Conditioning

J. Krishnamurti Talks and Dialogues Sydney 1970 1st Public Talk 21st November, 1970

I think it quite important that we understand each other, because we are not concerned with any Oriental philosophy or with any theory; we are not indulging in speculation, any form of theoretical assumptions. We will be concerned only with things as they are and to see if the human mind can radically bring about a change in things as they are. Therefore it is necessary to observe very clearly without any prejudice, without any conclusion what actually is going on in the world; not according to the Asiatic outlook or the Western or the communist or the capitalist but observe the various happenings that are taking place in the world.

First of all, one sees right through the world a great deal of violence, incredible brutality, destruction, a meaningless kind of violence and revolt, revolt against the established order, revolt against war, revolt against all the social moralities.

Obviously social morality is immorality. One observes the division, the fragmentation that's going on, not only at the physical level but also at the religious level, physically, geographically, there is division between nationalities, sovereign governments with their armies, defence, and so on; there is the economic division, the division between black and white and among the coloured people. There is also division among the religious people, so-called religious people. There is the Catholic against the Protestant, the Hindu against the Muslim and so on. Right through the world there is fragmentation, the businessman and the artist, the scientist and the layman, the technician and the ordinary person. This is a fact and one sees what incredible conflict exists between human beings.

Religions, that is organized beliefs based on propaganda, have not solved this problem at all. Politicians haven't solved it. On the contrary, religions have separated man against man, politicians keep the country, the people apart and you can see both outwardly and inwardly there is fragmentation, division.

The very nature of division is to bring about conflict and man has tried many, many ways to bridge this conflict, through ideals, through revolt, through revolution - physical revolution - through every form of assertion, aggression, violence to see if man can live at peace, not only within himself but also outwardly. And this has been going on for millions of years - man fighting man, outwardly and inwardly.

When we are confronted with such a problem, what is the response? knowing that man has tried so many ways to get rid of this problem, through physical revolution which ends in tyranny, bureaucracy, dictatorship and he has tried religiously in belief - worshipping one God or one idea, one set of symbols, and again all that has failed, completely failed because man is still at war. Within the last 5,000 years I believe there have been 15,000 wars and we have never been able to solve any of our human problems. We know how to escape from them, through amusement, through every form of deception, hypocrisy, negligence, indifference, callousness.

It is only the very serious people that live, not the people who want to be entertained, want to be amused; and I hope during these five talks, that those who are here are really serious people. This is not an entertainment, either philosophical or intellectual. We are concerned, in observing all this, how to bring about a radical change in man, how to bring about a total revolution, not the revolution of bloodshed, physical revolution; that doesn't lead anywhere, as one has observed in the various kinds of revolution that have existed before. Physical revolution has no meaning; there is only one revolution, psychological, inward revolution because the human being - you - is the society. You have built this society and in that society, in that culture you're caught; therefore, you are the world and the world is you, not verbally, theoretically or intellectually, but actually. You are the world and the world is you and if you are confused, if you are disturbed, if you are neurotic, unbalanced, whatever structure you create as social morality, as law, as ethics or as religion must equally be confused. So, do please understand this very clearly from the very beginning of these talks.

We are concerned in bringing about a radical revolution in the human mind because the human mind creates the social, economic, religious structure out of its despair, out of its fear, out of its loneliness, misery, sorrow. Unless the human being, you, radically, fundamentally change, there is no possibility of having a different kind of world. When we say `you', you are not opposed to the community, you are the community, you are the collective. When we are concerned with a change of the human being, we are concerned with the radical revolution of the mind, not opposed to the collective mind. The collective mind is your mind, you are part of the culture in which you have been brought up, in which you have been educated, you're not separate from the society, from the world, so, unless you as a human being radically change there is very little hope for a peaceful, religious society.

To bring about this change, man has tried everything. He has taken drugs, has joined innumerable cults, organized beliefs, worshipped this god and that god, joined various schools of meditation, read infinitely, but he remains exactly as he was before, slightly modified but essentially self-centred, aggressive, violent, concerned about himself. These are facts not assumptions, not theories. This you can observe if you are at all aware not only of yourself but also about what is happening in the world.

So, seeing this, what is one to do? There are the activists who say you must act, do something, commit yourself, get involved. But getting involved, identifying yourself in a particular group or a particular structure of thought, philosophy, doesn't solve the problem. Seeing all this both outwardly and inwardly, what shall we do? We must act, we must bring about a revolution in ourselves. How can this revolution take place? We cannot possibly go on as we are going, because our life is very superficial.

The life that one leads has no meaning, spending years in the office, living a shallow, empty life, living a second-hand existence and everlastingly fighting, both inwardly and outwardly. What can one do? Action implies, not in the future, or in the past; action is the creative moment in the present. So, what shall I as a human being, living in this world, do? First of all, I must negate everything that man has psychologically built in himself. That is, through negation I shall find out what is the positive; you understand?

You know one of the most difficult things in life is to communicate. The word communicating means to think together, to feel together, to create together, share together. That's what we are going to do, share together. You're not just going to listen to the speaker, but share what the speaker has to say. You can only share if you neither disagree nor agree, but actually listen to find out. Listening is one of the most difficult things to do. Listening implies attention, and you cannot attend if your mind is chattering, if what is being said you compare with what you already know. The art of listening is very important and the art of listening is to communicate.

First of all, attempting to see things as they are, both outwardly and inwardly, man has tried several things. He thinks through analysis he can bring about change, analysis of what actually is going on, and through analysis to find the cause and bring about change in the cause. But analysis prevents action, that is, analysis implies time. Please, do listen to this, don't accept it or reject it, but listen to it, find out if the speaker is saying something false or true; find out, investigate, don't oppose it, or accept it, because we have to learn. We have accepted analysis as a way of resolution of our problems and the speaker says that way you'll never solve anything, and he's going to explain the reason why analysis is futile.

