I am sorry to sit on a platform, but sitting on a platform doesn't give him any authority - just for convenience.

First of all, if I may point out, the speaker- the speaker, in no way is he instructing you or trying to convince you of anything - to any belief, to any ideal, to any conclusion. But we are talking over together the many human problems. Human problems are common throughout the world - it is not specially restricted to this country. The human problems are very complex and needs a great deal of study, understanding and enquiry. And together, you and the speaker, are going to examine freely, objectively, without any personal bias, into what is happening in the world. Together - you are not merely listening to a series of talks, just a verbal communication, but rather that together these four days we are going to look very carefully, objectively, into the society in which we live, the politics, the corruption throughout the world, and more so in this country, and into all the religious superstitions - mostly gibberish nonsense. And together let us look into it.

You are not just listening to the speaker, translating some words, some ideas, but what the speaker is saying is talking about you as a human being, not as an Indian, but as an human being who is going through a great deal of trouble, who is unhappy, miserable - you know all that is going on in this world, ridden with sorrow, anxiety, loneliness, a sense of utter despair when you observe all this. That is the condition of human beings right throughout the world, whether you go to America, Europe, or even Russia or China, this is the state of man. And we are together looking at it, examining it, not from any particular point of view or from any conclusion or ideal. We are looking at things as they are, what is going on. Not what should happen, which is nonsense, that is just a supposition, an ideal, but examine exactly what is going on: that which is, not that which should be, because that which should be has no meaning, because 'what is' must be transformed, must be changed, must bring about a radical transformation. That is what we are concerned - not with ideals, not with beliefs, not with some religious conclusions, but we are together going to examine the whole human problem.

That is the first statement I would like to make: that together we are going to examine. And what the speaker is saying is a description, is a verbal communication, a statement of what is going on, which probably most people know, but it must be stated. And how you translate what you see depends upon one's conditioning, it depends on one's opinions, or historical conclusions. If one could put aside all those conclusions, opinions, evaluations, but just to observe, as you would observe that tree. You can cut down the tree but just to see it as it is.

Let's find out together what we mean by intelligence. According to the dictionary meaning, it is able to collect, recollect, gather a great deal of information about any subject, or about one's own life, and after gathering all the information as possible, objectively, not merely subjectively, but from the outside move inwardly, and to be able after having gathered all this objective as well as inward information, to act skilfully on that is intelligence. That is, look at the world as it is: the wars, the gathering of instruments of war, the atom bomb, the neutron bombs, which all the scientists throughout the world are sustaining it, multiplying it, encouraging it. All the people who are against it - 250,000 people have just met in Europe to demonstrate against this neutron bombs. And on the other hand, you have all the countries encouraging neutron bombs. So they are all preparing for war because of nationalism, which is really glorified tribalism, the economic division, the political corruption - not only in this country, this is the state all over the world, perhaps it is more so in this unfortunate country. And there is tremendous religious division - the Catholic group, the Protestant group, the Hindu group, the Chinese, and so on - this constant division, not only socially but family against family.

This is the state of the world. Neither the politicians nor the scientists nor the philosophers nor the economic experts have been able to solve our human condition. This is also an obvious fact. And we always have looked for leaders; a great statesman, or a great religious leader, or expert in economics who will save us all from our misery. And all the leaders throughout the world have led us where we are. And I don't see why we depend on leaders at all. Do please consider what the speaker is saying. Don't just reject it. Let us together find out what to do about all this - not theoretically, not as some idealistic conclusion according to which one will act, but taking things as they are: the national, religious, sectarian, the absurd divisions that's going on throughout the world; the conflict between each other, and in ourselves. Not knowing what to do we depend on others, on Upanishads, Gita, or the Bible, or some preacher or some guru, so that we have become incapable of becoming totally responsible for ourselves. We depend on others. That has been one of the miseries in this country. You have had guru after guru, saint after saint - whatever the saints may be, probably neurotic - and we have had political, religious, every kind of leader, and we have blindly or reasonably or satisfactorily followed them. And when you observe all this, we see what we have become - unfortunate, unintelligent, conflict with each other, corruption, preparing for war - for which we are all responsible, because when you buy a stamp, when you telephone, or when you pay a tax we are supporting war. Apparently this country, which has talked a great deal about non-violence - which is nonsense - has bought millions and millions worth of armaments from abroad. And the other part of the world is also preparing the same thing. You understand all this?

