There are several questions here and I hope this morning we can go through them. These questions are really problems. And to resolve problems a mind, or rather the brain, unless it is free from problems in itself, cannot possibly solve the problems without raising other problems. Right? That is what politicians throughout the world are doing. They have got innumerable problems, war, atomic bombs and all the rest of it, their own position, their ambition, they represent the voter and so on and so on, their brains are full of their problems. And such a brain, as our brains also, is cluttered with so many problems. To resolve other problems, how can you solve them unless your brain is free from problems? I hope I am making this clear. If my brain is clouded with several problems, scientific, medical, health, sexual - so many problems human beings have, and other problems arise, how can I meet them? I only meet them with a brain that is not only trained to resolve problems but also heavy with problems. So shouldn't one enquire whether it is possible to be free of problems? And then any problem that arises we can meet freely. Is that possible? You understand my question?

Suppose I have several personal problems, and my brain is worried and concerned and thinking about it all the time, and I meet other problems - problems being something thrown at me - I can only meet them according to my brain which is already heavy with problems. Right? Isn't it important - I am just asking - to have a mind, a brain which is really free from problems? Then life has problems, you can meet them freely. Am I making my position clear? This, as we said the other day, is a dialogue between us, not a monologue by me but a dialogue where two of us are talking things over. Neither is trying to impress the other, or convince the other, or subtly persuading the other, but two friends talking over together. And I hope we are doing this, together look at these problems. If our brain is not free, then whatever problems arise we will meet them with the problems that we already have. So we are asking: is it possible for a brain to be free of problems? Is this all right? Am I putting a wrong question? Now how is a brain to be free of problems so that it can meet problems? How do you meet it? How do you meet problems with a free mind, a free brain? Do please let's talk it over together.

From childhood we are trained to have problems, the whole education is a series of problems, mathematical, relationship, teacher and the student, examinations - you know, the whole educational system becomes a problem. And we are trained to resolve problems. So our brain is trained, educated. Now can one uncondition the brain which has been trained to solve problems and is therefore never free? Am I making my question clear so that we are both understanding each other? Right? Is that possible? Please

Q: Is it not necessary first to free ourselves from very strong attachments.

K: Sir, it is not a question of attachment for the moment. But I am just asking my brain from childhood, and your brain, is trained to have problems and to resolve problems. That is a fact. Such a brain meeting problems will always meet them with a brain that is cluttered. Right? Shouldn't it be free to meet problems? No? Now how do you propose to be free? What will you do?

Q: Could it be that first we should recognise that by asking that question we are making it another problem?

K: Not asking that person, yourself. Is it possible for me, for my brain, not to have a single problem so that it can meet the problems of life freely? This is really a very, very serious question.

Q: Yes.

K: Yes? It is so easy as that?

Q: You have to look, see if it’s possible.

K: Is your brain free from problems? Are you free from problems - health problems, mathematical, if you are a technician, you know, the whole world of technology with their problems, personal problems, problems of relationship, political problems, whether it should be a democratic or republican, a communist or a socialist, whether you believe in god or don't believe in god, whether you - you follow, our brain is so loaded. The more serious you are the more the burden becomes.

So in what manner can the brain be entirely free from problems? You see we haven't thought about this at all. Does one demand the brain to be free from problems, so that it can meet problems?

Q: I have thought about it but that seems to create another problem.

K: Yes, that is just it. You have thought about it and the very thinking about it creates another problem.

Q: One has to ask whether thought can solve problems.

K: Whether thought controls the problem and so on. Does this mean anything to each one of us? Or is it something that you haven't really given your mind to?

Q: A great many people enjoy their problems and they would find life very boring if they didn’t have problems.

K: Oh well that is a different matter. If you enjoy your problems good luck! That is a kind of neuroticism.

Shall we go into this matter before answering all the questions - there are here about eight questions? Problems have conditioned our brain. Right? Have limited the brain. And do we see the importance that a brain that has been working on problems, problem after problem, is incapable of meeting any problem at all? Are we clear on that point, verbally even, intellectually?

Q: I am not sure about that one. The brain has a stack of problems, you are saying it is incapable of meeting another problem freshly, coming to that problem.

K: If the brain has problems and meets another problem, what happens?

Q: It copes with it as it does cope with it – more or less badly, or better or worse.

K: hat is what is happening in the world.

Q: That is the case. You cannot therefore say the brain cannot deal with problems just because it has problems.

