Krishnamurti Subtitles home


MA8384Q1 - 1st Question & Answer Meeting
Madras (Chennai), India - 3 January 1984
Public Question & Answer 1



0:09 Krishnamurti: We have got a whole basket full of questions. I don't think we shall be able to answer all of them. Perhaps it will take a few weeks to answer them. So we have chosen some of the questions. I haven't seen them before, but the questions have been chosen so we will answer them. First of all, I would like to ask, if I may, why do we put questions at all? And to whom do we put the questions? Do you expect another to answer one's questions? Or do we put the questions to ourselves and try to find the right answer? To find the right answer, one cannot have prejudices, convictions, some extravagant or friendly convictions. So one must, if one asks questions, and one must, is the answer is more important than the question, or does the answer lie in the understanding of the depth of the question? What do you say to it? The understanding of the question itself is the answer. Are we all rather early, too early in the morning? So I am asking, if I may, is the question more important than the answer? If the answer lies in the question then what is important is to understand the depth of the question and not try to find an answer of the question, rather, investigate the question itself. So we are going to do that. Please, don't expect the speaker to answer the questions but rather together investigate the question. And in the investigation or exploration of that question, the answer is there, not outside the question. I hope I am making oneself quite clear.
3:47 Question 1: If there are no ideals, one cannot deal adequately with the psychological crises and the resultant social conflict. And how can mere individuals change or affect the whole?
4:15 If there are no ideals, one cannot deal adequately with the psychological crises and the resultant social conflict. And how can mere individuals change or affect the whole?
4:47 Waiting for me to answer this? Why do we have ideals at all? Is it a means of avoiding the present and therefore giving importance to the future, or do ideals actually guide us? That is the implication, one of the implications in the question of ideals, why we have ideals. Most of us do, unfortunately. What is more important, it seems to one, is what is actually going on in our own consciousness, in our own behaviour, in our own attitudes and so on. If I have an ideal, a direction, then the direction, the ideal becomes far more important doesn't it, than the actual. We are together in this. You and the speaker are investigating the question together. The speaker is not answering the question, but together, if you will, a nice, quiet, not too noisy morning – fortunately they have stopped all that racket that goes on, so we can talk over together this idea, this concept of having ideals. You have ideals, many of them, and they actually don't affect our daily living. We like to have these ideals affecting our lives, but actually they have no value at all, because it is nice to think we have marvellous ideals, marvellous utopian ideals, communist, socialist and religious ideals, capitalist ideals, ideals of a nation, a group, and you know, the whole network of ideals. And as they have no direct influence or direct relationship with our daily life, one doesn't see the point of having them at all. It is nice to dream about something, imagine a lot of lovely things in life, but life is much more complex, much more important than the projection of ideals which are brought about by thought.
8:12 Are we together so far? So can we put away our ideals and face actual facts? Facts being that which has happened before, which has happened previously, and that which is happening now. Those are facts. The future is not a fact. The future may affect, may be shaped by the present, but the present is the fact. So could we forget the future, which is the ideal, 'what should be', the goal, the purpose? All that implies a motive and motive means a movement, movement in a particular direction. So you have already established the direction towards which you are going, which is your ideal, and therefore you are not facing the present. I don't know if you follow all this. Is this a little too complex? And it is one of the factors in life that all through history, from the Greek and the ancient people, these ideals have existed. The Greeks have principles, ideals. These ideals have existed for millennia, and we are still slave to them. So can one be free of ideals, that is, the future, and face the present, which is the fact?
10:34 I am unhappy and I want to be happy, I am dull but I want to be clever, bright. I don't examine why I am unhappy, what are the causes of disturbance. That is a fact, what are the causes, but if I have an ideal that I must be happy, the future is still unhappiness – I don't know if you understand – because I have not investigated the causes of my unhappiness. And when the cause can be changed, as causes can be put aside or demolished or understood, then the change takes place. Unless the cause has been understood, merely the pursuit of happiness has no meaning. I wonder if you are meeting all this. Am I working for you or are you working together? Would you kindly tell me? Is the speaker working for you, thinking, looking at it all, or we are thinking together, looking at it together? If we are thinking together, the questioner asks: if there are no ideals can one adequately, clearly act when there is a psychological crisis? If there are no ideals, no direction – this is very complex – no direction, which means no motive, can one deal then with the psychological crises that arise in our daily life?
13:05 What are crises? What would you call a problem, a challenge? Crises are the product of our past inadequate attention. A crisis, a problem, a challenge – how do we face them? That is more important, surely, than the crisis. How we face a crisis, how we look at a problem. Right? Would you agree to that? How we approach a problem. If I have a problem and I want that problem to be solved in a particular way, then I am not meeting the problem. I want that problem to be solved in my way, for my comfort, for my selfishness, for my wellbeing both psychologically and physically. So isn't it important to find out how we approach a problem? Not the problem but our coming near it. Approach means come near. How do we approach it? Do we approach it with a brain that has already been conditioned to solve problems? You understand? May we go into it? Though perhaps you have heard this before in the talks, may we again repeat it without too much boredom? From childhood we are trained to solve problems. The whole educational system is to solve problems – mathematical problems, scientific problems, biological problems, architectural problems. So our brain is conditioned to solve problems. So, the brain is already conditioned to the resolution of problems. It is not free to solve problems, it is conditioned to solve problems. I wonder, is this clear? Don't say yes. A problem, the meaning of that word 'problem' means something thrown at you. The etymological meaning of that word is something propelled towards you, thrown at you. And if it is a defensive reaction then you withdraw, you tighten up. But if you have freedom to look at the problem, not the resolution of the problem – I wonder, am I making myself clear, yes? – then the brain is free from its conditioning to solve problems. Therefore you approach it afresh. You understand? To have a brain that has no problems, then it can solve problems. But if it has problems then it can't solve any problem. Which is what is happening, politically, religiously, all up and down our social structure, or science, business.
18:02 So one must ask, how do I approach a problem? With fear or with a desired solution, or something that will give me more profit in the business world or in the psychological world. So if the brain is free from its conditioning then it can solve any problem without creating more problems in the solution of problems. You understand? Look, it is fairly simple. Look what the governments are doing in the world. They try to solve one problem and in the very solution of that problem they bring about a dozen other problems. The speaker has discussed with several high politicians. They are depending on votes to be elected, therefore they – can I go on with this kind of stuff? You are not politicians here? And most of us are politicians all right. So, what is happening is, throughout the world, most unfortunately for human beings, these politicians who are conditioned to solve problems bring about many more problems. And they cannot, as we have discussed with some of them, cannot see this question at all. Because there are so many problems in this country – poverty, overpopulation, industrial slackness, you know, GNP and so on. So can we look at a problem, something thrown at you, with freedom? Then you will solve the problem.
20:41 And the questioner further asks: how can mere individual change affect the whole? This is one of our favourite questions. Which means, if I can't affect the whole, what is the point of my changing? That is a good slack way of thinking. First of all, to answer this question, one must go very deeply into the whole problem of whether we are individuals at all. Please, question this. Are we separate human beings? Physically we are, biologically we are. You are a man, I am a woman, or you are a child, and so on. You may have a separate bank account and I may have no account. You may do a very good business, especially in this country under the table, etc.
22:02 So biologically, physically, we are separate, you are tall, I am short, you are bright, I am not, and so on. Psychologically, inwardly, are we individuals? Question this, please. I know our conditioning, throughout long periods of time we have been conditioned to think we are separate individuals psychologically: our personal salvation, the soul, the ego, the atman, all the structure of separate individualistic psychological attitudes. We are questioning that, whether we are actually individuals. Your name may be different from mine, your culture may be different, which is superficial coating. Have you noticed something extraordinary that has happened in this country? Have you noticed something? This country has had, whether you like it or not, a culture for 3000 to 5000 years. Good or bad, that is not the point – the Brahmanical, non-Brahmanical. Don't be against Brahmins. I am not, or for – I am just saying there has been a certain culture and overnight it has disappeared. Right? Completely gone. Why? Not that there mustn't be change, not that the people who exploited it shouldn't be put aside, but the meaning of that word 'culture', the growth, the culture of a flower, the culture of a human being, all that has completely gone in this country. So, culture is rather superficial, traditional, a verbal repetition. So there has never been a depth to this, from what historically one observes. So, have you observed – that is why I asked, if I may – have you observed this strange fact that is taking place all over the world?
25:22 So are we separate psychological individuals, a separate soul? You don't mind if we go into it? Not you are going to listen to the speaker – we are working together, please. I am not, if I may say, the speaker is not your guru, he has no followers. One must make this absolutely clear. You want to follow, and the speaker says don't. The speaker is not your guru, he is not instructing what you should think or do, but together let's proceed. Therefore if we together work these questions out, you then become the teacher and the disciple. You understand this? That is, in investigating this very complex question of whether we are individuals, in investigating together you are learning. In the process of learning, you want to instruct others, tell others. So you yourself become the guru and the disciple at the same time. I wonder if you understand this. So that this terrible division between the knower and the not-known becomes absurd. You may know mathematics, I don't, you inform me, I accept it. But we are not psychologically put together that way, we are a living thing. So we must look and find out whether we are individuals. That means one must have a sceptical attitude about individuality. Right? Now, our consciousness, which is what we are, both the unconscious and the conscious is what we are. Consciousness is made up of all our beliefs, dogmas, theories, ideals, hopes, anxiety, fears, sorrow, pain, affection if one has it – all that is our consciousness. That is what you are. Your belief, your tradition, your despair, your urge to fulfil, your gods, your fulfilment, the pursuit – all that is your consciousness. That is what you are essentially, to which is added a name – K or Y or X. Now, that consciousness is shared by all human beings. They suffer whether they live in Russia, China or America or other parts, they are anxious like you, they have their own beliefs like you, they are frightened, suffer, shed tears, laughter, see the beauty of the world, just like you, if you see the beauty of the world, which I doubt. So, your consciousness is not yours, it is shared by all human beings. I wonder if you agree to that. Not agree, see the fact. I am educated abroad. My learning, my superficial acquisition of a different culture, different education, this is all a coating outside, but inside, inside the skin as it were, I suffer as you do, I am anxious as you are – I am not but I am supposing – I am frightened as you are, I am seeking security as you are, I quarrel with my wife and she quarrels with me. We sensuously enjoy each other, sexually, sensuously. And this is happening the world over, whether in Japan, in China or in Indonesia or in Ceylon, everywhere human beings are unconsciously sharing the same thing. And therefore they feel they are separate because it is 'my suffering'. When my son dies I suffer, I am lost, I am confused. I may go to the temple, which is I find absolutely useless, but I still suffer after being at the temple or the mosque or the church. And you suffer because your wife may be turned away from you. So we both suffer. Suffering is shared by each one of us. So where is there individuality in suffering? Do you understand my question? Is this clear? I like to think it is my suffering, it is not like your suffering. And in suffering I feel isolated. Right? Haven't you noticed all these things?
33:05 Questioner: Sir, excuse me. If you have pain in your toe, I don't feel it.
33:13 K: No, sir. The gentleman says, if I have pain in my toe, naturally I don't share it with you. Bananas, sir. I am talking psychologically, inwardly. Suppose I have a headache. Of course you haven't got a headache. You may never know what a headache is. As the speaker doesn't know what headache is, you may have a headache, but we are talking of common suffering of mankind. No? We have had thousands of wars. Historically there have been 5 to 6000 years of wars. Imagine, if you can, how many people have suffered these 5000 years – maimed, shed tears, lost their sons, their husbands – and we are still pursuing the same path. So we share the common suffering of the whole of mankind and therefore we are mankind. You understand the beauty of this? Please, not here, it is not a theory, it is not a speculative appreciation of the whole, but these are facts. You may not be able to travel. If you go to America and talk to some of the people, they are exactly like you. You may have brown skin, they have a lighter skin. But below the skin they have a hell of a time, and so do you. Sorry to use that word. It is a good word. So where is there individuality, except you have a bank account? You are darker, taller, shorter, but inwardly our consciousness is similar. There is modifications depending on environment, culture and so on, but essentially it is shared, common to all of us. So when one realises that, not as an idea, as a theory, as an ideal, then you become tremendously responsible. Right? And probably we don't want to be responsible therefore we talk about our own individual group, individual achievements, individual ambitions, which is tearing the world apart. I don't know if you notice all this. We are so terribly conceited about our own individual existence that the world is broken up into little groups, into little individuals. There is never a feeling of the whole human existence, human beings. Right? Now, we have answered the question. That is, we have investigated the question. And therefore the answer is in the question, not outside the question. I wonder if you see this. So to have the capacity, the art of questioning, the art, so that you don't look to another. You do affect the whole. The questioner says, what affect is there if you... You see, I won't use the word 'you'. If there is a fundamental change in consciousness you are stepping out of that consciousness, of greed, envy, all that. When the brain steps out of that, it affects the quality of the rest. Which is, Hitler has affected the whole world, the Christian, Jesus, has affected certain parts of the world, the Buddha has affected, Attila, Napoleon, your own kings have affected the world, they are all so-called separate individuals. They have had tremendous effect on human consciousness. So it is foolish to ask 'What effect has my changing, will it change society?' Society is created by you, by your greed, by your envy, by your desire to compete, ruthlessness, brutal – and that is what society is. So, the socialists, the communists, and even the democrats try to change the environment hoping that will affect human behaviour – but it hasn't. So, to step out of the stream of our daily consciousness is to change consciousness. Right? I hope you are all having fun with these questions. Anyhow, it is a nice morning so instead of going to the office so quickly you can start with this.
40:49 Question 2: Is mutation purely a psychological happening? Is there any 'chemistry' involved in the happening? Is there any psychological change in the brain cells themselves?
41:06 Is mutation purely a psychological happening? Is there any 'chemistry' involved in the happening? Is there any psychological change in the brain cells themselves? That is, the questioner asks, is mutation, change – mutation means complete change, not change of form, which is transforming. Transforming means changing forms. When you use the word 'mutation' it means complete change, that which has not been before. Right? And the questioner asks also: is there chemistry involved in it? Is there change in the very brain cells themselves? Right? We are going into this rather complex question, if you are really interested in it, it is great fun to go into this question. Fun in this sense investigating like a scientist. He spends days and days and days and years to find something, but we don't do that into ourselves.
42:58 So, he is enquiring: is there a mutation in the very brain cells? Is that possible? And is mutation of a brain cell, which is conditioned – brain cells which carry the memory, the experience, the knowledge – can that be radically, fundamentally mutated? You understand the question? Am I making the question clear? Don't go to sleep, please. It is really a great, exciting thing to find out. Not according to some scientist but in oneself, then you can go infinitely far, inwardly. But if you are trying to go very far outwardly, you can't go very far. Even the astrophysicists are examining the heavens – it is according to their chemistry, according to their conclusions. But if we begin to inquire into ourselves, that is, to know ourselves, to have tremendous enquiry of knowing, to find what we are, not according to some philosophers, some book, some psychologist, but actually what we are, then in the discovery of that, what we are, you can go on, that is infinity. You understand?
45:09 Now, the question is: is it possible for the brain cells themselves to bring about a mutation? Not through compulsion, not through pressure, not through reward and punishment, these are all our motives. If there are such motives then it is not possible, then you are merely pursuing the old pattern. Is this clear? First of all, do we agree, see the point – not agree – see the point that our brain cells carry the memories, the knowledge, the experience? Our brain is the instrument, is the storehouse of experience. From experience, knowledge, from knowledge, memory, and from memory the reaction is thought. Right? Do we see that, first? Not up here, verbally, but do we see the fact? That is, you have an experience of any kind – sexual, a car accident – any kind of experience becomes knowledge. The scientists, step by step by step for the last two hundred years, from Galileo and so on and so on, have gathered information, knowledge, step by step, and the future scientist learns from them, stored in the brain, which becomes his knowledge. So, the brain cells contain all the past knowledge, all the remembrances, memories, and thought. Thought – please listen, if you are interested – thought is a material process, because thought is born out of memory, out of knowledge, out of experience, which is physical, material. So thought is a material process. The speaker has discussed this with several scientists – they slightly, hesitantly agree. That is, thought is a material process but they don't want to completely commit themselves because it is rather too dangerous. It affects their livelihood, it affects their position, it affects their whole structure of living. But it is a fact, apart from scientists, apart from the speaker, this is a fact.
48:51 Now, the questioner asks: can those cells which have carried all the past, all the experience of humanity, all the experiences which have brought tremendous knowledge, stored in the brain cells, can there be mutation in those brain cells? Is that understood? You answer it. You answer that question. May I most respectfully request you to answer that question? That is, I am going north. I have been going north for the last thousand years. That is my direction. And you come along and tell me, 'My dear chap, if you go along that way there is nothing there. Turn east or south then you might discover something.' Right? So when I turn, I have already brought about a mutation. It is as simple as that. I wonder if you understand this. I have been thinking all my life I am an individual. You come along and show me the fact, and I say, by Jove, you are right, and I have changed. The moment there is a perception of truth, there is a mutation taking place. I wonder if you see this. But if I stick to my going north, there can be no mutation – it is a repetition. But whereas if I listen to you, I say, look, you are no longer individual, you are the rest of mankind, you are mankind, and you show me the beauty of it, the love, the compassion that was born out of this realisation. Then I have left the north. Then there is a mutation taking place. I wonder if you see this. It is not an action of will, it is not an action of desire, but it is an action which comes when you perceive that which is true. Right, sir? I wonder if you see all this.
52:12 Q: What is it which perceives the truth?
52:22 Q: Who is the perceiver?

K: The good old question.
52:27 K: Who is the perceiver. You want to trap me? I see a lot of grins. When you look at that tree, who is the perceiver? Look at that tree, look at it carefully, if you don't mind. Don't look at me, I am asking you to look at the tree. And how do you look at that tree? You have used the word 'tree', which you have given to all the things that grow out of the earth. So the word has become more important than the tree. Right? If there is no word, the 'tree', if there is no word and you look, what happens? You understand my question? I have looked at that thing, calling it a tree, for the last 50 years. And you come and say, don't look at it with the word tree, and I say, I can't look at it that way, because I am so used to the word tree, and when I look I say, it is a tree. And you are asking me don't do that, look at it, look at it without the word. Look at your wife without the word, or your husband or your girl – whatever you have. Right? So, our brain is a network of words. Right?
54:44 I am a Hindu, I am a communist – no, not here, you are all too respectable – I am a communist, I am a socialist, I am a German, I am Catholic – words. Now, who is the observer who is watching all this? That is the question you asked just now. What is the observer? Who is the observer? Answer that question: who is the observer? You say 'I', or there is an observer, the 'I', the witness, the one who is observing – who is the observer? Go on, sir, who is the observer? Your past knowledge. Is that so? Your past memories, your past remembrances. So, the observer is the past. It is a fact, you are not agreeing with me, look at the fact. The past is the observer looking at the present. So there is a division between the past and the present. Look at it logically first and then you might see the reality of it actually. The observer is always the past and that which he observes – I am going to take an example presently, then we will see – that which he observes is still the past. Because he is looking at it from the past, therefore it is still the past. I wonder if you see this. For God's sake, come on, sir. Right?
57:24 Now, let's move from there. That is very good idea, a marvellous thing, that you are always looking with the past. So the present is the past, and the present contains the past, the present and the future. I won't go into that now, it is too complex, let's leave that for the moment. I am angry. Is anger different from me? I am jealous. Is that jealousy, that reaction which is called jealousy, is that different from me? Go on, answer it. Or is it part of me? Anger is part of me, jealousy is part of me, the sexual urge is part of me, ambition is part of me. Right? So, I am all that. So the observer is all that. No? So there is no difference between the observer and the observed. Yes sir, intellectually be bright enough, move. You understand my question? I observe that tree. Fortunately I am not the tree, unless psychopathically I think I am the tree, there are lots of people who think that.
59:31 And my anger is me. I separate myself from anger and then I say, 'I have been angry.' There is a separation taking place immediately: 'I have been angry.' But anger is me. So the observer is the observed. Right? Isn't it simple, this? Logically it is very simple but when you begin to apply then the rub begins. Because if anger is me, what can I do about it? I can't do anything. But I have been accustomed to do something about it, therefore I have a conflict. Whereas if anger is me, which is, 'I' and anger are the same, therefore there is no duality, no separation, then there is no conflict.
1:00:55 Conflict exists only when there is separation. Right? Don't look so puzzled, sir. Conflict exists between you and another, between you as a Hindu and Muslim, because you are separate, conditioned as a Hindu, conditioned as a Muslim, the Jew and the Arab. So wherever there is a division there must be conflict. That is a law. Right? So, the experiencer is the experience. The thinker is the thought. The thinker is not separate from his thought. Are you following all this? Naturally, this is something new, you won't accept, but look at it, please, kindly find out. Not because the speaker says so – whatever the speaker says, doubt, question, tear it to pieces, but find out. Don't say, I don't know what he is talking about, or he is talking Advaita, Vedanta or some other bilge, but find out. That means to enquire whether conflict can end. We live in conflict. Can that conflict end? And that can end only when there is no division, no 'me' and 'you'. You understand this? I know this is extremely difficult for people to do this because they are so caught up in their own self-centred activity.
1:03:30 We said there is a radical change, mutation, when the chain of conditioning is broken. And that chain is broken not by volition but by observing it very attentively. Not through analysis, because the analyser is the analysed. Right? So, there is a mutation when you see the fact and pursue the fact step by step, giving attention, giving care. Sir, if you love something you care for it. If I love, to find out if my wife is faithful, I find out, but if I love my wife I wouldn't care. You don't understand all this. So, a mutation can take place so completely that you are a different brain.
1:05:18 Have you ever enquired into the degeneration of the brain? Have you ever thought about it, asked why the brain deteriorates? Are your brains deteriorating? Don't look at me, please. Are your brains deteriorating? What are the factors of deterioration? Conflict. Right? The brain is an extraordinary instrument. Look at what it has done technologically, for benefit and for the destruction of human beings – tremendous advancement. So the brain has an extraordinary capacity, infinite capacity, but we have taken one direction. But we have not taken another direction, which is inwardly. You understand? So, when one understands conflict, repetition, pursuing the same old tradition, like a gramophone, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, the player, the gramophone plate deteriorates. They have invented a new plate which never goes wrong, worn out, through laser – I won't go into all that. It is too expensive. So our brain has become a gramophone recording that keeps on repeating, repeating, repeating. Even the most intellectual, all the intellectual people that are here, all the theorists, all the philosophers repeat. They have found a cliche, they have found a system, and go on. And that is one of the factors of the brain degenerating. It is like my saying, 'There must be justice in the world.' Right? Justice. I keep on repeating there must be justice in the world, and if I am a politician, I find out, pass laws that will bring justice. I never question if there is justice at all. You understand what I am saying? Is there justice in the world?
1:08:35 Q: No, sir.

