Krishnamurti Subtitles home


SA76T1 - What will change a human being?
Saanen, Switzerland - 11 July 1976
Public Talk 1



0:00 This is J. Krishnamurti’s first public talk in Saanen, 1976 Krishnamurti: What would you like me to talk about?
0:13 Questioner: (inaudible)
0:20 Q: Freedom.
0:23 Q: (inaudible)
0:28 Q: Dependence.
0:30 K: I beg your pardon?
0:32 Q: Dependence.
0:48 K: I like to talk about something that might be of general interest. But before we go into it, I would like - most earnestly - to remind you that these talks and discussions are not a form of entertainment. They are not a gathering of people to be amused, intellectually excited, emotionally stirred and all that nonsense. We are very serious people, at least I am. And we are talking on that level. You can either listen most earnestly, or discard or use some of the things that appeal to you all and then discuss it, but words have very little meaning, though they are necessary for communication. Words do not transform man, do not radically change man. And we are concerned, principally, and deeply and primarily, with the transformation of man. That is the basis of these discussions and talks. If you are interested in it, not superficially, but deeply, seriously, then we can go into these questions very, very deeply. So it depends on you very much how you listen, at what level you listen, and if you mean business - - not financial business - but if you mean seriously to bring about a radical transformation, then we are in communication with each other, then we can meet each other. If you are merely superficial, want to be intellectually or emotionally stirred, then I am afraid we have very little in common. So if that is really deeply understood right from the beginning, then we can proceed together to investigate our human lives. Is that alright? Is that alright for me to go on in that line? Q: Yes.
4:29 K: First of all I think it is very important to understand what human beings have made, what they have built, what their social structure, what their behaviour is in this world. What actually is going on. What human beings, you and I, and our parents and grandparents, have built. Not only technologically, in the world of science, biology, archaeology, and all the rest of those sciences, but psychologically, inwardly, which is far more important than the outward activity, because what the inward activity generally controls, shapes the outer activity. What man - human being - throughout the world, has done. Because that is very important to understand, what human beings have created, have built, not only in their relationship with each other, but psychologically, inwardly, their religions, their society, their culture, their wars, their brutality, cruelty, violence, and all the rest of it. For perhaps a million years we have lived that way: violence, wars, brutality, in the family, perpetual wrangles - you know, and all the rest of it that is going on. That is what we have built, psychologically. The tribal worship, which is called nation, the division of churches, the religions, one religion opposed to another religion, all maintaining that they are, seeking God, the God which man has projected out of his own image. God has not made man but man has made God. There are national divisions, quarrels, wars, decimation, and in the cultural society in which we live there is a great deal of violence, terrorism. Life has become a great danger. You know all this. Every morning in the papers you read it, that terrible things are going on.
8:13 Who is responsible for all this? Please, this is not a rhetorical question, but we have to investigate it. Why has man brought about all this, this horror? You understand my question? What is the basis of it? Unless we ask fundamental questions, and try to find not an answer, but the manner of investigating the question, because answers are very easy to give, but the answers will be superficial, verbal. But asking the question and investigating the question is quite a different matter. Then it becomes a responsibility of each one of us to find out, as human beings, why we live this way, why our society, our culture, our religions, have brought about this present condition. Why human beings, after having lived for two million, five million, ten million years - I don't know how long, are still going on the same old way - savagery, complete selfishness, brutality, division, all the rest of it, of which we are quite familiar. And if you ask: is this the result of thought, care, affection, love, of which we talk a great deal?
10:47 So we must begin to inquire why man has created this society, this culture, and why we accept it, live with it and not run away from it. We run away from it, by forming small communes, or going off to some monastery, or joining some sect, or following some guru, and we think we have solved the whole problem.
11:34 So if we can look at all this, objectively, sanely, and ask ourselves why, why has man, a human being, created this society, a culture in which we live? Right? So to find that out we must investigate the whole movement of thought. Right? Because our society, our religions, our morality, all our relationship is based on thought. I think there is no question about it. Right? So we have to investigate the whole movement of thought. Thought has not only created the extraordinary technological advancement, but also thought has created wars. Thought has created all the religions in the world, with their images, with their rituals, with their saviours, with their Gods - all based on thought. And thought has divided man against man - my country, your country, my God and your God, my belief and your belief, ideals, all that. Right? Thought is responsible for this. Can we see the truth of that? That thought is responsible. And thought says: 'I can solve this problem'. You understand my...? Please, do pay attention, this is your life, we will ask questions afterwards.
