Varanasi 5th Public Talk 10th January 1962
We were talking the other day about conflict and how conflict invariably dulls the mind. I would like to approach the same problem from a different angle because, it seems to me, most of us have ideas which have much more importance and much more significance than the actuality.
We live in a world of ideas, totally divorced from the fact, and we always try to link the fact with the idea. And one of the causes of conflict is this attempt to approximate the fact to the idea. Why is it that ideas, concepts, formulas have become so extremely important? If you observe yourself, you will discover that ideas, the `what should be', the intellectual concepts, the intellectual formulas are much more rigorous, much more important than the actual living, than the actual fact of what is taking place. If you observe yourself, you are bound to find out in what manner they have usurped the whole field of thought. We are not dealing with ideas, because these talks are not at all concerned with ideas; we are concerned with the understanding of the fact which is life - with all its sorrow, misery, confusion, ambitions, fears, with its depths; and which has its discipline, corruption. We are trying to understand life, not in terms of ideas, but actually - to understand life, and see if we cannot be free of those travails that give us such anxiety, make us feel so guilty, and if we cannot wipe away fear. That is what I would like to discuss this evening, if I may.
Why do ideas take root in our minds? Why do not facts become all important - not ideas? Why do theories, ideas become so significant rather than the fact? Is it that we cannot understand the fact, or have not the capacity, or are afraid of facing the fact? Therefore, ideas, speculations, theories are a means of escaping away from the fact. Do please apply this to yourself, not just listen to what is being said. What is being said has no value at all; but it has value - at least, it seems to me - when one can apply it to oneself and experience the things that are being said, by directly observing oneself. Otherwise, these talks will be utterly empty, without much meaning. So, do please give a little attention to that.
Is it that we are incapable of facing facts, and therefore ideas at all levels of existence offer an escape? The facts cannot alter; do what you will, the facts are there. You may run away, you may do all kinds of things; the facts are there - the fact that one is angry, the fact that one is ambitious, the fact that one is sexual, a dozen things. You may suppress them, you may transmute them which is another form of suppression, you may control them; but they are all suppressed, controlled, disciplined with ideas. Is it possible not to live with ideas at all but with facts only? Do not ideas waste our energy? Do not ideas dull the mind? You may be clever in speculation, in quotations; but it is obviously a dull mind which quotes, that has read a lot and quotes.
Is it possible to live all the time, every minute, with facts? I do not know if you have ever tried to do that - to live with the fact of what actually is, and therefore to have no contradiction. You remove the conflict of the opposite at one stroke if you live with the fact, and therefore liberate the energy to face the fact. For most of us contradiction is an extraordinary field in which the mind is caught. I want to do this, and I do something entirely different; but if I face the fact of wanting to do this, there is no contradiction; and therefore at one stroke I abolish altogether all sense of the opposite, and my mind then is completely concerned with `what is', and with the understanding of `what is'.
Most of us have fear of some form or another. We are not concerned with what one is afraid of - we are not talking of that - , but of fear itself - not fear of death, fear of your wife or husband, fear of losing a job, fear of so many things. We are talking of fear. Is it possible to live with the fact of fear, without escaping from it, without creating the opposite and thereby making the mind dull in conflict? Has one the capacity to live with fear, and does capacity come through time? Is capacity to face the fact a matter of development, of time? I have to face the fact of fear. And when I face fear, I push aside all conflict of the opposite. Will the actual facing of fear develop its own capacity, rather than my developing the capacity to face it? I shall go into it a little bit.
Fear is an extraordinary thing. Most of us are afraid of something or other. Fear creates illusion; fear makes us suspicious, arrogant; fear makes us seek all kinds of refuge, all kinds of stupid virtues, moralities. And I want to face it, and not escape from it. Now, what is this `being aware of the fact'? The fact is fear, there is the awareness; what does awareness mean? All choice - I should not be afraid; this should not be; that should be; or any other choice - is denied, the moment I face a fact. Awareness is a state of facing a fact in which there is no choice. Awareness is that state of mind which observes something without any condemnation or acceptance, which merely faces the thing as it is. When you look at a flower non-botanically, then you see the totality of the flower; but if your mind is completely taken up with the botanical knowledge of what the flower is, you are not totally looking at the flower. Though you may have knowledge of the flower, if that knowledge takes the whole ground of your mind, the whole field of your mind, then you are not looking totally at the flower.
