If we may, we continue with what we’re talking about it the other day. As we were saying: considering the crisis in consciousness, not only outwardly but deeply inwardly, and with all its many problems, we do not seem to be able as human beings to resolve our problems totally. We move from one problem to another endlessly. And man has tried every way to escape from these problems, to avoid them, to find some excuse for not resolving them. And also probably he has not the capacity, the energy, the drive to resolve them, and we have built a network of escapes so cunningly that we do not know even that we are escaping from the main issue. And, it seems to me that there must be a total revolution in the mind, a total change, not a modified continuity but a total psychological mutation so that the mind is entirely free from all the bondage of time, so that it can go beyond the structure of thought, not into some metaphysical region but rather into a timeless dimension where the mind is no longer caught in its own structure, in its own problems.

And one sees the absolute necessity of complete change. One has tried so many ways, including LSD, including beliefs, dogmas, joining various sects, going through various disciplines of meditation. And, the mind at the end of all this remains just the same: petty, narrow, limited, anxious; but it has a period of enlightenment, a period of clarity. And that's what most of us are doing: pursuing a vision, a clarity, something that is not entirely the product of thought; but we come back again and again to this confusion. There seems to be no freedom. And, as we were saying the other day: is it possible for man to be totally free—I mean psychologically? We don't know what that freedom means. We can only build an image, or an idea, a conclusion, what freedom should be or should not be; but to actually experience it, to actually come upon it, requires a great deal of examination, a great deal of penetration into our process of thinking.

And, if I may this evening, I like to go into it, whether it is possible for man, for a human being, to entirely—and it must be unconscious in the sense not deliberately brought about—a freedom from all fear, from all effort, from every form of anxiety. To understand it one must go into the question of what is change. Can our mind which is so bound, so conditioned by society, by our experience, by our heredity, by all the influences that man is heir to, can he put all that aside and discover for himself a state of mind where there is a quality which has not been touched by time at all? Because, after all, that is what we are all seeking. Most of us are tired of the daily experiences of life, the boredom of it, the pettiness of it; and we are seeking something through experience, something much greater: one calls it God, vision, whatever name one can give to it—the name doesn't matter.

But I do not see how a mind that has been so conditioned by everyday experience, by knowledge, by social and economic influence, by the culture in which that mind lives, how can such a mind bring about a total revolution, a mutation in itself? Is it possible, because if it is not possible, then we are condemned; we are condemned to sorrow, to anxiety, guilt, despair, and all the rest of it? So it's a valid question, and one must find a right answer, not a verbal answer, not a conclusion, not an ideation, but actually find the answer to that question and live in that.

So, one has to go into this question of what is change, and who is the entity that's going to change. Who is it that’s going to be conscious or aware that it has changed? The word change implies, doesn’t it, a movement from what has been to what will be. There is a time sequence: what was, what is and what should be; and in this time interval from what is to what should be, there is effort to achieve what should be. And what should be is already preconceived, predetermined by what has been. So, the movement from what has been to what should be is no movement at all; it’s merely a continuity of what has been.

I think it would be worthwhile if we could not treat this as a talk to which you are listening, agreeing or disagreeing, but rather actually observing the whole process of your own thinking, the process of your own reactions. Not that we are trying group analysis, but rather to investigate factually what is being said. Therefore if you are investigating what is being said, then you are actually listening, not coming to any conclusion of agreement or disagreement. Therefore it’s really a matter of examination of oneself as a total human being, not as an American, or an Indian, and all the rest of that silly nonsense, but actually observing the total movement of your own mind. And if one does that, I think it has enormous significance.

The speaker is only a mirror in which, or through which, you are observing the whole content, the movement of oneself, and therefore the speaker doesn't matter at all. What is important is to observe, to be completely aware, without any choice, just to observe what's going on. Then you are bound to find out for yourself the meaning and the structure of change, because we must change. There is a great deal of the animal in us: the aggressive, the violent, the greedy, the ambitious: the search for success, to dominate, and all the rest of it, which is all the animal. And whether those remains of the animal can be totally eradicated so that the mind is no longer violent, no longer aggressive? Because, unless the mind is at complete peace, or completely still, it is not possible to discover anything new, and without discovering, or the mind being transformed, we shall merely live in the time process of imitation, continuing with what has been, living always in the past. The past is not only the immediate, but the immediate is the past.

