2nd Question & Answer Meeting 3
When you observe ‘what is’, there is no conflict
2nd Public Questions, Madras
December 31, 1981
As we said the other day, the other morning, in answering some of these questions we are actually not answering the questions but rather exploring the questions. In investigating the question we will find the answer. The answer is in the problem. The meaning of that word 'problem' is, something thrown at you, a challenge - a question is a challenge. And whether we respond accurately to the challenge depends on the state of our minds, the capacity of our brains. Most of us, if I may respectfully point out, are more or less asleep. Our brains are not functioning at their highest level because we work and think in a routine, habit, mechanically living, and so gradually our brains become atrophied, naturally, like an old car that has lost its vitality.
And in answering these questions, or rather investigating these questions, we are together. I am not investigating and telling you but together we are investigating, together we are observing what the question is. And the investigation or the exploration into the question depends on how you approach the question, how you approach any problem in life, whether it is a business problem, a deeply emotional problem, a sexual problem, problem of truth, and so on. How you come to receive it, how you approach it, which means how close you come to the question. When you stand close, almost touch it, feel it, see the quality of it, then perhaps out of that question one finds the true answer.
So if we may proceed with the questions.
1st Question: We live in a corrupt and unjust society, is there no place in your teaching to fight on behalf of the victims of injustice?
This has been a problem right through history, justice and injustice. Is there justice at all? I know the ancient Greeks talked about it, philosophers have talked about it, gone into the question of what is justice, what is injustice. We are questioning whether there is justice at all. That is, someone may be very clever, intelligent, born to wealth, capacity, and able to think clearly, and the quality of beauty in him; and another may never have that quality, capacity to think, to live. So where is there justice? Do you follow all this? We want justice, we see victims of injustice, victims who are neurotic, victims who are psychopathic, and those of us who are born to poverty, and struggle, struggle, struggle, for the rest of our life. And those of you who may be born to riches, you have an easy life. Where is justice? You understand? You may be extraordinarily clever and I may be very dull. And where is there this quality of mercy, not justice? You understand?
So we are always talking about corruption and seeking justice. In the village, the well is used - you know all that business - by the few and there is violence if the others use it. This has been going on throughout history; those who have and those who have not. And apparently no government, no law, has ever been able to bring about the poor to have the same capacity, same drive, same intelligence. This has been the actual fact in life. We are all aware of it. So one asks, what is corruption, and what is justice?
What is corruption? The meaning of that word, the root meaning of that word, it comes from Latin and so on, which means to break up, to tear apart. Which is, corruption exists where there is fragmentation. Please see, understand this. Corruption must exist where there is fragmentation in human beings. It's not merely passing money under the table, paying ten dollars or ten rupees or whatever you do for an extra ticket when the man wants - you know all that game you are all playing in this country, where there is a great deal of corruption. So we are investigating that word first, what it means. There is corruption when an educated human being, a lawyer, or engineer, works in capable, intelligently active in one direction and on the other he is superstitious, goes to temples, takes vows, silly vows. There is this contradiction, which I am sure you know all about it because probably you are also in that way, go to temples, and pray and do puja and all that kind of nonsense, and in the world, outward world, you are a lawyer, engineer, businessman, there also corruption and so on. This contradiction in oneself, of which most people are unaware, that is also corruption. Probably that is the deepest corruption: exercising reason in one direction and denying totally reason in the other direction, and living in this contradiction. That is corruption. Corruption is to say one thing, and do another, to think one thought and act totally different from that. That is dishonest, that is also corruption. We are dishonest, aren't we? In the sense, we have a great many ideals, what we should be, and we live totally differently. That is also corruption. Corruption is to imitate, not in clothes, but to conform to a pattern, so that you are never free.
So we live in corruption. There's no question about it. And if we are aware of ourselves, is it possible to move out of that bondage of corruption. Is it possible to live a very deep, profound, integral life, be a person who is whole, not broken up - is that possible? I do not know if you have ever asked that question of yourself: whether it is possible to live an integrated life. And to pursue to the very end of it, not just say, well, it is too tiresome, I am too lazy, and all the excuses, rationalizations that one invents.
And also the question of justice: you are beautiful, I am not; you look nice, I am not; you are very, very intelligent and I am not; you can exploit people, and I can't exploit people; you have wealth, fame and power, and I can never have it; you have vision and I have not; you have capacity, a sense of beauty, and I have not. So where is there justice? I am poor, living in a village, you live in towns, you are urbanised, sophisticated, clever, and I can never be that.
