It's a great wonder to me why people go to meetings at all, why the speaker sits here and addresses you. I have the same feeling wherever I go, whether in India, Europe or here, and it seems to me that we depend so much on others to tell us how to think, what to think, what to do and what should be done, what is happening in the world and what is happening to each human individual throughout the world. It is becoming more and more apparent that the world outside of us as well as inside of us is in such a chaotic, miserable, mischievous state. We don't seem to be able to do anything about it. The communists, the Marxists, the socialists, the capitalists and the various religious groups are trying to do something and apparently nothing seems to change the human mind and heart, we seem to be going along the same old way, in the same confusion, sorrow, and lack of other social responsibility. And there have been so many schemes - the Marxists have their scheme and their ideology, and their pattern of operation; and the socialists have theirs, and the communists; and of course the religious groups, whether they are Catholic, Protestant or those groups that are formed round the latest guru, they don't seem to care very much what is happening outside of themselves. Each religious group seems to be concerned with its own particular little miasmic confusion and worship and authority, and the world goes on with their wars, political corruption, big business, wanting to make progress. The scientists joining the big business and so on.

Of which most of us are aware, and wherever one goes - I have just come back from India - there is an appalling state of insufficiency both economically and religiously, and there is a great deal of poverty and a great sorrow in the world. Looking at all this, not intellectually, not superficially, not from any particular point of view - Marxist, communist, Mao, or some other ideology - but looking at it with fairly unprejudiced, clear eyes, one is struck enormously by the utter callousness of commercialism and consumerism. These two seem to predominate the world. And progress is in the context of that. Progress means, originally, to enter the enemy country fully armed. That's what it meant originally, the word 'progress'. Now progress seems to be the advancement of technology and consumerism and god knows where it is leading to: the destruction of the earth, nature, pollution and the utter depravity of selfishness. This is the actual fact that is happening in the world. And everybody talks about progress. One never asks: progress to what, where are we going, what is it all about? One seems to never question, one may question that inwardly. And when one does ask those questions, as the speaker has often asked some of the prominent writers, politicians, and the so-called religious groups, they seem to have no answer, they are even rather frightened if you pose that question. Invariably the answer is, if they are capable of answering, 'The future will look after itself, all that matters is that we progress towards something'.

I am sure most of us have asked these questions. I am sure most of us want to find an answer knowing that all governments are corrupt, some more, some less, all religions have lost their meaning, and any ideology, whether Marxist, Maoist or some other ideology is still within the pattern of 'what has been' and 'what should be' - what should be, the response of what has been. And seeing all this, if one is at all serious - and I hope you are all serious at least for this morning - it appears that there must be a change in consciousness. That is the only thing that has any significance; a radical transformation in the content of consciousness because that is the only solution to the enormous problems and the complexity of our modern society. Not new ideologies, not new gurus, with their absurd following and the childish traditional repetition of dead things, but a change in the very structure and the nature of consciousness, in what you think, feel, act, do, which is within the field of consciousness.

And before we go into that this morning I think it is important to understand what it means to be serious. We are educated to be entertained, not to be serious. We want to be entertained; religions have become a form of entertainment, the books that you read are also in that category. One never looks at one's own consciousness, we want to be told by others what it is, we want to be entertained with explanations, not in investigation. We want to be told or assured of our ways of thinking and whether there is happiness and so on. To me, to be really serious involves investigating, which means to trace out into the whole field of consciousness which is ourselves. And that requires a certain quality of attention, certain seriousness, not only in intent but to go through with it to the very end, otherwise one is not serious. And life demands that one be serious. When the house is burning - and the house is burning - one cannot think about who set it on fire or be satisfied with explanations, or follow somebody who tells you how to build a new house. What is important is to put the fire out. And we are, I think, without exaggeration, in that position. We have tried various forms of ideologies, we have followed, unfortunately, these idiotic gurus with their absurd dead traditions, which they have imported into this country most unfortunately. And they are collecting money and apparently money is the greatest thing in life - money, success, power, possession. Virtue has become success, both religiously and in business.

