What will change a human being?
You are only aware now, or never
1st Public Talk, Saanen
July 11, 1976
What would you like me to talk about?
Audience: Freedom. Memory. Authority. Urgency.
Krishnamurti: I would like to talk about something that might be of general interest. But before we go into it I would like most earnestly to remind you that these talks and discussions are not a form of entertainment. They are not a gathering of people to be amused, intellectually excited, emotionally stirred and all that nonsense. We are very serious people, at least I am. And we are talking on that level. You can either listen most earnestly, or discard, or use some of the things that appeal to you and then discuss it, but words have very little meaning, though they are necessary for communication, words do not transform man, do not radically change man. And we are concerned principally and deeply and primarily with the transformation of man. That is the basis of these discussions and talks. If you are interested in it, not superficially, but deeply, seriously, then we can go into these questions very, very deeply. So it depends on you very much how you listen, at what level you listen, and if you mean business - not financial business - but if you mean seriously to bring about a radical transformation, then we are in communication with each other, then we can meet each other. If you are merely superficial, want to be intellectually or emotionally stirred, then I am afraid we will have very little in common. So if that is really deeply understood right from the beginning, then we can proceed together to investigate our human lives. Is that all right? May we Is that all right for me to go on in that line?
K: First of all I think it is very important to understand what human beings have made, what they have built, what their social structure is, what their behaviour is in this world. What actually is going on. What human beings, you and I, and our parents and grandparents have built; not only technologically, in the world of science, biology, archaeology and all the rest of those sciences, but psychologically, inwardly, which is far more important than the outward activity, because the inward activity generally controls, shapes the outer activity, what man - human being - throughout the world has done. Because I think that is very important to understand; what human beings have created, have built, not only in their relationship with each other, but psychologically, inwardly, their religions, their society, their culture, their wars, their brutality, cruelty, violence and all the rest of it. For perhaps a million years we have lived that way: violence, wars, brutality, in the family, perpetual wrangles - you know all the rest of it that is going on. That is what we have built psychologically. The tribal worship which is called nationalism, the division of churches, the religions, one religion opposed to another religion, all maintaining that they are seeking god, the god which man has projected out of his own image. God has not made man but man has made god. There are national divisions, quarrels, wars, discrimination, and in the cultural society in which we live there is a great deal of violence, terrorism, life has become a great danger. You know all this. Every morning in the papers you read it, the terrible things that are going on.
Who is responsible for all this? Please this is not a rhetorical question, but we have to investigate it. Why has man brought about all this, this horror? You understand my question? What is the basis of it? Unless we ask fundamental questions and try to find not an answer, but the manner of investigating the question, because answers are fairly easy to give, but the answers will be superficial, verbal. But asking the question and investigating the question is quite a different matter. Then it becomes the responsibility of each one of us to find out, as human beings why we live this way, why our society, our culture, our religions, have brought about this present condition; why human beings after having lived for two million, five million, ten million years - I don't know how long - are still going on in the same old way - savagery, complete selfishness, brutality, division, all the rest of it, of which you are quite familiar. And if you ask: is this the result of thought, care, affection, love, of which we talk a great deal?
So we must begin to enquire why man has created this society, this culture, and why we accept it, live with it and not run away from it. We run away from it by forming small communes, or going off to some monastery, or joining some sect, or following some guru, and we think we have solved the whole problem.
So if we can look at all this objectively, sanely, and ask ourselves why - why has man, a human being, created a society, a culture in which we live? Right? So to find that out we must investigate the whole movement of thought. Right? Because our society, our religions, our morality, all our relationship is based on thought. I think there is no question about it. Right? So we have to investigate the whole movement of thought. Thought has not only created the extraordinary technological advancement, but also thought has created wars. Thought has created all the religions in the world, with their images, with their rituals, with their saviours, with their gods - all based on thought. And thought has divided man against man - my country, your country, my god and your god, my belief and your belief, ideals, all that. Right? Thought is responsible for this. Can we see the truth of that, that thought is responsible, and thought says, 'I can solve this problem'. You understand? Please do pay attention, this is your life. We will ask questions afterwards.
