It seems to me that we never actually observe what is taking place. To know what is exactly taking place is a great revelation. To see exactly, accurately, what is going on, both in the outside world, technologically, politically, as far as we can know politically, and observe in ourselves the actual movement of thought, our responses, the motives. We are so unfamiliar with ourselves. And all our dialogues and talks have been to bring about a transformation - we are using the word 'transformation' correctly, an inward revolution - psychological, so that human beings are really different, basically, not carry on the same old way, same old routine, boredom, loneliness, suffering and all the rest of it. So it is very important, it seems to me, to observe accurately, correctly, rightly, what is going on. And if we can so observe, I think we will learn enormously, we will discover so many things. But when we observe we generally don't like what we see, or like what we see, so we run away from it. Whereas if we could stay with what actually is going on, not imaginatively, or in any way suppress it, but observe it meticulously. Then we will find out for ourselves an extraordinary lot of things.

So after saying that, what shall we have a dialogue about this morning? - bearing in mind that a dialogue means conversation between two friends who are concerned with the same problem, who are interested, deeply involved, and therefore a certain affection, care, hesitation in enquiry.

Q: Can we talk about judgement?

K: Could we talk about attachment.

Q: Judgement.

K: Judgement. I beg your pardon. Because we are always judging ourselves. That is one of the questions.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: (Repeating) What are emotions?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: (Repeating) What does it mean to behave?

Q: Can we talk about death and dying?

K: Death and dying.

Q: (In Italian)

K: The gentleman asks in Italian, forgive me if I do not put it rightly, correct me. He asks, it is not only that we cry when someone whom we like dies, for ourselves, but also what happens to the other person, what is involved in death with regard to the other person. Even our tears may be for that person.

Q: What prevents observation.

K: What prevents observation? Do circumstances, relationship, all the impingement of the outer environment, does that prevent observation - is that your question, sir?

Now what shall we discuss? Just a minute. We have asked several questions: your question, which is, why we are always judging, and so we never observe accurately ourselves. Before we even look at ourselves there is always a judgement taking place? That is one of the questions. The other question was: would you talk about death? And behaviour, what do you mean by behaviour? And we cry, not only for ourselves when there is a death of someone whom we like or love, but also we cry for that person also, so there is this tremendous sense of sorrow, not only for the one that is gone, but also for oneself. So what shall we discuss or have a dialogue about among these questions?

Q: Judgement.

K: Judgement.

Q: Death.

K: Death. Do you want to talk about death - really?

Q: No, judgement.

K: Judgement. We will begin with that, judgement, and go on to the other questions. Because that is very important because we are going to find out whether we judge death, or see it as it is. We will come to that.

The question is: why human beings always judge, or condemn, or approve, or accept, why is there this constant movement of appreciation or depreciation - why is there this state? That is the question. Why do you think you judge? It is our tradition, partly, isn't it? You are brought up from childhood to judge, to evaluate. Right? This is good, this is bad, this is right, this is wrong, this should be, this should not be, I am not good, I am bad, all the rest of it, this constant repetition of judgement. Is that an avoidance of facing oneself? You understand my question? I project judgement over everything - politics, economics, religion, god, no god, about everything - and projecting that I hide myself from myself. It is like a smoke screen I throw out and behind that I refuse to look. Is that one of the factors? And is it another factor that it is much easier to judge? Judgement being opinion, prejudice, or previous knowledge, and that reaction to previous knowledge is almost instantaneous, and so it is much easier to judge than to withhold judgement, and observe, which becomes much more difficult.

So is it an avoidance, and an escape from looking exactly at 'what is'? And judgement in religious matters is tremendously potent because all religions judge. When you die there is an entity who is going to judge you. You know the Greek idea. All this is a form of judgement about you. When you go to appear at the gate of St. Peter then he is going to judge you, and so on and on and on. Is that part of our great tradition - religious, social, and also partly avoiding to observe what is actually going on?