So seeing all that, not casually, not with eyes that want to be entertained, but seeing all that implies that you are part of that. You are the world and the world is you. And to bring about a change in the social, economical, in the whole structure which man has created around himself outwardly, there must be, obviously, a change in consciousness - consciousness being, the content makes consciousness and consciousness is the content; the two are not separate. I hope I can go on with that.

You know, words are necessary at a certain level to communicate. Communication implies thinking together, not agreeing together or denying together but thinking together. And in the very process of thinking together we are sharing together, and therefore creating together. Communication implies all that: the sharing, the thinking together and thereby creating. You cannot share, that is, partake, share together if you are not interested or concerned, committed in what is being shared, in what is being investigated together. If you are not involved in the investigation of what is going on both outwardly and inwardly, and therefore partaking together then communication comes to an end.

So there is not only verbal communication but also a communication where ideas, words, have very little meaning. It's a form of communion. I am using that word non-religiously. To commune together means we must both be at the same level, at the same time, with the same intensity otherwise there is no communion. And when we are investigating into something that demands your total attention there must be this quality of sharing. Therefore you are not sharing what the speaker is saying, or sharing his particular experience or thought or words but sharing together that perception of what is true. We can only see what is true if you know what is false. The very perception of the false is the truth.

Are you used to this kind talk? You are going to question me afterwards but I am just asking whether you are used to these kinds of words and this investigation, this kind of seriousness. But unfortunately I have a feeling you are not used to this kind of thing because, as we said, it has become so immensely important more and more when man is destroying himself and destroying animals, nature, the lovely country, that his whole way of thinking, living, must undergo a tremendous change. And that's what we are concerned with, at least that's what the speaker is concerned with and in that concern and seriousness we can both share together. Sharing implies a certain care, a quality of affection, a quality of attention, all that is involved in sharing, otherwise there is no sharing at all. It is our problem, as human beings living in this wretched world, it is our problem to resolve it.

And it can only be resolved not through any ideology, however intelligent, however cunning, however traditional, however wise - ideologies can never be wise, ideologies are always idiotic. What is really important is to see, for each one of us, if it is possible to bring about a change in consciousness, in our consciousness, in the field in which we think, feel, operate, function, act, behave. That is the only serious thing and nothing else, not the gods and the saviours and the images that one worships. After all the gods have been created by human beings, in their image. And all those trivialities, and they are trivialities, when man is so deeply concerned with what is going on outwardly and inwardly, one cannot play with trivialities, be entertained, one must give one's whole mind and heart to this problem.

So that is the question. Consciousness, we mean by that word, not only to be conscious outwardly and also inwardly, to be aware outwardly and also inwardly, and to find out who is it that is conscious. When you look at the world, the world of politics, the world of so-called religions, business, and all the things that are going on, the violence, the brutality, the corruption, the immorality of our society, who is it that is aware, who is it that is conscious? You understand my question? That is, I see this all round me, in India, the poverty, the degradation, the tradition that is destructive, degrading, degenerating, and the western civilisation concerned almost entirely with commercialism and consumerism, and in the wake of that the east, the undeveloped countries, following. Who is it that is conscious of all this? Is it your prejudice?

Please follow this, share this with the speaker. When you look at it, how do you look at all this? With eyes that say, they must change, this is wrong, this is right, this is true, this is false? Or ask, is there a new way of living? And who is the questioner? Who is this entity that is always looking at this? It is an important question to ask because how you look, with what eyes you are looking at, with what sensitivity you apprehend this whole phenomenon, matters immensely. Because if you are prejudiced you cannot see freely, if you are caught in an ideology, obviously that prevents you from clear perception, if you are concerned with your own particular problems, then obviously you cannot see the whole totality of the problem. If you are merely concerned with your own self-interest, then obviously your field of vision is very narrow. And commercialism and consumerism are making human beings more and more self-centred, more and more selfish. Again that's a fact.