Surely your beliefs are the result of your thought. Your churches, your temples, your mosques, your gurus, the whole system of religions is based on thought; thought which has been conditioned by the interpreters that stand between you and what they call god, the priests. Thought has been conditioned heavily for two thousand years - or as in India and other parts of the world, for seven thousand years - conditioned, shaped, and thus bringing about a division. So thought is responsible for all this, apart from the technological world, the world of sanitation, the world of medicine, you know, all that. That also thought has created. Now is this a fact? Or do you think there is something else that has created this extraordinary world? You understand my question? If thought has created this - and there is no question about it - then what is the nature of thought that has brought this about?
Now we will have to go into this very, very carefully, slowly, not be dogmatic, not be assertive, not take sides, but investigate, find out, the movement of thought, and whether thought can be aware of itself, and see its activity. Right? Can thought be aware of itself, what it has done; can thought become aware, conscious of its own movement as time; and can thought become aware that it is a fragment, not a whole? You understand? Is it too hot for a discussion of this kind this morning?
We recognise verbally that thought has built this world, the world, the culture, the religions in which we live, of which we are a part. And so we are asking: what is the nature of thought? Thought itself, not what thought has produced, has brought about, the nature, the structure of thought itself. Is thought comprehensive? Is thought a total movement? Or is thought fragmentary, partial? You understand my question? I hope I am not talking to myself. If thought is fragmentary then whatever it brings about must be fragmentary. If thought is broken up, is the factor of breaking up, then whatever its activity must be fragmentary. Right? Is thought a total movement, or only a partial movement? Right? If thought is a total movement of life then whatever it does will be whole, complete, but if thought is limited, fragmentary, then whatever it does, at whatever level, at whatever depth, must still be fragmentary, limited, time-binding.
So there are these two questions, you understand? Which is: is your thinking partial? Does it cover the whole field of life, not fragmentary, but whole? So let us examine, investigate, first whether thought is fragmentary, limited. Isn't it limited? It thinks it can cover the whole, it thinks it can be complete, sane, rational, holy - it can imagine all those things, but in fact is thought limited and therefore broken up? Now look psychologically into yourself and you will see that thought is very limited. It can think it can go beyond its limitation but it is still limited. Right? It can imagine it can reach god but the god is its own projection. Probably those of you who believe in god won't accept this. So we have to investigate again your belief in god - if you believe in it; or if you don't believe in it, why you don't believe in it. You understand?
Thought demands, needs stability, permanency, security, and thought sees that there is no security in this world. Right? Thought sees everything is in perpetual movement, flux, change; so it projects an idea of what it calls god, there there is security - god is all omnipotent, god is all just, god is all love, god is all you know, all the rest of it. Which are all the activity of thought. Right? So thought is responsible for the gods, for all the churches, for all the temples, for all the mosques, the whole business of it. And thought is fragmentary, as you can see, when it has divided people against people. Right? Nation against nation, me and you, we and they. Right? You are following all this? So thought is in itself fragmentary, therefore it cannot possibly comprehend that which is whole - the word 'whole' implying sanity, complete, a mind that is without any kind of illusion, without fear, and therefore holy.
So what is thought then? Because that is a very important question to ask. If thought can transform our minds, our hearts, our being, then we must use thought. If thought cannot bring about a radical transformation then what is its place? You are understanding all this?
