satisfy the hungry man. The hungry man says, ‘Give me food.’ That is, he investigates into himself and sees whether he is conscious or unconscious of his envy, which might breed illness, as it does with most people, or when he becomes conscious, how he begins to verbalize, how he builds a structure of words, which becomes the thought, which opposes the fact.

Don’t you think we’d better stop?

Q: With your permission… (inaudible).

K: You have no need to ask my permission, sir; you can ask anything you like.

Q*:* (Inaudible)?

K: No sir, sorry.

Q*:* (Inaudible).

K: Ah, no; sorry, sir. You asked… The gentleman says will you please let him talk for a few minutes. I said no. Wait just a minute, sir. You know, we are here so that you can ask me questions; it’s not them, sir.

Q: Okay; as you please.

K: Ah, not as I please.

Q*:* (Inaudible).

K: What, sir?

Q*:* You said that… (inaudible).

K: I did not say that.

Q: (Inaudible).

K: Sir, either you don’t know English or you haven’t heard. I did not say God did not exist.

Q*:* (Inaudible).

K: What, sir?

Q*:* Will you please tell me… (inaudible) purpose of your saying that there is no God… (inaudible)?

K: I did not say there is no God. I said very definitely, sir, to find if there is a God or no God, you must abolish, wipe away from your mind all concept of God.

Q*:* (Inaudible).

K: What, sir?

Q*:* You said that… (inaudible).

K: I did not say, sir. Oh*, nom d’un chien.*

Q: (Inaudible).

K: I did not say that, sir.

Q*:* Sir, I think you said that we should concentrate on the fact.

K: On?

Q*:* I mean… (inaudible).

K: Concentrate on?

Q: We should concentrate on the fact that… (inaudible).

K: I did not say that, sir. I said…

Q*:* (Inaudible)… you said that we should make our minds… (inaudible).

K: I am sorry, sir, you haven’t listened to all the things that I’ve said the whole hour and a half. You’ll forgive me, sir, if I say that you have not listened. Not that I’m reproaching you. It’s a free country and a free hall, you can come in and go. But you haven’t listened to what was said. What was said was very simple, that to find if there is, if there is not God, you must wipe away all the information that you have received about God. And the people who have given you information might be mistaken. You have to find out for yourself, and to find out for yourself, you must get rid of all authority.

Q*:* Now, how should we do that? I mean… (inaudible)?

K: How do you do it? I’ve explained, sir. You have to understand the whole structure of… the anatomy of authority, where authority of the policeman, the government plays part, where the authority of the guru plays a part, where the authority of your own desires play a part. Without understanding all this, merely to seek what you call God has no meaning at all.

Q*:* (Inaudible).

K: One more; the last question.

Q: (Inaudible).

K: Delighted, sir.

Q*:* (Inaudible).

K: Oh, no, no, no.

Q: (Inaudible).

K: Yes sir, I know this argument, sir. I know this argument: ‘We believe there is London. None of us have been to London; few of us have been. In the same way, most of us believe that there is God. What is the difference?’ That’s all the gentleman is saying.

Q*:* (Inaudible).

K: London?

(Laughter)

Q*:* (Inaudible).

K: Oh, not at all, sir. Any school boy knows all that.

Q*:* (Inaudible).

K: Oh, not at all, sir. You can say what you like.

Q*:* (Inaudible).

K: That’s same thing, sir. Why don’t you deny London, and why do you deny God. I never denied God. It would be too stupid on my part to deny New York or London, because I’ve been there. But I say God — sir, just listen, sir – God is something extraordinary; it must be something — if it is or if it is not — it must be something amazing, not imagined by some minds or belief; you have to find it; you have to find it. I don’t say there is or there is not. You have to find it. To find it, you must be free first.

Q*:* (Inaudible).

K: That’s right, sir. Full stop.

Q*:* (Inaudible).

K: No sir; please, sir…

Q: (Inaudible).

K: No, excuse me, sir, it’s too late…

Q*:* (Inaudible)… who can explain it to us, who can show it to us through the…

(End of mp3)

K: There is London; it is a fact, a physical fact. It is the same thing with a physical fact which can be examined by a microscope. You believe in God because you have been brought up in that belief. The communist does not believe in God; he says there are only physical phenomena which are explicable.