Krishnamurti - Meditation, death, the mind when the self is not

Krishnamurti Subtitles

BR74S11 - Meditation, death, the mind when the self is not
Brockwood Park, UK - 19 October 1974
Seminar 11

0:00	This is J. Krishnamurti’s 11th seminar with scientists at Brockwood Park, 1974.
0:08	David Bohm: I think that if Krishnamurti will agree that we should continue with Maurice Wilkins’ question which was raised last time on death.
0:18	Krishnamurti: Oh yes, we’re going to talk about death.
0:25	DB: Yes. (Pause) K: Before we talk about that, sir, may we go back a little about meditation, which we were discussing yesterday?
0:43	DB: Yes.
0:49	K: I don’t think we get the whole picture of meditation unless we also understand the extra-sensory perception, healing, thought over matter and all the rest of it.
1:18	I believe Duke University in Carolina has been experimenting on this problem; and also it has been the Tibetan and the Hindu tradition that the deeper you get into meditation there are certain, what they call siddhis, which are – how would you translate?
1:53	– powers, as capacities which are not sensory, that defy all logic – like levitation, which I have seen actually with several others; it wasn’t just my individual experience.
2:19	And also, when one goes into this question of meditation profoundly – not as a theory but an actuality in daily life – these powers or these capacities come into being.
2:45	As I said, I’m not talking about anything which isn’t actual to me, personally. And one has to be very careful not to be entangled in those because they lead to all kinds of undesirable activities.
3:06	And so a really profoundly religious man, who is really part of meditation and sacredness, though these capacities arise, they should be treated as childish toys.
3:24	Now we can go on to something else, which is… which we want to discuss — death.
3:34	DB: Death, yes. Montague Ullmann: Could I question that, because I’m devoting a good part of my career to looking at these childish toys, the parapsychological dimension of our existence.
3:51	I, too, had paranormal experiences, including witnessing levitation, but this made me curious to find out more about the nature of these strange phenomena.
4:00	I’m interested in what you say about the relationship to meditation because the whole thrust of our experimental approach to this problem is through states of relaxation, states of disconnectedness to the outside world: the sleeping state, the state of sensory deprivation where you cut out stimuli from the outside, the hypnotic state and so on.
4:33	The only point at which I have some question is why they’re cast in a negative, undesirable frame of reference?
4:46	K: Because I think, sir, because unless one is very careful they can be utilised for personal benefit, for personal... for exploitation and all that’s involved in it.
5:11	And, say for instance, healing – one has that capacity from childhood, if one has gone into it; the speaker has had that thing, right from the beginning of his infancy – you collect a lot of undesirable people around you.
5:40	You begin to – unless you are very, very sane (laughs) – that becomes a means of exploiting people.
5:53	You may not be able to do healing all the time, and so you pretend, and you build up a clientele or a following which are all phoney and destructive.
6:11	So it is very important to understand the...
6:18	That’s why I said one must be extraordinarily sane.
6:22	MU: I would agree; it’s a very easily exploitable field.
6:29	DB: Yes; Julian wants to say something. Julian Melzack: But, surely, you wouldn’t object to people like Monty Ullman working in an attempt to try to understand the laws by which, or under which, this paranormal stuff...?
6:45	K: Of course, of course; I’ve friends who are doing it all over the world. I wouldn’t object to that, surely not.
6:54	DB: Robin. Robin Munro: Do you think that going into these powers is more dangerous than going into normal fields of science?
7:03	K: Little more... That’s what I was pointing out. This is a rather dangerous field unless you know all the implications of it, you see.
7:12	I don’t know if you have heard of such a thing... May I go into it a little bit? Dr Sudarshan, too? George Sudarshan: Yes sir. Yes sir, most certainly.
7:23	K: Which is the whole problem of kundalini – you know all that. The... like the Tibetans and the Hindus – probably it went from India to Tibet in the old days – that they believe very, very strongly – and they have been talking about it and several people have come to see me about it – that there is a power, energy, a form of what they call fire, that can be awakened through very careful teaching, practice, abstemiance, control and all the rest of it, that it is awakened and passes through various states of the body and so on.
8:31	That one knows about. I don’t want to go in[to it] too much because it may not be relevant and also, unless you have gone into it very, very seriously, it becomes rather superficial and meaningless.
8:50	And also, that’s part of meditation, too. Therefore meditation, as we were saying yesterday, unless it is in daily life – daily life being freedom from sorrow, freedom from suffering, ambition, greed, envy, all the rest of that hectic business – these powers and energies become rather destructive.
9:18	DB: (Inaudible) David Peat: When you spoke about the healing powers, earlier we talked about healing and, as David Bohm and Liz pointed out...
9:33	K: Medicine... meditation...
9:34	DP: No, no, wait a minute; healing means to make whole...
9:37	K: Yes.
9:38	DP: ...and so if somebody comes to you with a lot of confusion and with a desire, and the desire is somehow frustrated by the confusion, can you – in contact or conversation with this person...
9:50	K: Sir, there have been…
9:51	DP: ...does the person... is he made whole?
9:53	K: There have been many cases – I believe there were some healers in England who have done this kind of thing; whether they’re concerned with the whole of man or merely relieving certain headaches and pains, that’s a different matter.
10:09	DP: But I was meaning, say, in this group some of us have said it’s difficult to accept things from you.
10:16	There’s a frustration in trying to understand what you’re saying, so...
10:20	K: Why sir?
10:21	DP: Well, because inside there’s confusion and we’re not whole inside.
10:25	K: Ah, oh well; I mean, that...
10:26	DP: Now, does this form of healing extend this far, to listening to you and...?
10:32	K: I won’t go into all this, sir; this is too... entering into a field of speculation, into a field of... Unless... I won’t touch that, if you don’t mind. (Laughs) Fritjof Capra: There is a whole tradition in Tibetan Buddhism and there are many other mystics who say that you can use centres of consciousness to perceive the world other than the ordinary senses — they call them chakras...
11:03	K: I know; I don’t know, sir... (Laughs) FC: ...and then there is Don Juan, this Mexican mystic, who says you can perceive the world with luminous fibres that come out of your abdominal – you know, this area – and so on.
11:18	So there are these ways of perceiving the world, and my question is: in your teachings you never mention them – and I understand that the people who use them have to be quite far advanced and know quite a lot about meditations before they start getting on these planes – but I wonder, have ever you talked or used these centres of consciousness with anybody who follows your teaching and who has got to a fairly advanced state?
11:51	K: I don’t know them, sir.
11:52	FC: You don’t know them? I see.
11:55	JM: Well, that would seem to be inconsistent, anyway, with what you were saying yesterday because centres – of the sort that Don Juan talks about – implies concentration, focusing in on a particular part of the body, and the sort of meditation that was being talked about yesterday was the antithesis of that, it was...
12:10	K: Yes sir. I wanted to say the same thing in a different way, what you’re saying. It isn’t an action of will; it isn’t something you concentrate and all that...
12:23	FC: Yes, I understand.
12:24	K: Therefore, we must understand effort, concentration... all that must be gone into.
12:28	FC: Yes. But you say you, yourself, you don’t use these things at all. I mean, you... because you say, ‘I don’t know them...’ K: Ah, I won’t... I didn’t say that, sir.
12:36	FC: Oh. I see. Because you said, ‘I don’t know them...’ K: I won’t go into it, if you don’t mind; I won’t touch that field at all.
12:50	FC: Yes, yes; I appreciate that, yes.
12:51	GS: Could I ask a short, technical question? When you use the word will – I prefer to translate into my language – there are two words: icha and sancalpa.
13:02	Now, icha always involves attachment, craving, dependency; sancalpa, on the other hand, is the action of free person.
13:08	K: That’s... that’s… sancalpa is the right word.
13:11	GS: So you don’t mind sancalpa; you don’t like icha.
13:16	K: No. Sir, let’s understand, because we must... Sanskrit words... Will is a heightened form, concentrated, a heightened form of desire: ‘I will be,’ ‘I will not,’ ‘I must,’ ‘I must not,’ ‘I should’ — all that’s involved; I’m referring to that, which is an extension of the self, the me trying to be something better, nobler and so on, so on, so on.
13:58	GS: But the other part or the other mode of... in which you are not making an effort, but you nevertheless know what you’re going...
14:12	K: Obviously, obviously.
14:13	GS: ...that is all right.
14:15	K: That... I mean... (Laughs) GS: No, because again in Don Juan’s teachings also this comes in; I mean, you stop the world. ‘Carlos, you are trying too hard; you work too hard, you’re...’ K: You see, sir, that...
14:28	I haven’t read Don Juan, whoever the gentleman is. I think we are – as we discussed the other day – we’re all so second-hand people.
14:40	We are always saying somebody else, somebody else, we never do it for ourselves: go into it so seriously, fully, that you find out for oneself; that’s much more important, it seems to me, than Don Juan and Mr... (laughs) whoever it is.
14:59	I’m sure like the Mandukya Upanishads, those who wrote it, they never had gurus; they never...
15:10	it came out of their heart and minds, because they were living it. That’s an irrelevant point. Shall we go into the next...?
15:27	Maurice Wilkins: There is one point I wanted to try and get a little bit clearer.
15:39	I thought some of us here felt that meditation was being used in the same sense by all of us, but I suspect it is being used in very different senses.
15:51	I mean, I feel that you are using it in a very different sense from the sense that it is used by others.
16:01	K: From what I have been able to gather, sir, I think it is somewhat different.
16:14	You see, I’ve had a long life about all this and I’ve seen various types of people who have meditated: Zen, who’ve gone to Japan and entered the monastery, and spent many years there; and also there is a Burmese school of meditation, where you are trained to pay attention.
16:51	And there is various other forms of meditation as we were talking about the other day. Unless it is directly related to daily life, daily living, not translate that meditation into life – you understand, sir? – the meditation of Zen into life, but rather living, go to it.
17:18	MW: You mean that some people regard meditation as a separate, special part of their life?
17:27	K: Yes, part of... Get to know how to meditate, then apply to life.
17:32	MW: Then they say it works.
17:34	K: It works. Yes (laughs).
17:36	MW: But your point is: what must work is the life as a whole.
17:40	K: Yes sir, that’s all.
17:43	DB: Robin?
17:45	RM: Regarding this, some people seem to... (Break in audio) whole, feel that when people [are] leading a chaotic life, it’s very difficult to get off the ground, in getting away... you know, breaking somehow through that.