So how do you look at all this? Please share this with the speaker because together we are investigating this question. Because, as the speaker said, unless our consciousness undergoes a radical change we are going to destroy each other and therefore the world, nature, everything about us. That is obvious. But it becomes much more difficult, much more arduous, much more demanding when you want to find out how to bring about a fundamental change in the very nature and structure of consciousness. Your consciousness is the consciousness of the world whether they live in India, Europe or here. They might have certain varieties and changes in that consciousness but it is essentially the same. There they suffer greed, envy, fear, the pursuit of pleasure, with their gods and goddesses, with their pollution and corruption, all that, as here. So consciousness is not yours or mine, it is the common consciousness. And when you look at it, are you looking at it as an individual with his narrow perception, or are you looking at it as a human being, whether he lives over there or here, who is concerned with the total existence, not in a particular kind of existence? Are we meeting each other? I hope so. Let's get on with it.

You see when one asks this question, individuality or the individual, specially in the western world, has become enormously important. They have laid such emphasis on individual freedom, individual expression, individual creativeness, fulfilment, achievement. We never asked what is an individual. The word 'individual' means, according to the dictionary, indivisible, a human being who is not fragmented, who is not broken up, who is whole, who is sane and therefore holy. Such an individual doesn't exist. But we are concerned with the fragmentation of individualities. And when you look at this problem, which is, the transformation of consciousness, are you looking at it from an individual point of view, that is, from a fragmentary point of view, or are you looking at it as a whole, non-fragmentarily? That is, I can look at the problem from a very small, narrow point of view, thinking about myself, my problems, my quarrels, my idiosyncrasies, my idiotic neurotic habits and so on, that's all very narrow, limited, a fragmentary point of view. And if I am concerned with the whole of human existence I have to put aside my particular point of view, my prejudice, my fears, my pursuit of pleasures. The problem demands much more serious attention than the fragmentary attention I give to it.

So it is immensely important how I look at it. You understand? How do you look at it, this vast complex problem of living with all its complexities, the national, religious divisions, the wars, the brutalities, the utter waste of life, how do you look at it all? Is it your life, your little house, big or small, your little bank account, your little job, your little technical knowledge, whether it be scientific or otherwise, how do you look at this? Or do you look at it as a whole, not as a fragment but as a total human being with all the problems of which he is? Therefore when you look at it that way there is no separation as the individual and the collective, or the many or the one. Therefore your whole attitude, your whole observation undergoes a radical change.

So it is that we are going to talk about, not your particular little selfish attitudes and anxieties and fears, because when one understands the larger, the greater, the lesser disappears. When you understand the quality of a mind that is seeing the whole of life, existence, the whole of human suffering, the whole of human violence as a whole, not, my violence, my little anxiety, my little greed and envy, when you look at it as a whole then your relationship to that undergoes a change. Am I making something clear? Then perhaps you will be good enough to ask when I have finished talking.

Now when you observe this outwardly, is the observer different from the thing observed? The thing observed is violence, corruption, selfishness, and all the things that man has put together, his gods, his saviours, his heavens and hells, the original sin, and you know man has invented all this. How do you look at it? As an observer from the outside looking in, or do you look at it without the division? That is, the observer is the observed, the observer is violent. There is no division between himself and the thing he observes. If that becomes very clear, that the observer is the observed, then the factor of division which creates conflict disappears. Is this somewhat clear? Look, sir - I better not say, sir, because of Women's Lib! What matters is the dignity of human beings, not the woman or the man, the dignity, the respect, the affection, the care. Man has exploited woman in the past and he does it now. That's going on in the east much more. But when man loses dignity he loses respect for everybody else, whether it's a man, animal or nature.