Should we not talk not of justice but of compassion. Not try to bring about equality. There is no such thing as equality. It sounds nice on a piece of stone called equality, but there is no equality in the world. So we are always trying to bring about equality which is democracy, apparently. Ninety per cent of the people in this country know nothing about anything and they are voting. Right? You know all this. Where is there justice? So if you could move away from that word altogether and find out whether one is capable of being compassionate: to love, not seek justice. You are tall, I am short, you are bright, and I am not, I am dull, you have everything, I have not, you have health, I am diseased. So should we not look at this question, not from the point of view of justice, but a human being that has no love, no compassion is worse than an animal. And why is it in this country - don't say, does it exist in other countries, that's a political escape - we are talking about this country, we, you and I, while we are here. When the speaker is abroad he talks about that country, those people. But in this country I wonder if human beings living in this lovely land, whether they love at all, whether you really love your wife, your children, or we don't know that at all. You have responsibility to your wife, to your children, send them off to school and that's the end of that; marry your daughters off, that's the end of that.
So do we know the quality of mercy, justice - mercy, love and compassion? If that doesn't exist there is no justice. Compassion has its own intelligence, not the intelligence of a clever mind, of a clever brain.
Questioner: Though we see what you say, but all the same, is there no way by which we can also contribute towards building of a reasonably just kind of society?
Krishnamurti: The gentleman wants to know without that...
Q: No, we see what you say and we accept what you say.
K: Oh, you don't accept it, you accept the words. The words sound awfully nice, but you don't have the feeling of it, the quality of communication with love.
So you can create a society, as they have tried revolution after revolution, historically, but they have never succeeded. Because you can see the fascist communism in Russia, in the Eastern Europe and in China, they try to create a society, but there are the super people who have everything they want - special shops for them, special doctors for them, special clothes for them, not only the top politburo, but the scientists, the artists, and the rest of them. So human beings throughout the world have tried to create a society outside, but society is our relationship with each other. In that relationship there is no love, no compassion. You may have excellent laws, but those laws can be broken. So without that quality, do what you will, you will not create a marvellous world.
Q: You mean to say, sir, we cannot attempt a just society, creating a just society?
Q: I have to co-operate with a large number of people, can I not community-wise create a sense of justice?
K: Oh, you can create anything you want. This is just a lot of talk. Sir, another question is, in this connection, why don't we co-operate? To co-operate, that is, work together. Apparently in this country it doesn't exist. You are jealous of each other. Right? Don't you know all this? So there has never been the sense of working together. You work together in business because there is profit in that; you work together when you go to a temple because there is a profit in that. But without profit, without motive, is there a sense of feeling of working together? We work together round an authority, because he tells us what to do, and you are frightened to do something different from the authority. We work together for an ideal, if we both of us agree, but we soon begin to break up because we each interpret it according to our personal like and dislike, prejudices.
So there is no spirit of co-operation. That, again, comes only when there is love in our hearts, not the word 'love' in our minds. Right.
2nd Question: What is the place of right action in one's quest for self-knowledge?
Let us look at these words first: right, action, and self-knowledge. What do we mean by 'right'? Right is to be precise, accurate, and correct. Like if you are building a bridge it must be mathematically, engineering, the stress and the strain of the steel and so on, it must be accurate according to measurement, weight, and all the rest of it. And it must also be in proportion. It must be balanced. Right? It must have a sense of harmony. That is the meaning of that word, 'right'. And what do we mean by action? Action is the doing, not having done, or I will do. Action is taking place now. You understand? Not acting according to past memories, past intentions, or acting according to a principle - I wonder if you are following all this - acting according to a concept, according to a projected opinion. So action means really the doing now. Right? And the word 'self-knowledge', that is to know oneself, which is a very complex business.
Now, right action is freedom from the past - listen carefully - and not projecting the future and acting according to the future. The word 'act' means the doing, the doing not according to some principle, to some pattern, to some ideation. Is that possible? You understand my question? That is right action. But we are so conditioned by tradition, by education, by our own selfish motives, that we translate action according to convenience, according to environmental influence. So is there an action which is totally free from all this. That is right action. I don't know if you are following all this. Because in that right action there is no regret, no guilt, no sense of fulfilment. It is free from, essentially, the self. That is right action. When there is right action, it is right action under all circumstances, whether one lives in Europe, or America, or Asia, it is right action wherever you are, which doesn't depend on circumstances. Right? You know what that means? One must have tremendous strength, not courage, strength, like a rock, immovable, because that's right action. Can you do it? Can we live such a life of strength, not feeble, and you know, messy life?
