Talks in Europe 1967

Most of us hate violence. We are jealous, acquisitive, dominating and with many inhibitions, and yet we say, `I love you'. Find out the nature of that love in which there is no conflict whatsoever, and the love which is total contact in all relationships, because only a total contact is total relationship. But if I only touch you at different points, sexually, seeking comfort, domination, then is that love, is that relationship? So to find out, or rather to come upon it, one has to first find out what relationship means. Not only relationship to things, to houses, to furniture, but also to people and ideas. That which we possess, we are. If you possess a house, the furniture, the family, an idea, you are that - obviously. So is possession in any form love? Does not possession breed anxiety, envy, jealousy, domination, fear? And when there is fear, domination, is that love? And in that relationship between man and man, man and woman, and so on, if in that relationship there is a self-centred activity - whether it is the self-centred activity of the wife or the husband - does that not separate the two human beings? Though they say we love each other, each is pursuing his own particular path, his particular intention, and can there be love when there is aggression, when there is competition? Obviously hate and jealousy are not love. But for us love contains jealousy, for in that love there is possession. To us, then, love is desire and pleasure.

There is hatred and one sees the necessity that hatred must cease and that there must be affection, love, kindliness. Is love the opposite of hate and can love be pursued and thereby hate denied? So one must understand, it seems to me, the nature of the opposite, that is, the nature of duality. Because when we talk about change, we are always thinking in those terms - of what is and what should be.

I think it is necessary not merely so listen to the speaker but also to ask oneself that question; and if one is at all serious, one does ask it. And the very asking of it - not superficially, not casually, but really with serious intent - brings about a certain quality of energy which is necessary to tackle this problem, because we need a great deal of energy to understand the confusion in which one is, to understand what the structure and nature of change is. To understand it there must be attention - not concentration - because there is a difference between attention and concentration. Concentration is limited, exclusive, it breeds conflicts and in concentration there is distraction. But in attention there are none of these things - you are completely attentive; if one has experimented or observed this, one can see the difference between concentration and attention very clearly. In attention there is no conflict or distraction whatsoever, whereas in concentration there is distraction, conflict, a forcing upon a certain point which becomes exclusive; in concentration there is resistance. In attention there is no resistance at all. And we need such attention to find out what is implied in change.

Krishnamurti: Obviously. You don't meditate because you want to find truth, or to find happiness, bliss, but to understand oneself and learning about oneself is a constant process; that I said is meditation, not in order to discover something. You know, the word `discover' is an unfortunate word, but I don't know what other word to use; one can use different words, but the essence of meditation is self-knowing: to know oneself. And you cannot know yourself if what you have learnt about yourself becomes the measure. I don't know if you see that. I watch myself and I have learnt something about myself: that I am greedy. I have learnt about greed, the nature of it, and having learnt, I measure with what I have learned all future greed; and therefore I am not studying the future greed as it arises but I am only measuring with what I have learnt. Therefore - see the structure of it! - the measure of what I have learned creates its own opposite and hence the conflict. Therefore all opposites, greed and non-greed, when I demand or exercise will, or force myself not to be greedy, in that very demand to be not greedy is greed. See this please! Please understand this.

I am violent, human beings are dreadfully violent and we say we must not be violent, and trying not to be violent is itself a very form of violence. But if one is really aware of violence, that is, the nature of violence, aggression and so on - we won't go into all that - being aware of that and not wanting to change it, not wanting to get to the state of non-violence, to understand violence is in itself freedom from violence - not its opposite.

To be free of demand and satisfaction necessitates investigation into oneself; it necessitates understanding the whole nature of demand. Demand is born out of duality. `I am un- happy and I must be happy.' The demand that I must be happy, in that very thing is unhappiness. The opposite always contains its own opposite. So when one makes an effort to be good, decides to be good, in that very goodness is its opposite, which is evil. If one could only understand this and therefore that any demand of life, any demand that you must experience the truth, reality, that very demand is born out of your discontent with `what is', and therefore that demand creates the opposite.

In the opposite there is what has been. So one must be free of this incessant demanding: the mind that is always comparing, measuring, which breeds illusion. And one must know the nature and the structure of this effort, the effort of duality (the mind is really non-dual, but there's not time to go into that). This means knowing oneself so completely that the mind is no longer seeking, asking, demanding, and therefore it is completely quiet. All that is part of meditation; not the endless prayers, repetitions and the forcing the mind to be still. That breeds conflict and conflict must inevitably exist when there is duality. There is the duality that is created by the observer and the thing he wishes to be, which is observed. And there is the mind that is trying, not to experience, but to uncover, to discover - not follow, not imitate, not become something. The becoming is another form of duality and therefore of conflict.

So recognition plays a great part in all experiences and therefore all experiences which are recognizable are by their very nature old. There is nothing new through experience which is recognizable. We are now trying to find out if there is anything true, real, holy - and if I say I have experienced it, it means I must recognise it and if I recognise it, it is already the reaction of the past; so it is not new at all. So what is one to do? You understand? I hope I am making myself clear.

Questioner: Can one attain the state of peace near nature in a non-industrialised civilization, on an island somewhere, away from violence?

After all, when one is talking about peace one also has to understand what love is, Because I do not see how there can be peace without love. Love is not an abstraction, not an idea. Love is not desire and pleasure. And to understand the nature of love, one has to go into this question of conflict. Essentially, conflict arises when there is a contradiction. That contradiction is engendered by the observer, by a centre which has continuity as memory.

