I hope you don't feel as nervous as I do. Shall we go on with what we were talking about yesterday morning, if we may? We were saying that thought brings about fragmentation. Thought has its right place but it is misused, becomes mischievous when there is not the freedom from thought. And that freedom has to be learnt; it is not an idea, a speculative theory - theory being insight - nor is it an ideal. And to learn about it there must be curiosity - like a child that learns mathematics, not knowing anything about it, he begins to learn. But learning mathematics or a language needs time, whereas insight into the freedom from thought needs no time at all. That is what we were more or less saying yesterday.

And if we may go on with what we were saying: one observes, doesn't one, in one's own life, a series of fragmentations, a life that is broken up, contradictory - the business life, the family life, the religious life, the scientific life, the artistic life and so on and on and on. This constant fragmentation has its own activity, its own action and the more one enquires into it, goes into this question of fragmentation, and one tries to integrate these many fragments together, the integrator is still thought who is responsible for the fragmentation. Right? We have broken up life into the family life, the individual life, the religious life, the national life, the politics and so on, and this division exists and when one becomes aware of it, conscious of it, sees the full significance of these fragmentations, one hopes through the cunning, clever process of thought to bring all these fragments together. I do not know if you have not noticed it. But the entity that tries to bring about these fragments together is still a superior perception of thought, is still thought. And how is one to bring about a harmony - not between the fragments, which is impossible - but a harmony or perception which sees the whole, not as fragments. I wonder if I am

Can one perceive these various fragments and not try to bring them together, integrate them, but look at them from a total point of view, from a totality, from a perception in which there is no fragmentation? Are we meeting this? There is the religious life, with all its beliefs, rituals, superstitions, and we play with it, which is totally different from our daily life, with all its conflicts, loneliness, boredom, pleasures, fears, anxieties, and there is the life of earning a livelihood, all totally separate, and therefore contradictory. And we live and accept this fragmentation. I think that is fairly clear - the national, religious, spiritual, you know, all these terrible divisions that exist outside as well as inside.

One has to find out, hasn't one, whether it is possible to learn - which is not cultivate memory - learn to look at the whole of life from a level which is comprehensive, which has no fragmentation at all in it, and being non-fragmentary act from there, therefore a total action. What is the energy which perceives the total and doesn't live in fragmentation? You know, this is a very difficult thing to convey in words - a dimension in which fragmentation doesn't exist at all. Religions throughout the world - apart from their absurdities and superstitions, beliefs, rituals, gurus and all that nonsense - apart from that, religions have maintained that there is a god, a reality, which if you enter into that reality only then you can see the whole of life life as a whole, in which there is no division as you and me, we and they and all the rest of it. Division exists only where there is measurement. Measurement is comparison, and comparison is the movement of thought. So thought is measurable, comparative - the more, the less, the better and so on. And it is only a mind that is free from measurement that can see life as a whole. I wonder if I am conveying this. Right, sir? How is one then to be free of measurement and yet use measurement. It is necessary. Measurement being knowledge, experience, the vast accumulation of memory, conscious as well as unconscious - all that is measurement, because it is the product of thought. And where there is measurement there is fragmentation. That is, I am not happy but I will be happy. I am ugly but I will be beautiful. This constant comparison, this constant measurement makes one feel superior or inferior, or lonely, or expansive ideological unity. And can the mind which is so heavily conditioned in measurement - because after all the whole of science, mathematics, the way we live, is based on measurement - and is it possible for the mind to learn to live without measurement so that the mind never compares, because comparison brings about fear and pleasure. Right? Are we meeting each other, or is this

Because sirs, as we said yesterday, we are learning together because the speaker happens to sit on a platform, a little higher than you are sitting, which is only for convenience, doesn't make him into an authority, doesn't make him something special. What we are trying to do together is to learn, to learn about a mind that is free from measurement and therefore free from fear. Free, and therefore free from this constant struggle to be or to become something. And it is this measurement, which is thought, that brings about fragmentation. I see that, not as an idea, not as a theory, but as an actuality in my life, in one's living. I haven't learnt it from somebody else. If I learn it from somebody else it is his learning not mine. And when I learn it, it is neither yours nor mine, it is a state of learning. And therefore all authority ceases, then our relationship is entirely different. Then we are walking on the same road, with the same intensity, with the same vitality, with the same passion to learn. If we could establish that between the man sitting on the little platform and you, then our relationship in communication and learning is entirely different, because all our conditioning is one of the factors of authority - you know, I don't know; you are enlightened, I am not; you are my guru and I am your disciple, tell me, teach me, I will learn from you, I put you on a pedestal, worship you because I think you know, I don't know what you know but I think you know. (Laughter) No, please, this is very important because what is happening in the world is more and more gurus are springing up. (Laughter) Before it was the church with their priests, with their rigmaroles, and now it is these gurus coming in replacing them, which is again a factor of division - your guru and my guru. Your guru knows much more than my guru does. (Laughter) You know all that tommyrot that goes on.