17:59	And sometimes certain kinds of practice, such as yoga, may help to make one little corner of their life slightly different, from which it can grow out, so to speak.
18:10	K: Sir, again, we must understand the word yoga, what it means — it means to join – I won’t go into all the root meaning of it – to join.
18:21	But I think there must have originally [been] a different meaning. Who is the joiner? You...? Who is the entity that joins the physical to the spirit? Or the... who brings about an integration of all the fragments — who is that entity?
18:47	Is he different from the fragment? Or he is part of the fragment who has separated himself and says, ‘I’m superior and therefore I can integrate the rest.’ Therefore, it is...
19:09	If one is in confusion... I think that is the first thing to understand: what it means to... confusion. Is it possible for a mind to be free from confusion? I mean, go into it; find out.
19:32	But to take yoga, which is... not only from what yogis have told me who have spent many years in practicing various exercises, special kind of breathing and so on, they’re only concerned with the control of the senses, and later on move to what they consider higher states of consciousness.
20:04	Control the senses – through breathing, through various forms of exercises, through repetition, through... and so on – and gradually reach a higher level of consciousness where you see various things and so on.
20:25	And therefore, it is still within the realm of practice, control – all the rest of it – which we went into the other day.
20:37	FC: But yet, yoga is taught here in the school and you practice it yourself.
20:43	K: As exercise.
20:44	FC: I see. For the body or...?
20:47	K: For the body. You see, that... I believe – subject to your correction – ... (Laughs) (Laughter) I believe, originally...
21:04	The whole question of yoga started some three thousand years ago, I believe, when the elite chewed certain leaf from the Himalayas, and that leaf died or the bush or the tree died, and that leaf gave them a certain clarity of mind and heart.
21:34	And when that tree died they had to invent a means of keeping the mind clear, healthy, to function properly.
21:48	So they invented this yoga, which is really maintaining the glands – as far as I understand – healthy, normal and active.
22:06	Therefore, a real yogi never drinks, never eats meat and must lead a very strict daily life, go to bed very early, so that the next morning he practices for a certain time and prepares for the day.
22:29	It’s not just an amusing healthy thing.
22:37	Right sir? In this school and in India too, some parts, they do it by... they are taught by those people who have been to India and have learnt it somewhat and come and teach it, only as exercise.
23:01	RM: But in doing these physical exercises, they undoubtedly do have an effect on the mind, the state of the body and mind.
23:11	K: Oh, obviously.
23:12	RM: And so they... you know, it goes together, of course; it’s not as if one...
23:19	I mean...
23:20	K: Sir, it’s like doing gymnastics. (Laughs) Of course. You run round five miles a day and so on; if you play golf – as I used to, three rounds a day – you keep fresh — that’s a normal thing.
23:43	(Pause) Shall we talk...?
23:48	DB: Right.
23:51	K: Sir, this is rather a complex and difficult subject: death.
24:09	I mean, this has been a problem for man throughout time.
24:24	The Egyptians, from what I have seen when I was in Egypt on various visits, their earthy life was for a future life, from their tombs, from their history and so on.
24:51	The Greeks believe it in a certain way and the Hindus believe it in a different way. The Hindus believe that the soul, the atman or the inward state incarnates till it is made perfect and reaches Brahman, God – whatever that state is – through repeated reincarnations incarnating each life and living a righteous life, they attain the highest intelligence, the highest Brahman, the highest state of consciousness and so on.
25:41	That is, after death, the entity goes on.
25:48	That’s called – as you must know, you must... – reincarnation, and probably the whole of Asia believes it, more or less.
25:56	Here you have this question of resurrection.
26:05	I was once travelling in a train and there was a priest in that carriage.
26:15	And he said to me, he said, ‘Of course, no religion in the world has what our religion has:’ – he was a devout Christian, he told me – ‘our Saviour rose physically from death; none of the other religions have it.’ And he said, ‘I know he rose, physically.’ I said, ‘How do you know, sir?
26:41	You weren’t there; this must be a tradition.’ And he said, ‘We all know it as a fact.’ And there was another man there in the carriage who said, ‘I wish there was somebody there who could have taken a photograph of this.’ And it went on that way.
27:05	So what is death?
27:15	There is the physical organism wearing itself out.
27:22	That’s inevitable, apparently. And the physical organism can be given a longer life by right diet, careful exercise, yoga, and allowing the body to have its own intelligence, not imposing on the body the dictates of the tongue: taste and bad habits and so on; so the body, the organism can be made to continue very much longer.
27:59	And it inevitably come[s] to an end. There is a lovely story, if you’re interested in it, of Nachiketas.
28:12	There was a Brahman boy who tells this story.
28:23	His father was giving away things – I’ll make the story very short; I haven’t read the Upanishads of this particular part, but I have been told by so many people about it so I know it – father was giving things away: his cattle, his this and his property – that was the old tradition, every five years you got rid of everything and began again.
28:49	A rather nice idea; (laughs) not in modern times – and the son comes to him, he said, ‘Father, you are giving things away to all the people.
29:04	To whom are you going to give me?’ And the father said, ‘Go away. Don’t disturb me, I’m...’ And the boy comes back again and he says, ‘To whom?’ ‘No,’ he says, ‘Please don’t disturb me, go away.’ So the boy comes back a third time, he said, ‘I must know, because I see you are giving the house, the cattle and everything that you have.’ The father gets angry and said, ‘I’m going to send you to Death.’ Because he was a Brahman he had to keep his promise – see all the intricacies of the story – and the boy says, ‘All right.’ So he says, ‘Before you send me to Death, I want to visit various teachers about death.’ And he goes from teacher to teacher and learns that some say there is annihilation, complete annihilation, others say there is continuity.
30:07	And at last, he arrives at the house of Death and Death is absent.
30:15	He waits three days there and then Death comes on the third day and apologises for keeping him waiting.
30:28	And he says, ‘Since you are a Brahman, I cannot as a host apologise, therefore I offer you three boons, three wishes.’ And the boy says, ‘Send me to my father back; make him happy by receiving me.’ And the second one is not important.
30:51	And the third, he says, ‘I have been to various teachers and they say this and they say that.
31:02	What do you say? Is there a continuity or is there annihilation?’ And Death says, ‘Don’t ask me that question.
31:13	I’ll give you anything you want: riches, palaces, this and that.’ The boy says, ‘No, sorry.
31:21	At the end of it all, you will be there, and I want to know what you think.’ So Death teaches him what it is to die.
31:33	(Laughs) Rather a nice story.
31:40	So what is it to die?
31:48	Accepting the physical body dies, is there a psychological death?
31:55	The me, with all my attributes, with all the qualities that one has developed, all the career, all the knowledge, the various self-improvements, all that – which is me, verbal, non-verbal – will that continue?
32:28	That has been the real problem about death.
32:35	Will I, who is attached to my family, to my house, to my property, to my name, to my fame, to my books, to my knowledge, to my activities, I have spent forty years in acquiring a certain capacity and so on, so on, so on — will that continue?
33:01	Or will that die? Death means the ending and the complete annihilation of that.
33:16	So one has to go into the question if there is anything permanent in oneself.
33:25	Are you interested? May I go on? Is there anything permanent in me? Permanent, in the sense, enduring?
33:44	Permanent, in the sense, which is not within the field of time? The soul, according to the Christians and the Hindus with their word, say that there is such thing as eternal, something that is indestructible.
34:13	(Pause) And is that permanent?
34:23	If you really not take belief, not take other people’s authority, not accept the urge for comfort: ‘If I die, what’s going to happen to me?’ and therefore I’m frightened and therefore I want comfort; I want various forms of structural beliefs and so on, so on, so on.
34:47	If I’m not... if the mind is not frightened, I have to find out if there is something permanent.
34:56	Or is everything in me transient?
35:05	Everything in me – me included – is in a state of constant flux?
35:12	That’s one thing. And the other is: is there immortality? Is there immortality? Because this has been the search of human beings; not... you may say, ‘That’s all rubbish.
35:32	Get rid of it and don’t talk about it.’ Like celibacy is not... that’s stupid. This has to be gone into: whether there is immortality.
35:50	So these are the problems. The entity, me, getting more and more and more refined, more and more subtle, through various lives – I’m just...
36:09	I’m repeating what the tradition, what the... what is in the world... – through constant refinement of behaviour, conduct – and so on, through many lives – till it reaches the highest consciousness or highest deity, highest Brahman.
36:42	Or, as Christians believe, physical resurrection and so on.
36:50	And also, it involves in there: is there something permanent, indestructible?
37:01	And also, is there immortality? These are all the problems involved. May I go on with it?
37:16	One obviously sees the physical organism come to an end; and is there – for the psyche, for the me – a continuity?
37:35	Or that is a total fallacy?
37:46	So I have to go into it, find out what is the me.
37:56	Not in abstraction but actuality — in what is me, over which we make such fuss: my self-centred activity, my career, my knowledge, my house, my wife, my...
38:16	This me, what is that me? Has it substance? What is its structure and nature? Is it merely words? Please, sir, this is very real; this is not just... At least, for me it is terribly real. I want to find... one must find this out. Is it a series of words, a series of concepts, forms, that has put together this idea of me?
39:08	With all its reactions and responses, with its responsibilities and irresponsibilities, with its relationships and images and so on.
39:21	What is that me? Until the mind finds that out, not in abstraction, actually.
39:38	Not according to Freud – sorry – X, Y, Z, but actually what one is.
39:47	Not according to some psychologist, philosopher, or specialist, but I put all that aside.
39:56	They may be right or they may be wrong, but I am concerned to find out what I am, not according to anybody – right? – because each specialist will say something different.
40:16	And the specialist also has to be analysed himself, so that field doesn’t give vitality or energy to inquire into what I am.
40:35	Right sir? Do I stop there or go on? Because this is a tremendous problem; it’s not just... So I have to go into it. As I observe... – observe it, not as an observer. I think this again must be made very clear, that seeing is more important than who sees.
41:09	The entity who sees is the seer; seer different from the seen.
41:19	So this difference is fiction, it isn’t real; the seer is the seen.
41:28	I must be very clear on that point. The observer is the observed. (Pause) I must be absolutely ground[ed] in that thing – if I can use that word – I must be rooted in that reality: that the observer is the observed, the thinker is the thought, the experiencer is the experience.
