Datasets:

eliwill

/

Krishnamurti

like 1

I say that a leader, a follower, a virtuous man does not know love. I say that to you. You who are leaders, you who are followers, who are struggling to be virtuous - I say you do not know love. Do not argue with me for a moment; do not say, ''Prove it to me.'' I will reason with you, show you, but first, please listen to what I have to say without being defensive, aggressive, approving, or denying. I say that a leader, a follower, or a man who is trying to be virtuous - such an individual does not know what love is. If you really listen to that statement not with an aggressive or submissive mind, then you will see the actual truth of it. If you do not see the truth of it, it is because you do not want to, or you are so supremely contented with your leadership, your following, or your so-called virtues that you deny everything else. But if you are at all sensitive, inquiring, open, as when looking out of a window, then you must see the truth of it, you are bound to. Now I will give you the reasons because you are all fairly reasonable, intellectual people, and you can be convinced. But you will never actually know the truth through intellect or reason. You will be convinced through reason, but being convinced is not the perception of what is true. There is a vast difference between the two. A man who is convinced of something is incapable of seeing what is true. A man who is convinced can be unconvinced and convinced again in a different way. But a man who sees that which is true is not ''convinced''; he sees that it just is true.

Now as I said, a leader who says, ''I know the way, I know all about life, I have experienced the ultimate reality, I have the goods,'' obviously is very concerned about himself and his visions and about transmitting his visions to the poor listener; a leader wants to lead people to something which he thinks is right. So the leader, whether it is the political, the social, the religious leader, or whether it is your wife or husband - such a one has no love. He may talk about love, he may offer to show you the way of love, he may do all the things that love is supposed to do, but the actual feeling of love is not there because he is a leader. If there is love you cease to be a leader, for love exercises no authority. And the same applies to the follower. The moment you follow, you are accepting authority, are you not? - the authority which gives you security, a safe corner in heaven, or a safe corner in this world. When you follow, seeking security for yourself, your family, your race, your nation, that following indicates that you want to be safe, and a man who seeks safety knows no quality of love. And so also with the virtuous man. The man who cultivates humility surely is not virtuous. Humility is not a thing to be cultivated.

So, I am trying to show you that a mind that is sensitive, inquiring, a mind that is really listening can perceive the truth of something immediately. But truth cannot be ''applied.'' If you see the truth, it operates without your conscious effort, of its own accord.

So, discontent is the beginning of freedom, and so long as you are trying to manipulate discontent, to accept authority in order that this discontent shall disappear, enter into safe channels, then you are already losing that pristine sense of real feeling. Most of us are discontented, are we not, either with our jobs, our relationships, or whatever we are doing. You want something to happen, to change, to move, to break through. You do not know what it is. There is a constant searching, inquiring, especially when one is young, open, sensitive. Later on, as you become old, you settle down in your habits, your job, because your family is safe, your wife will not run away. So this extraordinary flame disappears and you become respectable, petty, and thoughtless.

So, as I have been pointing out, freedom from something is not freedom. You are trying to be free from anger; I do not say you must not be free from anger, but I say that that is not freedom. I may be rid of greed, pettiness, envy, or a dozen other things, and yet not be free. Freedom is a quality of the mind. That quality does not come about through very careful, respectable searchings and inquiries, through very careful analysis, or putting ideas together. That is why it is important to see the truth that the freedom we are constantly demanding is always from something, such as freedom from sorrow. Not that there is no freedom from sorrow, but the demand to be free from it is merely a reaction and therefore does not free you from sorrow. Am I making myself clear? I am in sorrow for various reasons, and I say I must be free. The urge to be free of sorrow is born out of pain. I suffer because of my husband or my son or something else; I do not like that state I am in and I want to get away from it. That desire for freedom is a reaction; it is not freedom. It is just another desirable state I want in opposition to what is. The man who can travel around the world because he has plenty of money is not necessarily free, nor is the man who is clever or efficient, for his wanting to be free is again merely a reaction. So can I not see that freedom, liberation, cannot be learned or acquired or sought after through any reaction? Therefore I must understand the reaction, and I must also understand that freedom does not come through any effort of will. Will and freedom are contradictory, as thought and freedom are contradictory. Thought cannot produce freedom because thought is conditioned. Economically you can, perhaps, arrange the world so that man can be more comfortable, have more food, clothing, and shelter; and you may think that is freedom. Those are necessary and essential things, but that is not the totality of freedom. Freedom is a state and quality of mind. And it is that quality we are inquiring into. Without that quality, do what you will, cultivate all the virtues in the world, you will not have that freedom.

So how is that sense of otherness, that quality of mind to come about? You cannot cultivate it because the moment you use your brain, you are using thought, which is limited. Whether it is the thought of the Buddha or anyone else, all thought is limited. So our inquiry must be negative; we must come to that freedom obliquely, not directly. Do you understand, sirs? Am I giving some indication, or none at all? That freedom is not to be sought after aggressively, is not to be cultivated by denials, disciplines, by checking yourself, torturing yourself, by doing various exercises, and all the rest of it. It must come without your knowing, like virtue. Cultivated virtue is not virtue; the virtue which is true virtue is not self-conscious. Surely a man who has cultivated humility, who because of his conceit, vanity, arrogance has made himself humble - such a man has no true sense of humility. Humility is a state in which the mind is not conscious of its own quality, as a flower which has fragrance is not conscious of its own perfume. So this freedom cannot be got through any form of discipline, nor can a mind which is undisciplined understand it. You use discipline to produce a result, but freedom is not a result. If it is a result, it is no longer free because it has been produced.

So, how is the mind, which is full of multitudinous influences, compulsions, various forms of contradictory desires, the product of time, how is that mind to have the quality of freedom? You understand, sirs? We know that all the things that I have been talking about are not freedom. They are all manufactured by the mind under various stresses, compulsions, and influences. So, if I can approach it negatively, in the very awareness that all this is not freedom, then the mind is already disciplined - but not disciplined to achieve a result. Let us go into that briefly.

The mind says, ''I must discipline myself in order to achieve a result.'' That is fairly obvious. But such discipline does not bring freedom. It brings a result because you have a motive, a cause which produces the result, but that result is never freedom, it is only a reaction. That is fairly clear. Now, if I begin to understand the operations of that kind of discipline, then in the very process of understanding, inquiring, going into it, my mind is truly disciplined. I do not know if you can see what I mean, quickly. The exercise of will to produce a result is called discipline; whereas, the understanding of the whole significance of will, of discipline, and of what we call result demands a mind that is extraordinarily clear and ''disciplined,'' not by the will, but through negative understanding.

So, negatively, I have understood the whole problem of what is not freedom. I have examined it, I have searched my heart and my mind, the recesses of my being, to understand what freedom means, and I see that none of these things we have described is freedom because they are all based on desire, compulsion, will, on what I will get at the end, and they are all reactions. I see factually that they are not freedom. Therefore, because I have understood those things, my mind is open to find out or receive that which is free. So, my mind has a quality which is not that of a disciplined mind seeking a result, not that of the undisciplined mind which wanders about, but it has understood, negatively, both what is and 'what should be', and so can perceive, can understand that freedom which is not from something, that freedom which is not a result. Sirs, this requires a great deal of inquiry. If you just repeat that there is a freedom which is not the freedom from something, it has no meaning. So please do not say it. Or if you say, ''I want to get that other freedom, '' you are also on the wrong track, for you cannot. The universe cannot enter into the petty mind; the immeasurable cannot come to a mind that knows measurement. So our whole inquiry is how to break through the measurement - which does not mean I must go off to an ashram, become neurotic, devotional, and all that nonsense.

And here, if I may say so, what is important is the teaching and not the teacher. The person who speaks here at the moment is not important; throw him overboard. What is important is what is being said. So the mind only knows the measurable, the compass of itself, the frontiers, ambitions, hopes, desperation, misery, sorrows, and joys. Such a mind cannot invite freedom. All that it can do is to be aware of itself and not condemn what it sees; not condemn the ugly or cling to the beautiful, but see what is. The mere perception of what is is the beginning of the breaking down of the measurement of the mind, of its frontiers, its patterns - just to see things as they are. Then you will find that the mind can come to that freedom involuntarily, without knowing. This transformation in the mind itself is the true revolution. All other revolutions are reactions, even though they use the word freedom and promise Utopia, the heavens, everything. There is only true revolution in the quality of the mind.

We talked over together the last time, which was on Sunday, the whole question of fear. I think we ought to go into the problem of pleasure, enjoyment and that which is not pleasure, which is joy. It's really quite a complex problem because it involves a great deal and to understand this problem, this question, which man has been pursuing for centuries upon centuries - the pursuit of pleasure - we ought to consider what is freedom with regard to pleasure, what part does intelligence play with regard to pleasure, and beauty which incites pleasure.

What is freedom? Many books and theoreticians and so-called philosophers - the word 'philosophy' means the love of truth, not the love of words and theories - many philosophers and others have written a great deal, I believe, about pleasure and about freedom. The Communist world denies freedom, all dictatorship, totalitarianism denies the necessity and the demand for freedom, they call it a bourgeois idiosyncrasy without any reality. I am using the word 'reality' in the sense which we have been talking about. And religious people have said there is no freedom in this world, you have to find it in heaven, or withdraw from this world into some kind of monastic world and seek freedom inwardly - freedom from everything that one has observed in oneself and in the world about one. If there is no freedom of expression, of thought, of speech, then one lives a life of slavery. But that freedom of expression has led to a great deal of danger, damage, a freedom to express oneself without investigating totally, completely what is expression and what is it that is being expressed, and who is it that is expressing it - without considering that, merely to demand freedom of expression does lead to a great deal of mischief and confusion. And in enquiring this question of freedom, is there freedom - total, whole - or is freedom partial, that is freedom from something which is invariably partial? That is, if I want to be free from something, it is only a reaction which cultivates the opposite. And the opposite invariably contains its own opposite - so in that there is no freedom. Are we moving together in this?

