Krishnamurti_EN

Krishnamurti Subtitles

Ojai - 13 May 1982

Public Question & Answer 4

0:40	This is the last question
	and answer meeting.

0:49	Again, there have been
	so many questions handed in

0:52	and we cannot answer all of them.

1:05	I really would like to ask
	a question of you, if I may.

1:13	You have put so many questions
	for the speaker to answer,

1:20	the speaker would like
	to ask you a question,

1:28	and I hope you don't mind.

1:33	Why is it, being so educated,
	living in an affluent society,

1:50	with marvellous land, with forests,
	rivers, great mountains,

1:59	why is it
	that you do not change?

2:07	I think that’s a very important
	question to put.

2:13	Why is it
	that we are so indifferent

2:21	– not to outward responses,

2:29	but to something deep, abiding,

2:37	something that is worthwhile?

2:43	Why is it that we don’t change?

2:49	This has been a question

2:53	the speaker has been concerned with
	wherever he goes.

3:02	There are large audiences, small
	discussions, interviews and so on,

3:12	and at the end of the journey
	there are so very, very few

3:18	who deeply bring about a radical
	transformation in themselves.

3:28	They are very friendly,
	there are social workers,

3:35	some are politicians, some are
	some of the well-known gurus.

3:48	They all seem to follow
	the same old pattern,

3:56	outwardly demanding
	certain political changes,

4:06	to stop a particular kind of war,

4:13	to have a little more money
	and so on.

4:19	But deeply
	in their relationships,

4:29	in their enquiry they go up to a
	certain point and there it ends. Why?

4:42	I leave that question with you,

4:44	and we’ll answer these questions
	and I’ll pick up that question again

4:51	at the end of the several questions
	that have been put.

5:03	First Question: 'One sees that chaos
	in the world is rapidly increasing.

5:11	Billions are being spent on arms,
	social justice is being eroded,

5:18	governments,
	both totalitarian and democratic

5:22	are increasingly aggressive,
	and violent.

5:26	Though one sees the necessity of much
	deeper fundamental human change,

5:34	could the speaker comment on the issue
	of active political involvement?'

5:43	'One sees that chaos in the world
	is rapidly increasing.

5:48	Billions are being spent on arms,
	social justice is being eroded,

5:55	governments,
	both totalitarian and democratic,

5:59	are increasingly aggressive,
	and violent.

6:04	Though one sees the necessity of much
	deeper fundamental human change,

6:11	could the speaker comment on the issue
	of active political involvement?'

6:20	Am I Democratic or Republican,
	is that it?

6:27	Apart from joking,
	why, if one may ask,

6:34	why do we have such great confidence
	in political leaders?

6:47	It is the same issue
	in all the countries

6:54	– in France, in England,
	here, in India, and so on. Why?

7:01	We put such confidence
	in the economists,

7:05	in the politicians, in the leaders.
	Why do we do this?

7:16	And what do we mean
	by political action?

7:26	Please, we are enquiring together,

7:28	you are not just
	listening to the speaker,

7:33	waiting for his explanation
	and answer.

7:38	We are thinking together
	over this problem

7:45	which is really
	a very serious problem,

7:48	which is affecting
	the whole of mankind.

7:56	Some political group, Democratic,
	comes into power

8:06	– Conservative or Labour,
	or Republican or Democrats –

8:16	and they seem to have
	such extraordinary power,

8:20	position and authority,
	and we follow them.

8:25	They tell us what to do
	and we accept them.

8:29	Why is it that sense of trust in them
	and accepting their judgements.

8:41	We are sent to war, according
	to some rulers, government officials,

8:49	and thousands are being killed;

8:54	because a majority has voted them
	into power, position and direction

9:07	and we merely like sheep
	follow them.

9:11	Generally they appeal
	to our lowest instincts,

9:16	to our national pride, honour
	and all that business.

9:23	And
	we are stimulated by all that

9:27	and we are willing to kill others
	for this, for a piece of land.

9:32	Why?
	Why do we trust them?

9:40	Please, you answer this question.

9:46	And what do we mean
	by political action

9:50	which is different
	from all other actions?

9:57	Why do we separate politics
	from our daily living?

10:07	Why do we separate
	a political activity of the left,

10:12	right, centre,
	or extreme left, extreme right?

10:21	Why, if one may ask,

10:27	why is political action
	so very different

10:33	from our action of relationship,

10:39	action with regard to fear
	in ourselves, and so on?

10:46	Or is politics part of our life,
	not something separate.

10:54	The politics,
	as we explained the other day,

10:58	according to the common usage,
	which is in the dictionary,

11:04	is the art of government,
	science of government.

11:13	Why do we give this art
	to the politician?

11:23	They apparently are a separate breed,
	different from us.