14:32 Surely, your beliefs are the result of your thought. Your churches, your temples, your mosques, your gurus, the whole system of religion is based on thought. Thought which has been conditioned by the interpreters that stand between you and what they call God, the priest. Thought has been conditioned, heavily for two thousand years - or as in India and other parts of the world, for seven thousand years - conditioned, shaped. And that is bringing about a division. So thought is resposible for all this, apart from the techological world, the world of sanitation, the world of medicine, the world of ... you know, all that. That also thought has created. Now is this a fact? Or do you think there is something else that has created this extraordinary world? You understand my question? If thought has created this - and there is no question about it - then what is the nature of thought that has brought this about? Now we will have to go into this very, very carefully, slowly, not be dogmatic, not be assertive, not take sides, but investigate, find out the movement of thought and whether thought can be aware of itself and see its activity. Right? Can thought be aware of itself, what is has done? Can thought become aware, conscious of his own movement, as time? And thought - can thought become aware that it is a fragment, not a whole? You understand? Is is too hot for a discussion of this kind this morning?
18:19 We recognize verbally that thought has built this world, the world, the culture, the religions in which we live, of which we are part. And so we are asking: what is the nature of thought? Thought itself, not what thought has produced, has brought about, the nature, the structure of thought itself. Is thought comprehensive? Is thought a total movement? Or is thought fragmentary, partial? You understand my question? I hope I am not talking to myself. If thought is fragmentary then whatever it brings about must be fragmentary. You understand? If thought is broken up, is the factor of breaking up, then whatever its activity must be fragmentary. Right? Is thought a total movement or only a partial movement? Right? If thought is a total movement of life, then whatever it does will be whole, complete. But if thought is limited, fragmentary, then whatever is does, at whatever level, at whatever depth, must still be fragmentary, limited, time-binding.
20:50 So there are these two questions, you understand? Which is, is your thinking partial? Does it cover the whole field of life, not fragmentary, but whole? So let us examine, investigate, first, whether thought is fragmentary, limited. Isn't it limited? It thinks it can cover the whole, it thinks it can be complete, sane, rational, holy - it can imagine all those things, but in fact is thought limited, and therefore broken up. Now look psychologically into yourself and you will see that thought is very limited. It can think it can go beyond its limitation, but it is still limited. Right? It can imagine it can reach God, but the God is its own projection. Probably those of you who believe in God, won't accept this. So we have to investigate again your believe in God, if you believe in it or if you don't believe in it, why you don't believe in it. You understand?
23:11 Thought demands, needs stability, permanency, security, and thought sees there is no security in this world. Right? Thought sees everything is in perpetual movement, flux, change. So, it projects an idea of what is called God. There, there is security: God is all omnipotent, God is all just, God is all love, God is all ... you know all the rest of it, which are all the activity of thought. Right? So thought is responsible for the Gods, for all the churches, for all the temples, for all the mosques, the whole business of it. And thought is fragmentary, as you can see, when it has divided people against people - right? - nation against nation, me and you, we and they. Right? You are following all this? So thought is in itself fragmentary, therefore it cannot possibly comprehend that which is whole. The word 'whole' implying sanity, complete ... a mind that is without any kind of illusion, without fear and therefore holy.
25:36 So what is thought then? Because that it is a very important question to ask. If thought can transform our minds, our hearts, our being, then we must use thougth. If thought cannot bring about a radical transformation, then what is its place? You are understanding all this? Look, make it much more simple. I want to change myself. I am part of the world, I am the world, because basically wherever I go there are the suffering, pain, anxiety, grief, sorrow, death, conflict, misery, unhappiness - wherever you go: in Russia, China, India, Africa, and so on, in America, in this country and everywhere human beings radically are caught in this. That is obvious. Now, I see the necessity of radical transformation. I don't want to live that way. There is no meaning to live that way. So I ask myself: how am I to change radically? Will thought change me? You understand my question? Please do follow this. (sound of passing train) Thought sees itself, what is has brought about, psychologically, inwardly as well as outwardly. And I ask myself: can thought bring about radical transformation in myself? So I say: 'What is thought?' Can thought be aware of itself? Can the thinking that is going on in myself, in this mind, can it be aware of itself, see its own movement, what it has done, what it cannot do and what it wants to do? You follow all this?