And self-knowledge. The word 'to know', the word, what does it mean to know? Please this is important to understand. When I say, I know, I know my wife. You understand? What do we mean by that word 'know'? Think it out, sir. Is it knowledge? When I say, I know my father, I know my mother, my wife, my children, is that so? You understand? When I say, I know my wife, what do I know? I don't know her. But I have assumed certain tendencies - you follow? - I have collected a few data about her, like a computer, collect some data, and then I say, I know. But I really don't know her because it is a living thing. As I am a living thing I can never know a living thing. You understand? I can know a dead thing. I wonder if you understand this. No? I can only know that which has already happened. But a living thing, a living water, a flowing water, a stream, a river that is just rushing by, I can't say I know, I am watching it, I enjoy the beauty of the water. You understand? I look at the water, delight in the movement of the water, but the moment I say, I know, I have stopped learning. You understand? I wonder if you follow all this.
K: Yes, sir. Therefore the cultivation of memory is not learning. I wonder if you see the distinction. Right? I go to a university, school, college, university, and I have accumulated a great deal of information. That has become my knowledge which I use skilfully to earn a livelihood, or unskilfully. Right? The moment I have accumulated a great deal of information, and act according to that information, according to that knowledge, my skill is limited. But if I am learning all the time, like a carpenter is learning all the time - if he is a master carpenter, like a top engineer, he is learning, not saying, 'I know and I will act according to that'. You follow all this?
Now, can I know myself? Know. That is, I have learnt, I have seen, I have been aware that I am angry. Right? That's part of my being, that's part of me. I am aware that I am angry. Why do I use the word 'anger'? Think it out, let's work it out, sir. Why do I use the word 'anger'? Because I have been told, I have been educated, I have accepted that word and I remember the previous angers - you follow? - which have been named. So when there is a new reaction of that emotion I name it. So what have I done? You are following all this? Oh lord. Are you interested in all this? I am angry. Let's go back step by step. The anger is not different from me, I am anger. I like to think it is different from me because I can control it, I can rationalise it, but it is part of me. That's a fact. And I have named it, as anger. Because that is part of my tradition, part of my inheritance, all that, the word. The word has become important, not the feeling. You see it?
So there has been anger at other times in the past. So I recognise this feeling which has arisen now as anger, by the remembrance of the past. So am I capable of looking at that new emotion without the word, without recognizing it as the past? You understand? I wonder if you see this. It requires a great deal of observation. That is, we are always living in the past. Right? That's so obvious. And the past is a series of memories, which are words, symbols. And with that a new reaction takes place and I immediately name it. Which means I have brought it back into the old tradition. Whereas if I could look at that reaction, the new reaction without the word - you understand? - and without saying, 'I know it's anger', so that you meet every reaction afresh. I wonder if you see this. That means your brain is extraordinarily alive, sensitive, not just caught in the old repetition. Right? Will you do that? That is, to be aware of this whole movement of some reaction, naming it, the very naming of it is to strengthen the past, and so you are strengthening anger by repetition of the word. Clear?
Now the ancient Greeks and the ancient Hindus have talked about self-knowledge, knowing oneself. That is, I want to know myself because if I don't know myself I am just a leaf in the wind. So I have to learn about myself, not according to some psychologist, some philosopher, or from some book, whether you call it sacred or not, it is just a book. So can I dispense with all that, the authority of what other people have said about me, the tradition - you follow? - put aside completely all that, because what they tell me I am not. I wonder if you see all this. I have to discover myself. Myself is a living thing, so I have to learn. Now, I have seen I am angry, or I have had one experience, whatever it is, an experience. It has been recorded in the brain, which has become the memory, with that memory I examine myself. You are following it? So the past is examining myself. But I am the past. I wonder if you see all this. So is there a way of looking at myself as though for the first time? - not with jaded memories, not with previous knowledge which I have learnt about myself. That is, to learn about myself anew because I am a living thing, not a dead thing. You may be dead, because we are all so caught up in memories, which is dead. Tradition is dead.
So it becomes extraordinarily interesting, vital, energising if you can look at that tree as though for the first time, at your wife for the first time. And at your reactions, your sensations, not name them, which is to catch it in the net of the old, so that every time it's new. You understand this? Do it, sirs. Don't agree with the speaker. You will see what extraordinary vitality one has. Not to do mischief - that you have anyhow. But the energy that has an extraordinary quality of freshness, of something totally new.
