I wonder what you would like to talk about.

Questioner: Jesus.

Krishnamurti: Just a minute, sir, just a minute (laughter). I've just begun, sir. I'd like to know, if I may, if one may, what you would like to talk about. There're lots of questions, many questions which can't possibly be answered. Only some can be answered and here they are typed out, which I have not seen. But before we begin to ask these questions I wonder what you would like to talk about? Not all of you at once, because that would be impossible.

Q: To talk about

K: Yes, wait sir, just a minute.

Q: To talk about the conditions that the people grasp what you are saying.

K: I couldn't hear that, sir.

Q: To talk about, to make the condition, about the condition, that all people grasp what you are talking about. Because you know this (inaudible) Krishnamurti. Do you understand? I doubt it but I have to go on. There is something missing – that the brain cannot catch on.

K: I don't quite understand the question.

Q: What conditions are necessary in order to understand what you are talking about?

K: What conditions are necessary what K is talking about. Is that it?

Q: In order to understand completely.

Q: In order to grasp what you’re talking about. In order to grasp what you’re saying.

K: Oh, yes. In order to grasp what you are talking about, what is necessary? Is that what you want to talk about? You are one, sir, don't all What is it you would all like to talk about?

Q: What shall we teach our children?

Q: Please talk more on what you said on Tuesday – freedom means love. You could talk a great deal about that.

K: What you talked about on Tuesday, about love, could you go into that. Right?

Q: Yes, freedom, you said, means love

K: Now look, there are so many of us. The first question was: what is necessary, what kind of brain one must have to understand what you are talking about, to grasp. It's not what the speaker is talking about, but to grasp your own understanding of yourself. Scrap or put aside what K is talking about and let us see what is necessary to understand, to go into oneself. Is that it? Would you like to talk about that?

Audience: Yes.

K: Apart from the questions.

What are the barriers that prevent us from understanding our own selves, not only at the conscious level, at the level of daily activities, but also go much deeper into oneself? Is that what you all want to talk about?

A: Yes.

K: If one asks that question of oneself, what prevents me or you from understanding, delving into oneself very, very deeply, what is the thing that's lacking? Isn't that it? What do you think? Don't all say at once. What does each one of us say, answer or respond when we put that question to ourselves? What is it I am occupied all day with business, travelling here and there; if I am an artist I am concerned with painting, writing poems, literature; and if I am a politician I am greatly concerned about politics, my place in it and my self-interest, my ambition and then the concern about people afterwards. So what is it that is lacking? Energy? Intellectual capacity? We're just going to investigate it together. Intellectual capacity? Or we are too emotional. Or we have got so many romantic illusory concepts, images about others and about ourselves that prevents us from grasping the whole of my being, of one's being. Is it I'm too occupied - with my children, my wife, my job, my amusement, my place in society and so on? This perpetual occupation, constant chattering of one's own problems and one's own against or for the environment; or fundamentalists. I don't know if you have noticed this fact, that fundamentalism is spreading extraordinarily in this country. And also it's spreading in Iran and Iraq, Lebanon, and also it's gradually seeping into India. All this is taking a great deal of our time. And therefore is it that we haven't the energy or the urge at the end of the day or the beginning of the day, that we are not sufficiently recollected, deeply concerned? We are concerned about money, sex, position, and so on, so on. That is, we occupy ourselves a great deal with superficial things. Does that deprive us of energy to dig deeply? I'm just asking these questions. Or, I'm really not interested in all this. I like to catch a little bit here and there, go to various gurus and various tricksters, theoreticians and theologians and the experts in religion, and catch little bit of all this and they make a good table conversation. Is this what we are occupied with most of the day? Or do you set aside - we are not advocating anything, we are just talking about it - or you set aside some time in the morning or afternoon or in the evening and a little bit attempt to be serious. Or we take each part of life as a segment, part, and deal with those parts. Or I can go on. Or can you look at this whole structure of ourselves as a whole, not as fragmented beings? Is that possible?

That is, you are not - if one may point out - you are not understanding K. You are understanding or using K as a mirror to understand yourself. And the mirror is not important. That's the first thing to realise. The mirror, the person is not important. What he is saying may reflect what you are. May. It may be contrary, but you are beginning to look at yourself - doubting, questioning, asking.