Look: make it much more simple. I want to change myself. I am part of the world. I am the world, because basically wherever I go there is suffering, pain, anxiety, grief, sorrow, death, conflict, misery, unhappiness - wherever you go: in Russia, China, India, Africa, and so on, in America, in this country, everywhere human beings radically are caught in this. That is obvious. Now I see the necessity of radical transformation. I don't want to live that way. It has no meaning to live that way. So I ask myself: how am I to change radically? Will thought change me? You understand my question? Please do follow this. Thought sees itself, what it has brought about psychologically, inwardly, as well as outwardly. And I ask myself: can thought bring about radical transformation in myself? So I say, 'What is thought?' Can thought be aware of itself? Can the thinking that is going on in myself - in this mind - can it be aware of itself, see its own movement, what it has done, what it cannot do and what it wants to do? You follow all this?
So you ask yourself, and I ask myself, what is thought? Why has thought taken such predominance in the world? So what is thought? What is this thing that is always in action, always in movement, chattering away? Bringing about a division, me and you, my family, your family, my god, your god - you follow? - this whole movement that is going on within me. So what is this movement? Movement implies time. Right? Please, is that all right? Time being moving from here to there, covering the distance from 'what is' to 'what should be', both outwardly and inwardly. So time is a movement. So thought itself is a movement. Right? So thought is time. Are we meeting each other, please?
So I see, there is an observation that thought is movement as time. Right? So what is thought? Thought is memory - right? Memory stored up in the brain, stored up as experience and knowledge. Right? Knowledge when I drive a car, knowledge when I say, 'I know about myself' - you understand? So the accumulation of experience, which has become knowledge, is stored in the brain, and the response of that is thought. Right? That is simple, isn't it? For god's sake, let's move. That is simple, isn't it?
If you have no memory you are in a state of amnesia. Right? You have memory, and that memory is based on experience, past experience, which has become knowledge and stored up in the brain. That is a fact whether you accept it or not accept it: even the scientists are coming to that. So thought is a movement in time, which is the response of memory as knowledge. Right? So knowledge is the past. So thought is the past. It can project the future by modifying the present, but it is still the past in operation. So thought is fragmentary. You get the idea? Do you see this?
Thought we said is the response of memory; memory is knowledge, knowledge based on experience; knowledge is always in the past, there is no knowledge of the future. So thought meeting the present, modifies itself, and projects the future. Right? So thought, because it is based on knowledge, experience, which is the past, is always fragmentary. Swallow that pill! Right?
And thought, being fragmentary, has created this culture which is fragmentary: the Arab and the Jew, you know, the whole business of it, and thought says, 'I will solve this problem, politically, religiously, psychologically' - all the problems it has created. What it has created is fragmentary and thought says, 'I will go beyond the fragment' - thought itself being a fragment. You get it? Therefore it cannot possibly go beyond itself. Please see this, even verbally, intellectually, whatever - but see it. Once you see this, observe the truth of it, then our whole process of thinking becomes radically different. If thought cannot solve this problem, human problem, then what will? You understand my question? We have so far, for millennia, depended on thought to solve our problems. All our philosophies, of the great philosophers, are based on thought - modern philosophers, the Greek philosophers and the ancient Hindu philosophers. And their philosophy which is the child of their thinking, man hopes, through those philosophies, to solve the problem. You understand? So we have accepted thought as the complete solution of everything. And when you realise, not emotionally, but logically, sanely that thought is a fragment and therefore it cannot possibly solve the total problem of man, then you have to ask then what will solve man's problem? You understand my question? Have you got my Are we touching each other? Are we in communication with each other? Please!
That is, do you see the truth of this, not the verbal statement of it - the truth of it? Look, I will point out something. It's very hot, isn't it? The speaker makes this statement that thought, being fragmentary, cannot possibly solve the things which it has created. Right? Now I have made a statement. How do you receive that statement? Do you understand? Do you see the statement as the truth itself? Or do you make an abstraction of that statement into an idea and accept the idea, and not the fact? Now what do you do? Has it become an idea, or a fact? You understand this? What have you done? How have you received that statement that thought, whatever it has created must be fragmentary, and thought trying to solve the things which it has created with its problems, can never solve it? How do you receive that statement? Is it an idea? Or do you see it is so? You understand my question? If it is an idea - now, the word 'idea' in Greek means to observe, to observe, not what we have made of it. So is it an idea, or a fact that you say, 'Yes, it is so'? You understand? Which is it? Because it is very important this, to understand this. If it is an idea, it is still fragmentary. But if you see the fact, it is not fragmentary. Can we go on from there? No, but it's very important.
