Krishnamurti - Can the constant movement of thought come to an end?

Krishnamurti Subtitles

BR76DSS2.6 - Can the constant movement of thought come to an end?
Brockwood Park, UK - 14 October 1976
Discussion with Staff and Students 2.6

0:21	Krishnamurti: I am sorry I am late, two minutes.
0:35	What shall we talk about this morning? Questioner: Last time in the meeting with the students you started to talk about meditation, and I was wondering if you could go deeper into it.
0:49	K: Do you want to discuss that? Q: Yes.
0:52	Q: Something else: what is one to do with parents who are getting older and who are mentally or physically sick and who are getting very attached to you?
1:13	K: First of all, we were going tomorrow. We are not going tomorrow because the people with whom we stay in Rome have their flat just over the Syrian Embassy, which has been attacked, with bombs and all the rest of it, and we telephoned yesterday to Signora Scaravelli and there are soldiers with guns and police all over the place.
1:46	So, we postponed it by a week. By then we hope things will quiet down. So, this is also, if you will forgive me, my last talk. I want to take a rest before I start for India. Is that all right? Q: Yes.
2:05	K: Even if it isn't all right, I am going to take a rest.
2:15	So you want to talk over together about meditation, what to do with parents who are obstinate, getting old, stuck in the mud, etc.
2:35	You know, meditation is a very serious subject.
2:44	If you really want to go into it very, very deeply we will, but I don't know if you will understand the complexity of it.
2:59	As we were saying when we all met the other day with the students, there are different kinds of meditation, at least what they call meditation.
3:10	There is Zen meditation which is practiced in Japan.
3:17	It was brought over by a Buddhist monk, I have forgotten the period, from India, went to China, and in Sanskrit 'dhyanam' is to meditate.
3:40	So the Chinese couldn't pronounce 'dhya' so they turned it into 'Z' and eventually became Zen.
3:49	Then there is the transcendental meditation, of which you must have heard, which is really quite commercialised and it is not at all what it was originally meant.
4:06	Then there are various Tibetan forms of meditation, from Tibet, which are the complicated teachings of the Buddha.
4:19	Then there is the meditation from Theravada, which is from Ceylon and Southern Asia.
4:29	And the Christians have their form of contemplation. So there are all these forms, as far as I know, and there are probably many, many more, forms of meditation.
4:44	Is that clear? And all of them, as far as one can see, try to control thought, because they see the importance that the mind, the brain must be quiet, because in that quietness there is a perception.
5:19	Not perception which is distorted, not a perception which one likes or dislikes, there is pure perception when the mind is completely quiet.
5:34	That is the idea of meditation. May I go on? Do you understand so far? That when the mind, which includes the body, the brain, the whole of it, when that is absolutely still then there is a total perception, not dependent on personal like and dislike, prejudices and so on.
6:11	So they practise this to control thought. And the controlling of thought depends on various systems of meditation.
6:26	The Zen, which is control, the Buddhists, different types of Buddhist meditation, different types of Hindu meditation, and the Christian meditation which is really not meditation but a contemplation.
6:45	You see the importance why the mind should be quiet. Do you? Because if I want to listen to you I must pay attention to what you are saying.
7:02	There must be no chattering in my own mind. I mustn't be chattering or looking out of the window if I am to listen to you. If I want to see something very clearly I must not be distracted by various things, by birds flying, or looking out of the window I must look very closely.
7:27	Closely in the sense, pay complete attention.
7:34	So, if one sees the importance that the mind must be completely quiet, absolutely, without a movement, then only there is a total perception.
7:48	You have got that. That is clear, isn't it? All right? May we go on from there? Do we understand each other, that?
8:06	So they say you must completely control thought, because thought wanders all over the place.
8:21	Have you noticed it? It is thinking about what you are going to put on tomorrow, it is thinking about your shoes, it is thinking about your dress, you know, all the time chattering, chattering, chattering.
8:35	Have you noticed that? So it is never quiet. So they say: meditation is to bring about a very quiet, still mind.
8:52	Right? May we go on from there? You see the importance of it, do you? That you can see things clearly. Say a bird flying across the window, you can see it very clearly when you are paying complete attention to it.
9:18	That is, when you pay attention your mind is quiet.
9:25	We will talk about that presently. But you see the importance of having a completely quiet mind – do you?
9:37	Shall we proceed from there? So they say control thought.
9:50	To control thought there are various systems, practices. There is a system which is part of the Buddhist tradition, which is to concentrate or pay attention as you sit, to your toes, and from there go slowly up, paying attention, so that you are aware of the movements of the body.