29:04 So you ask yourself and I ask myself: what is thought? Why has thought taken such predominance in the world? So what is thought? What is this thing that is always in action, always in movement, chattering away, bringing about a division, me and you, my family, your family, my God, your - you follow? - this whole movement that is going on within me. So what is this movement? Movement implies time, right? Please, is that alright? Time moving from here to there, covering the distance from 'what is' to 'what should be', both outwardly and inwardly. So time is a movement. So thought itself is a movement, right? So thought is time. Are we meeting each other, please?
30:46 So, I see, there is an observation that thought is movement as time. Right? So what is thought? Thought is memory. Right? Memory stored up in the brain, stored up as experience and knowledge. Right? Knowledge when I drive a car, knowledge when I say: 'I know about myself'. You understand? So, the accumulation of experience, which has become knowledge, is stored in the brain and the response of that is thought. Right? That is simple, isn't it? Let's move. That is simple, isn't it?
32:08 If you have no memory, you are in a state of amnesia, right? You have memory and that memory is based on experience, past experience, which has become knowledge and stored up in the brain. That is a fact, whether you accept it of not accept it, even the scientists are coming to that. So thought is a movement in time which is the response of memory as knowledge. (sound of passing train) Right? So knowledge is the past. So thought is the past. It can project the future by modifying the present, but it is still the past in operation. So thought is fragmentary. You get the idea? Do you see this?
33:42 Thought, we said, is the response of memory. Memory is knowledge, knowledge based on experience. So knowledge is always in the past. There is no knowledge of the future. So thought, meeting the present, modifies itself and projects the future. Right? So thought, because it is based on knowledge, experience, which is the past, is always fragmentary. Swallow that pill! Right?
34:42 And thought, being fragmentary, has created this culture which is fragmentary: the Arab and the Jew, you know, the whole business of it. And thought says: 'I will solve this problem, politically, religiously, psychologically - all the problems it has created. What is has created is fragmentary and thought says: 'I will go beyond the fragment' - thought itself being a fragment. You get it? Therefore it cannot possibly go beyond itself. You understand? Please, see this, even verbally, intellectually, whatever you ... but see it. Once you see this, observe the truth of it, then our whole process of thinking becomes radically different. If thought cannot solve these problems, human problems, then what will? You understand my question? We have so far for millennia depended on thought to solve our problems. All our philosophies of the great philosophers, are based on thought - modern philosophers, the Greek philosophers and the ancient Hindu philosophers. And their philosophy, which is the child of their thinking, man hopes through those philosophies to solve the problem. You understand? So we have accepted thought as a complete solution of everything. And when you realise, not emotionally, but logically, sanely, that thought is a fragment and therefore it cannot possibly solve the total problem of man, then you have to ask then what will solve man's problem? You understand my question? Have you got my ... Are we touching each other? Are we in communication with each other? Please ...
37:56 That is, do you see the truth of this, not the verbal statement of it - the truth of it? Look, I will point out something. It is very hot, isn't it? The speaker makes this statement, that thought, being fragmentary, cannot solve - possibly solve the things which it is has created, right? Now I have made a statement. How do you receive that statement? You understand? Do you see that statement as the truth itself? Or do you make an abstaction of that statement into an idea, and accept the idea and not the fact? You understand? Now what do you do? Has it become an idea, or a fact? You understand? You understand this? What have you done? How have you received that statement, that thought, whatever it has created, must be fragmentary, and thought, trying to solve the things which it has created with his problems, can never solve it? How do you receive that statement? Is it an idea? Or do you see it is so? You understand my question? If it is an idea - now the word 'idea' in Greek, means to observe, to observe, not what we have made of it. So is it an idea or a fact, that you say: 'Yes, it is so'? You understand my question? Which is it? It is very important this, to understand this. If it is an idea, it is still fragmentary. But if you see the fact, it is not fragmentary. Right? Can we go on from there? No? But it is very important.