A problem exists only when we are incapable of dealing with it completely. It only exists when we deal with a total psychological problem fragmentarily, or emotionally, or escape from it. Apparently we are not capable of meeting a problem entirely. First of all one has to be aware not only of the problem, the nature of the problem, the structure of the problem, but also one has to be able to meet it - not eventually, not gradually, taking time over it - but to meet it immediately and resolve it immediately, so that the problem doesn't take root in the mind. So the first question is: all life is a problem, living is a problem, and there is no escape from it but how to meet it entirely, completely, as it arises, and be beyond it, so that it does not take root in the soil of the mind? And how is this to be done? Because the more one allows a problem of any kind to linger, to endure for a day or for a month or even for a few minutes, it obviously distorts the mind; is it possible to meet a problem without any distortion and be completely free of it, immediately? I do not know if you have thought about it; if you have, you must have gone into it. You must have seen that in every movement of life unless there is a complete, total meeting of it there is a problem; the inadequate meeting of this movement in life is a problem. And can I - as a human being - meet these problems as they arise and not let a memory, a scratch on the mind, remain? These memories are the images which we carry about with us, and these images meet this extraordinary thing called life and hence there is a contradiction, because life is very real - life is not an abstraction. When one meets life with images, then there are problems.

To go into it completely one must understand the nature of effort, the nature of conflict, because most of us are in conflict, having many, many problems, both psychological and objective, economic, and problems of the mind and the heart. And these problems inevitably bring conflict; a problem means conflict, otherwise there would be no problem at all. We are talking about psychological problems rather than economic, political ones (I don't know why we are ruled all over the world by such stupid politicians - I don't know if you have considered what the world is being reduced to). And to enquire into this question of peace, not intellectually, not verbally, but actually, one has to understand conflict; conflict being a problem, principally a psychological problem.

I think that way of looking, asking, is a waste of time. You know, when you love something, you're not thinking about the rest of the world, because in that love the whole world is included. In the same way, when we begin to understand the nature of violence and are actually free of it, we'll never ask that question. But when you do ask the question, you become a missionary, a propagandist; the moment you become a propagandist, a missionary, you have come to the end of everything: you create more misery.

Krishnamurti: Do you need will or discipline to listen? When you don't want to listen and are forced to listen because it's profitable, it's worthwhile, it brings you this or that, then you discipline yourself to listen. But when you want to understand something, when you want to understand sorrow (which we'll perhaps go into another time), physical sorrow, the pain, the sorrow which man goes through, when you want to understand it, where is the place of will? But in the very process of understanding suffering here is discipline; the very process is discipline. Sir, look, what does discipline imply - generally, as it is accepted? I believe the root of that word is `to learn', not `conform'. It's excellent in the army, when you are drilled - there you don't have to understand a thing except the mechanical process of killing somebody. To understand suffering, to look at it, to find out all about it, does it need discipline? - discipline in the sense of conforming to a pattern, imitating, obeying a certain rule, formula. But to understand something you have to pay attention, you have to love and when you love something, that very nature of love is discipline.

When one asks such a question, it seems to me, one is not actually living peacefully. If you live peacefully you will have no problem at all. You may be shot because you may resist - you may not want to join the army, but it's not a problem then: you will be shot! It's really extraordinarily important to understand this. Because there must be a total revolution in our life, a psychological revolution, a tremendous crisis in consciousness. Not an economic crisis, a political crisis and wars, but much more significant and worthwhile is this deep inward revolution. Otherwise one cannot live sanely, intelligently in this monstrous world and the more one is intelligent, aware, alert to the whole problem the more one wants to live completely peacefully. Not only one wants to, but one does. That is why (as we said at the beginning) what is important is not, `how to live peacefully', but rather to see the nature of violence in oneself; and to see clearly what one is, that one's mind is a tortured entity, the mind that is conforming, imitating, resisting, which are all forms of violence. And in that seeing one becomes aware that there is no observer at all, because the observer, the centre, is the very nature of conflict - that is, as long as there is a separation which the observer creates between himself and the observed. Not that the observer wants to identify himself - there is no fundamental unity in identification, that's a trick - but when one realizes the actual observer himself is the entity that breeds violence, then between the observer and the observed there is communion and when that communion takes place there is no observer at all.

And so one also has to see the nature of will. Will is after all the demand, the exercise of one's likes and dislikes highly strengthened; will is essentially based on desire - desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain, the pursuit of pleasure. To continue there must be the exercise of will, which is the constant thinking about that pleasure and the constant thinking about the avoidance of pain; it is based on this sense of desire, which becomes more and more intense. And has will any place at all? Will being violence, not understanding, not seeing something directly and then acting. The very seeing is the doing - as one does when there is danger. In that there is a great deal involved. We can go into it.

Inwardly we are essentially seeking security in different forms; to be safe, to be certain, never to be caught in a state of uncertainty about anything: uncertainty in my relationship with another, in my relationship to my wife or husband, in my relationship to ideas which are beliefs, dogmas, to the conclusions which the mind has come to through experience, through knowledge, through enquiry and examination and which says, `This is so', `I know'. And one is afraid to be dislodged from a position, from a conclusion to which one has come, and one reacts violently to any form of disturbance. You can see this very well. You know, over the whole world marriage is undergoing a revision and lots of people are objecting to it because we are used to things as they are. The same applies to churches, gods, beliefs, saviours. So there is always resistance to any disturbance, and resistance is violent by its very nature. And when one can look without resistance at one's own forms of resistance, then one begins to understand the nature of violence, the fear of loneliness, fear of this extraordinary boredom with life - the life that one leads every day, spending years and years in an office, the same house, the same face, the same sexual routine, the same pleasures. Naturally one is bored stiff by all that. Being anchored - and we want to be anchored - we don't mind being disturbed on the periphery. But the question of violence only disappears when we are deeply disturbed, so that we have no anchorage - which means to have no resistance, no defence, no excuse, no justification, no conclusion - so that the mind is intensely aware, sharp, clean. Only then the question of violence disappears.

I suppose you listen because you are here to listen and you get used to hearing outrageous things. But what we're talking about is not outrageous. If one really wants to live peacefully - which one must as an intelligent human being - without wars, without contention, without making our whole life into a battlefield, one must understand this violence. And one can see the nature and the structure of society which man has built, and to belong to that society in any way psychologically, inwardly, obviously brings about further destruction, further wars, further misery.