10:20	You get the idea? So that the body becomes quiet. Bene? Can I go on from there? Have you understood that? That by watching, by paying attention to the movements of my body, how you sit, what it is doing, twitching, scratching, all the things that are going on, by paying attention to it, the body becomes very, very quiet.
10:55	That is one of the things. So, by controlling the nervous organism, the biological structure of the body, the body becomes quiet.
11:10	That is necessary also. So in the same way they say: control your thoughts.
11:22	Understand what they say, all these systems, because I am going to say something totally different.
11:30	You understand? So you must understand what all these people say, the Zen, which is a form of Buddhism, and there are different types of meditation in Buddhism and different types of meditation in Hinduism, in Tibet and so on.
11:57	So all their demand, all they say, is the mind must be absolutely quiet, thought must be controlled, otherwise it is not quiet.
12:16	So that it stops chattering. That is the principle of meditation, that the mind, the body, everything, the whole structure, must be absolutely still, then only you see something much more, much vaster than when you are not paying attention.
12:47	You get that? So, somebody like me comes along and says, look, who is the controller?
13:01	You say you must control thought but who is the controller? Is the controller different from other thoughts? You understand? My mind is chattering, thinking about cleaning my shoes tomorrow, or I feel frustrated and so on, thinking about various things.
13:39	And one thought says, I must control all other thoughts. That is the controller, isn't it? Do you see that? I wonder if you do. This is very important to understand this, because otherwise if you don't understand this you won't follow further what I am going to say.
14:05	That all the different types of meditation throughout the world, especially coming from the East because they have not really gone into the question of meditation in the West at all – not as deeply, not as extensively as the East has done, they say: to see, there must be clarity of mind, and that clarity of mind can only take place when there is complete stillness of both the organism, the body, and the mind, altogether there is complete silence.
14:47	So they say: you must control thought. And there are various systems of practice, controlling thought. But very few have asked, who is the controller? You understand? You are following what I am saying? I wonder if you do. You do? Good. Who is the controller? Is the controller different from other thoughts, or he is still part of thought?
15:26	You understand the question?
15:33	I want to control my body or control a particular thought.
15:41	Is the entity who says, I must control that thought, is that entity different from thought?
15:50	You understand my question? So he is part of thought, isn't he?
16:00	So, what man has done, human beings have done, they have divided one thought against all other thoughts.
16:16	Do you see the point? So, one thought says, I must control the rest of the other thoughts.
16:25	Is this clear?
16:32	So, a person like me comes along and says, no, if you once see the controller is part of thought then the whole movement of control is part of thinking.
16:51	Right? Is that clear? Oh, come on. Yes? Not quite. How shall we put it more simply? Will you put it more simply, somebody? Go on, do it, Mr Joe. You may understand it, you may not see the difficulty of it, but put it into your own words, perhaps they will understand it more clearly than I do.
17:22	Joe Zorskie: You want me to do that now?
17:23	K: Yes, sir, do it now, of course. More fun.
17:38	JZ: You are suggesting that over the 10,000 years of human language that it is merely a part of thought, that there is an individual or a self that does the thinking, that creates the words and the patterns of the words and that could control the body and that could control the mind.
18:05	K: Don't enter into words, structure, that becomes a little bit more difficult. Through centuries man has said there is an observer who is different from the observed, there is an entity who witnesses, and that who witnesses is different from the witnessed.
18:29	They have said there is an entity far superior than thought.
18:40	They have given it different names in different religions.
18:48	But all that is part of thinking, isn't it? I wonder if you see that. Look, when I say to myself I must control my thinking and I ask myself who the thinker, who is the controller, then I discover the controller is part of all thought.
19:16	Is that clear? Right. Carol Smith: The first person who had an insight into the fact that the mind must be quiet to be able to see anything clearly, would you say that they were speaking from not either one of these?
19:36	They were speaking from a wholeness, they were not speaking from their thoughts, would you agree? K: Reason says that even.
19:44	Reason says, if you want to look at a – it doesn't matter – the tree or a person or something, you must pay complete attention to it.
19:57	CS: So are you saying that thought used rightly was seeing that this is the case, thought in its right position. K: No...
20:08	Q: Because reason is part of thought.
20:10	K: Look, to listen to you, what you are saying, I must pay attention, mustn't I? I mustn't be thinking about other things. That is all. If I want to read a book I must pay attention to every word or every other word, and so on, I must give attention to it, because otherwise I can't understand what it says.