Q: Why are we not able to do that?
K: Why are we not capable of doing it. Because you don't want to.
Q: I want to.
K: Sir, how many hours of the day do you spend in an office, or in a factory, or how many years you have spent to learn a skill, to become BA, MA, PhD, just adding alphabets after your name, how many years. And this requires not one day, you have to be so tremendously aware all the time, watching, watching the trees, the moon, the birds, and watching yourself like a hawk, to see not one thought escapes. How much time will you give to that? Or, you make your own time. Or you deny time.
3rd Question: Even though I am able to bring about order within myself, the disorder and pressure of the world around me constantly affect my daily life. Is it possible to remain unaffected?
Aren't you under pressure all the time? The newspapers tell you what to think, and what not to. Newspapers convey a lot of gossip. Right? So you are under that pressure. You have the pressure of your parents, and your nephews, your family. Right? You are under pressure of your own desires. In fact you are constantly under pressure. Are you aware of this? Your wife is under pressure, exercises her power, pressure, and you exercise over her, pressure. The gods that you have created, you are under that pressure. The pressure of books. So don't say there is order in us. As long as there is pressure and you are conforming to that pressure there is disorder. You understand, sir? Life isn't a game. Life demands that you be serious.
So the questioner says, I am able to bring about order within myself. See what his question involves. I am able to bring about order in myself, as though order was something outside which he has brought into himself. He doesn't see the 'I' is disorder. Right? You have understood? The 'me', the self, and the super self, which is still part of me, is not the self in itself disorder? Right? Because there is contradiction in the self: I want, and I don't want; I am bad but I want to be good; I am envious, I must - you follow? So there is a contradiction in myself. Where there is contradiction there cannot be order. And our consciousness is total disorder. No? You look doubtful. All right, I'll explain.
Our consciousness is greed and non-greed, the bad wanting to be good, I am a nationalist, I am a lawyer, I have anxiety, and I am lonely, all contradictions. That's my consciousness. Right? And in that consciousness there is the desire to be orderly, which is another contradiction. You are following? I wonder if you see all this. Sir, learn. So I am total disorder. But we say, oh, no, no, I am not total disorder because there is something in me which wants order. Or, there is god in me which is orderly - which is another invention of disorder. I don't know if you follow all this. So we live in this constant disorder. Right? So there is no order as long as you say, I am able to bring about order, you are bringing about greater disorder. (Laughs) But if you understand what is disorder, be aware of disorder - you understand? - that is, I am in disorder, I say one thing, do another, modern, and traditional, which is disorder, obviously. Either you are conscious of it or you are unconscious of it. Put up all these things on your forehead and put on European clothes, which is disorder. So we live in this constant state of disorder.
Now order is not born out of disorder because if it is born out of disorder order is still part of disorder. I wonder if you see that. Right, sir? So to understand the nature of disorder, when I understand it, when there is no disorder I am orderly. The art of learning - you understand, sir? - not saying, I must be orderly, or try to be orderly, but to learn what is disorder. Not memorise what is disorder, but to learn about it. Can you learn about your disorder? The way you treat your wife, and the wife treats you, the way you talk to your servant, if you have a servant, the disorder of contradiction - to learn about it, sir. A mind that's capable of learning, not memorizing, which you are all capable of, that's what has happened to your brains. It is becoming dull, atrophied, not active, otherwise you wouldn't be sitting here.
So order is not a blueprint. It is a living thing. We will talk about it on Saturday, much more, go into it. So a mind, a brain that is being influenced all the time - it is being influenced, by the food you eat, by the words you use, whether the brain is capable of being quiet, all that is - you follow? So to understand is to learn. Not the verbal comprehension.
Q: Why did you say, otherwise you wouldn’t be sitting here?
K: Oh, lord, need I say that? Need I explain that? Sir, if you are all very intelligent, compassionate, you would not be here, and I wouldn't be here.
4th Question: You once said, give your life to understand life, what does it mean?
Sir, have you given your life to anything? Your whole being to something? You understand my question? Have you given generously, completely, if you believe in god, to god? You understand my question? Or we are always giving a little, but withholding a great deal. To understand life, which is myself, the world around me, the beauty of the trees - you understand? - to understand life you must give something to it, learn from it. Obviously. Will you? Have you given your wife, your children, completely anything? Or is there always a string attached to it? If you are rich, as some of you are probably, do you give generously, or you always have a motive behind that generosity. I have watched people who are very rich, how extraordinarily miserly they are. They build temples. (Laughs) It's a crazy world.