So, how do you approach this question? Because the approach matters much more than the fact. Are we together in this? The approach, whether it be a scientific problem or an artistic problem or a humanitarian problem, or a social, political and so on, or religious - how do you approach it, come near it? Because how you come to it is of great importance. Not what the question is, or the problem is. Because if I approach it with a preconceived ideological image, that image intervenes between the approach and the thing to be approached. Are we in this together? A little bit? So can one approach an issue, a challenge, a problem, however trivial, however deep, without all the connivance, without all the previous conclusions, prejudices, and come to it afresh? Can we do that or is it impossible? Because one has been trained or educated from childhood to be a Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, and all the rest of it, and one revolts against all that, if one is at all intelligent and active, say, 'What nonsense all that is.' But that makes one's life very shallow, also. So then you try to fill that shallowness with all kinds of amusement, drugs, and entertainment, sex, and all the rest of it. So how does one approach the question? Please ask this question of yourself. If you are a businessman, you approach it very cautiously, seeing what the reward is not the reward - punishment and reward. If the reward is great you go on. If it is not great you slightly hesitate, you talk about it and gradually learn, avoiding something which is not profitable. In the same way we look at life from the point of reward and punishment. Right? If I do this I can reach heaven, or nirvana or whatever - enlightenment and so on. So there is always this background of gaining and losing. Right? Can one put aside all that and look at the problem, approach the problem freely?

Talked just now, asked a question just now: would you go into the question of what you talked on Tuesday. It was about love and all the complexity of it. Right? Why to you want me to talk about it? Why is it we can't ourself go into it very cautiously, not assuming anything, be terribly honest and see what it all means? Is that impossible? You see, unfortunately, one of our difficulties is we read so much. We have been told so much: by philosophers, by experts, by specialists, by those who have travelled all over the world and gathered information, met various saints and crooks and gurus and whole lot of them. And they say, 'Yes, I met all these people, I know.' And we are so gullible and so eager. We take on their colouring. Do we do this? All the newspapers, magazines, that's what they're doing to us. Every evening commercials. You follow? Look at all this. And we are being bombarded by all this so that gradually our brains narrow down because of this obvious bombardment. It's like constantly being shocked.

So would you consider whether it is possible to put aside all this and look at it all anew, afresh, as though you were seeing things for the first time. Could we do this? Or it's only given to the few - which is nonsense. Though people pretend, 'Yes, I can do it but I'll tell you all about it.' That's sheer I wouldn't accept such a thing. Why has our brain become so petty? You understand? The word 'petty' - narrow, limited, deeply rooted in self-interest.

Sir, these are questions that can be put. But the answer or the discovery or the root of all this one has to dig oneself or go into it. It's no good talking to each other all day long, or even for an hour. It's good to listen to each other. And how you listen also matters tremendously. Whether you actually listen, in the sense that you are listening without any determination, without any direction, bringing your own reaction. Just to listen, as a child listens to an excellent, exciting story, he's full of eagerness, curiosity to find out. Could we do that? Not only listen to the words and so on but also listen to all our thoughts, all our feelings and watch the images that we are building constantly.

Can we go back to the questions? As we said, there are several questions here. Eight of them. Can we listen to the question first without any reaction, without saying, 'Yes, I understand already'? Just capture the question. It's like planting a seed in the ground, in a healthy, enriched soil - planting a seed. If the seed has vitality, energy, the intrinsic value of its own, then you don't have to do anything, you water it occasionally, look after it and it will grow. So the question is the seed. I wonder if you And let the question move. Let the question develop, enlarge, and see whether there is anything in the question at all or it's just a weed. Some weeds are nice looking, and worthwhile, but some weeds are utterly useless, destructive. So we're going to find out - sorry to make all these remarks - we're going to find out the worth of the question. The question may be put superficially or with great intent. And the question is not put by somebody else but the question is being put to each one of us.

1st Question: What is the difference between that 'shyness' you have talked about, and fear?

I don't know if I've talked sorry.

Q: Maybe they mean humility.

