J. Krishnamurti – Brockwood Park 1976 – Public Talk 1 – A transformation which implies freedom


What shall we talk about,
this morning? I would like to talk over together
with you, if I may, the very serious problem
of how to bring about deep transformation of man,
of a human being. That’s what I would like to discuss,
talk over and share together. If it is at all possible for man, a human being, who represents
the whole of the world – every human being
is the whole of the world – can that human entity undergo
a deep, radical transformation, not superficial changes,
not move from one cage to another, or one system to another, one guru to another,
or one belief to another, but deep transformation
which implies freedom, totally, from all belief, from all ideals,
from all contradictions in our actions, in our daily life? And can this be done
without any effort, without the battle of the opposites? That is the problem
and that’s the question I think we ought to talk over,
together, during these four talks
and two discussions. Because I feel that when
a human being changes, radically, he affects the whole
consciousness of the world because the world is you
and you are the world, basically. You may have different manners,
different costumes, different colour, different taste, but essentially, deeply,
wherever you go – whether the Far East or
the Near East or here or America – human beings are,
essentially, the same: they suffer, they have got
great anxieties, deep problems, problems of relationship,
problems of war, nationality – great suffering. So, basically, deeply, every
human being is the other human being. I think this is not a theory,
a concept, a hypothesis, but an actuality. This, I think,
is very important to understand, not intellectually, not verbally, but actually feel
the reality of it, the truth of it – that we are, essentially,
the same, right through the world because our foundation, our existence
is based, wherever we are, on relationship, on conflict,
confusion, pain, anxiety, great fears and deep sorrow. I think this is a fact, not what I would like to believe, or what I would urge you to believe. But when we know this as a truth,
not a conclusion, not a thing that, intellectually,
you contrive, and so believe in, but an actual reality. So, you are the world
and the world is you. And if there is a radical change
in that consciousness, then you affect the whole of mankind. Can we go on, from there? Please, this is not
an intellectual gathering – whatever that word may mean – nor is it a form of entertainment. We are fairly serious people, I hope, and observing what the world is, what is happening
both externally and inwardly – the confusion, the wars,
the brutalities and so on, so on, to radically bring about
a deep change, which is so utterly necessary
and important. It seems to me that our
chief problem, or our chief concern is whether it’s possible to bring
about a radical change in man. Because we are conditioned:
historically, religiously, by the culture in which we live, our consciousness is enclosed, bound, and we are talking about
the content of that consciousness, and the changing of that content. The content makes for consciousness. Doesn’t it? Right? Please, though the speaker
is expressing this in words we are both of us
sharing the thing, together. We are not doing a propaganda, we are not trying to convince
you of anything, because we are not an authority,
we are not a guru. To me, it is an abomination
in matters of the spirit to have any kind of authority. For authority breeds fear, conformity, acceptance of someone who knows
and another who does not know. But when one says, ‘I know,’ you may be sure he does not know. So, we are sharing this question
together, not verbally, not theoretically,
but actually, in our life, in observing ourselves, in becoming aware
of our own activities and our own ways of thinking,
acting, believing. So, we are concerned
in the radical transformation in the content of our consciousness. Our consciousness
is made up of those things which man has collected during
centuries upon centuries of existence – his ideas, his beliefs,
his fears, his pleasures, his great sorrow and fear of death,
and all the rest of the content, in which is included knowledge
– the known as well as the hope to discover
what is beyond the known. All that is in our consciousness. I hope you’re not bothered
by the flies. They seem to be concentrating on me. So, please, we are enquiring together into the content of our consciousness
which is you, which is yourself, and in that enquiry,
we are going to discover, if it is at all possible, the nature and the structure
of that consciousness, the content of that consciousness, and whether it is possible to empty
that consciousness of its content and perhaps come upon
a totally different dimension. This is what we are proposing to do during all these four talks
and two discussions. So, it is not that you merely
listen to the speaker, but you are with him enquiring
into your consciousness, into your beliefs,
into your ideas, fears, pleasures and all the agonies that human
beings go through, together. So, it is your responsibility
much more than the speaker’s. If you are serious and
if you want to go into it we’ll go, together. But if you’re not serious, if you don’t want to enquire
into all this human misery, and whether it is possible to end it, then please, leave!