So, having described the state of the world, and the state of the world is produced by man, by you, by the speaker, by each one of us, because society is human relationship, not some abstraction, not something that you have to do something out there, but it is a human relationship that has produced this society, this society which is so mad, so corrupt.

So, having described all this, which I am quite sure most of us have also looked at the world with clarity, objectively, then what is one to do? Now - not in ten year's time. What is, as a human being, what is our responsibility? And you can only be responsible totally when you do not depend on politicians, leaders, gurus and all that, when you feel totally responsible for your actions - which we don't. Religiously we have some kind of conclusions - karma. We say, well, past life, or blame environment, or blame the politicians and so on. We never under any circumstances take responsibility so that we act correctly.

Now what shall we do? Will each one of us undertake to be totally honest, absolutely say what you mean and stick to it, be totally integrated. Because if we cannot, we are going to bring about great disaster. Can we face our responsibility? Not theoretically, not in any sense of abstract thinking, but actually will each one of us undertake to be absolutely, deeply, profoundly responsible for all our actions? That is the first thing.

When we listen to each other, as we are doing now, can we undertake for ourselves to live with such integrity that we become incorruptible? Because if we could then a group in this part of the world, or in this part of the country, another group - you understand? - that is the only salvation for this country. Not your present religion, which is nonsense - a mass of superstitions, nonsense. But to have a religious mind, which is totally different from belonging to some religion, to some sect, to have a religious mind. We are going to enquire together what is that religious mind. Because only religion in the right sense of that word - which we will go into presently - it is only religion, not the religion of the Hindus or the Christians or the Buddhists, but the real discovery or the understanding what truth is, which depends on each one of us, not on some so-called enlightened people.

So we are together going to examine what is a religious mind. As we said, only religion - we will explain what that word means presently - only religion has brought about at any historical time a new culture, totally independent of the old superstitious, ritualistic, repetitive nonsense - totally different. And we are going to enquire into that. Religion, the word 'religion' etymologically, that is the root of the the meaning of that word is not very clear. Each one has his own religion, or pretends to have his own religion, or depends on some tradition, some orthodoxy. But the word 'religion' comes from the root 'to bind', to bind oneself to something greater. The greater can be invented by thought, but that's not great. I don't know if you are following all this. To have that sense of diligence to the discovery, or to come upon that which is eternally true, that is really religion. A sense of total dedication, commitment to uncover that which is beyond time, beyond thought - which is not an experience.

So we are going to enquire together whether human beings, you or another, will be able to come upon that truth. Because all our culture is disintegrating throughout the world, degenerating. And the threat of war, the threat of the computer. I do not know if you understand what the computers are doing to our mind - I will go into it. Whether our minds, which includes the brain, whether our brains are capable, as they are now, to discover or come upon something that is timeless.

Are you, if I may ask most respectfully, depending on the speaker to tell you what to do? Or we are capable of thinking out together what to do, what kind of freedom, which is absolutely necessary, to find that which is beyond time.

So we are to enquire first into what is, not only religion, but what is thought, what is thinking. Because all our activities, all our imaginations, all the things written down in the Upanishads, or whatever the religious books are, are put together by thought. The architecture, all the extraordinary technology that is going on in the world, and all the temples and those things that are contained in the temple, whether it is the Hindu temple, the mosque, the church, are the result of thought. All the rituals are invented by thought - the puja, the worship - everything is based on thought. Nobody can deny that. So we are to enquire together what is thinking, what is thought, upon which we depend. All our relationship is based on thought. All our political structure is based on thought. The economic structure is also the result of thought. Our national divisions are the result of thought. You see, we have always enquired about the external things but never asked ourselves what is thinking. What is the root and the consequences of thinking? Not what you think about, but the movement of thinking. Thinking itself, not the result of thinking, or thinking about something, which is different from the enquiry into what is thinking itself. Right? Are we together in this question? Yes?

