[edited transcript begins at 18'15 of audio recording]
...

Is it possible to empty the mind totally, so that it is fresh every day, so that it’s no longer creating problems for itself, so that it’s able to meet every challenge so completely, so totally, that it leaves no residue which becomes the problem?

Is it possible to have every kind of experience that human beings have, and yet at the end of the day not to have any residue to be carried over to the next day, except mechanical knowledge? So don't let's confuse the two issues. If this is not possible, the mind then deteriorates: naturally it cannot but disintegrate. So, our question is: Can the mind, which is the result of time, of experience, of all the influences, culture, of the social, economic, climatic conditioning, can it free itself and not have a problem, so that it’s always fresh, so that it’s always capable of meeting every challenge as it comes? If we are not capable of this, then we die; a miserable life has come to an end. We haven't resolved our sorrows; we haven't ever satisfied our appetites; we have coped in fulfilment and frustration; our life is a constant battlefield.

So it seems to me we have to find an answer to this question, not through any philosophy—which of course doesn’t answer this question; it may give explanations—but obviously to answer it, which is, to be free from every problem so that the mind is tremendously sensitive, active. And in this very activity it can throw off every problem that arises.

So I would like, if I may, to discuss that problem with you. We understand what we mean by a problem: the inadequate response to a challenge. And, there are endless challenges going on all the time, conscious or unconscious. And, the more you are alert, the more one is thoughtful, the more the problems become acute. And being incapable of resolving them, one invents theories; and the more intellectual you are, the more cunning the mind in inventing a structure, a belief, an ideology, and through that it escapes.

And, as we said, life is full of experience constantly impinging on the mind. And, as most of our lives are so utterly empty, lonely, boring—a meaningless, sorrowful existence—we want more and more a wider and wider and deeper experience. And, the peculiarity of experience is that it is never new. Experience is what has always been—not actually what is. If you have had an experience of any kind, you have recognized it, you say, “That is an experience.” Recognition implies that you already know it, that you’ve already had such an experience, and therefore there is nothing new in experiencing. So it’s always the known that is capable of recognizing any experience; the past that says, “That experience I've already had,” and therefore it’s capable of saying “It is an experience.”

You know, both in Europe and in this country the LSD is giving new experiences to people, and they are pursuing these new experiences—new take-off, or whatever the term is. And, these experiences are the result of their own conditioning, of their own consciousness limited, and therefore it’s not something totally new. If it is something totally new, you would not recognize it as an experience. So, so, can the mind be in a state of such activity that it is free from all experience?

You understand? This needs explanation: As I said, we are the result of time, and, during that time, we have cultivated all the human tendencies. Culture, society, religions have conditioned the mind. And, we are always translating every challenge in terms of our conditioning, and so what happens generally is—if one observes oneself—that every thought, every movement of the mind is limited, is conditioned; and thought cannot go beyond itself.

You see, if we do not have experience, we would go to sleep. If there was no challenge, and however inadequate the response is, with all the problems that it brings, we would go to sleep. And that's what’s happening to most of us: we respond inadequately, we have the problems; the problems become so enormous that we are incapable of solving them, and so these problems make us dull, insufficient, confused. And, this confusion, this inadequacy increases more and more and more, and we look to experience as a measure of bringing about clarity, bringing about a great, fundamental change.

Now, can experience of any kind bring about a radical change in the psyche, in consciousness?—because that is the issue; that is the problem. Our consciousness is the result of the past—we are the past. And, a mind functioning within the field of the past cannot at any time resolve any problem. So one must have a totally new mind; a revolution must take place in the psyche, and can this revolution come about through experience?—because that's what we are waiting (for), that's what we want. We are looking for an experience that will transform us. That's why we go to church, or take drugs, or sit in meditation - because our craving, longing, intensity, is to bring about a change within ourselves. We see the necessity of it, and we look to some outside authority, to some authority, or to our own experience.

So, is there any outside authority, outside agency, as God, as an idea, a belief, can any outside agency bring about this transformation? That’s one issue; second: can any experience through any means bring about this total revolution in the psyche? So, will authority as an idea, as grace, as God, and so on, will that bring about change; will authority transform the human mind?