So when we are learning together there is no division and therefore there is no authority. That is a marvellous thing, you know, if one really sees that. Because then we teach each other, we learn from each other and there is no you who is the teacher and me as the disciple. And in that learning there is great beauty because in that there is real companionship and therefore there is real love. You understand all this?

So what we are trying to learn - not trying - what we are learning is whether the mind can learn to live totally, which means it has no quality of measurement at all. I am only putting the thing differently from yesterday. Yesterday we said, thought has its right place and that thought can be used only efficiently, sanely, reasonably, logically and healthily when there is freedom from thought. And thought, we are saying this morning differently, is measurement, and all western civilisation is based on measurement, and they have tried to escape from that by or through religious concepts, which again is the product of measurement. Right? What we are doing is trying to find out, learning whether the mind can be free altogether from fragmentation and therefore look at life, act as a whole healthy human entity without any fragmentation. Because that requires, if I may use the word 'religion' in the right sense of that word - it is what religions have tried to do. Not organised religions, not with their priests and all that hierarchical rubbish, but the real religious mind has tried to do this. Which is, it says absolute freedom is only possible when there is no movement of thought. The movement of thought is fragmentation, and the movement of thought is necessary but not when the mind is in a state in which there is no measurement at all, which means the immeasurable. Right? I wonder if I am conveying something.

How is one how do you learn this? You understand my question? I see my life fragmented. That is a fact. And I see the futility of integrating the fragments. I see contradiction in these fragments, conscious as well as unconscious. And I have tried various methods, means, systems to bring about a unity in all that. And I can play that game endlessly till I die. And I haven't learnt a thing because basically thought is in operation in all this. I want to find out, I want to learn, the mind wants to find out and learn a dimension in which the immeasurable, that is the state of mind which has no measurement at all, and therefore no 'me', which is measurement. The moment I have the 'me', there is the 'you'. The 'me' is the product of thought, the 'me' as an idea gives security. And thought is seeking all the time security. And seeking security in a belief, in dogma, in any form of neuroticism gives it security. Right? It is neurotic to believe in god - all right, I'll plunge into it - because you know nothing about god, you only know because, or you think you know, because you are conditioned. The communist doesn't believe in god, he says, 'What are you talking about?' And god can be approached through a process of time, through perfection, through this ideal of always becoming more and more and more and more perfect, and you have established a pattern, a ladder on which you are always climbing. And all that structure is the product of thought, obviously. Now if one has an insight into that, now as you are sitting there if you have an insight into this, not induced by the speaker, but see it for yourself, then you are out of time. Because time is part of thinking and time has said thought has said, 'I will find gradually the state where there will be non-fragmentation'. So thought seeking security all the time, physical as well as psychological, conscious or unconscious, has established for itself various beliefs, dogmas, superstitions, neurotic activities, and is caught in that, it has become a habit. Now, can one break that habit without effort, because the moment you make an effort you are back again, there is contradiction in that, there is a duality in that - the one that sees that it must be broken and makes an effort, but one who sees it must be broken is the thinker, the thinker is thought - there is no thinker without thought. To have an insight into that now, instantly, is to break it, is to break the chain of habit, to be aware of all this, the whole movement of thought. And one can be aware of it only when you don't condemn it, then you observe. And to observe without the observer, because the observer is the entity who says, 'This I will keep, this I won't keep, this is right, this is wrong, this should be, this should not be' - he is always comparing. The observer is the entity that measures. Right?

So I have only one problem - not many problems because all problems, our human problems, are interrelated. The problem of death is related to love, love is related to everyday living, everyday living is related to our ways of behaviour, our behaviour is conditioned according to the culture in which we live - the society, the economic condition and so on - so they are all tied together. And by understanding one issue completely you have resolved the whole. But what we do is: politics is one thing and keep it there, religion is something else, business is something else, family life is something else, our personal pleasure, like, dislike. So in understanding the one issue we understand the total movement of problems.