So, what does one mean by change? Because that is an imperative necessity, because our life is pretty shoddy, empty, rather dull and stupid, without meaning: going to the office every day for the next forty years, breeding a few children, seeking everlasting amusement, either through the church or football field, all that has really, to a mature man, very little meaning. We know all that has very little meaning, but we don't know what to do; we don't know how to change, how to put an end to the time process.

So, let's go into it together. First we must be very clear that there is no authority, that the speaker is not the authority, therefore our relationship between you and the speaker changes entirely: we are both investigating, examining, and therefore both of us partaking in what is being said, like taking a journey together. Therefore your responsibility is much greater than that of the speaker. And one can go into this, take this journey, only when one is very, very serious; because it entails a great deal of attention, energy, clarity.

For most of us, change implies a movement towards what is known. It isn't a change, but a continuity of what has been in a modified pattern. All sociological revolutions are based on that. There is the idea of what should be, what a society should be, and the revolutionists try to bring about that idea in action, and that they call revolution. There is the society with class, and all the rest of it—we don’t bother about all that silly stuff—and they want to change, they want to bring about a totally different structure of society, and they have the pattern: what should be. And that's not change at all, it's merely a reaction, and reaction is always imitative.

So, when we talk about change, it is not change or mutation from what has been to what should be. I hope you are observing your own process of your thinking, aware not only (of) the necessity of change but also aware of your conditioning, the limitations, the fears, the anxieties, the utter loneliness and boredom of life. And, one is asking oneself whether that structure can be totally demolished, and a new state of mind can come into being. That state of mind is not to be preconceived: that’s merely a concept, an idea; and an idea is never real.

So, we have this field in which we live—an actual fact. Now, how can that fact be…how can that mutation take place in that fact? We only know effort to bring about any change at all, either through pleasure or through pain; change through reward or through punishment. So to understand change in the sense which we are talking about, in the sense of mutation—a totally different mind happening—we have to go into the question of pleasure. Because if we don’t understand the structure of pleasure, change merely then will depend on pleasure and pain, on a reward or punishment.

So one has to go into this question of pleasure. What we all want is pleasure: more and more pleasure, either physical pleasure through sex, and all the rest of that, through possessions, luxury, and so on and so on, which can easily be transcended, which can easily be understood and set aside, but the pleasure, the psychological pleasure that each one of us is seeking, on which all our values are based: moral, ethical, spiritual, and all the rest of it. And all our relationship is based on that, the relationship between two images—not two human beings—but the two images that human beings have created about each other. So, I hope I’m not making all of this too complicated, am I?

Questioner (Q): It goes in and out.

Krishnamurti (K): You see, the animal wants only pleasure; it’ll do anything. And, as I said, there is a great deal of the animal in us. And, unless one understands the nature and the structure of pleasure, change or mutation is merely a form of the continuity of pleasure, in which there is always pain.

So, what is pleasure? Why does the mind seek this constant thing called pleasure? You know what I mean by pleasure? Psychologically feeling superior, feeling violent, anger, and the opposite, non-violence—because all opposites contain its own opposite—therefore it is not non-violence at all. And, violence gives a great deal of pleasure. There is a great deal of pleasure in acquiring, in dominating: psychologically the feeling of having a capacity, the feeling of achievement, the feeling that one is entirely different from somebody else. And, on this pleasure principle our relationships are based, on this principle our ethical and moral values are built. And of course the ultimate pleasure is not only sex, but the ultimate pleasure is the idea that one has discovered God, something totally new, and one is making constant effort to achieve that ultimate pleasure. We are changing the patterns of our relationship: I don't like my wife, I’ll choose another wife; find various excuses, but this is the way we live—under constant battle, endless strife. We never consider what pleasure is, whether there is such actual state as pleasure, psychologically; or, we have conceived, formulated, pleasure through thought, and we want to achieve that pleasure; so pleasure may be the product of thinking.

So, unless we understand this very deeply—not get rid of pleasure, that's too immature, that‘s what the monks throughout the world have done—but to understand it, to see the whole structure very, very clearly. So, we are using the word understand in the sense non-intellectually, non-emotionally, seeing something very clearly as it is, not as one would like to be or interpreting certain temperamental fashion, but to see the thing as it is. Then, when one understands something, it isn't that an individual mind has understood it, but rather a total awareness of that fact. We’ll go into that. I mean, I think it would be rather absurd and not quite honest to say to oneself, “I'm not seeking pleasure.” Everyone is.