That is, if you draw a conclusion from what has been said, that thought is a fragment, then that conclusion is the movement of thought. Right? But if you see what has been said, that thought is a fragment, it is a fact, then you can deal with fact not with ideas. You understand? We live with ideas, with conclusions, with concepts, which are non facts, and therefore we get completely lost. Whereas if we dealt only with facts then there is a means of communication. You are getting this?
So do you, listening to this fact, do you draw a conclusion, or live with the fact? Phew! I can't repeat it ten times. What is it that you do? If it is a conclusion, why have you made a conclusion, why don't you face the fact? You can only face the fact if you are actually listening to the fact. Hai capito? I say to you, as a fact, that it is a lovely day. It is a fact, you accept it. Don't you? It is a lovely day. And so you remain with the fact, you accept it. Don't you? It is a lovely day. And so you remain with the fact. But if you draw a conclusion from a statement it becomes non-fact, and when we are discussing non-facts there is no relationship between us. You get it? So do you, when you listen to a fact, draw a conclusion, or remain with the fact? And if you draw a conclusion why do you do it? What is the operation of this business? Is it habit? You understand? Because we always live with ideas, with conclusions, with 'what should be', so we are conditioned to that, and therefore we find it awfully difficult to break from that. And to break from that is to observe that you are operating always in that field, to be aware of it. Right? Can we go on?
So to break from this conditioning - it is the conditioned mind - this idea is from the Greeks - all humanity has done this, never look at facts but draw a conclusion about facts. Our philosophies, your gurus, the whole thing is based on this. And we say why does the mind do this, why is there this instant reaction? Because it is part of our training, part of our education, part of our lack of energy to break with it. So we are now dealing only with fact, which is: thought is a fragment, and therefore whatever it does will produce further fragments, further misery, further confusion. Right? Do you see that as a fact?
Then the next question is: if thought cannot solve our human problems, psychological problems - not technological problems - not how to go to the Moon, or to Venus, or to bring about different kinds of wars, instruments of war, but human psychological problems, inward problems, if thought cannot solve it what will? You have understood the question? So man said, 'Thought cannot solve it, god will solve it'. You understand? An outside agency, whether it is the outside agency of god, or the outside agency of a better society. You understand? Please face all this. So thought says to itself, 'I can't solve this. Therefore there must be an outside guide, outside father, outside agency, god, highest principle, or the highest ideal, or change the circumstances, the environment - which the Communist wants to do, and then human beings will change', which is exactly the same thing. Thought created the god, the outside agency; thought has created the idea that a perfect environment will change man. So thought is still a fragmentary activity. Right? I wonder if you see this?
So thought cannot solve the problem. So what will? Right? Now when you ask that question, whom are you asking? You understand my question? Are you asking somebody outside you? Asking the speaker to tell you? Or are you saying to yourself that thought cannot solve this, it is a fact, then what is the next action? You understand? If you ask another, that asking is still fragmentary. You understand? I wonder if you understand this! If you ask another and the other replies then you are setting him up as the authority. Right? And the authority is still a fragment. Your gurus are fragments, whether the priest on the corner, or far away. So you are asking this question of yourself. Right? Which is quite different, because when you ask that question there is no authority to tell you. Right? So then you are free of one of the basic principles, which is, no authority in spiritual matters. That means no guru, with all their circus going on. So you are asking yourself this question: my thought which has created me, my problems, my anxieties, my fears, my hopeless despair, my sorrow, agony, if thought cannot solve it, what will? So I am not looking outwardly because I see what I am inwardly conquers the outer. Right? It has been shown historically, it has been shown every day - what you are inside conquers the outer. The Communists started out with no government, the government withering away, individuals complete - you know, all the rest of it - but the opposite has taken place, which is the inner conquers always the outer.
