Krishnamurti - What is it that flowers?

Krishnamurti Subtitles

BR78S7 - What is it that flowers?
Brockwood Park, UK - 19 September 1978
Seminar 7

1:19	K: Who starts this?
1:21	Q: We discussed briefly last night, all of us together, about what question should be considered here, and we agreed on a question. I'll begin by saying that you have frequently talked about the flowering or unfolding of the whole human being, and we would like to discuss, first of all, what does it mean, this flowering or unfolding? What is it that is happening when flowering or unfolding takes place, and how can it be brought about?
1:59	K: Is that it? Q: Yes.
2:06	K: What does it mean - I'm trying to understand the question myself - what does it mean to... what does it mean, the flowering of the whole of human being, and in what way it is possible to bring that about?
2:29	Q: Yes, and also what actually happens in that flowering.
2:35	K: What actually happens in that flowering?
2:38	Q: Yes. K: Right. It's rather fun.
2:41	Q: What is it that flowers? K: What is it that flowers?
2:45	Q: In the human being.
2:47	K: In human beings, and what is actually taking place when it's flowering, and what is the outcome of that - is that it?
2:59	Q: Yes. K: Yes, sir?
3:03	Q: How to encourage that, or enhance...
3:06	K: Yes - how to bring it about, how to encourage it. What do you think - let's discuss it - what does it mean? Does it mean anything at all? Or there is some meaning to it and let's try and find out. What do you say it is? How can a mind flower if it is in a great bondage to anything - right? - when it is in prison, when it is hedged about, circumscribed, limited? Under those conditions it cannot possibly flower. Right? And when those conditions do not exist, what then is flowering?
4:35	Q: Yes.
4:40	K: And when it does flower under those conditions, when the limitation is removed, what is beyond it?
4:52	Q: Yes. Could we, as long as you brought in the word 'flowering', could we compare this to a plant in any sense?
4:59	K: In a way, yes. In a way to a flower, in a way to a plant.
5:04	Q: Is there a seed, for example, that flowers? Could we carry it so far as to say there is a seed that flowers, that unfolds, or a bud?
5:15	K: Now you're changing to something quite different.
5:19	Q: Or is that an inappropriate analogy?
5:21	K: Please, let's discuss it, don't leave it to me.
5:24	Q: So we've seen how the other quality unfolds, develops, the conditioning process, the ego, the self, all that, grows in most human beings. But what is this other thing that needs to be nurtured?
5:44	K: I've got it. Right, let's go into it.
5:49	Q: Well, one thing is, that we can say, is that when you want a flower to grow and you want a plant to grow, you don't touch the thing itself, you water the ground around it and you also bring in sunlight to encourage it, but you don't... K: ...touch the very thing.
6:07	Q: You don't touch the thing, you don't pull on it, you don't yank at it.
6:10	K: You don't examine the roots of it and pull it out to see if it is flowering properly, and so on, and so on.
6:17	Q: No, but you do have to dig up the ground to remove the obstacles.
6:21	Q: You have to weed. Q: Well, yes.
6:28	K: Could we begin by discussing, or talking over, a mind, a human mind, the totality of it, can it flower in a poor soil? Poor soil being the limitation, the heavy burden it carries of memories, and so on, the whole structure within which it lives.
7:16	Q: Sometimes it may be it can. You see, sometimes one sees a plant which overcomes obstacles. I mean, sometimes it can, perhaps. K: Yes. I question it.
7:28	Q: Or perhaps not.
7:29	K: I question whether a mind that is committed to a particular philosophy, to a particular series of conventional beliefs and conclusions, whether it can flower at all.
7:51	Q: I see your point, that you're talking about the internal soil, not the soil outside.
7:55	K: I'm talking - no.
7:57	Q: No, because you say 'committed to ideas'.
8:00	K: Yes, it is both internal and external.
8:03	Q: Right.
8:04	Q: The environment is the external part.