That is: in the opposite - whether it is the Communist opposite as an antithesis - the opposite can never give freedom, because the opposite has its root in that which has been considered its own opposite. So in that there is no freedom. So is freedom away from reality, reality being that which has thought... which thought has brought about, which thought has put together, which thought reflects upon, which thought has created the idea of freedom and then seeks it as something separate from itself - or is freedom not from something but from reality? That is to give reality its right place.

As we said the other day, the word 'art' means to put everything in its right place, where it belongs. So in enquiring into freedom, is that freedom totally away from reality, though in reality there must be a certain order of freedom? Right? If in the world of reality there is no freedom at all, then we are completely slaves. But when there is order, that is to put everything where it belongs in the world of reality, then there is a certain quality of freedom there. But that freedom is not the total freedom. Right? This is not a theory, this is not a speculative conclusion, but when one observes the whole demand of man for freedom, he has always sought freedom in the world of reality. Please see that. He has always sought out this sense of self-expression, choice, identification - always in the world of reality and there he says, 'I must have freedom' . And that freedom has created a great deal of confusion, chaos, individual pursuits and so that freedom, without order in the world of reality becomes meaningless. But freedom, that is, total complete psychological freedom, is not within the field of reality. And in enquiring into this question of freedom one asks: what is intelligence? The word 'intelligence' in the dictionary it says: to read between the lines and to keep a mind very alert. To read between the lines in the printed page, but also read between linear expression. I wonder if you understand - between two thoughts - and thoughts are always linear, line - vertical or horizontal. And intelligence also, the dictionary says, is to keep a very alert mind. Is that intelligence? We are asking: what is intelligence? Because in understanding what is intelligence, we shall be able to put pleasure where it belongs, otherwise the pursuit of pleasure becomes dominant in life. I wonder if you are meeting this?

Is intelligence merely to keep a mind extraordinarily awake, which is necessary, and is it merely to read between two thoughts, between two lines, between two words, between two symbolic conclusions? Or is intelligence... does intelligence come about through the orderly action in the field of reality and that orderly action in the field of reality gives intelligence to perceive? Am I conveying something at all or is this altogether Greek or Chinese? There must be freedom for perception. To see clearly, you must be free. You cannot see clearly if you are not able to read between the lines, to have a clear undistorted mind and therefore there is the act, the total act of perception and that act of perception is intelligence.

I am investigating as we are going along. Because I see very clearly that in the world of reality in which we live, we live a very disorderly life, and to escape from that disorderly life, we resort to all kinds of absurdities. But if we do not bring about order in the field of reality - the field of reality being the activity of thought, seeing its limitation, seeing it cannot possibly go beyond its limitation however much it may expand, it is still limited and that thought, which has created a disorder in this world of reality, that thought itself cannot possibly bring order in that reality. To see all that is intelligence. Right?

Please. The word 'intelligence' is not merely just a word, it doesn't come by merely offering opinions or definitions about intelligence. We can play that game endlessly. But without that quality of intelligence, which is the act of perception, and the act of perception is to do what it sees immediately - that is intelligence. That is, a man who has ideals is unintelligent - forgive me - because his action is fragmented by what he calls a future achievement, according to the goal, the ideal and therefore he is not acting. If a man has a belief and acts according to that belief, it is not action. But a man who perceives acts instantly - such a man is an intelligent human being, because he sees the danger and acts. He sees the falseness and acts. Not, 'Tell me how to act', or, 'I'll take time to act'. When you see a dangerous animal, you act instantly. So the action of perception is the movement of intelligence. Have you got this? Please, don't accept my word or my argument, or my logic, or my - just see it for yourself. Like a man who has been brought up in a culture which says you must be nationalistic, patriotic - fight and kill etc., etc. If you see that, what it has done in the world - all the calamity, the misery, the suffering, the brutality of division - if you see that clearly you act. Therefore you are no longer held within the boundaries of a particular country. I wonder if you see this. So such an action is supreme intelligent action. Right?

Then also we must consider what is beauty in relation to pleasure. We asked what is freedom with regard to pleasure, because we all say, 'I must be free to pursue my pleasure.' If I am thwarted, I'll become violent and all the rest of it. And in the understanding of pleasure, what is the relationship of intelligence to the pursuit of pleasure? The pursuit is one thing and pleasure is another. The pursuit of pleasure is the movement of thought in time. All right? May I go on?

So, there must be an understanding, there must be the ordering of beauty in relation to pleasure. So what is beauty? You know again this is a very, very subtle question, because we all have opinions unfortunately. We say beauty is this, beauty is that or this is not beautiful, or that is beautiful - and so on - this is ugly, that is beautiful. We are so entrenched in our own conclusions, in our own experience, in our own accumulated prejudice which we call knowledge - and if you could put aside all that, what you think is beauty, what other people have said about beauty, what you have experienced and hold that memory and say, as long as beauty conforms to that experience which I have had as beautiful, that is not beautiful. So if you could put aside all that, which is quite arduous - because that is freedom. If I cling to my experience of beauty and somebody comes along and says, 'Look, that is not beautiful', I won't give up my beauty, because I have experienced it. I know, what it means. So if we could liberate ourselves from those various forms of conclusions, then what is beauty? Is beauty in the world of reality or is it not within the movement of thought as time? Please follow this carefully, because we are investigating together - I am not laying down the law. I am not so stupid as that. I have no opinions about it, I have no conclusions about it. I am just asking myself: does beauty lie within the movement of thought as time? That is, within the field of reality. There are beautiful paintings, statues, sculpture, marvellous cathedrals, wonderful temples - if you have been to India, some of those ancient temples are really quite extraordinary, they have no time, it has not been... there has been no entity as a human being who put it. Those marvellous old sculptures from the Egyptians, the Greeks and to the modern. That is: is the expression the creative feeling? Does creation need expression? Please, I am not saying it does or does not, I am asking, enquiring. Is beauty which is both expression outwardly and the sense of inward feeling of extraordinary elation which comes when there is complete cessation of the 'me' with all the movements? I wonder if you follow this.

So before we begin to enquire what is beauty, we have to go into this question of what is creation? What is the mind that is creative? Can the mind that is fragmented - however capable, whatever its gift, talent - is such a mind creative? If I live a fragmented life, pursuing my cravings, my selfishness, my division as the artist and everything is non-art world, my life, my activity, my thoughts, my self-centred ambitions, pursuits, my pain, my struggle - is such a mind - I am asking, please - is such a mind creative? Though it has produced marvellous music, marvellous literature, great cathedrals and temples and mosques - and poems - English literature is filled with it, as other kinds of literature. Is a mind that is not whole, can that be creative? Or creation is only possible when there is the total wholeness and therefore no fragmentation. A mind that is fragmented is not a beautiful mind and therefore not creative. I wonder if you get this.

No please, this is not my conclusion. I am not the Delphic Oracle. I am enquiring with you, we are enquiring together, taking the journey together into this enormous problem of what is called beauty. And does such a mind that is whole, whole in the sense not fragmented, not contradictory in action, not contradictory in its activity, not self-centred, caught in the movement of thought in time - all that - is such a mind, which always demands expression: my painting, my work, my picture, my poem, my everything else - which is identifying the expression with himself as the entity who expresses - is such a mind creative? Or a mind that has never known or lives in fragmentation? Fragmentation implies contradiction and therefore conflict, struggle. And you will say that may be marvellous, but we have to live in this fragmented world, we haven't got that extraordinary feeling of totality - and so there is division then between the artist, the businessman, the scientist, the writer and you are just as destructive in this division as anybody else. I wonder if you see this thing - not accept my feeling about it.

So is beauty the expression of a marvellous building, the outlines of an extraordinary structure? Is beauty the poem - however romantic, however usual, however rhythmic, whatever its content, written by a poet who himself is ambitious, greedy, wants to have success, sensitive in one direction and totally insensitive in other directions - is such a man really creative and can such a man, though he may express the feeling of what he thinks is beauty in words and which we accept as beauty, is that really beauty?

So, to find out what beauty is - the inward sense of it, not the expression of it. When you see the mountain which is beautiful, we don't have to be told it is beautiful - and when you paint that mountain and exhibit it, the thing that is painted is not the mountain. So we have to go very deeply into the question of what is beauty, because apparently all religions have denied beauty. Have you ever watched monks in Europe in a monastery - they may have a lovely old, ancient monastery - but have you watched them? They are immersed with their own prayers, they are everlastingly looking at the book, they are caught in a routine, and so on. Once in the mountains in the north of India I was following a group of monks, Hindu monks - they didn't know I was behind them but if they knew they would have all turned round and done all kinds of silly superstitious respect. I was walking behind them: not one of them looked at the sky nor the beauty of a tree, and there was sound of water - because they were chanting and never dared to look at anything that might incite a desire - a desire for a woman, a desire for great pleasure. Nothing.

And if you have watched only - I have been told, in recent years the landscape was painted in Italy with the saints. So religions, because they said, 'Beauty is associated with pleasure, therefore if you are pursuing god you cannot pursue pleasure, therefore don't be caught in beauty.' You understand? This is happening. And beauty and love and pleasure.

We said a human being who is selfish - selfish being ambitious, greedy, worldly - worldly in the sense wanting a name, position, recognition, popularity, money, a status - all that is included in that word 'selfishness' for the moment. A mind that is selfish, is he creative or is it only a mind that is totally unselfish that knows this feeling of total creation - not as an artist as a - nothing, total? That is: there is beauty only when there is total abandonment of the ego, the 'me', because the 'me' is the product of thought. Having created the 'me', the 'me' thinks it is different from thought. Haven't you? And that 'me' may have certain capacities, talents, gifts and that expresses itself and which we greatly admire - buy pictures worth millions, because it has financial value later on. But we consider all that creative. It is like a person who is teaching or concerned with creative writing. Creativeness comes only when there is no 'me'. Then there is beauty. That requires great sensitivity of the body, the mind, the whole entity.