I think this is very important to understand, because to us authority is very important. Though one may revolt against authority, we set up our own authority, and we conform to that authority, like long hair, and so on and so on and so on. So, there is the authority of law, which one obviously must accept. Then there is the psychological authority, the authority of one who knows, as the priest—and nobody bothers about the priest nowadays: at least the so-called intellectual, fairly clear-thinking people don't care about the priest, the church, and all their inventions. But they have their own authority, which is the authority of the intellect, reason, or knowledge, and they follow that authority. And, a man afraid, uncertain, not clear in his activities, in his life, he wants some authority to tell him what to do—the authority of the analyst, the book, or the latest fad.

So can the mind be free from authority, which means free from fear, so that it is no longer capable of following, and therefore putting an end to imitation which becomes mechanical. After all, virtue, ethics, is not a repetition of what is good. The moment it becomes mechanical, it ceases to be virtue. Virtue is something that must be from moment to moment, like humility. You cannot cultivate humility, and a mind that has no humility is incapable of learning. So, virtue has no authority. The social morality is no morality at all; it's immoral, because it admits competition, greed, ambition, and therefore society is encouraging immorality. But virtue is something that transcends memory. But yet, without virtue there is no order, and order is not according to a pattern, according to a formula. And the mind that follows a formula through disciplining itself to achieve virtue creates for itself the problems of immorality, right?

So, authority—whether it is an external authority which the mind objectifies apart from the law as God, as moral, and so on—that authority becomes destructive when the mind is seeking or understanding what is real virtue. And we have our own authority as experience, as knowledge, which we are trying to follow. And so there is this constant repetition, imitation, which we all know. So, authority—we are talking of psychological authority, not the authority of law, the policeman who keeps order—but the psychological authority, which each one has, becomes destructive of virtue, because virtue is something that is living, moving. As you cannot possibly cultivate humility, as you cannot possibly cultivate love, virtue cannot be cultivated, and there is great beauty in that. Therefore virtue is non-mechanical, and without virtue there is no foundation for clear thinking.

You know that it brings in a problem of discipline. For most of us discipline is suppression, imitation, adjustment, conformity, and therefore there is a conflict all the time. But there is a discipline which is not suppression, which is not control, which is not adjustment; that discipline comes when to see clearly becomes imperative. Look: we are confused, and out of that confusion we act, which only increases more confusion, but realizing that we are confused, not to act demands great discipline in itself.

Look, sir, to see a flower demands a great deal of attention. If you really want to look at a flower, at a tree, at your neighbour, or your wife, or your husband, you have to look; and you cannot look if thought interferes with that look. And you realize that, one sees that fact. The very observation of that fact demands discipline. There is no imposition of a mind that says, “I must be orderly, disciplined, to look.”
(sotto voce) I hope this is clear.

And, there is the authority, psychological authority . . . the psyche that demands authority to guide itself, to follow, to do the right thing. Such an authority ends all virtue, and without virtue you cannot possibly think clearly, live a life of tremendous sensitivity and activity. And, as we said, we look to experience as a means to bring about this revolution in the psyche. Can any experience bring about a change in consciousness? You understand my question?

First of all, why do we need experience? We demand it because our life is empty. We've had sex, we've been to churches, we have read, we have done hundreds of little things, and we want some supreme experience that will clear away all this mess. So we look to an experience. Now, what do we mean by an experience, and why do we demand it?

Please, this is a very serious question; do go into it with me. Find out for yourselves, if I may suggest, why you want experiences, not only the experiences that the LSD gives, but also other forms of experiences. And obviously, these experiences must be pleasant, must be pleasurable, enjoyable, otherwise you don't want such sorrowful experiences. Why? And who is it that is experiencing? And when you are experiencing, actual experiencing, in a state of experience, is there an experiencer who says, “I am enjoying it.”? Or, all experiences are always in the past, never at the moment, and any experience that one has is recognizable, otherwise it’s not an experience. And if you recognize it, it’s already known, otherwise you can't recognize it. I don’t know if you are following all this.