If some of these are the facts, and perhaps more, is it possible not to judge at all but to observe? I like that red shirt, or I don't like that red shirt. But without that reaction, just to observe. Then I learn much more, I see that colour totally differently. I don't know if you have noticed this.

So in behaviour - that gentleman asked the question, what is behaviour - what place has judgement in behaviour? You understand? One judges behaviour according to a traditional pattern - I get up when the ladies come in, open the door for the ladies, this or that, various forms of behaviour. Now what relationship is judgement to behaviour? You understand what I'm saying? You understand my question? And what is behaviour - to behave. To act really, isn't it? To act in my relationship with another, or with my friend, so on, so on. In relationship to act. Now to act rightly, correctly, accurately, which is not judgement, is it? I wonder if you see that. We say behaviour is action. Right? Of course. Is that action based on judgement? Or is it accurate, correct, right? I am using those three words which have the same meaning. So when we use the word 'accurate', is that accuracy based on previous memories, previous activities, previous patterns, and then judge my action - right or wrong, good or bad? Or in correct action there is no judgement. I am finding something.

What is correct action? Can I say previously, before the act takes place, 'This is correct action, this is the wrong action'? You understand my question? Are we meeting each other? I want to find out, as a human being living in this world, what is correct action - politically, religiously, you know, in every way, in all directions, completely. Now how am I to find out what is correct action? First I must enquire if it is based on judgement - judgement of others, or a judgement which I am going to impose on my action according to the pattern which I have developed. So is correct action based on a judgement of others, or on my own judgement based on experience, knowledge, and all the rest of it? You understand? Are we meeting? Yes? Am I acting because of environment correctly? Or am I acting correctly because I have previous patterns of behaviour? Or is action independent of both? Action means the doing now. Right? The doing now, active present, isn't it? The verb, to act. And acting is the moment of action. If that action is based on the future - ideals, hope, judgement - then it is not acting. Right? Or if that action is based on my previous conclusion, it is not acting. Right? If I act according to the past it is not action. Or if I act according to the future it is not action. Action being the active present of that verb to act. Right? Action is only in the present. So where does judgement take place? You understand my question? If I am acting without the pattern of the future or the past, then it is complete action. You may say, that is wrong action, or another may say it is right, but it is action. I wonder if I am making this clear. So behaviour is not based on the past pattern, or a future ideal. It is acting now, whatever that action be, in the present. And please see the importance of this. If there is no pattern of the future, according to which I am acting, or a pattern of the past according to which I am acting, then I am acting without motive, without the idea of a reward or punishment. So acting is now. So where action is in the present, free from the past and the future, it is right action. I wonder if you have got it - have you understood it, sir? Have I conveyed something?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Yes, on criteria, yes, patterns, yes. That's what we've said. So we have answered those two questions: judgement and behaviour.

And then there is the question of death - do you want to discuss that?

Q: There is also the question of emotion.

K: Quite right. What is emotion? What is the relationship of emotion to thought? Is emotion independent of thought? Or is thought part of emotion? Emotion, what does that mean, the word itself?

Q: To move out.

K: To move out. It comes from the word motion, motive, and emotive, out. Now, just a minute. I am asking: is emotion, feeling, sentiment, sensation, have they any relationship to thought? Sentiment, emotionalism, romanticism, what is their relationship to thought? And emotion, sentiment, romanticism, what relationship have they to love? You understand my two questions? Which is, the relationship to thought and the relationship to love.

Is love sentiment? Is love romanticism? Is love a sensation? Right? So what is emotion, to move out? I feel very strongly about something. What does that imply? You feel something very strongly about what - Hinduism, it doesn't matter what, or communism, or dictatorship. Let's call it, not communism, dictatorship. Communism is becoming now bourgeois! (Laughter) So we can carry on. Have you emotions? Now what is its relationship to thought? Wait, wait. Go carefully, carefully.

Q: It’s without relation to thought.

