Question: One sees the absurdity of condemning things, outwardly and inwardly, but one keeps on condemning. So what is one to do?

Krishnamurti: When we say, 'I see that I must not condemn', what do we mean by that word 'see'? Please follow this a little slowly. I am examining that word `see'. What do we mean by that? How do we see a thing? Do we see the fact through the words? When I say, 'I see that condemnation is absurd', do I see it? Or am I looking at the words 'I must not condemn'? I do not see the true fact that condemnation does not lead anywhere, do I? I do not know if I am making myself clear. The word 'door' is not the door, is it? The word is not the thing; and if we confuse the thing with the word, then we do not see it. But if we can put the word away, then we can look at the thing itself. If I see the whole implication of Catholicism, Hinduism, Communism - see the thing, not the word - , then I have understood it, I have finished with it. But if I cling to the word then the word is an impediment to seeing.

So, to see, the mind must be free of the word but see the fact. I must see the fact that condemnation of any kind prevents the mind from really looking at something. If I merely condemn ambition, I do not see the whole anatomy, the structure of ambition. If the mind wants to understand ambition there must be the cessation of condemnation; there must be the perception of the fact, without resisting it, without denying it. Then the seeing of the fact has its own action. If I see the fact of the whole structure of ambition, then the fact itself reveals to the mind the absurdity, the callousness, the infinitely destructive nature of ambition; and ambition drops away; I do not have to do a thing about it.

And if I see, inwardly, the full significance of authority, study it, watch it, go into it, never denying, never accepting, but seeing, then authority drops away.