So, to look at a fact is to be aware. In that awareness, there is no choice, no condemnation, no like or dislike. But most of us are incapable of doing this, because traditionally, occupationally, in every way, we have been brought up to condemn, to approve, to justify; so, that is our background. To look at something without a background is to face the fact. But as we are not capable of facing the fact without the background, we have to be aware of the background. We have to be aware of our conditioning, and that conditioning shows itself when we observe a fact; and as you are concerned with the observation of the fact and not with the background, the background is pushed aside. When the main interest is to understand the fact only and when you see that the background prevents you from understanding the fact, then the vital interest in the fact wipes away the background. If I am interested completely in fear, then I neither condemn it nor justify it; there is fear, and I want to go into it; no background, no ideation will interfere with it because my interest is in the understanding of fear. Now, what is fear? We are not dealing with ideas, with words. We are dealing with life, with the things which are happening inside and outside, which needs a very clear, sharp mind, a precise mind; you cannot be sentimental, emotional about all these things. To understand fear, you need clarity - clarity not of something that you will get, but the clarity that comes when you understand that the fact is infinitely more important than any idea. So, what is fear - not fear of something? Is there such a thing as fear per se in itself, or is fear related always to something? And is there fear?
I will take death for the moment. You can supply your own example. Is there fear if there is no thought - that is, if there is no time? Most people are afraid of death. However much they might have rationalized it, whatever their beliefs may be, there is the fear of death. That fear is caused by time - not by death, but by time - time being the interval between now and what is going to happen, which is the process of thinking, which brings about the fear of the unknown. Is it the fear of the unknown or the fear of leaving the things that we know? We are afraid of death. We are not talking of death, what happens after death; we are talking of fear in relation to death. I say: is that fear caused by the thing which I do not know? Obviously I do not know about death. I can know about it, but that is not the point now. I can investigate, discover the whole beauty or the ugliness or the terror, the extraordinary state death must be. If we have time, we can go into it later.
Is the fear in relation to death caused by death - which means facing the unknown? Or is it caused by the things which, I know, are going to be taken away from me? The fear is of the things being taken away from me, `the me' disappearing into oblivion. And so I begin to protect myself with all the things that I know and live in them more strongly, cling to them much more, than become aware of the unknown. What is it I am afraid of? Not facing the unknown, but facing something which may happen to me when I am taken away from all the things that are held dear, which are close to me - that is what I am afraid of, not of death. What is it that I have - factually, not theoretically? I do not know if you have ever asked yourself a fundamental question to find out what you are. Do not translate it into the terms of the Gita or of some guru - that is all nonsense.
Actually, what are you? Have you ever asked it, and have you found an answer? Is there an answer? If there is an answer, it is not in terms of what you already know. But what you know is the past, and the past is time; and the time is not 'you'. The `you' is changing. I do not know if you are following all this. To find out what you are, if you say, `what am I?' possibly you are asking to find out the `I' that is static. Therefore, you say, `I know I am this'. You can only know of something which is static; you cannot know something which is living. I do not know if you have ever thought about this. You can speculate about the living; you can have ideas about the living, and approximate the living with the idea and therefore, introduce conflict. But if you say, `I want to know what I am', is that question put in order to find out for yourself the static `me', or is there a 'me' at all which is not static? This is not a philosophical lecture. When I put that question to find out what I am, that `what I am' is always in the past. The `me' is always the past. I can only put the question and enquire into something static. And through the thing that is dead, that is static, the past, I have to find out what I am, and so fear never goes away. But fear goes away the moment I put that question and watch myself all the time, not direct my attention to the past but actually to what is taking place, which is `the me' that is alive. Therefore, the thing that is alive never engenders fear. It is the thing that is past, or the thing that should be, that breeds fear.
Let us look at fear in a different direction. There is the word, and there is the thing. The word `tree' is not the tree. We will keep it very simple. We will use only one symbol: the word `tree' is not the actual tree. But, for us, the word is the tree. So, we must be able to see clearly that the word is not the thing. This is important to go into the question of fear.