And one of our great problems is fear. In our daily life - fear. And we try in every way to overcome it, or run away from it, or find a substitute, as courage, for it. Now how does a mind learn about fear? - learn, have an insight, not memorise various formulas how to be rid of fear. There is the fear of death, fear of loneliness, fear of mechanical behaviour, fear of not being loved, fear of so many kinds. And in the resolution of fear you have solved the whole problem. Now how is that fear, conscious as well as unconscious, to be completely set aside, because if we do not then we shall never find out what is meditation, we shall never find out if there is such a thing as the immeasurable. So it is absolutely essential, it behoves us to learn completely about fear, conscious as well as unconscious fears. Conscious fears one can more less deal with. If I am afraid of my neighbour, what he thinks about me, I can deal with it, it doesn't much matter. But the unconscious fears are much more difficult and most of us are unaware of it, and being unaware of it, it brings about neurotic actions. Violence is one of the factors of fear. As we said violence, yesterday, is brought about through ideologies, through lies, whether it is by the politicians, by the priests, by ourself - doesn't matter. And fear if it is not completely understood or learnt about plays havoc with our lives. I think that is fairly clear. There are unconscious fears of which one is not aware. Now what do you do about it? We are learning, I am not telling you about it. We are walking together, communicating together, learning together about fear. How am I or you, who are unconscious of your fears, bring them to the surface and wipe them away completely - not gradually because that will take time, that means again contradiction, division which is the product of thought. You are following all this? How is the mind, which has deep-rooted fears of which he is not aware, how are those fears to be exposed to the light of intelligence? Because intelligence is not measurement, where there is intelligence there is no measurement, it is not yours nor mine - there is intelligence. You know meditation is the awakening of this intelligence - which we will discuss when we come to meditation.

So our question is, can the mind learn instantly all the content of the unconscious in which there are deep secret fears? Will it - please listen to this carefully - will it learn through analysis? Analysis implies time, there must be analyser and the analysed - the division. The analyser is the analysed. And the analyser, if he is not capable of complete analysis, takes over what he has not understood and that will become the means of further examination which is misunderstood. I don't know if you are following all this. So I see very clearly analysis is not the way. I have learnt about it, because analysis implies time, implies division, whether it is a professional analysis or you do it yourself, and when you analyse, unless you analyse everything completely, in that incompleteness you examine the next incident, and therefore continue the incompleteness all the time. Right? You are following all this? For god's sake follow it, learn about this. So one learns analysis is out, which is our conditioning. Confession, analysis, self-introspection are all the forms of analysis. Analysis, the very meaning of that word, means to break up, and thought has broken it up. So, as analysis implies time, a separate entity which is the thinker, which is essentially the past who examines the thing he is going to analyse, and he doesn't recognise the analyser is the analysed, and that it takes infinite time - I can go on analysing myself till I die. So analysis doesn't teach anything. I hope we see this.

Then will dreams teach? We are asking this question because we are trying to expose the unconscious, bring it all out, the content, because the content makes the consciousness. Right? The house is what it contains. And it contains so much, so many contradictions, so much information, you know, it is a jumble, and therefore utterly confused. Will dreams clear the basic fear of existence, basic fear of not being, not becoming, not fulfilling, not trying to achieve? And what are dreams? One has to learn all about all this, please, not from me. Because you dream. Why do you dream? Pleasant or unpleasant dreams, nightmares and so on, why do you dream at all? The experts say you must dream because otherwise you will go insane - probably that is true, because dreams try to bring about order - right? - indicate that there is disorder - let's put it that way, better. Dreams indicate that there is disorder, and during the day you are unconscious of your disorders because you are caught up in so much activity, chattering, talking, you know, going to the office and quarrelling and bullying, and all the rest of it that goes on. During the day you are caught in a routine which breeds disorder and one is not aware of it. And during the night, when you sleep, dreams are the continuation of that disorder in which the mind is trying to bring order. Right? I do not know if you have not noticed that if you bring order out of disorder, that is, understand disorder, not superimpose upon disorder what you think is order, but if you understand disorder, out of that comes order. And the brain needs order, then it can function well, it is protected, and order gives it tremendous security, then it can function beautifully. So, in dreams the mind is trying to bring about order, but if during the day you are aware of the disorder and because you are aware there is order, then you will find that sleep becomes quite a different thing. Then the mind is quiet, the brain is quiet, it is not everlastingly working, working, working. You are following all this? Learn, please learn. So that the brain is quiet, refreshed, young and therefore clear, and it can meet the day afresh because it has established order out of disorder. Right?