42:02	So what am I? I put the question and the inquiry and the investigation into what I am is only through observation, not the observer observing.
42:24	Am I making myself clear? May I go on? Or do you want me to stop there?
42:39	Avanti. Have you been stopped from discussion with me?
42:44	JM: Well, I’ll start one, after you’ve finished.
42:51	K: Oh, bien. (Laughs) (Laughter) So I... there is only observation without the observer.
43:00	Please, this is a very fundamental thing as far as I’m concerned, what I’m talking about.
43:09	If this is not understood we can discuss this. But... Bryan Goodwin: Could I just ask if you’re talking about an observer observing within his own mind, as it were, observing his sense reactions?
43:29	K: Yes, yes, yes. Because the observer distorts. The observer is the past. The observer is the accumulated knowledge, which is time, which is the factor of distortion, which is the factor of conditioning, conditioned mind.
43:51	What he sees is translated according to his background, according to his predilection, pleasure, pain, fear, anxiety and all the rest of it.
44:06	So the observer, when he observes, is the central factor of distortion, contradiction, division, from which arises conflict and effort.
44:23	And in the observation without the observer – because there is no observer, when there is seen the observer is the observed – then there is only this factor of the me; me – what is that me?
44:39	Having put that question, the observer is now absent.
44:46	That’s... I wonder if I can...
44:55	So there is the observation of what is and not the translator of what is.
45:01	DB: It means the observer is a fiction, and the impression that there is such an observer distorts the perception, so perception is only clear when there is no such an impression.
45:17	K: That’s right, sir. When there is no form, no prejudice, then only I can observe – not I – there is only then observation.
45:28	DB: Yes. And, see, the notion that we have to have prejudices comes – or some preconception comes – because we believe there is the observer.
45:37	K: Yes, yes. And this is... They have worked this out very carefully in the Indian tradition: the one who witnesses, and they have given him various names; I haven’t read them but I have seen professors, scholars who come... bombard me with all these questions when I go to India.
45:57	So there is that. Now, the mind without the observer is observing the whole structure of me — is there a me?
46:09	Then the me is the attachment to something: attachment to my family, to my name, to my form, to my capacity, to my knowledge, all that.
46:28	That is the structure and the nature of the me. I can go into it; I don’t know... that’s enough, a little bit. Therefore, that me has no reality except a verbal reality. And it’s very difficult to accept that because we are attached to things.
46:48	DB: Well, could I say, though, that the me seems to have tremendous energy and reality, in the sense it at least appears to do a tremendous number of things and to create a state of body and mind.
47:00	K: Yes. But that... without the observer, going beyond what is gives you much more energy.
47:08	There is greater energy, because in that there is no contradiction; it is a totality, it’s not a fragment.
47:16	I...
47:17	DB: Yes. I was merely trying to say that when there is this illusion of the me, it’s not merely a fiction, but it appears to have some genuine force behind it.
47:29	K: Of course.
47:30	DB: But this force is – in my... as I see it – is really the force of one... of the organism, which is mobilised or instigated by this illusion.
47:40	K: Yes, that’s right, sir. By this illusion that I am... that there is a factual me.
47:47	DB: Yes. And because there is so much energy then another thought comes along which takes that as a proof that the illusion is not an illusion.
47:59	K: (Laughs) Yes, quite. And if that is a fiction – and to me it is – then what is immortality?
48:22	Can that fiction die? Not at the end of my life, not when I am diseased, old aged, gaga and paralysed and all the rest of it, but can that entity die each day?
48:42	DB: Well, you see, there’s a puzzle in there: if it is a fiction, how can it die except a fictitious death? I mean... (Laughs) K: That is the problem. (Pause) Now, what takes place when the observer sees himself as a fiction and also the observed, the me, is a verbal structure, which has its own energy – selfish people are tremendously vital (laughs), though they cause mischief and misery to others or for himself, he’s tremendously vital, has a great deal of energy.
49:38	Now, when this is seen there is an intelligence which is not fictional.
49:50	This is... I don’t know if you accept this or look at it.
50:05	(Pause) Now, sir, just a minute. Intelligence, which means – according to the dictionary – to read between the lines, to... to...
50:24	(Pause) DB: Well, there are several meanings.
50:30	K: It has several meanings, that’s why...
50:36	DB: It means to choose between, to read between, to... It also means to gather in between – it has a tremendous range of meanings – and to...
50:52	The root legere also means to take heed; it’s interlegere, so it would mean to pay attention in between.
50:59	K: Yes, pay attention. Now, we’ll take... Now, when there is an attention which comes when there is the realisation the observer is a fiction, and that attention only can reveal this fact – that the observer is the observed – that attention is a form of intelligence.
51:34	That intelligence is the factor of complete security.
51:42	And that intelligence is not mine or yours, it is intelligence. Am I...? Right.
51:48	DB: Do you want to speak?
51:53	K: Go ahead, sir.
51:56	JM: Doesn’t this – and if not, why not? – this attention imply effort, concentration, etc., etc., all that you want to say [is] no good?
52:02	K: Oh...! I’ll discuss it with you. (Laughs) I’ll go into it, but that attention is not concentration.
52:09	DB: Yes. There’s a very significant difference. It would...
52:18	K: Do you...?
52:19	DB: ...want to go on?
52:20	K: You were waiting. I’m waiting for you, sir.
52:22	DB: Oh yes. See, there is a kind of attention which is concentration; there’s also a focusing of real attention which is not concentration, a momentary focusing, but...
52:32	JM: But the word focus also has built into it activity, etc., that which you don’t want to have in this.
52:41	DB: No, no, no. You see, attention may focus momentarily on what is relevant inherently but which does not exclude the background, so that it can equally well immediately move to anything else.
52:53	Now, there is a kind of exclusive attention which stays fixed.
52:57	K: I think... If I may... Sir, we went into it the other day – yesterday or day before yesterday – what are the implications of concentration.
53:07	Right?
53:08	JM: Yes, I remember.
53:10	K: Now, as we said, concentration is a form of exclusion; it implies effort, and in that also there is the entity who is making an effort to concentrate: there is a division between the concentrator and the concentrated.
53:34	And that is the obvious thing. But attention, when you attend...
53:46	I mean, you attend, your whole mind, your whole... everything is awake, and there is no interpretation, no translation, you’re attending, you’re listening – you are not translating what you’re saying – listening.
54:01	That attention can then give a particular... look at a thing, observe, without building a fence around itself.
54:15	I don’t know if I have conveyed it.
54:17	JM: Not quite. Because, I mean, even the notion of scanning – which is what you, I think, were getting... I mean, you know, a screen goes like this and you pick up something – it is an activity; there’s is still action.
54:26	DP: I think the -ing is a problem because it isn’t really looking or seeing or something, a continual process in time, is it?
54:32	DB: Well, that’s an assumption. You see, I think perhaps if we could defer the question because I think it’s implicit in what Krishnamurti is saying that the time process is not the right description...
54:42	K: Yes.
54:43	DB: ...and therefore we have to put it, you know, at least suspend that time process.
54:48	JM: But, look, we can’t suspend it at this point in the dialogue or in the narrative because it’s this attention process that shows the really... the evil, the evil distinction between the observer and the observed is suddenly obliterated.
55:05	So we can’t... I mean, it’s very important...
55:07	K: No sir...
55:08	JM: ...paying attention, whatever... what it means.
55:10	DB: Yes?
55:11	Q: It is the case that attention reveals that there is no observer? Or is it that...
55:15	K: Yes. Yes.
55:17	Q: ...when in attention there is no observer?
55:18	K: No sir. Look, look, I am telling you something. Will you listen to it? Don’t translate what I am saying into your form, into your mould or into your prejudice.
55:31	Just listen. Can you? That is, I am saying the observer is the observed.
55:43	The observer is the past, the observer is the element of time, and when he separates himself from the observed there is division, conflict and all the rest of it follows.
56:01	And the observer is fictitious. Wait, I’ll show you. I have pain. There is physical pain. Can there be observation of it without the observer?
56:24	I suffer psychologically – my son is dead, I’m lonely, I’m unhappy and all the rest of it – I’m acutely suffering, which is not an idea.
56:39	There’s a physical and psychological fact that he is gone; and I’m left alone, lonely.
56:52	I’ve lost something which has been very precious to me. I have put on to him all my hope, my desires – he’s my continuity, my immortality – and he’s gone; I suffer.
57:08	Now, can I look at that suffering without the observer saying, ‘I must do something about it’?
57:17	‘I must get rid of it. I must go beyond it,’ take a drug, or whatever you do.
57:29	But when the observer is not then there is only that pain, that loneliness. Then that fact of loneliness, because you are not escaping, not running away, there is energy to go beyond that fact.
57:47	I wonder if I...
57:51	KP: I’d like to try and translate that into a somewhat more formal way; take a crack at trying to explain this.
58:05	I think that it’s fairly easy to see that a part of a whole can’t give an account of the whole; because as soon as the part gives an account of the whole, that part is differentiated from the whole.
58:28	It’s separating itself from the whole and giving the account of the whole.
58:33	JM: I don’t think that’s what is bothering some of us here. I mean, that’s obviously true, you can’t...
58:39	KP: Okay, well, that’s the first thing I want to say, that that’s obviously true.
58:43	JM: Okay.
58:44	KP: And that’s the ordinary meaning of attention...
58:47	K: That’s right, sir.
58:48	KP: ...where we sort of split things up. But how can the whole give an account of itself, without separating a part of the whole giving an account to the rest?
59:01	And I think what’s being said here is the whole, as it is, is that account; and that when one doesn’t split a part off, giving the account of the whole, that the whole is brighter, is more illumined, and I think that’s the sense of attention which is meant here.
59:25	It’s very different from a part giving an account of the whole; it’s the whole, as it is, newly energised, newly illumined, because it just is as it is.
59:35	JM: I mean, one never – unless one is muddled – tries to give an account of a whole in terms of one of its parts, but what one does is one uses what other of us would call a meta-language; you know, we...
59:49	DB: Yes, well, could I say something about it? See, the meta-language is another part, you see. It’s a conflict between the meta-language and... You see, the meta-language is another part trying to account for the rest of it, and therefore...
1:00:01	You see, I think what Krishnamurti is saying is that there’s something else which is another state, if I could put it, another movement, in which there is no... in which attention does not have a separation as an observer who gives attention to a content.
1:00:14	K: Sir, I’m sure you have suffered, psychologically.