What we were going to say is, we are caught in conflict, our whole life is conflict, from the moment we are born until we die. And we have accepted that conflict as part of our life. We are educated in conflict. Where there is conflict there must be violence and division - man, woman, me and you, we and they, the division that religions have created, the division of nationalities, the division of classes, the division between business, the artist, the scientist, the politician, the religious man. All this division with their fragmentations is the beginning of conflict. And when you look at this whole phenomenon that is going on around us and within us, do you look at it as an observer different from the observed? Or, there is only observation, which means the observer is that which he is observing. Therefore from that essential truth the beginning of conflict inwardly and outwardly comes to an end. To investigate that, which you are doing now, demands your care, your attention. You have to give your thought to it, not accept anything the speaker is saying.

So I have this whole thing and can my mind being educated, being caught in that tradition, or accepting that tradition as being rational, put aside to observe? Which means can my mind be free to observe? Or am I always projecting a screen of ideas, fears, and so on between the observer and the thing observed, which creates a division and therefore a conflict and therefore never a solution of the problem?

So to observe this phenomenon, which is both outwardly and inwardly, first there must be freedom, freedom to investigate, to observe, not freedom to do what you like. That's one of the things that has gone on in this country: do exactly what you want to do - and you call that freedom. And that has led to various forms of absurdities: permissiveness, you know all the phenomenon that is going on. Because the idea that one must be free is translated: to do what one wants to do, the immediate fulfilment of desires. And that's considered freedom. And when that freedom is translated wrongly authoritarianism comes into being. That's what is going to happen, and that's what is happening in the world outside, in Russia, in China, this totalitarian acceptance of authority because man is corrupting that word 'freedom'.

And freedom implies an enormous sense of order. There can be no freedom without order. And because there is no order, which we will go into presently, you have every form of outward discipline, outward authoritarianism, outward dictatorship, the authority of the few and so on. So what is order? Do you understand? You know, this has been one of the great problems for human beings right throughout the centuries, historically, and even now. We cannot exist without order. The brain can only function when there is order, not disorder. It can function effectively when there is complete order. And that order can only come about when we understand what is disorder. Order is not the imitation of conformity to a pattern, the pattern set by Marx, Mao, or by some religious saviour, guru and all the rest of it. That's merely conformity. Order is not conformity. Where there is conformity there is disorder. Where there is acceptance of authority there is disorder.

So what is disorder, because we live in disorder? Isn't your life in disorder? And how can a mind that is disorderly find order? How can a corrupt politician talk about order? His order is an idea. So what is important is to find out for ourselves what is disorder. You understand? You live in disorder - why? Are we educated to live in disorder? I am afraid we are. Disorder means conflict, disorder means acceptance and denial, this contradiction in ourselves, say one thing, mean something else, do something else. The contradiction of an idea and action, the 'what should be' and actually 'what is'. The contradictory desires, the contradictory attractions, wanting peace and living in violence. We live in contradiction and therefore live in disorder. Now how can a mind that lives in disorder find order? It can create what it thinks is an order but that order will be still disorder. Therefore it is important to see what disorder is. And can the mind investigate that, not, how to bring about order. When you understand disorder out of that understanding comes order. You don't have to search out order. Right.

So we live in disorder. We are educated to live in this disorder. When we compare ourselves with another that is a factor of disorder; in a school we are compared, A is being compared with B, B is much clever than A. This comparison is one of the major factors of disorder. So can you live without comparing, comparing yourself with another?

And imitation is one of the factors of disorder. That is, you want to be like somebody else. Isn't that a factor of disorder? Which means you are denying what you are and trying to conform to what you should be, which is called self-improvement. And a factor of this disorder is ideologies, never accepting, seeing 'what is' but always looking at 'what should be', the ideal. So can the mind, your mind be free of ideals, conformity, comparison and so being free able to look exactly at 'what is'?