So a mind that demands experience as a means to bring about a radical revolution in the psyche is merely a continuity of what has been, and therefore it is nothing new in experience. And we need experience for most people to keep them awake, otherwise you go to sleep. If there was no challenge, if there was no response, if there was no pleasure and pain, we would just become vegetables, cow-like. So, experiences keep us awake, through pain, through suffering, through every form of discontent. On one side it acts as a stimulant, and experience prevents the mind from clarity, from a revolution. Please follow me a little bit.

So is it possible to keep totally awake, to be highly active and intelligent, sensitive? And because it is sensitive, tremendously active, it doesn't need experience. It is only a dull mind, an insensitive mind that is demanding experience, hoping through experience it will reach greater and greater and greater experiences of enlightenment, and so on.

So the problem is this, our issue is this: Can a mind which is the result of many centuries, thousands upon thousand years, can that mind which has functioned always within the field of the known—and therefore within that field of the known there is nothing new: all the gods it has invented are from the past, from the known—can a mind by thought, by intelligence, by reason, bring about this transformation? You understand? Am I making myself clear?

We need tremendous psychological change, not a neurotic change. And reason, thought cannot do it—it’s so obvious: we don’t have to go into that. Then what will? If experience will not, nor authority will not, then what will? Neither knowledge nor reason, nor all the cunning activities of the intellect, will bring about this radical revolution in the psyche. We have tried everything, so one asks oneself: What will?

This is a fundamental question, not a question that can be answered by another. But in examining the question, you understand, in examining the question, not in trying to find an answer to the question, we will find the answer. And therefore, to put that question you must be tremendously earnest, because if you put that question with a motive, because you want certain results, and all the rest of it, then the motive dictates the answer. Therefore one must put that question without motive, without any profit; and that’s an extraordinarily difficult thing to do, because all our activities, all our demands have motives, personal, or that personal motive identified with a greater motive, but is still a motive.

So what will bring about, if thought, reason, knowledge, experience will not bring about this radical revolution in the psyche—and it is only that revolution that’ll solve all our problems—what will? Now, I'm examining the question, I'm not answering the question, because there is no answer. But in investigating the question itself we’ll come upon the answer. Therefore one must be intense, passionate, highly sensitive and, therefore, highly intelligent in investigation. And you cannot be passionate if you have a motive. Then that passion is only the result of wanting to achieve a result, and therefore it becomes a pleasure. Where there is pleasure there is no passion. The very urgency of putting that question to oneself brings about that energy to examine.

I hope we have time, have we? First of all, to examine anything, especially non-objective things, things inside the skin—to examine—there must be freedom, complete freedom to look, and that freedom cannot be when thought as the response of previous experiences, knowledge, interferes with looking. Please follow this, if you are interested; just go with the speaker a little, not authoritatively—just look at it.

If you would look at a flower, any thought about that flower prevents you from looking at it. The word the rose, the violet; it is this flower, that flower; it’s that species that prevents you from observing. So, to look there must be no interference of the word, which is the objectifying of thought, right? So, there must be freedom from the word; and to look there must be silence, otherwise you can't look. If I look, if one looks at one’s wife or husband, all the memories that one has had, either of pleasure or of pain, interfere with looking. It’s only when you look without the image there is a relationship. The verbal image and the verbal image of the other have no relationship at all—they are non-existent.

Please, may I suggest something? Please listen, don't take notes—it’s not a class. Because we are taking a journey together into one of the most difficult things, and that demands all your attention. If you take notes, it means you’re going to think about it later, which means that you are not doing it now, and therefore there is no urgency. And a mind that has no urgency about fundamental problems is a dead, dull, stupid mind; it may be very cunning, it may be very erudite. The urgency of a problem brings about energy and passion to look.

So, there must be freedom from the word to observe—the word being the symbol, with all the content of that symbol which is knowledge, and so on. Then to look, to observe, there must be silence—otherwise how can one look at anything? Either that silence is brought about by the object which is so immense it makes the mind silent, or the mind sees itself, sees, understands, that to look at anything it must be quiet. You understand? It’s like a child given a toy, and the toy absorbs the child, and therefore the child becomes completely quiet. So interesting is the toy that he is absorbed by it. But that's not quietness. Take away the object of his absorption, and he becomes again agitated, noisy, playful, all the rest of it. But whereas the very understanding that to look at anything there must be freedom to look; and freedom implies silence, and therefore this very understanding brings about its own discipline, which means, there is no interpretation on the part of the observer of what he's looking at. And the observer being all the ideas, memories, experiences, which prevent him from looking, right? I hope somebody is following it.

So, silence and freedom go together, and the mind that is completely silent—not through discipline, not through control, not through demand for greater experience, and all that silly stuff—it is only such a mind that can answer this question. And, when it is silent, it has already answered the question, you understand? Because it’s only complete silence can bring about a total revolution in the psyche, not effort, not control, not experience or authority, because that silence is tremendously active; it is not just static silence. To come upon that silence, you have to go through all this. Either you do it instantly, or you take time and analysis; and when you take time through analysis, you have already lost silence. So, analysis—which is psychoanalysis, analysing oneself—does not bring freedom, nor does the analysis which takes time, from today to tomorrow, and so on, gradually, involves many more things, which we haven’t time to go into now.

So the mind, which is the result of time, which is the residue of all human experience, because your mind, and my mind, is the result of our human struggle, endless struggle. Your problems are the problems of the Indian, in India: he goes through immense sorrow, like yourself. And this demand to find the truth, whether the mind, whether there can be a radical revolution in the mind, can be answered and discovered . . . the truth can be discovered only when there is complete freedom, and therefore no fear. And there is authority only when there is fear. And when one has understood fear, authority—and the putting away of all demands for experience, which is really the highest form of maturity —then the mind becomes completely silent. And it’s only in that silence, which is very active, that you will see, if you have gone that far, there is a total revolution in the psyche. It is only such a mind that can create a new society. And there must be a new society, a new community, who are—though living in the world—are not of the world. And the responsibility for such a community to come into being is yours.

Questioner 1 (Q1): Sir, this is for me an important question. Earlier you said that we must accept the authority of law. I can understand this with respect to such things as traffic regulations, but the law would have me become a soldier, and that I cannot accept.

K: The questioner asks, “You say we must obey law,” and he goes on to add, “It’s all right to have law of the policeman to keep order, and so on, but a government that demands that I become a soldier, that I cannot accept.” That’s what the questioner says. Right?

Q2: Question.

K: Beg your pardon?

Q2: Question.

K: I haven’t answered this question.

(Laughter)

K: You understand, this is a problem all over the world. Please, do listen to it—don’t have your question on your mind—this is a very important question right throughout the world. Governments demand that you join the army, take some kind of part in war. What are you going to do, especially when one is young? We are finished; what happens to the young people? This is a question that is asked everywhere in the world.

Now, there is no authority. I'm not advising what you should or should not do, whether you should join or should not join, should kill or not kill—we are examining the question.

In India at one time in the past there was a community within that society which said, “We will not kill.” They didn't kill animals for their food; they thought a great deal of not hurting another, speaking kindly, having always a certain respect for virtue. That community existed for many, many centuries. It was especially in the south, as the Brahmin. But all that's gone. And, what is one to do: to help war or not to help? When you buy a stamp, you are helping the war; when you pay tax, you are helping the war; when you earn money, you are helping the war; when you are working in the factory, you are producing shells for the war. And the way we live, with our competition, ambition, self-centred prosperity, we are producing war. And, when the government asks that you should join the army, either you decide that you must, or must not, and face all the consequences of it.

We know a boy in Europe. There every boy must go through the army for a year, or a year and a half, or two years. This boy said, “I don’t want to do it; I'm not going to do it.” And he said, “I am going to run away.” And he ran away, which means he can never come back to his country, the property he has with the family, he can never see his family; and he left.

And, if you decide to join or not to join, that becomes a very small affair when the much larger issues are concerned. The larger issue is how to stop wars altogether, not this particular war or that particular war—have your favourite war and my favourite war. Because I may happen to be a British citizen and hate Hitler, therefore I fight him, but I don't fight Vietnamese because it's not my favourite war, it doesn't pay me politically, or whatever the reasons.