1:00:23	(Pause) Now, is there a division between suffering and the entity [which] says, ‘I am suffering’?
1:00:35	JM: Well, is there a division between...
1:00:38	K: You...
1:00:39	JM: ...me, the sufferer.
1:00:42	K: Yes, and suffering.
1:00:45	JM: In a sense, yes, and, in a sense, no.
1:00:48	K: No. Be simple. I’m a simple man; don’t be too logical with me. Logic, like scepticism, must be kept on a leash otherwise everything becomes.... (Laughter) JM: Yes. There is a difference between the suffering and the person... and me who’s undergoing that suffering.
1:01:08	Yes, there’s a distinction...
1:01:09	K: So there is a division?
1:01:10	JM: Yes.
1:01:11	K: Now, can you observe – I’m not questioning, I’m just...
1:01:12	JM: No, no; sure.
1:01:13	K: Can you observe... Is there an observation of that suffering without the observer who says, ‘I am suffering’?
1:01:22	Do you understand my...?
1:01:25	JM: Not quite.
1:01:27	K: You know what suffering is. And there is a man who says, ‘I am suffering,’ and there is a division – right?
1:01:41	– why is there a division?
1:01:42	JM: Well, for all sorts of reasons: among others, the man can imagine himself without that state, for example.
1:01:52	K: That is, he’s the past who says, ‘I have not suffered before; now I am suffering.’ JM: And I hope that I won’t be suffering in the future.
1:02:03	K: Of course; won’t be... future. So he, the observer, is the past saying, ‘I’ve had it before, or I didn't have it before, and I don’t want it tomorrow,’ so he has separated himself from that.
1:02:19	And that observer is different from the observed.
1:02:26	Is that so?
1:02:27	JM: Yes.
1:02:29	K: Ah no... Do...
1:02:31	JM: Yes, it’s so; I think that’s so.
1:02:35	K: Is different?
1:02:36	JM: Is different.
1:02:38	K: In what way, sir?
1:02:39	JM: In the way that you just described very well.
1:02:41	K: Yes, yes; which means he’s the past looking at the present.
1:02:46	JM: No; he could be the present looking at the present and still make the distinction.
1:02:51	K: Ah! No. No sir; look...
1:02:54	JM: Why not? Let’s say, look, I am suffering right now and I am looking at the state which we call suffering, which I am at this moment undergoing.
1:03:02	I am in the present looking at a state which I am in, in the present.
1:03:06	K: But how do you look at it?
1:03:08	JM: Well, one has to be metaphorical when one talks about one’s inner states.
1:03:15	I could say I look inward and I see my suffering. I mean, it is... you know, assuming that it’s metaphorical...
1:03:19	K: No sir. No, I’m asking a very simple... How do you look at that suffering? Who is the entity that is looking at that suffering?
1:03:26	JM: Myself.
1:03:27	K: Who is that self?
1:03:29	JM: (Laughs) That’s another question.
1:03:33	K: Ah, no, no. It’s part of that suffering.
1:03:35	JM: No, it’s not. No. No, I... No...
1:03:39	K: Otherwise you wouldn’t recognise it.
1:03:40	JM: Well, I could give you my view about what the self is, but that wouldn’t help me understand this problem that I’ve asked you about.
1:03:45	K: Sir...
1:03:46	JM: It’s a different question; I mean, they might be inextricably connected but then one has to give reasons for why one thinks...
1:03:52	K: Look, when I suffer, when you suffer, you recognise it because you have had suffering before.
1:04:00	Otherwise it’s something totally new.
1:04:09	So the observer is the past and says, ‘I know this; this is suffering.’ JM: The observer is not the past necessarily.
1:04:22	DB: Well, it’s from the past. You see, you compare whatever seems to be going on now with some experience that you may or may not have had.
1:04:30	Now, you see... I don’t know if there’s communication but, you see, when you recognise something there’s a kind of word saying, ‘This is suffering,’ and it produces an image, as it were, of suffering, which is then... another word comes along and says, ‘That really is suffering,’ but it has not noticed that the word is producing the suffering, is what I’m...
1:04:51	You see, that there’s confusion... something goes on very fast here. David Shainberg: What about the part, that I would like to ask Julian, when you look, the I that’s looking at the suffering – the self that’s looking at the suffering – do you feel there’s any invasion of the suffering into that I that’s looking at the suffering?
1:05:09	I mean, in other words, have you ever experienced suffering enough to where you couldn’t get out of it, that you were totally suffering?
1:05:17	JM: Uh, yes, but then...
1:05:18	K: That’s all! That’s all!
1:05:21	JM: Yes, but one still... Yes, but then one would say I was totally submerged in my suffering, for example.
1:05:27	DP: But when did you say that?
1:05:29	K: Ah, that’s good enough.
1:05:30	JM: Okay, if that’s good enough, then there I...
1:05:33	K: That’s good enough.
1:05:34	JM: All right. I am totally... Right.
1:05:37	K: That’s good enough. Now, can the mind remain there? Be totally submerged in it – to use your own word – that means the mind is not escaping, not trying to suppress suffering, because you are soaked in it, up to your gills.
1:05:55	JM: Well... Yes. It’s an interesting state that we chose as an example because if one is submerged in that state, because of what that state is, one will tend not to want to stay in that state.
1:06:06	K: No, no! There is no wanting or not wanting. You are up to your eyes in it.
1:06:11	JM: I think I see where the difficulty is. I mean, I could say... It’s not incompatible for me to say that I could both be immerged in a state and also either want to continue to stay in it or not want to continue to stay in it.
1:06:26	K: Ah no. (Laughs) No.
1:06:28	JM: There’s no incompatibility. Whereas...
1:06:30	K: No. Yes sir...
1:06:32	JM: ...you’re saying that one excludes the other.
1:06:33	DB: Well, the part that wants not to stay in it, is that immersed in the state? Otherwise it’s not total, you see.
1:06:39	K: You’re not submerged totally. There is some part out of... – iceberg (laughs) – which is not submerged. I said be totally submerged in it.
1:06:49	GS: This is vaguely disturbing because... David, don’t you have toothaches? And do you get submerged in it or do you go to a dentist?
1:06:58	DB: Well, that’s different, you see. When I say that...
1:07:02	K: That’s a different... Sir, I go to the dentist.
1:07:06	JM: Why is it different? No, I… Why is it different?
1:07:09	K: I’ll show you.
1:07:10	JM: Why is it different?
1:07:11	K: I’ll show you. (Laughs) I don’t know if we are getting further into the problem of death at all.
1:07:13	RM: Well, this is death, being submerged in it, isn’t it?
1:07:15	K: In a way. Sir, toothache, I can go to a dentist and do something about it.
1:07:23	Even there, I’m not afraid because I’m submerged physically in the terrible pain of it.
1:07:35	And I can do something externally. Now, the suffering which we are talking [of] is psychological: loss of my something or other.
1:07:48	There, is the mind totally submerged, totally? Or is there some part which is not?
1:07:57	JM: I would... The question that Sudarshan asked could exactly be asked of the suffering. In other words, there are procedures, there are steps one could take to either, if one wants to, remain in that state or get out of that state.
1:08:11	DB: No.
1:08:12	JM: Now, it seems to me that the analogy of the toothache is...
1:08:14	K: No. It’s not quite the same, sir.
1:08:16	DB: It’s not fictitional. You see, the toothache is real pain produced by some disturbance of the tooth. Now, if you are suffering psychologically, the suggestion is that it’s the fictitious entity that is the suffering.
1:08:27	You see, it’s something different.
1:08:30	K: Yes.
1:08:31	DB: The psychological suffering you could not... you can’t really get out of it by going to any... do anything at all.
1:08:37	FC: Look, if your wife dies, you can’t get out of it; you can’t make her alive.
1:08:39	JM: No, but I could take steps to alleviate the pain.
1:08:42	K: Ah...! That is the whole point.
1:08:44	DB: That’s the question, whether you can.
1:08:45	JM: Of course, I can.
1:08:46	K: That is the whole point.
1:08:47	DB: That’s fictitious.
1:08:48	K: That is the whole point.
1:08:49	JM: This is what Maurice and I were discussing a few days ago: one could take steps to... I think we talked about love; I mean – do you remember? – you asked can one take steps to enter into that state which we call love. Yes, we could take steps and I could take steps to alleviate...
1:08:59	DB: Well, that’s the point...
1:09:01	K: Of course. Of course, you can take steps; we all know that.
1:09:05	JM: So then, what’s...?
1:09:06	Q: After a time – you might not initially; I mean, you’re really immersed in it in the initial stage – you might be completely immersed. I can certainly accept this.
1:09:13	DP: Aren’t you saying that you...?
1:09:16	Q: It might not last for very long. It could be there.
1:09:18	DP: Aren’t you saying that you keep stepping back from it? You suffer and you step back and say, ‘I’m suffering; I want to end it.’ JM: Let me try to... I mean, giving your example of the vortex in the stream – is it what North Americans call whirlpools? I mean, those things...?
1:09:29	Q: Yes.
1:09:30	DB: Well, a vortex is a whirlpool.
1:09:31	JM: All right. I mean, I could see myself in a big whirlpool, right in the middle, somehow I was swimming and I didn’t see it and I got caught; and I’m in and I’m... and it’s sucking me down and I’m submerged in the whirlpool, I suppose one could say, to use that kind of language.
1:09:44	DB: Well, no, that’s not the analogy I wanted to say; that I say you are a vortex in the stream and you want to step out of the stream.
1:09:55	K: Mr Sudarshan?
1:09:56	GS: Yes sir?
1:09:57	K: Do you see what I’m talking about, sir?
1:09:58	GS: I see what you’re talking, but..
1:09:59	K: No, no. No, no; actually experience it. Don’t... Of course, verbally you can say...
1:10:04	GS: Yes. I comprehend what you say, I...
1:10:06	K: You see it? No, not comprehend mentally but actually...
1:10:09	GS: I mean, to use American language, I tune in on you, yes.
1:10:14	K: Now, translate that to him.
1:10:17	GS: But if I have to translate I must believe in all the things which you have said about it, including...
1:10:23	K: Of course, sir, otherwise...
1:10:24	GS: This toothache bit I do not buy, because... May I speak in my language?
1:10:29	K: Yes sir.
1:10:31	GS: I’m not sure I will succeed, because my sympathies are much more with Julian than with...