As we were saying, violence is part of our nature. The various religious organizations, which are not really religious at all, have tried to soften man, to tame him, to control him, but they have not succeeded; on the contrary, religions have probably produced more wars. Obviously all so-called spiritual organizations must inevitably create discontent, contention and wars. I belong to my society and you to yours and we're at each other's throats; mine is superior and so on.

So is it possible for me and for you, as human beings living in this world, to look at the totality, not at the fragments? How does one look? The act of looking - not at the total, not at the complete nature and structure of consciousness - that may not be relevant at all, but probably what is relevant is `How to look'. And as we're going to examine this question of violence, which is so deeply rooted in most of us, we must learn to look; not at the total structure or the nature of violence - but at the `act of looking'!

This morning we are going to talk over together the nature of violence that is so rampant throughout the world and in each one of us. To be entirely free from that violence in all its various forms, one must, it seems to me, meet each other at a level that comprehends the totality of violence - not any particular form of violence - where we can both look wholly at the structure and the nature of violence; and when one can look wholly then one can detect the details without distortion. Because when one can look at something wholly - and that is only possible when there is no personal inclination or tendency interfering with it, or when one is not merely guided by circumstances - it is only then that one can see something entirely. And as we're going to talk over this problem of violence, we're not going to cultivate its opposite, non-violence - that's an old trick - but rather see how extraordinarily deep-rooted violence is; and to see, there must be awareness in which there is no choice, no argument, no justification, no excuse. When the mind is so alert, then I think one begins to understand not only this violence at the conscious level, but also at a much deeper level. And if we may, this morning we're to go into that.

But before we go into this thing one has to understand, it seems to me, the nature of the unconscious. Because superficially we may be highly sophisticated, polished, outwardly so-called cultured, but inwardly seething with hatred, animosity, greed, violence; and that's rooted very deeply because, after all, we have inherited the various qualities of the animal and as long as the animal is petted, treated nicely, kindly, it reacts accordingly, but the moment you antagonise it then the whole violence comes out. It is the same with us. We act on this principle of like and dislike, and basically in that principle there is violence.

And when I have examined all this, what is there of `me' to learn about? I've already learnt; I've learnt the total nature of myself. But there still remains this thing called fear. And if we may, we'll go into it. Because a mind that is caught in fear in any form, conscious or unconscious, must live in a darkened world, must see things in distortion; it can never understand something that is really free; and being afraid we naturally and inevitably develop a series of networks of escapes, whether those escapes be the football field, the church or the pub.

Krishnamurti: `Understand oneself'. Sir, when you apply yourself seriously to understand something, you begin to understand it. The scientist applies himself in his laboratory to find out the nature of matter; he may have little intelligence, but the more he applies it the more energy and the more quality of that intelligence comes into being. So here I am - I don't know anything about myself. I know what others have said about me, and I don't accept what others have said. They may be totally mistaken, or may be totally right, but I'm not interested in what others say. So I begin to learn about myself. I watch my thoughts, my feelings, my gestures and the words I use, the emotions I have, my reactions to various things; and out of that watching I am learning. So there is a much more fundamental issue involved, which is - does the learning about oneself demand time? That is - does one gradually learn about oneself? Is it a matter of gradually learning about myself?

Krishnamurti: I wonder why? Well, let's talk about it. Please, here there is no authority, I am not an authority. Before we begin to ask questions, let's find out what makes us ask questions. One must ask questions, one must not accept anything, any authority, including that of the speaker. We must have a healthy scepticism about everything. To ask questions surely is necessary. But why do we ask questions? To find out something? And from whom? From the speaker? Why do you look to the speaker to find an answer - or does the answer lie in the very question, if we know the right question? We can ask innumerable questions, very fundamental ones, superficial ones, or very casual questions. But to ask a question in itself demands a mind that has really enquired, gone into, asked, and begins to find out from within itself. So there is no authority. If one accepts that as a fundamental thing - that nobody is going to answer one's problem - one has to dig into it oneself. I feel that we do not know how to dig, how to look, how to enquire, go into it and it is this incapacity which might produce a question which will be a wrong question, whereas if we are able to find out why one does not have this capacity to go into oneself, to enquire, to look, to search, to answer, to find out, then our questions will have quite a different meaning. Then our questions will be right questions and therefore we will be likely to have right answers. Please, it doesn't mean that I'm preventing you from asking questions, but it is important to find out for oneself, why we ask and the nature of the question - and whether we expect somebody to answer. Or perhaps you ask as an enquiry, so that we can both go together, we can both take the journey into that question. Such an enquiry has meaning. Yes Sir?

Krishnamurti: Madam, I haven't finished. Wait a minute Sir! Because meditation is one of the greatest arts of life - perhaps the greatest arts. Because in the understanding of meditation there is love, and love is not the product of systems, of habits, of following a method. Love cannot be cultivated by thought. Love can perhaps come in to being when there is complete silence. And the mind can only be silent when it understands the nature of its own movement, as thought and feeling. And to understanding that, there can be no condemnation in observing thought and feeling. To so observe is discipline. Hence that kind of discipline is fluid, free, not the discipline of conformity. So meditation can take place when you are sitting in a `bus, or walking in the woods full of light and shadows, of listening to the singing birds, or looking at the face of your wife or husband'. Meditation is not something apart; it is the understanding of the totality of life in which every form of fragmentation of life has ceased. And also there is contemplation, to contemplate life, not from a centre, not from your particular idiosyncrasy, tendency, or inclination, but to contemplate the whole movement of life: the misery, the conflict, the confusion, the sorrow, the endless travail of man - to watch that as a total movement. You cannot watch it if there is any form condemnation. Such contemplation is meditation. And you cannot contemplate or meditate if there is no silence.