41:08 That is, if you draw a conclusion from what has been said, that thought is a fragment, then that conclusion is the movement of thought. Right? But if you see what has been said, that thought is a fragment, it is a fact. Then you can deal with fact, not with ideas. You understand? We live with ideas, with conclusions, with concepts, which are non-facts, and therefore we get completely lost. Whereas if we dealt only with facts then we have ... there is a means of communication. You are getting this?
42:04 So how do you , listening to this fact - do you draw a conclusion or live with the fact? Phew! I can't repeat it ten times. What is it that you do? If it is a conclusion, why have you made a conclusion? Why don't you face the fact? You can only face the fact if you are actually listening to the fact. Hai capito? I say to you, as a fact, that it is a lovely day. It is a fact, you accept it. Don't you? It is a lovely day. And so you remain with the fact. But if you draw a conclusion from a statement, it becomes non-fact. And when we are discussing non-facts, there is no relationship between us. You get it? So do you, when you listen to a fact, draw a conclusion, or remain with the fact? And if you draw a conclusion, why do you do it? What is the operation of this business? Is it habit? You understand? Because we always live with ideas and conclusions. With 'what should be', so that is - we are conditioned to that and therefore we find it awfully difficult to break from that. And to break from that is to observe that you are operating always in that field, to be aware of it. Right? Can we go on?
44:45 So to break from this conditioning. It is the conditioned mind, these ideas from the Greeks, all humanity has done this: never look at facts, but draw a conclusion about facts. Our philosophies, your gurus, the whole thing is based on this. And we say why is there this instant reaction? Because it is part of our training, part of our education, part of our lack of energy to break with it. So we are now dealing only with fact, which is thought is a fragment, and therefore whatever it does will produce further fragments, further misery, further confusion. Right? Do you see this as a fact?
46:03 Then, the next question is: if thought cannot solve our human problems, psychological problems, not technological problems, not how to go to the moon or to Venus or to bring about different kinds of wars, instruments of wars, but human, psychological problems, inward problems, if thought cannot solve it, what will? You have understood the question? So man said: 'Thought cannot solve it, God will solve it'. You understand? An outside agency, whether it is the outside agency of God or the outside agency of a better society. You understand? Please face all this. So thought says to itself: 'I cannot solve this, therefore there must be an outside guide, outside father, outside agency, God, highest principle, or the highest ideal, or change the circumstances, you understand, the environment, which the Communists want to do, and then human beings will change', which is exactly the same thing: thought created the God, the outside agency, thought has created the idea of a - that a perfect environment will change man. So thought is still a fragmentary activity, right? I wonder if you see this.
48:02 So thought cannot solve the problem. So what will? Right? Now, when you ask that question, whom are you asking? You understand my question? Are you asking somebody outside you? Asking the speaker to tell you? Or you are saying to yourself: 'thought cannot solve this, it is a fact'. Then what is the next action, you understand? If you ask another, that asking is still fragmentary. You understand? I wonder if you understand this. If you ask another and the other replies, then you are setting him up as the authority. Right? And the authority is still a fragment. Your gurus are fragments, whether it is the priest on the corner or far away. So, you are asking this question to yourself - Right? - which is quite different. Because when you ask that question, there is no authority to tell you. Right? So then you are free of one of the basic principles, which is no authority in spiritual matters. That means no guru, with all their circus going on. So you are asking yourself this question: my thought, which has created me, my problems, my anxieties, my fears, my hopeless despair, my sorrow, agony, if thought cannot solve it, what will. Right? So I am not looking outwardly, because I see what I am inwardly conquers the outer. Right? It has been shown historically, it has been shown every day - what you are inside conquers the outer. The communists started out with no government, government withering away individuals complete - you know all the rest of it - but the opposite has taken place, which is the inner conquers always the outer.