Now, the word `fear' is not the actual state which is called fear. That is a different emotion, a sentiment; but the word is not it. The thing called fear is not the word, and yet we are caught in words. Why has the word become important and not the thing? Because the symbol, not the fact, is an idea which becomes much more important than the fact, because you can play with ideas, you cannot play with the fact. So, we are slaves to words like the `Supreme Being', like `God'. If I want to find out if there is God, obviously the word must go - and with it the authority of all the saints and such people. I must completely destroy the word; otherwise I cannot find out. A man who says there is God or no God, a man who is caught in words, will never find. So, in understanding fear, there must be an awareness of the word and all the content of the word - which means, the mind has to be free of words. To be free of the word is an extraordinary state. Being aware of the symbol - the word, the name - then there is awareness of the fact at a different dimension - if I can use that word.
Now I am aware of the fact of fear through the word, and I know why the word comes into being. It is an escape, it is tradition, it is the background in which I have been brought up, to deny fear and to develop courage - the opposite - and all the rest of it. And when I understand the whole implication of the word, then there is an awareness of the fact which is entirely different. In that awareness is there fear?
To unravel, which is really self-knowing, is the process of freeing the mind from everything except the fact; and that is a part of meditation. If you do not understand all the implications of fear or of ambition, and try merely to meditate, only repeating some silly words which have no meaning, it is only an illusion; it is not rational, it is not sanity. So, facing the fact all the time without idea is like the river. Into the river the city throws everything in - all the chemicals, all the dirt of the sewer. Everything goes into the river, as it passes by. And three miles away from there, the river has purified itself, the very movement of the river has cleansed it. In the same way, the mind cleanses itself all the time if it is facing the fact, if it lives with the fact and nothing else; and therefore, there is no contradiction and therefore no conflict of opposites. If I live with violence, and completely understand it, what need is there for the opposite? As the river is always purifying itself, so am I, when I face the fact all the time. And to face the fact, you need tremendous energy; and that energy is begotten when there is no conflict of the opposites, when there is no effort made to become something.
So, a mind that is facing a fact has no discipline, because the very fact disciplines the mind; it does not impose it upon the mind. I do not know if you see all this, see the beauty of such living with facts, because otherwise you cannot go far; and one has to go very very far - farther than up to the moon - to go within oneself. You cannot go very far, straight as an arrow flies, if there is no right foundation. And the right foundation is the fact - not an idea. Then the mind can fly always high - not in illusion. Question: When I look at a fact, my conditioning interferes. The conditioning is also a fact. What am I to do?
Krishnamurti: The question is when you are looking at the fact, your background - your conditioning, your Hinduism, your Christianity, your scientific training, your education - interferes; and so, for you, the fact is the background and not the fact that you are trying to understand. You want to understand ambition. You are ambitious, and that is a fact. You want to look at it; but your whole background - your training, your society, your culture - says, `What would happen if you are not ambitious?' So, there is the fact that you are ambitious; and there is the other fact of your tradition, of your conditioning. Now the conflict is between these two facts. Fact A is an actuality, and fact B which is your conditioning, is also an actuality. But if you want to understand A, you must understand B, surely; so your whole attention is not on A but on B.
How is one to understand the background? This is really a very complex question because it involves not only the modern educated conscious mind - the mind that has become that of a clerk, a Governor, a bureaucrat, a moneymaker and all the rest of it - but also the mind which is the unconscious mind, the hidden mind deep down. So the whole of that is the conditioned mind which is the past. Our concern is with B, not with A; and to understand B, we must go into the whole question of consciousness. Consciousness is not something you discover in the book; because what is in the book is merely an idea. Somebody says it is so, somebody asserts. Somebody's idea may be his actual experience; when he writes it down, it is an idea; and your following that idea or obeying that idea prevents you from discovering your own state of consciousness. So, you have to find out what you are, what your consciousness is, not according to somebody else, but actually. I am going to do it - not that you are going to listen to my ideas, but we are going to go into it - I am going into it verbally, but you are going into it actually. I am going to use words; but the word is not the thing. And the thing is for you to face the fact - the fact of your own consciousness, not of Sankara, Buddha, myself, or X Y Z; that has no value at all. If that is clear, let us go into it.
Question: What I am is always in the past; why is it not in the present?
Krishnamurti: I am answering your question exactly, if you kindly follow what I am saying. We are occupied with our own problems. Do follow this, your question will be answered.
We are dealing with life. There is consciousness, what is it? Please follow your own mind in operation - not my mind. We see obviously that there are certain levels of our consciousness, which are of the modern educated mind, the mind that is caught in knowledge, in specialization, in technique, in understanding how to live in this world, to go to the office, to do business with all the trickery, the corruption, the knavery - that is one level. And you have to do all that; because otherwise you cannot live. Then, there is another level below that. First of all, there is no division between the conscious and the unconscious; we divide it only for convenience. In actuality, there is no such division; there is an interplay all the time going on between the conscious and the unconscious.
The unconscious and the conscious are receiving innumerable experiences all the time. But one segment of the mind says, `I must be educated', and has educated itself in order to live in the present world at the present time. There are other parts of the mind, other parts of the consciousness, which are the result of our race - the race being your traditions, the things that must be done and the things that must not be done, the ideas, the things that you have been taught - all that is the past, hidden in the unconscious. You are listening to my words, but actually you are seeing it in yourself. The unconscious is the mechanism of habit, the unconscious is the mechanism of motive; it is where all our experiences are stored away - the experiences of the race, of man; the experiences as a Hindu, as a Buddhist, as a Catholic or what you will; the experiences that have been accumulated as knowledge, hidden deeply inside; the fears, into the details of which I will not go now, as it will take too long.
There is this consciousness. And the moment there is a past, it has boundaries, it has a framework, it is caught up in the past, and there is all that which we have now described. That whole background prevents you from looking at the fact. So, we have to look into that background and dissipate that background. Is it possible? Some psychologists who think they are atheists, say that you cannot dissipate it at all; and those who think there is God, equally feel it cannot be dissolved - all that can be done is only to decorate the background, give it more education to modify it, to control it, to shape it. How is one to be rid of the past - which is, the experiences of yesterday influencing today obviously and so conditioning tomorrow. I have had an experience yesterday of being insulted or praised, and that conditions my thinking now; and when I meet you tomorrow, that shapes my thinking with regard to you. So, the past uses the present and becomes the future.
Now, to understand the fact, I must look at it without the background, obviously. Is this possible? And the fact will not remain as a fact - it is moving, living. To understand it I must move with it; my mind must be as rapid, as swift, as sensitive as the fact. And my mind is not so if it has a background, if it is conditioned. Please follow. The background must be surgically operated on immediately, to follow the fact. So, there is no time to investigate the background.
Question: There is only one more difficulty in between - that is between the background and the fact. There is a tendency.
Question: At that time it is in a new dimension which has taken something of the colour of the fact, because it is in contact with the background.
Krishnamurti: Let us get the ideas. You say that the background in relationship with the fact brings about a tendency - let us keep to that.
Question: The background is very rich, very varied by the contact of the fact with the background.
Krishnamurti: I do not quite understand. You are saying this, are you? that the background has enormous history; the background is the story of all mankind, not only the mankind of India, but of all mankind of which India is a part; the Indian background is modified but has the background of humanity. You are saying that, if that enormous history or story is wiped away, there is nothing left as one fact. There is this enormous history or story which gives colour to the fact; otherwise, the fact is barren. Is that it? Let us take that.
As far as I understand, a part of the question is this. The background is our history; the background is all the mythology, the experiences of mankind; that is very rich, and being very rich it is also crooked just as every rich man is a crooked man; and that richness, however slightly perverse it is, distorts the fact. I do not say that the background is not rich. Obviously, the background is very rich; and being rich, it must distort. There are ten thousand years of the Gita or more - the date does not matter - and that has conditioned your mind, your thinking, your belief in discipline. Some one has told you, or some guru has told you that you must discipline yourself; and millions of people have disciplined themselves, and it has left a tremendous history behind. Somebody like me comes along and says, `Look, discipline is not necessary. Live with the fact and the fact will bring about discipline, you will not have to discipline yourself'. Looking at the fact eliminates contradiction and therefore conflict, and therefore duality. Therefore, he says, `Look at the fact; but you say that is impossible. Sankara, Buddha, your guru, the Gita - everybody says discipline, discipline, discipline.
So you are not looking, nor are you listening to what another is saying. Whereas you have to see your background, and see whether it is true or false. If it is false, cut it with a surgeon's knife, do not have a thing to do with it, wipe it away and see if this is so. But you cannot see if this is so, if you still have a background, a discipline. That is very clear.