8:07	K: Yes, the environment of - you know.
8:10	Q: One thing that occurs to me as you are saying this is the fact that - I don't know if I can make it clear - but if a mind is caught in conflict or if it's involved in all kinds of obstructions, that it can never really...
8:30	K: ...unfold.
8:30	Q: It can't unfold and it will always be sort of in touch with the conflict, more or less.
8:36	K: Yes. So, the first question is, it cannot flower under those circumstances.
8:46	Q: It can't flower - not only that, the growth will always... it will grow some.
8:52	K: Stunted. It will always be stunted. Q: Yes.
8:55	K: Right? Right.
8:58	Q: It creates a false feeling in this analogy, that the plant or the seed is different and the soil is different - somebody prepares the soil and then the plant grows.
9:13	K: No.
9:15	Q: If we say that the mind is the result of the soil...
9:21	K: No. Oh, no. The mind has created the soil, and having created it, it is caught in it. Right, sir?
9:36	Q: Yes. Well, the soil is created partly from the outside and partly from the inside. Right? K: We said that. One creates the environment or the structure outside, which is born out of oneself, and then it is externalised and in that it is caught. Right? Could we move? Now, can the mind be free of the soil, of this prison - realise it cannot possibly flower entirely, totally, wholly? Right?
10:30	Q: There is something about what Dr Parchure said, it struck a note. As the mind is creating the soil, or as the plant is creating its own soil...
10:43	K: Leave the plant, move away from the plant.
10:46	Q: Okay, but as the mind is creating its own soil...
10:49	K: ...and is caught in it. Q: Caught in it - then... I don't see readily how there is a way out of that.
11:00	K: We'll find out.
11:02	Q: I mean, are you implying that the mind, being free of that soil, doesn't need any soil, or should it have another soil?
11:08	K: Yes, that's right. Q: Which is it?
11:10	K: Which is it? Another soil.
11:12	Q: Should it have another soil or should it be free of all soil?
11:18	Q: You see, since it creates that soil...
11:20	K: Ah, look, if it is free of one soil, it might create another soil and get caught in that soil.
11:26	Q: Yes. K: In that field. So, better keep to 'a field', not soil. So, we are asking, can...
11:35	Q: It appears that it is a wrong question to ask: can the mind grow in a bad soil?
11:43	K: No, no, not a bad soil. That's a wrong question, yes. We've finished with that, sir. Which is, the mind creates the environment, the prison, the walls, and then it's caught in it. And we say, as long as it is in that prison, which it has created, it cannot possibly flower. That's simple and clear.
12:13	Q: But, sir, in this analogy you're using, the mind as 'that which flowers' have we established...
12:21	K: We're going to find out. Presently.
12:23	Q: Or it's just a temporary... K: We've going to find out...
12:26	Q: ...state that the mind flowers. K: ...whether the mind can flower within the prison which it has created. As it cannot, then the question is: can the mind flower... - no - what is the flowering of the mind when it's free? That's the question. Q: What is happening?
12:49	K: What is happening. Right? Now, can one be free of the thing it has created? Can the mind be free of the prison it has created, the walls... in which it lives, the castle, the house, whatever it is?
13:13	Q: I'd like to settle, finish with another question: does the mind need any ground or soil at all or is this just what it has created?
13:24	K: I think, we can find that out only when we're free.
13:27	Q: Yes.
13:28	K: Of the prison, of the walls, of the house it has built. Right?
13:38	Q: That way you're answering the first question: what is it that flowers?
13:42	K: We're going to find out, sir. Q: It's implied in it.
13:45	K: We're going to go into it now. First, we say, the mind has created the prison, the walls round itself, and being a prisoner to itself, it cannot flower. That's clear. Then, if it is free, then what is it that is flowering? Go on, sir, let's...