51:28 So you are asking a question, which is: if thought cannot change me, what will? So I begin to investigate into myself, right? You understand? Because I am the world and the world is me. That is a fact. You may have different customs, different costumes, different manners of eating, clothes, and all the rest of it, but basically, deeply we are alike: we have sorrow, we have misery, we have confusion, we are in disorder. So go where you will, it is the same human problem, as human beings we are the same. You may call yourself a Swiss, an American or a Hindu or a Buddhist, whatever you like, but strip the labels, and you see the agony, the suffering, the misery and occasional happiness. So the world is me and I am the world. That is not an intellectual idea, it is a fact. So, when I - inquiring into myself I am inquiring into humanity, you understand? I wonder if you see that. Not 'myself', I am humanity. It isn't a selfish egocentric movement. Therefore when I look at myself and inquire into myself, I am inquiring into the whole human agony and pain and all that. So it is not a selfish movement, right?
53:48 So what will change me as a human being, who is the world? I recognise very clearly that outside agency will not solve this, right? Nor the transformation of environment, because I have created the environment, through my fear, through anxiety, through my desire for security, all the rest of it. So what will change this whole movement of thought? Got the picture? So I see thought has its own energy, right? The energy of conflict, the energy of competition, the energy of wanting to succeed and all that - the energy, that thought in its fragmentary activity has got its own extraordinary energy, the energy which has created the whole technological world. And the energy which thought has created in relationship - Right? - relationship between two human beings, two human beings which are - which thought has divided as you and me, right? So where there is division there must be conflict, and that conflict gives tremendous energy - Right? - outwardly and inwardly. Outwardly you see the Arab and the Jew what is going on, the energy that is wasted in there. And the energy thought has created between you and me as man and woman, you know all that business in relationship. Right? The extraordinary energy it has created. And we think that energy is going to solve the problem. You get it? So I see clearly that energy cannot possibly solve it, therefore there must be a totally different kind of energy, right? I am inquiring. I am not saying there is or there is not. I see thought as energy. Energy which has created this extraordinary technological world and extraordinary misery between man and man - human beings. - I had better include the women otherwise the women will say: 'Why did you leave me out' - between human beings. So one must find out if there is a totally different kind of energy, which is not brought about through conflict - right? - which is not the essence of conflict. Are we meeting each other?
57:47 So, what is the capacity of the mind that can find this out? You understand? Has is the capacity? Please, go into it with me a little bit. The speaker observes the energy of conflict in human relationship. And that energy, which is the movement of thought, that energy - thought says: 'I will transform with that energy'. Right? I see that, it is a clear observation, it is a fact. Then if that energy cannot solve all my problems, human problems, then what will? Now, is my mind, human mind, capable of finding it out? You understand? Because the human mind is frightened, is anxious, is always striving, struggling, conflict. Right? Can such a mind find this out? Or, that mind must be quiet before it can find ... You understand the question? Come on!
59:48 If my mind is always chattering, anxious, frightened, seeking his own security, its own happiness, its limited demands - such a mind cannot possibly find something which is not the product of thought. Right? Do you see this? Is this clear? So, to find that energy, if there is, there must be freedom. Right? You asked this question, to discuss freedom. There must be freedom. Freedom from anxiety, freedom from fear, freedom from sorrow. You understand? Otherwise you cannot possibly come upon the other. This is logical, isn't it?
1:00:59 No? So is it possible for the mind, for a human being, to be totally free of all the things that thought has put together, psychologically? Do you understand my question? That is, human consciousness - (sound of passing train) human consciousness is made up of all this content, right? Your consciousness - right? - yours, is made up of your demand for money, your demand for sex, your demand for power, position, prestige, happiness, attachments to your furniture, to people, to places, to things, it is made up of all your beliefs, right? All that is your consciousness. No? Right? Oh, for God's sake! That is human consciousness with its content. As long as there is that content in the consciousness, which is fear, pleasure, sorrow, and all its complications, that is your consciousness, put together by thought. Right? So as long as those contents remain in that consciousness - and that consciousness is its content, right? - you cannot possibly find out if there is a different kind of energy. Therefore one must be free of its content.