Then also one must understand what silence is. You know we are never silent; either we are having a dialogue with our selves, or with somebody else. The machinery of thought incessantly active, projecting itself, what it should do, it must not do, how it has been - endlessly chattering, chattering, chattering; or conforming, accepting, comparing judging, condemning, imitating, obeying. Knowing this, the are various forms of meditation which tell you how to control thought. But controlling thought is not meditation at all anybody can concentrate, from the schoolboy to the higher general preparing for war. And it is only a silent mind that can perceive, that can actually see; not a chattering mind, not a controlled mind, not a mind that is tortured, suppressed - nor yielding, indulging. It is only a very silent mind that can actually see. You only see a cloud, with its full light and beauty, or a leaf, when your mind is completely silent. Then you actually see it. Then in that silence the space between you and the leaf disappears, which doesn't mean you identify yourself with the leaf (which is idiotic). It is when the mind is completely silent, not made silent - you can make the mind very silent by taking a tranquillizer, a drug, or by controlling, forcing it; but such a mind is a stagnant mind, a dull mind. But when one understands the nature of chattering, comparing, the endless gossip that goes on within oneself, the dialogue - when you understand that - and to understand it is not an intellectual process, but actually to be aware of it, as it is taking place - out of that alertness, out of that watchfulness, the mind becomes extraordinarily quiet. Which doesn't mean the mind goes to sleep, or becomes blank. That is, when one has totally denied the world, the psychological world which man has created for himself and has denied the society in which he lives, that is, the psychological structure of society of which we are: the greed, the envy, the brutality, the violence, the jealousies, the hatred; then when you totally deny, you have space and silence. And it is only such a mind that is the religious mind, not belonging to any organized, propagandist religion - it is only such a mind that can see what is the immeasurable. And such a mind cannot, does not experience, because it is a light to itself.

There are two things which it is absolutely necessary to find out about: the understanding of space, and the nature of silence. It is a most interesting thing to find out what space means. We are talking not of the distance between the earth and the moon, but psychological space, the space within. A mind that has no space is a shoddy, little mind, a petty mind; it is caught in a trap and the movement in the trap it calls living. But to find out what space is, inwardly, one must observe outwardly what is space. I do not know if you have ever thought about this. There is space only when there is a centre from which there is observation taking place. You see me, and I see you, because there is a space. You are in space and I am in space. You are the observer and the observed. So this space, psychological space, can only be understood if there is an understanding of the observer, the centre from which there is observation. This hall contains space, because there are four walls and a roof and a floor. Outside this hall there is also space. And within us there is the space which is created by the observer, by the censor: the space in which he lives.

That is, to enquire, search must come to an end. You know, man throughout the ages has been seeking, seeking this immeasurable something. Some people have had, they say, the experience of that, and communicate it to others. And the others want it again, they want it too. So they go after it, they search for it, they seek it out. But that thing cannot be experienced. When you experience that, it is not that. When you say you know what it is, then you don't know. Therefore one must understand this constant seeking, because that is the outcome of discontent. Most human beings are discontented with superficial things, and also at a deeper level there is discontent which can easily be satisfied, and being discontented we want to find something which will give a total contentment. And so we go after it, we ask, we beg, we pray, we demand, we seek. Man has done this throughout the ages. He says, what is truth, what is God, I must find out, I must seek it out. And when you seek, obviously you will find what you have projected. Please do understand this. If one seeks God, or truth, to find it you must already have known it; that is, you must be able to recognize it. And you are able to recognize it you have already known it. It a vicious trap, and most of us are caught in it, because we are all seeking, seeking, seeking. And that probably is what most of you are here - without understanding the nature searching. So, to enquire is not to seek, when you see t nature of seeking.

Look Sirs, I'll put it round the other way. If you deny hate, envy (deny it, not build resistance against it, not escape from it, nor accept it) when you deny hate or violence, which breeds so much animosity, - and you can only deny it when you understand the nature of it, see what is implied in it, not intellectually, but actually - then when you deny that, in that very denial is the positive which is love in which there is no hate. Love is not the opposite of hate. So, when we deny every form of belief, belief in God, belief in saying `there is no God', when you deny both - which is to understand why human beings want to believe (because in that there is a hope, and one projects hope because one is frightened, one is insecure, anxious, in despair) then when you deny all that, negate it, in that very negation is a positive in which there is no conflict whatsoever.

But a man who would enquire and come upon this reality, if there is one, must obviously not only deny totally all forms of belief - which doesn't mean he becomes atheistic, a non-believer - but also he must deny every form of hope, because hope is born of belief. Again, this doesn't mean that one becomes cynical, bitter, materialistic, callous, indifferent. This is an immense question; it isn't just a matter of belief, a matter of words, a matter of concepts. Man has lived for so long with words, with concepts, with belief, with hope, but has never actually come upon that state of mind which actually perceives what is. And in enquiring into this question there is the danger of falling into the trap of becoming completely superficial; that is, when there is no hope, no belief - which demands tremendous understanding, not merely a denial - but when one does put it aside, then there is the danger of becoming materialistic in the sense, not of not having possessions, houses and so on, but materialistic in the sense of worshipping something in the nature of the State. You know what is happening in the world, you deny God on the one hand and create another kind of God, which is the Communist ideology. You can deny the ideologies of the religions and yet be extremely alert - not be caught in the ideologies of the State, as all important - or in working for the State, or working for man, helping man, and getting lost in that activity, which is obviously very materialistic - which doesn't mean that one mustn't help man. But to find out if there is a dimension, a totally different dimension, not invented by thought, one must be extremely alert not to create illusion, a fancy, a myth. Illusion exists only when there is a capacity to measure; that is to compare. And when there is no comparison at all there is no possibility of illusion. And this is important to understand, when the mind is enquiring into this extraordinary problem.