You understand? Leave! It’s not worth taking
your time and trouble. So, together, we are going
to enquire, explore, and to explore, there must be freedom. That’s necessary, isn’t it? If you want to enquire into something you cannot come
with all your prejudices, with all your beliefs, dogmas,
and all the rest of it, or hope, but which will prevent your enquiry. So, the first thing – and, perhaps,
the first step is the last step – is that there must be
freedom to enquire. So, please, we are asking each other
in the process of enquiry, that very enquiry demands
that one be free to look, free to observe. And it’s impossible to observe
if you come to it, if you come to explore
with all your previous conclusions, or what you wish it to be. So, there must be freedom to enquire. I hope we are together in this. Bené? Can we go on? So, the first thing is, in enquiry,
is the enquirer, the man, the entity different from that
which he enquires into? You understand my question? I want to look into myself,
into my consciousness. I want to observe the content
of that consciousness. I want to be familiar
with all the cunning deviations, with all the ideas, thoughts,
beliefs, dogmas. I want to look into it. Is the observer different
from that which he observes? This is a very important question
that you must resolve, otherwise, we shan’t be able
to understand each other. You understand? I hope I’m making myself clear. Am I? That is, I want to observe my fear. Or, I want to observe
why I have innumerable beliefs, conclusions, prejudices, and to enquire into it, is the entity who is enquiring different from that
which he’s enquiring into? You understand my question? Am I different from the content
of my consciousness? Do you understand?
Is this mystifying? Questioner: Do you mean
‘different’ or ‘detached’? K: We’ll come to it, presently.
Please, question me a little later. If I am different from the thing
I observe in myself, then there is a division between me
and thing which I enquire into. Right? When there is a division between me
and that which I enquire into, then, there is conflict. Then I try to suppress it,
control it, or run away from it, or try to wish to change it. But if the observer is the observed then there is a totally different
action which takes place. Is this somewhat clear? Q: By thought, do you mean
the observer is the observed? K: We’re going to go
into a little more. I observe in myself anger. I’m angry. Is that anger different from ‘me’
who is the observer of that anger? I am that anger, surely? Right? I am not different from that anger. May I go on? Do see. Or I’m greedy, envious. Is that envy different from ‘me’
who is observing that reaction which I call ‘envy’? Or, that envy is ‘me’?
I am not different from that envy. Or take jealousy: that feeling
which we name as ‘jealousy,’ is that different from ‘me’
who is observing it? Or that jealousy is ‘me’?
You are following, now? So, when I observe, is there a division between
the observer and the observed? Are we dissipating the mystery of it? You understand my question? Are we together in this
or am I talking to myself? Because this is very important,
right from the beginning. Because we are conditioned
to this division as ‘me’ different
from that which I observe. We are conditioned
to the conflict of this division. We are conditioned
to either suppress it, or analyse it or run away from it. Right? So, we are educated, conditioned
to accept this division as ‘me’ being different
from that which I observe and, therefore, establish a conflict between ‘me’ and that which I observe. And when one looks into it
very, very deeply – not very deeply,
it’s fairly simple – one sees the observer is the observed, therefore, you eliminate all conflict. So, we are looking,
observing our consciousness – the content of it,
which is our attachments – whether to a house, to a piece
of furniture, or to a person, or to an idea, and so on, so on. When you observe attachment, is the observer different
from that which he is attached to? One is attached to an idea. That idea is created by thought, thought which says to itself,
‘I observe ‘what is’ and I can change ‘what is,’
by having an ideal, and pursuing that ideal
and overcoming ‘what is.’ This is what we go through. Whereas, the ideal
is an escape from ‘what is.’ No? And, also, we do not know
what to do with ‘what is,’ therefore, we try to create an idea
which is the opposite of ‘what is’ and hope, thereby, as a leverage,
to remove ‘what is.’ Are you following all this? Are we together in all this,
or am I…? Somewhat. So, it becomes very important
when we observe ourselves, which is our consciousness
with all its content, whether the observer is different
from that which he observes. If he is different,
then there is a division. That division then
brings about conflict – the Hindu, the Muslim,
the Jew, the Arab, you know,
the whole division of mankind. So, where there is division,
there must be conflict. That is a law. So, one observes then
that in examining, exploring
the content of our consciousness, the observer is the observed. Right? The fear in the consciousness
is my fear, because I am that consciousness, it’s part of me, which is afraid.