K: No, it can only deal with problems partially, limited.

Q: Yes, I agree.

K: And therefore more problems.

Q: Yes, all right.

K: That's all we are saying. Look at all the politicians in the world, that is a perfect example. They are creating one problem after another and merely never solving any problems. You have perfect examples here.

Q: Yes, but what is it that we are demanding when we want some sort of absolute kind of solution?

K: We are going to find out sir if there is, or there is not.

Q: Oh, all right, fair enough.

K: Or must we always live with increasing problems, multiplying problems? So can the brain be aware of itself - this is a very serious question if you want to go into it - can the brain be aware it has problems, personal, health, scientific, and so on and so on, multiple problems, many, many problems. And can we put aside and look at those problems first objectively, unemotionally, not taking sides and so on, without bias? Can we do that?

Q: I don’t know about the old mind, there is something happening which you can’t cope with and making it into a problem of thought.

K: Sir, you are not meeting my question - forgive me for pointing out.

Q: The problem is only for our ego.

K: Problems exist for the sustenance of our ego. All right. But what will you do about it? Oh, I see you can't deal with this. All right, let's go to our questions.

Q: No, no.

K: We will come back to it perhaps at the end of it. May we? Come back?

Q: Is it possible that our problem is that we always want answers to the questions? As we sit here you are putting a question into this whole gathering and immediately many people are creating a duality by wanting an answer to the question, which is the way we always live.

Q: The problem is, sir, we want an answer to the question.

K: All right. You are going to get them.

1st QUESTION: What is the relationship between consciousness, mind, brain, thought, intellect, meditation and intelligence? Is awareness, attention still there when thought is not? Is awareness beyond time?

Now how do you meet this problem? This is a problem. Right? This is a question - how do you meet that? Because this is a question that all of us put, if you are at all serious, if you have gone into all this, you say, what is the relationship of intellect, brain, mind, intelligence, consciousness and so on? How do you meet this problem? What is your approach to this problem, to these questions? Right? What is your approach? Either you say there is no relationship, each is something separate. Or, there is a relationship between them all. That remains a mere verbal statement. But to find out actually, what is your answer? How do you respond to that question?

Q: To observe our own conditioning.

K: Yes, which means what? One has to ask who is the observer, is the observer different from the observed? So let's begin.

Is awareness beyond time? That is the question. Is one aware of the relationship between consciousness, intellect, intelligence, brain and so on? What is awareness? Are we aware when we are sitting here of the tent - of the marquee - the number of poles there are holding up the marquee, aware of the person sitting next to us, the colour of the shirt, the skirt, whatever it is? Are we aware of all this? Or, not aware of it at the same time? You are aware of it partially, from time to time. Is that awareness? Or do you take the whole thing, observe the whole marquee, see the number of poles there are and so on, all together, and observe the various colours? So isn't awareness - begin very near. Right? I am aware of the room I live in, or the flat I live in, the single room, aware of the trees, the sky, the birds, the grass, the beauty of the land and so on. Are we aware of all this? Or we are aware very, very rarely? If we are aware is it a partial awareness, see one thing only? Or being aware you see the causation and the consequences and the ending of the cause? You follow all this? Isn't all that implied in being aware? I am aware of my wife or husband. I'd better come back down back to that. There we begin to understand much more. I am aware of my wife. Is this awareness the memory of my wife? Please answer. You understand? I am aware of my wife - which means all the images I have built about my wife. Right? The various incidents, flatteries, sex, companionship and so on, all that is a continuous memory, adding all the time. Am I aware of these memories? Or those memories are so strong, so embedded, that there is no awareness of it objectively? You understand my question? Are we going along with each other? Is this too complex? No. All right.

So am I aware of the memories which interfere, block, the awareness of my wife? So I ask naturally: can this block be put aside, wiped away so that I can be aware of my wife sensitively? So that the memories don't interfere all the time. If one sees the fact that in awareness if memory is functioning, then I am not aware at all? Memory is acting all the time. If I am aware that the memories are operating all the time, then I see how they block my relationship with my wife and therefore if I like the block, if I like it because it is much better, it is easier to live that way, then I keep it, but if one sees it is not necessary, it is dangerous in relationship, then the very fact of the danger puts away the block, the barrier. Is this clear?