Krishnamurti: What does that word concept mean? conceive, to conceive an ideology, to formulate an idea - you understand? There is the Communist ideology, the Catholic ideology, the Hindu ideology, the Buddhist and so on. Why do we formulate ideas at all? When do you discover something new, not when you are caught in ideologies, obviously not. The man who discovered the jet, how did he discover. He knew all about the ways of the piston, the structure of a piston engine, with propeller and so on; and he discovered the jet only when there was an interval between what knew and what he was going to find; that is, when the mind is completely silent between the old and the new. It happens to us often, this is nothing mysterious. Only the mischief begins when we say, `I want to keep that state when I can discover something new. I want that to continue'. Therefore thought interferes and makes it old and destroys it. We formulate, or conceive ideas because it is much too danger to live without ideas and without concepts, formulas; because we have to live most intensely in the present. And to live so completely in the present is a dangerous thing. And therefore formulas, beliefs act as a protection. And a mind that is protecting itself ceases to be a mind. So when one is aware of all that - aware of it, not how to get rid of it, how stop it, how to go beyond it, but just aware of it that is to know the nature and the structure of it, then you will see if you have really looked at it - at the structure of breeding a concept - have really looked with great attention, with care, with affection, then you will find the mind is beyond it. But to give such complete attention, there needs to be a tremendous intensity, energy, demand. But we have neither the energy, nor the intensity, nor the urgency.

To come upon this one has to enquire into what is awareness. And one also has to find out what it is to be attentive. To be aware of the lights, of the shape of the hall, the roof, the carpet, the colour, just to be aware of it without any choice, without any comparison, without any condemnation - just to observe. I do not know if you have ever tried it. If you have, and if you are aware, then you will see how you judge, condemn, approve: `I like', `I don't like', `this is ugly', `this is beautiful', `this particular colour I don't like at all, it is repulsive', `that colour is very attractive'. Such statements prevent that awareness, which is to be aware without any choice; then only are you watching, then only do you see. You know, when you are completely attentive, in that state you see; it's only love that sees and nothing else, not thought, not the mind, not the intellect. So one has to learn how to look, how to hear. As we said the other day, learning is not accumulating, learning is always the active present, It is not that having learnt you observe; you see only in the instant present. And when you are so aware, then you begin to discover for yourself, without any preacher, any teacher, any book, any philosophy, theologian, priest, or psychologist, you begin to discover the nature and the structure of your own self: how you look, how you feel, what you think, what your motives are; you are aware of yourself instantly. And from that awareness there comes the state of attention. You know most of us are inattentive, that is our habit. We are never attentive. Attention means complete attention, not intellectual, emotional attention, but the total attention which one gives when one is completely in front of a danger, or in face of a crisis. That attention is virtue. It is only in that attention virtue can flower. And when there is that attention, then you will find that out of it comes complete aloneness. I do not know if you have ever experienced what loneliness is. I think one has. To be lonely, that is to feel oneself isolated, having no relationship with anything; in that sense of loneliness there is despair - there are moods, one is familiar with that sense of loneliness - and one runs away from it by turning on the radio, by reading a book, by sex and ten different activities. That loneliness is the very essence of self-consciousness. And when one goes beyond that, there is this state of attention in which there is complete aloneness, which is not isolation, which is not separation, which is not a withdrawal. Because it is only this aloneness, when the mind is no longer a plaything of thought, when thought has been understood totally - then out of that comes this sense of aloneness. it is that which is innocence, and it is that innocence which is beyond all mortality. It is only that innocence which can come upon the new, that which is always new, which is timeless. This whole process man has sought through meditation. Perhaps you do not know that word. The whole of Asia knows the meaning of that word. Here you may use a different word. Man has tried through meditation, through control, through following a system, a method, to come upon this innocence, this freshness, this reality, which is not of time. One can only come upon it when one has understood what it means to experience, what pleasure and desire mean, and also the nature of awareness and attention. Then out of that total comprehension comes the solitude and aloneness which opens the door. And no one - no drug, no priest, no God, no religion - will ever give the energy to open that door.

As we said the other day, the world, the symbol is not the reality. The word door is not the door. So one has to be very attentive not to be caught in words. Although we have to use words to communicate, words become a terrible hindrance; because we think by understanding the word, defining the word, or the meaning and the structure of a sentence.. through explanation, we think we have understood the whole thing. So we are going to find out whether a mind, that is heavily conditioned, whether such a mind can free itself totally and be in a state of freedom in which the new is joy, great ecstasy, cannot be sought. You can seek pleasure excitement, sensation, seek ways and means of entertainment, certain forms of excitement, pleasure; but joy is something that cannot possibly be sought or put together by thought. And that joy is not related at all to pleasure or desire. So it is important to understand the nature of pleasure and desire.

You know, throughout the world those people who have belonged to any particular organized religion have always said you must be without desire to find reality. That is why there are so many monks and various forms of renunciations of the world, denying pleasure and desire. Monasteries are full of them. And by denying pleasure, desire, they hope to find something beyond these categories. What is pleasure and what is desire? We must understand this very carefully, because otherwise the mind will always be caught in the search for pleasure, or the avoidance of pleasure, or the control of desire; hence the mind becomes a tortured thing. Either the indulgence of pleasure, or the suppression of pleasure, does deteriorate the quality of mind. And so one has to understand both desire and pleasure, not intellectually, not conceptually but actually. The understanding through a concept, through a formula, is not understanding at all. That is, we have an idea of what pleasure is and try to understand the nature and structure of pleasure through that idea. First we conceive, we formulate an ideology and use that ideology, that concept, to understand. We mean by understanding a direct perception And action without the interval, without the interference of thought and concepts. Only then is there understanding and therefore immediate action.