One of the factors in this disorder is the wastage of energy involved in it. When you are conforming to a particular pattern set by yourself or by another, there is a contradiction, is there not, between 'what is' and 'what should be'. In that there is a wastage of energy. That energy is needed to understand 'what is' and go beyond it. So any conflict inwardly and outwardly is a wastage of energy. And you need all your energy to transform 'what is'. And not to waste that energy, the division between the observer and the observed must come to an end. Again, we are encouraged, taught and educated to accept this division between me and the thing I observe in myself: I am different from the thing I observe. You understand? That is, suppose one is envious, is the envy different from the entity that calls, 'I am envy, I am envious' - envy is part of the observer, but when you divide it as the observer and the observed, then in that division there comes a conflict which is, either you suppress envy, rationalise it, or yield to it, and in that process there is conflict. Whereas when there is the observation that the observer is the observed, this conflict comes to an end and therefore you have the energy to deal with 'what is', which is envy. Is this clear somewhat?

So consciousness is its content. The content makes up consciousness. Unless there is a radical change in that field of consciousness with its content, do what you will outside, Mao, whatever you do, will not alter the content and therefore bring about further misery, further chaos. So a mind that is aware of all this, the outer and the inner - the inner world is the outer world and therefore there is no division between the me and the you; you may have a different face, different body, different bank account, house and so on, but inwardly there is the blending of our consciousness. You are not different from me because 'me' with my anxieties, fears, envies, brutalities, is like you. So can the mind observe all this, and the observation means attention. You cannot observe a tree or a bird unless you give your attention to look, and when you look there must be a care. Care comes only when there is affection. So can the mind, your mind look at this disorder that one lives in, without wanting to change it, transform it, suppress it; just to observe it? Because the moment you want to transform it, change it, suppress it, that's a wastage of energy. Whereas if you can look at it completely, give your whole attention, that means caring, then you have all that energy which has been wasted in conflict to transform 'what is'.

I don't know what time it is. It's past twelve. Perhaps you would like to ask questions. Before you ask questions we must find out why you are asking questions, and who is it that is going to answer your questions. Because in the very asking of that question - the very asking that question - we are sharing together that question. But if you ask your question and expect an answer, and not share, then the answer will have very little meaning. One moment, sir. Just a minute sir. Just a minute. I am asking you why you are asking a question. Is it - please listen - is it that you expect an answer from the speaker and therefore you are not sharing in the answer? Or are you asking the question to find out the answer for yourself, which is to share the question? Isn't it? Have you understood sir, what I have said? All right sir, what is your question?

Questioner: Sir, it is not a question. It is more a clarification of a statement you made that mathematically with my deduction I assume something else. Now, I want a clarification of this. You stated man invented all these things, referring to the original sin, gods and so on. I agree to a certain extent because the Greeks had a god for just about everything, even to go the bathroom. But if you state so, then you are insinuating that God does not exist – or does he exist? What do you think?

K: At last. May I repeat your question sir? I want to repeat it - just a minute sir - other people might not have heard it.

Q: OK.

K: I am repeating your question sir so that people can hear it, because I have got a loudspeaker and you haven't got one. The questioner says: you made a statement, the statement being that man has created god in his image. The Greeks have created their gods, and the former ancient Egyptians created their gods out of their mind. And the questioner asks, if that is so is there a god, a god which man has not invented, a god that man in his misery cannot touch it? That is the question sir?

Q: That is right. I’ll have another one when you finish that one. (Laughter)

K: Now how do you find out if there is god which man has not created? How do you enquire? Not accept or deny, not say, 'there is no god', or 'there is god', but how do you find out if there is such a thing as god which man has not invented? How do you find out? You can only find out if you have set aside all your beliefs. Right? If you set aside all the things man has talked about or invented what god is. Man has invented god out of his fears, his hopes, his despairs, his anxieties, his fear of the unknown, wanting security. So if you can put aside all that, not verbally, not merely intellectually, but actually, that is be free of every kind of belief, every kind of thing that man has told you about god, every form of fear in oneself, then perhaps the mind can come upon that which is not the product of thought. Yes, sir, have I answered your question sir? (Clapping) Please, if you don't mind, don't clap. Just a minute sir. It is such a waste, I don't know why you clap.