Now let's proceed from there. What is the relationship between consciousness, mind, brain, thought and so on, intelligence, intellect? What is relationship - to be related to something? Is it identification? I am related to my husband. Is that identification, or relationship? Please. If it is identification then it is not relationship. If I am identified as a Hindu there is no relationship in that identification. If I am identified with a particular island called Britain I have no relationship. So we have to distinguish, or separate, identification and relationship. Right?

Now, are you doing it? So to find out what is relationship, without identification, that is very serious. You understand? Is that possible? I have identified with my wife, or with certain ideas and conclusions, and it is almost impossible to break that identification. I am that idea, I am that concept, therefore to ask such a question: what is the relationship between consciousness, mind, brain and so on, one has to go into this question, what is relationship? If it is not identification, then what is the relationship between consciousness, yours, mine or someone else's, what is the relationship between consciousness, the mind and so on? Now, first of all we have to enquire what is consciousness? To be conscious, not only to what is taking place around me but also to be consciousness inwardly, what are my reactions, the beliefs, the fears, the faiths, the hopes, the various forms of identification. Right? Suffering, pain, health, ill health, and so on. All that is my consciousness. Right sirs? Would you agree to that? Not agree, do we move together? Your consciousness, my consciousness, or someone else's consciousness, is all its content. Without its content consciousness, as we know it now, cannot be. Right? Agreed? We go along with that?

Then we ask: what is the content? If I am a Hindu, or a Christian, or British, my consciousness is made up of British tradition, the Empire, the Queens and the Kings. Right? There are various traditions, culture, linguistic control, and I believe, I have faith, and so on. Right? That is the content of my consciousness if I am British, a Frenchman and so on. If I am not of the Western world then my consciousness also is faith, belief, suffering, pain, anxiety, like the rest of the world. So the question is: is my consciousness different from yours? If I suffer, if I have anxiety, if I believe in something - I may believe in something else, and you may believe, being Christian, in something else - but belief is common to both of us. Right? Suffering we all share. It is not my suffering only but you also suffer and so on. So consciousness, apart from the physical environmental impressions, which are also part of consciousness - you may be tall, I may be short, I may be lighter skinned than you, or you may be lighter skinned than me, that is a superficial coating, but inwardly we are similar. Right? I know you will not like this but that is a fact. Right? Do we go as far as that? No.

Q: Yes, yes.

K: Verbally we will go.

Q: No, beyond verbally.

K: Intellectually you see the reason, the logic of it, but to feel it, to see the truth of it.

Q: You have to trust us more.

K: It is not a question of I trusting you, or you trusting me, it is a question - you see how we...

Q: You are saying we don’t see it. Maybe we are seeing it. I don’t see how you can say that we are only seeing it intellectually.

K: I don't know. I am asking, sir.

Q: Well I feel it is not only intellectual.

K: Then sir, that means the idea of individual separation, psychologically, is non-existent. That means you have tremendous responsibility for the whole. If I feel tremendous responsibility I will not kill a Brazilian, an Arab, because he is part of me. I don't know if you go as far as that. And that is not pacifism - that is another conclusion. The fact is our consciousness is shared by all humanity.

Now what is the relationship between consciousness, mind, brain and all the rest of it - meditation included, all right, include everything - what is the relationship between them all? Is the cord of relationship thought? As the pearls are held together by a thin nylon thread, are all these, consciousness, mind, brain and so on, held together by thought? Thought is the thin line, thin fibre that holds all this together? Please. So one has to go into the very question: why has thought become so extraordinarily vibrant, alive, and full of activity? Right? Why? Is thought feeling? Is thought emotion? Of course it is. If I do not recognise an emotion, which is the activity of thought to recognise, then that emotion is not. You understand all this? So thought apparently is the main thread that holds the whole thing together? Is that so?

Then what is the mind - this is really a very, very serious question - what is the mind? Is it part of the brain? Or is it outside of the brain?

Q: Is it both?

K: No. Sir don't be quick. Please this is much to serious a question to say yes, both, it is, it is not. How am I to find out?

Q: Well, when you drive a motor car the actual passage of the motor car going along a road, the actual miles covered, do you say ‘Is that in the engine’?

K: Yes, sir. When you are driving a car you have to be aware of not only the approaching car but also you have to be aware of the side roads, you are aware or see three hundred or four hundred feet ahead.

Q: Sir, I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is – it is getting a bit slack now I have made you lose your point, I am sorry. But what I interrupted by saying was, that when you are driving a car along the road the actual passage of the car going along the road, the actual miles covered, we don’t normally talk about that as being inside the engine. Yet when we are discussing as we are now, talking about different functions of the mind, body, brain, organism, that sort of thing, we try to vitalise them, yet normally they proceed in sort of almost automatic sense as if the car is going along...