11:33	This is really a question
	that involves,

11:38	why do we depend
	on a politician, a guru,

11:43	a priest,
	on anybody to govern us?

11:51	Please answer this question.

11:58	Why do specialists
	take charge of our life?

12:07	Is it that we have no so-called
	confidence in ourselves?

12:18	We are not sure of ourselves,

12:23	and we attribute this clarity
	to the politicians and to the others.

12:33	Is it in ourselves
	that we are insufficient

12:42	and somebody out there
	is going to make us sufficient?

12:54	So, are we to treat life
	as separate factors:

13:04	political, religious, economic,
	and so on?

13:10	There is a new noise today.

13:15	Or, are we to treat life as a whole?
	Please, regard, question this.

13:26	The questioner asks, what political
	action is there that one can take?

13:37	The questioner perhaps

13:40	– one may be misjudging him,
	if one is, please forgive us –

13:48	is that action, political,
	different from religious action,

14:00	from the action of an idealist,

14:07	or does one treat life,
	the whole living,

14:15	learning in colleges,
	universities, schools,

14:26	relationship, fears, faith,
	anxiety, and political action

14:33	– isn’t that a whole way of living?
	Am I conveying this?

14:47	Is it that we are
	so fragmented in ourselves

14:53	– as a religious action,
	political action, family action,

15:01	individual action, collective action
	– you follow?

15:10	Or do we treat life
	as a total movement

15:16	in which all these activities
	are included.

15:20	But if we separate
	one from the other,

15:24	we’ll inevitably
	bring about contradiction.

15:31	A religious life is incompatible,
	one will say, with political life.

15:39	A religious person will have
	no part with politics,

15:43	because generally politics
	is such a crooked affair,

15:50	controlled
	by big industrialists,

15:55	by wanting great deal
	of money for the party,

16:00	and they’re depending on rich people
	and so on.

16:08	So how do we, each one of us,
	answer this question?

16:17	There is increase of armaments.

16:23	Just now they are destroying
	each other,

16:26	killing each other for
	– God knows for what.

16:35	And both the democratic world
	and the totalitarian world

16:43	are becoming, as the questioner says,
	more and more aggressive.

16:51	So how do you deal
	with this question?

16:56	It’s very easy to put questions.

17:03	Very easy to put a question and
	try to find an answer from another.

17:12	But if we have to answer
	this question ourselves,

17:17	taking what is actually
	going on in the world:

17:21	the national, religious,
	economic divisions, wars,

17:30	tremendous spending of money
	on armaments

17:39	– what’s your answer?
	How would you answer this question?

17:51	If you are Americans, we’ll say,
	‘Our way is the best way’, and so on.

17:59	Or, would you consider
	the right answer, the true answer is,

18:06	that we cannot separate
	these activities

18:10	but treat life
	as a whole movement?

18:19	And what is a political action?

18:27	Would you like to start a new party,
	social democratic party?

18:40	Or, look for a new leader
	for the next election,

18:48	condemn the present leader,

18:51	and when the new leader
	comes into being next election,

18:56	again there is doubt about him
	– you know,

18:59	when the honeymoon is over
	then begins the whole problem.

19:04	So, what is your answer?

19:10	Please, sir,
	go into it for yourselves.

19:14	What is your answer
	when you have thought it out deeply?

19:21	Do you want to ask
	if there is an activity,

19:28	if there is action
	which is not divisible,

19:38	an action that includes politics,
	religion, economics, everything

19:47	– the whole bundle of life.

19:53	And is that possible?

20:06	One sees corruption
	right through the world

20:15	– black market, rich people
	getting tremendously more rich,

20:26	the privileged classes,
	and so on.

20:34	Where do you begin

20:40	to bring about an action
	that will include all actions?

20:50	Where do you begin?

20:56	To go very far,
	one must begin very near.

21:02	Right?

21:10	So what is very near?

21:14	Me. I am the nearest person,
	so I begin

21:23	– not as a selfish activity,
	or self-centred movement –

21:30	I am the nearest, or I am the centre
	from which I start,

21:40	not out there.

21:44	Can I live a life
	that is absolutely not broken up?

21:58	A religious life separate
	from all other lives, activities,

22:02	but a life
	that is political, religious

22:07	– you follow? Can I live that way?

22:20	That implies, does it not,

22:29	do I understand the whole
	separative activity completely,

22:40	and in the comprehension
	of the separate activities

22:46	which then become contradictory,
	conflicting, endless divisions

22:55	– if I understand that
	very clearly,

22:58	perceive it not in abstraction
	or as an ideal or intellectually,

23:06	but as a factual thing.

23:09	From that observation one will act
	which will be complete.

23:21	Have I answered the question?

23:26	If you are actually wanting
	to start a political action,

23:32	new party, new group,
	new leader of your own,

23:37	then I am afraid you and I won’t meet,
	we are back into the same old pattern.

23:45	But we are saying, a life that is
	complete, sufficient psychologically,

23:59	from that quality of mind and heart,
	then all action is included in that.

24:19	Second Question: 'You say that out
	of the negative comes the positive.

24:25	How does one negate the ‘I’
	without suppression

24:33	or denial or without conflict?

24:38	Who is that which does the negating?
	Can you go into this problem?'

24:45	'You say that out of the negative
	comes the positive.

24:52	How does one negate the ‘I’
	without suppression

24:57	or denial or without conflict?

25:02	Who is that which does the negating?
	Can you go into this problem?'

25:13	You are going to go into this problem,
	not the speaker.

25:26	What is positive action?

25:30	And what is negative action?

25:34	The positive action is,
	I must do that, I will do that,

25:40	this is right, this is wrong,

25:45	or what is considered positive
	following certain idealistic cause

25:53	which will eventually bring about
	a different world and so on

25:58	– the positive action,
	positive thinking

26:02	as the evangelists
	and others propagate.

26:09	Positive thinking.

26:12	And what is negative thinking?

26:21	To think of others badly?

26:28	I don’t know
	what negative thinking is, really.

26:32	Thinking is in itself is negative,

26:35	but it doesn’t matter,
	we’ll go into it.

26:41	So the questioner wants to know
	whether the self,

26:50	the essence of selfishness,
	the self-centred activity,

26:56	can be denied
	without suppression,

27:04	without conflict,
	without any form of evasion.

27:13	That is the question.

27:18	We are not saying
	that you must negate the 'I'.

27:22	How can you negate the I?

27:27	And who is it, as the questioner says,
	who negates or asserts?

27:38	When you say ‘I am’, who is it
	that says ‘I am’ aggressively?

27:47	And who is it that says,
	‘I am not’?

27:51	Both the positive and the negative,
	who is it?

27:58	Go on, sirs.

28:07	Is there a separate consciousness,
	a separate state of mind,

28:14	a separate clarity
	in our consciousness?

28:22	You follow all my questions?

28:24	Is there some element of clarity
	in this messy consciousness

28:36	– messy, conflicting, aggressive,

28:40	with their fears, faith, beliefs,
	superstitions, anxious – all that.

28:48	In that confusion
	which is our consciousness,

28:53	is there a spot of clarity
	which then can say, 'I will direct,

29:03	I won’t suppress, I will change
	this whole confusion.'

29:08	Do you understand my question?
	Is there? Please answer.

29:19	If one is terribly
	honest with oneself,

29:23	doesn’t want to deceive oneself

29:27	or accept some comforting idea,
	or merely follow some tradition,

29:39	then you will say there is a field
	in this messy consciousness

29:48	that is clear, unconfused,

29:54	and that will bring about clarity
	in the whole field of confusion.

30:07	You understand my question?

30:10	This is the old, very old story,
	that there is,

30:17	according to the Hindus
	in the Asiatic world,

30:22	a certain entity
	apart from all this

30:31	– they call it Atman, God,
	or what you like –

30:36	who is witnessing all this,
	and seeing all this,

30:45	through various forms of assertions,
	conflicts and so on,

30:52	will ultimately free the mind
	from the confusion. Right?

30:59	And probably here too,
	in the Western world,

31:04	there is this idea of permanent soul,
	whatever that may mean,

31:10	who is gradually asserting himself
	and will ultimately go to heaven.

31:23	These are all very comforting
	utilitarian theories.

31:33	But they have not so far cleared
	man’s confusion, man’s conflict,

31:44	his agonies, his loneliness,
	his depression, and so on.

31:50	So, why not try –

31:55	when you are all
	so practical in the West

31:57	and the East is also trying to copy
	you by becoming very practical

32:05	– why not see that
	this is so utterly impractical,

32:14	the god within you, or the soul
	within you, or the clarity within you

32:20	which will wipe away
	this confusion so easily.

32:28	If that is not practical,
	as it is not, apparently,

32:33	because it has not succeeded

32:37	– succeeded in the sense, please let’s
	be clear in the usage of that word,

32:42	succeeded, not to be something
	in this world,

32:46	to have more money and so on –

32:48	succeeded in bringing about
	complete comprehension,

32:55	the ending of conflict and so on.

32:59	As it has not,
	let’s look at it differently.

33:07	That means one must deny this,
	negate this.

33:18	That’s going against
	all your religious tradition

33:30	– the Bible, the soul.

33:34	You understand what I am saying?
	– negating all that.

33:39	Then if you do,
	then we can look at it differently,

33:43	but if you have slight attachment
	to all that, conscious or unconscious,

33:54	then you will not look
	for anything else.

34:06	So, first of all,
	what is the self, the ‘I’?

34:19	All the attributes,
	all the tendencies,

34:27	the various forms
	of idiosyncrasies,

34:36	various beliefs,
	the various hurts,

34:46	the conflict in relationship,
	fear, loneliness, agony,

34:55	seeking some illusive security,
	suffering – all that –

35:04	the name, the form,
	is the ‘you’.

35:09	Right? Or do you doubt that?

35:16	If you doubt it
	– one should –

35:20	then when you doubt something

35:23	it means you must examine,
	not just doubt.

35:31	If you doubt that there is God
	– doubt,

35:34	I am not saying you should –
	if you doubt it,

35:38	then you must enquire
	if there is such a thing.

35:43	But merely to doubt, say,
	well... – has no meaning.

35:50	Scepticism has great value,

35:55	but if you are merely sceptic
	all the time, what’s the point,

35:58	it’s like being illusory, caught in
	an illusion, they are both the same.

36:06	So where there is doubt there is also
	the movement of enquiry.

36:19	So we are enquiring together.

36:23	This ‘I’, this separatist activity,
	so-called individual,

36:31	which is the essence of the ‘I’

36:36	– and the questioner wants to know
	how to negate that,

36:41	the very whole activity of me
	– my possessions,

36:49	my qualities, my aggression,
	you follow, the whole of that –

36:57	how is one to negate it?

37:04	Now, the questioner asks that:
	how to negate it.

37:09	Then he goes on to ask,
	who is it that negates? You follow?

37:15	First he said
	tell me how to negate it,

37:18	then he says, who is it that negates.

37:24	You follow? I wonder
	if you understand this.

37:32	So we are not negating it.

37:36	We are trying to find out
	what it has done in the world first,

37:43	this self-centred egotistic activity,
	what it has done in the world,

37:50	and see the reality of it,
	the actuality of it,

37:58	and then enquire who is it that is
	acting all the time from the centre.

38:11	You understand my question?

38:14	It is not that we are
	negating the self,

38:18	but that the activity
	of the self in the world,

38:25	what it has done in the world,
	what it has done in the family,

38:30	in the group, in the community, in
	the nation, in the world, and so on,

38:36	and seeing the reality of it,

38:39	not the idea of
	what it has done in the world,

38:44	but the actual happening,
	the actual activity of it,

38:52	and from there
	– which is our criteria –

38:58	from there enquire if that self,

39:02	which is creating
	such mischief in the world,

39:07	can that self be looked at?
	You follow?

39:14	Then we will enquire, what is it
	that is looking at the self?

39:20	It is the same question
	put differently.

39:23	So, first, what has it done
	in the world?

39:31	I don’t have to answer
	that question, obviously.

39:35	It has separated itself
	into nations, into communities,

39:45	into various forms
	of social divisions,

39:52	it has divided itself
	from the rest of the community,

39:57	society, world, as the family,
	and from the family, the ‘me’:

40:06	my aggression, my happiness,
	my pursuit, and so on.

40:13	It has brought about
	division in the world,

40:18	because it said, in that division
	as my particular belief,

40:26	my particular religion,
	my particular faith,

40:29	in that faith, in that belief,
	in that dogma

40:33	I will be secure, I will be safe.

40:39	Right?
	Are you following all this?

40:45	So it has created vast division,
	incredible divisions,

40:57	and so where there is division
	there must be conflict.

41:04	So the 'I', which is the creator
	of this division,

41:10	which is the essence of conflict
	– right? –

41:17	can that 'I' come to an end?

41:22	Not suppressing, not evading,
	not avoiding, and so on.

41:29	Can that 'I' which has done
	all this mischief,

41:33	all these terrible
	things in the world

41:38	– separate gods,

41:48	it has brought about
	a million wars, thousands of wars.

41:57	Is that a fact?
	For you, not for me.

42:03	Is that a fact?
	Or is it an exaggeration?

42:09	Or is it some kind of concept,

42:14	and you are adjusting yourself
	to that concept?

42:23	That is, we think war is cruel,
	and therefore the ‘I’ must be

42:29	– you follow?

42:31	First conceive an idea,
	then adjust ourselves to that idea.

42:38	We are saying, observe what is
	happening in the world without bias,

42:45	without any partiality,

42:50	and you see what the ‘I’,

42:52	the so-called individual expansion,
	the individual aggression,

42:58	the individual success,
	what it has done in the world.

43:05	If you are very clear on that point,
	then we say, now,

43:13	seeing what cruelties, bestiality
	is brought about in the world,

43:20	can this movement
	which is the ‘me’,

43:26	can this movement ever stop
	or radically change?

43:37	When you have put
	that question to yourself,

43:42	then who is it that is
	to bring about a change?

43:48	The questioner says that.

43:50	Who is it that will end
	this self-centred activity. Right?

44:01	That is what the questioner
	is saying.

44:07	That is, we have to go
	much deeper into that,

44:10	which is,
	is there a difference

44:16	from the observer
	and the thing he observes?

44:28	Please just listen to it.
	Don’t agree or disagree or say,

44:32	‘Oh, you are repeating the old stuff.
	I have heard this last year

44:37	– or two years ago,
	or twenty years ago –

44:39	you are repeating,
	move out of that rut.'

44:48	We’ll move out of that rut.

44:53	It is not a rut,
	but you may call it a rut.

45:00	When you observe a tree,
	that thing,

45:07	can you look at it
	without the word first?

45:13	Or when you look at it,
	the instant response is,

45:17	that’s a tree, oak tree
	or whatever it is.

45:22	Can you look at it
	without the word?

45:28	Word being the symbol,
	the idea, the memory,

45:36	which uses the word as the tree.
	You follow?

45:43	Experiment for a minute,
	for a second or two

45:47	to look at that thing
	which is around you now.

46:00	And when you so look
	without the word,

46:04	because we are caught
	in a network of words.

46:13	I don’t know if one realises that.

46:22	The word, the symbol
	has taken the place of reality.

46:28	When you say, ‘My wife’,
	you have the complete picture.

46:38	Or my husband or my son,
	my country, the flag,

46:46	and when you use the word
	‘Communist’, it is – you follow? –

46:51	the whole intonation, the quality,
	what is behind that word.

47:02	And when you say,
	I am an American,

47:04	or I believe in God, I don’t
	believe in God – you follow? –

47:09	this vast network of words in which
	the mind lives, the brain lives.

47:16	I don’t know if you have noticed
	all this. I hope it interests you.

47:20	The questioner asks it,

47:23	if you are not interested,
	it is a nice day.

47:31	Does one realise that?

47:35	That one can never look at a thing,
	living thing, or a dead thing

47:42	or a thing that is moving

47:47	– always with a word.

47:51	To look at a river,
	at the flowing water,

47:59	not call it the Mississippi or Thames
	or the Ganges, or the Nile

48:05	– just look at the moving water.

48:10	It has
	quite a different quality.

48:19	Now, so can you observe

48:23	– not you observe, sorry –

48:28	is there an observation
	of the movement of the self

48:39	which is anger, bitterness,
	hurt,

48:42	just to look at all that
	without the word.

48:50	Are you following all this?

48:55	The word is the past. Right?

49:01	The word indicates
	the content of the past.

49:13	‘My wife’ – I am taking
	an ordinary example – my wife.

49:19	When you use ‘my wife’
	see the content of that word,

49:25	the enormous implications of various
	incidents, accidents, ideas, hurt

49:32	– all that in the past. Right?

49:36	And that word ‘my wife’ indicates
	the tremendous content of the past.

49:49	But, can you look at the woman or the
	man without the past, to look at her?

50:01	Go on, sir, do it, don’t listen to me,
	there’s no point in listening to me

50:06	if you are not applying,
	if you are not doing it.

50:15	So first of all we are asking,

50:19	is there an observation
	of the whole movement of the self,

50:25	which we have described
	both outwardly and inwardly,

50:28	can you look at that
	– no –

50:32	is there an observation
	of that without the past?

50:38	You get it? You understand
	what I am talking about?

50:45	Look, I have lived 80 years or more
	– 87 years.

50:55	A man who has lived 87 years
	has collected lots of experience,

51:03	lots of ideas,
	met lots of people.

51:07	There are all these past memories
	throbbing away.

51:17	And either he is an idiot
	to live in the past, or

51:30	– memory with this person
	being very, very selective –

51:37	not live in the past
	but watch things are happening:

51:45	to observe without the observer,
	which is the past.

51:50	Have you got it?
	Am I making it clear?

51:53	To observe.

51:58	To observe one’s reactions

52:07	without naming it
	as jealousy, as anger

52:16	– just to observe.

52:18	When you so observe,
	what happens?

52:26	Go into it, sir,
	I hope you are doing this,

52:29	not just listening or getting bored
	with the damn stuff.

52:36	If you are listening,
	we are asking a question, which is:

52:42	when there is an observation
	without direction, without motive,

52:48	which is the past,
	what happens?

52:55	Now, to find out
	what happens, actually,

53:00	you must enquire what takes place
	when you are directing it,

53:09	when you are remembering it,
	your reactions,

53:13	or giving direction
	to your reactions.

53:16	That is, there is a separation
	between the observer and the observed.

53:22	Then there is a division
	and hence a conflict

53:28	– I must not do this/I must do that,
	this is right/this is wrong,

53:33	I say this is right according
	to my motive – and so on.

53:41	So,
	when there is an observation

53:46	that where there is division
	there must inevitably be conflict,

53:53	outwardly and psychologically,
	that is absolute fact.

54:01	When I call myself British
	or American, and I am willing

54:07	– you follow, the whole thing
	you’ve right in front of you.

54:11	You are willing to destroy
	thousands of people,

54:15	spend enormous sums of money
	to do something

54:20	which your national pride
	or some nonsense dictates.

54:29	So, can this conflict
	in the human mind,

54:34	which is your mind, it is not my mind
	– the human mind,

54:38	which is in constant travail,
	constant conflict –

54:44	we are enquiring
	whether that conflict can end.

54:52	It can end only completely when the
	observer is not, only observation is.

55:06	Is the thinker
	different from thought?

55:11	Look at it.

55:12	Is the thinker different from
	the thought which he has created?

55:23	The thinker says, I am a Catholic,
	Protestant, Hindu,

55:27	I am a Democrat, totalitarian
	– whatever it is.

55:31	The thinker says that.

55:34	But the thinker has created

55:39	the Democrat, the Republican,

55:41	the left, far left, far right,
	far centre, and so on

55:45	– the thinker has done that.

55:48	And is the thinker
	different from his thoughts?

55:53	Oh, come on, sir,
	this is so simple.

55:55	Obviously not.
	But we have divided it. Right?

56:02	So look at another question: is the
	experiencer different from experience?

56:10	Ah, this is, now you – I am glad.
	Now you are caught!

56:20	We all want experiences:
	going to the moon,

56:28	experience of God,
	experience of a dozen kinds

56:32	– of sex, experience of going to the
	Himalayas and climbing the Everest

56:38	– you follow? – experiences.

56:41	Now we are asking, is the experiencer
	different from his experience?

56:55	Experiencer must recognise
	the experience. Right?

57:03	Right?
	Otherwise it is not an experience.

57:08	You follow all this?

57:12	Am I talking
	some strange language?

57:17	I experience – what? –
	a motor accident,

57:28	I have an experience
	in an accident in a car,

57:34	and that is recorded as pleasant,
	unpleasant, as hurt, and so on,

57:43	the expense of it, and so on,
	that is recorded. Right?

57:50	The experience of that thing
	is remembered,

57:58	and that experience is a memory
	which is different from that

58:04	which has happened last year.
	Right?

58:10	So the observer is that experience
	of last year. Right?

58:19	Oh, come on, sir.

58:22	And that experiencer either wants to
	avoid future incidents of that kind,

58:33	or if he is prone to accidents,
	he’s inviting them.

58:44	We are asking, is the experiencer
	different from the experience?

58:53	Of course not.

58:56	I have invented God,

59:02	and I am going to experience
	that marvellous state. Right?

59:08	I have visions of – if I you are
	a Christian, the Virgin Mary,

59:12	if I was a Buddhist,
	I would have an experience

59:16	of various types
	of Buddhist consciousness,

59:19	or if I’m a Hindu – you follow?

59:23	Being conditioned
	to a particular tradition,

59:29	which is the past, I experience that.
	Oh, come on, sir.

59:37	I have projected that
	and I experience that.

59:44	So the experiencer
	is the experience.

59:53	And if there is no experience,
	what is the state of mind?

1:00:00	Do you understand
	all these questions?

1:00:04	We are all wanting experiences,

1:00:08	and when one actually
	goes into it very, very deeply,

1:00:16	experience, we hope,
	will bring about more knowledge,

1:00:21	more clarity,
	more this and more that,

1:00:25	but the experiencer
	is the experience,

1:00:28	therefore the mind is no longer
	seeking any experience.

1:00:39	Only such a mind is absolutely clear,
	it requires no challenge.

1:00:49	That’s a different thing.

1:00:55	So, is there pure observation
	of the movement of the self?

1:01:08	Because in that the self is
	not different from the observer,

1:01:14	there is only observation,

1:01:19	without the past accumulated memories
	interfering with observation.

1:01:31	When the past memories and
	accumulated knowledge interfere,

1:01:37	then there is
	wastage of energy.

1:01:41	I don’t know
	if you are following all this.

1:01:44	Wastage of energy in conflict,
	in denying, in suppressing,

1:01:48	in arguing why should I,
	rationalising the whole business,

1:01:52	which is a form of conflict.

1:01:56	Now, that’s a wastage of energy.

1:02:02	Whereas when there is observation
	without the past,

1:02:06	all energy
	is brought into being,

1:02:11	all energy comes in that observation,
	which dispels that which is observed.

1:02:18	It’s up to you,
	I’ve said it in ten different ways.