Right? Come on! You see, we think by this division – the observer being different
from the observed – we think conflict is necessary
to overcome that which is observed. And we are used to that conflict, it’s part of our tradition, part of
our education, part of our culture. And we are saying
something entirely different, therefore,
there is no proper communication. If the observer is the observed,
then what takes place? You understand? I am attached to something, to a person, to an idea,
to a belief, to a house, to something or other
– I’m attached – and in that attachment,
I discover there is fear. I might lose it,
the person might run away from me, and so I hold that person
or that thing much more closely. So, there is conflict going on,
isn’t there? And we are used to this conflict, it’s part of our tradition,
part of our education, and we are saying that the division is illusory, is not real. What is real is that the observer,
the person who feels angry, the feeling is not different
from himself, he is that. Then what takes place?
You follow? Before, we thought by fighting anger,
by suppressing it, by rationalising it, by analysing it,
we would overcome anger. Right? That is, there is a division
between ‘me’ and the feeling that is different. I wonder…
Come on, this is fairly simple. So, what is important is to remove
all conflict in observation, then we can go beyond ‘what is.’ But as long as we are
in conflict with ‘what is,’ then we are conditioned by ‘what is.’ So, the observer is the observed, the thinker is the thought,
the experiencer is the experience, so when that becomes a truth,
that is truth, then we can observe our consciousness,
totally differently, not as an entity who is different
from that which he is seeing. Right? So, what is it in our consciousness,
the three principal things, that gather to itself such tremendous
energy and importance? One of them is fear. Right? Then pleasure. Then suffering. These are the three principal
elements in our consciousness. Right? Fear, pleasure and sorrow, with all its ramifications, changes, its varieties of fear,
varieties of pleasure, multiple changes of sorrow. So, firstly then,
let’s examine fear – right? – which is part of our consciousness,
which is part of yourself. So, it becomes very important
how you observe that fear. Whether you observe it
as an entity separate from fear, or, you observe it as part of you. You are that fear. Right? So, how do you observe that fear? You understand my question? Some of you? Are you at all serious about all this? Does it mean anything
to be free of fear? Not only certain forms of fear, but to be completely and totally
free of psychological fears, otherwise, we are slaves, otherwise, we live in darkness,
we get paralysed. So, it’s very important when you are talking
about transformation of man to understand and to be free of fear, not only the psychological fears but when we understand
the psychological fears then biological fears
can be dealt with differently – the physical fears. So, we are dealing, first,
with psychological fears – fear of losing a job,
fear of losing – oh, God knows what,
a dozen things – fear of losing the person
whom you think you love, fear of not being loved,
fear of loneliness, – a dozen things we are afraid of – from darkness to light, to all the
peculiar, neurotic fears that one has so many forms of it. Now, how does one be free of fear? You understand my question? Because it is absolutely important, if you want to bring about
a deep transformation of the human mind,
human consciousness, that one should be
totally and completely free of psychological fears. So, what is fear? Fear of something. Right? Is that fear merely a word? Do you understand? I see you don’t.
I must go into it, differently. One is afraid of something – has the word created the fear, or the fear exists
separate from the word? Please, this is very important,
to capture this. We are used
to the implications of words, and the reaction to the word. ‘Death’ is a terrible thing! So, in the same way,
does the word create the fear, or the fear exists
independent of the word? What do you think? You understand my question?
You don’t understand my question. I’m afraid. It’s a reaction. I’m afraid of losing my reputation.