K: Yes, sir, I know they are automatic, they all work together. Now I want to understand when we use the word 'mind', when we use the 'brain', when we use the word 'consciousness', like an engine they are all working together.

Q: Yes, with more or less degrees of functioning. Sometimes they are functioning very badly, other times in the same life time they are functioning very well.

K: I would like to, if I may most respectfully point out, first of all are we aware that there is no separation between all this? Like driving a car the engine is working, taking you along.

Q: Is it possible to be aware of no separation?

K: Yes sir, that is what I am asking sir, is it all a single movement, a unitary movement in which there is no separation? You see you can't answer these questions.

Q: The separation is only in thought. It isn’t real.

K: I would like to find out for myself, what is the mind? Is it part of the brain? How do I find out? Unless my brain is unconditioned I can't find out. Right? I can't find out anything unless there is freedom to look. But I am not free. My brain is conditioned as a Catholic, Protestant, Communist, Socialist, Democrat, or religiously and so on and so on, environmentally. As long as that is conditioned I can never find out what the mind is. I can say the mind is part of the brain or it is separate from the brain. This matter we have discussed with several so-called scientists. Some of them agree that it is outside the brain. Do you understand all this?

Q: Yes.

K: No, sir. Please sir, please sir, don't verbally, say yes. But the implication that it is something outside the brain and that the brain can only understand that when it is itself totally free. So I am not concerned whether it is outside, inside, far away or near, my chief concern is whether the brain can be free from its conditioning. Then there will be discovery of that which is true, not just invention.

So we are asking: what is the connection between them all? Is it all one single movement? To find that out one must begin very near, which is what I am. Right? What my thoughts are. What are you? May I ask that simple question, which is very complex, but we will start very simply - what are you?

Q: Slaves.

K: That is understood. No, sir. Seriously what are you? You are your name. Right? You are your tradition, you are your memories. Right? And so on. So you are all that. Right? Which is, you are consciousness. Right? You believe in, you don't believe, you have faith, your gods, your fears, pleasures, suffering, pain, and emotionalism and so on and so on, you are all that. Right? We agree to that? Or do we think we are something totally different?

Q: That is what we are. It is a fact.

K: That is a fact. Now what does that mean? When I say my name is K, I belong to India, or Britain, or this or that, I have faith and so on, what does all that mean? Does it all mean memory?

Q: Consciousness.

K: Which means, if you see that, or if you don't see it, we are the past. Right? Would you go along with that, even verbally? We are the past. The past is knowledge. Right? The past is memory. Right?

Q: Yes.

K: You are not learning anything from me please. I am just pointing out. So we are the series of movements in memory. Right?

Q: Yes.

K: See the implications of it. That we are not actively living human beings. You may go to the office every day for the next ten years, fifty years, or a factory, or do something or other. You are all that too. If I am a scientist I have accumulated knowledge through books, through experiments, through discussions, through various forms of hypothesis and conclusions, all those are the past. So I am the past. Right sir? I am memories. I am a dead entity psychologically. I wonder if you see that?

Q: The moment I see that...

K: Wait. Do we just see it, or is it just an idea? Sir this requires a great deal of work, a great deal of observation, patience, looking at things very, very carefully, impartially, objectively, without any sense of subjective reactions to it. That when once I realise that I am the whole movement of the past, not only it is a sudden shock to me but also the realisation that there is nothing new in me.

Q: You haven’t proved it yet though, have you?

K: I seem to be probing, you are not probing.

Q: Sir, if you saw this a long time ago, how come it is a sudden shock to you?

K: I said sir, suppose - sorry. Right?

Q: Isn’t the arc narrowed down very much whenever you do anything? When you talk about being aware of all the tent and everything, if I have to start vacuuming the carpet I have to narrow it all down, and gradually as I do that I get wrapped up in everything I am doing so that it is continually narrowing down.

K: So we are narrowing it down - the gentleman asks why do you, K, narrow down all this? It is the same thing sir, never mind. Sir, putting light, a strong electric light on a small thing you see very clearly - right - and from there move. But if you stay only there then it remains very, very small.

2nd QUESTION: We can learn more from each other than by listening to K. Why don't you encourage people to hold group discussions on particular topics and have organised activities to facilitate dialogue and relationship?