And, to understand it, one must go into this question of not only thinking but the structure of memory. Because I’ve seen a marvellous sunset; or this morning, very early, on the reservoir there was not a breath of air, and there was perfect reflection of all the trees, the light and the towers, without a movement—it was a beautiful sight, and it has given me great pleasure. And the mind has stored that memory as pleasure, and wants that pleasure to be repeated because memory is already a dead thing. Therefore the pleasure is in thinking about that light on the water of this morning, and the thinking is the response of memory which has been stored up through the experience of this morning. And so the thought proceeds from that experience to gather more pleasure from what it experienced yesterday or this morning, right? Isn’t that so? Yes. You have flattered me, and I have enjoyed it, and I want more of it, I think about it.

(Laughter)

No, no. Please, sirs, don't laugh it away. Look at it, go into it. That's why we avoid talking about death. We want to repeat all the experience of youth. So, pleasure comes into being through an experience in which there has been a delight. That experience is gone, but the memory of that remains; then the memory responds and wants, through thinking, more of it—this is simple. And so it’s making constant effort. So thought, thinking over something which has given pleasure, keeps on thinking about it, as sex, as achievement, and so on and so on and so on. Of course, it's much more complex than that, but there is not enough time to go into all the complexity of it: one can watch it, one can be aware of it, one can see it for oneself.

So the problem then is: is it possible to experience, and that experience not leaving a memory and, therefore, no thinking about that?—it's over. I wonder if you….You understand my question?

Several: Yes.

K: Because man has lived for so many millennia, thousands upon thousands of years, and he is the residue of all time, he is the result of endless time, and unless he puts an end to time, he is caught in this wheel, and this wheel is the wheel of thought, experience, and pleasure, right? You can't do anything about it. If you do actually say, “I must end pleasure,”—which you won't—if you do, you do it out of further pleasure. So one has to understand and go into this question of action—sorry—because here is an issue, a great problem: all religions have tried, and vainly, to say any form of pleasure is sin. The monasteries are full of these monks who deny, suppress pleasure. And pleasure is related to desire, so these people say, “Be without desire,” which is absolutely impossible.

So, how is it possible for an action to take place with regard to the structure of pleasure, an action which is not taken by the desire of a greater pleasure? I don’t know if…right? So, when we talk about action—action being the doing, having done, or in the future—action. All our actions, if you observe very closely, are based on an idea. The idea which has been formulated, and according to that idea, according to that image, according to that authority, experience, I act. So, to us, idea, the ideal, the prototype is much more important than the action itself, right? And, we are always trying to approximate this action, any action according to the pattern. And if we want to discover anything new in action, one must be free of the pattern. This again…right, is it…?

Look, sir, a certain culture in which one lives has imposed certain patterns of behaviour, certain patterns of thought, certain patterns of morality, and so on and so on and so on. The more ancient that particular culture is, the more conditioned the mind becomes. Now, there is that pattern, and the mind is always imitating, following, adjusting itself to that pattern, and this process is called action. If it is purely technological activity, then it's merely copying, repeating, adding some more to what has been, and inventing some more and adding. Now, why do we—please listen to this—why do we act with an idea? Why is ideation so terribly important, you understand? I have to do something; but why have an idea about it? I don’t know if you are following all this, right? So, I have to find out why I have a formula, why I have an example, an authority, and all that—why? Isn't it because you are incapable or you do not want to face the fact, the what is? You understand, sir?

I'm in sorrow. Psychologically I'm terribly disturbed, and I have an idea about it: what I should do, what I should not do, how it should be changed, and all the rest—an idea. That idea, that formula, that concept prevents me from looking at the fact of what is, right? So, ideation and the formula is an escape from what is. And there is immediate action when there is great danger: then you have no idea; you don't formulate an idea and act according to that idea.

So, a mind that has become lazy, indolent, through the formula which has given it a means of escape from action with regard to what is. So, is it possible, seeing the whole structure of what has been said for ourselves—seeing it for yourself, not because it has been pointed out to you, then you can face the fact: the fact that one is violent—we’ll take that as an example. We are violent human beings, and we have chosen the way of life as violence, war, and all the rest of it, though we talk everlastingly, especially in the East, of non-violence, and all that pretentious nonsense. Because we are not non-violent people, we are violent people. The idea of…non-violence is an idea which can be used politically and all—that’s a different meaning—but it is an idea but not the fact. And because the human being is incapable of meeting the fact of violence, therefore he has invented the ideal of non-violence, which prevents him from dealing with the fact, right? Is this…?