20:40	So, similarly, when you are saying something to me I must listen to it.
20:49	I mustn't be thinking of other things. That is all. So, carry that much further, to have clear perception there must be absolute stillness, naturally.
21:07	So, if one understands that the thinker, the controller is part of thought, then the problem arises: as thought is constantly changing, chattering, moving from one thing to another, is it possible to bring about this chattering mind quiet, without control?
21:41	You understand the question?
21:47	Q: It seems to be all in such a muddle, this thought.
21:53	K: We said that. Thought is constantly changing, moving from one thing to another.
22:01	Right? Can that constant change, constant movement, without control come to an end?
22:15	You understand the question? Understand the question first. I am asking myself: my mind chatters, chatters, chatters, chatters, from one thing to another, without control, can all that movement come to an end?
22:38	You understand?
22:46	The others said you can control thought, you can control thought because the controller is different from all the rest of thought.
22:57	But when one sees that the controller is part of thought, from that arises the question whether the constant movement of thought can come to an end without any pressure, without any control.
23:24	You understand this question? Do you?
23:29	Q: I don't fully see the crux of this, that the controller is thought.
23:42	K: You don't see that? Q: I don't really see that, no.
23:47	K: Who is the controller, sir, for you? When you say, I must control thought, who is that that says, I must control thought? Who is that 'I'? Q: I can't say. K: Oh yes, you can.
24:01	K: That 'I' is part of thinking, that 'I' is put together by thought, by words, by identification with my house, my name, my property – 'me'.
24:13	That me is put together by thought, obviously.
24:21	Q: I think the problem is exactly that, when thought sees that thought itself is the controller, then it must be quiet in order to see that.
24:30	K: That is the difficulty. Do you understand something of what we are talking? Do you?
24:51	I wonder how we can put it differently.
24:56	Q: Wouldn't it be simpler if we watched our thinking, the process of it, then we will see that the saying that I must control would add another movement of it?
25:08	K: Look, Tunki, I don't know how to put it.
25:15	It seems so clear and simple. Do you remember we said the other day, all the things in the world, in the outer world as well as the inner world, the churches, the nations, the religions, the gods, the rituals, the saviour, is all put together by thought.
25:44	You all agreed that day – you might have changed.
25:51	The wars, you are Christian, I am a Hindu, I am a Buddhist, you are a Muslim, you are a communist, I am a socialist – all that is the result of our thinking.
26:06	Right? And after creating this mess thought says, 'I must clear it up.'
26:19	You understand? So, in the very clearing of it, it is getting more and more messy.
26:30	So in the same way, the thinker is the thought.
26:41	If there is no thought, there is no thinker. Does it make it simpler this, or is it more complex?
26:54	Mary Zimbalist: Is the difficulty that in seeing that, many of us are seeing it with thought?
27:01	In other words we are seeing it as an idea.
27:06	K: Do you have an insight into it?
27:13	MZ: Again, to tell the difference between thought and insight, unless one really does it and sees it, is perhaps confusing.
27:28	K: Where there is hate there is no love.
27:36	Is that clear? If you hate somebody you don't love, there is no love at that moment. Right? Do you have an insight into it or thought says, yes, I agree with that.
27:59	I don't know how to put this. The insight is different from the conceptual perception.
28:10	Oh, this is getting too difficult.
28:20	I saw you sitting the other day, Mr Erich, in that hall, breathing, meditating.
28:28	What was the meditation to you?
28:36	Apart from breathing and all that stuff, what was meditation – please excuse me if I am asking you a personal question, it is not personal – what was your meditation?
28:59	Q: I was being aware as I could. Letting the senses be as relaxed, as receptive, listening to things, feeling things, looking inside, watching, thinking.
29:19	K: Who was the watcher? Looking in – who was looking inside?
29:34	Q: It is the same as if I go for a walk and you are very attentive, without a watcher, letting the senses operate.
29:52	K: Forgive me, but it is not clear. Shakuntala Narayan: Are the senses also a part of the watcher?
30:07	K: Can you watch – you, say for instance – can you watch something without giving it a name, without forming a conclusion?
30:24	Looking at you, looking at me, or looking at something, can you look without any movement of thought, which is to name, form a conclusion, conclude I like or I don't like, but just watch without a verbal picture, without making a verbal picture?
30:51	Can you?
31:00	You can't, can you? Or can you? What? You can watch without making a picture, without verbalising it?
31:15	Q: Only when I am quiet.
31:18	K: Watch, I said watch. Watch that rain, that puddle. Can you look at it without a word?