That’s a good idea! Otherwise, you wouldn’t all be here. I’m afraid of losing it. The fear is there, and that fear is caused by the idea
that I might lose my reputation. So, I want to understand
the whole problem of fear, not just one aspect of fear but the whole structure and the
nature of fear, the enormity of fear. Now, I say to myself, ‘Is the fear created by an idea
that I might lose my reputation’ and, therefore, I’m afraid, and is that fear brought about
by an idea? Is the idea merely a word? You are following this? So, has the word ‘reputation’
created the fear, and is there a fear without the word, without the idea
that I might lose my reputation? So, is there fear because
of a series of words and ideas, or, fear exists apart from the series
of words, ideas, implications? Does fear exist, by itself? Or, is it a structure
of words and ideas and time? You understand? Oh, come on, please! Q: I think that’s so but sometimes,
I think the fear seems to come in automatically, although
it has been set up by words. K: Yes, fear exists where
there are words and ideas and time, time being tomorrow,
apart from yesterday. You follow? Time, words, ideas
bring about this sense of fear. Now, I say to myself,
‘If there was no time, there was no word,
no series of conclusions and ideas, would there be fear?’ You understand what I’m saying, now? So, can the mind be free
of time, idea and word? If it is not capable of being free
then fear will exist. So, I have to examine why the mind or the whole
thinking process is caught up in words – words, ideas, conclusions,
and all the rest of it. So, I must go into the question
of what is thinking. You understand? I started out to find out
what is the nature of fear, why human beings are caught
in this enormous structure of fear and apparently human beings have
not been able to be free of fear. They escape from it,
they have rationalised it, they do all kinds of things
to avoid it but it goes on. So, we are enquiring, what is the nature
and the structure of this fear? Is it the result of thinking
about time, what might happen,
or what has happened and hoping that it will not happen,
which is the process of time, which is a movement of thought. Thought is a movement of time. Right? I’ve discovered that. Thought is a movement
in time, as from yesterday, through today and tomorrow –
what might happen tomorrow, or, what has happened in the past,
hoping it will not happen again. So, all that is a process of time,
a movement. Time is movement. And, also, why the mind
is caught in words, why words have become
of such extraordinary importance – words being the process of thinking, the conclusions, ideas and all that, which is, what is thinking because in thinking, I’ve found out,
there is fear, in thinking, I see, time is involved, so I must go into this question
of what is thinking. Please, I am putting it into words, you have to share this thing,
together, co-operate with this thing. Otherwise, you just remain there
and I remain here. Right?
So, what is thinking? Not what you think about,
but how does thinking arise? What is the nature of thinking? Because unless I go into this
very deeply and find out the nature of thinking, I will never be free from fear. So, it is very important for me
to find out what is thinking, not what people say
what is thinking – you understand? After reading books
or hearing somebody, then repeat what others
have said what thinking is, which is second-hand, and perhaps we are all
second-hand human beings. Whereas, we are saying, let’s find out, for ourselves,
what is thinking. Thinking, surely, is the response
of memory. Right? Memory is experience, knowledge,
stored up in the brain. Right?
I think this is an obvious fact. So, thinking is the response
of memory, stored up in the brain
through experience, through collective knowledge. Right? So, thinking is this movement
from the past to the present, modified and going on.
Right? We live in the past,
most of us, don’t we? ‘I had such a happy day,’
‘It was so nice when I was a boy,’ ‘Oh, it was so nice
when we were first married’ – living, all the time, in the past, because we don’t know
what the future is, we are afraid
of what the future might be, so, we live in the past.
So, knowledge is the past. Right?
There is no knowledge of the future. There’s only, knowledge is the past. So, thought is a movement
from the past. Oh, come on!
Are we meeting together in this? So, thought is a movement
from the past, the past being collected experience – innumerable experiences
which have become knowledge. So, knowledge is essentially,
the past. So, thought is a movement
from the past, modifies itself in the present
and goes on to the future. Right? So, I have found out
– you have found out, not me – you have found out, for yourself, that thought is a movement
from the storehouse of the past. So, thought is never free. Right?
I wonder if you see this! Thought is a movement of the past,
therefore of time, and as long as we operate
– no, let me put it… – we have to operate in thought
– right? – where knowledge is necessary,
we have to operate there – all the technological knowledge,
riding a bicycle, this and that – where knowledge is essential,
there thought operates. Is it possible for thought
to remain there and not enter into other fields? You are following my question? That is, I realise I’m afraid – fear, fear of not being, fear of loneliness,
fear of not being loved, or fear of loving and losing, fear of death, fear of losing a job
– you know, a dozen fears. But, basically, there is only one fear which expresses itself
in multiple ways. So, that fear is
the movement of thought. Right? Now, in observing that movement, is the observer different from that, different from that which he observes? Are we meeting something
together, or not? My word! Because you see, please, if we can go into this one question,
completely, and when you leave the tent,
the marquee, you’re free of fear you understand? – that would be a marvellous thing. That will affect the whole
consciousness of mankind if you are free. So, please, share this thing,
together. Don’t let me talk about it but let us journey into the problem,
together. You’re afraid of something,
aren’t you? Every human being is, apparently. Now, is that fear different from you? Right? I’m asking,
is that fear different from you? Q: I hope so. K: You hope so? Oh, Lord! Or, that fear is you. Please, do let’s be a little serious,
is that fear you? Of course. Like anger – is anger different
from you or you are part of that? Obviously.