First of all, analysis implies time; to analyse day after day, week after week, examining, observing; analysing inevitably takes a very long time. Analysis implies the analyser and the analysed. And also that every analysis must be complete and true and finished, otherwise what the analyser has analysed he remembers and carries it over, which will prevent him from examining and analysing anew, right? You are following all this? Probably you have not heard all this before, it may seem rather strange to you, but if you have observed, if you have analysed yourself, you will find that there is the analyser, examining, investigating, questioning; so there is the division between the analyser and the analysed.

Questioner: ...Interruption.

At the end of the talk you can ask questions, we can discuss, but you have first to find out what the speaker has to say. You may know your own thoughts very well, be familiar with your own ideas, opinions, but we are not dealing with opinions, with ideas. We are dealing with actually what is, and the actual fact is that man throughout the ages has thought that he could resolve his problems through analysis. We are showing that analysis does not solve the problem at all. We want to show you a different way of looking, not through analysis. When you understand the nature and the structure of analysis you totally discard it, and therefore your mind is free to observe anew. So you have to understand what is implied in analysis. You have to learn all about it, be familiar with it, then you can put it aside.

We are saying that analysis prevents action because it involves time. Analysis implies, also, the division between the analyser and the analysed, and hence the conflict between the analyser and the analysed. In analysis is implied the conscious and the unconscious. Why is there this division at all? It has been the fashion in recent years to talk a great deal about the unconscious. The unconscious is as trivial as the conscious; the unconscious is the residue of all the racial memories, the family memories, the religious, the cultural memories. We have divided it. We think that the unconscious is richer, nobler, wider, more significant; but, when you examine the unconscious - and you can examine it only when you are aware of what is going on, not only at the superficial level of thinking, but deeply - when you observe it, you can see all the motives, the violence, the anxieties, the fears and so on.

Analysis implies all this, and, as it involves time, action is not possible, action being total action. Is that clear, at least for the time being? We have to act; action means in the present, psychological revolution is only possible now, not at some future date. Therefore, analysis is not possible, is not the way; nor is will. Will implies contradiction, suppression, control, and we have done all that. We have suppressed, we have controlled, we have denied and yet there is no radical change in ourselves; so, analysis is not the way, nor is the exercise of will.

One can see that any form of analysis is postponement of action; so what is one to do if analysis is not the way and exercise of will is not the way, will implying suppression, conformity, conflict, adjustment? If that has not produced a radical revolution in human beings then what is the way which is not any of this? I do not know if you ever asked this question of yourself. Man has tried several ways: identifying himself with the greater, with a principle, with an ideal, hoping thereby to dissolve his own anxieties, his own fears, his own misery, and he has not succeeded. Therefore, one must find a totally different way, a totally different perception and that's what we're going to do.

We are going to find out, together. You are not learning from the speaker, the speaker is not your teacher, is not your authority. We are going to learn together. Therefore, you as a human being, are your own teacher, your own disciple; therefore, there is no outside authority beyond your own intelligence. It is your own intelligence, your own understanding, that is going to bring about a radical revolution. Please, do not listen, accepting a thing. We are learning together.

One of our difficulties, perhaps a major difficulty, is that we are all conformists. We conform very easily. Those who are in revolt against society are conformists. They reject one form of conformity and accept another form of conformity. They reject authority outside and accept another kind of authority. Where there is authority, there must be conformity; therefore, there is no freedom. Freedom exists only when we understand the whole structure and the nature of ourselves. Without freedom there is no creation, there is no life, there is no beauty. So, freedom is absolutely essential: freedom from authority, not to do what you like. One has to investigate and under- stand the whole nature of conformity, why human beings conform. We conform not only superficially but deeply. We conform to the latest fashion whether it's long hair, mini skirt or midi skirt. We conform to the social pattern, we conform to the morality which society has established, which, when you observe it, is actually immoral, and yet we conform - why? Why is it that the human mind accepts authority so easily? Obviously, fear, fear of going wrong, fear of getting hurt, both physically and psychologically, fear of not doing the right thing, fear of losing a job. If one lives in a Communist world, one accepts communism; if one lives in a Catholic world a Protestant finds it extremely difficult. So, we're all conformists, we obey. Authority, apart from the legal authority, and we're talking about psychological acceptance of authority, makes the mind shallow, makes our life empty. We become second-hand human beings, which we are. The word individuality means indivisible. An individual means an entity who is indivisible, not fragmented but whole. And we're not. We're not individuals at all. This is the result, partly, of authority, conformity and accepting.

You observe all this in life, everyday life, not life at the moment of great crisis, but every day you see this going on, both within and outwardly, and when you reject analysis, when you reject authority, when you are no longer conforming - except superficially - what is the quality of the mind? What is the quality of the mind that has rejected all this, these things which haven't helped man? Hasn't it become extraordinarily sensitive, alive, free to look?

Most of us - all of us - are conditioned by the culture in which we live. You are conditioned as Australians with a lovely climate and all the rest of it, by the education, by the belief, by the religious structure in which you're caught, so you are conditioned. And a conditioned mind thinks it can solve the human problem. It cannot. It must be free of that conditioning. If I, born in India, remain a Hindu and want to resolve the whole human structure, human problem, human misery according to the conditioned mind in that particular culture, it will be impossible.

To solve the human problem the mind must be entirely unconditioned, that is, it has to become aware of its own conditioning, aware to observe without any choice, without any distortion and that's why it's very important to understand conflict. Every form of conflict distorts the mind. We are saying there is a way of living which is not the way of analysis, the way of will, the way of conformity, but to observe, to see things actually as they are.

I wonder if you have ever observed anything, that is, to see things actually as they are, not as you wish them to be, or you hope they should be, but actually as they are? Have you ever observed a cloud? Have you ever observed your wife, or your husband or your friend, to see actually what is? It is not possible to observe clearly if you have a formula, if you have ideals, if you have images, if you assume you know. You can only observe with clarity, without distortion, when there is no image at all; when you look at a cloud, to look at it without the word. Do it sometime and you will see what happens when you look at something, a cloud, without a single word, or look at your wife or your husband or your friend without the image which you have built during 30 or 40 years or 10 days; just to observe.