14:16	Q: Are you saying that there is the mind, and the mind is capable of either flowering or creating a kind of prison? Now, if it's the mind that does both these things, why would it create the prison, if it has the capacity for flowering?
14:39	K: Why has it created the prison?
14:42	Q: Why would it go towards that instead of towards flowering?
14:45	K: Yes, that's right. Why has it created the prison and then escape from that, be free from that? Why has it created it? Go on, sir, it's fairly clear.
14:56	Q: It's a fairly basic question, this.
15:00	Q: We've created a kind of dichotomy here now, between flowering and the prison, and...
15:06	K: Not only that, sir. Her question was: why should I... why should the mind first create this prison and then struggle to be free of it?
15:19	Q: One point of that strikes me as that the very creation of the prison appears to be or acts as a kind of - I don't know if I would say 'flower', but it acts as a kind of appearance of flowering. In other words, if you engage in going to learn a lot of things there is an implication that there's flowering in the acquisition.
15:43	K: Why should it first become egotistic? Egotistic, selfish, and then be free of... try to struggle to be free of it - that's the same question in different words.
15:56	Q: Just see that the mind gets caught in illusion, right from the beginning. K: Why?
16:02	Q: How are you going to function without a self?
16:07	K: That may be the real flowering.
16:09	Q: What? Functioning without a self.
16:14	K: That's too far ahead, I want to go slowly, little by little. We're asking, why does the mind create the self, the prison, the walls round itself, creates it and then this tremendous struggle to be free of it? That is the question we're asking.
16:37	Q: It does seem that the mind is driven into that from inception, by the environment, by the culture, and so on, in which it's bathing.
16:44	K: Why does it allow itself? Q: It doesn't know anything else.
16:48	Q: The mother says to the child, 'Look, Johnny, it's very good that you were able to stand up. Very good, I see you're standing up now - wonderful!' Clap.
17:01	Q: Yes, strengthening the self.
17:03	K: No, no, no, you're missing... I'm not sure we're making ourselves clear on this point. Why does the mind create a barrier round itself, first, and then make this tremendous struggle to be free of it?
17:30	Q: Well, I think that thus far we can say the mind was ignorant of what it was doing, it seems that way. That in the beginning, in the inception, the mind was ignorant of how it operated.
17:43	K: Yes.
17:44	Q: It did not know it was making a barrier.
17:48	K: That is, you are saying, the mind being like plasticine...
17:53	Q: Unimpressed, no impressions there, plastic.
18:00	K: Like - what is it? - mud, no, clay, and on which every imprint is made, and then it wakens up, awakens to that - imprints and pressures - and then it struggles to be free of that. Is that what is going on?
18:17	Q: It appears that the mind, which is taken to the growth of ego, itself considers that as flowering. And why has the mind...
18:28	K: I understand that, sir. We are going ahead. We are saying - just a minute, go slowly - why does the mind create the prison at the beginning and then struggle to be free of it?
18:45	Q: But the word 'prison' gives a feeling...
18:48	Q: No, what I mean is, it doesn't call it prison, it calls it the growth or flowering.
18:55	K: Yes, agreed, but we're trying to ask a further question: what is the reason of all this?
19:09	Q: Why should it make this mistake? Why should it make the mistake of calling a prison a flower?
19:16	Q: It starts out ignorant - I think that's what David was saying - there's an essential ignorance at... There is no beginning to ignorance.
19:26	K: There is no beginning to ignorance. So the mind is from the very beginning ignorant. Is that what we're saying?
19:36	Q: Yes, it does not see all that it does. Right?
19:40	K: Yes. The mind is not aware, is not conscious of its ignorance, and therefore in ignorance it acts, and from that ignorance is pain, and then it learns.
19:55	Q: Right. Q: But it's too late already. But it's already too late to learn, because it's in the trap.
20:01	K: Yes. I wonder if that is so - it sounds too simple.
20:07	Q: Isn't the rudimentary process of learning of the mind when it's a child, which is one of accumulation, it isn't a bad, so-called bad action at that point, it's a necessary factual learning process. But it doesn't go on seeing the limitation of that, it puts all its eggs in that basket, so to speak.
20:33	K: I understand, but is the mind at the beginning ignorant? And therefore ignorance has no beginning.
20:47	Q: Well, at least it seems at first sight that the young child or the primitive man could not understand all that was implied in thought, when he started to think. He could therefore get into a trap.
20:59	K: So, the primitive man... Q: ...or the young child.
21:02	K: No, keep to the primitive man, his mind was not aware of all the implications of his actions, and therefore his mind was already... was beginning to be caught already in the trap. And so we are the result of that primitive man and so our minds have already been trapped. And having been trapped, now the problem is to - what is it?
21:44	Q: To be free of the trap.
21:45	K: To be free of the trap. Is that what we're doing?
21:49	Q: There is one more aspect in this, that there is a survival mechanism for which factual acquisition of knowledge is necessary.
21:59	K: Yes, that we agree.
22:01	Q: And that being the habit of the primitive man, to collect things and information, he also in the same process probably collected all those unnecessary things which later on became the bondage or the prison.
22:17	K: Yes, all right, sir. Why does it do this? I wonder if I'm asking the right question. Why - because we are trying to find out what it means to flower. Obviously, under these circumstances it can't flower. Right? Can the mind, now as we are evolved, so-called brighter, clearer, we have learnt through millennia all kinds of things and after which we are prisoners still - when once one is free of that, is there a different kind of flowering? Right, sir?
23:10	Q: Different kind from what?
23:11	K: From the flowering it thought it was...
23:14	Q: Yes, from the illusory flowering. K: Yes.
23:16	Q: The one that became a trap.
23:17	K: Trap - yes. The one that became a trap, it considered that as flowering. Q: Yes.
23:27	K: Which we do, which is actual. When that kind of flowering - A - is thrown away, or put aside, or destroyed, then there might be, or there is, a totally different kind of flowering. Right, sir?
23:53	Q: Right. Q: There might be.
23:56	K: Might be. Might be I purposely used 'might be'.
24:03	Q: I mean, you're really discussing the whole difference here between the attitude of a gradual incremental development, or some sort of exposure to the sun that allows things to happen in a different way.
24:21	K: Is that so? The mind has acquired through millennia, is caught in the trap which it has created. And being caught in that trap is considered also a flowering.
24:41	Q: Yes.
24:43	K: And is that a flowering? It has considered so far that it is flowering, becoming more experienced, more knowledge, more beautiful, more spiritual, more, more, more.
25:01	Q: Yes, I think, from history people talk of the flowering of civilisation.
25:05	K: Flowering of civilisation. Yes, sir, it comes to that.
25:09	Q: But the word...
25:11	K: No, that's a very good point - flowering of civilisation.
25:15	Q: In art and culture.
25:16	K: Art and culture, music, the whole thing, the Renaissance and...
25:22	Q: Except Gibbons wrote a book called The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
25:26	Q: But that implies that it had flowered and was dying.
25:28	Q: There was another one to follow. Q: Yes.
25:31	Q: Krishnaji, could one say, or could one consider that an evolutionary process, if it worked properly, would take you through this accumulation of knowledge in its useful way, but would keep on going - would come to the limitation and then pass beyond it so the trap would not take place?
25:50	K: But that may be one of the traps too.
25:56	Q: Why would that be a trap, if the mind went on?
25:58	K: Because man has said, 'I will evolve. My mind is very primitive, I'll acquire more' and so on.
26:06	Q: No. Excuse me, I wasn't suggesting that the accumulation of more would do it, that at a certain point the mind would see that the accumulation was a useful thing, with limitations, and that it was necessary to go beyond.
26:21	K: Yes, that's what Dr Parchure and... you have said that too.
26:25	Q: Yes. But could that be considered, if things worked as they should, a normal or a proper evolution?
26:32	K: Could we put the same thing differently, which is, it considers the evolution of the trap as flowering.
26:44	Q: The flowering of the trap. K: What?
26:46	Q: The flowering of the trap. K: Trap - yes.
26:49	Q: The moment it's a trap then... K: It doesn't say it's a trap.
26:56	Q: The point I'm trying to make is that at a certain development the mind would see a trap, see that it was... if it stopped there and did not go on beyond this process.
27:09	K: But that requires intelligence, awareness, and all the rest of it. But it is still considering the trap as part of evolutionary growth.
27:18	Q: Then it's in the trap. Immaturity has set in.
27:23	K: Yes. Yes.
27:25	Q: But don't you think... I would go along with that, in the feeling of: the fact that the trap is, and is very definitely present, means that we have to look at it as the necessity that has to flower. Much as we talked about dependency as something that's present, it has to flower. It's present, so...
27:51	K: So what are we talking... Are we saying the same thing?
27:54	Q: Yes. K: More or less saying the same thing.
27:58	Q: I think, he's taking it a step further by saying that if this trap is allowed to flower in consciousness, so we're really aware of it, then perhaps the other can flower.
28:09	K: That's it. No, no. No. Just a minute, sir - what you said. That is, the flowering within the field has become highly respectable. Q: Well...
28:32	K: Can the flowering of a different kind take place within that field at all?
28:40	Q: That's clear, it can't, if it's the trap - right?
28:43	K: Yes. Q: It's illusion.
28:45	K: Yes. So can the mind become aware of the trap and be free of it?
28:49	Q: Yes.
28:51	Q: How's that mind going to do that if it's not flowered? In other words, I'm in a state of trap, or the mind is in a state of trap.
28:59	K: No. But the mind has also realised it's a trap.
29:05	Q: I want to know whether a mind in trap can know that it is creating the trap and it is getting caught in the trap.
29:13	K: That's fairly clear. Q: No, it's not.
29:16	K: No? Why not?
29:18	Q: It just isn't. A mind in a state of a trap - it's a question we've talked about for years.
29:23	K: No. Q: How can a... (inaudible)
29:24	K: Wait, sir. Mind being in a trap. Mind being in a trap feels the pain of the trap.
29:32	Q: But that's still the same mind that's in pain.
29:34	Q: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. It is still the same mind but it still feels the pain of this trap.
29:40	Q: Right.
29:42	K: So it says, there's something wrong living in the trap.
29:47	Q: Pleasure.
29:49	K: There's something wrong. Since it gives me pain, the trap must be broken.
29:55	Q: It doesn't put the pain to the trap, it puts the pain to something else.
29:59	K: But the 'something else' is also the trap.
30:02	Q: Yes, but it doesn't see that something is the trap.
30:05	K: Therefore, that's all we're saying. When the mind becomes conscious of itself and so it has created the trap, and whatever it does will be another kind of trap, which means pain, and being in pain, says, 'I must break this structure.' No?
30:29	Q: No good. Q: We've said that.
30:31	Q: No good - that's mental gymnastics. The guy says, 'Look, the person...' - Dr Parchure is right - the pain is there - right?
30:38	K: Which guy?
30:41	Q: Me, you, anyone. But the point is it's always back and forth.
30:45	K: The good guys and the bad guys! Go on, sir. Sorry. Go on, sir, I am joking. Q: It's going back and forth.
30:50	K: No, no, no.
30:53	Q: Sir, the time when the trap is understood, or the pain of the trap is understood, that the fact of the trap is understood, it is already out, it has broken the structure.
31:03	K: That's what we're saying!
31:05	Q: But what he's saying is that all this doesn't happen while inside the trap, everything...
31:11	K: No, sir. That's the whole point. While the mind is in a trap and is aware that trap is creating the pain, and the trap has... Q: Stop, stop! It is not aware that the trap is creating the pain. Look, I am dependent. the dependency gives me pain, so I go and find a new kind of dependency.