K: We talked about the other day, fear. Fear is identified with the ego, with the 'me', with the whole structure of my psyche, it's part of my psyche, part of me. And fear also breeds guilt, various types of greed. And all this makes one rather nervous, one has temerity, shyness, a sense of withdrawing, and yet wanting to express oneself. So there is a contradiction in oneself. And that contradiction breeds further guilt and we carry on this way.

Now, what is the root of this? You understand my question? The fear, guilt, and being rather timid, and not wanting to hurt others. But yet the very words you say may hurt others. If a Hindu says it's all, what you're talking about, religious nonsense, you get hurt. And you hurt him. So this goes on. Is it possible to live daily life without fear, first? That is important, not all the branches of it - guilt, timidness, and the feeling of wanting to resist, wanting to hit back. All that is rooted in the sensation of fear. Would you agree to that? Would you see that? Do we see that? Not because I am describing, not because the speaker is unfolding it - you see it if you watch it quietly, the activities of fear, how it creates barriers, not only in our relationship but also in our attitudes to the whole of humanity, and so on.

So we are asking first, is it possible to live without fear? Not say, 'I must be courageous'. You can be courageous by taking some kind of drug. We know a friend who is producing rum. And he's supplying rum to the army. And he says, 'Well, it's a very profitable business because soldiers going to the front are very, very nervous and this gives them a certain sense of courage', and various other reasons. So if we could really delve deeply into this question - together, not I explain and you accept, that's no meaning.

As we talked about it the other day, time and thought are the two major factors in the manufacturing, if I can use that word, fear. We went into the question of time. Shall we go into it again? Yes? You're rather silent, so shall I... I'm not forcing you.

Q: Yes.

K: This is rather a complex question and therefore must be approached very simply. All of us live within the radius or within the diameter, within the time process. All of us live in the time process. That is, I have done something, I will do that again today, change it, modify it, and I will do it again tomorrow, but modified. And if you watch yourself very carefully, all the memories are the result of experience, knowledge, contained within the brain - perhaps not the whole of the brain, the major part of the brain. Please, the speaker is not an expert in brain neurology and all the rest of it, just watched it. Watched, and by watching it tells you, you learn a lot. Not only from books, the speaker doesn't read books, fortunately. He reads other kinds, thrillers and so on. Don't bother about that.

So, time, which is evolution in one sense, time as survival, time as something to be gained, something to be achieved, an ideal to be pursued or a theology, a conclusion, an ideology to be held strongly, and see that ideology is carried out. And the same thing applies to the theologians. They have certain theories about god, and work that out. All this takes time. Right? And also time is necessary, to say, 'I am this today, I was this yesterday also, but I need time to change it'. The word 'change' implies time. I don't know if you are following all this. Right? Are you interested in all this? All right. I'll talk for the talking's sake - not for talking's sake, I am interested in it myself tremendously.

In the cycle of time we are caught. Whether it's the greatest scientist or the greatest religious person - so-called religious - or the ordinary layman like us, we are caught in this. Right? There is not only time according to sunrise and sunset, and the time by the watch. You need time to go to your rendezvous. You need time to learn a language, a skill, and so on, to acquire more knowledge. All this requires time. And man has asked is there an end to time. He has asked this. You will find it in various literature - Shakespeare, I've been told: 'Time must have a stop'. And also Eastern philosophers, Eastern saints and Eastern people have thought about it. They have enquired into it. And they have invented various forms of ending the time, various methods. That is - you are interested in all this? That is, is there an ending to knowledge which is time? I wonder if you capture this. I need time to acquire knowledge. Right? I don't know how to fly, but I will learn. I don't know how to be a good master carpenter, but I'll learn about it, work at it. Which is acquiring knowledge about a skill, whether flying, science, whatever it is. And they asked is there an end to knowledge? Or must it always go on and on and on and on? The boredom of it. You understand?

So you are asking that question. That is, is time by which we live, we do, act, think, feel - and when one watches it, one gets rather tired of it all, bored. And also in acquiring this skill one becomes lonely. And out of the loneliness you act, you do various kinds of activities. And you become neurotic and psychopath and all the rest of it. So this goes on. So one asks very carefully, what is the past, which is time? Humanity has lived on this earth, according to the archaeologists, scientists, and so on, for over two to three million years, or recently, 50,000 years. Right? We have evolved. And during that long period of time our brain has gathered infinite information and has battled with each other, killed each other. Right? Gone through various horrors: barbarism, cruelty, extraordinary brutality, holocausts. Not only in the recent holocaust, Germany, but there was Attila, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Caesar, and that butchering of man is going on now.

