From the book:
We explain, giving the description of the cause and the effect, saying, for example: man has inherited brutality from the animal. Someone points that out; but if in the very pointing out you act, you cease to be violent, is there not a difference? Action is what is demanded; but will action come about through explanations, through words? Or does this total action come about only when you are sensitive enough to observe, see the whole movement of life, the whole of it? What are we trying to do here? Give explanations of `why’ and the cause of `why’? Or are we trying to live so that our life is not based on words but on the discovery of what actually is – which is not dependent on words. There is a vast difference between the two – even though I point it out. It is like a man who is hungry; you can explain to him the nature and the taste of food, show him the menu, show him through the window the display of food. But what he wants is actual food; and explanations do not give him that. That is the difference.
Download the ebook: The Impossible Question by Krishnamurti here i full length (201 pages):
The Impossible Question by Krishnamurti

I am very glad to visit this website
You are welcome :-)
This is my first time visit at here and i am genuinely impressed to read everthing at alone place.