Your mind is the result of ten thousand years and more - a million years; I am not talking about reincarnation. As the mind is the result of man living on earth, the mind has a tremendous history of experience, and you cannot wipe that mind away; but when that mind interferes in the discovery of what is true, then that mind has no relationship with what you may discover. There is scientific knowledge. It would be absurd and silly to wipe away all that knowledge; but a scientist who wants to discover something new, cannot be burdened with it. He knows that knowledge is there, but he is free to enquire. This is so simple. I do not know if you follow it.
In the same way, if I want to enquire into the whole process of fear, I have to cut away everything to find out the whole process, to enquire into it; because, what you have acquired, apparently, has not solved your problem of fear, you are still afraid.
Question: Is the fact different from the mind which interferes?
Krishnamurti: The lady asks, is the fact different from the interference? Now, do think it out. I am not a delphic oracle.
Is the fact different from interference? Are they not all in the same field, on the same ground? Is not the fact a part of the mind? I am jealous - it is part of the mind. And also it is part of the mind that says, `Do not be jealous, be virtuous, whatever it is. Jealousy is hate, so you must love; therefore wipe out jealousy'. Do you follow? I am jealous, and a part of the interference is that I must not be jealous. They are both within the some field. No? The fact is not outside the field of the mind. It is still within the field of the mind, as interference is still within the field of the mind. But with us, the interferences have become tremendously strong and important, and they interfere with the fact. We have emphasized the interferences and not the fact.
Now, is it possible not to allow the interferences at all to come into play? I say it is possible, but only when you have understood the whole question of interference. The question is this. There is the fact, there is the interference and there is the attempt to understand the interference. Now the fact, the interference and the urge to understand the interference in order to face the fact - all these arise only when I want to face the fact. If I allowed interferences to play all the time as I do, then, there is no fact, and I live with the interferences. I have said, `Face the fact, do not let interferences interfere, but be aware of the interferences'. So, there are three problems - the fact, the interference, and being aware of the interference. All the three are in the same field. They are not in separate watertight compartments, they are all in the same field and on the same ground. watch it. Please follow it carefully Experiment with this - which is, be totally aware of all this, aware of the fact, aware of the interference and aware that there is no understanding of the fact if there is interference. Be totally aware of all that, aware of the significance; then, you are getting the meaning of all the three, because in that total awareness there is no division. As I explained the other day, when there is attention, there is no distraction. It is only when there is concentration there is distraction, because concentration is exclusion; to be totally aware of these three is to be attentive without the borders.
So what happens psychologically, what takes place, when you are aware of the three as a whole, when there is an awareness of the total thing - the fact, the interference and the understanding of the interference?
Question: Is fear something natural or acquired?
Krishnamurti: When you meet a snake, you jump. That is a natural self-protective fear; without that you would be run over by a car, by a bus, or be killed by a snake. But all the others are unnatural, psychological desires to be secure and all the rest of it. When you are totally aware of the fact and the interferences, and have understood them and also the desire to understand those interferences - which will not interfere with the fact - when you are totally aware of all this, totally attentive to all this, what happens? Then is there the fact, does the fact remain - the fact that you are afraid? It will be absurd if you accepted my word.
We have come thus far by questioning. If I have questioned, and you are merely expecting, the result is absolutely worthless. It is like a hungry man being fed on words; he still remains hungry. But if you have really followed inwardly, you are bound to come to this position that there is a fact, an interference and the urge to understand the interference in order to complete the fact. When you are totally aware of all these three and of their significance, and do not merely concentrate on the fact or on the interference or on understanding the interference, then is there the fact? Is there jealousy, envy? I say there is not; obviously, you have wiped away every form of envy and jealousy.
Now, sir, this is real meditation. Without the fact ceasing to be - the fact of jealousy, of envy completely ceasing to be - how can you go very far? How can you find something which is beyond time? It is for you to find out, not for Sankara or Buddha or X Y Z - that has no meaning, to rely on somebody. If you want to find out if there is or if there is not, you must go through this. You must be totally free of fear; and to be totally, completely free of fear, you must face the fact - the fact that you are afraid, the fact also that you are conditioned which interferes with the fact, and the urge to get rid of the background in order to understand the fact. To be totally aware of all this is the beginning of meditation - not sitting on the banks of the Ganga, repeating empty words and all the rest of the nonsense going on in the name of meditation. You must lay the right foundation. Otherwise, your building will totter, it has no meaning, it cannot remain straight.