So you are asking a question, which is: if thought cannot change me, what will? So I begin to investigate into myself. Right? You understand? Because I am the world, and the world is me, that is a fact. You may have different customs, different costumes, different manner of eating, clothes and all the rest of it, but basically, deeply we are alike. We have sorrow, we have misery, we have confusion, we are in disorder. So go where you will it is the same human problem, as human beings we are the same; you may call yourself a Swiss, an American, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist, whatever you like, but strip all the labels and you see the agony, the suffering, the misery, and occasional happiness. So the world is me and I am the world. That is not an intellectual idea, it is a fact. So when I enquire into myself I am enquiring into humanity. You understand? I wonder if you see that? Not 'myself', I am humanity. It isn't a selfish egocentric movement. Therefore when I look at myself and enquire into myself, I am enquiring into the whole human agony and pain and all that. So it is not a selfish movement. Right?
So what will change me, a human being, who is the world? I recognise very clearly that outside agency will not solve this. Right? Nor the transformation of environment, because I have created the environment, through my fear, through my anxiety, through my desire for security, all the rest of it. So what will change this whole movement of thought? Got the picture? So I see thought has its own energy. Right? The energy of conflict, the energy of competition, the energy of wanting to succeed, you know, all that - the energy. That thought in its fragmentary activity has got its own extraordinary energy - the energy which has created the whole technological world; and the energy which thought has created in relationship. Right? Relationship between two human beings, two human beings which thought has divided as you and me. Right? So where there is division there must be conflict. And that conflict gives tremendous energy. Right? Outwardly and inwardly. Outwardly you see the Arab and the Jew, what is going on, the energy that is wasted in there. And the energy thought has created between you and me as man and woman, you know, all that business, in relationship. Right? The extraordinary energy it has created. And we think that energy is going to solve the problem. You get it? So I see clearly, that energy cannot possibly solve it, therefore there must be a totally different kind of energy. Right? I am enquiring. I am not saying there is, or there is not. I see thought as energy; energy which has created this extraordinary technological world, and the extraordinary misery between man and man, human beings - I had better include the woman, otherwise the woman will say, 'Why did you leave me out?' - between human beings. So one must find out if there is a totally different kind of energy, which is not brought about through conflict. Right? Which is not the essence of conflict. Are we meeting each other?
So what is the capacity of the mind that can find this out? You understand? Has it the capacity? Please go into it with me a little bit. The speaker observes the energy of conflict in human relationship, and that energy, which is the movement of thought, that energy, thought says, 'I will transform with that energy.' - right? I see that. It is a clear observation, it is a fact. Then if that energy cannot solve all my problems, human problems, then what will? Now is my mind - human mind - capable of finding it out? You understand? Because the human mind is frightened, is anxious, is always striving, struggling, in conflict. Right? Can such a mind find this out? Or that mind must be quiet before it can find You understand the question? Come on!
If my mind is always chattering, anxious, frightened, seeking its own security, its own happiness, its limited demands - such a mind cannot possibly find something which is not the product of thought. Right? Do you see this? Is this clear? So to find that energy, if there is, there must be freedom. Right? (You asked that question: to discuss freedom.) There must be freedom. Freedom from anxiety, freedom from fear, freedom from sorrow, you understand? Otherwise you cannot possibly come upon the other. This is logical, isn't it? No? So is it possible for the mind, for a human being, to be totally free of all the things that thought has put together - psychologically? Do you understand my question? That is, human consciousness is made up of all its content. Right? Your consciousness - right? - yours, is made up of your demand for money, your demand for sex, your demand for power, position, prestige, happiness, attachments to your furniture, to people, to places, to things, it is made up of all your beliefs. Right? All that is your consciousness - no? Right? Oh, for god's sake! That is human consciousness with its content. As long as there is that content in the consciousness, which is fear, pleasure, sorrow, and all its complications - that is your consciousness, put together by thought. Right? So as long as those contents remain in that consciousness, and that consciousness is its content - right? - you cannot possibly find out if there is a different kind of energy. Therefore one must be free of its content.
Surely if I want to find something beyond my own imagination, illusions, desires, I must first be free of those things, mustn't I? Logically. I must be free of attachment. Right? Whether it is attachment to a person, to a belief, to a piece of furniture, or a house. I must be free from it before I can possibly look beyond. So is it possible for me to be free of complete psychological authority, so that I don't look to another to tell me what to do - psychologically? Of course the doctor will tell me what to do, or the technician will tell me what to do - that is quite a different matter. But psychologically, inwardly, to be told what to do by another. The other is myself - you understand? - because he is in sorrow, he is in misery, he is in confusion, and he is my guru, or my priest, or my god, or my saviour, he is just like the rest of humanity.
So part of this consciousness is to accept inward authority in the world of the psyche, which is generally called the spiritual world. So can you, can this mind be free of that? You have made the outside authority because inwardly you are in disorder. If there is no disorder you have no authority. You understand? There was a time - if the Italians will forgive me - at one time Italy was in confusion and Mussolini came to bring order. It is happening in India; it is happening all over the world. Where there is outward disorder, that very disorder creates the authority. Right? That is a law. So when there is disorder in you, you are bound to create the outer authority. The gurus are multiplying by the dozen, with their systems - you know all that filthy business.
So can you be free of this search for an authority which will give you security? That is part of your consciousness, which is based on fear. So we come to a very complex problem of fear. Right? As we said, our consciousness is filled with these three principal factors: fear, with all its complications, ramifications; pleasure, which is very complex; and sorrow. Our consciousness is filled with that. So can the mind, this consciousness empty itself of itself to find out if there is a totally different kind of energy? Unless it is free from that you will never find it. Right? Logically. You can talk about freedom, we can talk about authority, and all the rest of the things, but it has no value, for a man who is very serious. And we have to be serious in a world that is so disarranged.
So I had better stop there and perhaps you will ask some questions with regard to what we have talked about. We will go on the day after tomorrow, we will go on with all this. We are going to have seven talks and five discussions, so you will have plenty of time to tear me to pieces! Or rather tear to pieces what you have heard - or not heard! So would you like to ask some questions on what we have talked about? Before you ask questions please bear in mind that you are asking the questions of yourself aloud, because we are not your authority, we are not your guru. You have to find truth for yourself, which means you have to be a light for yourself. There is no other light except the light which you have for yourself. Then when you find that light then it is the light of the world. You understand? So.
Questioner: I have been finding it myself like you say that thought is the problem. I am finding that there is a lot of fear in me and me and her (Inaudible)
K: May I answer that question, sir? The questioner says thought existed before fear - ah, no, fear existed before thought. Pardon.
Q: Thought to me is not the problem but the symptom.
K: Oh, the symptom is the problem and not the cause.
Q: Fear existed before thought.
K: Do let's be clear about your question sir.
Q: Well, I am saying that thought is not the problem. There is a lot of pain in me.
K: The questioner says, if I am representing him rightly, the questioner says thought is not the problem. The problem is fear and pain. And he adds also those are the symptoms.
Q: They are not the symptoms.
K: Oh, they are not the symptoms.
Q: Thought is the symptom.
K: No, let's be clear.
Q: OK. I’ll say it again. Fear – when I was very little, I had a lot of fear.
K: When I was little I had a lot of fear.
Q: But I didn’t have thought.
K: When he was little he had a lot of fear, but he had no thought.
Q: A little baby doesn’t have a mind to have thought.
K: No. So don't let's go back to babies. Let's find out if fear is independent of thought. Or thought has brought about fear. Right sir? Whether fear is the result of thinking, or fear independent of thought. That is the question, isn't it?