After all, the fact is I'm violent, I'm angry, and, what is the need of an idea? Not the idea of being angry, the actual fact of being angry, like the actual fact of being hungry: there is no idea about being hungry. The idea then comes what you should eat, and then according to the dictates of pleasure, you eat, and so on. So there is only action with regard to what is when there is no idea; when there is no idea what should be done about that which confronts you, which is what is. Is this…?

Look, sirs: there is the question of fear. There are various different forms of fear—which we shan't go into now—there is the actual fact of fear, and I've never met fear; I know what fear is, I have ideas about it: what I should do, how I should treat it, how I should run away from it, so one is never in contact actually with fear. And, the ideation process is essentially the observer, the censor. Can I go on? It’s not too taxing at the end of the day?

(Laughter)

So one is afraid—can one deal with it totally, so that the mind is free completely of fear, not with regard to a certain aspect of life but the total field of existence, so the mind is completely free? There is…can one… Inevitably the question arises: if one is not afraid, you’ll have (an) accident, physically, you know? We are not talking of physical, self-protective existence, but rather the fear which thought has created with regard to existence. And, can the mind face that fact, without the formula what it should do or what it should not do? And, who is the entity who faces that fact, you understand my…? All right, sir, lets put the question differently.

You are there, and the speaker is sitting on this platform: you the observer, and the observed is the speaker. You have your own temperament, your own worries, your own tendencies, ambitions, greed, fears, all the rest of it, that is, the observer watching the observed—right?—as you would watch a tree, which is objective, and you the observer. You, the observer is watching fear, right? No? You say, "I'm afraid.” The I is different from the observed, from the observer, you understand? The I who says, “I am afraid,” fear is something outside of him. And he, who is the observer, wants to do something about that fear, right? This is what we are all doing. But is the observer different from the observed—you understand the question? The observer is afraid, and he says, "I am different from the observed,” but the observer is the observed because there is no difference between the observer and the observed—he is afraid as well as the observed. I don’t know if you…?

Say for instance—we talk about it another time, another evening—one is afraid of death; and death is something totally different from the observer. And, one never inquires into what is the observer. What is the observer, the you? Who is afraid? And, being afraid, of course, he has all kinds of neurotic ideas, and then, you know, all the rest of it. Who is the observer with regard to fear? The observer is the known—right?—with his experiences, with his knowledge, with his conditioning, with his pleasures, the memories —all that is the observer, right? And, the observer is afraid of death because the observer is going to die. And, what is the observer?—again: ideas, formulas, memories—which is what?—already dead. So, the observer is the observed.

No, this requires a great deal of…don’t agree or disagree, please. This is real meditation, not all the phoney stuff that goes under the name of meditation; this requires a great deal of attention; it requires a great deal of energy to discover this—discover it, not be told. Then when you discover this, then you will find that change through will, through effort, through desire, through the fear of sorrow, and all the rest of it, disappears totally, because then action takes place—not action through an idea. And action is change—I don’t know if you follow this—total action is mutation.

So one has not only to understand—when we’re talking about change—we have not only to understand what is pleasure—not deny it, that’s no meaning; understanding it—and, we’ve also to understand what this whole accumulation of memory, which is always the known. You may take any drug, any exercise, do everything to escape from the known, and the escape is merely a reaction, an avoidance of the known, and therefore you’ll fall into the pattern of another known. And that's what is taking place. You may take the LSD; and they do it remarkably well in the East, much better than you do it here, (Laughter) because they have been doing it for centuries; because they think through that way they are going to escape from all the shoddy, miserable existence of life. But I'm afraid you can't do it because the mind is so conditioned, and a conditioned mind cannot experience the real at any circumstances, give it whatever chemical you want. It must be free of its conditioning: the conditioning of society, the influence, the urges, the competition, the greed, the desire for power, position, prestige. A petty little mind, a shallow little mind can take a drug—call it LSD, or another thing in India, or other parts of the world they’ve got it all, but it still remains a petty little mind. And we are talking about a total change, a mutation in the mind itself.