Sir, to understand life one must be extraordinarily committed to life. To live it, to understand the beauty of living without conflict. Right? And to understand conflict you have to go into it, search it out, work. Nobody is going to help you. Therefore you have to have an extraordinary strength. We are brave but not strong. Right?
Q: There is an intense effort and process of time involved in understanding life, sir?
K: No, sir, there is no effort. Gosh. Is love an effort? To love somebody, does it require effort? Do you really mean this, you are asking this question? To be kind to somebody, does it require effort? To give what little you have to somebody, does that require effort?
5th Question: I am a twelve-year old boy. I am constantly afraid of death. How shall I be rid of this fear?
How tragic this is. Isn't it a tragedy for a twelve-year old boy to think about death - not about living, but about death. What has happened to our culture, to your civilization, of which you are so proud when a boy can ask such a question. You understand, sir? The other day in Rishi Valley a boy asked the same question. He was probably still younger. He must have seen death, a dead bird, or he has seen in his family somebody dying, and all the people weeping, weeping for their own amusement, for their own self-pity, for their own loneliness. And this little boy wants to know death, not how to live. Why?
It is a very complex question, what death is, and fear. We will deal with it. I don't want to answer it now because it is a very complex question. I am asking the forgiveness of the boy who has put this question, if he is here, please come Saturday or Sunday we will answer it.
But, see sir, what we have done to our children. What have you done to your children. You have them by galore, by galore, meaning many children, overpopulation, what have you done to them. You marry them off, or you send them off to schools, if you are rich enough, to boarding schools, residential schools, and if at home you are constantly scolding them: do this, don't do that, be like your father. So you are all the time bullying that boy. And he grows up to bully others. This is happening, sir. And we don't see that it is our responsibility to create a good human being; neither the educator, nor the parents see that we ought to create a new society, a new human being. Right? We don't feel the responsibility of that. And it is very difficult to have good teachers too. They pass some exams, get a little title, and can't get a better job, they turn to teaching. And you despise teachers, but you respect the governor. Right? What a crazy world this is! You entrust your children to somebody who is not interested in your children, nor are you interested in your children. Right? And he grows up in fear, in solitude, in anxiety. There is no love at home, no love at school. Right? And he grows up. Please see your responsibility, for god's sake. Education is not merely to have some academic capacities, but to bring about a good human being who will know what affection is, who will care, who has love, consideration, sympathy, generosity. Will you see to it for your own children, demanding the right teacher, pay him. You see, you don't. So we are creating a generation of people like ourselves: dull, insensitive, superstitious, and very clever at business, getting money, and so as a parent you are interested that you should get a degree, and get a good job, and wash your hands of him completely. Right? That is, every parent in the world is concerned with that. Get him a good job, let him marry and settle down. Settle down to what? To misery. Right?
6th Question: Kindly give a straight reply. Does god exist, or not? Yes, or no? If yes, how best to realise him in this life?
(Laughs) This is a lovely question, isn't it? (Laughter) Man throughout history from the ancient Greeks, from the ancient Sumerians, has had this idea of god. Right? I am not at all sure whether in the Upanishads they mention god at all. Or is it a later invention? You understand?
So what is god? We are investigating, I am not attacking god. I am not denying god, but we are investigating whether there is such a thing as god. Who invented god? Did god invent us, did god create us? Right? God, who is omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, merciful, just, all goodness. Right? That's your concept of god. And if you say, he has created us, then we are part of his image, we are part of him. That is, we are omniscient, generous, loving - right? - and eternal. Right? Are we? Or we think we are? You understand my question? If god created you, he must be an extraordinary entity, because he wants you to lead a terrible life. You understand my question? If god made you, why are you like this? You must be extraordinary human beings, mustn't you? - beautiful, full of joy, excitement, full of delight, but you are not. So either you have created god, or god has created you. But if you examine very closely, you have created god. Right? In India there are about - I was told there are about 300,000 gods and more. (Laughs) You understand? Every local person has his own god.