Q: Can you give us a practical way of increasing our consciousness so that when we see it as two we will know it’s only one?

K: Can you show us a practical way to expand our consciousness so that division between you and me, we and they, comes to an end. Isn't that it sir? Am I repeating it rightly?

Q: Exactly.

K: I wonder what you mean 'the practical way'? What is the practical? I am really interested, I am not being sarcastic or anything, I am not that kind of person. I wonder what you mean by 'practical'?

Q: In our everyday lives.

K: Something which is concerned with our daily life. What we have been talking about is concerned with your daily life, isn't it? Anxiety, fear, pursuit of pleasure, despair, violence, all that is our daily life. And you want a practical way of going beyond that - is that the question sir?

Q: Some sort of reprogramming.

K: Some kind of programme.

Q: Reprogramming.

K: Reprogramming. You have been programmed for the last twenty centuries. Now you want somebody else to reprogram that into another thing. You see, you call that practical. (Laughter) That is the most impractical thing. Just a minute sir. To see - please do listen - to see that your whole way of living has been programmed, been made by others or by yourself - yourself are the others. And you want to change that, and to change that you want another program, which is mine or somebody else's. Therefore what takes place with a mind that wants a new program? Do see this please. It becomes automatic, it becomes dull, it becomes insensitive, it is incapable of seeing for itself what it is. So the most practical thing is to observe oneself as one is, how stupid, how dull, how insensitive, how we live a second-hand life, what other people have told us. And we say I must live a first-hand life, which means I will do what I want to do, as though you were very different from the others. So the most practical thing to do is to observe your life, observe without wanting to bring about a change, suppression, rationalise, just to observe so that you learn. Do you understand sir? Learn. Do you know what - just a minute, you are so anxious about your own question, your own question is answered when you listen to the other question. Sir, we are dealing with something that demands your full co-operation, that demands that you give attention, that you give care. And where there is care there is affection, not impatience. Right sir?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: No sir, you haven't understood what I said. If I may repeat it. I said, the content of consciousness is consciousness.

Q: Does that constitute the ‘me’, of which you are?

K: Listen sir. I am answering your question. The content of consciousness is consciousness. Without the content there is no consciousness. The content is your furniture, the identification with your furniture, the identification with your house, the identification with your bank account, the identification with your country, the identification with your family, the identification with your desire and so on. All that is the content, isn't it? That is the 'me', the I, the ego, that separates the me from the you.

So the much more complex problem is, which I didn't want to deal with this morning, perhaps we can do it another day, tomorrow or next week: which is can the mind, which is the seat of all consciousness, can the mind free itself from the known, which is the consciousness? Yes sir?

Q: Since there is no division at this moment between the speaker in the audience and the speaker on the platform. The speaker on the platform is not a problem for the speaker in the audience. I would like to share between us the whole notion that ‘problem’, the whole concept of the problem is a basic conflict. When one sees a problem one looks for a solution. When one sees a problem it is a projection of one’s view of the world as a problem. If the speaker in the audience sees the one on the platform as a problem then we have conflict.

K: Yes sir. So

Q: If there was no separation between the observer and the observed then neither can be a problem. So it appears to this speaker that everything that you have called a problem should more properly perhaps be referred to as an opportunity.

K: Yes, sir, wait a minute. Have I to repeat the question? No, right, thank you so much. The questioner says why do you use the word 'problem', problem implies a conflict, a division. Why not use the word 'opportunity'. I think sir, the word problem is a good word. The word 'problem' means something that has not been dissolved, something that has not been understood, something that has not been completely ended. Say for instance there is a problem in the world, a problem of violence, it's not an opportunity. Opportunity has a different meaning. There is this problem - I won't even say it - there is this thing called violence, and human beings have lived with this for centuries, and have not been able to resolve it. Not being able to resolve it has become the problem. Now the question is: is it possible for the mind to be totally free of violence, totally, not partially, not fragmentarily, not in one field but be violent in another field, but completely be free of it? If that is the question, then we can deal with it. Then I will I say, yes it is possible for a human being to be totally free of violence.