I wonder if you have ever asked ourselves what is thinking. When you are asked a question which is very familiar the response is immediate. Say, 'What is your name?', you answer it immediately because you have repeated it so often it comes out very quickly. But when you are asked a more complex question you take time, time between the question and the answer. During that time you investigate, you think, you ask, you enquire. Either look at a book or ask somebody, or your own memory, reviving the memory and giving the answer. So there is time interval between the question and the answer. This is obvious. And also when you are asked some question one is never honest to say, 'I don't know'.

So there are these three conditions of thought. That is a familiar, then the time interval between the question and the answer, and to say, 'I don't know'. You don't know about god, do you? You believe in god. I don't know why, but you believe in god. And you have never enquired whether we have not made god; our thinking has made god and if the god exists he must want us to lead a rotten life. Right? You see, we never say, 'I don't know'. That is much more honest, it makes your mind clear. So we have to go into this question of what is thinking, what is thought, the beginning of thought, the movement. If one is at all aware, or observing or enquiring into the nature of thought, to see the first movement of thought. We must be very clear on this point. The description is never the fact. Right? And most of us get stuck in description, in explanations or in commentaries, but never deal with what actually is. Or translate 'what is' into 'what should be'. 'What should be' is never the fact, so the ideal is never the fact, but only 'what is'. We will go into all this presently.

So we first must enquire into what is thinking, which is the central factor of our life. All the business you do, all the worship, the images that thought has created either by the hand or by the mind, which thought then worships. You understand? I wonder if you understand. Are you all going to sleep, or we are together? You understand? Thought has created the image you have put in the temple - temple, church, mosque, whatever it is - thought has created it, invented it. Then thought worships that which it has created. And that, you call that sacred. So we have to enquire whether thought is sacred. Or it is a material process. You understand the difference? Either thought is a material process and therefore whatever it does, whether it creates gods, nirvana, anything it creates beyond its measure is still thought, a material process. Or thought is the only instrument that man has, and whatever it does must be correct. So we are going to enquire into what is thinking. Thinking is common to all mankind. Right? Thought is not my thought - there is only thought. Thought is neither oriental or occidental, East or West, there is only thinking. Right?

Now we will explain what thinking is, but the explanation is not the actual awareness of how thought arises in yourself. I can the speaker can go into it, describe it, explain it, but that explanation is not your own understanding of the origin of thinking. If that is clear, that the description is not your actual discovery, but through explanation, through verbal communication, you yourself discover it, which is far more important than the speaker explaining. Right? Are we clear in this matter?

Sir, the speaker has been accused of collecting a lot of teaching. He has written a great many books, unfortunately. He has talked a great deal throughout the world for the last sixty years. So they have invented a word called his 'teachings'. (Laughter) Just a minute. The teachings are not something out there in a book. What the teaching is, or are, says, look at yourself, go into yourself, enquire what there is, understand it, go beyond it, and so on. So you are not understanding the teachings but you are understanding yourself. Only the teachings are a means of pointing, explaining, but you have to do, not the teachings but the understanding of yourself. Is that clear? So don't, please, don't try to understand what the speaker is saying, but understand that what he is saying is acting as a mirror in which you are looking at yourself. When you are looking at yourself very carefully then the mirror is not important, you throw it away. Right? So that is what we are doing.

What is thinking? Upon which you all depend - for our livelihood, in our relationship, in our search for something beyond itself. So it is very important to understand the nature of thought. First of all, the speaker has discussed this matter with a great many of the scientists of the West, who have gone into the question of the brain. We are only using a very small part of the whole brain. You can observe this in yourself if you have gone into it, that is part of meditation, to find out for yourself whether the whole brain is operating, or only one part - and a very small part. That is one of the questions. Thought is the response of memory. Memory has been stored through knowledge. Knowledge is gathered through experience. That is, experience, knowledge, memory stored in the brain, then thought, then action. From that action you learn more, that is, accumulate more experience, more knowledge, and so store more memory in the brain, and then act. From that act, learn more. So this whole process is based on this movement: experience, knowledge, memory, thought, action. This is our pattern of living, which is thought. Is that clear? There is no dispute about this. We gather a lot of information through experience or through others who have experienced, stored up this knowledge in our brain, from which thought arises, and action. Man has done this for the last million years - caught in this cycle, which is the movement of thought. Right? And within this area we have choice, we can go within this area from one corner to the other and say, 'This is our choice, this is our movement of freedom', but it is always within this limited area of knowledge. Right? So we are always functioning within the field of the known. Right? And knowledge is always accompanied by ignorance because there is no complete knowledge about anything. Right? So we are always in this contradictory state: knowledge and ignorance. So thought is never thought is incomplete, broken up, for this reason that knowledge can never be complete, so thought is never complete, it is limited, conditioned. And thought has created a thousand problems for us.