So at the end of this long period what are we now? You understand my question? What are you? Are we still barbarians, savages? Highly cultured savages, sophisticated savages, fighting each other, aggressive, brutal, killing. Sir, that's what's going on. Have you ever noticed not one - I mustn't be too emphatic about this - not one priest, the hierarchy of the Catholic church, not any of them have said, 'Stop wars, don't kill any more'. Right? Not one of them. If they insisted on it, the church would collapse, because people love to kill each other. No? Yes, sir. They want to hurt each other, they are cruel to each other. So all this has come about, and it's still with us during the long period of evolution which is time. Right? I wonder if you are capturing all this. And so one asks, is there an end to all this? Which is ending of time. And time is also psychologically becoming something, which is far more important. Which means I have certain ideals, certain concepts, theories, visions, and it'll take time to achieve it. Which is, I'll become that. Which is again reward and punishment - the same thing in different words.

So all that which involves time, can it end? Sir, ask, put your guts into this - sorry to use that word. Put your whole heart to find out. That is, I have been for centuries this, in the past. And those centuries are now. Right? Centuries, all those experiences, all that is now, is in me, in you. And tomorrow is modified by recent challenges: economic, social, war, and so on - the past is modified and goes on into the future. Right? This is a fact. So one says, the future is now. I wonder if you see this. Right, sirs? Do see this really; not verbally, see the truth of it. The future is now because if I have been that for centuries, millions of years, and if I don't fundamentally bring about a mutation now I'll be the same modified tomorrow. So tomorrow is now. I wonder if you see this.

So what then is the position of a brain, or the state of the brain that doesn't look to tomorrow - 'I will change', 'I will become that' - because all that is now if there is no total psychological revolution. The Communists are frightened of revolution because they are stuck in their ideology and they won't change. And they will go on that way till there is another physical revolution. So we are doing exactly the same thing in a milder form. So the past modifying itself through today continues as tomorrow. This is a fact. So tomorrow is now. And if there is no deep revolution in the psyche, tomorrow will be the same. So is it possible to radically end? I have been greedy, violent, acquisitive, possessive - that's enough. And can all that end now, instantly? Sir, ask this question. Either you treat the whole thing as an idea, or a fact. That is, you hear this and translate what you hear into idea, a concept, a Utopia, something to be achieved. Then you are back in the whole cycle. But can you look at the fact and remain with the fact? That is

Sir, how do you observe a fact? Observe, not analyse. How do you observe a fact? There is the oak tree there. How do you look at it? Do, please, look at that oak tree and find out how you observe it. Not only visually, optically, and the nervous responses, all that, but what is the process of observation? Are you interested in all this?

Q: Yes.

K: No, don't be eager, sir, don't say yes too quickly.

Q: Yes.

K: It's easy to observe impartially, without any prejudice, the tree. 'Yes', you say, 'it's an oak tree'. Or the mountains and the rivers and the valleys and the meadows and the groves. That's fairly simple. But can you observe your wife, your friend, your antagonist without any direction, without any bias? To be aware without choice. Right? Can you do it? It becomes so extraordinarily interesting to find out if you can do it. Right?

We are still talking about the first question. It's nearly quarter past twelve. Sir - to put it very briefly because we must go on - can you watch, as you watch in a mirror your face, when you are doing your hair, combing, shaving and so on, can you watch yourself in a mirror so that psychologically you see everything in minute detail, what you are? You understand my question? Is there a psychological mirror as there is a physical mirror? A good mirror doesn't distort. It shows you exactly what you look like, if you are interested in what you look like. So is there a mirror which doesn't distort a thing, psychologically? You see the whole psyche as you move, as you look, you can observe the details of your face, the eyebrows, the eyes, the nose, the shape of the nose, the depth of the nose, the ear (laughs), and all that. If you are - you know - most people do this, especially the ladies. So you keep looking. We are asking, is there such a mirror inwardly? So that you see exactly! Minute details, the latest wrinkles. (Laughter) Can you see that way? There is such a mirror. The mirror is your relationship. Right? The relationship between you and another, between you and your wife, or your husband, your children - relationship. Either that relationship is very, very superficial, merely sensation or sexual - even there you begin to see very clearly, if you see the mirror - or it's very intimate, very close, very observable in that relationship that relationship is the mirror. It will never distort. But when there is in that relationship sensation and possession, domination, merely sensation and so on, then the mirror distorts. Right? So to observe very carefully the minutest activity in that mirror, and as you observe it the mirror tells you the whole story. And then you can put aside the mirror because the mirror is not important. Relationship then becomes extraordinarily important.