So, fear is part of you, but we have learnt or been educated
to separate ourselves from fear and, therefore, we say,
‘I’II control it, I’II change it, I will run away from it,’
all the rest of it comes into being. But if the fear is you,
what will you do? You understand the question, now?
Q: Yes. Q: Can I ask a question?
K: Yes, please. Q: Are you saying that, well, what I hear you saying is that
if a person wants anything then he is, kind of,
conditioned by fear. Is that right? K: No, sir, no. First, please,
get this one thing clear, at least: as anger is not different from you
– which is so obvious, isn’t it? – is not fear part of you? And if it is part of you,
what will you do? We are used to separating fear
from ourselves and, therefore, acting upon fear – suppress it, run away from it,
all the rest of it. But when fear is you,
action comes to an end. Right? This is very difficult for you to see, because we are so conditioned
to this division – me different from fear
and, therefore, acting upon fear. But we are saying
something entirely different – fear is you,
therefore, you can’t act. Then what happens? Q: Your talk’s moving
from the past to the future, from experience
to what ought to be in… etc. K: ‘What ought to be’ implies
that you are not looking at ‘what is.’ Q: No, I mean, from the past
to the future, so it moves. K: Thought moves from the past
through the present to the future. Thought modifies itself
through the present to the future, so, thought is still the past. It may modify itself,
it may change itself, it may put on different coating,
different clothing, whatever it is, colouring – it is still the past movement. Please, what is the time? Q: Twelve thirty. K: Half past twelve? Already? No, please, this is very important, I want to stick to this one thing
this morning, if I may. As most human beings are afraid and they’ve accepted fear
as part of their life and, therefore, live in darkness, therefore, live in a kind of
paralytic state, and being afraid,
all forms of neurotic habits, neurotic activities come, it’s very important, if there is to be transformation
in the human consciousness, that fear must be totally eliminated. And, we say, it is possible. It is only possible when conflict
between the person who says, ‘I am afraid and I will do
something about fear,’ when that conflict comes to an end, that is when the division
comes to an end. And that division is artificial,
it’s an illusion. What is actuality is,
the fear is part of you, therefore, you cannot do
a thing about it – right? – psychologically. Therefore, your whole attention
undergoes a change. Before, attention was
given to the conflict – suppressing, denying, running away. But now, when your fear is you, your whole attention
has undergone a change. That is, you have much
greater energy to look at this fear. Before you ran away,
you suppressed it, did all kinds of things to it, now, fear is part of you, therefore, you observe it
with a totally different attention. You get this? Please, get this! Q: You can only look at fear
if it’s separate, surely? K: When you look at fear,
the gentleman says, then, it’s apart from you. When fear is you,
what are you looking at? Do, please, watch it.
Don’t answer me. Do look at it. When fear is you,
what are you looking at? You’re not looking at fear,
you are that. So, your attention has changed. Q: Perhaps, there isn’t a ‘you’ to be
the fear, perhaps, there’s only fear. K: We are coming to that.
Attention has changed. Right? Please, see that simple thing. Q: Who is looking at me? K: I’m not looking at you, sir.
I’m looking at fear. Oh, Jesus – waste of time! Q: But would it mean
eliminating part of you? K: Yes, you’re eliminating part of you – which you are afraid of. Part of you is fear. Right? With all the complications of fear. Part of you is pleasure –
with all the varieties of pleasure. Part of you is sorrow –
different types of sorrow. So, all that is you. You’re not different from all that,
are you? Or you might think you’re God. If you think you are not all that, then you are something
different from all that, and being ‘different,’
you’re something super-human. This is the old Hindu philosophy
that says, ‘I am not that. We are the soul,
we have something precious inside, we are part of the divine,
we are part of the perfect, we are part of the archetype’
– you know, all that. So, I personally refuse
to accept all that. We must begin with doubt. Right? And when you begin with doubt,
completely begin with that, then you end up
with complete certainty. But we begin with certainties
and end up in nothing. Please, give your attention
to this question. As long as there is division
between you and fear, then there is conflict,
there is wastage of energy – by suppressing it, running
away from it, talking about it, going to the analysts
and so on and on and on. But, whereas, when you see
the truth that you are that fear, your whole energy is gathered in
this attention to look at that thing. Now, what is that thing
which we call fear? Is it a word which has brought fear, or is it independent of the word? You are following this? If it is the word, the word being
the associations with the past – I recognise it
because I’ve had fear before. You understand? I look at that fear, though
it’s part of me, because I name it, and I name it because I have
known it to happen before. So, by naming it,
I have strengthened it. I wonder if you see this. So, is it possible to observe
without naming it? If you name it,
it’s already in the past, right? If you don’t name it, it’s something
entirely different, isn’t it? So, is it possible not to name that
thing which you have called ‘fear,’ therefore, free of the past
so that you can look. You cannot look if you are prejudiced. If I am prejudiced against you,
I can’t look at you, I’m looking at my prejudice. So, is it possible
not to name the thing at all? And then if you do not name it,
is it fear? Or has it undergone a change, because you have given all your
attention to it. You understand? I wonder if you get it. When you name it
you are not giving attention to it, when you try to suppress it, you’re
not giving your attention to it, when you try to run away from it,
you’re not giving your attention to it – whereas, when you observe
that fear is you, and not name it – what takes place? What takes place?
