Ojai 4th Public Question & Answer Meeting 14th May 1981
I suppose I have to answer all these questions. I wonder if we put these questions to ourselves seriously would we be able to answer them all truly, authentically, not quote somebody else but answer them for oneself. And the answer must be true, applicable. And to answer it correctly one must have a certain amount of integrity and a quality of humility that goes with integrity. So let's together ask these questions and find out for ourselves the right and accurate answer. Not according to the speaker but find out for ourselves the truth of the answer, the truth of the question and the answer.
1st QUESTION: Imagination and words are the tools that man uses to function in daily life. Is it really possible to achieve an attention so constant, and alert, that one can always see the fine line between the necessary use of thought and where images lead to illusion and conflict?
I hope this question is not too intellectual and is applicable to our life.
Why does one create images about others, about oneself, have images about others and about oneself, and images that we worship, the symbols that we think are sacred, the whole network of philosophical construction of words, ideas and ideals and so on? Why do we always create images? I do not know if one realizes what an important part images have played in our lives. The temples are filled with them, the churches, the mosques. In the Islamic world the mosque has no images, but beautiful writing, which is a symbol, the same thing. So why does man create images either by the hand, or by the mind, by the brain? And the questioner wants to know, is it really possible to achieve an attention so constant and alert that one can always see the fine line between the necessary use of thought and where images lead to illusion and conflict.
Do we understand the question? I am not quite sure I understand it myself. I am glad such a question is put. You see we always use words to communicate. There are many means of communication with each other: through words, through a gesture, through a look, through a slight movement of the head; there is always this communication going on and through words and so on. And words have played an extraordinary part in our lives. First of all, is there thought without words, without images, without constructing symbols? Is there a thought without words and so on? You understand my question? Or words are part of thought? And if one observes our whole mode of thinking is a network of words, symbols, ideas. Right? Are we moving together?
And what is the division, the questioner asks, between thought, the necessary use of thought, the necessary use of knowledge, skill, born of knowledge, and the line between that and the image making that leads to various forms of illusions and conflict. Are we understanding the question together? The question seems rather difficult, doesn't it.
Are we asking where is the line between thought and the action of images, symbols? Are we asking what part imagination plays in life? Is not imagination necessary? I am investigating the question? Is not the capacity to imagine the beauty of the hills as a painter, as a poet, with their extraordinary capacity to imagine and put into words, the painter and so on, is not imagination necessary? And does imagination play a part in our daily life? And if it does, is that imagination put together by thought, a tool which we can use skilfully? You are following? Right? Is it too cold?
A poet, a writer, a painter, a sculptor and so on, they must have imagination, otherwise they can't write, but is imagination necessary in our life, daily life? Or imagination prevents, or fancy prevents the actual perception of what is going on? You understand? Is it not more important to understand what actually is going on in our daily life without all the imaginative idealistic suppositions, 'ifs' and 'whens', actually observe what is going on. Isn't that far more important than having great imagination? If one can observe attentively what is going on, then that very attention throws a light on 'what is'. Throws a light on 'what is', and that light of attention clarifies the problem. Right? Are we meeting, are we thinking together about this, reasoning together? Not accepting what the speaker says, but actually reasoning together to see what place has imagination and where that imagination brings about illusion, which prevents actual understanding of 'what is'. Is this clear?
I am afraid - suppose - and I imagine a state of mind when there is no fear. That imagination becomes very important for me because it offers an escape from actual fear. I live in that. Living in that imagination is an illusion, not actual. And that capacity to imagine some state of mind, or heart, when there is absolutely no fear, it gives me a certain sense of vitality, a certain neurosis, a certain fanciful way of living which is not actual. So perhaps such imagination prevents me from looking directly at fear. And looking at it with complete attention reveals the whole nature of fear. And from that understanding of that attention fear begins to disappear. But if I have imagination about a state of mind, a state of heart, where there is absolutely - a delightful state where there is no fear, I am a bit loony!
So imagination has a certain value for the poets, artists, for the artists, but art - really art means to place everything in the right place. That's the true meaning of that word 'art: to put everything in its proper place. But the poets, the painters and the artists lead a pretty hectic life, a life of conflict. You know all that goes on with those artists, the great and the so-called artists. So we are concerned with the life of our daily life.
And the questioner asks, is it really possible to achieve an attention so constant and alert, that one can always see the fine line between the necessary use of thought and where images lead to illusion? You understand now the question? Right? Do we understand the question? Where to draw the line between the necessary use of thought and where images lead to conflict and illusion. And is it possible to sustain a constant state of attention, alertness, where thought has its place, which is skill, born of knowledge as a carpenter, plumber, scientist, and a state of mind that is constantly in total attention. That's the question. Right?
So we have to enquire what it is to be aware. We will go into it slowly and come to the point what it means to be completely attentive. Are we ever aware, not only of what is going on in the world but also what is going on inwardly, aware? That is, are we aware, as we sit here, of the trees, the nature of the limbs, the boughs, the beauty of it, are we aware of the hills, the mountains, the slopes and all that? And that is perhaps fairly easy. But are we also aware of what is going on inwardly - our thoughts, our feelings, our peculiar attitude towards life, convictions? And if we are aware can we be aware without any choice? Are we following each other? To look, to observe, without any choice. Right? Is that possible? It is possible only when we understand how choice has become very important in life. Choice of profession, choice of jobs, choice of so-called woman, man, choosing, choice of so many things. We choose between this material and that material. So choice plays a great part in our life. That's clear, obviously. A better tailer, better shirt, you follow, the whole business of it. Choice at a certain level is necessary, between a good car and bad car. But when there is choice psychologically, inwardly, does it not indicate confusion? Please look at it for a moment. If there is clarity there is no choice. Right? I wonder if you see that. It's only when we are confused, uncertain, we begin to choose. Right? Isn't this logical? But is it very difficult to be clear? Clarity, not about politics and politicians and all that business, but inwardly to be so absolutely clear so that your action is never born out of confusion, out of choice. Is that at all possible? And we are saying that is only possible when thought finds its own right place. Right, are you following all this? Right place in the sense I must know how to drive a car. Knowledge is necessary in order to speak English, French, or Spanish or Italian. Or if there is to be a career I must have knowledge about it. There knowledge is absolutely necessary. And psychologically we feel knowledge is also necessary. To know somebody, to know your wife or your husband, to know. So can you know ever about your wife or your husband? You cannot know a living thing. Right? I wonder if you understand all this.
So psychologically when we say, 'I must know myself' - please understand this a bit - when we say, I must know myself, one means by it I must accumulate knowledge about myself. Right? Which is the same as the other. Right? To become a good carpenter - I would prefer to be a carpenter rather than a professional, scientist or big shots - to be a good carpenter I must know a great deal about wood, tools and so on; and I carry the same mentality when I say, 'I must know myself', which means I must gather a lot of information about myself. Are you following this? So that I can act rightly, or skilfully, or whatever it is. So can I know myself ever completely according to knowledge? You follow this? Or myself is so subtle, so constantly changing, moving, acting, it is never the same? Right? But I would like it to be always the same. I wonder if you follow all this? So I create an image about myself which is static and I act according to that. So knowing oneself is not accumulating knowledge about oneself, but to be aware of all what is happening with complete attention so that there is no accumulation of knowledge about myself but the movement of myself.
Are we understanding each other? I want to know myself, which is very important. The ancient Greeks talked about it, the ancient Hindus also went into it, the Buddhists, but the religious world of the western world, hasn't gone into this question of 'know yourself'. They have talked about it but they haven't gone very deeply into it. Now we have tried to know about ourselves according to some philosophers, some analysts, psychologists and so on, so we are learning about ourselves from others. Whereas the others are ourselves. You understand? I wonder if you see this. So to know myself I can only observe it in my relationship to another. There, I perceive all my reactions. Right? All my desires, all my conflicts, I perceive it there. Relationship acts as a mirror in which I see myself actually as I am. If we make that mirror a thing which becomes merely images, imagery, then it leads to illusion. So can one be aware of oneself without any choice, and that awareness moves into attention when there is no border, when there is no limited perception of me watching. You understand?
Has one ever given attention, complete attention to anything? Now, are you now listening to this speaker, poor chap, are you giving complete to what you are hearing? And if you so give your complete attention, which means you hear the word, you understand the fullness of the meaning of that word, and the word is not important but the meaning and the content of the word and giving your complete attention, with your nerves, with your ears, with your eyes, with all your energy, then you will see, if you do, there is no 'me' attending. There is no centre from which you are attending, only there is attention. Have you understood this?
So it is only that there can be constant alertness and attention when one has really understood very, very deeply the nature of thought - which we have explained a dozen times. Sorry to have taken half an hour over this question.
2nd QUESTION: I am a writer and I feel responsibility and an urge to voice my understanding. Yet I know my understanding is imperfect, limited. What is right action for one who sees or understands something and is in a position to be heard but whose understanding isn't total?
Most of us are not writers, most of us are not in a position to be heard by the public, by many. But I have heard certain things from the speaker, or from my own perception, from my own watchfulness of the world and so on, and I see my understanding is limited. And what am I to do in my life when my understanding is imperfect, I must act. Right? I must do, but my understanding of life is very limited. Right? Now is that a fact? Or I say, my understanding is limited - you are following this - is it an actual fact that my understanding is limited? Then if my understanding is limited and I realize actually it is limited, my expression will be as limited, incomplete as my understanding. I have heard the speaker for many years, unfortunately, and I have gathered some things from him and I know it is incomplete, it is not a total comprehension of the whole of life, but it is limited, my understanding. So I know it is limited, I am not pretending it is not limited, I acknowledge to myself that it is limited, so I express myself in a limited way, and I acknowledge it is a limited way. You understand all this? There is no pretension about it.
And if I am a writer and I happen to be famous enough to be heard, by the public, and I realize also my understanding of life is limited, imperfect, not complete, naturally I am going to express myself because I am a writer, I want to be heard. And I also say to myself, and to the audience who are going to read, my understanding is limited. You understand what that word means? The public wants everything complete. Right? They want somebody who says, 'I understand the whole of it.' And if a writer says, 'Look, my understanding of life is limited', his publisher - you know! But a writer, his responsibility lies in absolutely having integrity. That's where his responsibility is. I don't know if you are following all this. I am not saying the questioner has not integrity but, sir, to be honest, having integrity, there one can be total, complete. To have complete integrity without any pretension, without any double talk, that demands humility, modesty and a certain clarity.
Shall we stop now for about seven minutes for the tape to be changed. Right sir?
3rd QUESTION: What is the role of the question in life?
That is, what is the role of questioning in life. Clear? Do we ever question fundamentally? Or only superficially? Or only when there is some kind of trouble then we begin to question? But that questioning is trying to find an answer to the problem. And the questioner wants to know, what is the role of always questioning. Has it any importance? When do we ever question seriously, apart from a crisis? You understand? When there is a crisis, when there is a trouble, when we are in pain, suffering and then we begin to question. That questioning is perhaps seeking a way out of pain, sorrow, trouble and so on. We do question then. But the questioner also wants to know, what is the role, what part questioning plays in life. Not at moments of crises but the questioning mind. Is it clear?
Do you ever question, investigate which is part of questioning, into your own experiences, into your own desires, into your own opinions, evaluations, convictions, or do you take those for granted and only question when there is actual trouble? You understand my question? Are our minds enquiring, watching, recollected, aware? You understand? Or only superficially? And is not questioning important? Questioning your beliefs, your faith. You know what would happen if you questioned your faith, specially in the western world? You understand? Your religious faith, if you questioned. The whole thing would collapse. And is one frightened to question? Which is the mind, the brain specially, is always seeking a position of safety where it can be secure. I don't know if you have observed all this for yourself. A child needs to be secure, it needs the mother, the father to love it, so that it feels completely secure, protected. Up to a certain point the mothers and fathers do that, up to a certain point. But they soon get bored with whatever they do, they have their own interests, their own problems, their own travail and gradually the child, the boy or the girl, is neglected, goes off. So one discovers the brain needs security to function. Right? To be a good physicist, to have all the knowledge of physics gives the brain a certain quality of assurance, of safety, protection. Right? And the more you question along that line, the more you learn, the more safe it becomes. Are you following? Come on sirs. We understand all this.
So it is finding safety in knowledge, like a good surgeon, he has operated a hundred times, he knows, and his brain is active along that line, secure - it gives money, position, you know, all that. So it gives the brain a certain quality of limited security. Right? So knowledge becomes important as a means to be safe. And that knowledge, as we have pointed out many times, is always limited, all knowledge is always limited. And therefore the questioning becomes very limited. Right? Naturally.
If one is not a specialized entity, if one observes that security is necessary for the brain, to have food, clothes, you know, a house, it is secure, but having that security, physical security, the brain demands psychological security - security in relationship, security in ideas, security in faith and so on. We never question those. You are following? Right? We are saying now, to have a mind that is questioning, investigating, never caught in a limited understanding, questioning, in that there is a great deal of intelligence. From that arises intelligence, and that intelligence is security. I wonder if you understand all this. Are we together in all this, or am I just talking? Right? Shall we go on to the next question?
4th QUESTION: Life separates friends through death, and physical separation. Is this separation the end of relationship, leaving nothing more real than memory? Is there love between people only when they are physically present? Or can there be something more than thought when they are absent? Is all relationship momentary with no lasting bond?
Lord! There are so many questions involved in this one question. So let's take one by one.
Life separates friends through death and physical separation. Is this separation the end of relationship, leaving nothing more than memory? That's an actual fact, isn't it? Right? I am separate from my wife, I may go off travelling. My wife remains in India, or in Britain, or here, and I think about her, telephone her, I write to her, and so I keep up communication. Right? It is based on memory. I don't quite see what the problem is there, that's an actual fact, leaving nothing more than memory.
Is there love between people only when they are physically present, or can there be something more than thought when they are absent? This is the real question. Is there love between people only when they are physically present, or can there be something more than thought when they are absent? My golly!
Now let's go into it. If we understand very deeply and very clearly the nature of thought, which is, if I may repeat again, thought is the outcome of memory, the response of memory. Memory is born out of knowledge, knowledge is out of experience. Right? This is the cycle: experience, knowledge, memory, action and from that action learn more, so have more experience, knowledge, memory, action. It's a circle, a chain in which we are operating. That's how our thinking is going on all the time. So we must be very clear of the nature of thinking. It is a material process. There is nothing whatsoever sacred about it. Right? Please don't accept this. If you accept it then you don't see the whole meaning of it, unless you have gone very deeply into it. Everything thought has created in the world, technologically, computers, and all the rest of that, the atom bomb, all the things in the temples, the mosques, the churches, are put together by thought. Right? So the symbols, the images, these temples contain, there is nothing sacred about it. Right? But thought, having created it, then thought makes it appear sacred. Right? Examine it please, don't accept it, don't get angry, just look at it.
And is the movement of thought love? That is what the questioner is asking. The questioner says, is there love between people only when they are physically present, or can there be something more than thought when they are absent. So if thought is the only movement in relationship, thought with its images about each other, if that is the only relationship that we have, then what place has love? You are following? Is love the image that we have created about each other in that relationship, pleasant, unpleasant, all the travail of relationship, and in that relationship when there is this conflict, each one acting separately, wanting to fulfil his own desires, his own lust and so on, each one separate and trying to fulfil in his own separate ways - ambition, aggressiveness, greed, you know all that goes on - is there love? And then what is love? Is it put together by thought? Go on, sir, answer all this. Is love desire? Is love the pursuit of self-fulfilment? Is love the pursuit of pleasure? You understand, that is what is happening in the world? And so when that is missing altogether, or perhaps happens rarely, occasionally, then thought is the only means of communicating with each other - telephone, writing letters, thinking about your wife or your friend, you know all that takes place.
So what is one to do? You understand my question? I realize thought has become so extraordinarily important in life, in the business world, in the technological world, in the economic world, and in the world of religion - all the rituals are put together by thought, the dogmas, the faith, everything is based on thought. Thought made through tradition holy. And when one realizes very deeply that thought is not that flame which purifies everything else, how is one to capture it, to hold it, to have it, you understand my question? Are you following me? Now that becomes a problem. Right? And my brain - listen to it carefully - my brain is trained to solve problems. In the technological world it has been trained year after year to solve technical problems - the atom bomb, computers, and so on. And my brain has been educated to solve psychological problems. So I am faced with this question, which is, I know thought is not all that we have said - and I also know without the other life becomes very shallow. So I have a problem. Follow this. I have a problem. Right? You understand this? So I am ready to solve it. My brain is active to solve it. Whereas love is not a problem to be solved. You understand? The problem is not thought and love, but the problem is this tremendous egotistic, egocentric movement going on all the time. That is the real problem. And so I begin again trying to solve it. I never say, just the problem, let's look at it. I am not going to solve it, let's look at it. I wonder if you are following all this? Don't let me make it into a problem, but let me first look at it, let me look at the whole movement of thought, and also as I don't know the other, perhaps I know it very rarely like a beautiful flower which withers so quickly, I know something of it, but the knowledge of it is not the real thing, so I look, I am aware of thought - rather, not 'I am aware of thought' - thought begins to be aware of itself. You begin to understand this? Are you all asleep?
And the thing is never to make a problem of anything. I wonder. This one thing if we could understand. It is only a mind that has no problems that can solve problems. You have understood? But we have so many problems and we try to solve other problems and so keep on multiplying problems. So we never ask of ourselves, if it is possible to have no problems. But there are problems; but to meet them instantly and finish with them so that the mind, the brain is free from all conflict, problems.
Is all relationship momentarily with no lasting bond? That's part of the question, sorry. I missed that. Is all relationship momentary with no lasting bond? What do you mean by that word 'bond'? Bondage? Depending on each other, holding on to each other? Is that what relationship is, the establishment of a constant lasting bond? Is that what relationship is? I am asking you sirs. Or is relationship something entirely different in which there is no bondage, in which there is no dependency? Which means deep inward sense of freedom and integrity and you follow, having this love. Then love is not bondage.
5th QUESTION: One sees the fact that the essential response to the conflict in the world is a revolution in consciousness, in each individual, but does this mean that without that total action all other lesser but perhaps helpful actions are useless?
One sees the fact that the essential response to the conflict in the world is a revolution in consciousness, in each individual. As we have explained very carefully, and I hope we can go into again if one is not clear on this point, our consciousness with its content is the common ground of all humanity. Right? Your consciousness, which is your education, your beliefs, your convictions, your values, your greed, your suffering, your pain, your anxiety, uncertainty, joy, pleasure, is common to all mankind. Right? Is that not so? Or are we uncertain about that? Go to India, go to Japan, go over to Russia, Europe or here, every human being goes through great sorrow, every human being has conflict, pain, physical, psychological, is wounded, every human being is uncertain, confused, violent, pleasure-seeking. That is the common consciousness of man. Right? It is not your consciousness, or my consciousness. This is very difficult to see, to see this fact because we are all so trained, educated and we take delight in an illusion called, 'My consciousness is different from everybody else's'. Right? Is this so, or not? You won't accept this.
So the revolution is the crisis and its answer is a total revolution in consciousness, which is the ending of fear, the understanding of the whole nature of pleasure which man has pursued endlessly, this sense of anxiety, uncertainty, desperate loneliness, sorrow, death; that is the content of our consciousness. That content makes our consciousness. Right? May we go on from there?
And is it possible to be free of its content? And, as we explained on many occasions, the philosophers, the psychologists, all those people say it is not possible, human nature can never radically be transformed because mankind has lived for five, ten million years, and look, he has not changed radically, so accept what is. You understand? Modify it, control it, educate it to be a little better behaved and so on and so on, but remain within the limits of that. You are following all this? So meditation is within the limits of that. Seeking god, truth, is within the limits of that. And somebody comes along, like the speaker, says, no, it is possible to radically transform that consciousness. Which means, first one must realize that you are not separate from the rest of mankind, you are mankind. Therefore you are not an individual. Right? You see, if you see that it is already a revolution. Right? It's already changed the pattern of thought altogether. Which means you are the world, and the world is you. That's just not a theory, not an ideal, an Utopia, but it's an absolute fact. And therefore you become terribly responsible for everything that is happening in the world.
But does this mean that without that total action, that total revolution, all other lesser and perhaps helpful actions are useless? Answer it for yourself! We never face the truth. We never face facts. We try to cover them up, run away from them, but when you realize that the next questions is answered for itself.
6th QUESTION: I am appalled at what is happening in society today. I do not want to be a part of it, yet I realize I am not separate. What is my relationship to society?
What is your relationship to society? Why do you, if one may ask most respectfully, why do you separate yourself from society? Society is an abstraction, is it not? Society is put together by man in his relationship with another. Right? Are you following? But we have said, I am separate from society, and so I act upon society, I want to change society. It is something abstract, it is not an actually. Society is opinion, judgement, the economics, the political activity, all of that is part of what you call society. That society is built by us, by our parents, grandparents, all that is built by us. So we are that. This is so. Is this also another revolution? Society is not separate from me, I am the society. I am not saying - the speaker is not saying this because he is a communist, or any of that kind of thing. The communists have maintained this as a theory, and as a theory they have said, change society, control it, shape it, become a dictator, totalitarian then man will change. You know all that business. Whereas on the contrary man has created it, unless man changes society cannot change. Unless the computers come along with their robots and change the whole structure of the economic society. You follow all this?
So one is not separate from society. One is the world. If one realizes that you would never put this question.
Then the problem is - the question is, what am I to do, how am I to radically transform myself. That's the real question. How am I not to be self-centred everlastingly, all self-centred activity come to an end? We never ask these questions. So at your leisure moments please ask these questions. When you are not totally occupied with your pleasures, with your occupations, with wanting to be somebody, success, you know all the rest of it, perhaps you will have time to ask this question. Ask it and remain with it, remain with the question, then see what happens. Because if you say, 'I must change myself', who is the man, who is the entity that is demanding change? It is still - you understand all this. So one discovers that the thinker is the thought. There is no thinker apart from thought, there is no experiencer apart from experience, there is no analyzer apart from the analysis, that which is analyzed. So when you realize that there is a totally different movement takes place.
Are you all tired? One last question. Thank the lord!
7th QUESTION: There is a deep root of violence in me. I know it is there behind my other feelings. How do I deal with it?
What is violence? The shooting of people? That's part of violence. The hurting of others? That is part of violence. War is the essence of violence, with its bestiality, cruelty, the appalling things war does. And anger, hate, imitation is violence, conformity is violence. I don't know if you follow all this. And is one aware of all this in oneself, that one is conforming all the time to a pattern, to an ideal, to a concept, imitating, comparing oneself with another, aggression. Is one aware of all this as violence? Or only the killing of somebody with a gun? You understand? Is it not violence when you believe very strongly in something and another believes equally strongly about some belief, and you are trying to convert the other, and the other is trying to convert you, conflict. Is that not violence? This hectic propaganda that is going on in the name of religion, in the name of everything, is that not violence? You see you limit violence to a very small affair.
So what is one to do, the questioner asks. First, if one may point out, don't create its opposite, which is non-violence. Right? I wonder if you understand. Do you want an explanation of this? That is, I am violent and I have been trained, that is part of my habit to say, 'I must not be violent'. You follow? I am violent, and I have created the ideal of being non-violent, so I have a conflict. You follow? Being violent and not wanting to be violent is a conflict. Right? And that very conflict is violence. I wonder if you see this. Are we communicating?
So the first realization is not to create the opposite. Right? Then I am faced with the fact, not with its opposite. The opposite has its roots in its own opposite. Right? Oh, come on! So I am faced with the reality of violence, not with the idea that I must not be violent, which is an illusion, it is not a fact. The fact is I am violent. You see how we have been trained not to deal with facts. So I realize I am violent, and I have no idea of trying to become non-violent. That's completely gone out of my blood. So I am only dealing with fact. Now how do I look at that fact? As an observer looking at something to be observed? Or, the observer himself is violent? You get the point? I wonder if you do. Are we together in this? Come on, sirs!
The man, the entity or the thought that says, I am violent, and it must be changed, or transformed to something else, and the transformer is part of that violence. There is no separate entity, superior entity who is non-violent, who is peaceful. You understand? That is another invention of thought, to escape from the basic fact that I am violent.
So please just follow this, give a little attention, you may be tired, but just give a little attention to this. That is, there is no division between the observer and the observed. Right? There is only the fact, there is only the observation of the fact, not, 'I observe the fact'. Right? There is only the pure observation of that reaction, which in the past a word has been given to that reaction which is violence. So I realize the word is not the thing, but the actual movement of that feeling, of that reaction. And I and that reaction are not separate, that there is only reaction. This requires, you understand, very close watching. Then you will see when you come to that point, which is you are giving tremendous attention to the fact, there is attention of the fact, and that attention is like a light put on something, and that dissipates the violence. Have you got it? No, not got it from me: see the fact, see how deceptive we are, it becomes so deceptive, it's so dishonest all this.
So when you allow time to dissolve an issue, that issue increases, multiplies. It's only the mind that sees clearly acts. I've finished.
Ojai 4th Public Question & Answer Meeting 14th May 1981
Texts and talks of Jiddu Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti quotes. Books about
J Krishnamurti. Philosophy.