2nd Question: The whole world of nature is a competition to survive. Is it not innate in humans to struggle for the same reason? And are we not struggling against our basic nature in seeking to change?

Don't change. It's very simple. If you want to remain as you are, carry on, nobody is going to prevent you. Religions have tried to civilise man. But they haven't succeeded. On the contrary. Some religions, like Christianity, have killed more people than anybody on earth. Right? I don't know if you have watched this. They have had two appalling wars, and they have killed millions. Not only Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung, these wars have destroyed. Right? And if we carry on this way, not wanting to change, it's all right. But the question is: nature struggles to achieve light, like in a forest, for example. And it is a struggle. Right? The big, the stronger kills the weaker in nature. The tiger kills the deer, the lion kills some other thing, this goes on, this is part of nature. And the questioner says, if it is part of nature, why should we change at all? Because it's intrinsic. Why do we say it's intrinsic? Why do we say, there it's all right, and therefore it's all right with us too, and so why bother to change. It's part of us, part of nature, part of our existence - intrinsically this is what we are. And if that is so, that it is instinct, that it's innate in us, which one questions very deeply, then I can't change anything. But why should we accept that it's innate in us? Is it my indolence says, 'For God's sake, leave it all alone'? Is it my sense of exhaustion? Or we are supposed to be as human beings a little more intelligent, little more reasonable, little more sane, and we are supposed to use our sanity, our intelligence, our experience to live differently. Right? To live differently. Perhaps that difference may be total, and not just remain as a mediocre person - which is now being encouraged for human beings to remain mediocre, through their education and all the rest - I won't go into it.

So is it mediocrity that is fighting us, that we hold on to, and say, 'We are slowly moving, it's all right'. Slowly moving towards the precipice. Or if you begin to question the whole process of our existence, using common sense, logic, reason, awareness - one questions intuition, that's rather doubtful because it may be one's wish-fulfilment, calling it instinct or intuition, but one has to use logic in all this, not just say, 'Well, it's innate'. Let's go to the next question.

3rd Question: Why is it that mankind universally has sought what is called God? Is it only out of fear and need for security? Or is there some essential religious instinct in all human beings?

What do you think? What is your response to that question? Is it fear? Is the desire for security? Is it the desire to be ultimately rewarded? Is it desire for comfort? Is it we are so discontented with everything about us, that we want something to reach, to gain? And the religions have said god has made man - put it in different words. Obviously it must be an extraordinarily strange god. (Laughter) And has man made god? You understand? If god has made us, something has gone wrong. (Laughter) No, please sir, this is very serious - it's laughable when you look at it, and tragic. We have killed - no, I won't go - you know all that. So what is it that's making man, human beings create something called that word? If you haven't that word, you create something else.

So the question is not whether there's god or not, but why do human beings live with illusions? Illusions, images, symbols - why? If you look at yourself, you've got lots of images: image about yourself, first; then the image about your wife and your children, if you are a parent; or you have images about the politicians, religious people. You follow? We accumulate images which are illusions. If I create an image about my wife, which we do - am I coming too near, too near the bone? If I create an image about my wife - that image has been built through 50 years or 10 days or 1 day - what takes place in our relationship? The image becomes far more important than the fact. Right? So I impose this image on my wife or husband or whatever it is, on the politician. And this image then becomes a far greater potential than the wife, the actuality. Right, sirs? You people are married, you know all the game of it, the quarrels. You follow? Which means this image intervenes all the time. So this image or images separates us. She is fulfilling her ambition, her position in society. The tremendous women's activity, and the men's activity. So these images and the fulfilment of those images are separating us, the man and the woman. This is all common sense!

And the brain then says, why should I create these images? What is the raison d'tre for this? None at all, if you go into it. The wife is what she is and I, the man, am what I am. And from there you start, you can do something. You can break the image and say, 'All right, let's face things as they are'. You're possessive and I don't want to be possessive. Right? You like being possessed, man or woman, and I, 'Sorry, don't cling to me, for god's sake'. And so we begin to quarrel because I have an image about myself. You follow? He says, 'I don't want to be clung to' - not by her, but by somebody else! So it goes on. So can we live - that's the real question, not believe in god or not - the real question is, in this, is can one live without a single illusion? That's real freedom. You understand? That means you are facing facts all the time. Not try to change the facts, that takes place when you just watch the fact.

4th Question: What is the primary basic obstacle which prevents observation and insight?

We talked about observation just now. So we won't go into it again, because it becomes tiresome. What is insight? People have talked about it, to have an insight into things. That is, having a perception into not only images, illusions, but in facts. How do you have an insight into things? How do you have an insight - let's take for example, I'm taking that as an example - that all religious organisation is merely the activity of convenience, fear. Right? All that, all religious organisations, whether it's Christianity or Hinduism. You understand? Insight, which means what? If I cling to Hinduism I shan't have an insight into Hinduism. Right? So I must be free of my conditioning to have insight. Insight implies not having the continuity of memory, which is the past and all the rest of it, but the ending of it, seeing something new. If I have been programmed as a Catholic, Hindu, whatever it is, Democratic or Republican or Presbyterian, god knows what else, if I have been conditioned and that conditioning is always active, I cannot have an insight. I may have the capacity to invent. Naturally invention is based on knowledge, creation is not. Oh, I won't go into it, that's totally a different subject. Creation is continuous, it's not just creation, and the end. We'll talk about it Saturday, Sunday, if we have time.

So to have an insight into things, there must be freedom from memory, that's the conditioning. The brain that is programmed, as we are, cannot have insight. It may have slight, partial insights, which the scientists have. It's partial. Because then the invention brings about other results, harmful, beneficial, and all the rest of it - you follow all that takes place. But total insight is to be free of conditioning of the brain and that freedom, total freedom gives you a complete holistic insight.

5th Question: What is the responsibility to ourselves and to others?

I don't quite understand the question. Let's look at the question. Responsibility - what do you mean, responsibility? The word 'responsibility', which means respond, it comes from that word 'respond'. Respond means it's retrospective. Right? Look at it carefully, I don't know, we are just investigating the word. I have a responsibility towards my wife. That's what we say. We are looking at the word 'responsibility'. I respond to her in a certain way, which I don't respond to others in the same way. Right? I respond according to my background, of what I have learned about her, and she responds with what she has learned about me. If that response, which is retrospective, that is looking back, because she's my wife, I've learned about her, that learning is memory. So the word 'responsibility' implies memory, recognition, the recognition is part of memory - you follow? - all that. So responsibility towards her and the responsibility in our relation sexually and so on, sensation produces the baby and together we are responsible for the baby. We are responsible for its education - superficial education - right? - school, college, university if you have the money, or halfway. And so up to a certain age we are responsible for them. Afterwards they can go. And in old age they throw me out, send me to Florida or some place (laughter), or old age homes. You know what is happening in this country. The tragedy of it all, you don't see it. And in India there is no Social Security. I was told yesterday, the most populated country in the world, India is. It's the size, one-third the size of America, of this country, and population is growing every year at the rate of 15 million a year. It's over 800 million people there. There, as there is no Social Security, they must have children, especially men, boys, because when they grow old, as we all do, the son will look after them. That's the idea of having three or four children, not just one child. You understand? Please, understand the tragedy of all this. And as the boy grows older, gets a job, this has been one of their burdens, to look after their parents, educate their brother, sister. You understand, sir? When they can't, I have known several boys and girls who have committed suicide because they can't manage it any more. They feel so responsible for their parents.