Q: Not if one of you has a problem.

K: No. I have told you sir what problem means. All right, let's put it the other way. There is this challenge, the challenge is: can the mind, can a human being be free of violence? Now how do you respond to that challenge? The opportunity is the response. There is this challenge given to you, so please look at this challenge, which is: can you as a human being, living in America, surrounded by violence, educated in violence, accepting a society that is based on violence, which is totally immoral, can you as a human being be free of violence totally? Now that challenge is given to you, the opportunity is given to you. And do you make it into a problem, or do you respond? And how do you respond? Is it a partial response? Or a total response? Which means an adequate response, a response that will be adequate under all circumstances. Just a minute, have you understood my question?

Q: It seems to me that this speaker in the audience has gotten great clarification in part from that speaker on the platform about escaping from time, being out of time in the sense of not having a goal.

K: Sir, I don't want to...

Q: My response to the challenge of violence that is felt within me is that I must conclude or get rid of the violence at some time in the future

K: Just a moment sir. Let us deal with this. This challenge is offered to you.

Q: It is, right now.

K: Right, now. How do you respond to it? All of you, how do you respond to this challenge, that is, can the mind, can you as a human being living in this corrupt society which is so essentially violent - can you - please let me finish - can you be free of violence completely, not fragmentarily?

Q: I think that is impossible.

K: Wait. That is an inadequate response. Wait sir. Just listen. One person says that is impossible. Wait. Then you haven't met the problem, met the challenge, you say, 'It's not possible'. Wait sir, just a minute. 'It is not possible'. Or somebody else will say, 'It is possible', which are both theoretical, which are both inadequate. The response is, I don't know. I don't know what is involved in that challenge.

Q: But, ‘I don’t know’, is precisely the soul of non-violence.

K: Sir, just a minute. You are expanding the question a little more, which we can deal with, if I may point out, time is involved, perception is involved. Who is the perceiver and who is the perceived, I don't want to, it is not the opportune moment to go into it now. What we are asking is: a challenge is offered to you, how do you respond? Do you respond intellectually, say, 'It is not possible'? Or do you respond intellectually by saying, 'Yes, it is possible'? So are you responding fragmentarily, or you are responding with your heart, mind, with your whole being - 'being' being your organism, everything - how do you respond to that challenge? Just a minute sir, let me finish what I am saying. That means that you will have to look at violence. What is violence? And how does violence come into being? Am I capable of looking at it first? That is, am I capable of looking at this violence around me? The kidnapping, the brutality, the hurt, all that outside of me and also in me. Wanting, to be ambitious is violence, the worship of success is violence. In this country and all over the world you are encouraged to worship that success. It is violence to divide life into business, religion, art - you follow, all that is violence. Imitation is violence, conformity is violence, authority is the very essence of violence, disorder is violence. Can you look at all that and more that is involved in violence. That means can you observe all that within yourself because you are the world and the world is you. Can you look at yourself, as in a mirror without distortion. When you can so look then you will find out how to totally respond to that challenge.

Q: Doesn’t that involve effort?

K: Again sir, you see, have you understood what I have said? Will is one of the factors of violence. I will be. I must be. I must not be. The whole of that way of thinking is based on will. The will to succeed, that means to be ruthless to everybody else. All that is implied in that word 'violence'. And can the mind observing itself, without any distortion, can that mind be free of this enormous weight which man has cultivated through centuries and be free of it? I say, it can, if you give attention, if you care for it, if you want to go beyond this, then you can find out.

Right, sir, we'll meet tomorrow.