And, this is a problem of great awareness: awareness not of some spiritual, absurd, mystical state, but awareness of your words, of your talk, of what you do, of what you think—to be aware of it, so that you begin to discover for yourself the whole movement of your mind. And your mind is the mind of every other human being in the world. You don't have to read philosophy or psychology to discover the process of your own mind—it is there. And one has to learn how to look, and to look you must be aware, not only of the outward things but inward movements. The outward is the inward movement; there is no outward and inward, it's a constant movement of interaction. One has to be aware of that; not learn how to be aware by going to a monastery and watching to be aware, but watching every day when you get into a bus, into a tramcar, or whatever it is. That demands a great deal of attention, and attention means energy, therefore one begins to discover how that energy is dissipated by endless absurd talk. So, one begins, through awareness, just to be aware without any choice, any like or dislike, without any condemnation, just to observe; to observe how you walk, how you talk, how you treat people. Then you will see by simple watching, without any formula, that very watching brings tremendous energy. You don't have to take drugs to have more energy. And we dissipate that energy by like and dislike. Then you will see for yourself that a mutation has taken place without your wanting it. Right, sir.

Questioner (Q): My question may be too intellectual to be considered intelligent. However, I’m quite confused about the speaker’s treatment of the notion of reality, the notion of what is. The speaker seems to be quite categorically committed to what one might call the metaphysical dualism. He treats such notions as mind, as mind-body, psyche as external, internal. In predicating the outer, in predicating what is…

Krishnamurti (K): Sir, may I? If you are going to ask your question, please, I have to repeat it, so you have to make it brief.

Q: Briefly then, are you doing phenomenology or ontology when you for example make…when you…by merely positing dualism, are you merely positing mind, the possibility of there being an internal and an external; or you’re actually stating this as a psychologist? Are you stating this as a metaphysical…(inaudible)?
(Laughter)

K: I’m sorry, I didn’t see the joke.

Q2: The joke was: it was not brief. But sometimes it can’t be helped.

K: Beg your pardon?

Q2: You asked for a brief question, and it wasn’t so brief.

K: The questioner wants to know, if I’ve understood it rightly, and I hope he’ll correct if I haven’t understood it, wants to know if we’re dealing with metaphysical things, if we are dealing with non-factual things.

Q: I want to say that there is an implicit metaphysic here when you make such descriptions as what is.

K: No, wait, sir, I explained. He wants to know, when we use the word, two words, what is, what do you mean by that? Is it metaphysical, is it something abstract, is it intellectual, and all the rest of? I mean, you know when we say what is we know what is. When I have a toothache—that is what is. When I'm afraid, that's what is. When I'm hungry, when I have great many appetites for so many things, that's what is. When I'm ambitious, competing with somebody and talking about love and brotherhood—which is sheer nonsense when I'm ambitious—the what is is the ambition. The idea that there should be peace in the world is an ideation, which has no reality. There is no peace in the world because as a human being I'm aggressive, competitive, ambitious, dividing myself into different groups, sociologically and morally and spiritually. I belong to this religion and you belong to that religion. So the what is is very simple.

Q3: Sir, when pleasure is not named, because is observation, what remains is energy.

K: The gentleman wants… the questioner wants to know when the pleasure goes, what remains? Is that a valid question?

Q3: When the pleasure has no name…

K: When the pleasure has no name…

Q3:…is not named by the mind, because is observation…

K: Sir, no, please sir, you see you are going off into something that has no validity at all.
Have you observed your pleasure? Have you observed what the content of your pleasure is, how that pleasure has arisen, what is implied in that pleasure?
Look, sir; make it very simple: there is the visual perception of a woman, or a beautiful car, or something or other. Then the perception evokes, stimulates sensation, and from that sensation there is desire. I think about, think about that desire which gives me pleasure. So—wait a minute, sir—so the fact is: we shall find out when I've understood pleasure, not what happens after. Well, that’s like saying…

Q3: No, but if you let me…If I see a woman without think, well then…(inaudible)

K: If I see a woman without…

Q3:…think…

K:…without thought—the gentleman wants to know what happens.
(Laughter)

K: Go to bed! Sir, no, it’s very important to understand that question. (Continued laughter) Can you observe—wait a minute, sir—can you observe something without pleasure, without pain—not pleasure in the…you know, more than that—can you observe anything? And when you do, what takes place? Unless you are blind, paralysed, you have reactions, surely. You may have controlled those reactions, suppressed those reactions, denied them, avoided them, but there is a reaction. And you must have that reaction, otherwise you are dead. But that reaction becomes desire, and the more you think about that desire, either it gives you pain or pleasure. And if it is painful you avoid thinking about it, but if it is pleasurable, you think about it. So you can't say, “Well, I won't have pleasure,” you have to understand the whole machinery of this very complex process, both physiological as well as psychological. And therefore to observe very clearly demands a clear perception.
Sir, have you ever watched a flower?