1:10:37	K: I know that. That’s why I asked. (Laughs) (Laughter) GS: May I also use my language?
1:10:45	K: Of course, sir.
1:10:46	GS: The statement is that in any observation, in any event, there are three steps – I use hearing instead of seeing because I want to reserve seeing for something else – there is the sound that is heard, there is the person who has heard it and there is the act of hearing.
1:11:07	This is one single triplet. Now, that same person hears another sound, the same triplet is there.
1:11:18	Now, we say, ‘I heard this sound and I heard the other sound,’ because you say, ‘The sound and the hearing have passed, they are relegated to the past, but the I, the hearer from the first one, is carried over and retained for the second one.’ This particular thing in my language is called the ego, the doer of each of these actions, the enjoyer, the participant, the one who is moved.
1:11:45	When that entity continues, then there is the notion of sequentiality, then there is the notion of succession and therefore the primitive notion of time.
1:11:55	I could say, ‘I heard this, and then I heard that and then I heard that,’ and I could say, ‘When I was young, I heard this,’ with regard to...
1:12:03	And it could also be with regard to any sensation of pain, any discrete, identifiable – I mean, I don’t like the word experience but any event – event that contains this triplet.
1:12:17	These triplets are initially, if you look at it, are interdependent; the three components are all together, if you remove any one of them, the whole thing ceases.
1:12:26	You must have all the three together. That there is no hearing without the sound, there is no hearing without the hearer, there is no sound without hearing – as far as this particular entity is concerned; we are not talking of ontological reality but in experience.
1:12:42	JM: No, no, no. Yes.
1:12:44	GS: So with regard to each of these things, then, these triplets are complete in themselves; there is no connection between one triplet and the other one.
1:12:53	But we now assert that there is a connection. We assert that, ‘I was the one who heard the first sound, I was...’ That particular person is that ego – this is the one component of the triplet – is identified as being continuous, that is the ego.
1:13:10	That ego is in temporality.
1:13:12	JM: And that is what links all the triplets?
1:13:15	GS: The linkage is the ego. And the linkage, therefore, is automatically in time.
1:13:21	JM: Right.
1:13:22	GS: There is a different mode of... There is a different mode – not ‘of’ anything – there is a different...
1:13:30	K: (Laughs) Yes sir.
1:13:31	GS: ...in which you observe this triplet, you see this triplet; in my language, I say you witness, sakshi, before your eyes – I mean, literally pushed into your eyes – that witnessing is not a participatory action, that entity simply observes the three.
1:13:49	K: Right sir.
1:13:50	GS: The statement is that if you shift your mode of functioning from the participant entity which is then continuing in time, as strung together on a bead, step from this mode – I mean, step means not in time because there is no time – move from this side to the other side, into the witnessing mode; witnessing is not continuous in time because there is no time, it sees things as it is.
1:14:16	K: That’s right.
1:14:17	GS: It has no predilections, it has no desires, it has no comparisons, it doesn’t care... it is not participating. If you move... The statement is that if you move from the ego mode to the witnessing mode, you have now complete attention because you observe things as they are.
1:14:34	You have no preoccupations, you have no background with regard to the thing. The discovery of... the major discovery... the discovery is the statement that this is possible; that in fact one ought to be there.
1:14:51	It is... When you are not there, you are not whole; you are in part, you are in a divided world...
1:14:56	K: That’s right, sir.
1:14:57	GS: ...and therefore you have limitations and measurement.
1:14:58	K: Now, just a minute; you are perfectly right, sir, you’ve said... Now, just a minute, sir. I’ve purposively avoided – between us two, this – witness because in Sanskrit – you know all this – immediately you translate it into Sanskrit and say, ‘Yes, I’ve understood it.’ It’s a verbal understanding; not an actual, daily fact.
1:15:22	That’s why I’ve avoided the word witness, only I’ve used the observer/observed.
1:15:29	That’s all between us. I’m only... As an Indian...
1:15:32	GS: One Indian to another.
1:15:33	K: No, I don’t know... (laughs).
1:15:35	GS: No. And the discovery, the knowledge which is to be imparted, or which when imparted you say you have seen, the one which... – you know, the mud was pasted on the blind man’s eye and he washed it – that discovery, that knowledge, that teaching that is imparted is the statement that you not only can function in this mode, in fact it is the natural mode.
1:15:58	JM: Right. Now, very eloquently put. I mean, I... Now...
1:16:02	GS: And may I just add one more sentence. In my tradition, what I have learnt and what I have... – I don’t use the word experience – how I have functioned is that this is possible with the aid of an entity which is not in time but which enables me to move from the temporal mode into the non-temporal mode.
1:16:22	JM: Yes. Okay, now, it’s... No, I understand that and that helped me a lot. Now it’s like evaluating... – this is my position now – it’s like evaluating a view which could, logically, possibly be true or false, which is stated however to be in fact true and desired, etc., and it’s like looking at this view, the way...
1:16:45	I mean, as it were your description of the view, and seeing that there’s something wrong. In other words, there’s an inconsistency... Now, I was going to say in the view; it could possibly be in the way you described the view but, you know, there’s an oddity which, unless it’s cleared up, I will take the view as something that could possibly be achieved because it’s like saying, ‘Let’s square a circle.’ Now, I can’t square a circle; I could understand the words ‘squaring a circle’.
1:17:09	Now, the thing I don’t understand is the different logic that is meant to apply to the concept or the entity that is referred to by your word witness and the first member of the triplet.
1:17:21	That is, who is this witness that is stepping back and looking at the triplet, if it isn’t just the first member of all the triplets?
1:17:28	So in other words, what is it that makes the witness in some way or other fundamentally different from the first member of all the triplets?
1:17:37	And, in virtue of that difference, how can he step back and...?
1:17:42	GS: Yes. I’ll tell you. May I?
1:17:45	K: Yes, delighted. You are... (Laughter) Sir, you...
1:17:49	GS: But I’m going to say something which I’m sure you’re not going to like.
1:17:52	K: (Inaudible) ...what I like or don’t like.
1:17:54	GS: You step there because of grace. You know that you are moved from the stringing together of the first component of each of these things, because of the fact that you find you are totally non-involved; you’re completely aware, completely alert and totally non-involved.
1:18:12	K: That’s all. I agree that. Not agree; it is so.
1:18:19	JM: But what are you...? Are you saying that...?
1:18:21	GS: It is so, yes.
1:18:22	JM: So... but the state of grace, as it were, transforms the logic of being a witness, to being the first member of the triplets?
1:18:27	GS: It’s not that transform the logic; that transforms the need of the entity to... words are back...
1:18:33	K: Don’t use the word grace, sir. Skip that word.
1:18:36	GS: All right. What shall I say? It is that you find yourself in a different condition. I can only give you this analogy, experimental analogy, in terms of the binocular microscope. When I first started with the thing, I told people it is just impossible. I keep doing the thing. I can move it up and down and I can close one eye, I can see very much better; I can use both eyes and I can see two things and I can still keep track of the thing.
1:19:02	But people said, ‘No, no, no; you keep trying.’ And I said, ‘It doesn’t work, doesn’t work.’ One fine day, I looked at it when nobody was watching and it happened.
1:19:10	And from that time onwards, it was very difficult to see two different visions unless you put them completely out of focus with regard to the thing.
1:19:18	And when it happens you know it has happened. It is possible – I mean, take it from me; I mean, we are friends now – it is possible. I do not know how it happens; I have a theory, a sort of tradition as to why and under what conditions it would happen.
1:19:36	There is no guarantee that it will work but it seems likely. Krishnaji says that it happens because you lose interest in the thing; you feel that this is incomplete.
1:19:47	And therefore, when you examine that this is incomplete and unsatisfactory, unaesthetic, non-aristocratic, you suddenly realise that this is not worth it, and therefore it happens.
1:20:01	I wouldn’t mind using somebody else’s help to get there. But after you have got there, it doesn’t really matter. If I may use – not so much to him but to express this in relation to something which you would know and maybe other...
1:20:18	In India, there are three groups of people who do practically the same thing but who say such different things and therefore they have different temples and different priests and different communities and... etc.
1:20:30	One group says that the absolute reality is certainly different from you; not only different from you but it is sort of sacrilege to talk about yourself being the same thing.
1:20:40	You are one of the nice guys, you know, worthwhile things of creation, but like sort of angels going around with harps all over the place, you, sort of... the best thing that you could possibly do is to be with it.
1:20:53	And these people talk about duality: I mean, the ultimate entity is one and you are another one. There are second group of people who say, ‘No, no, no; these two are identical.’ In fact, you eventually realise – sort of like Saint Paul’s – according to law, the man who has sinned must die, therefore I have died and he who functions in me is not myself but... etc., etc.
1:21:14	There is a third – and this comes the subtlety – third group who say that it is neither that nor this one; it is non-dual, but you are in a very special relationship with that particular thing.
1:21:27	You are at the threshold of merging with the thing, because if you are merged with the thing you wouldn’t have to ask this question. If you are completely different from it, there would be no tendency for you to identify it with it; you are sort of in-between. It seems to me that the difference between these three is a semantic difference because people who are in it – in either one of these three – seem to do the same thing or seem to be people of the same kind – they put different marks on their forehead but that is the only difference that I can see – but their theologies are quite different and their associate...
1:21:57	And it seems to me, whether one talks about somebody helping you, your getting there or your having examined it and... it seems to me really unimportant.
1:22:05	The important thing is not be in this world of confusion, to be in that mode.
1:22:14	JM: But I think what you were trying to do before was try to resolve a different kind of difficulty, and that is the difficulty in describing what is meant in such a way that it would be meaningful.
1:22:32	Not meaningful in the sense of, you know, meaning of life meaningful, but meaningful in the sense that... I mean, if you said, ‘Come with me, we’re going to square the circle. Now, you could do it yourself but come with me,’ I’d say, ‘Look, I don’t care how... you know, whatever we’re about to do when we go to the door, it’s not going to be squaring the circle because you can’t square the circle,’ and all give you all the...
1:22:54	Now, again I’m having trouble... You just say, I mean, now... – you’re not meant to use the word grace; you used the word. I’ll use it just because I don’t know what to substitute, at the moment – grace will enable one to see that the first member of the triplet is not the same thing as the witnesser.
1:23:17	You see, why can’t...? In other words...
1:23:19	GS: No, the moment you talk about witnesser, you have already put that into one of these activities.