So the word 'responsibility' is very complex. You understand? And are we responsible to ourselves? That's the question. What is responsibility to ourselves and to others? Are we responsible to ourselves? What does that mean? Who is 'ourselves'? You understand, sir? Who is 'ourselves', who is 'we'? Who is 'I'? Am I responsible to myself, which means - you understand the division? I wonder if you see that. There is a person who is responsible to myself. As I am responsible to my wife, there is somebody inside me or outside me who is responsible to me. It sounds rather silly, doesn't it? Or is there such a person who is responsible? God? Brezhnev? The glorified father in... You follow? Who is You see how our brain works? When we say, am I responsible, responsibility to myself, which means I have divided myself into some entity who is responsible to me. Therefore I am responsible to that entity. Which I have separated carefully, which is myself. I don't know if you have gone into it. That is, the thinker is the thought. Without thought there is no thinker. Right? But we have divided the thinker and the thought: 'I must control that thought'. 'That's a bad thought, and I must think rightly'. Which means I am different from thought. So the thinker is the thought - there is no separation. The observer psychologically is the observed. There is no experience without the experiencer. Right? The experiencer is the experience.

So, then what is the responsibility to others? Right? What is my responsibility to you? And what is your responsibility to me? Here is an audience, what is your responsibility to me? And what am I responsible to you? Sir, look at it. I'm just looking at it for the first time. And all this comes out because I really want to go into this question of responsibility. I want to see, am I responsible to you? And you are responsible to me? And if I say, 'I'm not responsible to you', then I'm isolating myself. Right? And if you say to me, 'We are not responsible to you', then you put me aside. I wonder if you see this.

Responsibility implies division, basically. Right? I am responsible to her, and she is responsible to me, I am responsible to you, and you are responsible to me. That means I have separated myself from my wife, and I've separated myself from you, and you have separated from me. And so we have quarrels - I don't understand you, and we don't understand you. We said the same thing, which is, I am the Arab, you are the Israeli. Or if you don't like the Israelis - I am the Israeli, you are the Arabs. I am the Muslim and you are the Hindu. If you don't like it - I am the Muslim and you are the Hindu. So we battle each other. It's my country, I'm going to protect it; it's your country, and we go to war for each other. It's your ideology and I'm going to be responsible to that ideology and you're going to be responsible to the other ideology. Right? This is what is happening in the world, calling it responsibility, specially the elite. You understand? The elite call it, 'We are responsible for the people'. Having reached that elitism, the high, and they say, 'We're responsible'. It's all such rot to me - to me personally - because we are one human being. You go through all kinds of travail, so does the other human being, psychologically. They have shed tears in India, and they have shed tears in Europe, and you've shed tears here. Right? Tears are common to all of us, like laughter. You have destroyed the whole Red Indian culture here, wiped them out. That's your holocaust. Yes, sir, face it. And this has been going on from the beginning of time. And responsibility implies duty. Duty: 'I must do this'. Duty to my country. Duty to my ideal. Sir, look at all this.

So, is it possible to live without division? Is it possible to live with my wife, if I have a wife, without any sense of division between her and me? Not common ambition. You understand? If it's common ambition, then it's again a division. If it is each one of us is fulfilling ourselves, again a division. I wonder if you see all this.

So is it possible to live without any nationality? The speaker has both a diplomatic and Indian passport. The Government of India gave me that, I don't know why but they gave it to me. And it's a bore having a certain form of paper, crossing the countries. And that doesn't make one an Indian - paper. You understand? So is it possible to live without a single nationality? Without being identified with any country? Because it's our earth, not your earth and my earth. Is it possible to live without any identification without any religion? Think it out, sirs, don't just agree or disagree. Or identified with any group, any organisation, any institution - which doesn't mean you are withdrawing from the world, isolating yourself. On the contrary, because then you are the entire humanity. Not just the idea of it, but the feeling of it, the religious feeling of it, that you are the entire humanity. I am my brother's keeper. Not that it means I am going to interfere with the poor chap, tell him what to do.

So sirs, this is the last question and answer meeting. There are several questions left here - I can't go through them now. If one may ask, what have you received from all this? I am asking this most respectfully and humbly - it's not aggressively put, this question. What does one, after listening to some facts, not ideas and theories and opinions and judgements, what has one captured, received - not help - seen for oneself?

Right, sir, that's all.

May we get up?