31:32	Q: That is what I was suggesting. If you can watch without the word, then the senses become more alert.
31:45	They aren't being dulled by the thought.
31:47	K: All right, let me put it the other way. Have you watched anything with all your senses?
31:56	Quite different from what you are saying. To watch the rain, the movement of the sea, the movement of the tree, trees, and so on, the clouds and so on, can you watch that with all your senses awake?
32:20	MZ: Since you raised that, could one ask a question about that? Which is, some of us were discussing this the other day, something is perceived visually and perhaps through the ear and perhaps certain other senses, but the totality of the senses seems to imply a certain amount of memory.
32:44	Now, does that put it into the realm of thought?
32:47	K: No, madame, listen.
32:54	Without forming an idea, a conclusion, verbalising, is it possible to watch with all your nerves, with your eyes, with your ears – watch, which means all your senses fully awakened?
33:17	MZ: Say, the fact of the wind in the trees.
33:21	K: Can you listen to that? MZ: You can hear it, you can see it, you can, if you are outside, smell it possibly, but there is also, for some people, a tactile thing, you feel the motion of the wind just by looking at it, you feel the warmth, the coldness, the texture, whatever it is.
33:41	Now, it is possible that that is partly memory.
33:46	K: No, there is no memory involved. You see, you are making it much too complex.
33:51	MZ: But why is there memory?
33:56	K: I am not saying you must bring in memory. Just watch with your senses.
34:03	MZ: But the senses that respond in that way can be involved in memory. In other words, if I look at the tree I don't feel the wind because...
34:13	K: There is no memory involved. MZ: Why is there no memory involved?
34:18	K: Do you want to go into it or is this getting too complex? Memory is involved when you name it, when you recognise it. I am saying something entirely different – please just listen. Please just listen. To look at something with all your senses, which may include memory but I don't include memory in the sense of recognition, of recalling or remembering, just to watch.
35:04	MZ: So, in looking at the word, take the wind... K: The word means memory.
35:14	MZ: One sees the tree and the wind. Each one of us knows what wind feels like.
35:20	K: That is not my point. MZ: But it is my point and I raise it because I think there is some confusion.
35:27	Maybe everybody isn't interested in this.
35:32	K: The moment you say, the wind among the trees, it is recognition, it is memory.
35:38	MZ: I am saying that only to indicate an example. When you look you don't say, oh, that is wind in the trees.
35:44	K: You just look. MZ: You just look.
35:46	K: That is all. I am just saying, look.
35:48	MZ: Yes, but what does you mean to respond with all the senses to that look? Dorothy Simmons: There is an instrument, do you mean? Not referring it back to you. Erich's suggestion was that all your senses were awakened and you were conscious of it, which is to do the reverse of what you are saying.
36:12	Is that so? And whereas you are saying listen to the wind, listen to the wind, not what your body is saying about the wind or your senses are saying about the wind.
36:26	MZ: Then how do you look with all your senses?
36:28	K: You see, what we are saying, what the speaker is saying is: when you pay complete attention then there is not only the awakening of the senses but there is no centre from which you are attending.
36:46	There is no me at that moment. That is all – keep it to that level. As we discussed with the students the other day: what is beauty? They asked: what is beauty? We went into it. There is beauty when there is no 'me'. Do you remember? There is beauty when thought is absent. We went into that. Do you remember? That is all. Let's come back, we are going off.
37:24	JZ: Partly this idea of a self or a thinker, most people, without considering it would say that, I move my hand.
37:38	It seems quite reasonable to say that: I can move my hand. In fact, to suggest anything but that seems a bit crazy. But yet if you notice when you are doing many things, as an example, say if you are a good ping-pong player and if you were to take a television picture of this person playing ping-pong and then ask him what bodily movements he had performed, he couldn't describe them.
38:06	In fact, he would have to say that he did not move his hand. The most careful description would have to say that the hand moved, the body moved, the racquet, the paddle met the ball, and the activity was performed without a conscious thought of some person moving the body.
38:26	And in fact, you can play ping-pong if you are a beginner with the thought of a self moving the hand.
38:33	You can think that when the ball comes to my left I will move my hand to the left, but generally it is too slow.
38:41	You would be a very bad ping-pong player until you can make the transition to move without thought.
38:47	K: That is right. Do you remember that story of the caterpillar? A thousand feet, you know? It was asked which leg it moved first. He said, 'I will look' and got paralysed. Well, anyhow. So where are we now?
39:12	Q: To bring it back to meditation, I think there is a great danger in that because some people say exactly that in meditation, with the word, for example, in Transcendental Meditation they say, in the beginning I say the word and afterwards I don't say the word anymore, the word goes on by itself.
39:29	So finally they say there is an observation, and there is something without the 'I' there.
39:35	K: You see, they first project the idea that you must have a quiet mind, then they work up to it: methods, systems, practice, etc.
39:47	But if you have an insight into the question that you must have a quiet mind, it is finished.
39:54	You follow?
39:58	MZ: Could one say from that that insight therefore is perception without any centre, as opposed to thought always having the centre?
40:07	K: That is right. But this is getting too complex. Wait a minute, let's come back home. Which is, we said all meditation which has sprung from the East, they have all said you must control thought.
40:27	So, they said one thought controls the other thought.
40:34	A person comes along and says, do look at it. The controller is the controlled, the thinker is the thought. That is all.
40:51	SN: I was taught that the root meaning of 'dhyanam' doesn't mean controlling thought but negating thought.
41:01	Because 'dhya' is thought and 'na' is negating.
41:04	K: I know, but I don't want to go into that yet because it becomes too difficult.
41:13	I could make it so difficult but you see...
41:20	To negate all thought, that is, to have no thought at all is meditation, is the whole end of meditation.
41:44	Oh, my goodness – you wanted to discuss meditation. See how difficult it is? Each one has an idea about meditation. I am going to India, I will be there in a fortnight's time and there are going to be a lot of people where I go to, there are scholars, monks of different types, Buddhist monks and so on and so on, they are going to put this question to me.
42:16	And each of them have their own idea, from what they have done, from where they have picked it up, from what book.
42:25	So, one has to battle against all that, because they won't listen.
42:32	They say, I have learned a great deal, tell me what you say, I might agree or disagree with you.
42:39	They don't say, let's find out. Here we are trying to find out, explore, investigate what meditation is.
42:54	You see the difference? One comes with a conclusion about meditation and the other says, let's investigate what meditation is.
43:08	You see the difference? One is free, the other is already caught.
43:18	So, see what you have learned just now. To find out, one must be free, not have any conclusion.
43:29	Do you see that? Is this getting too tiresome? I want to investigate why I have certain ideas.
43:51	To investigate why I have certain ideas I must be free to look at it. But if I say my ideas are right, it has stopped.
44:07	So there must be freedom to investigate. At least get that. Right? So we are investigating here into what is meditation.
44:24	In investigating you will see what for millennia they have been saying about meditation.
44:33	And also, as you begin to investigate you see how difficult it is to find out what the truth about meditation is.
44:47	You understand? So to find out the truth of meditation, my mind mustn't be prejudiced, my mind mustn't say, well, I like Buddhist meditation, or this or that. I must be free of all that.
45:09	Will you? You can because you are not involved in it, you are just beginning to learn about it. So, first thing is not to come to any conclusion about it.
45:28	Then you can proceed to investigate.
45:35	In investigating you see that all our life is based on control, I must control my feelings, I have bad feelings – control.
45:53	So, why is there this desire or the necessity of control? Let's begin that way. Tell me. Why do you control, your feelings or your body or your thoughts – why?
46:17	Q: You control because you think you know what you want. You want to get something.
46:25	K: But what is it you want? Who has decided what you want? Your society, your parents, your culture?
46:44	Come on, investigate, don't stop. I say to myself, 'I must control.' Is it I have been taught by my parents, by my past generations that I must control, therefore I learn to control?
47:08	Why do you control?
47:11	Q: One doesn't like what one is. One wants to change it.
47:14	K: So, you control what you don't like.
47:21	To resist what you don't like, you control.
47:26	Q: And to supplant what you do like. K: What you like – that is it.
47:30	K: Now, what you like and dislike – why? Investigate it, go into it. Why do I dislike communism? Why? Or why do I dislike Buddhism or Catholicism, or whatever I dislike – why?
47:55	Is it my parents are protestants and therefore they have taught me to hate the Catholics, to dislike the Catholics?
48:06	Q: Well, one projects the implications of each system.
48:09	K: Which is, my parents have said Protestantism is better because they live among protestants, it is safer.
48:23	All that you would begin to discover. So, it may be my prejudice. So can I be free of my prejudice? Free – not control my prejudices, be free of prejudices.
48:47	Q: I don't see the controlling...
48:50	K: Ah no, don't bother about protestants, that is a trivial affair.
48:54	Q: Control. Why do you control.
48:57	K: That is man's stupidity to divide Protestantism from Catholicism, Catholics from Hinduism and so on – leave all that.
49:06	MZ: I think you misunderstood.
49:10	Q: Why do you control? I don't understand this.
49:15	K: Why do you control? I am asking you. Or put it round the other way. Can you live without controlling?
49:30	Controlling your anger, controlling your habits, controlling your appetite, controlling your thoughts, controlling your anger – you follow what I mean?
49:41	Can you live without any control?
49:46	Q: The thing is, you are not aware. The moment you are controlling something you may not be aware of it.
49:51	K: No, Tunki, I am asking you: can you live without any control?
49:59	Have you ever tried?
50:09	JZ: The question, why do you control, has built into it something strange, that the 'you', ordinarily, if you ask someone what you is they say, the you is what controls the body and what controls the thoughts.
50:25	So the 'you' is the controller.
50:27	K: I know. The 'you' is put there by thought.
50:33	JZ: So, the question, why does 'you' control, is answered as soon as you use the word 'you'.
50:39	K: Of course. So, I am asking the question the other way around.
50:41	JZ: That is a wrong question, really.
50:43	K: Yes. That is why I am saying: can you live without any control?
50:48	JZ: But if you would emphasise the word 'you' – can you live?
50:53	K: Can one live a life...
50:55	JZ: Would there be a 'you' without control?
50:58	K: Yes, put it any way. Say, I am lazy in the morning, I don't want to get up, and I force myself to get up.
51:11	This is common, isn't it? At last, we are all agreeing together about something, thank God. Now, can I get up without pushing myself, without saying, I must get up?
51:35	Q: Not at that instant, but you may make your life a little more orderly.
51:42	K: No, Tunki, I am not talking about orderliness. You stay in bed. You wake up in the morning and you say, oh God, what a bore to get up.
51:55	You are lazy or you are overtired, whatever reason, can you get up easily without any effort?
52:09	Q: No.
52:12	K: Why? No, find out, explore, please, don't give an immediate answer, explore. Why am I, in the morning when I am lazy, tired, don't want to get up, I am asking, why can't I get up without any effort at all, which I have been making all my life?
52:37	To get up easily. Why? Go on, talk about it.
52:47	Q: I didn't sleep well in the night because I was too engrossed with the movie...
52:53	K: So, last night you stayed too late, or you played too long, or you talked too much, or you ate too much, so the next morning you pay for it by not wanting to get up.
53:17	So, can you not talk too much, play too much, eat too much?
53:29	So you get up naturally, don't you then? Unless you say, well, I am tired this morning, I am not going to get up. That is a different matter.
53:45	MZ: That is sort of setting up a situation where the problem doesn't arise. Which is a good idea but isn't there a way...
53:54	K: I am raising the problem. I want to answer this question.
54:00	MZ: But isn't there a way of also getting up when you are tired and you don't want to get up?
54:05	K: Ah, I won't force my body.
54:08	MZ: But isn't there a way without forcing and without getting involved in the conflict, which is just to get up?
54:17	K: No, I am pointing out something entirely different, which is: when I am watchful, attentive to what I am eating at night, watchful: not to get overtired, not to overeat, not to overtalk, which is the action of intelligence which says this will not happen, so that I will get up easily.
54:42	Which is the action of intelligence and not the action of will. That is all I am saying, leave it at that. Do you get what I am saying?
55:01	When there is intelligence then intelligence operates, you get up naturally.
55:11	When you have to be here punctually at 11:30 – unfortunately I wasn't here, two minutes late this morning – my intelligence says, you have to be there at 11:30.
55:24	I am there at 11:30. I don't force myself. I wonder if you see this.
55:33	Q: It is pressure. K: It is not pressure.
55:36	Q: It is because we have to be there at 11:30.
55:38	K: No, because I promised that. I don't want to keep you waiting.
55:45	That is not pressure. I have an appointment at 11:30 with you. I don't want to keep you waiting. There is no pressure, it is consideration.
55:59	Q: In the morning, I may wake up, and two thoughts arise: one is that this is comfortable and I would like to stay in bed, and the other thought of I should get up.
56:16	And that is where the pressure comes in because I pressure myself, I go through this conflict.
56:23	K: No. It doesn't arise that way, I understand this. When it is a warm bed and comfortable and raining and beastly cold, and you say, by Jove, and the other is, I must get up.
56:38	Q: Maybe those thoughts don't have to arise, just the body gets up.
56:45	MZ: Isn't there a way not to feel conflict and therefore pressure?
56:51	K: What I am trying to get at is not to have duality in thought.
56:59	I must get up. I like to stay in bed. The contradiction – that is the point I am getting at. The contradiction between the controller and the controlled.
57:19	MZ: Don't we set up the pressure by resistance? Isn't that why we perceive so much pressure?
57:30	K: You see, we are getting lost with a lot of words.
57:33	Q: In that situation what would you do? Where there are two thoughts.
57:43	K: Look, Tunki, we said stay in bed or get up. There are two thoughts. We are saying don't have two thoughts.
57:56	Q: But we are saying we do have those thoughts.
57:58	K: I know. We all know that. That is our good old tradition, good old part of our life – two opposites.
58:08	Why do you have two opposites? Get up and not to get up – why?
58:23	Q: One has to get up to come to morning meeting, one has an appointment with morning meeting.
58:29	K: That is all. Finished. Don't have the other thought.
58:36	Q: But the other thought comes: it is warm.
58:38	K: Yes, it is warm, it is warm, it is very nice, but I have to be there at 11:30 – finished.
58:47	Not the battle.
58:50	MZ: It is the battle that is so awful. It is really worse than the getting up. 'Five minutes more.'
59:03	Q: What is the momentum which we build up? The battle comes because we have a certain momentum.
59:11	K: No. Momentum of two thoughts. This morning, I generally get up and do yoga, exercises, yoga, daily for an hour and a half, this morning the body said: don't, rest in bed for God's sake, don't go through the whole routine, so I stayed in bed.
59:36	You follow?
59:43	DS: You are saying where thought is operating intelligence can't operate.
59:47	K: That is all. Of course.
59:50	JZ: This morning, you say that, that your body said this, but that wasn't a thought.
59:56	K: No, it was tired. It said it didn't want to do it.
1:00:03	Q: How can you distinguish between if it is the body or the thought?
1:00:10	Q: There may be situations though, even if the body is tired, suppose you had to catch a plane or something.
1:00:15	K: Then I say, old boy, you get up. There is no problem.
1:00:18	Q: That option is not always open to you.
1:00:21	K: Get up and get on with it. There is no problem about that, there is no conflict.
1:00:30	So, I am asking you something, which is: can you live a life without conflict?
1:00:42	Can you? Conflict being two contradictory thoughts, two contradictory desires, two contradictory directions, and therefore conflict.
1:01:08	I would like to be an artist but society, parents, environment says you must become an engineer.
1:01:20	They force me to become an engineer and for the rest of my life I am in conflict. I want to paint and I become a beastly engineer. So can you live without a single conflict?
1:01:41	Find out. Don't say no. Find out how to live without conflict.
1:01:50	Because that way your mind becomes young, fresh, not jaded, tired.
1:01:59	You don't grow old that way.
1:02:08	You know, it is like a motor which hasn't got oil, so it soon wears out.
1:02:17	So friction wears out the mind. You understand? Friction. Friction is conflict in life. Wanting to do this and doing something quite different.
1:02:34	So, can you live a life without any friction?
1:02:45	I have to live with you in the same room.
1:02:52	You are untidy, or I am untidy and you are very tidy.
1:03:02	I see you are looking at each other – good.
1:03:09	You are very tidy, I am untidy. You get irritated with me. You say, For God's sake, put things away, I dislike your shoes all over the place.
1:03:26	You tell me that politely. I don't pay any attention. You get irritated. I don't pay any attention, I carry on. Then friction arises between you and me. Right? What shall we do?
1:03:50	Like a husband and wife, the wife is orderly or the husband is orderly and they have to live together, and gradually hate arises, doesn't it, annoyance.
1:04:10	I want to hold you and you don't want to be held. I want you to do things my way and you don't want to do it your way. So what happens? There is conflict. Now, how do you get out of it? We said no conflict, because that destroys the mind. Well, come on. You are going to face this situation, aren't you, when you grow up? Not the first couple of years, but later. What will you do? Come on, explore.
1:04:59	Of course, there is only one thing to do, I mean, what people generally do, say sorry, good morning, I am going to get a divorce from you, go to hell.
1:05:06	And that is the end of it.
1:05:11	Q: I can talk with the person.
1:05:14	K: You can talk with me but I am a little bit neurotic. I want you to obey what I tell you. I want you to do what I tell you. I want you to do everything according to my way. You talk to me, but I keep on doing that. I agree one day and the next day I am back again. I am neurotic. What will you do with me? Go on, sir, find out.