K: Of course not. You are tall, I am short. You are bright, I am not. You are well born of a rich family, I am not. You are bright, I am not. You have got the world before you and I live in a small little village, uneducated, poor. Where is there justice? You have all the security and I haven't got any – one meal a day. Come on, sir, look at it.
1:09:22 Q: God could have done the justice, sir.
1:09:30 K: God. God is created by thought. Whether you like it or not, that is a fact. If you have no fear there is no God. You won't go to temples if you have no fear. I won't go into that question now. Love has no time. Right? But we don't love anything. You don't love your wife, do you? Do you love anybody? In the sense not attachment, not you use me, I use you. Love has no jealousy. Do you love anybody that way, your children, your wives? You don't even love your gods because you are so frightened of them. You go to this temple nearby to look at these gold... you understand – a million dollars in three days. And this God, money. So, is love an ideal? Answer these questions, sir. If you loved your children, loved them with your heart, not bloody minds, would you have wars, would you have this appalling poverty in this country? Love has nothing to do with self-centred activity.
1:12:26 Q: Sir?

K: Sir, please let me finish. So, where there is love there is no observer. Right, sir? Because love is not a past remembrance of sexual excitement or any other form of remembrances.
1:12:59 Q: May I ask a question?

K: Yes, sir?
1:13:03 Q: You claim to have love and compassion. What have you done about poverty?
1:13:08 K: The gentleman asks, you seem to have love and compassion.
1:13:13 Q: Not you seem, you claim.
1:13:14 K: Yes, you have asked a question. What have you done about poverty. Yes, sir, I understand your question.
1:13:23 Q: I will complete my question – because you live in style.
1:13:28 K: Yes, I know.