K: That's what I am going to answer, find out. Don't categorise, let's play with it. If there was no thought would you have emotion? Or you would have sensation. So we are asking, what is the relationship between thought and emotion? I see something very beautiful: perception, seeing, contact, sensation, desire, then thought. And thought builds the image, which is established. Right? So there is perception, seeing, then contact, sensation. If thought doesn't interfere there, it stops there, then there is only sensation. I wonder if you are meeting my point. Please don't accept this, I may be totally wrong, so examine it, investigate it, question it.

That is, I see something which is most pleasurable. The seeing awakens the senses - right? - all the senses are awakened, and can it stop there and not allow desire, thought, image? You follow what I'm saying? Then is emotion merely sensation, untouched by thought? Therefore it is no longer a movement of desire. Have you understood? It is fairly simple. I see a beautiful - what? Tell me something.

Q: Woman.

K: Woman? (Laughter) Ah, I thought so. You all love that, don't you? There is the perception of a beautiful woman. Religions have condemned desire because by perceiving that woman, seeing that woman, all the sensations arise, then thought comes in, the image is formed, and the battle begins. Right? So throughout the world the religious monks have said, cut out desire, suppress it, control it, don't look at a woman. Right? I don't know if you have walked behind any priests, or any group of monks. If you have, you would notice this - they look and promptly look away. (Laughter) Because they daren't, the whole tradition says, suppress it, deny it. But what we are saying is something entirely different. Seeing that beautiful woman or a man, sensations awaken, which is natural, and to stop there, not let thought come in, then the desire begins, then the image-making begins. You follow? You understand? You try it, do it some time and you will see the extraordinary discipline it demands. You follow? Discipline in the sense not imposing a pattern, but the act of learning, which is discipline. You understand? The seeing of a beauty, the sensations arising, and withering away. They do not wither away when thought comes in, then desire begins and all the problems. You follow? Right.

So let's move to now, if you want to discuss death. It is an immense problem this, you understand? Do you really want to go into it?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: His question is localised, a particular question, which is: when there are tears when somebody dies whom you like, or love, those tears are directed towards that person and towards oneself - or oneself. Oneself and the other. That is a particular question which we will come to in the course of the dialogue about death.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Some people have noticed, the questioner says, that at the moment of death there is a smile on the face of the person who is dying - some of the cases. Some other people die with great agony, in accident, old age, crippled, unconscious, and then perhaps the smile doesn't come in. Or, as the gentleman says, sometimes it happens there is a smile on the face of the person who is dying. What is the significance of that smile? That is the question.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: (Repeating) What is the difference between fear, sorrow and happiness.

Do we want to discuss that question?

Q: Could we first discuss death?

K: Could we first discuss death and then that question afterwards? Is that all right, sir?

So we are going to have a dialogue about death - dialogue being a conversation, an enquiry between two friends, between two people, or a few people who are really concerned about it, not theoretically, who actually want to find out. So we are enquiring, we are not dogmatically stating anything, we are enquiring. And when we enquire rightly then we discover the truth of it, you understand? To enquire correctly there must be freedom. Right? If I am afraid of death then I can't enquire because that fear is going to warp my investigation. Right? Is that clear? Or if I have a belief about death and after life, that too distorts investigation.

So to investigate about a human problem, as death, which is very complex, there must be freedom to look. And you cannot observe, or investigate if there is any kind of prejudice, belief, hope, fear. Therefore are you prepared for that? You understand my question? That to enquire very seriously there must be no prejudice - otherwise it distorts, no fear, no desire for comfort, hope, none of it. The mind must be completely empty to look. Right? That is the first thing to have to find out about something.

First of all, every human being has a desire for continuity. Right? Every human being. The ancient Egyptians did it in one way, and the modern people do it in another way - they bury them, or incinerate them, or in incinerating they hope something will continue. So there is this solid demand on the part of every human being that there must be some kind of continuity. Right? It is there in you, isn't there? Look at it. So what is it that continues? Is there anything that continues? Is there anything permanent? Or everything is impermanent. You understand my question? So I must find that out. Before I can go into the question of death I must first find out, a human being, you, or a human being must find out if there is anything permanent that continues. Continuity implies permanency. Right? Now is there anything in you as a human being that has a continuity?

Q: There is a desire for continuing.

K: No, sir, careful. No, apart from desire, apart from it, is there anything permanent? Permanent being continuous, which is a movement without an end. You understand?

Q: Maybe.

K: No, not maybe. First look at it. There is the desire for continuity - desire being, we said very carefully, sensation, plus thought is desire and the desire creates the image. See the sequence of it. Sensation, thought, desire, the image-making. Apart from desire is there something that is permanent, which means time doesn't touch it? That is what we mean by permanent. Time will not change it. And therefore it is a movement, continuous. So is there anything in a human being which is permanent?

Q: What is the psyche?

K: What is the psyche. We will come to that, madame. Look, you put a question and hope Please, don't put questions which are not related actually to what we are discussing. Please, I beg of you because you are not paying attention then to what we are saying. We will include the psyche and all that presently. But this is what we are asking: is there anything permanent in human beings?

Q: Continuity implies time.

K: That's right, sir. Continuity means time, and also it means there is no time. If it is continuous from the beginning to the - never ending, it is beyond time. Just a minute. I don't want to investigate that yet. Is there anything in a human being, in you, in me, that is permanent?

Q: There is a feeling of existence, of the self.

K: There is the feeling of existence, there is the feeling of the self. The self and the feeling of living, from childhood till you die. Existence, the feeling of living. So what is the 'I'? He said the 'I' is permanent - somebody said that. So what is the 'I', the 'me', the psyche, the personality, what is that? Please, be serious, don't fiddle with this thing, because it is much too serious if you really want to go into this question.

Q: Thought as memory.

K: You are saying, thought as memory. Are you repeating this because you have heard somebody say it, or is it a truth to you?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Please, sir, do listen carefully. We are having a conversation, or enquiring into what is the 'I' - the 'I' being the feeling that you are living, that you are existing. Then what is that 'I'? Is that 'I' permanent? The ancient Hindus laid down that that 'I' is evolving, life after life, till it reaches perfection, which is the highest principle, Brahman. So that 'I' has a continuity till it makes itself perfect and is absorbed into the highest principle. That is the idea of reincarnation - re-incarnating. Please listen to that word - re-incarnating. That is, born over again. Now we are asking, what is that 'I'? Is that 'I' permanent? Don't repeat something which you do not yourself find. Then you are merely repeating what somebody else has said, that is of no value. Is that 'I' permanent? Which means, what is that 'I'? How does it come into being? Is it a spiritual entity, therefore continuing, or is it a momentary affair, in a flux, in constant change? You understand? Is it - the essence - a spiritual thing which is a non-material process? Or is it a material process? Material process being, thought as being matter, it has built through various incidents, accidents, impressions, impingement of environment, family, name, all that is a material process put together by thought, and thought says, 'I am different from thought'. You are following all this? So the 'I' and thought have separated themselves and said, 'Thought will go on, my thought will go on'. Right?

So you have to find out for yourself, in this enquiry about death, if there is anything permanent, or everything is in movement, everything, both the material process and the idea that you are a spirit, both are in constant movement - movement being time, time being from here to there, chronologically, time also being the cultivation of the psyche. Movement. So - you understand? - is there anything permanent, or everything in a human being is undergoing change?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: He says, we are something permanent. Which is, there are certain moments in life when there is a realisation or a happening that is beyond time. That happening is permanent. That is what the gentleman says. When that thing happens, if it has become a memory...

Q: It isn’t a memory, sir.