1:05:47	Q: Well actually, we are both a bit neurotic. In actual fact, we are both a bit neurotic.
1:05:52	K: I am more neurotic then you are. All right, carry on from there. What will you do?
1:06:08	You see, neurotics don't yield. They pretend to yield, but they never yield. They are stuck in their groove. So what shall we do? You want to live without conflict. And you must live without conflict. Come on. You are going to face this, aren't you?
1:06:43	Q: Shall we sit down and talk, find out what the problems are?
1:06:47	K: You have. You have talked to me in our relationship about what my problems are, what our problems are.
1:06:58	And you find an excuse not to do it and I tell you, look, you are not doing it. You dislike me. You get angry with me. And so there is a friction between us. What shall we do?
1:07:16	Q: But it seems that most of the conflict that I would be feeling is that I carry on thinking about how messy our room is, and I keep thinking about how you don't listen to me.
1:07:42	K: Therefore what happens? At the end of a week you say, forget it, for God's sake keep your filthy disorder to yourself.
1:07:51	I have got to live with you, I will keep a little space around me orderly. You go to hell, you do what you like. That is generally what takes place.
1:07:59	Q: Yes, that is generally what takes place.
1:08:00	K: But we are married. Go into it: we are married. Face it. You are going to face this problem later on when you grow up.
1:08:17	You tell me something and I listen to you.
1:08:24	I am slightly not all there, or I am very obstinate, I want position, etc., and you come along, as we are married, etc., you point out to me.
1:08:40	Gradually what happens? I get more and more obstinate until what happens? You can't stand it anymore.
1:08:55	You have tried it for two years, five years, or whatever it is, you say, good morning, I am leaving.
1:09:02	That is what takes place.
1:09:08	Q: The problem may not be the other person but myself, so I have to investigate into myself not into the other person.
1:09:15	Maybe I can live without conflict. The other person may be in conflict with me but I don't have to be in conflict with the other person.
1:09:21	K: You are investigating into yourself, but I am not. I am pretending to investigate into myself, but I know what I think is right.
1:09:33	Q: Well, that is the end of communication.
1:09:36	K: That is what generally takes place.
1:09:43	Q: But if you try talking to someone and they can't seem to understand anything that you have said, what can you do? K: Nothing.
1:10:00	K: You go to the next meeting.
1:10:08	So, find out for yourself – for yourself – whether you can live without conflict.
1:10:15	Do please pay a little attention to this.
1:10:22	To find out for yourself a way of living in which there is not a breath of conflict, either in marriage or in your room, with two people sharing the same room, no conflict whatsoever.
1:10:52	Now, it can only take place – may I go into it a little bit?
1:10:59	It may be a little difficult but listen to it.
1:11:08	Don't register what is happening around you.
1:11:23	You understand?
1:11:31	Q: See it but not register it.
1:11:34	K: Look, what I mean is this...
1:11:36	Q: We have gone into this a couple of times and I think that a lot of us have thought about it. Now, you don't mean that you don't register that the birds are singing.
1:11:45	K: Ah, no. Much more than that.
1:11:48	Q: If I say to you, do you hear the birds singing? You say, I hear the birds singing.
1:11:51	K: Look, I have to live with you, forget what the reasons are.
1:11:59	You are clever, I am not, and you say things which I like, but I realise I am a fool.
1:12:21	To listen to you without registering that I am a fool.
1:12:28	You follow? Not to register an insult, not to register flattery, not to register when you call me a fool or when somebody says, how marvellous you are.
1:12:48	Not to register at all.
1:12:56	Q: Do you register those words that that person is saying, but not the effect that it might have on you?
1:13:05	K: Yes, you call me a fool. That is right. Quite right.
1:13:09	SN: You mean it leaves no mark.
1:13:14	K: That is right. Not what I mean – what you mean. You are exploring.
1:13:21	Q: Physiologists over the past 10 or 15 or 20 years are beginning to talk about memory in two parts, they talk about short-term memory which you can easily use, most of us have a great short-term memory, but then there is a long-term memory somehow working in the body in which things are remembered over a long period of time.
1:13:45	As an example most of you could probably repeat word for word the sentence that I have just spoken, but a day later you hardly remember the meaning at all.
1:13:56	And I think you are suggesting, which correlates with that, is that have a very good short-term memory, in other words pay full attention to what happens but transfer very little of that, if any, into your long-term memory.
1:14:10	K: That is right. That is, meditation is to never register beyond a certain point.
1:14:22	Got it? I think that is enough for this morning. It is quarter to one, we had better stop.