Q: You have always lived in style.
1:13:31 K: Yes, forgive me, I know that. I will answer all these questions. The gentleman asks – you are getting excited, aren't you. I can see it in your faces. You see what you are? You don't wake up to realities but you wake up to this.
1:14:02 Q: This is reality, sir.

K: I understand, sir.
1:14:05 K: You have asked a question, you are good enough to ask the question, I am going to answer it.
1:14:12 Q: I meant this is reality.

K: Yes, sir. So am I.
1:14:16 K: I have been dealing all the morning with reality. So I won't skip it, I won't doubt it. You seem to have, the questioner says, love and compassion. Please, you have asked a question, that is enough.
1:14:37 Q: You are telling it wrongly. I said you claim to have.
1:14:41 K: No, you said seem to have.

Q: No, sir.
1:14:43 K: I don't claim it. Sir, all right, 'I claim'. I have never claimed it. I wish you had said 'seem' to have.
1:14:55 Q: No, sir.
1:14:57 K: 'You claim.'
1:15:01 Q: You are disturbing.
1:15:03 K: I know this gentleman, I have met him before. You claim to have love and compassion. The speaker has never claimed it. It would be shockingly absurd to claim something, which means I am better than you, I am something different from you. So I am not claiming, the speaker is not claiming a thing. And the gentleman says: if as you claim, what have you done about poverty? Answer my question, sir. What have you done about poverty? Not what I have done but what have you done about poverty, each one of you? There are different kinds of poverty, physical poverty and psychological poverty. You understand? The poverty of the brain and the physical poverty.
1:16:34 K: Which is more important first?

Q: Both.
1:16:37 K: No, please, I am answering, you don't have to say it. You have put your question, so do you mind? I am answering it. We have always said: solve poverty first. This has been the cry in this country – the social reformer, the social worker, the rural educator – first solve that, the rest is all nonsense. Now, why has poverty existed in this country? Whose fault? Is it government, each one of us, to resolve this enormous poverty, overpopulation? Is it the function of a good government? You understand? I am asking all these questions. Or as a human being separate, start in a little village school, rural school, will that solve the problem? Or a whole psychological change has to take place before we solve this problem. You understand my question? There is poverty in Russia, poverty in America, tremendous unemployment in Europe, in England. There is poverty in England. Right, sir? How is this going to be solved? Poverty, which means lack of food, lack of clothes, lack of housing – who is going to solve it? You and I separately acting in a little place, or – please, look at it carefully – or it is a universal problem, it is a problem of the whole of the world. And the whole world doesn't do anything because we are nationalistic, separate, economically, socially. You follow? So, the solution lies not in mere individual activity but in putting an end to this economic, social, political division, racial division. It is a problem to be solved by the whole world, not by separate individuals or by separate governments. This is logical. And also this implies a sense of affection, care. Now, the next question.
1:20:04 Q: Sir?

K: You have finished, sir. You seem to live in luxury, you said?
1:20:13 Q: In style.

K: You seem to live in style. What do you mean by that word 'style'? I am not asking you, sir. One must have style: the way you walk, the way you look, the way you gesture, the way you talk, the way you have behaved – there is a style in it. Like a good dancer, he has a style. What do you object to style? Because you haven't got style?
1:21:08 Q: The luxury that goes with style.

K: Luxury doesn't go with style. Please, let me finish. You can carry on afterwards – not with me. Style does not mean luxury. Style means living in a particular way which isn't selfish, which isn't personal. Style. Sir, an architect who builds a house, if he has got style he makes the most beautiful thing. If you love somebody it has got marvellous style of its own. And because most of us are so shoddy, both inwardly and outwardly, we have lost all style and dignity. I have answered the question. Sorry we have only answered two questions.