So, knowledge is necessary, otherwise you wouldn't be able to go from here to your house. Knowledge is necessary when we are communicating with each other in English, or in Hindi - whatever language it be. Knowledge is necessary to do so many things - to cook, to wash dishes - perhaps none of you wash dishes, probably not - to do any kind of skill, thought is necessary. But psychologically, inwardly, is thought necessary? You understand my question? Please, one must understand this question very deeply. Not what the speaker is saying. The speaker is only indicating; he is acting as a mirror for you to look at yourself, to look and find out the origin, the beginning of thought. And you will see how thought is operating all the time in our life. When we meditate it is thought, when we seek truth it is thought, or the suppression of thought. And who is the suppressor? - which is still thought. And so, man through millennia upon millennia has been caught in this pattern. So in this pattern there is never freedom, because knowledge can never bring freedom, because knowledge is always limited. I wonder if you see all this. And you need absolute freedom to find that which is eternal. Obviously. Freedom from all attachment, which means from all knowledge. I wonder if you see it.

So knowledge has become necessary in a certain direction, and knowledge is the most dangerous thing that we have, inwardly. You understand this? We are now accumulating a great deal of knowledge - about the universe, about the nature of everything - you follow? - scientifically, analytically, archaeologically and so on, so on, we are collecting infinite knowledge. And that knowledge may be preventing us from acting as a total complete human being. So that is one of our problems. That is, the computer, I am sure of which you have heard, can outstrip man in thinking. It can outlearn man. It can correct itself. It can learn to play with master chess players and beat them after fourth game or fifth game. They are now working out - because we have talked with some people who are super experts in this computer business, in California and other places - they are now trying to find out, and they are creating it, it is coming within the next few years, the ultimate intelligent machine. You understand all this? The mother computer can create its son. The son is better than the mother. And the son is still better than the father. So they are now going, inventing, discovering ultimate intelligent machines, which is the computer, which will beat man in every way. It can write music, not like great musicians, it can invent gods, it can invent philosophy. Please don't it is taking place now, not in the future, it is happening now. So if the machine can outstrip man then what is man, what are you? You understand?

You have accumulated a great deal of knowledge. The machine, the computer can have far greater knowledge than anybody. The size of a finger nail can contain the whole of the Encyclopaedia Britannica - whole of it. You understand? So what is man? Man has lived so far by the activity of brain, keeping it active because he has struggled to survive, to accumulate knowledge skilfully to be secure, to have safety. Now the machine is taking all that over, and what are you? The machine, the computer with the robot is building motor cars. The computer tells the robot what to do and the robot does it, turn on the screws or whatever it does. And when the robot makes a mistake the computer corrects it and the robot goes on. You understand all this? So what has become of man? What is the future of man? If the machine can take over all the operations that thought does now, and do it far swifter, learn much more quickly, compete - you follow? - everything that man can do, except of course look at the beautiful evening star alone in the sky and see the beauty of it, the extraordinary quietness, the steadiness, the immensity of that. Of course the computer can't feel all that, but it may. They are working at it furiously.

So what is going to happen to our mind, to our brain? This is part of thinking - please follow all this. Our brains have lived so far by struggling to survive through knowledge. And when the machine takes all that over, what is going to happen to it? There are only two possibilities: either he commits himself totally to entertainment, outwardly - football, sports, every form of demonstration, or religious entertainment, which is going to the temple, you know all that stuff, playing with all that stuff; or he turns inwardly, because the brain has infinite capacity. It is really infinite. That capacity is now used technologically, which the machine is going to take over. That capacity has been in the gathering of information, knowledge - scientific, political, social, religious, you know. And that brain has been occupied. Suddenly that brain's capacity is being taken over by the machine. And that capacity taken over by the machine is going to whither the brain. You understand? If I don't use my arm all the time it will whither. So, if the brain is not being active, working, thinking, which the machine can do far better than the brain can, then what is going to happen to the human brain? Either the entertainment or the enquiry within himself, which is infinite. I hope you understand all this. Right?

So we have said that thought is the expression or the reaction of memory. Memory is the result of knowledge, which is experience. In this cycle man has been caught. In this area it can invent gods, it can - you follow? - anything. And the machine has taken that over. So either I enquire into myself, which is infinite movement, or plunge into entertainment. And most religions are entertainment - all the rituals, the pujas, it is just a form of entertainment. So we have to enquire what is religion. Which is, we have to enquire whether we can put our house in order - our house - you understand? - not the house, the house inside us: the structure, the struggles, the pains, the anxiety, the loneliness, the respiration, the aggression, the suffering, the pain - all that is such tremendous disorder in us. And from that confusion, disorder, we try to bring about order out there - politically, economically, socially, all that, without having order inside. So to expect order out there without order here is impossible. Right? See, please see the logic of it. We want you want in this country, which is degenerating so fast - anarchy, total disorder is there, corruption, bribery, every form of dirty tricks that one can play, from top to bottom, our house which we have created is in total disorder. And we are always asking order out there: please, the politicians, create order. And we are never saying the order must come first here, in our house. And then only will you have order out there. Right?

This is logic - please - simple, sane, intelligent logic. But you see, we never want order here, we want order there. And we have lived that way. All the past generation upon generation has lived that way. We are the result of all the disorders of thousands and thousands of years. And can we bring can there be order in us? And is it possible to bring - not to bring order, but to understand what is disorder? If one understands in the sense realise our disorder, see what its nature is, how it comes about and so on, in the very awareness, in the very comprehension of it, into the very insight of it, comes order. You can't create order when your mind is in disorder. So please follow this a minute, give your attention if you don't mind. We now think order is the opposite of disorder. Right? But if we understand disorder, which is the fact, not order, then the very unravelling of it, the very investigating of it, the tearing it apart to find what disorder is, out of that comes order. Order is not a blueprint, it is a living thing, as disorder is. But they are totally separate. Out of disorder, order is not possible. What is possible is the ending of disorder, then there is perfect order.

So we are going to enquire what is disorder. How does it come about? Why human beings, highly educated, highly technologically capable, has conquered the earth, and the space, done everything most extraordinary, and yet he lives in a total, complete mess in his life. So what is disorder? Go on, sir. Why your own life, if one may take that, why your life is in disorder. What is disorder? Any state of contradiction. Right? Contradiction indicates disorder. Imitation indicates disorder. Conformity is a state of disorder. Right? That is, where there is division between - please listen to this - between 'what is' and 'what should be', is a conflict. Right? Where there is conflict there must be disorder. Like two sets of people calling one Hindus, the other group Muslims, the division must inevitably create disorder. Right? So, there is only disorder, not we are seeking order. You see the difference? I am in disorder - if I am. I don't understand what is order, how can I? So it is out of my perception. I am only concerned with disorder.

Look, I will put it round the other way. In this country you have talked a great deal about non-violence. Right? Right? Of course. You have spread that philosophy all over the world - politically non-violence, etc., etc. Non-violence is an absurd idea, it doesn't exist. What exists actually is violence. And the ideal of non-violence is not a fact. What is fact, what is actual is violence. But we have invented non-violence as an escape from violence. You are following? Please, play with me a little bit, would you? So, when I am pursuing non-violence, when I am actually violence, there is hypocrisy, there is dishonesty, there is lack of integrity. The integrity is to face the fact. Say, 'Yes, I am violent'. Not pretend to eventually become non-violent. If you are saying, 'I will eventually become non-violent', that eventually is the extension of violence. I don't know if you know all this.

So I am only concerned with 'what is', which is violence. Then what is violence? Obviously to physically hurt somebody, physically to attack somebody, you know, anger and all the rest of it. Or violence is a state of contradiction in which I live. Why is there contradiction? Contradiction exists only when I do not accept 'what is' but always wanting to be 'what is not'. So, I have invented duality. I don't know if you follow all this. I am never concerned with 'what is' but I am always concerned with 'what is not'. So I have this ridiculous duality in me. And I preach about duality, talk about duality, and, you know write philosophically, all the rest of it, but the fact is I am violent. That is the only reality. Now what is violence? Not only verbal, not only hurting somebody, war is a violence - it is the greatest disaster that can happen to man, the brutality of it, the terrible things that are taking place when there is a war. And the division between people - Hindus, Muslims, Christian - you follow? - the Arab and the Jew. So where there is division, it's law, there must be conflict. And if I am only dealing with facts, with what is actually happening, there is no duality. I wonder if you understand.

Violence is in the nature of man. He is part of it. It is inherited from the animal, and so on - I won't go into all that. And can there be end to violence in us? That's the end to disorder in us, so that we live in complete total order. Then our society will be in order. It is not the other way round. The communists have tried, saying, create the environment rightly then man will be right. But they have not succeeded. No revolution has succeeded. When they say, change the exterior, laws, the structure of society, all that, but they have never said, 'Is it possible to bring about order in oneself?'. Which means don't follow anybody. You are all followers, second-hand people. Therefore you are always seeking leaders, and you have had a thousand leaders - religious and otherwise. And at the end of all this, where are you? In the same mess as you began. So, can we totally disregard absolutely leaders, and we become the leader ourselves, in ourselves. We are both the teacher and the taught. You understand all this? Which means we are learning, not from somebody, but we are learning, not merely from books - books are nothing, the computer is the complete book - learning from observing, from listening, from seeing the beauty of the earth, seeing the beauty of the trees, the clouds, that single star of an evening, listening to the birds so that we become extraordinarily sensitive.

Now all your religion says, suppress senses - right? - suppress the reaction of the senses. We are saying quite the contrary, which means the awakening of all the senses, not one particular sense, so that there is total reaction of all the senses when you see the tree. When you look at that tree with all your senses there is no centre from which you are looking. When there is a centre, which is the ego, the me, the self, and all that, the super-self, the super-consciousness, it is still the self - when there is that self you cannot look at the beauty of a tree.

So, to bring about naturally, without the effort or search for the order, we must understand what is disorder, which we have gone into slightly. Which is, to understand our relationship, not only to nature - the trees, the rivers, the birds, the relationship to all the beautiful extraordinary world in which we live - but also to understand the relationship between each other, man and woman. Do you understand your relationship with your wife, with your husband? Or your relationship to some extraordinary guru who is rather slightly neurotic. Have you ever looked at your relationship to your children, to your wife, to your husband, to your politicians? Because if we don't understand relationship, that brings about disorder, which is conflict between man and woman or between each other. So we must understand, to have total order in the house - which is, house, not the house, which is the house in which I live all the time, which is myself - if there is no order there, I will never have order with the universe. Because the universe is living in total order. I don't know if you follow all this. The sun rises, sun sets, the seasons, the extraordinary things that are happening in the universe, all without cause and therefore with order.

And we live in disorder because we have causes. The cause is either reward or punishment. That is the basic cause of our life. I will do things when I am rewarded or when I am punished. Right? When the train, engineer or the engine driver arrives two hours or seven hours or ten hours late at every - you know all this - that is disorder. It is utterly totally irresponsible. And nobody says anything to him. But if you frighten him he will become orderly. Or you reward him. Right? If the guru rewards the disciple or punishes, it is the same thing. So we depend on others to bring about order in our life, and that very dependence is disorder. Because we are then not responsible for whatever we are doing. So if we have time - eleven? - we will talk some more and finish it.