In observation there is direct relationship, but when you have an image about her or him you are not in relationship. Surely, love is that relationship in which there is no image. So the question is, is it possible to observe oneself and the world without any distortion, without any symbol, without any formula? If you can observe it that way, then you will find action is immediate, because such observation implies that there is no division between the observer and the observed; then you are directly in relationship. To look at a tree without the botanical knowledge, without the word, then, what takes place? The word, the knowledge about that tree, separates you from the tree. There is a distance, not only physical but psychological distance, and when the psychological distance disappears there is no identity with the tree but complete cessation of this distance. After all, that is love, isn't it?

When you say to somebody `I love you', what does it mean? Is it your loving the image that you have built about her or him? All the troubles, all the misery, jealousies, irritations, pleasure - sexual and otherwise - is that what you call love?

What we are saying is our human problems are so complex, yet so extraordinarily simple if we know how to look at them, if we know how to look at the problem, whether there is God or not, whether there is truth or not, to understand the problem of death, the problem of life, love, to be able to look without the image - which means to look without fear. We can go into this question of fear later because most human minds, consciously as well as unconsciously, are frightened. We are frightened human beings. Out of that fear we do the most extraordinary things, cruel, brutal, aggressive things.

To look with eyes that are not confused; and there will be confusion when there is the division between the observer and the observed, and this division takes place when there is the image, the formula, the concept, the ideal. Therefore, self knowing, knowing oneself as one is, is the beginning of wisdom. It cannot possibly be bought in books. One has to observe oneself, not by analysing, but observing oneself in relationship. In relationship all your reactions come out, your antagonisms, your fears, your anxieties, your bitterness, your loneliness. Without under- standing all that to try to find out if there is something beyond all human thought, if there is something real, true, is not possible. Therefore, we must lay the foundation and to lay the foundation one must observe one's life, daily, without any distortion.

Now perhaps, if you will, you can ask questions. You know one of the most difficult things is to ask the right question. The right question implies that you have thought a great deal, that you have enquired; and, we must ask questions, not only of ourselves, but about everything. We must doubt, question, to find out. Doubt is necessary, but also doubt becomes a danger. Doubt must always be held in leash. To ask questions is necessary, but if you ask a question and wait for somebody else to reply, then your questioning will have very little value, but if you question in order to discover, in order to communicate, in order to find out, asking together, investigating together, then such questions have value. To ask a question you must be intense, you must be passionate. What we are saying is that to question is to expose oneself. By questioning you are discovering yourself. This doesn't mean that the speaker is trying to prevent you from asking questions. All that he is saying is observe from what motive, what purpose, with what intention, with what passion, you're asking that question. Knowing from what depth you're asking that question, then, you'll have the answer corresponding to that depth.

Questioner: Do you say that there are cosmic laws?

Krishnamurti: Which is more important, to find out if there are cosmic laws or how to bring about order in our own lives? I'm asking sir, just asking. Which is more important? We're not children, we are supposed to be grown up. We are supposed to find out, aren't we, living in this world where there is so much disorder, so much confusion, so much sorrow; how to live without all this, how to live in order, not whether there is cosmic law. We'll find out afterwards if there is cosmic law and order if we have order and law in our own daily lives. Our lives are so disorderly, so confused, we are so miserable, suffering, physically as well as psychologically. What is important is to find out how to live peacefully with order, with beauty, and not escape into some cosmic theories, laws and assumptions. The beauty that is beyond our thinking can only be found when we know how to live properly. To enquire into the cosmic dimension is an escape from our daily lives.

First we must know how to walk, we must know how to build before we can reach up to heaven. We don't know what love is, we are so frightened. You know what we are, and without bringing order, beauty into our lives, we want to escape into some kind of symbolic nonsense.

Questioner: Is it possible to live in this world without bringing about an outward change and yet live in this world, free?

Krishnamurti: You're asking is it possible to live in this structure, in this society, and yet be free? Is it possible to live in this world, this world being the economic, social, the religious, cultural world and yet be free of that structure?

Questioner: Is it possible to become free while that structure still remains, and if so, how?

Krishnamurti: The same thing, sir. First of all, the social structure, the ethical, cultural structure in which is included economics, social, racial prejudices, religious beliefs, all that structure is me. I am part of that structure. I don't separate myself from that structure, I am the result of that structure. I am that culture. I am conditioned by the culture in which I have lived. Therefore, I am not separate from the culture. How am I, who am part of this culture to be free? If I am the social, economic, cultural structure, and there is no division between me and it, I am the world, the world is me. This is not a theory, this is not a speculation, this is what is basically true. Then what am I, a human being living in this structure of which I am, what am I to do? How am I to free myself from that structure? Shall I destroy that structure, physically, throwing bombs and all the rest of it? Or, do I see the fact that I am that culture and that culture is me? I see that in me I am confused, that I don't know what to do? To bring about a change in the structure I must change myself radically, because I am that culture. Is it possible for me who is part of the world, part of that structure, part of the establishment, to radically change myself?

What is this structure? What is the `me' who is the result of that structure? The structure is based on envy, greed, worship of success, power, position, prestige, the desire to be completely, isolatedly secure. All the wars, nationalities, divisions of religions, the family opposed to another family, all that is me. And can I in myself change all that, stop completely being competitive, imitative, conforming, violent? Obviously one can. And one must, if one wants to bring about a radical revolution both inwardly and outwardly. It must begin with the mind that is free from the conditioning which the culture has imposed upon it. And you ask how? The `how' is to observe, to become aware, be passionate to find out, not to be caught in a series of systems, which means you have to observe, learn and be intense and passionate to change. Not to change the world but change the world which is me.

Questioner: Do you accept a counter culture opposed to the present culture?