So, in understanding fear, fear exists only when there is disorder, when you see something very clearly there is no fear. It is only the mind that is confused, uncertain, disorderly, such a mind is caught in fear. So when you learn about the unconscious, that is the content of it - the content of consciousness is consciousness, consciousness is not something separate from its content. Right? You have understood? If I am a Hindu, with all its content, with all the superstitions, social rules, morality and all that, that makes consciousness, and if there is no content in consciousness then consciousness is something entirely different. And that is what meditation is, the emptying of the mind of its content. Oh you don't know all this! You learn. Don't learn from somebody else for god's sake.

So can the mind be free of fear? That is, the mind that has had physical pain last week is afraid that it might recur again next week - the fear of repetition of pain. If you have observed physical pain, when it is ended by a doctor, whatever it is, mind doesn't leave it there, thought doesn't leave it there, it carries it on, it is watching, waiting, fearful, hoping it won't happen again. So thought is creating fear. I don't know if you follow. There is measurement - fear of pain last week, it mustn't happen again next week, watching, waiting, hoping - there is measurement, which is thought. Similarly psychologically we have various forms of hurts. We have been hurt from childhood, it is a terrible thing this, being hurt. Aren't we all being hurt? And against that being hurt further we build walls of resistance, and that means isolation, and isolation means further fear. And to escape from that fear we take to drugs or go to church, or believe in something, or pick up a book - you know the various forms of escapes. Now when you are aware of this completely, when you have an insight into the fear, then you will see psychologically there is not a flash of fear, and when there is physical pain you will know how to deal with it, thought will not carry it on. Right?

And one of the fragments of our life is the pursuit of pleasure opposed to fear, opposed to pain, something contradictory, away from all the miseries, suffering, pain. And that is what we are doing, pursuing pleasure in the name of god, in the name of whatever it is. Again thought plays a tremendous part in it - doesn't it? We don't have to go into all that, that is fairly obvious. An incident giving a delight, thought pursues it, therefore the next day, and so on and on and on. So thought is responsible for the continuity and the nourishment of fear and the pursuit of pleasure. Pleasure has nothing to do with joy, with ecstasy. When there is joy there is no pleasure, you are unaware of it, but thought comes along presently and says, 'What a marvellous thing, what a lovely thing that was', and then pursues it, that becomes pleasure.

So, what we are learning together is, a mind that is aware of all this, aware of the significance of thought and that has learnt the absolute necessity of thought as measurement coming totally to an end. You see pleasure is not love. If pleasure is love then it is the product of thought, then love is something separate. I love you but I hate everybody else, or I tolerate everybody else. So one begins to learn that love is not pleasure. That is a marvellous thing to learn and there is great depth of beauty in that.

Now, what time is it, sir? Now we can discuss something together, ask questions?

Questioner: (Inaudible)

Krishnamurti: What is the place of will, decision, in life, if thought is an impediment. That is right, sir? We do not say thought is an impediment. Thought is necessary. To communicate with you in English, thought is necessary. I have learnt English, there is the memory of it and I use that memory to convey what I am thinking. So thought as knowledge is absolutely essential, otherwise you couldn't function. Therefore we do not say thought is detrimental. On the contrary, thought has its right place but that right place is misused where there is no freedom from thought. The two must go together harmoniously. That's all.

Now what is the place of will, decision, in life? When you see something very clearly is there action of will? It is only a mind that is confused, uncertain, unclear that uses the will as a means of action. Please, we all do this. We exercise our will only when we are confused, when we are not clear. When the mind is clear what is the need of will? I wonder if you see this.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Sir, let's finish this question if you don't mind, and then come back to your question.

You know, we substitute our will to the national will, or to the will of the community, will of the society, will of the priest or will of the idea of god - 'Thy will be done'. Please see the implication of all this. Whereas the mind that is not confused, what is the necessity of will at all? If you see something clearly you act, there is not an interval between perception and action, there is no lag of time between seeing and acting. There is the lag of time, space in time, only when you are not sure, when you are not clear, when you are confused, and the action. Then in that gap will is necessary, will being the desire to act in a certain way. I wonder If I see something very clearly it is finished. If I see a poisonous snake, I act - there is no will involved in it. And the same thing: decide, decision, which means choice, doesn't it? Decide between this and that. Why do you have to choose? I choose between two materials, cloth, or two houses or this or that, but psychologically why do you choose at all? Is there such thing as choice psychologically? And there is choice only when psychologically, inwardly I am not clear. When I am not clear then there is choice. Please, I am not laying down this, we are learning together. So there is no need for decision at all. There is only action, not choice in action.

What were you saying, sir?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Have you heard that? I am afraid I haven't heard your question.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Are you different from thought? Which you can use thought - if you are different from thought then you - you - can use thought, but are you different? Or you think you are different and therefore when you think you are different you are still... (laughs)

You know this thing, in Asia they have invented through thought a thing called Atman, the superior self, the supreme self, as you have invented the soul. And they say, 'Allow that superior entity to act. It can only act when all the debris is thrown away. So all that you have to do is to allow that superior entity to come in and work'. I am putting it very crudely and quickly, all the subtleties I am leaving it out. Which is again the invention of thought, because thought sees itself insecure, uncertain, easily changeable and as thought requires, demands security in every form, has invented the superior entity. In that it takes security, but it is still the invention of time, of thought, which is time. So there is no 'me' who is using thought - the 'me' is thought.

Q: May I ask a question? You said if we see a poisonous snake there is instant action, but what happens if you see a snake which is enclosed where you can’t get away from it?

K: What do you do with a snake in a room - right, sir? What do you do with a snake in a room? (Laughter) You can't run away - it all depends what kind of snake it is. (Laughter) Whether it is a human snake or a real snake. If it is a real snake, what do you do? I have been in one, what does one do? You watch it, don't you? (Laughter) No sir, no, no, you are laughing too easily. You watch it and when you watch it you are not afraid. I have been with a rattler in a room and I have watched it, and it watched me. And gradually it found some place to hide and I opened the door and it went out later. You watch it and you establish a communication with animals, then there is no fear.

Q: When a snake is in a room with an eagle.

K: When a snake is in a room with an eagle? A snake in a room with an eagle, and you are there? (Laughter) Do you know what you are talking about?

Q: Fear. The known and the unknown.

K: I see

Q: I can grasp the known fears, the conscious fears and facing them and disposing of them, but the unknown ones, I just can’t grasp this.

K: All right.

Q: How to discover them.

K: How to discover them, how to meet them. The gentleman asks, I can deal with the known fears - I wonder if you can.

Q: I didn’t say that.

K: I know sir, you didn't say that, but I have introduced that factor. (Laughter) It is the unknown fears that I am concerned with, the question is. If I know how to deal with the known fears I shall also know how to deal with the unknown fears. When the unknown fears come I know what to do because I have already learnt with the known fears. Then there is no problem with the unknown fears because I know, I have learnt about the fears I know. I have an insight into them, which means I have the capacity of insight - you understand? - the insight that matters. And when the unknown fears come tomorrow because there is this insight, that insight will answer the unknown fears. But if I have no insight into the known fears I shall not have an insight into the unknown. And there is no division between the known and the unknown. You see, fear is the known, always, fear of the unknown is the product of thought. I am afraid of what might happen tomorrow, and if I have understood the whole movement of thought, the tomorrow is no fear. Come on, sir. You understand? Look sir, tomorrow psychologically, does it exist at all? I would like it to exist because tomorrow is going to be a happy day, I am looking forward to meeting you, I am looking forward to learning something tomorrow.

Q: But the unknown fear I was referring to – the unconscious, the subconscious fears – how do we discover these?

K: I have explained this, sir. Conscious fears you say you can understand, the unconscious fears are maybe one or may be many, it is like a tree that has many branches, many leaves but the root is deeply established in the earth. Our fears are deeply established in the unconscious and we are always trimming the branches. And to get at the root of fear, which means learning about not being. You understand? Learning about not becoming, because we are always wanting to become something, which is part of measurement, which is the movement of thought. Or to be - most people say nowadays, 'I want to be myself' - not society, not all that has been imposed on me, but I want to be myself - what is yourself? Yourself is the result of the society in which you live, or your reaction to that society in which you live, the established order.

So, to be free of the root of fear - the root, not just the branches - one has to go very deeply into this question of becoming and being, because in that there is security. If I become something, in that there is security, or if I say 'I am' - in that also there is security. Right? So the mind is constantly seeking security - please see the importance - in my relationship I am seeking security, in my job I am seeking security, in my ethical, moral, social values I am seeking security, in everything I am seeking the mind is seeking security, because in security it can function, because, you know, you must have security. So the mind seeks security in things that are not secure. Right? In belief there is no security but yet it holds to belief. In an ideology there is no security but yet we are all idealists. We seek security in family, in my wife, in my husband, in companion, and in that there is no security. So, please see this, learn this, that mind seeks security and there is security only in the intelligence that comes out of the realisation of the things that are insecure, therefore security is in intelligence, not in the things that thought has invented. I wonder if you get all this. Then there is no fear, then you have cut at the root of fear.

Q: What about guilt?

K: What about guilt. Do you all feel very guilty?

Q: Yes.

K: About what? One has done something, or not done something and you feel you should have done it and you feel guilty.

Q: I am concerned that you felt nervous this morning (inaudible)

K: Oh madame, I was only partly joking. For heaven's sake don't take all this...

Q: Sir

K: Now let us finish this, sir - guilt. Anxiety, guilt. Do I feel guilty because the psychologists say this is one of the problems of human beings? The angst, you know? The psychologists, the philosophers have said 'Human beings feel guilty'. Is that why I feel guilty? Or do I feel guilty not because somebody else said so, but I feel guilty. I feel guilty as I feel hunger. I have not learnt from others about guilt - please follow all this. I have not learnt from others about guilt, as I have not learnt about hunger from others - it is an actual fact. Right? It is an actual fact that one feels guilty, that is 'what is' - right? That is 'what is'. Now how do you meet that, 'what is'? Please, you understand, we are learning together - put your mind into this. I feel guilty, I haven't learnt that thing from anybody. And I feel guilty and that is a fact, that is 'what is'. Now how does the mind meet 'what is'? Does it resist it? Does it want to go beyond it? Or does it feel ashamed that it should feel guilty? When it feels ashamed, that it wants to go beyond it, that wants to suppress it, that says 'I must understand it', it is actually not meeting 'what is'. Right? You understand? When I want to go beyond it I am not confronted with 'what is'. When I want to suppress it I am not with it. So I must find out how I meet it, how the mind, which feels guilty, meets what is called guilty. Can you meet it without any reservation, without wanting, without condemning it, wanting to go beyond it, just to meet it as it is? Now, is guilt a word? And when you say 'I feel guilty', you are establishing or strengthening by the use of that word, and relating it to the past in which you have felt guilty. You follow all this? We are meeting each other? I feel guilty and I use the word 'guilt'. When I have used that word 'guilt', I have strengthened the memory which has had guilt feeling before. By naming it I have strengthened it. Can I look at it without the word? Go on please. Then is there guilt? So, what we do is meet guilt, which we feel, according to the old pattern, the mind that has had guilt meets guilt, therefore it doesn't meet it afresh, it meets it with the old habits, and therefore it cannot go beyond it. You have understood?

Q: I’d like to ask, at the beginning of your talk you spoke of the fragmentation that exists in society...

K: And in us.

Q: ...and in ourselves, yes. And you said that you tried to resolve this fragmentation but finally you have to rise above these and see them as one.

K: No. Not see them as one. I said there is this fragmentation, and this fragmentation is created by thought. Right? You must be clear on that.

Q: But the point is that you found you were not able to reconcile them in a material way but you had to, through a change in perspective

K: Change in consciousness, change in dimension.

Q: Yes. Well I am wondering to what extent are these things – well let’s say how different are the aims of religion, of the family, of science and education? I think probably they are aiming at the same goal and I am wondering in the future how this can work itself out in the material realm. It will of course require a change in consciousness of many individuals. But how possible is it to and what change would come about in each of these institutions? Would they be necessary any longer?

K: Sir, you are asking about the future. We are talking of the present - now. If you, who are listening, who are trying to learn who are learning, if you don't change your conscious now, you don't change radically, how can you expect what the future will be? It will go on what it has been. And if you, as a human being, change the whole content of your consciousness you may create a totally different kind of culture.