We have to go into this question of relationship. The way we live in a family - married, husband, wife, children, their education. I don't know if you realise what is happening in this country about education - getting worse and worse and worse. The so-called educated need education. So we must understand this extraordinary complex problem of human relationship, which is the basis of our disorder. And we try to escape from relationship of any kind by becoming monks, or escape into become a hermit, this or that. We have never resolved this question of relationship in which there must be perfect order. So what is relationship? Come on, sir, think it out. We are talking it over together as two friends. Right? I am not preaching to you, I am not telling you what to do. That would be terrible. But together we are looking at it. Have we relationship with anybody? Or our relationship is like two parallel lines never meeting, except perhaps in bed. So we never our relationship however close, or however intimate, are running like two parallel lines, and therefore there must be conflict. Where there is division there must be conflict. And so our house is in disorder. You may escape to the Himalayas, to a cave, to become a monk, or this or that, but you are always in relationship with something. You can't help it, you can't avoid it, it is there, a part of life. And you can never escape from it. So we have to understand it, go into it, which we are trying to do now.

What is relationship? Can a man, married, can a man pursue his particular ambition, his aggressiveness, his own desires, and she follows her own desires, problems - you follow? - two people running together, separate, parallel, never never meeting - is that relationship? Please sir, go into it, don't sit and answer it, find out. The man goes to the office for ten hours a day, or eight hours a day - think of it! Fifty or sixty years of his life in an office, doing something which he doesn't like, or if he likes he becomes more and more proficient, more and more ambitious, climbing the ladder of success in one direction, comes home and tries to be quiet, gentle. You follow? And the wife pursues her own ambitions, her own ends. You see all this, you see it in every family on earth. And how can there be order in the house?

That is, thought in relationship - please follow - thought in relationship can only bring about disorder, because thought creates the image about her, and she creates image about you. Right? And these two images have relationship, which is just having a relationship in the air somewhere. Now, to see that, to be aware of it, and not create the images. You understand all this? Oh no, you don't - you have never even thought about all these things. You see, sirs, we have become so used to something that is dreadful. We have become used to conflict, we put up with conflict, we have explanations for conflict - quote the Gita, Upanishads, some book or other, but we have never said, 'Can I live completely a life without conflict?' And you can find out the truth of that matter in relationship. Which is never to create an image about her, or her about you. You know that requires - what does it require? You see, you are not even thinking.

Sir, if I say, 'I love you', you create an image about it? Or do you say, 'Why do you love me? Do you want something from me? Do you want my money, my body, my companionship, my encouragement?' Is that love? You are all married, or unmarried, or girl friends or whatever you have. Do you love anybody? That is, to ask from the other person nothing; neither the body nor the emotions, something from her, nor intellectual romantic dependence on each other. So we have to enquire whether love has a cause. If love has a cause then it is not love. Right, sir? I know you agree. You say, 'Yes, quite right', but you don't live it. You see the logic of it, you see the analysis of it, verbally you accept it. But you say, 'Look, let me find out if I can live without a single conflict'. Which can only come about when you don't depend on punishment or reward, if you are absolutely integral, completely honest with oneself. But that is far from most people because we are always wanting something from somebody. The religious people are wanting heaven or whatever it is, through somebody, or sacrifice themselves for something, take vows and all that. They think that is a religious life, to have constant conflict inside, the burning of desire. Sirs, do you realise we are tortured human beings. (Gap) in action, in skill, thought in relationship - thought. Is there is thought love? Oh, you don't ask all these questions.

Now sirs, and ladies, you have heard the speaker for an hour and twenty minutes, or more. What is the actual state of your mind? - now, not tomorrow. Just heard the words, the description, the analysis and the logical conclusion and remained there? Or one has become aware of oneself, aware of one's own condition, and whether you accept that condition - the condition of suffering, pain, sorrow, fear, anxiety and so on. That is our conditioning, whether you are living in India, in this country, or in Europe or in America, that is our conditioning of all human beings. And specially here in this country where there is such disaster, anarchy almost going on, it is our responsibility to see that all this ends in ourselves first, not out there. That we say what we mean, have profound, immovable integrity, so that we can all... some group here can be completely that. Then perhaps we will be able to change the outward structure of society.

Right, sir.

It's a nice spot to sit quietly, isn't it.