You’re doing it, now. What takes place?
Q: It’s an emotion. K: Wait. It is a sensation, isn’t it? A feeling, which is sensation. Please, watch it.
It’s a sensation, isn’t it? All feelings are sensations. I put a pin in there,
and all the rest of it. So, it’s a sensation.
What’s wrong with sensation? Nothing is wrong with sensation,
is it? But when sensation, plus thought, which becomes desire with its images,
then the trouble begins. I wonder if you understand all this! This is too much, probably,
in the morning. You know, this is part of meditation. You understand?
This is, really, part of meditation. Not to sit under a tree and just
think about something or other, or try to concentrate, or try
to repeat some mantra or some words – ‘Coca Cola,’
or something or other – but this is, really, meditation, because you’re enquiring very,
very, very deeply into yourself. And you can enquire very deeply
only when you are really without any motive,
when you are free to look. And you cannot look if you separate yourself
from that which you are looking at. Then you have complete energy to look. It is only when there is no attention, that fear comes into being.
You understand? When there is complete attention
which is complete, total energy then there is no fear, is there? It is only the inattentive person
that is afraid, not the person
who is completely attentive at the moment
when that feeling arises. That feeling is a part of sensation. Sensation is normal, natural. It’s like looking at a tree, looking
at people, you know – sensation. But when sensation plus thought,
which is desire with its images, then begins all our problems. You understand? This is simple.
Right? Now, can you look at your fear – be serious, for five minutes! Can you look at your fear,
whatever it is, not separate yourself from that fear,
but you are that fear and, therefore, you give
your total attention to that fear. Then, is there fear?
Q: No. K: Then walk out of this tent
without fear. Don’t say, ‘No’
and then go outside full of fears. Do you want
to ask questions about this? Q: Sir, I’d just like to ask,
in the beginning you said that this was more our responsibility
than yours. What did you mean by this?
Or why did you say it? K: Sir, the word ‘responsibility’ – what does it mean
to be responsible? To respond adequately, isn’t it? The word ‘responsibility’ comes
from the root ‘respond,’ to respond. Now, do you respond adequately
to this question of fear? Or, do you respond
with all your tradition, with your culture, you follow?
– all that conditioning and, therefore, which prevents you
from responding fully to this question? As we said,
this is part of meditation. You don’t know what meditation is,
but this is part of it. When the mind is not afraid then only is it capable of entering
into something totally different, but being afraid, to try to meditate
only leads to illusion, to all kinds of deceptive experiences. So, meditation is the investigation
into your consciousness, into yourself and see
if there can be freedom from that, from the fear, and to understand the nature
and the structure of pleasure, because we all want pleasure. To understand it,
to go into it, to find out what is accurate in pleasure,
what is right in pleasure – enjoyment, joy. And also to enquire
into the whole problem of fear, not only your particular fear, sorrow,
but the sorrow of mankind. All that is involved in meditation which is to discover
the truth in yourself, to discover the truth
which is a light to yourself so that you don’t follow anybody. That’s enough for today, isn’t it? Is that enough for today?

1 thought on “J. Krishnamurti – Brockwood Park 1976 – Public Talk 1 – A transformation which implies freedom

  • Krishnamurti constantly asserts: "The observer is the observed," but what is the use of repeating it. It is necessary to show it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *