Krishnamurti: This is in the nature of a dialogue between two friends, talking over their problems, who are concerned not only with their own personal affairs, but also with what is happening in the world. Being serious, these two friends have the urge to transform themselves and see what they can do about the world and all the misery and confusion that is going on. So could we this morning spend some time together having a friendly conversation, not trying to be clever, nor opposing one opinion against another opinion or belief, and together examine earnestly and deeply some of the problems that we have? In this, communication becomes rather important; and any one question is not only personal but universal. So if that is understood, then what shall we talk over together this morning?
     Questioner: The compilation of your biography has caused much confusion and quite a lot of questions. I have boiled them down to a few. May I at least hand them over to you.
     K: Do you want to discuss the biography written by Mary Lutyens? Do you want to go into that?
     Q: No.
     K: Thank God! (laughter).
     Q(1): Briefly and then finish with it. Q(2): I would propose that you go into the question of correct and incorrect thinking: that is a problem. Both kinds of thought, or thinking processes, are mechanical processes.
     K: I see. Can we discuss this? Do you want to talk over the biography - have many of you read it? Some of you. I was just looking at it this morning (laughter). Most of it I have forgotten and if you want to talk over some of the questions that have been given me, shall we do that briefly?
     Basically the question is: what is the relationship between the present K and the former K? (laughter). I should think very little. The basic question is, how was it that the boy who was found there, "discovered" as it was called, how was it that he was not conditioned at all from the beginning, though he was brought up in a very orthodox, traditional Brahmin family with its superstitions, arrogance and extraordinary religious sense of morality and so on? Why wasn't he conditioned then? And also later during those periods of the Masters, Initiations and so on - if you have read about it - why wasn't he conditioned? And what is the relationship between that person and the present person? Are you really interested in all this?
     Audience: Yes.
     K: I am not. The past is dead, buried and gone. I don't know how to tackle this. One of the questions is about the Masters, as they are explained not only in Theosophy but in the Hindu tradition and in the Tibetan tradition, which maintain that there is a Bodhisattva; and that he manifests himself and that is called in Sanskrit Avatar, which means manifestation. This boy was discovered and prepared for that manifestation. And he went through all kinds of things. And one question that may be asked is, must others go through the same process. Christopher Columbus discovered America with sailing boats in dangerous seas and so on, and must we go through all that to go to America? You understand my question? It is much simpler to go by air! That is one question. How that boy was brought up is totally irrelevant; what is relevant is the present teaching and nothing else.
     There is a very ancient tradition about the Bodhisattva that there is a state of consciousness, let me put it that way, which is the essence of compassion. And when the world is in chaos that essence of compassion manifests itself. That is the whole idea behind the Avatar and the Bodhisattva. And there are various gradations, initiations, various Masters and so on, and also there is the idea that when he manifests all the others keep quiet. You understand? And that essence of compassion has manifested at other times. What is important in all this, if one may talk about it briefly, is: can the mind passing through all kinds of experiences, either imagined or real - because truth has nothing to do with experience, one cannot possibly experience truth, it is there, you can't experience it - but going through all those various imagined, illusory, or real states, can the mind be left unconditioned? The question is, can the mind be unconditioned always, not only in childhood. I wonder if you understand this question? That is the underlying problem or issue in this.
     So as we say, all that is irrelevant. I do not know if you know anything about the ancient tradition of India and Tibet and of China and Japan, about the awakening of certain energy, called Kundalini. There are now all over America, and in Europe, various groups trying to awaken their little energy called Kundalini. You have heard about all this, haven't you? And there are groups practising it. I saw one group on television where a man was teaching them how to awaken Kundalini, that energy, doing all kinds of tricks with all kinds of words and gestures - which all becomes so utterly meaningless and absurd. And there is apparently such an awakening, which I won't go into, because it is much too complex and probably it is not necessary or relevant. So I think I have answered this question, haven't I?
     The other question asked was: Is there a non-mechanistic activity? is there a movement - movement means time - is there a state of mind, which is not only mechanical but not in the field of time? That is what the question raised involves. Do you want to discuss that, or something else? Somebody also sent a written question, "What does it mean to be aware? Is awareness different from attention? Is awareness to be practised systematically or does it come about naturally?" That is the question. Are there any other questions?
     Q(1): Would you go into the question of what it means, finding one's true will?
     Q(2): What is the difference between denial and suppression?
     Q(3): When being together with another person I lose all my awareness; not when I am alone.
     K: Can we discuss awareness, begin with that and explore the whole thing, including the will of one's own destiny?
     Q: What about earnestness and effort?
     K: Earnestness and effort, yes. We are now discussing awareness. Does choice indicate freedom? I choose to belong to this society or to that society, to that cult, to a particular religion or not, I choose a particular job - choice. Does choice indicate freedom? Or does freedom deny choice? Please let us talk this over together.
     Q: Freedom means that no choice is needed.
     K: But we choose, and we think because we have the capacity to choose that we have freedom. I choose between the Liberal Party and the Communist party. And in choosing I feel I am free. Or I choose one particular guru or another, and that gives me a feeling that I am free. So does choice lead to awareness? Q: No.
     K: Go slowly.
     Q: Choice is the expression of conditioning, is it not?
     K: That is what I want to find out.
     Q: It seems to me that one either reacts out of habit, or one responds without thinking.
     K: We will come to that. We will go into what it means to respond without choice. We are used to choosing; that is our conditioning.
     Q: Like and dislike.
     K: All that is implied in choice. I chose you as my friend, I deny my friendship to another. One wants to find out if awareness includes choice. Or is awareness a state of mind, a state of observation in which there is no choice whatsoever? Is that possible? One is educated from childhood to choose and that is our tradition, that is our habit, that is our mechanical, instinctive reaction. And we think, because we choose there is freedom. What does awareness mean: to be aware? It implies, doesn't it, not only physical sensitivity, but also sensitivity to the environment, to nature, sensitivity to other people's reactions and to my own reactions. Not, I am sensitive, but to other people I am not sensitive: that is not sensitivity.
     So awareness implies, doesn't it, a total sensitivity: to colour, to nature, to all my reactions, how I respond to others, all that is implied in awareness, isn't it? I am aware of this tent, the shape of it and so on. One is aware of nature, the world of nature, the beauty of trees, the silence of the trees, the shape and beauty and the depth and the solitude of trees. And one is aware also of one's relationship to others, intimate and not intimate. In that awareness is there any kind of choice? - in a total awareness, neurologically, physically, psychologically, to everything around one, the influences, to all the noises and so on. Is one aware? - not only of one's own beliefs but those of others, the opinions, judgements, evaluations, the conclusions, all that is implied - otherwise one is not aware. And can you practise awareness by going to a school or college, or going to a guru who will teach you how to be aware? Is that awareness? Which means, is sensitivity to be cultivated through practice?
     Q: That becomes selfishness, concentration on oneself.
     K: Yes, that is, unless there is total sensitivity, awareness merely becomes concentration on oneself.
     Q: Which excludes awareness.
     K: Yes, that is right. But there are so many schools, so many gurus, so many ashramas, retreats, where this thing is practised.
     Q: When it is practised it is just the old trick again.
     K: This is so obvious. One goes to India or japan to learn what it means to be aware - Zen practice, all that. Or is awareness a movement of constant observation? Not only what I feel, what I think, but what other people say about me - to listen, if they say it in front of me - and to be aware of nature, of what is going on in the world. That is total awareness. Obviously it can't be practised.
     Q: It is a non-movement, isn't it?
     K: No, it is movement in the sense of, "alive".
     Q: It is a participation.
     K: Participation implies action. If there is action through choice, that is one kind of action; if there is an action of total awareness, that is a totally different kind of action, "being aware"? You understand? To be aware of the people around one, the colour, their attitudes, their walk, the way they eat, the way they think - without indulging in judgement.
     Q: Is it something to do with motive? If you have a motive...
     K: Of course. Motive comes into being when there is choice; that is implied. When I have a motive then choice takes place. I chose you because I like you, or you flatter me, or you give me something or other; another doesn't, therefore there is choice and so on. So is this possible? - this sense of total awareness.
     Q: Is there a degree of awareness?
     K: That is, is awareness a process of time?
     Q: Can one man be more aware than another?
     K: Why should I enquire if you are more aware than I am? just a minute, let us go into it. Why this comparision? Is this not also part of our education, our social conditioning, which says we must compare to progress? - compare one musician with another, one painter with another and so on. And we think by comparing we begin to understand. Comparing means measurement, which implies time, thought, and is it possible to live without comparing at all? You understand? One is brought up, educated in schools, colleges and universities to compare oneself with "A", who is much cleverer than myself, and to try to reach his level - this constant measurement, this constant comparison, and therefore constant imitation, which is mechanical! So can we find out for ourselves whether it is possible to be totally sensitive and therefore aware?
     Q: Can you know if you are totally aware or not? Can we be aware of our awareness?
     K: No (laughter). Q: You can be aware when you are not aware.
     K: Watch it in yourself; verbally it becomes speculative. When you are aware do you know you are aware?
     Q: No.
     K: Find out. Test it, madam, test it. Do you know when you are happy? The moment you are aware that you are happy it is no longer happiness.
     Q: You know when you have got a pain.
     K: That is a different matter. When I have pain I am aware of it and I act, do something about it. That is one part of being aware, unless I am paralysed - most people are, in other directions!
     So we are asking ourselves, not asking somebody else to tell us, but one is asking oneself if there is that quality of awareness? Does one watch the sky, the evening stars, the moon, the birds, people's reactions, the whole of it? And what is the difference between that awareness and attention? In awareness is there a centre from which you are aware? When I say, "I am aware", then I move from a centre, I respond to nature from a centre, I respond to my friends, to my wife, husband or whatever it is - that centre being my conditioning, my prejudices, my desires, my fears and all the rest of it. In that awareness there is a centre. In attention there is no centre at all. Now please listen to this for two minutes. You are now listening to what is being said and you are giving total attention. That means you are not comparing, you do not say, "I already know what you are going to say", or, "I have read what you have said etc. etc". All that has gone, you are completely attentive and therefore there is no centre and that attention has no border. I don't know if you have noticed?
     So, by being aware one discovers that one responds from a centre, from a prejudice, from a conclusion, from a belief, from a conditioning, which is the centre. And from that centre you react, you respond. And when there is an awareness of that centre, that centre yields and in that there is a total attention. I wonder if you understand this? And this you cannot practise; it would be too childish, mechanical. So we go to the next question, which is: "Is there an activity which is not mechanistic?" That means, is there a part of the brain which is non-mechanical. Do you want to go into this? No, no, please, this isn't a game. First of all one has to go into the question of what is a mechanical mind.
     Is the brain, which has evolved through millennia, is that totally mechanical? Or is there a part of the brain which is not mechanical, which has never been touched by the machine of evolution? I wonder if you see.
     Q: What do you mean by mechanical?
     K: We are going to discuss that, sir. Part of this mechanical process is functioning within the field of conditioning. That is, when I act according to a pattern - Catholic, Protestant, Communist, Hindu, whatever it is, a pattern set by society, by my reading, or other influences, and accept that pattern or belief - then that is part of the mechanical process. The other part of the mechanical process is, having had experiences of innumerable kinds which have left memories, to act according to those memories: that is mechanical. Like a computer, which is purely mechanical. Now they are trying to prove it is not so mechanical, but let's leave that alone for the moment.
     Mechanical action is accepting tradition and following tradition. One of the aspects of that tradition is acceptance and obedience to a government, to priests. And the mechanical part of the brain is following consciously or unconsciously a line set by thought as the goal and purpose. All that and more is mechanical; and we live that way.
     Q: Is thought of itself mechanical? K: Of course, that is the whole point. One has to discover this for oneself, not be told by others, then it becomes mechanical. If we discover for ourselves how mechanical our thinking, our feeling, our attitudes, our opinions are, if one is aware of that, it means thought is invariably mechanistic - thought being the response of memory, experience, knowledge, which is the past. And responding according to the pattern of the past is mechanical, which is thought.
     Q: All thought?
     K: All thought, of course. Whether noble, ignoble, sexual, or technological thought, it is all thought.
     Q: Thought of the great genius also?
     K: Absolutely. Wait, we must go into the question of what is a genius. No, we won't go into that yet.
     If all thought is mechanical, the expression which you often use, "clear thinking", seems to be a contradiction.
     K: No, no. Clear thinking is to see clearly, clear thinking is to think clearly, objectively, sanely, rationally, wholly.
     Q: It is still thought.
     K: It is still thought, of course it is.
     Q: So what is the use of it? (laughter).
     K: If there was clear thought I wouldn't belong to any political party! I might create a global party - that is another matter.
     Q: Can we get back to your question as to whether there is a part of the brain which is untouched by conditioning?
     K: That's right, sir; this requires very careful, hesitant, enquiry. Not saying, "Yes, there is", or, "No, there isn't". "I have experienced a state where there is no mechanicalness" - that is too silly. But to really enquire and find out, you need a great deal of subtlety, great attentive quality to go step by step into it, not jump.
     So we say most of our lives are mechanical. The pursuit of pleasure is mechanical - but we are pursuing pleasure. Now, how shall we find out if there is a part of the brain that is not conditioned? This a very serious question, it is not for sentimentalists, romantic people, or emotional people; this requires very clear thinking. When you think very clearly you see the limitation of thinking.
     Q: Are we going to look very clearly at the barriers which interfere with an unconditioned mind?
     K: No, we are trying to understand, or explore together, the mechanical mind first. Without understanding the totality of that you can't find out the other. We have asked the question: "Is there a part of the brain, part of our total mind - in which is included the brain, emotions, neurological responses - which is not completely mechanical?" When I put that question to myself I might imagine that it is not all mechanical because I want the other; therefore I deceive myself. I pretend that I have got the other. So I must completely understand the movement of desire. You follow this? Not suppress it, but under. stand it, have an insight into it - which me;ms fear, time, and all that we talked about the day before yesterday. So we are now enquiring whether our total activity is mechanistic? That means am I, are you, clinging to memories? The Hitlerian memories and all that, the memories of various pleasurable and painful experiences, the memories of sexual fulfilment and the pleasures and so on. That is: is one living in the past?
     Q: Always, I am.
     K: Of course! So all that you are is the past, which is mechanical. So knowledge is mechanical. I wonder if you see this? Q: Why is it so difficult to see this?
     K: Because we are not aware of our inward responses, of what actually is going on within ourselves - not to imagine what is going on, or speculate about it, or repeat what we have been told by somebody else, but actually to be aware of what is going on.
     Q: Aren't we guided to awareness by experience?
     K: No. Now wait a minute. What do you mean by experience? The word itself means, "to go through" - to go through, finish, not retain. You have said something that hurts me, that has left a mark on the brain, and when I meet you that memory responds. Obviously. And is it possible when you hurt me, say something cruel, or justified, or violent, to observe it and not register it? Try it, sir; you try it, test it out.
     Q: It is very difficult because the memory has already been hurt; we never forget it.
     K: Do go into this. From childhood we are hurt, it happens to everybody, in school, at home, at college, in universities, the whole of society is a process of hurting others. One has been hurt and one lives in that consciously or unconsciously. So there are two problems involved: the past hurt retained in the brain, and not to be hurt; the memory of hurts, and never to be hurt; Now is that possible?
     Q: If "you" are not there.
     K: Go into it. You will discover it for yourself and find out. That is, you have been hurt.
     Q: The image of myself...
     K: Go into it slowly. What is hurt? The image that you have built about yourself, that has been hurt. Why do you have an image about yourself? Because that is the tradition, part of our education, part of our social reactions. There is an image about myself, and there is an image about you in relation to my image. So I have got half a dozen images and more. And that image about myself has been hurt. You call me a fool and I shrink: it has been hurt. Now, how am I to dissolve that hurt and not be hurt in the future, tomorrow, or the next moment? You follow the question? There are two problems involved in this. One, I have been hurt and that creates a great deal of neurotic activity, resistance, self protection, fear; all that is involved in the past hurt. Second, how not to be hurt any more.
     Q: One has to be totally involved.
     K: Look at it and you will see. You have been hurt, haven't you - I am not talking to you personally - and you resist, you are afraid of being hurt more. So you build a wall round yourself, isolate yourself, and the extreme form of that isolation is total withdrawal from all relationship. And you remain in that but you have to live, you have to act. So you are always acting from a centre that is hurt and therefore acting neurotically. You can see this happening in the world, in oneself. And how are those hurts to be totally dissolved and not leave a mark? Also in the future how not to be hurt at all? The question is clear, isn't it.
     Now how do you approach this question? How to dissolve the hurts, or how not to be hurt at all? Which is the question you put to yourself, which do you want answered? Dissolve all the hurts, or no more hurts? Which is it that comes to you naturally?
     Q: No more hurts.
     K: So the question is: "Is it possible not to be hurt?" Which means is it possible not to have an image about yourself?
     Q: If we see that image is false... K: Not false or true. Don't you see, you are already operating in the field of thought? Is it possible not to have an image at all about yourself, or about another, naturally? And if there is no image, isn't that true freedom? Ah, you don't see it.
     Q: Sir, if what happens to you is of no importance to you, then it doesn't matter and it won't hurt you. If you have managed to get rid of your self-importance...
     K: The gentleman says if you can get rid of your self-importance, your arrogance, your vanity, then you won't be hurt. But how am I to get rid of all that garbage which I have collected? (laughter).
     Q: I think you can get rid of it by being entirely aware of the relationship between yourself and your physical body and your thinking. How you control your physical body and...
     K: I don't want to control anything, my body, my mind, my emotions. That is the traditional, mechanistic response. Sorry! (laughter). Please go into this a little bit and you will see. First of all, the idea of getting rid of an image implies that there is an entity who is different from the image. Therefore he can kick the image. But is the image different from the entity who says, "I must get rid of it"? They are both the same, therefore there is no control. I wonder if you see that. When you see that you are no longer functioning mechanically.
     Q: Surely by destroying one image we are immediately building another one?
     K: We are going to find out if it is possible to be free of all images, not only the present ones but the future ones. Now why does the mind create an image about itself? I say I am a Christian, that is an image. I believe in the saviour, in Christ, in all the ritual, why? Because that is my conditioning. Go to India and they say, "What are you talking about, Christ? I have got my own gods, as good as yours, if not better" (laughter). So that is their conditioning. If I am born in Russia and educated there I say, "I believe in neither. The State is my god and Marx is the first prophet and so on and so on. So the image formation is brought about through propaganda, conditioning, tradition.
     Q: Is that related to the fact that out of fear one behaves in a certain way which is not natural for one to behave; and therefore one is not being oneself? And that is making the image you are talking about.
     K: The image is what we call ourself: "I must express myself", "I must fulfil myself". "Myself" is the image according to the environment and culture in which one has been born. I believe there was a tribe in America, among the Red Indians, where anybody who had an image about himself was killed (laughter), was liquidated, because it led to ambition and all the rest of it. I wonder what would happen if they did it to all of us. It would be a lovely world, wouldn't it? (laughter).
     So is it possible not to create images at all? That is, I am aware that I have an image, brought about through culture, through propaganda, tradition, the family, the whole pressure.
     Q: We cling to the known.
     K: That is the known, tradition is the known. And my mind is afraid to let that known go, to let the image go, because the moment it lets it go it might lose a profitable position in society, might lose status, might lose a certain relationship; so it is frightened and holds on to that image. The image is merely words, it has no reality. It is a series of words, a sense of responses to those words, a series of beliefs which are words. I believe in Marx, in Christ, or in Krishna or whatever they believe in India. They are just words ideologically clothed. And if I am not a slave to words, then I begin to lose the image. I wonder if you see how significant deeply rooted words have become.
     Q: If one is listening to what you say and realizes that one has an image about oneself, and that there is a large discrepancy between the image one has of oneself and the ideal of freedom...
     K: It is not an ideal...
     Q:.. freedom itself... then knowing that there is a discrepancy, can one think of freedom, knowing that it is just an idea?
     K: Is freedom an abstraction, a word, or a reality?
     Q: It is being free of relationship, is it not?
     K: No please, we are jumping from one thing to another. Let us go step by step. We began by asking whether there is any part of the brain, any part of the total entity, that is not conditioned? We said conditioning means image-forming. The image that gets hurt and the image that protects itself from being hurt. And we said there is only freedom - the actuality of that state, not the word, not the abstraction - when there is no image, which is freedom. When I am not a Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Communist, Socialist, I have no label and therefore no label inside. Now is it possible not to have an image at all? And how does that come about?
     Q: Isn't it all to do with the activity...
     K: Look, we come to a point and go off after something else. One wants to find out whether it is possible to live in this world without a single image.
     Q: When there is no observer there is nothing observed, and yet one comes across something in this silence...
     K: Madam, is this an actual fact that there is no observer in your life - not only occasionally. Is it possible to be free of the image that society, the environment, culture, education has built in one? Because one is afl that; you are the result of your environment, of your culture, of your knowledge, of your education, of your job, of your pleasure, you are all that.
     Q: What happens to one's sense of orientation without a centre.
     K: All that comes a little later, please.
     Q: If you are aware of your conditioning does that free you?
     K: Now, are you actually aware - not theoretically or in the abstract - actually aware that you are conditioned this way, and therefore you have got an image?
     Q: If you don't have the image then you don't know what your place is.
     K: "If you have no image then you do not know what your place is." Listen to that carefully. If you have no image, you have no place in the world. Which means if you have no image you are insecure. Go step by step. Now are you, having a place in the world, secure?
     Q: No.
     K: Be actual.
     Q: When you see that the image that you have built, which you are attached to, when you see that it is just a load of words...
     K: You are finding security in a word: and it is not security at all. We have lived in words and made those words something fantastically real. So if you are seeking security, it is not in an image; it is not in your environment, in your culture. One must have security, that is essential, food, clothes, and shelter; one must have it otherwise one can't function. Now that is denied totally when I belong to a small group. When I say I am a German, or a Russian, or an Englishman, I deny complete security. I deny security because the words, the labels have become important, not security. This is what is actually happening, the Arabs and the Israelis both want security, and both are accepting words and all the rest of it.
     Now we come to the point. Is it possible to live in this world, not to go off into some fantastic realm of illusion, or to some monastery, and to live in this world without a single image and be totally secure.
     Q: How can we be secure in a sick society?
     K: I am going to go into this, madam, I'll show it to you.
     Q: It is competitive, it is vicious.
     K: Please go with me. I'll show you that there is complete security, absolute security, not in images.
     Q: To be totally aware every moment, then your conditioning does not exist.