Krishnamurti: You've understood the question? Counter culture opposed to what is creates another culture. Which means what? A counter culture implies a contrary to what is and, therefore, a division. Where there is a division of any kind between you and me there must be conflict. Counter culture is to produce another series of conflicts, like belonging to Catholicism and inventing a new religion to which to belong; which is another form of division. This is much more fundamental than the division of religions or economics and so on. We are saying that where there is contradiction in oneself and in society of which I am, there must be conflict. Therefore I must understand the whole structure of division, contradiction, why human beings live in contradictions.

Questioner: Marx explained it for you.

Krishnamurti: Explanation, it doesn't matter who explains, has very little meaning. A dozen people have explained, including Marx, why human beings live in contradiction. Apparently we are satisfied by explanations, whether Marx explains it, or the capitalists explain it, or the psychologists explain it, or the religious people explain it.

Explanation is not the explained. The description is not the described. What is important is to find out for yourself, not be told by Marx, by philosophers, by psychologists, but find out for yourself why you live in contradiction. You can find out very easily, and when you do, it will be yours, not Marx's, not somebody else's philosophy-

You see what happens to us? We read all these books and are capable of explaining what others have said but we don't know a thing about ourselves. But when you accept, when you see the radical fact that you are the world, then you have to have the passion, the intensity to learn about yourself. Then you become creative, something extraordinary; you put aside all books because you are the history of the world. Aren't you interested to find out why man is so aggressive, so violent, and whether that aggression and violence can ever end? Aren't you really interested in it? Probably not, because we enjoy being aggressive, being violent. Do you really want to go into this question of violence which seems to be such a pervading thing throughout the world and which is destroying man? Aren't you really interested to find out for yourself whether you can live absolutely, not relatively, but absolutely at peace with yourself?

You see, you don't ask those questions. You ask questions about the cosmos, you ask questions about what Marx said or what somebody else has said, you never wish to find out for yourself with your heart, whether the human being, you, can live at peace.

Questioner: What is the significance of dreams? And is there something beyond dreams?

Krishnamurti: What is the whole process of dreaming? Shall we go into it now or shall we go into it next time?

Questioner: Let's sleep on it.

Krishnamurti: You would like to sleep on it? (Laughter) Shall we discuss it tomorrow when we meet?

J. Krishnamurti Talks and Dialogues Sydney 1970 2nd Public Talk 22nd November, 1970

SHALL WE CONTINUE with what we were talking about yesterday afternoon?

We are so afraid to use reason, to be objective. To think very clearly seems to be out of fashion. We are afraid of the mind and the capacity of the mind. We want to kill thought or we want to follow somebody - either Marx or St. John or some other philosopher, who, according to his own particular tendency, idiosyncrasy and conditioning, theorizes about life - what it should be.

We forget, it seems to me, that life is a vast field - very complex and demands a great deal of enquiry. It is very subtle and yet at the same time extraordinarily simple. We are apt to take one segment, one part of this vast complex and commit ourselves to that particular part, whatever it be - economic, historical, scientific or technological; neglecting the rest of the field. Either we approach this whole problem of existence through religious belief, superstition, tradition, propaganda, or we treat the whole of life as a matter of superficial existence. Control the environment and everything will come right. We have seen in recent years that when one is committed to a particular section of this vast complex existence, you gather around yourself or around the party or the theory a great many people and then you can't let go. You're frightened to let go because it's become a habit.

There are the Marxists, the Maoists - so many political divisions collecting groups around themselves and each one asserting that it is the right way. There is so much contradiction and this contradiction is bound to exist if we don't take life as a harmonious whole - neither neglecting one nor the other part of the field. We have to take this extraordinary thing called life as a whole, not in fragmentation but as a whole, and if we do, then we shall be committed to the whole and not to the particular. When we are committed, involved in the particular - whether it is political, national, economic or a particular religious insanity, then there must be division, then there must be contradiction, then there must be conflict between each other.

I think that is clear when one observes what is going on in the world. A serious man, who is really deeply concerned with the human existence with all the travail, the misery, the conflict, the despair, the utter sense of hopelessness has to take life as a whole. That is what we are going to do, if we can, during these talks: not be committed to any particular section or involved in a particular corner of the field but being completely and totally involved in the whole problem of existence which includes religion, death, love, daily existence, relationship, meditation and trying to find out for ourselves if there is such a thing as reality - such a thing that is beyond thought, which man through centuries has been seeking. We are involved in all of that, not in one particular expression of it, so let us be clear from the beginning that we are not talking about a particular panacea, a particular solution, a particular philosophy. Philosophy means the love of truth; not the theory of truth, not the speculation about what truth is, which any intellectual person can spin endlessly. It means to discover for ourselves what truth is actually in our life, in our daily living - the beauty of it, a quality of timelessness. All this involves that the mind must look at life non-fragmentarily, not be wholly absorbed in sex or in amusement, or in a particular form of belief, or completely lost in nationalism.

We are concerned, surely, with the understanding of this whole existence; therefore a mind that wishes to understand it must be free to observe non-fragmentarily. It can't be a Marxist, it can't be a Communist or a Socialist or a Catholic or a Protestant, or a Hindu or a Buddhist, or just be concerned with Zen, and so on. If this is clear between us that we must be totally involved with the whole problem of existence, from the moment we're born till we die, with all the things that are involved in it, and to be committed to them wholly - if that is established between us then we can go into all the many problems because every problem is interrelated. There is no problem by itself, they are all interrelated.

You cannot solve one particular problem, whether it be an economic problem, a technological problem or the problem of pollution by itself. They are all dreadfully and intricately related, and to try to solve one problem at one level, discarding or neglecting the other levels, is utterly, if one may use the word, stupid. It doesn't bring about understanding, a solution. If that is completely clear between us, then we can go into the question we were talking about yesterday, which is dreams. We are going to discuss that and we're going to go into the question of fear and so on. We are not discussing dreams by themselves but in relation to the whole of our daily existence with its fears, ambitions, competition, conformity, pleasure, fear and so on. In relation to all that, we are investigating what dreams are. If we neglect all the rest of it and be concerned only with dreams then it's as though you're playing with a toy; it has no value.