1:23:25	JM: Right.
1:23:26	GS: The word has to be... the seeing cannot be used in the normal sense of the term, because you are not seeing this in the same sense that you see a fountain pen.
1:23:34	You are seeing it in a different sense; you have become aware of it, you have become sensitive to it, you know.
1:23:41	And that knowing is not a continuous process in time; it has no sequence. And I think the reason Krishnaji doesn’t like the word grace is that grace seems to be a cause for something which is the natural thing.
1:23:55	K: Right.
1:23:56	GS: It is only if you ask for a cause for the thing, you say, ‘Well, it must be grace because it could not be any other cause.’ But the statement which you should see is that, first of all, this is an empirically verifiable thing.
1:24:12	In other words, I’m pretty sure that if you’re sufficiently interested, like seeing the aura, I mean, it could be done.
1:24:20	Second, that it seems to be, once you’re in it, it is very difficult to see why it was difficult to see it before.
1:24:28	Third, it is not like squaring the circle, it is more like this parallels example that you mentioned; suddenly seeing that there could be a non-euclid in geometry and then suddenly seeing that, well, you had never really thought about that, or somebody tell you that, in fact, there is a geometrical representation of complex numbers or there’s a number whose square is equal to minus one.
1:24:51	You can’t imagine it, can’t think of it at all; but then somebody says, ‘Well, you know, instead of writing numbers you write ordered pair of numbers and then give a rule of multiplication,’ and suddenly you find that there is a number whose square is equal to minus one.
1:25:05	So until you see it, it’s quite right to say, ‘I can’t see it.’ JM: But there’s a... no, a more fundamental... you say it’s empirically verifiable, well, a statement or – well, I won’t get too... – okay, a fact can only be empirically verifiable if it comes under some description or other.
1:25:23	In other words, I’ve got to know what to look for before I could...
1:25:25	GS: No. No. The statement is that when you find that it is not any of the things that you have seen, you will know that it is different; then you will invent some ways of explaining it.
1:25:34	But what I’m saying is that it is not a case of arguing about it and then settling that there must be some other thing; but it is a case of, you know, your being completely alert that it could not be any of the things that you know and then suddenly finding yourself in it and then saying that, ‘Yes, there is in fact this particular posit.’ Q: Is this the state that you said that you go into and out of?
1:26:00	GS: That’s a very dangerous question because if I said, ‘No,’ then you would say, ‘How do you know?’; if I said, ‘Yes,’ then you would say, ‘How can you go out of this particular state when there is no time?’ Q: Yes, but I’m really just repeating your statement, though.
1:26:15	GS: Yes, but... between you and me, yes.
1:26:16	K: What do mean, ‘Between you and me’?
1:26:17	JM: But doesn’t that show the problem...? (Laughter) K: We’re all here. We’re all here. (Laughs) GS: No, because if I said it to you, you would immediately attack me. (Laughs) (Laughter) JM: Well, I... I mean, the statement could be... You see, you’re giving that statement temporal order; you’re ordering that statement. ‘Yes,’ you said; ‘Yes,’ that is the state, in which I go in and out...’ K: Look sir, the...
1:26:44	JM: And that contradicts what...
1:26:46	GS: No, but I tell you that you can get there, you can be there. I will tell you certain steps which you may not like but I’m sure if you are sufficiently alert...
1:26:58	In fact, tradition also says that a person whose desire for finding out whether this is there or not, is so great that the method for achieving there would have to appear before him.
1:27:09	JM: That’s like saying, ‘Come with me,’ and I say, ‘Where?’ and you say, ‘Never mind, come.’ GS: Yes.
1:27:14	FC: Yes.
1:27:15	JM: I will say, ‘Where?’ GS: Exactly, exactly, exactly.
1:27:17	Q: That’s right.
1:27:18	JM: Well...
1:27:19	Q: And you’re not prepared to go unless you know where.
1:27:20	JM: Oh no; no, no...
1:27:21	GS: No, no; I think he is prepared to go. All of you say that he is not prepared to go; he is prepared to go.
1:27:24	K: (Laughs) GS: It’s quite clear that he’s prepared to go; he doesn’t believe that there is anything at the end of the path.
1:27:31	DS: But will he go without a map?
1:27:34	GS: I don’t know. If you don’t keep...
1:27:37	JM: It’s not the... Listen – no, no, no – you’ve misunderstood if you answer that. Seriously, you’ve misunderstood. It’s not the map I’m groping towards, it’s the description of the goal at the end of the path, because I don’t believe that there is such a goal as was being described.
1:27:51	Now, there are states which one enters into, which we all have... which we’ve all experienced but which I would give another interpretation, another description.
1:28:00	So what I want, really, is a description of that state which is such that it cannot be reduced to the sort of thing that, say, Pribram and I are doing.
1:28:10	Q: Could I raise a point here? Is there any reason to think that some animals in general will operate more in the, sort of, witness mode than in the ego mode?
1:28:28	One has the feeling that the animal’s ego is not anything like as strongly developed, particularly in herd animals; and maybe it’s natural for them to – and maybe it’s natural for humans, too – to operate in a witness mode.
1:28:45	JM: Natural?
1:28:47	Q: Yes. And they would do it most of the time.
1:28:51	K: May I go back, sir. Professor Wilkins asked, let’s talk about death.
1:29:02	If the me is not, which is a form of death, then what is there when the me is not?
1:29:19	I physically recognise I die; psychologically is there a death for me?
1:29:34	Death being the ending of my tentacles, attachments.
1:29:44	Can... Is there a possibility of withdrawing from all that, as it inevitably happens when I die?
1:29:58	Can I die in that sense, that is be free from all forms, prejudices, attachments, beliefs, principles, ideas, all that, end while I’m very conscious, very alive, watching, breathing, not at the end of my life when I am diseased, gaga, unconscious, aching with various forms of pains?
1:30:34	Can I do that now? And if it is possible to do it – and I say it’s possible to do it only when the observer...
1:30:44	and all the rest of it – then what is there?
1:30:51	And if I don’t do it, what happens to me when I die? You follow sir? I don’t know if I’m making myself clear, that point.
1:31:02	JM: I think you’re using... I’m confused because you’re using die in two different senses.
1:31:08	K: Yes... No, I’ve made it clear, sir: physically I will die one day. Psychologically, I’m attached to this house or I am attached to my wife, to my name, to the fame which I have derived by writing a book; I’m attached.
1:31:33	And when I die, that’s the end of that. Now, can I today die, in that sense, to all that: to my attachments, to my fame, to my books, to my logic, to my prejudices, to my... everything, so that I die today?
1:31:52	The ending, psychologically, now instead of fifty years later.
1:31:59	DB: Well, what did you mean by the second question, which was what will happen to you when you die organically?
1:32:06	K: Ah, if I don’t... that’s... there are two points involved in it. What is there if I die today – in the sense I’m using the word die – and if I am still attached and I die unconscious, painful, what happens to that?
1:32:26	There are two questions. Right sir? What happens to people who are attached, who are caught in the web of time, who are – you know?
1:32:45	– they cling to their fame, to their books, to their ideas and go on and die, what happens to them?
1:32:58	This is a problem; this is not a speculative problem. What happens to me, as I am now, which is my thought, my feelings, my whole being says, ‘I’m attached to this house,’ house being my whole thing – that house is my...
1:33:20	in which I keep my... mine, my ideas, my qualities, my experience, my knowledge, my career, my...
1:33:29	everything – this house, I’m attached to that. What happens when I die? Does it also all collapse?
1:33:36	DB: You mean the thought.
1:33:39	K: Yes, thought. Or it’s like a vast stream that goes on?
1:33:45	DB: How can it go on without a base?
1:33:46	K: That’s what I want to find out. I don’t know if I’m making myself clear.
1:33:50	DB: Yes. Yes, because I could say that, I mean, we generally feel that thought requires the brain to... and the brain dissolves...
1:33:56	K: Thought implies the brain. But thought is outside, also, thought leaves a form.
1:34:02	DB: Yes, that’s the question; I mean, where will it be, then?
1:34:05	K: In the world; it’s there. Sir, Hitler died...
1:34:09	DB: Yes.
1:34:10	K: ...Mussolini, Stalin and all the rest of those people, they have left a...
1:34:14	DB: Their form survives in the thoughts of other people.
1:34:16	K: Yes, of course.
1:34:17	JM: Well, they’ve left a legacy, we say.
1:34:18	DB: Or an inheritance, a form, which however is the same form that they have.
1:34:24	K: Yes.
1:34:25	DP: No, where does the energy for this confusion, to keep this confusion alive, where does it come from? Is it the same energy that this...
1:34:32	K: No...
1:34:33	DP: The body dies and the confusion persists.
1:34:34	K: No, no, no. Do... be simple, sir. You and I have the same attachments, dissimilar but similar. You are attached to this and I’m attached to that. Our thoughts, in the form of attachment, go on.
1:34:57	Lenin has left his mark, Mr Mussolini, Mr Stalin, Gandhi, I don’t know who, some X, Y, Z, they have left all their thoughts.
1:35:10	I leave my thought, you leave your thought, so there is a vast current of this thing going on.
1:35:18	Obviously. And – just let me... – the Psychical Research Society – right sir?
1:35:33	– Psychical Research Society says that form of K can be evoked, can come into being, through mediums, you know, all that business.
1:35:50	Of course it can, because that form still goes on in the stream.
1:35:59	I don’t know if I’m making... It must have... Sir, you’ve seen people or have friends whose husbands, wives are dead, and they go to a séance – whether you believe it, that’s not... these are facts, facts according to them; and I have also witnessed, as an outsider, séances, just for amusement, not... – and they tell you, the medium says, ‘Your wife is here,’ and the wife tells you something which you only know and the wife knows – you know all this, sir; parapsychology and all the rest of it is involved.
1:36:47	Now, how does that happen? Obviously, the stream in which all unredeemed human beings – if I can use that word – are carried along.
1:37:04	JM: It’s not obvious that that’s how it happens. It’s not obvious; I mean, it might happen...
1:37:10	K: Sir... I’m just saying that, sir; I’m not saying that’s the only...
1:37:14	DP: Well, could I have some clarification on the process of...?
1:37:17	K: No, it’s not... Sir, this has to be experimented; it’s not...
1:37:21	DP: Yes. No, I understand...
1:37:23	K: I can argue; I can say, ‘No, it’s not like this, it’s not like that; it must be this way.’ This has to be gone into.
1:37:27	DP: Well, I understand you say I have these attachments. I don’t learn, I don’t see and I keep hold of them, I keep hold of them, and I come to the moment of death and this thing that’s created lives on.
1:37:38	K: Obviously, must.
1:37:39	DP: Yes. But now, it lives on and all of us, somehow, after this person’s dead participate in it.
1:37:45	K: No.
1:37:46	DP: They don’t come into it? This confusion doesn’t come into our own minds?
1:37:49	DB: May I just... (inaudible) ...clarify the thing. See, there are two sense in which it might live on: one is it lives on in the brains of all the other people, as Mussolini’s and Hitler’s ideas.
1:37:57	K: That’s right. That’s right, sir.
1:37:59	DB: But there’s another sense that, it seems to me, the mediums are saying is that it might live on in the surroundings or in... and be evoked from the surroundings as well.
1:38:06	K: That’s it, sir. I die, in this house. I have lived in this house for fifty years. And I have left my mark in this house, the feeling of me I have left in this house.
1:38:20	You have noticed all this, haven’t you?
1:38:24	Q: Most people don’t, you see.
1:38:27	K: Ah, well, I mean... Most people...
1:38:30	DB: Well, in general, you see, our whole view is to ignore these things.
1:38:34	Q: No, not as an atmosphere.
1:38:35	Q: Everybody does.
1:38:36	Q: If you change the... put new furniture, most people would not consider there was any impression left over from the previous occupant.
1:38:39	K: No, but if it was a strong person, sir; I mean, haven’t...? Don’t you...?
1:38:41	Q: But most people will not recognise this.
1:38:42	K: Oh well. That... I can’t...
1:38:45	DB: I think that we are conditioned to push this aside, you see, to feel that it’s unimportant... (inaudible) FC: Can I ask a question here which I think is related, before we got into the discussion of observer and observed, before that, the last thing you said was, ‘When you have this attention, where there’s no difference between the seer and the seen, this is a kind of intelligence.’ And you said something like, ‘This intelligence is not a personal intelligence, it’s something interpersonal or...’ I find this very difficult to understand.
1:39:16	Could you maybe elaborate because I tend to associate intelligence with my brain and I find it difficult...
1:39:23	K: We’ll come to that; let me finish what we are talking about, for the time being.
1:39:25	FC: All right.
1:39:27	K: So that one can see, one can experiment, one can go into it: Psychical Research Society, parapsychology and mediums and the whole of that field, if you are interested – I’m not going to say, ‘It is’ — find out.
1:39:41	You can’t discuss with me about that matter, because I have seen it.
1:39:48	It’s like my seeing that picture; you say, ‘Well, you haven’t seen that picture.’ You say, ‘You’re blind, you are colour blind; that’s not a picture at all, it’s a plain wall.’ I mean, I can’t discuss that with you.
1:40:03	So the other question is: a human being totally detaches himself from the house – the house being all the content of that house: the brain, the... not the brain, the attachments, his quality, his nature, his books, what he has written, hoping those books will bring immortality to him and the continuity of his name, his form, in the form of a book, which is his...
1:40:44	Now, when he dies, that’s going to end all that. Now, can he invite that death – if I can use that – bring to your daily life and cut it all out, naturally; end all your attachments, which doesn’t mean you become callous, it doesn’t mean you’ve lost affection, care, all that.
1:41:15	So then what happens to a mind when the self is not?
1:41:22	You follow, sir? That is the real question. The self is the continuity, as name, form, book, furniture, etc., etc.
1:41:36	Now, a man says, ‘All right, I’m going to find out if the self can be ended; not when I die, now.’ Not through analysis because that’s going to take time; I won’t go into all that, that’s... a different thing involved.
1:41:58	Can all that attachment: the quarrels, the hurts, the pain, everything end?
1:42:09	Then if it ends – I say it can end; you may say, ‘Oh, you’re cuckoo, you’re a nut, it can’t end,’ that’s for you to discuss.
1:42:21	I’ll discuss it with you later – then what takes place?
1:42:30	(Pause) Measurement is the self – right?
1:42:38	– self is time; time as movement, me continuing.
1:42:45	Now, when time, movement ends, what is then?
1:42:50	Q: Death.
1:42:51	K: We said death. I am conscious. I’m not... The brain is active; it isn’t diseased, it isn’t unconscious.
1:43:05	I’m fully conscious, aware, of you all sitting here and pictures, my activities – you follow? – I am fully aware, but that... no longer attached to anything.
1:43:16	Q: Self is dead.
1:43:18	K: Now, self is dead; then what takes place? Right sir?
1:43:24	Q: A new life.
1:43:29	K: We must be very careful. This is... this is, either...
1:43:34	JM: It’s what you call grace.
1:43:37	K: Ah, no, no, no, no, no! Ah, hold my hand; it’s not that. For God’s sake, don’t introduce the word grace. No, because this is a thing that must be done. (Pause) It’s like my emptying myself completely, which is death.
1:44:03	When I die, when I go to... disease, I’ll go into old age, cancer.
1:44:06	JM: Do you empty yourself of all perceptions?
1:44:08	K: What?
1:44:09	JM: Do you empty your mind of all perceptions?
1:44:12	K: What do you mean? I don’t know, you’re using... What do you mean perceptions?
1:44:18	JM: Do you see me here, sitting here?
1:44:20	K: Of course, sir. Don’t... I’ve said so.
1:44:23	JM: All right. Now, who... you’re sitting there and you’re seeing me sitting here.
1:44:26	K: Of course.
1:44:27	JM: You’re doing the seeing.
1:44:29	K: Of course, I’m seeing you.
1:44:31	JM: And you’re seeing an object — me.
1:44:34	K: Yes. But I’m not attached...
1:44:36	J: No, you’re not... Right.
1:44:38	K: I’m not attached to my frame of references, my mould, my form, my images, my attachments, my... all that.
1:44:45	JM: But somehow the dichotomy which you want to make disappear, you don’t really care whether... well, it must stay in these things like you saying, ‘I see you here.’ K: No, of course, sir.
1:44:55	That... I am talking psychologically.
1:44:58	JM: Well, yes, but perceiving somebody sitting across the table is also a psychological phenomena.
1:45:01	K: Of course, of course; I’m saying that. Of course, of course.
1:45:03	DP: Do you...? Can I...? When this death occurs...
1:45:08	K: Sir...
1:45:09	DP: The mind works.
1:45:10	K: You see, you are not paying... Forgive me, for saying so. Have you ever tried for one day ending something which you really like?
1:45:23	DP: Yes.
1:45:25	K: Immediately? (Pause) Try it. If you have done it, then do the same thing with everything and see what takes place.
1:45:41	And that you are going to do when you die. And when you live now, as I’m living, to invite that thing – I’m putting it metaphorically, whatever way – and say, ‘Yes, I’m dying today to every problem, to everything that I’ve conceived.’ And find out what is there.
1:46:07	When the self is not, what is there? (Pause) JM: Tell us, because you...
1:46:18	K: Ah, I’ll... (Laughs) (Laughter) JM: Tell us what’s there.
1:46:25	K: Yes sir, I’ll tell you but you won’t understand it.
1:46:39	JM: Well, we’ll try. We’ll try.
1:46:47	GS: (Inaudible) ...freedom is finished.
1:46:51	K: Complete emptiness. Complete nothingness.
1:46:53	JM: You like this state?
1:46:55	K: Ah, you see? Like/dislike...
1:46:57	JM: No, I’m just...
1:46:58	K: Ah! That’s why...
1:47:00	FC: That’s attachment, liking.
1:47:01	DB: There are forms in this emptiness, now; you’re seeing all of us in this emptiness.
1:47:10	K: Yes. No, it’s more than... You see, sir, emptiness... In... It’s the wrong word, I’m going to... What were you saying, sir?
1:47:20	GS: No, I was not going to say anything; I’m just enjoying the situation. (Laughter) K: Yes. You see?
1:47:27	GS: I see precisely why you say it, why it is difficult for someone to follow, why you are exasperated and why it is going on and it’s altogether thoroughly enjoyable.
1:47:38	(Laughs) (Laughter) K: Ah! You’re not... Yes sir?
1:47:43	MW: Can I ask you, so far as I can see, what you are saying is that if we can rid ourselves of this albatross of the self, that we...
1:47:57	K: Yes sir.
1:47:58	MW: ...carry through our lives, we then have no need to fear death.
1:48:03	K: Not only that; there is something much more.
1:48:10	Not only the ending of fear of death, old age and all the rest of it, but there’s something much more, a much vaster thing than the mind that’s crowded with its own prejudices, knowledge and all the rest of it.
1:48:34	I want to find out what that is. You follow sir?
1:48:38	MW: Yes, I can see one would live differently as well, but...
1:48:41	K: That’s all.
1:48:42	MW: Yes, but on the other hand what I still have a feel... there’s a fear of death in relation to the fact that one is not there...
1:48:53	K: To look after the...?
1:48:55	MW: ...to look after other people.
1:48:58	K: Yes; I make arrangements.
1:49:00	JM: Ah, but... Now, this... I really appreciate that, what you just said and I agree with him. I mean, look, in the earlier part of the week, you sat down here and you said, ‘The world’s full of injustice, terrible strife, war, famine,’ now you’re reaching a state where you just don’t give a damn.
1:49:20	K: Ah, no!
1:49:21	DB: No, no.
1:49:22	K: You have misunderstood the whole thing. I care much more, because the self is not. Ah, you don’t understand.
1:49:28	DB: Yes.
1:49:29	DP: Can I try once more?
1:49:30	K: Yes sir.
1:49:31	DP: Well, I really mean try. Let us try to communicate with each other.
1:49:38	K: Yes sir.
1:49:39	DP: You say there’s this attachment, and you end... Well, there’s not even a desire to end; the attachment ends, everything ends.
1:49:47	K: Because you’re dying...
1:49:48	DP: There’s a death now – this psychological death, now – everything stops and then, after that, the mind works; there is no I and there’s no division.
1:49:59	FC: There’s no after.
1:50:00	DB: Well...
1:50:01	DP: Well, I mean, now, there’s now; the mind works.
1:50:05	K: Sir, I have a burden and I drop the burden.
1:50:13	What happens? Don’t... What happens? I have a burden over my shoulder, I drop it.
1:50:23	DP: You’re lighter.