Q4: For a long time I have not been able to be clear about idea and action. You just mentioned hungry: if I am hungry, and if I don't have the idea of choosing between milk and bread, how can I make that choice?

K: (Laughs) Sir, you have to make a choice of different dentists and different doctors, don't you, choice when you choose a coat or a dress. But is there any other choice at all when you see something very clearly? Say for instance, sir, when you see nationalism, which is rampant in the world, when you see nationalism: what it entails, what is involved in it, the limitation, the quarrels, the battles, the pride and all the ugly business involved in nationalism, which is poison, then if you realize it's poison, it drops away, there is no action; there is no choice. Choice exists only when there is confusion. When the mind is not confused, there is no choice, there is direct perception.
We are using very simple words; there is no jargon behind these words. When we use the word pleasure, we mean the ordinary dictionary meaning of that word.

Q5: May I ask something? Is it possible to arrive at direct perception by itself? Isn’t it because the ideas in back of me have changed impossible, and the relation is possible, and I will finally come to action in the way that you have described it?

K: You see it isn't I have described action, this is what we do, this is what takes place every day of our life.

Q6: I didn't hear the question.

K: Sir, look: now let me repeat again something. To ask a question, and the right question is very important—not to me, not to the speaker—but to ask the right question; and to ask the right question there must be a great deal of scepticism, not the absurd scepticism of an immature mind. To ask the right question, there must be no acceptance, no authority; and to ask the right question is one of the most difficult things to do, because we have never asked a right question. We have asked many, many, many questions, but to ask the right question implies that there is no person who is going to answer that question—right?—because to ask the right question implies that the mind is free from all authority and comparison. Therefore it’s in a position to ask, and in the very asking of that question is the answer.

Q: What is spontaneous action free from conditioning?

K: What is spontaneous action free from conditioning? First of all, there is no spontaneous action as long as there is conditioning. Moment there is freedom from conditioning, which is one of them—please, sirs, you are dealing with this as though it was one of the easiest things to get rid of our conditioning—good God!
(Laughter)
You'll find out, if you go into it, what is implied. You mean to say: take a person who has been conditioned for ten thousand years as a Hindu, can he just throw it off? One has to go into it. And to be free of conditioning is not a matter of time, it isn't a gradual process. When one knows one is conditioned, observe it!—the very awareness of that fact is the ending of that fact. Then you'll find out there is no action at all, you're just moving. There is no question of spontaneity. It’s only the man in bondage is always talking about spontaneity.

Q7: I have a question.

K: Sorry, that gentleman, sorry—I saw him first.

Q8: Thank you. At the start of your talk tonight, you asked, “Is it possible for man to be totally free without returning to the confusion?”

K: Yes, sir.

Q8: And I think you answered yes. At the end of your talk you spoke about moving along the path of discovery, which implies that there will be moments of experiencing what is and moments of not experiencing what is. And so, returning…

K: No, sir, I understand. No, no, sorry. Is it time to stop?

Several: No. (Laughter)

Q9: Five more minutes.

Q10: I haven’t understood yet.

K: It’s half past seven: an hour and a half—isn’t that good enough? (Laughter)
Sir, let me, if I may, briefly answer that question. You see, most of us are unaware that we are confused. When we are committed to a particular formula—communist, Catholic, Hindu, whatever it is—or the latest fashion in thought, when we are committed we think we are clear of confusion—we are not. And, confusion can only cease when there is no movement of the observer. Sir, you see, this requires a great deal of going into. Perhaps we can go into this, if you will permit me, next time we meet here, this whole question of confusion, because really it’s a very complex question. Moments we think we are confused; other moments we are not confused: we think we are very clear, and next moment we are confused. We think we have solved the problem completely, and that very same problem arises another day. So we are caught in confusion; and out of this confusion you listen, you seek a leader, political, religious, psychological, or whatever that is. And what you choose is born out of confusion, and therefore what you choose is also confused. It’s really quite a complex problem, and I hope we can go into it next time. Sorry.