I don't know quite where to begin this question of dreams, but we'll begin somehow and see where it leads. Most people dream either fantastic or subtle or crude forms of dreams. We have never questioned why we dream at all. We have accepted dreams as we have accepted so many things, as part of daily life. We have accepted nationalism, we have accepted drugs, we have accepted alcohol, we have accepted smoking, we have accepted religious beliefs and all the rest. We accept, we fall into habits, and we drift along; whereas, we must question very fundamentally why do we dream at all? Is it necessary? Some psychologists say it is. I'm not an expert, nor have I read psychological books. I don't read books at all, except weekly magazines and detective stories; I really mean it. One can find in one's self if one knows how to observe one's self, the whole history of man, past and present. You investigate it in yourself, because yourself is the world, yourself is the division, the contradiction, the misery, the confusion, the aching loneliness and the suffering, and if you know how to look then you need not read any book because the whole history, the whole life, is there; and you are your own teacher and your own disciple. You become a light to yourself and therefore do not depend on anybody.

So why do we dream and what are dreams? In dreams, if one observes and, if you have tried it, put down on a piece of paper every morning the dreams that you have, just for fun, you will find there is a consecutive relationship between each dream. You will find that these dreams are the continuation of your daily life, only in symbolic form, with scenes, variations, with various forms of subtlety but it is the continuation of our daily life - the daily struggles, the daily conflicts, the daily irritations, the daily fears, pleasures. It is the same movement but in words, in scenes, in symbols. I think most people would agree, except of course the neurotics to whom dreams mean so much. Through dreams one hopes to find some kind of mysterious universe, but it is really a movement of our daily life.

So what takes place? As the speaker is putting this into words, use him as a mirror, if you will, to observe yourself. He is not saying anything new, or rather, nothing ideological, nothing that can be put into categories. If you are listening and observing in the mirror, then you will see for yourself, without agreeing or disagreeing, that what he says is what you actually are. Dreams are the continuation of our daily life and our daily life is occupied, busy with constant chattering, gossiping, having opinions about this and that, judging, condemning, justifying. It is aggressive, violent; that's our daily life, and that goes on when we are asleep.

The brain, which is the residue of memory, both the conscious as well as the unconscious, continues like a machine and therefore the brain has never any rest. It's like any motor that's constantly running, all day and all night, endlessly. So, what takes place? Such a brain becomes tired, acts erratically, erroneously, gets caught in illusion; it has no vitality, no energy. Dreams become unnecessary if you know how to observe the movement of life during the day, if you are aware fully what you are doing during the day. Then, the brain becomes extraordinarily active, sensitive, awake to every movement of thought. You discover all the motives, all the hidden, subtle drives, complexities. You are awake during the day fully. The words you use, the gestures, the contempt, the disrespect, the violence, the brutality, the competition, the vulgarity, you become aware of all that during the day, so the brain, the whole structure of the nerves, the body, the organism, being alert during the day, when it goes to sleep becomes very quiet. It has expended itself during the day, understanding what has been going on. Then the brain, when it sleeps doesn't have to bring about order in itself.

You see most of our brains are disorderly. We function with only a very small part of that brain and we have a great many disorders and much confusion. Yet the brain can only function properly, sanely, when there is order. If you have observed, as you go to sleep, the brain tries to bring about order just before it goes to sleep; have you noticed that? You try to look over what has happened during the day, in retrospect and say, `well, I should do this - I should have done that'... `I should not have done that'... `I must have...' `this is right, this is wrong'. It tries to bring about some order and as you have not brought order during the day, at night the brain brings about order. These are facts, you can experiment with yourself and you'll find out. There is nothing mysterious about it.

This bringing order during sleep is dreams. To bring about order during the day there must be order in your relationships, not order theoretically, abstractly, but order in your daily relationships - with the conductor on a bus, with your boss, with your wife, with your children, with your neighbour. Otherwise the brain tries to bring it about while the body is at rest, during sleep. This is a waste of energy. If you bring about order during the day, the brain becomes quiet at night, it refreshes itself, makes itself new, functions more smoothly. Therefore, when you wake up, you have energy.

Dreams then are merely the continuation of one's daily life and if that daily life is contradictory, confusing, disorderly, the brain spends the night bringing about some kind of order, but it is not complete order. Unless you have complete order, the brain is slightly distorted all the time. Our question is - how to bring about order in our life, order, not according to some blueprint, not the order according to Marx or some philosopher?

All the teachers have blueprints of what order should be, and we poor monkeys imitate them, which brings about more disorder.

To find out what order is, not according to any philosopher, to any book, to any social structure, one sees that there is no division between oneself and the world, that the world is oneself. In order to bring about order in the world which is so chaotic, there must be order in oneself. If you want to transform the society while being yourself disorderly, confused, messy, how can you do such a thing? It's impossible. You have to have order in yourself as a human being; not disassociated from the community because you are the community. So the question is - how to bring about order, that is, order without effort. The moment you make an effort that very effort brings disorder.

Please understand this deeply, this question. Every form of effort is distortion. Have you ever played with archery? The slightest movement sends the arrow crookedly. The whole body must be completely harmonious, relaxed to let the arrow fly smoothly. In golf, in cricket, everything must function smoothly. Effort implies contradiction, opposition, restriction, conformity. A mind that would understand order and live in order must observe and learn what is disorder; not how to bring about order. Are we meeting with each other? You know, communication implies sharing together, learning together, building together. The word communication comes from the word common, a common relationship. When we are discussing these subtle things there needs to be hesitancy, sensitivity. Unless you are also doing the same thing, being sensitive, watching, learning, communication comes to an end.

What we are saying is: order is not a blueprint, it is not to be copied, imitated, something to which you conform, but rather it comes about naturally, easily, without any effort, if you understand what is disorder. Through negation you come to the positive, not through the positive. If you are pursuing the positive, you will create disorder. We are trying to learn, observe, and through that observation we begin to find out what the subtlety of order is.

We live in disorder, that's a fact, which means we live in contradiction. If there were no contradiction at all, we would be orderly naturally, so we have to find out for ourselves why this disorder exists and why there is this contradiction in us. Why is there contradiction in each human being? not according to Marx, not according to religious people, not according to some psychologist or philosopher. We discard all those people. We can't learn from others, we have to learn from ourselves because we are the others. We have to find out for ourselves why there is this contradiction in ourselves and why out of this contradiction there is disorder. You have understood my question? Why is there this contradiction in our lives? Contradiction implies saying one thing, doing something else, thinking something else. We become hypocrites, not only to ourselves but to others.

One can see why there is contradiction in ourselves. First of all, we have ideals, various forms of principles, ideals about what should be. That is one of the major causes of contradiction.

We human beings are violent human beings, aggressive, competitive, and so on, and we have ideals of non-violence, that we should not be violent. Immediately there is contradiction; the violent man having ideals about not being violent, brings contradiction into his life. Why does he do it? Why does he have ideals? Because he doesn't know how to deal with violence, with actually what is, and also he may not want to deal with violence because it gives him some peculiar neurotic pleasure. Therefore he invents an ideal and that ideal is always in the distance, and in the meantime he is sowing the seeds of violence. He pretends to be non-violent, he has ideals, he practises idealism and yet he is being violent all the time.

One of the major causes of contradiction is ideals. Are you free of the ideals now as we are talking? You're not are you? You still have your ideals, you're still living in contradiction, which means you like contradiction. You are afraid to break down the ideals, you are afraid of what you might do if you had no ideals.

You don't see what ideals do. They bring about contradiction in our life because you avoid completely the actual fact of what is. Therefore the idealist is a hypocrite. All the young generation are supposed to be idealists because they want to change the world, and this young generation is as confused as the older generation.

This duality exists because of ideals and this duality, this contradiction exists because we are always conforming. From childhood, through education, through propaganda, through the social, economic, political, religious structure, the culture in which we have been brought up demands that you comply, conform. Aren't you conforming? We are not talking about conforming superficially; when the speaker goes to India he puts on Indian clothes. If he put on Indian clothes here it would be too much of a good thing. It would become a circus, therefore one has to conform outwardly. But the speaker is asking why do we conform inwardly to anything. Why conform to what society, culture may have given you or you yourself have projected from yourself, the what should be: not what actually is but what should be, or what has been? Conformity, imitation brings about a contradiction in ourselves; and can the mind not conform at all?

Conformity implies adjustment to a pattern of memory. Doesn't it? Do follow this because it is very interesting if you go into it: whether the mind can be free from all conformity. Can the mind function without the pattern which memory has created? Because then only can it be free. Technologically, there must be accumulation of knowledge. All science, all engineering, all mathematics is the accumulation of continuous knowledge which sets its own pattern. There is a form of conformity here and you must, if you want to go to the moon or live under the sea, you must then have technological knowledge, and conform to that knowledge, adding or taking away. Technologically there must be knowledge, but can the mind be free from conformity to the past? We are the past. You are the past, aren't you? You have memories, you remember certain things, pleasant, unpleasant. You are living in your youth, in your yesterdays, all the memories and the pleasures and the fears of yesterday. You are the past. Or, you project the past into the future, modified but it's still a continuation of the past. Can the mind be free to observe, and therefore act, without the pattern which memory creates? Now, to find that out, to find out if the mind can be free from all conformity you have to know, understand the whole nature and the structure of thought.

We said, that to understand the nature of a mind that is not conforming except in the technological world, one has to investigate the whole structure of thought. What is thought? When you are asked that question, what is your answer? What is thinking? Not what you think, but what is thinking in itself? Thinking is the response of memory, isn't it? This is very simple if you go step by step. You are dealing with a very complex problem and to deal with a complex problem you must move millimetre by millimetre, patiently. So we're asking whether the mind can be free from all conformity, and to find that out you have to investigate, question the nature of thought. Thought is the response of memory; memory is knowledge; knowledge is experience. If you had no memory, you couldn't think. You wouldn't know where to go - you wouldn't know where your home was, so response of memory is thought. Memory is stored in the brain cells themselves. It's part of the brain structure.

So thought which is the response of memory which is the past can never be new. Please do understand this basic thing; thought can never be new, so thought can never be free. It may invent or it may talk about freedom, explain what freedom is, write innumerable volumes about freedom, but the thought which can write volumes is the response of its memories and therefore thought is never, never new and therefore never free. Thought can only conform, modify, adjust, bring about certain changes, but it's still within the realm of the past which is memory.

This is not an opinion, it's not my opinion or my understanding, this is a fact. So, can the mind not conform, yet use thought whenever it is necessary, like going home, driving a car, performing the technological activities, yet inwardly, be free from any sense of response from the past? This becomes immensely complex and difficult if you haven't done it, if you haven't gone into yourself, taken time to observe. You have plenty of time, you have plenty of time to observe. You take plenty of time to amuse yourself, don't you? To go walking, sailing, watching other people play cricket, to sit in front of the radio, television, you have plenty of time. Give some of that time to look at these problems; the nature and the structure of thought. Don't learn from others. What you learn from others is not yours, it is theirs, and if you learn from others you remain second-hand; whereas if you learn from yourself by observing, a totally different kind of activity, life begins - at a different dimension altogether.

Thought, when it's conforming, brings contradiction. Contradiction implies, as we said, ideals, conformity, and there is contradiction when there is obedience, obedience to authority. The more civilized we are the more we reject outward authority. We are using the word civilized in the sense - not primitive, not responding to things violently. The response of violence is the most primitive form of action. I don't understand something, therefore kill it - throw a bomb against it, that's what's happening in the world. We must destroy this structure, therefore bomb it out. There is contradiction when there are ideals, conformity and obedience. You know the word obedience, the root meaning of that word obedience means to hear. When you hear constantly that you are a Catholic, you must have your son baptized, you must go to the confession, you must do this and do that every day, hear, hear, hear, you obey. Or you hear - `This is the greatest country, the noblest people, the marvellous politicians; this is the greatest religion' - repeat, repeat, repeat, and you just follow the propaganda. Where there is obedience to authority, whether it is the authority which you have selected, the authority which is imposed on you, or the authority of your own experience, then there is contradiction. A mind that can live without contradiction has to understand all this, understand the nature and the structure of thought; and from that we can go on to the question of fear.

When we are talking about fear, we are not describing fear, we are not explaining because description, explanation is not the thing described, explained. You have to feel it, you have to live with it, find out, put your teeth into it; which means you must have great intensity, passion to find out, not just calmly sit back and lazily investigate. You must give your life to this thing.

Shall we go into this question of fear? Probably sitting here in this hall for the moment you have no fear. At this actual moment you have no fear. If you think about it you can remember the fear and look at the past fear. That is, we are investigating what fear is and at the moment we are not afraid, so it is difficult to examine fear, understand it without inviting it, bringing it out. So, we are going to look at fear through one of the means which brings about fear, which is psychological dependency. Actually you depend on somebody, psychologically you depend, don't you? On your wife, on your husband, on your children, on what people will say. And, do you know you depend? You depend don't you? Depend on a book, depend on the priest, on the politician, depend on your wife or husband, because they give you comfort, security, position, safety? And if anything happens to that on which you depend you feel lost, you get frightened, you become jealous, angry, hating, don't you? So one of the forms of fear is dependency.

Why does one depend? Not depend on the milkman, on the postman or all that, but psychologically, inwardly, why do you depend? You depend because you are frightened of yourself, you are frightened what might happen if you didn't depend on somebody or on something. The mind must be occupied, it doesn't matter with what; with the kitchen or with God, with sex or with amusement. It must be occupied. Have you ever asked yourself why this happens, why should it be occupied? If it were not occupied, what would happen? Then you have to face, look at what actually is going on. You have to observe, you are thrown upon yourself to see what's going on, which is: you're frightened of your own emptiness, of your own insufficiency. You are afraid to be alone, not isolated. To be alone is entirely different from isolation. You see the difference?

One is afraid to be alone, therefore the mind must be occupied - or, is it occupied because in oneself one is so empty, shallow, one's life is so meaningless? You may have a good house, nice husband, wife, children, a pleasant lawn and blue skies, yet one's life is very shallow and therefore you try to fill it with occupations and when there is no occupation you're frightened. We are showing how fear comes about. You are afraid of death which is in the future, and afraid of the things that you have done in the past, so fear is in relation to something either in the past or in the future but never actually at the moment.

You know, the speaker is working very hard. I hope you are working too. You have to work, put all your energy and passion into this, otherwise you will never be free of fear and a mind that is frightened lives in darkness, its actions are neurotic. It escapes, creates so much mischief in the world, it's like living in darkness and trying to do the right action. To a mind that is frightened there is no beauty. It can visit museums, listen to concerts, but such a mind which is frightened becomes an ugly mind in action, a brutal mind, a violent mind. One has to understand and be completely free of fear, not only at the conscious level but at the deeper levels.

We are going to go into it to see if it is at all possible. I say it is possible. It is not possible to you unless you do it. We are going to examine this question of fear thoroughly and, in examining fear, we are also examining pleasure. We can't leave out one and take the other. If you want to investigate, understand, to be free of fear, you have to understand, pleasure completely. You can't say - I will divide the two and keep the pleasure and discard fear; they go together; you can't divorce them, they are the two sides of one coin.

It demands a great deal of energy to understand the deeper layers of the mind in which pleasure and fear are rooted. All our actions, activities, are based on the principle of pleasure, aren't they? Our gods are based on pleasure, our morality is based on pleasure, our relationship is based on pleasure. Subtly and deeply the current of pleasure runs through all our activity, of like and dislike. We pursue that relentlessly and we avoid at any cost, fear; run away from it, suppress it, escape from it, distort it, because we don't know how to deal with fear. We know what to do with pleasure, the more the better, and we know the channels in which we can find it. And we have cultivated them so marvellously. Also we have cultivated all the innumerable escapes from fear. To understand all this demands a mind that is really, deeply, profoundly serious; because in the understanding of it, you live a totally different kind of life, and, as you are the society and you are the world, you bring about a radical change in the world.

Perhaps it may be better if we continue when we next meet, because this requires really deep investigation, not just a casual look at the end of an hour and a quarter, listening to something that you think will help you to get rid of fear. The question to be discussed is - is it possible to come upon the great energy needed to understand what is? If you think it is not possible, then you have no energy. Yet the impossible becomes the possible when you are deeply concerned with it.

So to find out the roots of fear which lie not only in heaven but very close to the earth, to find that out one has to go into this at the deeper layers, the hidden recesses of one's own mind. Therefore one must be capable of exposing one's self, not to others but to one's self, so that there is no hidden corner. I don't know if you've ever asked yourself whether you are honest, completely, totally honest to yourself, which means to find out if you are dependent on anything, on anybody. Am I dependent on you? You are there, a large audience, are you feeding my vanity? Am I dependent on what people say about me? Am I dependent on the company, the friends, and so on, am I dependent? If I am dependent I am afraid, then I am dishonest, basically, deeply; then I become a hypocrite, then there is conflict, then there is duality, division, contradiction.

A mind that depends and finds out whether it can be free from all fear, both physical as well as psychological, must have the capacity, have the intensity to expose itself completely to itself. We are going to do this on Wednesday.

J. Krishnamurti Talks and Dialogues Sydney 1970 3rd Public Talk 25th November, 1970

I DON'T KNOW why you clap. What we are talking about is not something that needs your approval. What it demands is that you listen to what the speaker has to say and find out for yourself the truth of the matter; not your opinion, not your conclusion, not your information but rather to consider what the speaker has to say and see for yourself whether it corresponds with what you yourself actually feel and think.

The speaker is not saying or putting forward a new philosophy, a new series of ideas and conclusions, but rather we are going to investigate together the whole question of fear, pleasure and joy.