1:03:39 Surely, if I want to find something beyond my own imagination, illusions, desires, I must first be free of those things, mustn't I? Logically I must be free of attachment - right? - whether it is attachment to a person, to a belief, to a piece of furniture or a house. I must be free from it before I can possibly look beyond. So is it possible for me to be free of complete psychological authority, so that I don't look to another to tell me what to do, psychologically. Of course the doctor will tell me what to do, or the technician will tell me what to do - that is quite a different matter. But psychologically, inwardly, to be told what to do by another. The other is myself - you understand? - because he is in sorrow, he is in mysery, he is in confusion, and he is my guru or my priest, or my God, or my saviour, he is just like the rest of humanity.
1:05:12 So part of this consciousness is to accept inward authority in the world of the psyche, which is generally called spiritual world. So, can you - can this mind be free of that? You have made the outside authority, because inwardly you are in disorder. If there is no disorder you have no authority. You understand? There was a time - if the Italians will forgive me - at one time Italy was in confusion and Mussolini came to bring order. It is happening in India, it is happening all over the world. Where there is outward disorder, that very disorder creates the authority. Right? That is a law. So, when there is disorder in you, you are bound to create the outer authority. The gurus are multiplying by the dozen, with their systems - you know all that filthy business.
1:06:45 So, can you be free of this search for an authority, which will give you security? That is part of your consciousness which is based on fear. So we have come to a very complex problem of fear. Right? As we said, our consciousness is filled with these three principle factors: fear, with all its complications and ramifications, pleasure, which is very complex, and sorrow. Our consciousness is filled with that. So can the mind, this consciousness empty itself of itself to find out if there is a totally different kind of energy? Unless it is free from that you will never find it. Right? Logically. You can talk about freedom, you can talk about authority and all the rest of these things, but is has no value for a man who is very serious. And we have to be serious with the world that is so disarrayed.
1:08:44 So I'd better stop there and perhaps you will ask some questions with regard to what we have talked about. We will go on after tomorrow, we will go on with all this. We are going to have six - seven talks and five discussions. So you will have plenty of time to tear me to pieces or rather tear to pieces what you have heard or not heard. So would you like to ask some questions of what we have talked about? Before you ask questions please bear in mind that you are asking the questions of yourself aloud, because we are not your authority, we are not your guru. You have to find truth for yourself, which means you have to be a light for yourself. There is no other light except the light which you have for yourself. Then when you find that light, then it is the light of the world. You understand? So.
1:10:22 Q: I'm finding in myself that, like you say, thought is the problem, I am finding that there is a lot of fear in me, in me and her, and all the rest, see, it is there long before thought, like when I was very little.
1:10:48 K: May I answer that question, sir? The questioner says: thought existed before fear - fear existed before thought, pardon.
1:11:04 Q: Thought to me is not the problem, but a symptom.
1:11:10 K: Oh, the symptom is the problem and not the cause?
1:11:16 Q: Fear existed before thought.
1:11:19 K: Do let's be clear of your question, sir.
1:11:22 Q: Well, I'm saying that thought is not the problem. There is a lot of pain in me, long before thought.
1:11:33 K: The questioner says - if I am representing him rightly - the questioner says: thought is not the problem, the problem is fear and pain. And he adds also: those are the symptoms.
1:11:57 Q: No, they are not symptoms.
1:11:58 K: Oh, they are not symptoms.
1:12:01 Q: Thought is the symptom.
1:12:05 K: Now, let's be clear.
1:12:06 Q: I will say it again: fear - when I was very little I had a lot of fear.
1:12:15 K: When I was little I had a lot of fear.
1:12:18 Q: But I didn't have thought.
1:12:22 K: When he was little he had a lot of fear, but he had no thought.
1:12:29 Q: A little baby doesn't have a mind to have thought.
1:12:32 K: No, so don't let's go back to babies and let's find out if fear is independent of thought or thought had brought about fear. Right, Sir? Whether fear is the result of thinking, or fear independent of thought. That is the question, isn't it?
1:13:17 Are the opposites independent of each other? You understand my question? The opposites, the opposed, are they independent of each other? Or are they essentially related to each other? Wait, I'll show you, just go slow, go slow. There are opposing desires - right? - I want that, I don't want that. They are opposing desires. Are they independent of each other? Or they have the same movement? You understand? So they are not independent of each other.