Are the opposites independent of each other? You understand my question? The opposites, the opposed, are they independent of each other? Or are they essentially related to each other? Wait, I'll show you, go slow, go slow! There are opposing desires. Right? I want that, I don't want that. There are opposing desires. Are they independent of each other? Or they have the same movement? Do you understand? So they are not independent of each other.
Now take - is pain the opposite of - what? - non-pain? Or both are the same. They are like the two sides of the same coin. Therefore there is no question of independence. That is what I want to get at first. We think the opposites are independent. Right? The opposite desires, we think they are independent of each other - are they? Desire is common to both. Right? I desire that and I don't desire that. So desire is the common factor. Right? So the opposites are never independent. Is that clear, sir? If you see that then fear is thought. We will go into that the day after tomorrow morning. Please let's get this clear first. That any opposite - bravery and cowardice - are related to each other. Right? That is simple isn't it? Cowardice and bravery are related to each other, therefore they are not independent of each other. So there are no opposites at all, except man, woman, dark, light - that is a different matter. Psychologically there is no opposite. This leads to quite a lot. When there is an opposite there is a conflict. Right?
K: Wait, wait, let me finish, one momento perfavore. And I saw, whatever English (Laughter) Just look, I am envious - if one is envious - one is envious. The opposite is non-envious. What is the opposite? How has non-envy come into being? Because I have been envious. Therefore being envious I see it brings a lot of trouble, I will be non-envious. But I have been envious, therefore the non-envy is related to envy. In the same way violence and non-violence. We say they are two opposites. They are not. There is only one, which is violence. But as human beings don't know what to do with violence they invent non-violence in the hope of achieving that, using that as a lever to get rid of violence. You understand this? Come on. Move! So psychologically there is only one factor: that which is - not the opposite. That which is, is envy. If my mind is capable of dealing with that envy why should I have non-envy? Because it can't, therefore it invents the other, which is an escape from the fact. Right?
So thought and fear: he said fear is independent of thought. Is it? If you had no thought at all would you be afraid? Of tomorrow? Of the past? Of death? Of your neighbour? Your wife? So thought is fear. We will go into all that tomorrow.
Q: I have to say fear is in the body, it’s not only in the head.
K: No, the fear of
Q: You can feel it tremble.
K: I know, you get almost paralysed, you shake. We will go into all that the day after tomorrow.
Any other questions? We will deal with it sir.
Q: (In French)
K: The question is this: it is a question about death and the person that is left behind. Right? This loneliness, the solitude, the lack of companionship, the sense of utter loneliness - being left alone.
Is this the occasion to discuss that question of death? Oh, lord! You know it is one of the most complex problems that man has faced from the time he began, this question of death, survival after death, and this utter sense of loneliness. To answer that question really very, very, very deeply, we must spend a lot of time on it, not just two minutes at the end of a talk, because death is something which all human beings have tried to avoid. Or having accepted it, like the ancient Egyptians, perpetuated the daily living eternally. Or there is the whole problem of reincarnation and so on and so on, so on. So if you don't mind at the end of an hour and twenty minutes or so, if you will forgive me madame, we will discuss this question at another time. May we do that?
You see you ask a question and you don't go through with it. You ask what is the mind, what is fear, what is thought, you don't take time, you don't give the other fellow time to explain and go into it. You say, 'Answer me quickly'. These questions cannot be answered quickly because they are immense questions, which human beings have worked upon for millennia and you want it all said in a few words. We have to find out what death is, if there is immortality, and what is it that is immortal, why there is that immense sense of loneliness - left alone completely. That means - please we are not being harsh or anything but you have to give time, you have to come and listen to it, find out. But if you say, 'Sorry I can't, I have got to go tomorrow, I have got to see my friend in Geneva, or somewhere else, sorry, tell me quickly', I say sir, sorry, these things cannot possibly be told in a few seconds. So you will have to forgive me.