Q: Excuse me, we didn’t quite finish the last question, I thought. Because you were saying we are the past and we are all these things, but what is that? It is like a lot of stuff on a table. What is the basis of that? That is what we should really get to. Not all that memory, that dead stuff.

K: Sir, if I acknowledge that I am memory - right - then I remain with that memory - right - not just one particular memory but the whole movement of memory - right - then in that observation there is a perception that one asks: is it possible to live a life without memories except where it is necessary?

Q: It is, yes. I was aware of that even as a child.

K: What?

Q: That it is possible just to be without memories. I have been aware of this.

K: Is that so?

Q: Yes, at certain times.

K: All right sir, then we have solved the problem.

Q: Good, good. Go on to the next question.

K: Then we have solved the problem that the brain, which has been conditioned by memory for a million, or forty or fifty thousand years, can live, function, act, in all relationship of life without bringing in this terrible past. If you can live that way, it is a most extraordinary thing to live that way. Right?

2nd QUESTION: We can learn more from each other than by listening to K. Why don't you encourage people to hold group discussions on particular topics and have organised activities to facilitate dialogues and relationship?

Are you listening to K? Or are you listening to yourself? K is pointing out: listen to yourself, see how conditioned you are, not, I am telling you that you are conditioned, but by listening to yourself you learn infinitely more than by listening to a lot of other people, including K. But when you listen to K he is not instructing you. He is putting up a mirror in front of you to see yourself. Right? And when you see yourself very clearly you can break the mirror, and the man who holds up the mirror. Right? So do we clearly see ourselves? If we depend on relationship, depend, or on dialogue or associations and institutions to teach us, to help us, to make things clear - what we are - then we depend. And when we depend on others, whether it is on institutions, encounter groups, small groups and so on, what are you learning? And what do you mean by learning? Please this is again a very serious question. Learning, as we know, is accumulating knowledge. I have learned about myself - that I am all this, all the pain, the misery, the confusion, the extraordinary travail of life - I am all that. I have learnt it. That is, somebody has told me, or I have learnt about myself. So learning, as far as we know now, learning at school, learning about ourselves, is accumulating knowledge about ourselves. Right? And K says knowledge is the very root of disorder. Go slowly.

Knowledge is necessary in the field of technology, in daily life, but psychologically knowledge is the very root of disorder, because knowledge is the past. Right? Knowledge is always, whether in the future or in the past, or in the infinite future, is limited, always. Right? Because it is based on experience, hypothesis, conclusions, a chain - it is a constant addition instead of taking away, therefore it is very limited. So can I look at myself without the previous knowledge or conclusion when I looked at myself? You understand my question? I have looked at myself all yesterday, or a few hours of yesterday and I find that I am this, that, the other thing; I am depressed by it or I am elated by it. All that is going on. That becomes yesterday's knowledge. And with that knowledge I observe myself again. Right? We do this. Right? So knowledge is bringing about constant repetition - mechanical, psychologically. And also if you go into the matter very carefully among the scientists and so on, they are also beginning to discover knowledge is a hindrance in certain areas of discovery. Right?

So you are not learning or discovering anything from K. You are the storehouse of past history. That is a fact. You are the history of mankind. Right? And if you know how to read that book, you don't have to depend on anybody, on discussions, on relationship, or organised groups and all that kind of thing. Right? I am not saying you should not discuss, you should not have relationship, you should not have this or that. All that one is pointing out is that as long as you depend for your understanding yourself on others then you are lost. You have had leaders, haven't you? Religious leaders, political leaders, every kind of specialist who will tell you what to do, how to raise your children, how to have sex, you have had every kind of leader for the last hundred thousand years or more. And where are you at the end of it? Do ask these questions please. We are what we are because we have depended on others - somebody to tell us what to do, what to think, which means we are being programmed all the time. And to understand ourselves there is every opportunity through relationship, through discussions, but if you depend on them you are lost. Is this clear, this question? Not that you must agree with the speaker. But see the consequences of depending on others - depending on governments to bring order in this chaotic world, depending on a guru, depending on the priest, whether it is the pope or the local priest. You understand?

So the question is really: one is the storehouse of all mankind. Right? One is the rest of mankind and if one looks at that very closely, with a great deal of hesitation, affection, then you begin to read what you are, which then is a flowering. But if you depend then you live with pain and anxiety and fear.