1:50:25	K: In the same way, what happens when I...? (Laughs) Don’t ask me what happens. Drop your burden; see it.
1:50:30	DP: Yes.
1:50:31	JM: But how is that going to help with the injustices of the world? Maurice’s...
1:50:38	K: Then I’m much more... You follow? Then I don’t project myself into action.
1:50:44	JM: So you stand around being concerned about injustices...
1:50:49	K: Sir, I’m doing it now.
1:50:53	JM: ...but you don’t do anything about what you’re...
1:50:55	RM: He is doing something.
1:50:56	DP: He acts. He acts.
1:50:58	JM: He’s... Well, that’s fine.
1:51:00	K: What is action? If you want to go into that, what is action? According to a formula? According to ideals? According to concepts? And is there an action which is not conceptual?
1:51:13	JM: Most certainly, there is. Yes, most certainly.
1:51:18	K: If you admit that, then you have admitted what I’m saying.
1:51:21	JM: Yes, but the example that you gave, I don’t know, three days ago, about the child starving...
1:51:25	K: Sir, I’m doing... (Laughs) FC: I think we should separate the social implications and talk about this. I would very much like to talk about the social aspect but maybe this afternoon...
1:51:35	DB: Another time, right?
1:51:36	FC: ...because they’re two slightly separate questions... Elizabeth Ferris: Could I...?
1:51:39	FC: ...although related.
1:51:40	K: Let me... Sir, I have been carrying burdens all my life: my house, my property, my books, my knowledge, my wife, my children; that’s been my burden – pleasurable burden and painful burden, burdens that have destroyed my looking, burdens that have encouraged me, all the rest, burdens – and in the natural course of things, when I naturally or unnaturally die – accident, disease, old age – I have dropped them.
1:52:20	Now, I say to myself, ‘Can’t I do this now; drop them, what will happen?
1:52:34	My responsibility to my wife may be entirely different, but first I’m going to drop them and see what happens.’ Is love a memory?
1:52:50	(Pause) Is love pleasure?
1:52:58	And when I drop, I may have this abundance of love, then I’ll act. Why do you...?
1:53:06	DB: Are you saying the fiction of the self is what is interfering with action, you know...
1:53:10	K: Obviously.
1:53:11	DB: ...it’s wasting our energy and confusing our actions, so if we were free of this fiction then we should be able to act very much more intelligently?
1:53:20	Q: Are you saying in effect that if I notice that I don’t have this love, that I may be deceiving myself into thinking that I have gone so far?
1:53:33	K: Obviously, sir. I mean...
1:53:37	Q: Then unless I have this love that...
1:53:39	K: No. Professor Wilkins asked, sir, what about my responsibilities? Right sir?
1:53:46	MW: Well, actually, I think I meant something a little bit differently. I was feeling that my wife and family would feel sad if I were dead, which is a form of self-flattery.
1:54:06	I think, possibly, if I come to terms with this adequately, it won’t be such a problem. (Inaudible) K: Sir, if I drop my image about her – image, the form which I have created about her – I may perhaps love her more.
1:54:28	It may be real affection, real care, not the care of an image against an image, or for an image.
1:54:37	MW: Yes, I think obviously when one crosses the road, if one has family responsibilities, then one says to oneself, ‘Be careful, because I mustn’t get run over by a car’ – but you mean this is just a practical matter...
1:54:54	K: Yes sir.
1:54:55	MW: ...which doesn’t... needn’t really enter into the wider question of the fear of death.
1:55:01	K: Of course. Yes.
1:55:03	EF: A little while back, you said, ‘There is something much more.’ K: No.
1:55:10	More... much... something totally different.
1:55:12	EF: Ah, but you used the word more, and more implies a comparison.
1:55:16	K: Ah, more... forgive me; that is, not more in the comparative sense.
1:55:19	DB: But could we go back to this emptiness?
1:55:24	K: Yes. (Laughs) Sir, first of all, it is really an emptiness...
1:55:40	I must begin... Have you ever noticed, when you’re walking by yourself in a wood or in a street, that you’re fully aware of things all around you – you see the shops, the people – but there is nothing inside?
1:56:04	I don’t know if I’m conveying anything. There is... You’re not asleep, you’re not day-dreaming; there’s a vast sense of space without any direction.
1:56:24	A vast sense of – you know? – nothingness, of... Hasn’t it happened to you ever?
1:56:38	Which doesn’t mean that you are demented, that your brain has collapsed, that you are...
1:56:56	You’re fully... there is a tremendous attention, tremendous sense of energy but vast space.
1:57:05	(Pause) Now, if the self is not there, with all its burdens, there is freedom.
1:57:26	That is real freedom, freedom from choice – I won’t go into all that – that is freedom.
1:57:38	And freedom isn’t a word. Freedom isn’t something I can argue, discuss... man is free. Remove your burden, there it is. (Pause) And that emptiness, that nothingness, isn’t it also a great sense of love?
1:58:10	(Pause) Therefore, I have to go into the whole question whether love is a form of thought.
1:58:25	(Pause) Is love thought? I may say, ‘I love you, let me hold your hand,’ that is an expression of it but the quality of it, is it the product of thought, of remembrance of things which I’ve enjoyed with you and therefore I love you?
1:58:50	Or I haven’t enjoyed, therefore I hate you? Is love a pleasure, sexual, companionship, flattery, pleasure, power, position, all the rest of it?
1:59:06	Is love a part of fear or the ending of fear, which is the ending of a burden of a certain kind?
1:59:21	Or is compassion a heightened form of pleasure?
1:59:32	Or is it out of this vast space this thing flowers?
1:59:40	(Pause) You see, I’m very sceptical – very – of everything that happens to me.
1:59:54	You follow? I don’t accept a thing in myself: any experience, any ideas – I have no ideas; idea means really, as the Greek root meaning, is to see.
2:00:09	Idea is to see, sir, not to draw an abstraction from what you see; that is an idea, that is a concept, but seeing.
2:00:25	So... Is love something cultivated by thought?
2:00:36	(Pause) If it is love that is the product of enjoyment: physical, psychological, intellectual, if it is, then it is still part of the me.
2:01:03	And if the me is not, then that thing which we call love has quite a different meaning, quite a different vitality, a different energy.
2:01:14	It acts, it doesn’t just preach. Sorry. (Laughs) (Pause) So is action based on a formula?
2:01:30	If it is, then all my life I spend approximating my action to a concept.
2:01:40	And therefore, I’m in constant battle: comparing, adjusting, fighting to become that action in conformity with the idea which I have projected.
2:01:56	Therefore, I’m never really acting in the present. I don’t know if you’re following all this; doesn’t matter.
2:02:10	So I am saying, it’s only out of freedom from the burden that you can act, that there is love.
2:02:26	And that freedom is the death of my burdens today. (Pause) DB: I have to say it’s five minutes to one now, if anybody wants to say something short.
2:02:39	RM: May I ask a very brief question?
2:02:48	From the nothingness flows creative intelligence and love which is a first manifestation, but the nothingness is not itself creative intelligence and love.
2:03:01	K: Sir, if I may just say that – I hope you don’t mind – first bring it about.
2:03:10	RM: Yes.
2:03:11	K: If you are... Be healthy and find out what health means, but being some... don’t... then it becomes words, words, words, words, which you can argue back and forth.
2:03:26	MW: Could I just ask, you said that you were very sceptical of everything you...
2:03:36	I didn’t quite catch the words.
2:03:38	K: What sir?
2:03:39	DS: You’re very sceptical of everything...
2:03:40	JM: All his ideas.
2:03:41	DB: Of all that happens, you know, everything.
2:03:43	K: Ah! I am very sceptical, personally, of every experience I’ve had. I haven’t had many, but I don’t want... I’m very sceptical about what I see, what I don’t see, what I... I watch myself without any frame, because I’m sceptical of the frame.
2:04:01	MW: I think this is a statement which should appeal to scientists.
2:04:04	K: It should be...?
2:04:06	DB: It would appeal to scientists.
2:04:10	K: Ah, I don’t know.
2:04:13	FC: In the afternoon, there are personally two things which I would wish to be discussed.
2:04:21	One thing is to continue with this and go into the question of death in the second sense, of the physical death, and how the two relate.
2:04:32	And the second is a different question, is a question more for social order: the question of violence, which has been touched briefly but not dealt with properly, I think.
2:04:45	And I wonder whether there will be time for the two. By violence, I mean also the injustice, the hypothetical case that has been touched on of the little boy starving and the grain being locked away; would one break in, and sort of questions of this sort.
2:05:02	MW: Could I...? I feel, to some extent, a responsibility for raising this thing of what do we do about the political problems of the world, and I think that my position is that, to some extent, this is an irrelevancy.
2:05:15	JM: Oh...!
2:05:17	MW: This is a matter of tactics, that we have basic principles, and this other thing is a matter of tactics.
2:05:24	DB: Yes, I think this question would...
2:05:26	MW: Tactics are very important, but I don’t know we need to discuss them here.
2:05:29	JM: Well, look, I mean...
2:05:30	DB: Well, could we sort of... we might clarify this thing later because, you know, it’s approaching one o’clock.
2:05:36	K: Sir, may I say something?
2:05:37	DB: Yes.
2:05:38	K: I travel, I go to India, I’ve been to India every winter for the last fifty years, except during the war, and I see – I go all over India, more or less – and I see great poverty, everything is going to the dogs, in decline, degenerating.
2:05:58	And the politicians say, ‘We must... We are well... We are not corrupt. We are...’ all the rest of it. Now, how can those six hundred million people be fed? They must be fed by the rest of the world. They can’t... the soil is poor, the climate is wrong – you follow? – it’s not like China.
2:06:22	There are great rivers in China, except [for] a few rivers in India, they depend on monsoon rain and sometimes there is no rain at all.
2:06:30	They have cultivated the soil so superficially, without manure, everything.
2:06:37	And the world has to help these people; not as patronisingly, with strings attached. They are part of me, part of America, part of the world; this [is] our world, my world, your world to live in.
2:06:53	So how can we bring this about?
2:07:03	Well sir, that’s the problem. I know what I would do, what I’m doing, which is say, ‘For God’s sake, stop being national. Don’t...’ etc., etc., etc. Nobody... A few listen, say, ‘Oh, please...’ As I used to say in India some things, they say, ‘Go and tell the British.’ (Laughter) (Pause) DB: Well, we’ll meet again at the usual time.