1:14:14 Now take - is pain the opposite of - what? - non pain? Or both are the same. They are like the two sides of the same coin. Therefore there is no question of independence. That is what I want to get at first. We think the opposites are independent, right? The opposite desires, we think they are independent of each other. Are they? Desire is common to both, right? I desire that and I don't desire that. So desire is the common factor. Right? So the opposites are never independent. Is that clear, sir? If you see that, then fear is thought. We will go into that tomorrow morning. Please, let's get this clear first, that any opposite, bravery and cowardice, are related to each other, right? Right? That's simple, isn't it? Cowardice and bravery are related to each other. Therefore they are not independent of each other. So there are no opposites at all, except man, woman and dark and light - that's a different matter. Psychologically there is no opposite. At least got this. When there is an opposite, there is a conflict. Right?
1:16:38 Look...
1:16:39 Q: (inaudible)
1:16:40 K: Wait, wait, let me finish - uno momento per favore - (inaudible) (Laughter) Yes, we'll look: I am envious - if one is envious - one is envious, the opposite is non-envious. What is the opposite? How has non-envy come into being? Because I have been envious. Therefore, being envious, I say: 'It brings a lot of trouble, I will be non-envious'. But I have been envious, therefore the non-envious is related to envy. In the same way: violence and non-violence. That - we say there are two opposites. They are not. There is only one, which is violence. But, as I - as human beings don't know what to do with violence, they invent the non-violence in the hope of achieving that, using that as a lever to get rid of violence. You understand this? Come on, move! So, psychologically there is only one factor: that which is not the opposite. That which is, is envy. If my mind is capable of dealing with that envy, why should I have non-envy? Because it cannot - therefore it invents the other, which is an escape from the fact. Right?
1:18:40 So, thought and fear. He said: fear is independent of thought. Is it? If you had no thought at all, would you be afraid? Of tomorrow? Of the past? Of death? Or your neighbor? Your wife? So thought is fear. We will go into all that tomorrow.
1:19:16 Q: I have to say that the fear is in the body. It's not only in the head.
1:19:29 K: No, fear of the body ...
1:19:31 Q: I mean you feel it tremble.
1:19:33 K: I know, I know, you get almost paralysed, you shake. We will go into all that tomorrow, the day after tomorrow.
1:19:43 Any other question? We will deal with it, sir.
1:19:48 Q: (In French)
1:19:51 K: Comment, madame?
1:19:52 Q: (In French)
1:20:19 K: Bien, madame ...
1:20:20 Q: (In French)
1:20:42 K: Bien, madame, je comprends. The question is this: it is a question about death and the person that is left behind, right? This loneliness, this solitude, the lack of companionship, the sense of utter loneliness, being left alone.
1:21:14 Is this the occasion to discuss that question of death? Oh, Lord. You know, it is one of the most complex problems that man has faced from the time he began. This question of death, survival, after death, and this utter sense of loneliness. To answer that question really very very very deeply, we must spend a lot of time on it. Not just two minutes at the end of a talk, because death is something which all human beings have tried to avoid. And having accepted it that the ancient Egyptians perpetuated the daily living eternally. Or there is the whole problem of reincarnation, and so on, so on, so on. So if you don't mind at the end of an hour and twenty minutes or so, if you will forgive me Madame, we will discuss that question at another time. May we do that?
1:22:52 You see, you ask a question and you don't go through with it. You ask what is the mind, what is fear, wat is thought - you don't take time, you don't give the other fellow time to explain and go into it. You say: 'Answer me quickly'. These questions cannot be answered quickly. Because they are immense questions, which human beings have worked upon for millennia and you want it all said in a few words. We have to find out what death is, if there is immortality, and what is it that is immortal, why there is that immense sense of loneliness, left alone completely. That means - please, we are not being harsh or anything, but you have to give time, you have to come and listen to it, find out. But if you say: 'Sorry, I can't, I've got to go tomorrow, I have got to see my old friend in Geneva or somewhere else - sorry and tell me quickly, I am so sorry'. These things cannot possibly be told in a few seconds. So you will have to forgive me.