1:02:21	So there is no conflict with the self,
	or denial of the self,

1:02:27	or suppression of the self.

1:02:30	It is clarity of observation, which is
	the greatest form of intelligence.

1:02:41	What time is it?

1:02:47	Good lord,
	there are about nine questions

1:02:51	– I’ve only answered two questions.

1:03:02	Third Question: 'How does one
	not become a victim

1:03:04	while not becoming a predator?'

1:03:08	'How does one not become a victim
	while not becoming a predator?'

1:03:14	That is, how does one stop exploiting
	without being exploited? Right?

1:03:25	It’s the same question, isn’t it?

1:03:29	I don’t want to exploit you,
	but you are exploiting me.

1:03:36	You actually are. You follow?

1:03:43	It is the same
	– very interesting, this question.

1:03:53	How do I – no –

1:03:56	the unconditioning of the mind doesn’t
	become another form of conditioning.

1:04:05	You have understood?

1:04:11	There is a movement away
	from this trap,

1:04:17	and not be caught in another trap.

1:04:26	I am a Hindu, I say it’s absurd
	and become a Catholic.

1:04:33	Or I am a Catholic and say,
	what silly stuff

1:04:37	and I join Hinduism or Buddhism,
	or become a Muslim.

1:04:43	It is the same phenomena
	– you understand?

1:04:47	So one has to enquire,
	what is freedom?

1:04:59	Does one realise
	one is caught in a trap?

1:05:05	That is,
	the same repetitive movement,

1:05:11	which the computer is doing,
	it is repeating much more rapidly,

1:05:17	more quickly, more intelligently,
	more alive, quick, programmed.

1:05:24	And we are also programmed
	to be a Catholic, to be a Protestant,

1:05:28	to be a Hindu, to be a Buddhist
	– you follow? –

1:05:31	to be a Democrat,
	to be right, left –

1:05:34	we are also programmed,
	don’t let’s fool ourselves.

1:05:41	Therefore we are repeating,
	repeating, repeating.

1:05:46	Come on, sirs,
	what are you waiting…

1:05:52	And the questioner asks: is it
	possible to be free from conditioning

1:06:05	– the predator and the victim –

1:06:07	and yet not fall into
	another form of conditioning?

1:06:13	Am I being fair to the question?
	Of course. You agree?

1:06:24	So one has to enquire
	what is freedom?

1:06:30	This movement from one corner
	to the other corner of the field

1:06:36	– you understand? –
	the field is my consciousness,

1:06:39	this whole world is my field,

1:06:43	and I move from one corner of
	this field, psychological field,

1:06:49	to another corner,
	and I call that freedom.

1:06:56	Or I choose to move south instead
	of north, and I call that freedom.

1:07:03	So I call choice freedom.

1:07:06	I am a Democrat,
	I choose to become a Republican,

1:07:11	but it is the same movement.
	We are silly enough not to see that.

1:07:17	So is that freedom?
	You are following all this?

1:07:21	Does choice
	bring about freedom?

1:07:27	Or where there is choice
	there is no freedom.

1:07:37	I may choose to move
	from Los Angeles to New York,

1:07:45	and I can’t do that
	in the totalitarian state,

1:07:49	I have to have permission,
	special grants and so on.

1:07:57	So I feel I am a free man.

1:08:02	So at what level, at what depth,
	or superficial level,

1:08:09	do you consider freedom lies?

1:08:13	Here in this country you can say
	what you like, so far.

1:08:21	But you cannot say what you like
	when there is a war. Right?

1:08:27	Then we are all united
	to hate somebody, to kill somebody.

1:08:37	So what is freedom?
	Enquire, sir.

1:08:42	The question is involved in that.
	What is freedom?

1:08:49	To move from trap
	to trap to trap?

1:08:54	To move from one kind of misery
	to another kind of misery?

1:09:07	I am married, I am bored with
	my wife, I want a divorce and I go,

1:09:13	because I like or love, or whatever
	word one uses, to another woman,

1:09:19	but the same pattern is repeated.
	And I call that freedom.

1:09:31	So is there freedom
	in this moving in the same area

1:09:44	– that area may be wide, or very, very
	narrow, but it is the same movement.

1:09:52	That is not freedom. Right?

1:09:55	So what then is freedom?

1:10:00	Freedom obviously means
	to totally be free

1:10:09	from the whole content
	of consciousness.

1:10:20	You understand?

1:10:23	The problem of one corner is
	different from another corner,

1:10:32	but it’s in the same field,

1:10:36	and we separate the problems,
	but it’s one problem.

1:10:43	You understand?
	I wonder if you see?