So, sirs, we have created god. See the irony of it. Thought has created god and then thought worships the image which thought has created. Which is, to worship oneself and call it god. You understand all this? - the better part of you is god. Right? I wonder if you understand this. First of all, let's be clear. Have you created god? The local gods round the corner, or the local god in Rome, or in Tirupati, or wherever, you have created them, haven't you? You are so very uncertain, aren't you, so frightened. If you say we have created, then you are scared stiff because you have created out of your fear that. Out of your fear you want security. Right? You want safety, you want to feel there is somebody looking after you because you are afraid. You follow? So you create that, and then worship that. Just see what you are doing! Going to Tirupati and putting all your money in the bag - do you think gods want your money? Sir, look at it all. You have nothing to offer but money, garlands, prostrations, rituals. Right? You have nothing else to offer. Have you realised the tragedy of this, sirs?
If you love - not god, that's very easy to love god because it is an abstraction, it has not much meaning. But if you love, that very love is god, that very love is sacred. You won't go outside to look for god. You understand all this, sirs!
And the questioner wants to know if I believe in god. I don't. Because god is something created by man. There is such a thing as eternity, which is to be outside of time. Right, sir? For that you must have a mind, a heart that is completely free from all the burdens of life. Right? From your vanity, your arrogance, your selfishness - you follow, sir? And we say, we are not capable of it, tell us what to do. You are back in the cycle, somebody to tell you what to do. Sir, you are in a jungle, you have to walk through it by yourself. Right? And for that you need vitality and vigour and strength. Not belief in god, in goodness - belief has no place where truth is concerned. Right?
Q: Then what is atman, sir? Atman, about which we have been hearing. Even Annie Besant talked of atman.
K: Who is that?
Q: The conscience inside each of us.
K: Who is atman?
Q: The conscience inside each of us.
K: Is conscience atman?
Q: What they call as soul.
K: Soul. Which soul? The sole of a shoe? - or a soul! I don't know what you are talking about.
K: At last you are all getting excited! Because your belief is being attacked. You are not meeting the challenge, but you are resisting it. You think there is something inside you which is permanent, which is the light of god, which is nameless, etc., etc., call it atman, soul, light, whatever you like to call it. That there is inside you, in your conscience, in your brain, in your mind, something which is not worldly, which is not of thought. Right? You believe that, don't you? Yes, sir?
Q: No, I don’t believe in it.
Q: There is no such thing.
K: How do you know?
K: Childish. Just belief, belief, belief. What kind of brains have you, sirs? Don't you want to find out? Don't you want to investigate into the truth of this matter, whether there is soul, atman, whatever you like to call it? Just believe. If you believe, what value has it? Suppose I believe I have got atman, or whatever it is, super-atman, I'll call it. (Laughs) I believe in that. What value has it? In my daily life what part does it play? I am miserable, I am confused, I'm lonely, anxious, in agony, what's the point of my having a belief in atman? If I am free from all that, completely, then I shall find out. But to suppose I am - you follow? - it becomes so childish. For god's sake. And we are all grown-up people - jobs, children, wives.
K: What, what, what, sir? I don't understand what you're saying.
Q: So many great people
K: Ramana Maharshi and who?
K: Oh. All right sir. What about them?
Q: They lived a simple life and they indicated you can dedicate yourself (inaudible) Is it possible not to believe them? Being in a disturbed world, I think we are just believing the words and complaining (inaudible)
K: Sir, would you forget all these people, including Ramana Maharshi, whatever the other gentleman was. Would you forget them? What value has their life to you? You have your life to live, not their life! God, what kind And when the people say they have attained - whatever they have attained - how do you know?
Q: You have also said there is a timeless eternity.
K: Ah, I have said it, sir. Don't believe it! (Laughter)
Q: Not fair, sir.
K: It is not fair, I know, it is not quite fair. But, sir, just listen. Sir, truth is that, that something you cannot experience, it cannot be told to you, the word is not that. But if you live on words it is that. You understand? The word is not that; like the word 'tree' is not the tree. I can describe eternity, blah, blah, blah, but the word is not that. But we are satisfied with the word. Right, sir? You love with your heart, with your mind, with everything that you have, you love somebody, and you tell me of that love, and I accept the words but I have no - the flower isn't there, the perfume isn't there. You see, sirs, you have leaders: religious leaders and political leaders. I don't know why, why you have leaders at all. Ramakrishna, or whatever gurus that you have had, one after the other. Right? This country is full of them. And why do you follow? You understand? If once you realised that you are responsible entirely for yourself, that you are in a jungle, literally in a jungle, where you have to make your own way out, there is nobody to lead you, then you forget all this - the examples, the books, everything, because you have got vitality, strength to go through. But the moment you depend on leaders you become weak. If once you realise it in your heart, not just intellectually, then you are a man, human being, free to walk straight. But we don't want all that. Sir, it is so simple when you think of it all.