3rd QUESTION: While understanding what is being said and wanting to live differently, how is one to approach the problem of livelihood in this world of unemployment and limited opportunities?

K: Have different governments, which means a government which is not limited to a particular group. Right? French government, English government, each concerned with is own limited - so that it is Sir, what is preventing us all working together - you understand - as one human being? We are divided by nationalities, religion, by the tradition and we hold on to that. There is no world economy. You understand, sir. I wonder if you have thought about all this. There is no world economy. Each country is concerned with its own economy - right - with its own laws, with its own individual identity to a particular piece of land. There can never be united Europe. Right? Because each nation will suffer something or other. Therefore unless we have a government which is not local, not insular - right - there will be unemployment, lack of opportunities and so on. But also another factor is coming into being, which is the computer. Computer is beyond all nationalities, all governments. It can outthink us. It can create its own god which we shall worship. There is a good joke about it, but it is not worth repeating. Shall I repeat it?

Q: Yes.

K: A man says to the computer there is no god, I have never believed in god. The computer says, 'You have it now'!

So as long as we are Americans, British, French, Italians, Hindus, Communists and Socialists, we will never have peace in the world. There will always be unemployment, there will always be wars. For god's sake see all this. When you see the truth of it you are no longer identified with any country, with any group, with any religion. But one must have passion behind it, not just intellectual concepts. So as things are, problems of livelihood become more and more difficult. As things are, you will have more wars. I don't know if you have heard - I was only told about it the other day - in Russia a certain atomic bomb blew up and for twenty five thousand years an area of several hundred miles can never be cultivated, you can never approach it. You understand what I am saying? This is humanity. And nobody cares. You may have demonstrations, but the politicians know how to use those demonstrations. But unless each one of us who is listening really sees the danger of separation, like the Jew, the Arab, the Hindu, the Muslim, the British, we are going to live in perpetual insecurity, perpetual wars.

Q: Can you tell us the difference between a university and a lunatic asylum?

K: I don't know, you had better find out. Professors will object to that.

Q: A professor is someone who professes to know.

K: Sir, don't let's go off to universities and all that. Here is a serious problem.

Q: They are the ones who make the atom bomb.

Q: Will you shut up talking about nonsense.

Q: Atom bombs are nonsense?

Q: He is talking about it, we are coming there with him. I turn myself sick because I really do care sometimes. Shut up. Find out where we are going to put them, because they exist.

K: Again may I remind you, if you don't mind, may I remind one that we are talking about division, separation, between nations, between groups, between religions, between individuals. As long as this separation exists there is going to be more and more unemployment, not less. More wars. As long as we hold on to our ideologies, separate and so on. So if you want to live that way, live that way.

Q: But even if we have no separate identity we have got to have some form of government surely?

K: Of course, sir. I said, sir, some form of government which is not based on separative governments.

Q: Who are going to be the politicians?

K: Oh sir, first have, you see, we want to organise it right away. You know there is a story - I think probably the speaker invented this story. I'll repeat it. Two people were walking along the road, they were friends. They had been talking about the world and so on and how dismal everything was, how boring, how tiresome, how vicious everything had become. They were talking about things and as they go along one of them sees something on the pavement and picks it up. And the very looking at it transforms him. He becomes extraordinarily vital, happy, a sense of tremendous energy. And the other fellow says, 'What have you found? What was it that made you so extraordinarily beautiful suddenly'. He said, 'I have picked up truth.' And the other fellow says, 'Marvellous. Let's go and organise it.'

First sir, begin with ourselves, not what kind of governments will be, who the prime minister and who the chief treasurer will be, how many parliamentary governments. You follow? First let's begin with ourselves. If all of us who are here in this marquee really felt this in their heart, in their blood, we would have different governments in the world. We would put an end to wars, we wouldn't work for wars.

Look, I am not saying anything, we are only pointing out one thing - our brains are conditioned. Whatever is conditioned is limited. Whatever is conditioned is separated, and this separation, this conditioning, is causing havoc in the world, which is a fact. And to stop that havoc in the world one must begin with oneself, not how to organise a new government. Am I conditioned? Am I thinking about myself endlessly from morning until night? In meditation - you follow? - in exercise, in doing all kinds of things. Right? I am more important then anybody else. I want all my desires fulfilled. I want to be somebody, recognised, so I am occupied with myself. The scientist may be occupied with his experiments but he is occupied with himself. Right? He is also ambitious, wants a marvellous position, recognised by the world, Nobel Prize. I know some of them, I have met them. One didn't get the Nobel Prize and the other got it - you ought to see the other fellow who didn't get it. How upset he was. Bitter, angry. You know, just like you and me, everybody else. Right?