Before we go into that, I think we should be clear that we are so capable of self deception, we so easily deceive ourselves that we have to be extremely watchful when we discuss together this question. It is complex and needs a great deal of attention.

We are going to discuss fear, pleasure and joy and whether the mind can ever be free of fear, not only the conscious mind but also the deeper layers that lie below the conscious; whether one can expose all the content of that and whether fear which is so deeply rooted and to which one has become so accustomed can be totally understood and therefore completely and absolutely freed. Fear in its various forms destroys the capacity to see clearly, to think logically and to perceive actually what is. Fear distorts all of our conduct. After all, behaviour is righteousness and any form of fear, perceived or not perceived, makes every behaviour into a contradiction.

So, as we discuss this evening, together, the question of fear, we have to be very watchful that we don't slip into some form of formula that will help us to cover up our fears.

What we are going to concern ourselves with is not only fear but the necessity of being free from it, completely. Otherwise, human conduct, behaviour, cannot possibly undergo a radical revolution. We are concerned with that revolution, not physical revolution but psychological revolution, the conditioning which has been brought about through fear. Until we really, deeply understand fear, pleasure and joy, there cannot be a radical change in the very structure of our life, and the very structure of our thinking and action cannot possibly undergo a mutation. So, it is absolutely essential that we understand this very complex problem of fear. We have to look at it, not at the description but rather at the fact. We are going to look at it both analytically and non-analytically, verbally and non-verbally. Therefore, when we are examining what fear is, we mustn't get stuck with mere explanation or mere words. One has to be aware of one's own fear; actually. You may not have that fear at this moment sitting in this hall but the indication of that fear as dependency on another, attachment, the fear of not being, of not becoming, the fear that lies behind all our activity. One has to be aware of it, to look at it.

One of our difficulties is going to be that we are apt to escape through the word, and through the habit which we have cultivated for so long, which is to escape, fly away from what actually is.

As we said the other day, we cannot possibly understand what fear is unless we understand what pleasure is and also, in understanding pleasure, to know what joy is and ecstasy. They're all interrelated and we cannot possibly separate one from the other and hold on to one and avoid the other. They are all interrelated, complex, and this needs a great deal of enquiry, observation and learning.

We are using those words, `to learn' perhaps in a peculiar way. Learning implies an observation which is not acquisition; to observe without acquiring. When we use the words `to learn', we generally mean to accumulate knowledge, to pile up knowledge so that according to that knowledge we will act. That's what we generally mean by learning. Having learnt Italian, Greek, whatever it is, one can speak that language. Having learnt mathematics, then one can become an engineer or what you will. The accumulation of knowledge through learning is one thing and learning without accumulation is another. Learning and acquiring knowledge; action from that becomes routine, automatic. It's like a man in a factory, having learned a few movements, he can keep on repeating and repeating and repeating. Having learned a particular language, acquired the words, the verbs, the irregular verbs and so on, and having accumulated knowledge, he can then speak. That's one thing. Whereas, learning without accumulation is a constant movement of observation.

I hope this point is somewhat clear, because there have been experiments, I've been told, in American factories where the worker is allowed to learn as he goes along and he produces more; whereas, the man who has learnt and keeps on repeating, to him it becomes a bore, therefore he doesn't produce so much.

What we are concerned with is learning. Accumulation of knowledge is necessary, otherwise we couldn't go home, speak English, or Italian or what you will, but when we are looking, examining this factor which guides, shapes most of our life, which is fear, one has to learn about it. Therefore, we must come to it afresh, not with a conclusion, not with condemnation or justification. justification and condemna- tion are born out of knowledge which is the past and therefore there is the cessation of learning anew.

So, we are going to learn, together, about this whole thing called fear and pleasure and joy; learn together, not hear what the speaker has to say, or learn some technique from him and then apply it. Then you won't be able to understand or deal afresh with the factor of fear.

One can be totally and completely free of fear. Physical fear is one thing and psychological fear is another; and most of our fears are psychological, inward, not physical fears. We don't live in the wild, we are not attacked by another in a so-called civilized society. Physical fears we can deal with and we know what to do when we meet a wild animal or a snake or this or that - we know what to do. But we don't know what to do with psychological fears which are much more complex, so we have to learn about them; not learn from the speaker, as knowledge, and apply what you have learnt to the fear that you may have in the future. I don't know if we are communicating together over this question.

So, we are sharing together, not knowledge, but the act of learning and therefore, the awareness, the intention and the intensity to observe. It's not through the description of what the speaker is saying, but in observing your own fear.

As we said, there must be, not only socially and environmentally, radical change in the social structure. Appalling things are happening, violence, brutality, wars, and a man who is at least civilized and thoughtful and wants to live completely at peace must understand this question - why human beings are so violent in all their relationships. And in understanding this question of fear you will understand the nature of violence. So, what is fear? Obviously, it doesn't exist by itself, it exists in relation to something, either in the past or in the future: fear of loneliness, fear of frustration, fear of not being identified with something, fear of not succeeding, fear of being completely isolated, fear of death, which is fear of not being, and also the fear of not becoming. Fear is always in relation to something. It doesn't exist by itself. When we enquire into the unconscious where there are a great many fears stored up, how are you going to look into it? You understand my question? How is the conscious mind to look into the so-called hidden parts of the mind? I don't know why we call it the unconscious, it's really a misnomer; the unconscious is very conscious, only we are not aware of it, that's all.

My question is, please follow this - how can your conscious mind, the mind that thinks, observes, watches, looks, how can that mind look into something that is unknown, hidden, where most of our fears lie? You understand my question? We are sharing together, please listen to what the speaker has to say, we are sharing together, we are not teaching. I am not your teacher or your philosopher, or your authority; that would be terrible. We are sharing together to find out whether it is at all possible for the mind to be totally and completely free of fear.

If there is any shadow of fear lurking it distorts all thought, all life, it destroys affection, love, therefore one has to really understand it. My question is, and I am sure you must have put this question to