In this demand for experience, which is natural, one has to go into the question of what is an experience, what is its nature, and is any new experience at all possible. Being dissatisfied with things as they are in our life, we stretch out our consciousness, hoping to grasp some new fundamental, original, pristine experience. And in that we do not completely understand what is involved. All experiences are a response to a condition. There are always challenges, if one is greatly alive, to which we either respond adequately or inadequately, totally, or partially. This response to a challenge is the experiencing - otherwise there is no experience at all. And when we ask for deeper, wider, more significant experience, a process of recognition is involved, isn't it. If I don't recognize a new experience, it is not an experience at all. If there is an experience, if something takes place in consciousness and I don't recognize the nature of it, it ceases to be an experience.

I do not know if you have ever tried to die to a pleasure, without any argument, without any sense of sacrifice, just to completely drop it. If you have, then you will know what it feels like to die, to end a pleasure before the next pleasure begins. In that interval, between the dying of the old and the beginning of thought, the demand for a different kind of pleasure, in that interval is the renewal of mind. And this is very important to understand because society, as it is, is always in disintegration. In society there is no order, there is no virtue, its morality is conditional, changing, and we, as human beings, have created that social order which is disorder, because in ourselves we are in disorder. Order cannot be brought about by thought, through time, through a gradual process. Virtue is not a thing to be cultivated, it is not a thing of habit. Such virtue is of time, is the produce of thought and therefore such virtue is not virtue, it is merely cultivation of a habit, as a means of defence. But when one understands the nature of thought and time, then out of that comes virtue with its own discipline. For discipline is order, but not the discipline of imitation, of conformity, obedience to certain sanctions of society, or to the priest. Discipline comes when thought is understood. You know, there is a discipline which comes when you have to do a thing for itself. And discipline which is merely conformity to a pattern, whether it is noble or otherwise, is not discipline at all; it only breeds disorder, chaos. But to understand order, which is virtue, one has to understand the nature of thinking. And the understanding or thinking demands discipline. To observe anything very closely, to give attention, to watch something - a bird, an insect, a leaf fluttering in the breeze - that watching is only for an instant, that watching demands tremendous discipline, otherwise you are incapable of looking.

So one sees that order within the skin, within the mind, being, can never be the product of thought. Thought can create habits, conformity, obedience, and that, as one observes, only leads to greater disorder, to greater confusion and misery. And order, which is virtue, is quite a different thing. It is necessary to understand this whole process of thought, how one thinks, why one thinks, just to observe it. If you give your attention to it completely, not merely intellectually or emotionally, but totally, in that totality of attention here is immediate comprehension, and therefore immediate action. And when one sees what the nature of thought is, then one begins to find out what love is. Love is not desire or pleasure. But for us, for most people, love is pleasure and desire. So what is the truth of love? What does it mean? Obviously the word is not the thing. The word microphone is not the microphone. But we are caught in the word, in the symbol, in the imagination of what we think or what we are told that love is. So one must be free of the word, of the symbol, to find out the nature of that extraordinary thing which we call love. Since love is not desire nor pleasure, how does one come upon it? Obviously one cannot cultivate it, that is too immature: to identify oneself with an image which is said to be love, as the Christians do, or as they do in the Orient in their own way. So how does one come upon that thing? To come upon it one has to find out what beauty is.

What is beauty? Does beauty lie in the object, in the architecture, in the tree, in the face of a beautiful person, the light on the water? Does it lie outside, or is it something that is not dependant on the observer and the observed? And how does that take place in which there is neither the observer nor the observed? I do not know if you have ever looked at a mountain, or a tree in Spring, or water flowing by. You must have observed it and you say how beautiful it is and we think we have understood beauty. Surely beauty is something when there is total abandonment of oneself; when there is no observer at all; when you completely abandon your own ideas, your own feelings, die to everything that you have known. That is, total self-abandonment takes place; say for example, when you observe a mountain, with its snow, light, depth, beauty and majesty, that very thing drives away all thought for a moment, a second, you are stunned by that sight and then the mind becomes completely quiet. In that state you feel something which cannot be put into words but which is the nature of beauty. There the mountain, the river or the flower by the wayside, drives away for a second all your thoughts, all your worries, all your impressions. And can one die to everything that one has thought of oneself, all one's pleasures, one's worries, on the instant, which is the total abandonment of oneself? That demands great austerity. Not the austerity of the priest, nor of the monk, nor of the saint; their austerity is very harsh, it is meaningless, it is an ugly thing. We are not talking of such austerity. Austerity comes only when the mind understands the nature of that interval between the observer and the observed, and is no longer sustaining the observer through thought. That brings about an extraordinary quality of sensitivity. And a mind that is not sensitive, alert, can never know what love is.

I do not know if you have ever considered the nature of pleasure. There has been a delightful experience yesterday, you think about it, and thought strengthens that delight and gives it nourishment and continuity. Thought is doing this all the time. So thought not only breeds psychological time, but also sorrow. And man has lived with sorrow, as with violence, for millions of years, and has always sought a way out, either to escape from the world through monasteries, through identification of himself with what he calls God, the Saviour, ideals and so on; but he has never been able to solve it, has never been able to go beyond it, because he is always functioning within the boundaries of thought. So, one asks oneself whether thought can end. Thought must function at a certain level, obviously. Technically it must function when you hear the words spoken in English; it is the accumulation of the knowledge of the English language and you repeat it; the way to your house, your office and so on, there thought must function rationally, sanely, healthily, logically. But that logical thinking is perverted by self-centred activity. And we are asking whether it is at all possible for thought to function at a different level altogether. You know there is, in the human mind, the old brain and the new brain. The brain that has been developed through millions of years, the animal brain always self-protective, always on the defensive. And is it possible for that old brain to be quiet, give an interval between the old and the new? It is this interval which is the timeless, in which thought cannot possibly enter.