     K: Not if you are aware. Are you aware that you have an image and that image has been formed by the culture, the society? Are you aware of that image? You discover that image in relationship, don't you? Now we are asking ourselves whether it is possible to be free of images. That means, when you say something to me that is vulgar, hurting, at the moment to be totally aware of what you are saying and how I am responding. Totally aware, not partially, but to be totally aware of both the pleasurable image and the displeasurable image. To be aware totally at the moment of the reaction to your insult or praise. Then at that moment you don't form an image. There is no recording in the brain of the hurt, the insult or the flattery, therefore there is no image. That requires
     * See Discussion about security, pages 39-43. tremendous attention at the moment, which demands a great inward perception, which is only possible when you have looked at it, watched it, when you have worked. Don't just say, "Well, tell me all about it; I want to be comfortable".
     Q: Who watches all this?
     K: Now, who watches all this? If there is a watcher, then the image is continuous. If there is no watcher there is no image. In that state of attention the hurt and the flattery are both observed, not reacted to. You can only observe when there is no observer, who is the past. It is the past observer that gets hurt. Where there is only observation when there is flattery or insult, then it is finished. And that is real freedom.
     Now follow it. In this world, if I have no image, you say I shall not be secure. One has found security in things, in a house, in property, in a bank account, that is what we call security. And one has also found security in belief. If I am a Catholic living in Italy, I believe that; it is much safer to believe what ten thousand people believe. There I have a place. And when my belief is questioned I resist.
     Now can there be a total awareness of all this? The mind becomes tremendously active, you understand? Not just saying, "I must be aware", "I must learn how to be attentive". You are tremendously active, the brain is alive. Then we can move from that to find out if there is in the brain a part that has not been conditioned at all, a part of the brain which is non-mechanistic. I am putting a false question, I don't know if you see that. Do see it quickly, do see it. Please just listen for two minutes, I am on fire!
     If there is no image, which is mechanical, and there is freedom from the image, then there is no part of the brain that has been conditioned. Full stop! Then my whole brain is unconditioned.
     Q: It is on fire! K: Yes, therefore it is non-mechanistic and that has a totally different kind of energy; not the mechanistic energy. I wonder if you see this. Please don't make an abstraction of it because then it becomes words. But to see this, that your brain has been conditioned through centuries, saying survival is only possible if you have an image, which is created by the circle in which you live and that circle gives you complete security. We have accepted that as tradition and we live in that way. I am an Englishman, I am better than anybody else, or a Frenchman, or whatever it is. Now my brain is conditioned, I don't know whether it is the whole or part, I only know that it is conditioned. There can be no enquiry into the unconditioned state until the conditioning is non-existent. So my whole enquiry is to find out whether the mind can be unconditioned, not to jump into the other, because that is too silly. So I am conditioned by belief, by education, by the culture in which I have lived, by everything, and to be totally aware of that, not discard it, not suppress it, not control it, but to be totally aware of it. Then you will find if you have gone that far there is security only in being nothing.
     Q: What about images in racial prejudices? Do you belong to a community? I quite agree with you. You don't want any psychological image but you must have a physical image for your physical survival... even if you want to drop it everyone forces it on you.
     K: Sir, if one wants to survive physically, what is preventing it? All the psychological barriers which man has created. So remove all those psychological barriers and you have complete security.
     Q: No, because the other one involves you in it, not yourself.
     K: Nobody can put you into prison.
     Q: They kill you. K: Then they kill you, all right (laughter). Then you will find out how to meet death (laughter). Not imagine what you are going to feel when you die - which is another image. Oh, I don't know if you see all this.
     So nobody can put you psychologically into prison. You are already there (laughter). We are pointing out that it is possible a to be totally free of images, which is the result of our conditioning. And one of the questions about the biography is about that very point. How was that young boy, whatever he was, how was he not conditioned right through? I won't go into that because it is a very complex problem. If one is aware of one's own conditioning then the whole thing becomes very simple. Then genius is something entirely different. And that leaves the question: What is creation?