K: Wait, listen to it, sir. I said 'if'. If it has become a memory then it is a material process, and you can call that permanent. Or if it happens, that extraordinary state of timelessness, and if it is not a memory, the question then is, will it continue? You understand? Just let us finish, keep your question, sir. That is, you have an experience of something - I won't use even the word 'experience' - there is a happening of something which is beyond time. When it is not registered as memory then it still remains beyond time: the moment it is registered it is made of time. That is simple. Then is that happening a continuous thing? Or does it end? If it is continuous then it is of time. Please, I have gone into this very carefully because we are going to go into something which requires great attention, real sensitivity to find out. We are saying, asking, is there something permanent? It is for you to answer it.

Q: We want something to be permanent.

K: We want something to be permanent. There is the desire to have permanency - my permanent house, my permanent name, my permanent form - you follow? - the memories, the attachment, we want everything permanent. All insurance is based on permanency. Right? So, just a minute, sir, we have to find out for ourselves if there is anything permanent.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: No, no, sir. Do look, please. You see, for myself there is nothing permanent. I am not imposing this onto you. Nothing permanent. Then what is death? You understand? If there is a continuity of the 'me', the 'me' putting its structure, put together by thought, thought being the word, the word being the name, the name being attached to the form. The name, the form of the body, the organism, and the whole structure of the psyche is put together by thought, obviously. Do you see that? Or do you say, 'No, no, there is something much more spiritual behind that'? If there is something much more spiritual behind that, and if you say that exists, it is still part of thought. You understand? If you say, that behind this veil of time - which is a good expression - veil of time there is something utterly timeless, then you have recognised it. Right? If you have recognised it, it is part of your memory, if it is memory it is a material process of thought. Either that something behind the veil is real, true, therefore unthinkable. Right? So you don't know. But when you assert there is something spiritual, a spiritual essence, you have already contaminated it, therefore it is no longer spiritual. Grasp this once and you will see. You see this is an old trick among a great many Hindus that there is god within you, Brahman is within you, and all that you have to do is peel off, like onion skin. You understand? That is, you have established by thought god in you, or the Brahman in you, and then thought says, 'I must get at it, therefore let me operate'. You follow?

So if all thought is a material process, and whatever it has put together is still a material process, even though it says, there is a permanent 'me', it is still part of the structure of thought. Then what is an ending, which is death? You understand? I wonder if you are following all this.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Just listen to it, sir, look at it, you don't answer me. Look at it first, look, before you answer it. As most of us desire continuity and therefore are frightened of death, then what takes place when there is an ending called death? You understand?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Yes, sir. We said, sir, that everything is in movement, and I said when there is an ending - look, let me put it very simply: I desire to continue, that's my hope, that's my longing - I don't, but I am just taking that as an example, as a human being. An ordinary human being, he says, 'I must continue, I am frightened of death', but there is an ending. I die. I may not want to die. I may cry at death, I may fight against death, that is inevitable. Right? So I am saying, when there is the desire for continuity and there is an ending, then what takes place? You understand my question? Are you getting tired?

There is the death of the organism, and death of the psyche. They are interrelated, psychosomatic, all that business. So I am asking, a man who says, 'I must continue, I want to continue, it's my life, for god's sake, help me, because my one desire is to continue.' And I am asking, all right, my friend, what happens when that end comes, which is inevitable? Either that end through accident, through disease, through all kinds of endings, what happens? So to find out what happens you must investigate if the psyche, the 'me', is a permanent thing, or impermanent thing. If it is impermanent then the ending - what happens?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Please, don't answer, just look at it, find out from your guts! This is tremendously important because man says, I must find immortality. You understand? The ancient Egyptians found immortality in the tombs through a continuity of their daily life eternally. If you have looked at the Egyptian tombs and read about them, that is their desire, that they must continue for the next thousand years, or million years because the Nile valley was protected - desert on both sides, and therefore that Nile valley gave them a sense of permanency, and that permanency translated as, continuous life. You can read about it, or if you are interested you can look at it. And the ancient Hindus said, the self, though it is impermanent, must continue till it reaches the perfect principle, the highest principle, which is Brahman. Or they said, there is god in you, and through various incarnations you will make that ego perfect till it reaches the highest principle. You follow? And the Christians have their own way of resurrection and all the rest of it.

Now I want to find out, as a human being, though my desire is for continuity, I know there is inevitably death - inevitably, whether you like it or not, it is there. And I say to myself, what happens when there is an ending?

Q: It is a great shock.

K: Great shock. That's not my question, please. We will discuss it in a different way, just a minute. You are not answering my question because you are not facing it, you are not looking at it, not putting your teeth into it to find out.

I want to continue, that is my hope, my desire, my longing. I have continued for eighty years with my family, with my furniture, with my books, with all the things which I have collected for eighty years and please give me another thousand years with the same things. But death comes along and says, 'No, my friend, you are going to die' - what happens after that? You follow my question? I desire a continuity - human beings desire a continuity and there is an ending. Continuity being all that human mind has collected - knowledge, things, ideas, attachments, all the things human beings have collected - property, things and ideas, beliefs, gods, all that, I want that to continue for the rest of eternity. But death comes and says, 'End it'. So I am asking, what is it that ends?

Q: The psyche.

Q: The self.

K: Are you sure? Sir, be careful, sir, don't just speculate. I really don't like to discuss this, or go into it with many people because they are not serious. This demands great seriousness, not just verbalising all the time. I said, the desire comes into being through sensation and thought; then thought, which is desire, has a name, as K, the form of K, and there is all the content of my consciousness, which has been put together by thought, that I want to continue. I want thought with all its content, with all the attachments, with all the pain, with all the suffering, with all the misery and confusion, that I want to continue.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: When the physical body dies, the material process which is the brain structure, which is the thought process, dies. You understand? I wonder if you see this.

Q: (Inaudible) One of the difficulties

K: Please, for god's that's why I don't want to!

Q: This is the problem of self. My brain dies but the content of my consciousness

K: Sir, I am the world, and the world is me. That is a fact. Right? The world is me, not as an idea, not as a theory, but an actuality. You understand? If I put in a pin there is pain, as real as that, that I am the world and the world is me. The 'me' is put together by thought. It is a material process. Thought is matter, a material process, because it is the response of memory which is stored in the brain as knowledge, and so when that brain dies the material process dies. Right? Then what takes place? You understand my question?

Q: The material process dies.

K: Oh my god! Madame, if I may point out without being rude, when you say the material process dies, have you died to that now? Not when death comes. You understand, sir? I'll show it to you.

I am the world, and the world is me. My consciousness is the consciousness of the world. The content of my consciousness is the content of the consciousness of the world. And that content is put together by thought - my furniture, my name, my family, my bank account, my belief, dogmas, all that is in that consciousness, which is the world's consciousness. Unless you see that you can't go further into what we are enquiring. Then that consciousness, which is a material process, comes to an end, because the organism collapses through disease, accident and so on, so the brain decays and so the thought process comes to an end. Right? So the thought process which has put together the ego, the 'me', has come to an end. Ah, you don't accept that. So I say, is it possible to die now to everything that thought has put together as consciousness, which is me, and me, the world. You understand my question? I wonder if you do.

Q: We can’t accept what you say, that is annihilation.

K: We're going to find out. He says, we can't accept that because it means total annihilation. That we can't accept. Why not, if that is truth? That's why you want something permanent, you want something that will be endless, which is yourself, with all your miseries, all that business. So I say to myself - please listen - as I am the world and the world is me, my consciousness is the consciousness of the world, and all that content of that consciousness which makes up consciousness is put together by thought - beliefs, dogmas, rituals, everything is put together by thought. Now I say to myself, can all that die now, not fifty years later, now? Which means can that content empty itself now? You understand my question? That is, death is now, not fifty years later.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Wait, I'm saying that, sir. When you die your body withers away and your brain ends. And all the content of your consciousness cannot continue as it is, because it is thought process. So I am asking myself, and you - I am asking you - not myself - I am asking you as a human being, seeing the reason of all this, the reason, the logic, and therefore going beyond logic, the truth of it, that is, you are the world and the world is you, and your consciousness is the consciousness of the world. I don't know if you see that. And when you see that, have an insight into that, then the things that have been put together by thought, can all that come to an end, not fifty years later, but now? You understand the question? Have you understood my question? No, this is why No, this is only Please, I cant Please, this is dreadfully serious.

Look sir, part of my consciousness is, I believe - belief is part of my consciousness. Right through the world they believe in something. Right? God, I believe in perfect state, I believe in my experience, I believe in god, I believe in Jesus, I believe in Buddha - I believe, which therefore is a common factor for man. That belief is put together by thought, which is a material process. Can you end that belief now, as you are going to do when you die? You follow my question? To end your belief in something completely, and see what takes place. Not say, I am frightened to drop my belief, because belief gives me tremendous security. Look, you are seeking security in an illusion, therefore it is no security at all. So can you die to that now? Then only you can answer what comes next. But before you can answer what comes next you must act. Which is: words are not action, theories are not action, but when there is this perception that belief is one of the most common factors of human desire, which is, they find in belief great strength - I believe in god, that gives me tremendous strength. It may be an illusion, and it is because it is put together by thought. So can I die to that?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: I said that sir. I said that, sir, I said that. Do you see that's why you can't So can you die to that belief, to belief, not to a particular belief, to belief? And as most people have ideals, and it is one of the most extraordinary phenomena in the world that wherever you go every human being has ideals - ideal something or the other, it doesn't matter what it is, noble, ignoble, actual, illusion, and so on. Now ideals are obviously put together by thought, it is a material process in opposite to what I am. So can you die to that?

And unless you die to that, you cannot possibly answer the next. And we want to find out the next before we die. That's what we are clinging to, you understand? If that can be told, verbalised and then made common, you will all believe in that. It becomes vulgar - I am using the word 'vulgar' in the ordinary sense, common, not insulting it, derogatory. Then it becomes a belief and we are all happy. But to die not knowing - you understand? Sir, you don't understand.

So we are only dealing with facts, not with theories, not with projected ideas, comforting or ennobling, but we are dealing with actual facts of daily life. Our daily life is made up of things put together by thought. Thought is a material process.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: I know what you are talking, I understand sir.[ He is talking about ectoplasm, that is quite a different problem, you're not

Look sir, let me put it round the other way. A human being doesn't end his sorrows, his miseries, his confusion. Then he is like the rest of the world. Right? He dies, but sorrow, confusion, misery as a vast field goes on. You understand this? This is a fact. Like a vast volume of water in a great river there is this immense sorrow of man. For god's sake, you don't see all this! There is such violence, hatred, jealousy. That is the vast stream. And we human beings are part of that stream. Unless I die to that stream it will go on, the stream will go on, which is the world. You understand? So the man who steps out of the stream, or the human being who steps out of the stream, shall know what is beyond 'what is'. But as long as you remain in that stream, one foot in and one foot out, playing, which most of us do, you will never find out what is beyond death. Which means one must die to everything without hope. You understand all this? That is one of the most difficult things. I believe Dante in his Inferno said, 'Lose all hope before you enter' - it is not that kind of hope, we are not entering into Inferno. But a man who dies to everything will know what is eternal. You understand?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Sir, that is just a That's why I don't want to discuss with you people - you go back into theories. Sir, you understand?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Look, you see sir, please. I've understood. You know it is one of the most difficult things to talk or discuss or go into things with tremendous attention right to the end. Only very few people can do it. This is a subject that demands all your attention, not verbalisation, theories and all that but continuous attention. And few can do this, few want to do this, they can do it but they are too lazy, too uninterested. If you are really captivated, caught by this, wanting to find out, you will give complete attention, therefore no words but constant - you follow? - pushing, pushing, pushing, not knowing where you are going. And that is death. When you die there is an ending to everything that you know. So can you not die now to everything that you know? You follow? So then you will find out for yourself what is truth in which there is no illusion, no truth is nothing personal, it is not my truth or your truth, it is truth.