1:10:46	All problems are interrelated,
	that’s clear

1:10:50	– my sexual problem,

1:10:51	my problem of earning a livelihood,
	my problem of God –

1:10:55	it’s all one movement
	of this everlasting search

1:11:01	for something or other,
	of becoming.

1:11:07	So, freedom is the ending
	of completely becoming something.

1:11:22	Is it time to stop?

1:11:31	Fourth Question:
	'What is humility and modesty?'

1:11:41	That doesn't exist in this country!

1:11:49	Nor in Europe or India.

1:11:55	So what is humility?

1:12:01	And why have religions all over
	the world said you must be humble

1:12:15	– inherit the land – right?

1:12:19	They have, certainly.
	You understand it?

1:12:25	The humble
	shall inherit the earth.

1:12:29	And the empire builders
	have inherited the earth.

1:12:34	I wonder if you see this?
	No, you don’t. It doesn’t matter.

1:12:38	What is humility?

1:12:44	Can one ever know, or aware,
	of oneself being humble?

1:12:57	When you know, are aware, realise that
	you are humble, you are not. Right?

1:13:09	And, modesty
	– are we modest?

1:13:19	We were talking the other day
	to an Indian, in India.

1:13:26	He was looking at a magazine
	printed in this country.

1:13:32	It was one of those magazines
	where you see half-naked ladies.

1:13:37	And he said, ‘My god, what has
	happened? Have they lost all modesty?’

1:13:46	And was horrified,
	because he has an idea of modesty

1:13:53	– that you must be
	absolutely up to here.

1:14:00	You understand all this?

1:14:05	So why do we want
	to be modest or humble?

1:14:11	Please ask all these questions.

1:14:27	When I try to be humble, that is,
	willing to learn, willing to be told,

1:14:37	abnegating myself
	in front of authority,

1:14:49	and hang my head down
	to the tome to receive something

1:14:57	which you are giving me,

1:15:02	is that a form of vanity?

1:15:09	It’s like a man who is vain
	– most of us are

1:15:15	and out of that vanity
	we try to be humble.

1:15:22	Is that humility?

1:15:29	A man who is full of aggression,
	violence, tries to be modest.

1:15:36	You understand?
	It’s absurd, it’s lost its meaning.

1:15:41	Whereas,
	a man who is aggressive

1:15:46	realises, sees, what aggression
	has done in this world

1:15:51	and all the consequences
	of that aggression,

1:15:54	when he ends that aggression,
	a new thing can begin.

1:15:59	The ending
	– please realise something –

1:16:02	the ending of something
	is the beginning of the new.

1:16:08	Right?

1:16:09	If I end my vanity, if I have it
	– I am a big man, I am blah, blah –

1:16:15	if I am that and I end it, there is
	something totally new taking place.

1:16:23	But we want to be assured,
	before we end,

1:16:28	that something will
	happen, guaranteed.

1:16:34	Then what you are receiving
	is not guarantee,

1:16:37	it’s the same thing
	in another form.

1:16:45	Sir, I’d like to come back
	to our first question.

1:16:52	You have heard all this,
	some many, many times,

1:16:59	others perhaps for the first time.

1:17:04	Why we human beings,

1:17:07	who have lived on this marvellous,
	lovely earth, destroying it,

1:17:15	why we have become what we are,
	after so many millennia:

1:17:22	vulgar, cruel, bestial,
	self-seeking, jealous, lonely

1:17:30	– you follow? –
	the whole thing.

1:17:32	Why don’t we change?
	Why don’t we end what we are?

1:17:42	Why?

1:17:46	Is it we are lazy?

1:17:49	Is it we are caught
	in a particular rut, pattern,

1:17:53	that we haven’t the energy
	to change that pattern?

1:17:58	We have plenty of energy
	when we want to do something.

1:18:03	When we want to go to the moon
	we have incredible energy.

1:18:11	When we want to be champion
	of the world as in the Olympics

1:18:16	– to run,
	you have an incredible energy.

1:18:22	We have enormous energy

1:18:27	when there is an urge,
	when there is a demand.

1:18:32	But apparently there is no urge,
	there is no demand – why?

1:18:44	Is it our food we eat,
	too much indulgence in sex,

1:18:49	in drink, in this and that,
	too much demand to be entertained?

1:18:59	So we are wasting
	all that extraordinary energy

1:19:04	which is part of us
	in some futile things

1:19:07	and therefore no energy
	to face these things and move, end.

1:19:18	Is that it?

1:19:21	Please, one can’t tell what the cause
	of all this – there are many causes.

1:19:30	But the explanation of the causes
	is not the ending of the causes.

1:19:36	So why is it,

1:19:40	after so many, many years and
	thousands upon thousands of years

1:19:48	we are what we are?

1:19:56	So that’s for you to answer.

1:20:08	May I get up now?