So, the larger issue is: man has chosen the way of war, conflict. Unless one alters that totally, we should be caught in what the questioner is caught. And to alter that totally, completely, one must live peacefully—not killing either by word or by deed; that means: no competition, no division of sovereign governments, no army. And “That,” you say, “is impossible for me to do it. I can't stop the war, I can't stop the army.” But what is important, it seems to me, is that when one sees the whole structure of human violence and brutality, which expresses itself ultimately in war—if you see that totally, then you will, in the very act of seeing, you’ll do the right thing. And the right thing may produce all kinds of consequences, then it doesn't matter. But to see the totality of this misery, as I said, you need great freedom to look, and that very looking is the disciplining of the mind, brings its own discipline. And out of that freedom there comes silence, and you'll have answered your question.

Q3: Sir, you said we must accept the authority of the law. I certainly appreciate your response but I was hoping you clarify that, what you meant by we must accept the authority of law.

K: Like traffic.

Q3: Oh.

K: Taxes.

Q3: Oh, Not all laws.

K: Ah, I didn’t . . . Sir, just a minute. Be careful; don't put me in a position, or yourself in a position, that I reject, or you reject, accepting of law. We purposely said the issue is much greater than this. Man has lived for five thousand years in war; and can man live peacefully?—not just peacefully; I mean to live peacefully every day demands an astonishing alertness, an awareness of every issue.

Q4: Sir, during the lecture you used the metaphor journey: the journey or the trip which we just now had together, and in which the attention was turned to itself.

K: Sir, we have to be brief, sir, sorry. I have to repeat it.

Q4: In the field of consciousness can this attempt to revolutionize the psyche, can it also be termed expansion of consciousness?

K: Can the revolution in the psyche be called expansion of consciousness? The question is clear, isn’t it? Expanding consciousness: to expand consciousness there must be a centre which is aware of its expansion, right? Moment there is a centre from which you are expanding, it is no longer expansion, because the centre always limits its own expansion. That’s fairly simple, logical, isn’t it? If there is a centre and I move from that centre, though I call it expansion, the centre is always fixed and I may expand ten miles, but the centre is always fixed, therefore it’s not expansion, and it is wrong to use that word expansion.

Q4: Doesn't revolution also imply a centre?

K: No, that's what I carefully explained. Sir, look, let me put it very briefly. You know what space is? When you look at the sky, there is a space, and that space is created by the observer who is looking, that is, there is this object, the microphone, that object creates space around itself, right? Because that object exists, there is space around it.

Now, there is this hall, this room: there is space because of the four walls, and there is space outside; so there is space outside and the space created by the wall, which is the hall, the empty space. So, we only know space because of the centre, who is creating space around himself, right? Now, he can expand that space by meditation, concentration, and all the rest of it, but it is always, the space is always created by the object, like the microphone creates the object around itself. As long as there is a centre as the observer, it creates a space round itself; and he may call that space ten thousand miles or ten steps, but it’s still the space restricted by the observer, right? So, expanding of consciousness, which is one of the easiest tricks to do, is always within the radius which the centre creates, and therefore in that space there is no freedom at all, because it is like my being free in this room, hall. You’re not free. There is freedom only, and therefore space which is not measurable, when there is no observer. And the revolution of which we are talking is in the psyche, in the consciousness itself, in which there is always the centre who is talking in terms of me and not-me.

Q5: In the beginning was the word: what does this mean to you?

K: In the beginning was the word: what does it mean to you? You see, sir, I . . . Look, sir, personally, the speaker doesn’t read all philosophy, and all the rest of it. Now, why should what another says mean anything to you? If you are investigating, looking, observing, then these questions don't arise. Even it is in the Bible that says the word, and all the rest of it, if one understands what authority is, then you can be free of authority to look, and one goes beyond the word. To find out that ultimate reality which man has called God for thousands upon thousand years, one must be free from belief; one must be free from authority, then only we can find out if there is such thing as God. Perhaps we can go into it at the next talk.