What we have done this evening is the enquiry into oneself in which there is no assumption of any kind, not saying this is permanent or impermanent - you should wipe away all that completely; and so you begin to understand yourself.
So self-knowing is the beginning of meditation. And you can go infinitely into this marvellous thing called meditation if you have the right foundation, otherwise, you get lost, you are caught in sensations, visions and all kinds of absurdities which have no validity for a man who is seeking. Then you will find if you have gone so far, that you are moving with the fact and therefore there is the ending of the fact, all the time; and thereby your mind becomes astonishingly supple, extremely sensitive. That is an absolute basis for meditation. Then you will find out, if you have gone into it, that your mind or brain become; astonishingly sensitive, therefore very quiet. A brain that is sensitive is very quiet; it is like a most delicate instrument, quiet, sensitive. You must have a brain that is completely quiet, uncontrolled; because the moment you control it, sensitivity is lost. It is only when the brain is completely quiet, uninfluenced, unrubbed, not disciplined, not controlled - one cannot achieve a still brain; to think of achieving it is immature, utterly vain, and has no meaning - that you will find out whether there is, or whether there is not, a movement beyond that. There is a movement beyond that, and that movement is creation, is God or whatever you like to call it - it is irrelevant what name you give it. It is that movement which is necessary in this world at the present moment, because we have become machines - scientific or technological or specialized machines. Do you think a mechanical brain is going to find out anything?
Question: I find it difficult to separate the word from the thing, and treat them as different.
Krishnamurti: The gentleman says, he finds it extremely difficult not to allow the word to be the thing.
Why is it difficult? Is the door which you see there the same as the word door, is that word not different from the thing? The gentleman says he has never forgotten the word, the word is never absent, it is always there. For most people it is so. The word is there, not the thing. Psychologically, the word becomes so important, because the word is a means of escape from the fact.
Let us take the word `envy'. The word is not the thing; and the word `envy' becomes important to us. Psychologically, inwardly, we do not know what to do with envy. It is respectable. All our social structure is based on envy, our education from childhood up to whatever we have reached is still based on envy, and envy is the symbol of position, authority. Psychologically, we want all that; and the symbol has become respectable, popular: it means success, position, power and all the rest of it; and so we avoid envy and we worship the symbol, the word.
Question: One does not know one is envious. One knows it only at a later stage.
Krishnamurti: The gentleman says that there are two stages with regard to envy. One is completely oblivious of envy, one does not know one is envious; and if one lives in that state, obviously, it leads to insanity, ill health. If one is aware of it, is there envy then? If one is not aware that one functions in envy, that envy is the motive power; there that leads to mental illness. But when one becomes conscious of it, then the whole mechanism of thought is set going, and the mechanism of thought is verbal. Thought is the structure of words. So to one who wants to look at the thing without the word, all those are explanations. But explanations do not satisfy the hungry man. The hungry man says, `Give me food'.
When a man is not conscious of his envy, it breeds illness. When he is conscious of his envy, he begins to verbalize and builds a structure of words, which becomes the thought and opposes the fact. Only when there is total awareness of all this, without any thought arising in the mind, will envy cease to be.
Question: Will you please say what is the purpose of your saying that there is no God?
Krishnamurti: I did not say there is no God. I said very definitely: to find if there is God or no God, you must abolish, wipe away from your mind, all concept of God. To find if there is God or if there is no God, you must wipe away all the information that you have received about God. The people who have given you information might be mistaken; you will have to find out for yourself. And to find out for yourself, you must get rid of all authority, understand the whole structure, the anatomy of authority - whether it is the authority of the policeman, the authority of the Government, the authority of the guru, or the authority of your own desires; they all play a part.
Without understanding all this, merely to seek what you call God has no meaning at all. God is something amazing, not to be imagined by some kind of belief. You have to find out. I do not say if there is or there is not. To find out you must be free first. There is London; it is a fact, a physical fact. It is the same thing with a physical fact which can be examined by a microscope. You believe in God because you have been brought up in that belief. The Communist does not believe in God; he says there are only physical phenomena which are explicable.
January 10, 1962
Varanasi 5th Public Talk 10th January 1962
Texts and talks of Jiddu Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti quotes. Books about
J Krishnamurti. Philosophy.