Our question is concerned (but not only) with daily living - with all its miseries, turmoil, anxieties, uncertainty, sense of guilt, despair, the hopeless battle without any meaning whatsoever - which we call life. What is the meaning of going to the office every day for forty years, the utter boredom, the loneliness of existence, the repetitive nature of it?

In understanding thought perhaps we shall understand the nature of time, and we may come upon that sense of love and beauty. For without love and beauty there is no truth. But to understand what love is, and what beauty is, we must go into this question of thought. What is thinking? When one asks that question - `what is thinking?' - what actually takes place. Either one responds to it immediately, giving an answer; or there is an interval between the question and the answer. In that interval one is looking for an answer, looking in the storehouse of knowledge trying to find out what is the answer. So between the question and the answer there is an interval of time, and in that interval we are searching, asking, examining, hoping to find it. When you are asked a question which is familiar the response is immediate.

For us thought, the whole mechanism of thought, is very important. And perhaps the very act of thinking may be the cause of deterioration, the cause of a mind losing its capacity to see very clearly, to act directly, and perhaps be able to understand the nature of love. So before we begin to go into this question of what is the central factor of the deterioration of the mind (which may be the whole mechanism of thought), we should consider not only the nature of the mind but also the brain. And whether it is possible for the very brain cells themselves to function not self-protectively, not in self- centred action, but face much wider, deeper issues.

So we have to ask what is thinking. Because I feel thought is always old, never new; thought is never free. Thought can never bring about a radical revolution in the structure, in the nature of the mind. We have to examine closely what is the nature of thinking. And as we said the other day, we are exploring together, taking a journey together, therefore there is no authority. There is no follower and no teacher. Each one of us has to be the teacher and the follower, that is one has to learn, not from books, not from another, but rather in understanding the process of our own thinking. And to understand that deeply, and to come upon the truth of it, we must put aside every form of authority, every form of agreement or disagreement; because when you examine something, opinions about it, which are based on agreement or disagreement, must entirely cease. We are dealing with facts and not with opinion, which only leads to dialectical argument, which has no value at all. Whereas, we have to understand how we think and what is the nature of thinking. Because, as I said, thought is always old, thought can never be free, thought is always limited and is always of the past.

First, one has to understand what is action, and what is an action which is derived from an idea. Most of us have an idea first, a formula, a pattern and from that we act. For instance the actual fact is that we are violent by nature. Our heritage is from the animal and there is in us a great deal of violence. That is the fact. The non-fact is the idea that we should be non-violent. It is a non-fact and hence what takes place? We are always trying to be non-violent when we are really violent. So our action is always derived from what should be and not from what is. You must know of this peculiar ideology of non-violence, which is being used politically in America with regard to the White and Negro problem, and this idea of non-violence has existed for many centuries. The idea is the ideal of not being violent, the what should be.

Please, this is important to understand because what we are going into presently, what we are going to discuss, is fear and all the things implied in relation to that. So unless we understand this word, its structure and its nature, and also what is action, which is involved in this understanding, we cannot enquire, as we are going to, into fear - which most of us have in varying degrees. It seems to me, then, that it is very important to understand the nature of understanding.

Now how does this understanding take place? What is the nature, the structure of this understanding? When do we actually understand? You know what the dictionary meaning is: to comprehend, to investigate, to use one's mind. But when we observe in ourselves the state of understanding, that is, when you say `I have understood', is it an intellectual comprehension, or an emotional reaction, or is it nothing to do with the emotions or the intellect? When things are very serious in our lives, a deep crisis which demands immediate action, then how does action come about in which there is no friction at all? Action in which there is no afterthought, no thinking it over and coming to a decision, but action which is immediate - how does it come about? One must have noticed in one's life this peculiar phenomenon of understanding. Understanding does not come merely through a conclusion, nor through a series of introspective, intellectual examinations, nor through ideation, through ideas.

And so one seeks. The nature, the structure of search, is very clear. Why does one seek at all? It is essentially self-interest - enlightened self-interest, but it is still self-interest. For one says: `Life is so tawdry, empty, dull, stupid, there must be something more, I will go to that temple, to that church, to that...' And then one discards all that, and one begins to seek deeply. But seeking, in any form, becomes, psychologically, a hindrance. I think that must be understood very simply and clearly. One may objectively discard the authority of any outward agency that claims to lead to the ultimate truth, and that one does. But to discard because one understands the nature of searching, to discard all seekings, is necessary - because, one asks - what is one seeking? If you examine what it is we are groping after, what it is that we want, is there not the implication of seeking something that you already know, that you have already lost, and you are trying to get at it? That is one of the implications of seeking. In seeking, there is involved the process of recognition - that is to say, when you find it, whatever it is, you must be able to recognize it - otherwise seeking has no meaning. Do, please, follow this. One seeks something, hoping to find and on finding it, to recognize it; but recognition is the action of memory; therefore there is the implication that you have already known it, that you have already had a glimpse; or as you are so heavily conditioned by the intense propaganda of all the organized religions, you mesmerize yourself into that state. So when you are seeking, you already have a concept, an idea of what you are seeking; and when you find it, it means that you already know it, otherwise you can't recognize it; for this reason it is not true at all. Therefore one needs to find that state of mind that is really free from all search, from all belief - without becoming cynical, without stagnating. For we tend to think that if we do not seek, strive, struggle, grope after - endlessly - we shall wither away. And I don't know why we should not wither away - as though we are not withering away now. One does wither away, as one dies, as one grows older, the physical organism comes to an end. One's life is the process of withering, because in it, in daily life, we imitate, copy, follow, obey, conform, which are forms of withering. So a mind that is no longer caught in any form of belief, not caught in self-created belief, not seeking, not seeking anything - though it may be a little more arduous - is tremendously alive. Truth is something which is only from moment to moment, like virtue, like beauty, it is something which has no continuity. That which has continuity is the product of time, and time is thought; and time being sorrow, time...