So, sirs and ladies, if you really want to live on this peaceful earth one has to begin very near which is yourself.

4th QUESTION: You talk about violence and freedom. But you say very little about law. Why is that? No civilised society can exist without laws. And laws sometimes have to be backed by force which means violence. What do you do when terrorists hold hostages? Do you let them be killed, or storm the building? Where does freedom come into all this?

Laws. What is law? Law, doesn't it mean order, basically? A society establishes certain laws, which are to bring about order, those very laws are broken by cunning people, by criminals, by criminals who employ excellent lawyers. You know all this, don't you? Now where does law, order begin? In the courts, with the police, with the superintendents and the intelligence group? Where does order begin? Please ask. Society is in disorder. Right? It is a fact. Corrupt, immoral and almost chaotic. And governments are trying to bring order in all that. We, you and another - we live in disorder - right - confused, uncertain, seeking our own security, not only one's own security but the security of one's own family and so on. Each one is creating through isolation, disorder - no? And where is law? With the police officer? With the lawyers? I have met several of them. They will protect the murderer, it is their job. A criminal pays them enormous sums. You understand all this sirs, don't you? Where is order, law in all this? So shouldn't we first face disorder? That is a fact, that we live in disorder and society is in disorder, governments are in disorder - no? If you have talked to some of the politicians, prime ministers, high up in the hierarchy of government, each one is after power - right sir - and position, hold on to certain concepts, identify with those concepts, ideologies and all the rest of it. All of us are working separately for oneself. We may come together in a great crisis like war. But the moment the crisis is over we are back to our old pattern. Right? So wouldn't you - I am just suggesting this - wouldn't you begin to find out if law, which means complete order, whether you can live in complete order without any confusion. Sirs, put this question to yourself. So there is no contradiction, say one thing, do another, think one thing and act in another way. As long as we live in disorder, the society, the governments will be in disorder.

Law implies justice. Right? Is there justice in the world? You are rich, I am poor. You have got bright minds, you can travel, you can go abroad. You can do all kinds of things and I can't. Right? You are born to riches, you become the Prince of a country and for the rest of your life you are safe. And the poor chap down in the East End or the West End, he is poor - you know. So where is justice? Is there justice in the world? Examine all this. Justice implies equality. We all say equality before law. But that equality is denied by employing the highest paid lawyer and I can't afford the highest paid lawyer, so there is immediately inequality. So where do you find justice, law and order?

There arises a very complex question, which is: admitting factually that there is no justice in the world - you are well placed, good reputation, cars, houses, mistresses and all the rest of it, marvellous furniture, and I live in a small hut. There is no equality. So one asks after facing the fact, one asks where does it exist at all? You are asking that question. I am not asking you to ask that question, you are asking that question. Where there is compassion there is equality, there is justice. Compassion implies intelligence. When there is that marvellous flame then there is no difference between the poor and the rich, between the well placed and those people who have nothing on god's earth.

Q: As I asked the question may I ask another part of it? If one has this compassion, you say, then one also must accept the fact that for this compassion you will be killed.

K: I will be killed. All right. I will be killed. What is wrong with being killed?

Q: But most people would say that when you are dead you are not in a position to do something.

K: Are we in a position to do something now?

Q: Yes.

K: What? To stop this threat of war; the neutron bombs exploding in a part of the country and you can never come near it for the next twenty five thousand years?

Q: The peace groups, and people who have this compassion appear to be the first victims to be wiped out.

K: I am not sure. The speaker has been threatened many times.

Q: But you are not living in Central America.

K: I am not. I have been there many years ago. But I am not there, neither in Honduras, Nicaragua or San Salvador. I can't do anything there. But I can do something here. Sir you are going... I said compassion implies great intelligence. Compassion cannot possibly exist if you are identified with a group, with a particular form of worship or religious organisation, if you go out to India and do some kind of social work, being attached to some church. That is not compassion. That is pity, sympathy. This is happening, sirs.

So first let's find out if we can be compassionate. To come to that point one must be extraordinarily alert to all the human frailties, to all the human limitations, which is one's own limitation because you are not separate from the rest of mankind. If once you see the truth of that then your whole attitude toward life and action and employment changes completely.