So, pleasure has been identified with beauty - the beautiful woman. The beautiful, which is lovely. So love and beauty and pleasure apparently have gone together. And one questions that whole concept, because it is a concept: that love is beauty and the pursuit of beauty is pleasure. So one has to go into this question of what is pleasure. You understand? Freedom which is an enormous thing, enormous issue; then there is intelligence. We said intelligence is an act of total perception - not the cunning mind that reads between the lines, or having a very alert mind. You can have a very alert mind by taking drugs, by various forms of stimulation - but that's not an alert mind, that is gradually becoming a dull mind. And also freedom, intelligence and this quality of beauty with which is identified love and pleasure.

So is love pleasure? You understand? We have associated love with pleasure, with the desire - and what is pleasure and why does man everlastingly pursue that pleasure? If you have watched yourself, if you have gone, looked at yourself even for ten minutes, ten seconds - this is one of the great principles, like suffering, pleasure, fear. And why does man pursue to the very end of his life or beyond it as coming nearer to God - the ultimate pleasure. Why? And what is pleasure? Is there such thing as pleasure? Please go into it.

There are three things concerned with pleasure: joy, enjoyment and pleasure. This is so - look at it. You are going to find out what is the relationship between the three of them. Joy - real enjoyment of a lovely day, the enjoyment of seeing the mountains, hearing the great thunder rolling among the hills - and the mind that is pursuing the pleasure as that which has happened yesterday, with that lightning. So what is pleasure? Is there a moment of pleasure - I am asking - when you can say, 'This is pleasure'? Or you only know it after. You recognise it as pleasure when it is over, which is the movement of thought as time. I wonder if you see this thing! So is there a moment when you say, 'My god, this is great pleasure!' But only when thought, when that incident which has been called 'pleasure', in quotes, has been registered in the brain and then the awakening of thought and recognising that as delight, pleasure and pursuing it - sexually - in so many ways. So what is the relationship of thought to pleasure? Pleasure being emotions, great feeling, sentimentality, feeling tremendously sentimental, gooey, romantic, ideological. What relationship has pleasure to thought, or is pleasure the movement of thought only? I take... There has been a pleasure - what we call pleasure - a flattery, someone flatters you: 'Marvellous, how beautiful, what a lovely writing that is, what a marvellous speech you have made!' That is pleasure. And you listen to that and you like the flattery of another, which means you are not really concerned with the truth of perception but the flattery of someone who says, 'What a marvellous fellow you are'. Then thought picks that up, pursues it and you who have flattered are my everlasting friend and I seek more and more flattery. That is the pursuit of pleasure which also acts in the other opposite way, which is: you hurt me and I pursue that hurt, thought pursues that hurt, and you are my enemy or I don't like you, avoid you. It's the same principle. So is thought the pursuer, not pleasure? I wonder if you see that. I've found something!

We are not pursuing pleasure but thought is pursuing pleasure. And when you pursue... when thought pursues something, it must be in the field of time. Therefore yesterday the sexual pleasure, the remembrance of it and the pursuit of it. Seeing the pleasure, all 'pleasure', in quotes, the mountains and the sunset, and the thunder rolling among the hills and thought pursuing that sound, pursuing that marvellous light of an evening on the snow. So it is the movement of thought as a remembrance in time that is the pursuit of pleasure. I wonder if you get all this. I pursue a guru - not I (laughter) - I have an abomination of gurus, because they are the new priests; before you accepted the Catholic domination. You were told exactly what to do and you did that - now you are bored with that and you take on new gurus and you will get bored with that and then you will go on to the gurus from China or Japan, or Russia - it is the same pattern.

So: can thought not pursue? You understand? You flatter me - and I listen to it - and that's the end of it. Thought then doesn't carry it over. You have said something which was maybe right or wrong; I listen to it - there's the reaction and there's the ending of it. The light on those mountains yesterday evening, with all that great sense of space, stillness and great strength - see it, end it, so that thought doesn't come and say, 'What a lovely thing that was, I am going to pursue it'. I wonder if... you understand?

That means to be totally awake to the whole problem of pleasure. And what is the relationship between pleasure and enjoyment? You enjoy a good meal - if you do - and you want the repetition of that enjoyment tomorrow. Right? So there is the enjoyment of the moment, and thought pursuing that enjoyment of the moment as a movement in time. I wonder if you see that. Is pleasure... What is the relationship of pleasure to joy? Is there any relationship at all? Or the joy comes unexpectedly, not invited. That which is invited is pleasure as thought in time. I wonder if I am getting...

So, is love pleasure? Tell me sir. That is, we said the pursuit, the hunter is the thought. So is love to be hunted by thought? And which it does, as we live now - and is that love? Has love any relationship to thought? Please sir, go into it. And if it has no relationship to love, then what is my relationship to another whom I so-call love? To find out all this, not from another because each one is concerned with his own life. His own life is the life of the world and the life of the world is you - because you suffer, you are anxious, you pursue pleasure, there is suffering, you have fear, so has another. So you are the world and the world is you - and this is your life. Don't waste it, for god's sake, don't waste it. And to find out what it is to be totally free.

So freedom, intelligence, beauty and love and the pursuit of pleasure are all interrelated - they are not separate things, which we have made it. 'I must be beautiful' - not only physically attractive, sexually appealing. This is our education, our conditioning, and to see all this as a whole - not as fragments, not as broken up, as freedom something separate, intelligence something separate and so on - to see the whole of it as a whole, that is the act of intelligence, that is beauty, that is love, that is freedom.

Here all this is important to understand and live - not merely intellectually, understand verbally - because we are going to deal with something much more... something which is the total truth and total creation, which is death. And to understand that problem which has torn man, which has... man has pursued something, tried to understand the problem, overcome it - unless we lay the foundation, which we have been doing, because in comprehending what death is, then we shall see what the meaning of life is. At present our life has no meaning actually as we live it. Has it? If you are honest to oneself, deeply, has it any meaning? Meaning in the sense: total significance. It might have a meaning in order to earn money and livelihood and all that - but that must be related to the whole of life. If you are merely concerned with the earning of a livelihood, unrelated to the rest of our existence, then that earning a livelihood does cause great mischief, then we become totally competitive - you follow? - all that is happening in the world.

So we have this problem of death, and later on perhaps we will talk about meditation and all that. We have got two more talks, haven't we? Two more. We'll have to cover those two things next two days that we meet here. But you know, if you have no sense of beauty - not painting and all the rest of it, paint your face and long hair and short nose and the latest fashion, you know - but the feeling of beauty which can only come about when there is total abandonment of selfishness, the total abandonment of 'me' which thought has created. That means there is only beauty when thought is silent. You understand this? I've got it. You understand that? Not when thought is chattering about the thing that is painted. Only when thought is completely silent, then there is beauty. But when you say, 'How is thought to be silent?', which is what you will ask - then you have lost beauty. And the gurus and all the professionals are supplying how to make thought silent. Therefore they never had beauty. And when you pursue them, you are denying beauty. For god's sake see this. We'll have to stop soon.

The whole meaning, the whole substance of life is this, if you can capture it and live with it; and if you do live with it then you will affect every consciousness of human being. You can't help it. Right sir.

It would be good if we could have a dialogue between two people, but as there is such a large audience, it will not be possible. Because dialogue is very important, so that you ask a question and to that question there is a reply, and to that reply you ask another question and so keep that communication of question and answer going till the question remains without you or the speaker - only the question. That is really a dialogue. But that is not possible here this morning. So we are going to talk over things together, not you accept what the speaker says or disagree, but rather together, as we said yesterday morning, go into this whole problem of living our daily life, not according to any particular ideal or faith or belief, but taking things as they are and observing them very carefully. Perception without the perceiver - we talked about it yesterday morning also - so that when there is that pure perception, that which is observed undergoes a radical change.

We are going to talk over together this morning the art of living as we said yesterday, which is to have complete freedom, not the freedom of choice, not the freedom of what one wants to do or likes to do, for that freedom is limited by the environment, by society, by religious doctrines and so on, but freedom is something entirely different. It is not freedom about something or from something, but freedom per se. And when there is that freedom, which we are going to enquire presently, there is the supreme way of living without any conflict, without any problem, heightened intelligence, when the brain is fully active, not active in a particular direction, either scientific or business, or the problems of daily life, but when there is that freedom there is great energy, tremendous energy. And the word 'freedom' also, etymologically, means love. And that freedom implies enquiry, as we did yesterday into the problem of relationship. In that relationship, whether it is most intimate or with your neighbour or with the neighbour of a thousand miles away, as long as there is an image about the person with whom you are related or the person also relates to you and there is that image built, which we talked about yesterday, there must be conflict.

And we have lived with conflict for generation upon generation, not only conflict in our relationship, but conflict with society, conflict with other nations. Nationalism as we pointed out, is tribal worship and that is causing enormous despair, wars, division: the Jew and the Arab, the Hindu and the Muslim, the Communist and the Socialist and the so-called Democratic. There is tremendous conflict going on in the world. And this is the society, as we pointed out yesterday, which human beings have built. Society is not something that comes out of the air. Society in which we live is created by every human being, and that society, which is immoral, there is a great deal of injustice, and one questions whether there is justice at all. You can hire an excellent lawyer for your crooked way, and he will protect you. So one has to question all these problems in life. Society is what we have made of it and we are caught by that thing that we have made.

And as we say, unless there is a radical mutation, change, a fundamental psychological revolution, not physical revolutions which have led man nowhere, as is shown in the communist world, they have had many, many revolutions, physical revolutions, they have not changed the psychological quality of human beings. Unless there is fundamental, radical change, society will remain as it is now. And we said yesterday too, change implies time, change from this to that, change from violence to non-violence - which is now used for political purposes, invented in India or before India by Tolstoy and others. To achieve, to change violence into non-violence is a long duration of time. Will time change human beings? That is a very basic, radical question. Has time, which is evolution, of fifty thousand years or more, has man been changed during that long period of time psychologically? Obviously he has not. We are very primitive people, quarrelling with each other, wars, wars, endless wars, always in conflict. Psychologically, inwardly, we have not changed, we have changed very, very little. Perhaps, technologically we have advanced immensely, the atom bomb, telecommunication, the extraordinary explosion of machinery, computers, and so on, but inwardly, deeply, we remain what we have been for ten thousand or more years. Time does not change man. Please, this is a very serious statement; don't reject it.

We are exploring the thing together. To explore deeply, there must be a great deal of scepticism, doubt, not only doubt what you think, but doubt of your own experiences and prejudices and opinions - doubt the whole structure, psychological structure that human beings have built in themselves and around themselves. There must be constant questioning. Therefore out of that questioning deeply comes freedom, not acceptance, not holding on to one's own prejudices, opinions. Opinions have no value. They are not facts. You can have opinion about a fact, but fact is a fact; you cannot have an opinion about it; it is so. You are sitting there and the speaker is sitting here, that's a fact.

So, as we said, without freedom - please, we are using that word very, very carefully, not the freedom that you have in this country to do what you like, fulfil, you know the whole idea of freedom: choice, movement, status, position, achieve, success, that's only a very, very small part of freedom, and that may perhaps be a most destructive freedom if everyone does what he likes, as is happening throughout the world - you bring about great chaos, which is what is going on.

So what is freedom? And as we said that very word, etymologically, means love, from the Ancient Greeks and so on. Freedom implies freedom from, freedom from, let us say, fear. Is it possible for human beings who have lived with fear of various kinds to be completely free of fear psychologically, inwardly? We are asking this question. Please, you are asking this question of yourself: not I put that question to you and then answer that question. You are putting that question to yourself, whether human beings, who have lived on this earth for millennia upon millennia can ever be free from fear: fear of insecurity and seeking security, fear of death and what happens after death, fear of god (god is invented by man, by thought. We will go into that when we talk about it a little later on, about religion.) Freedom from attachment. So let us examine together what is the cause of fear, what is the root of fear. This examination is not merely intellectual, logical, rational, sane; it is not an analysis; it is perception. When you perceive something very clearly and that perception is not guided by prejudice, by a motive or a particular direction, then that perception acts on the causes of fear. We haven't time to go into all these matters very deeply in detail, so we must briefly go into it. What is the cause of fear, the root cause? Not fear about something, or the fear of what might happen, or the fear of not succeeding, fame, you know, all the rest of it, what is the essence, the root of fear? Is it time? Is it thought? Or is there another factor which is neither thought nor time? So first let's examine together, I mean, please, together, not the speaker examines, then you accept or reject, but together, which has an extraordinary quality when we do things together. When we do things together there is no authority, there is no leader, there is no guru. And in the matter of the psyche any kind of authority is destructive; in the so-called - if I may use that rather well-worn and shoddy word, 'spiritual', in that field there is no leader and therefore there is no follower. But when there is an examination together, seeing things together, not according to your prejudice or according to the speaker's prejudice, bias and so on, but actually perceiving together, then there is no acceptance or denial, logical or illogical; it is so.

So we are asking: what is the root of fear? We said is it time? Time being not only chronological time by the watch, sun rise, sunset, but time as a movement. That is, time is the past, the present and the future. In the present all time is contained. If there is no radical change in the present, now, the future is what you are. This is logical, you can see it happening now. And time is a process of thinking also. I have had pain, I have not at present pain, but a week later I might have pain. I am secure, but later on I might be insecure. This movement from the past through the present, modifying itself in the future, is the process of time. And is time different from thought?

Please, this is a serious question; it is not something to play with; it is not a hobby. We are dealing with life. Life isn't a hobby. Life means living at the highest excellence, at the highest capacity of intelligence and that implies intelligence is born out of love, not out of calculation, design - planned.

So is time, which is a movement from the past through the present and the future, having done something wrong, or having done something pleasant, modifying itself in the present, and going on in the future: I hope to have more pleasure, I hope to have more money - secure. The whole movement is of time. And is thought time? Thought, as we pointed out yesterday, is born out of memory. If there is no memory, there is no thought, and memory is the accumulated knowledge, whether the accumulation be of ten thousand years or one day, and that knowledge is based on experience. And as experience is very limited, so knowledge is limited. That is what the scientists are doing - adding more and more and more to their knowledge. Knowledge is never complete either now or in the future; it will always be limited. That is a fact; it is not an opinion of the speaker, or a conclusion; a fact, irrefutable. And so thought is limited. As time is limited, thought is also limited. They are both movements, both limited; and as we live human lives in time and thought, our lives are naturally very limited. You may expand it, knowledge may expand, grow - that which has growth must always be limited. Are we following each other?

So is thought, time, the root of fear? Obviously it is, and man has never been able to solve this question because we have lived with fear from the ape to now. Perhaps some of us are rather apish. So we are asking a very serious question: is it possible to be totally psychologically free of fear? Don't, please, agree or disagree. Don't say it is possible; then it is just a theory; or, if you say it is not possible, then you have blocked yourself from further investigation. So, the very question if left untouched by thought - you understand what I'm saying? We have asked this question, whether fear, with which we have lived, with all its darkness, with all its pain and anxiety, fear of death and so on, is it possible to be totally psychologically free of it? It implies, do we actually perceive, not theoretically or verbally, the fact that thought, time - which are both the same - time-thought; they are not two separate movements - to observe, to perceive the root of it which is thought-fear, perceive, not think about it, but to perceive, which means perception without the perceiver, the perceiver being the past. So when there is the perceiver observing, he is colouring, distorting from his memory and so on. So perception is free from that which is the past as the perceiver. To perceive without the perceiver, that means giving total attention. When there is total attention, not concentration. Concentration is something different from attention - which we will go into a little later - when there is complete attention, that attention acts as a flame and destroys completely the root of fear.

Not how to stop thinking - you understand? - which is causing fear. I wonder if you understand all this. (laughter) I was told yesterday that perhaps about two or three per cent understand what you are talking about! I hope not! It is a waste of time on your part, and on the part of the speaker. But if we are moving together, there is an extraordinary movement. It is like a vast river with an enormous volume of water. But when you are working it out by yourself, you are like a little stream that dies, withers up, dries up very soon.

And also we ought to talk over together the question of pleasure: pleasure of possession, pleasure of status, sexual pleasure, pleasure of seeing a sunset, pleasure of seeing the beauty of land, the delight of seeing a great mountain, snow-capped in the blue sky. It gives great pleasure. And also one has to look at it also, whether beauty is pleasure. What is beauty? I hope you don't mind me talking about so many things. We have limited time therefore we have to include as briefly as possible all the things we have to talk about, yesterday and today. What is beauty? You go into any museum of the world, there is a collection of great pictures, statues, from ancient temples. You look at them, and it gives you, if you have studied art, and you know who painted it, you begin to compare, you see the proportion, the light, the shadow and the colour; all that is perceiving a sense of beauty. That is only partial. So we are asking: what is the nature of beauty? Does beauty exist, not in the man or the woman, in a lovely face, good manners, dignity, a sense of proportion, the way he talks, the way he walks? In that also there is great beauty. Not in sloppiness - sorry! (laughter) And when you dig deeper, what is it? Is it a pleasure? Is it a delight? Is it something that you experience? Or it has nothing to do with experience, with pleasure? Please, we are asking this thing together, I am not asking, you are listening. Because man has pursued beauty all the time, created great art - the Ancient Egyptians, the glory of Greece, and before them, the Ancient Hindus, and the Buddhists, the marvellous temples, the great cathedrals and the beauty of the Catholic mass - all that is put together by thought. Do thought and the movement of thought show beauty? Or beauty has nothing whatsoever to do with thought and time? Not in the eye of the beholder: beauty exists only when there is no beholder, when there is no 'you'. Which means when there is total freedom from 'you': from all your problems, your worries, your anxieties, insecurities, sorrow - when all that is not, the other is. And so beauty, not being of time and thought, is not a matter of pleasure. Pleasure is remembrance of things that have happened and so on.

And also, if you are not too tired, we ought to talk over together the question of sorrow. Man, every human being on earth has carried this burden of sorrow. Sorrow that wars have produced; and these wars have been going on for five to six thousand years, practically every year there has been a war in this world and they are still going on - greater destruction of man; ten million can be wiped away in a second. You know all that, you have read about it. And wars have produced great sorrow, tears, people maimed for life. Sorrow of ideologies, ideologies have killed people. This is what is happening now. Wars have been produced by religion. Perhaps, if I may most gently suggest, Christianity has killed more people than any other people. Don't get angry, please. And we are still going on with killing each other in the name of god, in the name of country, in the name of some ideals, so-called nationalism which is really glorified tribalism. So there is a great deal of sorrow in the world and each one suffers in various ways. If you have no money, if you are very learned, you want more - so there is this constant struggle for the more. And there is the sorrow of death. And man throughout the world, from the most primitive to the most sophisticated human being, he has sorrow, and that sorrow has never ended. We have not been able to solve that problem. We have never ended the problem.

So we ought to talk over together, briefly for the moment, what is a problem? Why do we have problems - not only business problems, technological problems, problems with man and woman and so on? We have got so many problems. Why? And problems imply solutions; from childhood we are trained, educated, to solve problems. When a boy or a girl goes to a school they have problems immediately; how to write, how to read, learn mathematics, geography - it becomes a problem. Through college, university and so on, factory - our whole life has become a problem. Why? We are seeking out of those problems solutions. Solutions are far more important than the problem. Why? Is it because - please we are thinking together, not the speaker talking about it, we are together in this. Either we drown together, or live together - that we have reached this state in the world? Why has man not been able to resolve problems? Is it that his brain is conditioned, moulded from childhood to solve problems? His brain is conditioned that way and therefore he makes of everything a problem. How to live properly becomes a problem. What is right action becomes a problem. To understand problems one must be free from the mechanical conditioning of the brain, otherwise you are perpetually solving problems; in the solution of problems more problems, as is happening politically, economically, legislation, more problems because our whole brain is structured, conditioned to solve problems. I will leave that question with you to think about it - no, not think about it, to look at it.

We are asking whether sorrow can end. This question has been put long before Christianity, long before any kind of organised religion. Man has always asked this question while he is suffering: is there an end to all this pain and loneliness, despair, anxiety, remorse, guilt? When we've asked a question of this kind, that is, is sorrow personal, is sorrow also universal and what is the relationship of personal sorrow to the universal sorrow of man? You understand? When you ask that question: whether sorrow can end, can the tears of a thousand years, can all that end? That's a question. Where there is sorrow, there is also self-pity. There is sorrow also at the loss of something precious, sorrow of seeing poverty in this world, the sorrow of the politicians who are creating wars - and you are the politicians who are creating wars, not just the politicians on top, we are creating wars. And this sorrow is shared by all humanity. Please, this is a very serious thing, by all humanity it is shared. That means our consciousness with all its biological, physiological responses, with all the beliefs, dogmas, rituals and fears and sorrows, anxieties, loneliness, despair and so on, all that is our consciousness. All that is what you are. What you think, what you feel, what one has - griefs, beliefs, superstitions - all that, the whole content, is what you are, put there by thought, by remembrance, by fear and so on. This consciousness is universal; it is not my consciousness, because wherever you go on this earth, which is so marvellously beautiful, which you are gradually destroying, wherever you go, to the most remotest corners of the world, there is sorrow, there's great pain, great anxiety and so on. So this consciousness is common to all of us. It is not my consciousness separate from yours, psychologically. You may be tall, you may be short, you may be this or that, you may be a woman or a man, black, white, purple, pink or whatever colour prejudice you have, but inwardly, deeply, we are, we share, the rest of the world. So we are humanity, not individuals psychologically, though religions have said, both Asiatic religions and Christianity have said separate souls, which is so extraordinarily unreal. The fact is we share, we are humanity, not verbally, intellectually, but with your heart, within your blood. And when there is a mutation you affect the whole of consciousness. This is what geneticists are seeking, how to affect, change man. Mutation implies, or if you don't like to use that word, radical deep psychological change, it affects, when you change radically, fundamentally, it affects the whole consciousness of man because you are humanity.

So we are asking whether sorrow can end. Don't answer it - it cannot or it can. Let the question, if you put it vitally, if you put it with all your energy, not just intellectually play with it, when you put that question, with all your being, leave it alone. It's like a seed that you have planted in the earth, you don't pull it to see everyday if it growing, you will destroy it. But if you put that question with all your seriousness, with your intensity, then that question has its own answer. But we are so eager for an answer. We want to be told how. When you put the question 'How' then you are asking for a system, for a method. Then you will fall back into the old routine. Never ask 'how'. If you ask how, then you create authority, a guru. This is very complicated. So we are asking if there is an end to sorrow. There is, but not for you, do not say: 'Yes, I accept that'. You have to dig and leave it alone. Dig and leave it alone.

We ought to talk about death. Why are people frightened of death? Don't, please, you are frightened, don't pass it off. As you get older, either you become a very religious, superstitious human being, or join some cult, or you begin to enquire into what is death, and why we have separated it from living - the living and the dying. And you postpone, put it far away. Why do we human beings do all this? Is it fear - fear of losing the known, entering into the unknown? So the question is: is it possible to live with death? Careful, please, don't answer this. I am living, you have to understand what is living. Living, as far as we know, is one constant travail, with occasional pleasure, occasional comfort, and if you have money you are more or less secure, but there is always insecurity threatening; going to the office every day for the rest of your life, from nine to five, struggling, competing, quarrelling, hating, loving which is called pleasure - all that: that is our way of living, and that is what we know. And we are frightened to let that go. Death means the ending of all that, not only the organism coming to an end, but also all the attachments, all the knowledge, experience. So can one live - please, this is a serious question, not something to be played with - can one live with death and life together, not separate, which means can you live with death so that there is no attachment? Because death is going to wipe away all your attachments; your family, your knowledge, your becoming, your fame, all that nonsense. Can we, as we live our daily life, live with death, which is to be free of attachment, of competition, of psychologically becoming, all that, so that there is no interval between living and dying? You understand what it does? You have tremendous freedom and energy. Not to do more mischief, not to get more money, to become famous, that is rather childish - forgive me - but when you live with something which has immense meaning, that is freedom.

And also we ought to talk over together what is religion and meditation. What is religion? Man from the most ancient of times has sought something beyond the daily existence with its monotony, with its routine, with mechanical habits both physical and inward. He said there must be something beyond all this, so he invented god. God - may I go into it without your getting annoyed, or being supercilious - god is invented by thought. If there is no fear of any kind psychologically, absolutely no fear, not a shadow of it, not a breath of it, then is god necessary? Then you ask, who created all this world? We can't go into creation, that requires an hour or so to go into it, we can't go into it. So man has sought this. And the priests came along and said: 'I will interpret it for you; I will organise it for you; you are ignorant, but we are learned'. And the process of that is to dress up, to impress - don't you know all this? - and also create a great deal of show, different costumes. The ancient Egyptians, before them the Sumerians, seven to eight thousand years ago, they had hell and heaven too. So they said you must believe, otherwise you will go to hell, and they persecuted, killed, tortured. Christianity has done this: you must believe in Jesus, or you are a heretic, doubt is not allowed in the Christian world. If you doubt, then the thing collapses. But the Asiatic world, including specially in India, one of the teachings is, you must question, you must doubt, question not only your guru if you have a guru, but question yourself, have a dialogue, never accept. There is no authority except the authority of the truth, not the truth invented by books or by thought or by priests. So they always had dialogues, like the Greeks - in the Agora - the ancient Greeks. They discussed, but their discussion was questioning, like Socrates questioned and so on. Now what is religion? If you wipe away all the nonsense and superstitions and beliefs that go with organised modern religions whether you are a Baptist, Christian and all the rest of that business, if you wipe away all that, not be a Hindu, a Buddhist or a Christian; it does not mean you become an atheist; it means you are enquiring, questioning, asking, discussing, pushing, driving, flowing.

Then, is there something sacred? Is there something eternal which is beyond time? Is there something totally untouched by thought? To find out, not you find out - for it to be, we said there must be meditation. Meditation is not just repeating some words, whether Ave Maria and all the rest of it, that is all too immature. Meditation is something extraordinary. Meditation is the understanding of the whole of life, both external and inward, the understanding of your daily life, your relationships, freeing yourself from fear, and questioning what is the self, the 'me'. Is the 'me' merely a bundle of memories and therefore no actuality? Please enquire into all this. That is all part of meditation. The very word 'meditation' both in Sanskrit and according to the dictionary meaning is to measure, to free the mind from all measurement, that is becoming. I am this, I will be that - that is a measure. And measure is necessary for all the technological world. Without measure we could not create a dynamo or the atom bomb, or build a car, but psychologically, inwardly, to be free of all comparison, which is measurement. And meditation, when there is this freedom from fear, from all the hurts that one has had from childhood till now, the psychological wounds that one keeps preciously, which distort our lives - to be free of all that, to be free of sorrow, pain loneliness, depression, anxiety, all that, that is to be free of the self, the 'me', not at the end of one's life - right from the beginning, right from the moment you hear this to live it.

And meditation means an extraordinary activity of the brain, not silencing the brain. When the brain is at its highest quality, full of energy, there is silence, not the silence put together by thought, which is limited silence. And in that silence which can only come when there is freedom, and therefore there is love and compassion with its intelligence. That intelligence is supreme, and there is no compassion or love if you are attached to some religious organisation or believe in something. There must be complete freedom, and in that freedom there is a great, tremendous energy because there is an emptiness - not nothingness, emptiness. In that there is that which is beyond all time. This is meditation. This is religion.

May we go on where we left off the day before yesterday morning? We were talking about time: time as the past, if I may briefly repeat, time as the past, time as the future, time now, at this second. We were saying also that all time, the past, the present and the future is contained in the now. We went into it fairly thoroughly, that the future is the present, because what we are now, our behaviour, our vulgarity, our - what? - our cruelty, bestiality, terror, and all the rest of it, what we are now, violent, tomorrow will also be violent if there is no fundamental change now. So the future is contained in the present. The future, though modified, is still violence. So please, as we pointed out yesterday, in greater detail, all time is in the present, is in the now. If one realises the truth of that it has tremendous significance. I am using the word tremendous purposely, without exaggeration. It has a tremendous effect in our behaviour, in our relationship, in what we are actually doing every minute of the day. It has great significance. If one captures that, the truth of it, not the mere verbal expression, the intellectual, logical explanation, description, but the substance of it, the quality of it, the depth of it, the truth of it, then that perfume of that which is true affects the whole of our existence.

We would like this morning also in relation to time to enquire together, I mean together, not I explain, you just accept, or you deny or agree, but together investigate closely, both intellectually, logically, sanely, rationally, and also to go beyond it. Because logic, rationality has its own limitation because it is still within the field of thought. We went into that, we'll go into it again today. So if we capture the significance of time then we should also enquire into what is freedom, what is health and what is energy? Right?

Freedom, health and the quality of energy that comes when one captures or sees, perceives the truth of all time contained in the now. Right? What is freedom? All human beings throughout the ages have sought some kind of freedom, historically, religiously and so on. And freedom is translated now as doing exactly what one wants, which you are all doing obviously. Choice - one can choose to go from one place to another place, from one job to another job, unlike the totalitarian states where there is total dictatorship and everything is controlled. Even your thinking, feeling is moulded according to a pattern. So there is a denial in the totalitarian states of freedom, therefore the totalitarian states are retrogressive - you understand? Going back, not moving.

So we must enquire into what is freedom? Is freedom choice? To choose between two cars, between two materials, to go where you want, to fulfil yourself at the expense of everybody else - right? I hope you are following all this. To try to become much more than what we are - better, nobler, wiser, more - acquiring more knowledge. So - which is the whole process of becoming, which is called fulfilling. I must fulfil. I must have roots somewhere. You follow? The implication of all that is becoming. Not only physical becoming, as from an employee to the owner, from an apprentice to a master, but also we feel becoming inwardly. I am this, I will be that. I am envious, greedy, violent - we will use the word violent, that is good enough. We are violent. I will one day achieve non-violence, perhaps in a year or two, or perhaps at the end of my life when I am just about to die - right? And all this implies a psychological becoming. That's clear. And is there freedom in becoming? You understand my question? Or is freedom something entirely different? Please, together we are investigating, exploring. I am not explaining and you are just receiving. Together we are enquiring which demands that you exercise your brain, not accept a thing, not accept whatever the speaker says. Therefore the enquiry must be yours, not the speaker's. The speaker may just outline, put it into words but the activity, the penetration, must be on your part. So we are both sharing in this - right? Not I put something forward with which you agree or disagree - that implies no sharing. But if we are both enquiring, probing, asking, doubting everything we think and feel, and its relationship to time, and see if that becoming prevents freedom - right? Are we together in this a little bit? May I still more explain it?

That is, if one is a teacher who wants gradually to become a professor in a university, or an apprentice in any discipline, he is all the time attempting to become something - becoming more, becoming a greater expert, greater skill, greater knowledge. This limited energy given to a certain subject is limiting. Therefore that denies freedom. You understand? Are we together in this somewhat?

You see we don't really demand freedom. We demand only within the limited area that I must do what I feel, I must act according to my like and dislike, and in that action I am free, I can choose between you and another, and so on. So all that activity is very, very limited, and that very limitation denies freedom. Of course. We are also verbally limited, linguistically - I won't go into the question of linguistics - linguistically we are limited. Let's find out whether language limits freedom. You understand all this? Language. That is words. Whether - the speaker is using English - whether that language, the words, condition the brain and therefore it becomes limited. Whether language conditions the brain - right? Are you getting this? Or language doesn't limit the brain, condition the brain? You are enquiring? Please go into it with me. I wish there were - sorry I don't wish - if there were only you and the speaker together and not such a large audience, together, my friend and myself, then we can discuss it very, very closely. And I am going to do that - right? That is you represent my friend and I represent the speaker. The speaker and the friend are discussing this question, which is: does freedom lie in becoming something all the time? Does freedom lie in expressing your ambition? Does freedom lie in trying to fulfil your own desires? And the friend says, 'I really don't understand what the devil you are talking about.' We are used to this, our conditioning, our habit, is this. We are always wanting to fulfil, to become, as in the outer world also in the inner world. We must achieve something otherwise there is no progress. And so on, my friend is saying this, countering everything I am saying, the speaker is saying. And the speaker says, don't get so excited about it, let's look at it together. When you are ambitious, both in the external world and in the psychological world, ambition is the same whether you are ambitious to become tremendously rich or ambitious to reach Nirvana, Heaven or illumination, or ambitious to become silent. Ambition is the same. And that ambition, the speaker is saying to his friend, is limited, is not freedom. And we have misused that word freedom. Which is, each person trying to assert himself, aggressively, holding on to his opinion, judgement, evaluation, dogmas, creed and so on. And all this we call freedom. And is that freedom? Right? My friend says, 'I begin to understand what you are talking about. I agree'. I say, don't agree but see the fact of it, the truth of it - right?

So freedom must be something entirely different. And is it possible to come to that, to realise that freedom? That is not to be ambitious at all. Go into it. Which doesn't prevent the love of doing - right? The scientists throughout the world are very ambitious too, like the rest of us. They want to achieve some superior armaments against the Russians and so on. All that game, that horrible game they are playing. So every human being in the world, however uneducated, stupid, terribly intellectual, are always caught in this process. And that is called freedom generally. And the speaker says that is not freedom. And the friend says, 'Does language prevent, or encourage the limited activity of the brain?' You are following all this? Does this interest you? He? Are you quite sure? Or is it that you are playing a game with me? Does language condition the brain? It does condition the brain if the words become important. Whether the words are English words, or French words, or German, or Italian or Russian, when the word has lost its depth, when the word is used casually, when the word has special significance to each one, when the words have become the network of the brain. You understand? Are you following? Then the words condition the brain. Right? But when the words, which are merely used to convey a certain... used for communication purposes, if you and I, and the speaker, which requires a certain sensitivity, attention, pliability, affection, then words can be used without their limiting quality. Then the brain is not conditioned by words. But now, as we are, words do condition our brain. When you say the totalitarian states - immediately I have a picture of it. You immediately see various dictators in different parts of the world, because their pictures have been in every newspaper for the last fifty years. The image springs up and that image conditions the brain. You are following all this? When I use the word guru (laughter) - there you are, you have a reaction immediately! Or when a word like the Christ is used to a Christian - immediately. Or to a Hindu with his particular word, or the Buddhist. Please see the importance of the linguistic conditioning, and whether in that conditioning all kinds of troubles arise, all kinds of conflicts arise - the Hindu conflict against the Muslim, the Muslim and the Arab against the Jew, the Christians who believe in God against the totalitarians - you follow? This is going on.

So is it possible to be free from the linguistic prison? You understand? Sirs, you don't put your minds to all this. Right? See if it is possible for you, sitting here now, to be entirely free of the image of words. So there is freedom - there is no freedom in becoming. There is no freedom when a man is ambitious, or a woman is ambitious, greedy, envious. He may think he is free because he expresses his ambition. So there is freedom - there is no freedom in becoming. And there is no freedom when the brain is caught or imprisoned in words with their images.

And also we ought to enquire: what is health? Does this interest you, health? Now, you all wake up! What is health? Can there be healthy organism, biological organism when there is constant conflict? - between each other, one opinion opposing the other, one expressing his desires fully against others' desires? This constant struggle, strain, conflict in which human beings live, does that contribute to health? Don't say no. Then that means those are the factors of ill health. Psychosomatic diseases. You understand all this? So can there be intellectual health, and emotions which are healthy, not romantic sentimentality and all that, that conduces to ill health. I don't know if you are following all this. So we must enquire very deeply what is really to be healthy?

This enquiry is not just when you are reaching death, on the deathbed, but one must enquire right from when you are very young, or middle aged, or now as the speaker is. What is health? And health implies energy, tremendous energy. And we dissipate that energy through conflict, through strain, through all kinds of tobacco, drinking, you know all the business of it. And without becoming 'food fad' - 'food fads', you know what that means? Crazy about food, only concerned with what one eats and nothing else. Without becoming food fads, to find out if the brain can live without a single conflict. That means without any kind of emotional strain or intellectual strain - you understand all this? Are you doing it as we are talking, or you are just listening, agreeing and perhaps at the end of the day you will try to think about it - you understand my question? Are we doing this together? Seeing how ill health is brought about, heart trouble and all the rest of it. Suppose I am, one is highly intellectual - very few people are - but suppose one is highly intellectual, only using that part of the brain which is called the intellect, which is only concerned with discovering new ideas, new expressions, new way of putting it, new concepts, and disregarding the whole of one's existence, biological and other ways of living, completely caught in that - right? Then that affects the health naturally. And if one is highly emotional, romantic, sentimental, as most people are, that also brings various forms of conflicts which effects ill health. Health means energy - right? Not through drugs, not through alcohol but - oh, need I explain all this silly stuff? - but when there is no conflict whatsoever then there is tremendous health. And we said there is freedom, we talked about, health and energy.

There is intellectual energy - right? The intellectual energy is when they have put a robot on the moon, it requires tremendous intellectual energy - you understand? To invent all the horrible things of war requires great intellectual capacity and energy - right? There is emotional energy by itself, perhaps slightly modified by the intellect, but when we are sentimental, emotional, a kind of ugly vulgar sentimentality, that too deprives energy - right? Are we together in this? I don't know if you are or we are not. I hope I am not talking to myself.

So what is energy which is not dissipated at all? - dissipated, wasted. Because this is important to understand, the quality of energy which is highly intelligent, highly capable of reasoning, highly capable of analysing, looking, observing, self-critically aware and therefore constantly removing any impediment in the movement. That requires a great deal of energy. People who are purely - not purely, one can't use that - semi-physical energy, you know you have plenty of them in the world - their energy is limited naturally, their energy controls all thought - you understand? Are you understanding what I am saying? I may be stupid but I have got tremendous energy. What I think is right and that drives me. And you see such people all over the world with extraordinary amount of energy. And those people who are very, very clever, their energy goes into calculation, all the rest of it. Now is there an energy which is not contaminated, polluted by or through conflict? You understand all this? Right? Are we together in this? A little bit? Then we must enquire: why we human beings for the last forty, fifty thousand years of our evolution, which the biologists and the archaeologists are saying that we have lived on this earth, as human beings walking on two legs, why from that time on until now we are in perpetual conflict - right? Why? Is it agreement and disagreement? Look at it. I agree to something and you disagree with that. There is the beginning of conflict. I believe in a certain - the speaker - or one believes in ideals, the other doesn't, immediately a conflict. One likes, the other doesn't like. One protects the few, and the few are against everybody else. In our relationship with each other there is conflict - man, woman, conflict. And there is conflict between the guru and the disciple. Don't you notice all this? The disciple wants to become like the guru. How silly that is. But the guru himself is probably rather silly. So there is this perpetual struggle, conflict. One holds on to something, identifies oneself with that something, and one resists at any price. And between man and woman there is not only sexual conflict, but also each human being, the woman and the man, or the man and the girl and so on and so on, each wants to express things in his own way. He is ambitious and she is ambitious. And therefore there is conflict - right? Why do we live this way? That is an immense waste of energy - right? But why we human beings after this long duration of experience, knowledge, wars, suffering, the eternal anxiety and so on, why do we live this way? Why do we, who are so clever, who have so much knowledge, so learned, why do we carry on this way? Please ask this question. Don't wait to find out. Ask it, demand it, put your passion behind to find out. Is it our brain which evolved through conflict - right? Conflict with nature, conflict in the air, conflict in everything. So our brain has become accustomed to it. Having become accustomed it says that is the way to live, that is the way to progress. If there was no competition there would be no progress. And so the brain which has become accustomed, used to live in a certain environment, says that is the way to live. Are you in that position? You, sitting there, say, 'Well I am used to this'. And because you are used to it you rationalise it, you say, 'Yes, in nature everything struggles. The little tree, the little plant is struggling towards the light. The tiger kills the deer.' - right? 'So it is part of our nature.' - to be violent, to be in conflict, to be at war with each other and therefore war with much greater significance - right? We have lived that way.

There have been wars for, historically, five thousand years, practically every year there has been a war, and we are living in a state of war - right? And you say that is natural, we have done it for fifty thousand years, why not? The profit - the politicians profit by this - right?

So, we are asking each other: is it possible to live without a single conflict? From that we have to enquire why we human beings have problems. Problem means conflict - right? Why have we problems? Why does the brain accept problems. Is the brain itself - you understand? I am going to ask something, please listen. I am just discovering it - is the brain itself in a condition of problems? Vows aver compress? Is the brain itself (Noise of aeroplane) - we won't compete with the aeroplane! Is the brain itself caught in problems? Is the brain itself, with all the activity that is going on, that brain itself is a problem? You understand? Gosh, I wish this noise would stop. Our brain is conditioned from childhood. You go to a school and you have problems of solving mathematics, how to write. Poor little child goes to a school and writing becomes a problem. (Noise of aeroplane) This is a small country and they have all this noise. (Laughter). We are asking whether the brain itself is the problem? The questioner is part of the brain - you understand? The questioner who says, 'Is the brain the problem?', and the questioner is also part of the brain, naturally. But the questioner is asking the brain: why are you in conflict? And it says, 'I have been trained from childhood to solve problems. I have been to schools as a child, they have taught me how to write which has become a problem to me. And how to read, however pleasant that reading may be, that has also become a problem because I don't know first what 'A' means, how it looks. So I go through school, college, university, if I am lucky, and that whole movement of acquiring knowledge, in any discipline has conditioned my brain.' So the brain is the problem-solving machinery. You have understood? The word problem, means something thrown at you. Problem means a challenge to you. From childhood something is thrown at the poor child - right? He must learn ABC, he must know mathematics and so on. So the brain itself has become a machinery which creates problems, and tries to solve problems. You understand this? Come on sir, move - he?

So what is one to do? Right? If the brain, that which is inside the skull, is the machinery which creates problems - it is - mathematical problems, technical problems, problems between man and woman, problems with politics, problems with pollution - right? All the depository of all the toxic material - you follow? The whole process, it is all becoming a problem. And the problems have arisen because of the brain. Right? Just a minute, we are moving further. So the brain is responsible for problems and the resolution of those problems. Right? Are we clear on this matter? Somewhat? Need I go more into it? He? Do you want me to go more into it? Why? It is so simple, isn't it?

Religiously, look at it, you are trained as a Christian, to have faith. Saviour and faith. And those who are the Buddhists say that is all nonsense. That is the invention of the Western priests - which is probably true. They say there is no such thing as Saviour, Buddhists, or having faith; they say doubt, question, enquire, never accept. So there are two - and the Christian says that is all rubbish, the pope says faith is important. And my family, my education has been Catholic so I am programmed, as the Arab is programmed, as a computer - right? And so on. So our brain is a form of computer programmed. And when a brain is programmed, as we are, linguistically, religiously, with many, many problems, the brain says I am tired, I can't think, you tell me all about it. That is what is happening here. So your brain becomes gradually withering, gradually atrophied, which is with problems. Krishnamurti says something and that has become a problem.

So can the brain be free of problems? You understand? That is, there are problems in life, you can't help it, it is so. But to meet the problem with a brain that has no problems - do you understand? That is, my statement, do you understand? You put in front of the speaker a problem. If his brain is also full of problems he will solve your problem and create more problems out of it. Right? Haven't you noticed this? That is what the politicians are doing. The economic problems are solved by experts and other experts come along and say sorry it is all wrong - right? And so on and on and on.

So to find out whether you can have a brain that is not a mechanical brain, that is not a machinery that is solving problems, which means to have no problem. And that is possible - I will show it to you in a minute, if you go into it carefully - that is possible only when you understand time.

As we said, time is the past, present and the future. All that time, all the past, the present and the future is held in the now - right? You understand? Problem means a future. You get it? Come on sirs. You understand? Any problem implies the resolution of it, which is in the future. Right? That is why it is very important to understand all time is now. Sirs, see the beauty of it. So you put a problem, there is a problem - there are several problems, I know, I am aware of, in all the places I go to, the various schools I go to, various politicians one meets, the scientists one meets, they are all asking, demanding, questioning, and if your brain is also full of problems, anxieties, uncertainty, then your answer will be as muddled as theirs - right? So we are asking: whether the brain can be free of problems? And to understand the nature of that freedom you have to enquire into time - right? That is, as there is no - the now has no future, the now is in the future - right? I wonder if you understand this? So any problem arises and the solution means time - right? Therefore if you understand very clearly - I am going to go into it very slowly. I am also learning as I go along. It is fascinating, this. Let me take a breather.

There are problems, life has problems because human beings are so obstinate, so arrogant, full of their own importance. I have done this, I am going to stick to it. And they create problems, and the speaker has to meet them - right? If he is also full of problems he will make a mess of it - right? So to be free of problems implies the enquiry into time - right? Because the problem and its solution implies inherently in it, time - right? I have a problem, I must think over it, I will discuss it, I will go into it, I read books about it, or consult my guru - you follow? All that goes on. So the problem and its solution, inherent in itself, is time - clear?

Then we have said previously, time is contained in the now. See the relationship between the problem and the time, do you see it? Therefore any problem I meet has no time. It must be solved instantly. You have understood this? That implies - may I go on? I hope you are as excited as the speaker is, because he is discovering something new each time. That implies perception of the problem - perception not according to your prejudice, according to your judgement, according to your opinion and so on, but perceiving with your brain, with your heart, with your whole being. Seeing, in which there is no distortion. There is distortion the moment there is motive. So to put away motive, direction and absolutely perceive as it is, and not allowing a second to hinder the solution. You understand? I wonder if you understand this?

Look sir, there are problems between man and woman - there are other problems, I am just taking that one problem. Man and woman. They quarrel. This is one of the unfortunate things that happen in relationship. They quarrel about god knows what, every petty little thing on earth. They quarrel. And they never solve the quarrel. You understand? They keep on until it becomes unbearable and one of them says, 'I'll buzz off'. And thereby they think they have solved the problem. Then they get married to another man or woman and start the whole game again. You must all be familiar with this, aren't you? That is why you are all in agreement with this, I see. So this goes on.

Now if the man or the woman understood the nature of time, the truth of it - you understand? - that is, to see the quarrelling going on, the conflict going on, and see, perceive, and you perceive it instantly the cause, and instantly remove the cause because you are not allowing time at all to interfere with the solution of the problem. You understand this? Come on sir. Is this somewhat clear? That is, when time becomes the most important thing in life, the understanding of it, not mere verbal description of it, the agreement with it, but you yourself see the truth of it profoundly, then there is no problem at all for the brain. You may have a problem. But the brain that meets the problem is all important. How you approach the problem. If you approach the problem already having a solution to the problem, then it is not soluble - right? You solve it according to your old pattern. But if you approach it without any bias, without any sense of anxiety, and you can only do that if you understand the depth and the strength and the vitality of time. Is that right, clear?

So can your brain, which is no longer a slave to linguistic control, linguistic images, and has understood the nature of freedom, real freedom in which there is no sense of moving away from something. If you move away from, let's say, if you move away from anxiety, the movement is time. And therefore that movement may appear secure, security but that movement has inherently in itself uncertainty. Right? You are getting it? Is this too intellectual? No. It is just common sense.

So enquiring into freedom, enquiring into what is health, because if you are not healthy you cannot have freedom, because that will impede you. I may be paralysed but still I can be healthy - you understand? I may have only one eye to see clearly but that doesn't prevent me my health. Health is destroyed by this constant conflict, achievement, success, ambition, uncertainty, confusion, all the pain of life. And energy, energy never dissipated. You understand sirs? By chattering, arguing, holding on to what you have done and say, 'This is right, I am going to stick to it.' You understand? Energy implies constant movement, constant discovering something new, not technologically, psychologically. So that your brain becomes extraordinarily active and not dissipate that energy. When you have that energy then you can look at problems - you understand? And understand time. They are all dove-tailed, they all fit together, they are not separate. It is one long steady movement.