Life is empty, and realizing that, we want to fill it, we are seeking - seeking ways and means, not only to fill this emptiness but also to find something that is not to be measured by man. Some may take drugs, LSD, or another of the diverse forms of psychedelic drugs that give expansion of consciousness; and in that state one acquires or experiences certain states, because a certain sensitivity has been given to the brain. But these are chemical results. They are the results of extraneous outside agents. One takes drugs hopefully, then inwardly one has these experiences; as one has certain beliefs, so one experiences according to those beliefs; the processes are similar. Both produce an experience, yet man again gets lost in belief - in the drug of belief itself, or in the belief in the chemical drug. He is inevitably caught in his thoughts. And one sees through all that and discards it - that is, one is completely free of any belief. That does not mean that one becomes agnostic, that one becomes cynical or bitter. On the contrary, you see the nature of belief and why belief becomes so extraordinarily important; it is because we are afraid - basically that is the reason. Fear - not only in life, the daily grind, the fear of not becoming, of not achieving psychically, not becoming, not having power, position, prestige, fame - all this causes a great deal of fear, and one puts up with that fear - but also because of this inward fear, belief has become so important. Faced with the complete emptiness of life one still holds on to belief - though one may discard the outward authority of belief, the belief in, vented by the priest throughout the world - one creates for oneself one's own belief, in order to find and to come upon that extraordinary thing for which man has been searching, searching, searching.

One has to understand discipline, for most of our lives are disciplined; outwardly, by pressure, by influence, by the demands of society, by the family; inwardly by one's suffering, by one's own experiences, in the conforming to certain patterns, ideological or factual - conforming, suppressing, imitating - and these all become the pattern of discipline, which again is the most deadening thing. But there must be discipline without control, without suppression, without any form of fear. So how is this discipline to come about? It is not that one first disciplines and then finds freedom; but rather that freedom is at the very beginning - it is not a result, at the end. To understand that freedom - which is the freedom from the discipline of conformity - is discipline itself. After all, that word discipline, the root meaning of that word, is to learn; not to follow, not to imitate, not to suppress, but to learn. The very act of learning is discipline; in the very act, learning becomes clarity, That is, to understand, for example, the nature of control, suppression, or indulgence, to understand it and study it, to investigate very closely the whole structure and nature of this imitative process, demands attention, doesn't it? I don't have to impose a discipline on myself in order to study it - the very act of studying brings about its own discipline and in that is no suppression. To learn there must be freedom and in the very act of caring is the very act of discipline. I think that it is most important to actuality realize this fact. So true negation, the negation of what has been considered worthwhile, like imposed discipline, like the following of an authority, is an act that is positive, which is itself discipline.

When one sees outwardly and inwardly all this disorder - the confusion, misery, loneliness and the utter meaninglessness of life as it is lived - one may invent extraordinary ideas about it, but they are mere inventions, theories. But when you understand the whole nature of time and thought, and discard it, then there is no need to seek a significance to life. Then there is quite a different state - not brought about by thought - that obviously cannot be explained by words. The more you explain it by words, the less it is. But to actuality come upon it because one has observed - that state of mind, surely, is the released mind; it has nothing to do with any organized belief and dogma.

One has to understand the nature of pleasure; violence and pleasure are intimately related. Because again, as one observes oneself, one will see that our whole psychology is based on pleasure - apart from what the psychologists and the analysts talk about, one does not have to read a lot of books to see this - not only the sensory pleasures, as sex, but also the pleasure of achievement, the pleasure of success, of fulfilment, of achieving position, prestige, power. Again, all this exists in the animal. In a farmyard, where there are poultry, you see this same phenomenon taking place. There is pleasure, in the sense of taking delight, or of insulting. To achieve enjoyment, to achieve position, prestige, to be somebody famous, is a form of violence - you have to be aggressive. If one is not aggressive in this world, one is just downtrodden, pushed aside; so that one may well ask the question, `Can I live without aggression, and yet live in this society?' Probably not, why should one live in society? - in the psychological structure of society, I mean. One has to live in the outward structure of society - having a job, a few clothes, a house, and so on - but why should one live in its psychological structure? Why should one accept the norm of society which requires that one must become a successful writer, must be a famous man, must have...oh, you know, all the rest of it? All that is part of the pleasure principle which translates itself in violence. In church you say, love your neighbour - and in business you cut his throat; the norm of society has no meaning. The whole structure of the army, any structure based on the hierarchic principle, on authority, is again domination and pleasure, which is again part of violence, basic violence. To understand all this demands a great deal of observation - it is not a matter of capacity - you begin to understand, the more you observe. The very seeing is the acting.

Am I making it somewhat clear or is it too abstract? I hope you are not translating what is being said in terms of some oriental mystical nonsense! Look! - if I want to understand a child, I have to observe him, I have to watch him, I have to pay attention to him. I watch him playing, crying, misbehaving, doing everything - I just watch him - I don't correct him; I want to understand and therefore I have no prejudices, I have no patterns of thought - as to what he must or must not do - as to what is good and what is bad. I just watch, and in that watchful attention I begin to understand the whole nature of his activity. In the same way, to observe nature, a flower, is fairly simple; nature does not demand very much of us, just to watch an objective thing is very simple. But to watch what is going on inwardly, to watch this violence, this sorrow, with that clarity of attention is not so simple. That watching, that observing, denies totally every form of personal inclination, tendency, or the compulsive demand of society, that very watching is like watching the movement of a whole river. If you sit on a bank and watch the river go by, you see everything. But you, watching from the bank, and the movement of the river, are two different things; you are the observer and the movement of the river is the thing observed. But when you are in the water - not sitting on the bank - then you are part of that movement, there is no observer at all. In the same way, watch this violence and sorrow, not as an observer observing the thing, but with this cessation of space between the observer and the observed. It is part of the whole enquiry which is meditation of life.