And also we ought to talk over together why human beings are hurt, psychologically wounded, why human beings in their relationship quarrel and so on. I don't think this morning there is time for it - it is now twenty to twelve. So may we stop this morning and continue on Thursday morning? Would that be all right?

t seems that communion is a very difficult art. To commune with one another over the many problems that we have requires listening and learning, which are both very difficult to do. Most of us hardly listen, and we hardly learn. To commune with each other, which is what these meetings are intended for, requires a certain capacity, a certain way of listening - not merely to gather information, which any schoolboy can do, but rather listening in order to understand. This means being critically aware of all the implications of what is being said, as well as observing very carefully your own evaluation of what is being said. During the process of evaluating what you hear, obviously you are not listening because the speaker has already gone beyond your idea, your opinion, your fixed thought. You have already stopped listening, and so communion becomes very difficult, especially when there is a large audience. When two or three are gathered quietly in a room, then it is possible to talk over together the meaning, the semantic significance of the word. But when one is talking like this to many people, it becomes almost impossible for us to commune with each other, to share with each other the many problems that must obviously confront every thoughtful man.

It seems to me of the utmost importance that we do listen in order to learn. Learning is not merely the accumulation of knowledge. Knowledge never brings perception; experience never flowers into the beauty of understanding. Most of us listen with the background of what we know, of what we have experienced. Perhaps you have never noticed the difference between the mind that really learns and the mind that merely accumulates, gathers knowledge. The mind that is accumulating knowledge never learns. It is always translating what it hears in terms of its own experience, in terms of the knowledge which it has gathered; it is caught up in the process of accumulating, of adding to what it already knows, and such a mind is incapable of learning. I do not know if you have noticed this. It is because we are never capable of learning that we pass our lives in sorrow and misery, in conflict and calumny; and hence the beauty of life, the vast significance of living, is lost. Each hungry generation destroys the coming generation. So it seems to me very important that we commune with each other quietly, in a dignified manner, and for that there must be a listening and a learning.

When you commune with your own heart, when you commune with your friend, when you commune with the skies, with the stars, with the sunset, with a flower, then surely you are listening so as to find out, to learn - which does not mean that you accept or deny. You are learning, and either acceptance or denial of what is being said puts an end to learning. When you commune with the sunset, with a friend, with your wife, with your child, you do not criticize, you do not deny or assert, translate or identify. You are communing, you are learning, you are searching out. From this inquiry comes the movement of learning, which is never accumulative.

I think it is important to understand that a man who accumulates can never learn. Self-learning implies a fresh, eager mind - a mind that is not committed, a mind that does not belong to anything, that is not limited to any particular field. It is only such a mind that learns.

Do please experiment with what is being said as we go along. I would like to consider with you the vast and complex problem of freedom, but to inquire into that problem, to commune with it, to go into it hesitantly, tentatively, requires a very sharp, clear, and incisive mind - a mind that is capable of listening and thereby learning. If you observe what is taking place in the world, you will see that the margin of freedom is getting narrower and narrower. Society is encroaching upon the freedom of the individual. Organized religions, though they talk about freedom, actually deny it. Organized beliefs, organized ideas, the economic and social struggle, the whole process of competition and nationalism - everything around us is narrowing down the margin of freedom, and I do not think we are aware of it. Political tyrannies and dictatorships are implementing certain ideologies through propaganda and so-called education. Our worship, our temples, our belonging to societies, to groups, to political parties - all this further narrows the margin of freedom. Probably most of you do belong to various societies; you are committed to this or that group, and if you observe very closely, you will see how little freedom, how little human dignity you have because you are merely repeating what others have said. So you deny freedom, and surely it is only in freedom that the mind can discover truth, not when it is circumscribed by a belief or committed to an ideology.

I wonder if you are at all aware of this extraordinary compulsion to belong to something? I am sure most of you belong to some political party, to a certain group or organized belief; you are committed to a particular way of thinking or living, and that surely denies freedom. I do not know if you have examined this compulsion to belong, to identify oneself with a country, with a system, with a group, with certain political or religious beliefs. And obviously, without understanding this compulsion to belong, merely to walk out of one party or group has no meaning because you will soon commit yourself to another.

Have you not done this very thing? Leaving one ism, you go and join something else - Catholicism, Communism, Moral Rearmament, and God knows what else. You move from one commitment to another, compelled by the urge to belong to something. Why? I think it is an important question to ask oneself. Why do you want to belong? Surely it is only when the mind stands completely alone that it is capable of receiving what is true - not when it has committed itself to some party or belief. Please do think about this question, commune with it in your heart. Why do you belong? Why have you committed yourself to a country, to a party, to an ideology, to a belief, to a family, to a race? Why is there this desire to identify yourself with something? And what are the implications of this commitment? It is only the man who is completely outside that can understand - not the man who is pledged to a particular group or who is perpetually moving from one group to another, from one commitment to another. Surely, you want to belong to something because it gives you a sense of security - not only social security, but also inward security. When you belong to something, you feel safe. By belonging to this thing called Hinduism, you feel socially respectable, inwardly safe, secure. So you have committed yourself to something in order to feel safe, secure - which obviously narrows down the margin of freedom, does it not?

Most of us are not free. We are slaves to Hinduism, to communism, to one society or another, to leaders, to political parties, to organized religions, to gurus, and so we have lost our dignity as human beings. There is dignity as a human being only when one has tasted, smelled, known this extraordinary thing called freedom. Out of the flowering of freedom comes human dignity. But if we do not know this freedom, we are enslaved. That is what is happening in the world, is it not? And I think the desire to belong, to commit ourselves to something, is one of the causes of this narrowing down of freedom. To be rid of this urge to belong, to be free of the desire to commit oneself, one has to inquire into one's own way of thinking, to commune with oneself, with one's own heart and desires. That is a very difficult thing to do. It requires patience, a certain tenderness of approach, a constant and persistent searching into oneself without condemnation or acceptance. That is true meditation, but you will find it is not easy to do, and very few of us are willing to undertake it.

Most of us choose the easy path of being guided, being led; we belong to something, and thereby lose our human dignity. Probably you will say, ''Well, I have heard this before; he is on his favorite subject,'' and go away. I wish it were possible for you to listen as if you were listening for the first time - like seeing the sunset or the face of your friend for the first time. Then you would learn, and thus learning, you would discover freedom for yourself - which is not the so-called freedom offered by another.

So let us inquire patiently and persistently into this question of what is freedom. Surely, only a free man can comprehend the truth - which is to find out if there is an eternal something beyond the measure of the mind; and the man who is burdened with his own experience or knowledge is never free because knowledge prevents learning.

We are going to commune with each other, to inquire together into this question of what is freedom and how to come by it. And thus to inquire, there must obviously be freedom right from the start; otherwise, you cannot inquire, can you? You must totally cease to belong, for only then is your mind capable of inquiring. But if your mind is tethered, held by some commitment, whether political, religious, social, or economic, then that very commitment will prevent you from inquiring because for you there is no freedom.

Do please listen to what is being said and see for yourself the fact that the very first movement of inquiry must be born of freedom. You cannot be committed and from there inquire, any more than an animal tied to a tree can wander far. Your mind is a slave as long as it is committed to Hinduism, to Buddhism, to Islam, to Christianity, to communism, or to something it has invented for itself. So we cannot proceed together unless we comprehend from the very beginning, from now on, that to inquire there must be freedom. There must be the abandonment of the past - not unwillingly, grudgingly, but a complete letting go.

After all, the scientists who got together to tackle the problem of going to the moon were free to inquire, however much they may have been slaves to their country, and all the rest of it. I am only referring to that peculiar freedom of the scientist at a research station. At least for the time being, in his laboratory, he is free to inquire. But our laboratory is our living; it is the whole span of life from day to day, from month to month, from year to year, and our freedom to inquire must be total; it cannot be a fragmentary thing, as it is with technical people. That is why, if we are to learn and understand what freedom is, if we are to delve deeply into its unfathomable dimensions, we must from the very start abandon all our commitments and stand alone. And this is a very difficult thing to do.

The other day in Kashmir, several sannyasis said to me, ''We live alone in the snow. We never see anybody. No one ever comes to visit us.'' And I said to them, ''Are you really alone, or are you merely physically separated from humanity?'' ''Oh, yes,'' they replied, ''we are alone.'' But they were with their Vedas and Upanishads, with their experiences and gathered knowledge, with their meditations and japas. They were still carrying the burden of their conditioning. That is not being alone. Such men, having put on a saffron cloth, say to themselves, ''We have renounced the world,'' but they have not. You can never renounce the world because the world is part of you. You may renounce a few cows, a house, some property, but to renounce your heredity, your tradition, your accumulated racial experience, the whole burden of your conditioning - this requires an enormous inquiry, a searching out, which is the movement of learning. The other way - becoming a monk or a hermit - is very easy.

So, do consider and see how your job, your going from the house to the office every day for thirty, forty, or fifty years, your knowledge of certain techniques as an engineer, a lawyer, a mathematician, a lecturer - how all this makes you a slave. Of course, in this world one has to know some technique and hold a job, but consider how all these things are narrowing down the margin of freedom. Prosperity, progress, security, success - everything is narrowing down the mind so that ultimately, or even now, the mind becomes mechanical and carries on by merely repeating certain things it has learned.

A mind that wants to inquire into freedom and discover its beauty, its vastness, its dynamism, its strange quality of not being effective in the worldly sense of that word - such a mind from the very beginning must put aside its commitments, the desire to belong; and with that freedom, it must inquire. Many questions are involved in this. What is the state of the mind that is free to inquire? What does it mean to be free from commitments? Is a married man to free himself from his commitments? Surely, where there is love, there is no commitment; you do not belong to your wife, and your wife does not belong to you. But we do belong to each other because we have never felt this extraordinary thing called love, and that is our difficulty. We have committed ourselves in marriage, just as we have committed ourselves in learning a technique. Love is not commitment, but again, that is a very difficult thing to understand because the word is not the thing. To be sensitive to another, to have that pure feeling uncorrupted by the intellect - surely, that is love.

I do not know if you have considered the nature of the intellect. The intellect and its activities are all right at a certain level, are they not? But when the intellect interferes with that pure feeling, then mediocrity sets in. To know the function of the intellect and to be aware of that pure feeling without letting the two mingle and destroy each other require a very clear, sharp awareness.