31:38	K: What has happened? You haven't understood the whole nature of...
31:45	Q: Because I'm in a trap!
31:46	K: No, no. You follow? You are in... Right, sir, you go on, sir. This is clear.
31:52	Q: I think that what we've been coming to is to say we have to see the totality of the trap, all of it, without leaving any part out, otherwise...
32:00	Q: Who is going to say... that's where we want to get to?
32:03	Q: I say that the mistake occurs when we don't see it all, when we see some particular form of the trap.
32:10	Q: How? The mind is in a trap. We've agreed - the total mind is in a trap.
32:16	K: All right, sir. The total mind is in a trap. It is aware of this trap when there is pain. Right? And to escape from that pain it creates another trap. And that trap gives another kind of pain - it moves to another trap. This is the circle which has been going on for millennia.
32:42	Q: Right. K: Now, wait a minute. Can you... can the mind face the fact of pain caused by the trap and face that fact only, not move? We come back to the original thing. Because the moment it moves it has already created another trap.
33:15	Q: Can't we say that the movement is itself the trap?
33:19	K: That's right.
33:20	Q: So we say we include all movement as the trap?
33:22	K: That's right. Q: And we face the movement.
33:28	Q: The question here is: how does the mind start going away from the pain, as a process of being free from the pain, and start getting...
33:39	K: Because it doesn't realise it has... It's fairly simple - it has been accustomed to that, it's its habit, its tradition. I have pain because of the attachment to you, and I go to her and be attached to her, and so on. That's conditioning, that's the tradition, that's the accumulated ignorance. Now, can the mind see the trap? And any movement away from the trap is another form of trap. And it can only see, that any movement is a trap as long as it moves. But if it remains with the pain and not move away from it, it sees the whole nature of the trap. Are we... Right? Do we agree? Do we see this?
34:54	Q: Can we, without bringing in the issue of the trap, can the mind stay with pain itself, without coming to the realisation of the fact that it's becoming a trap?
35:09	K: Oh, yes. Yes, sir, of course. I am attached to you and that causes pain. The mind doesn't say, 'All right, I'll stay there, I won't move.'
35:29	Q: Yes, well, that's the question though. That's the question. It's the staying with the movement, seeing the wheel.
35:37	K: Yes. So can that wheel, which is the movement, stop? It can only stop when you say, 'All right, the mind must look at that fact and not move.'
35:51	Q: I... K: Wait, sir. Movement means a trap.
35:54	Q: Yes.
35:57	K: This is important, because...
36:06	Q: I want to understand this process of the mind. Because it sees this is a trap, therefore it stays with the pain.
36:15	K: No. Q: Or it stays with the pain because it understands that there is no other way.
36:23	K: No, sir. First the mind has created the trap. Right? All right, we'll stick to that, now we understand the meaning of that word. The mind has created the trap. And it realises it's in a trap when there is pain.
36:44	Q: Then the motivation becomes...
36:46	K: No, not motivation - it happens. There is no motivation.
36:51	Q: I think, Dr Parchure is caught on the two wings of the pole. We're really saying that it's neither attachment nor the pain, it's the issue, it's the whole wheel of the movement from attachment to pain, to attachment to pain.
37:05	K: Yes, sir, but that whole wheel can be stopped only when I look at the fact of pain, and not let it begin again.
37:15	Q: Yes.
37:23	Q: When does the mind start looking at the fact of pain?
37:28	K: When you have pain. When you have pain.
37:30	Q: Does the pain have the capacity to do that?
37:32	K: When you have pain. It has the capacity when it has pain.
37:37	Q: But there is plenty of pain, there is no shortage, dearth of it.
37:41	K: No, no, but it moves away from it.
37:43	Q: Yes, so that is what I'm saying, so what brings that mind to look at pain and...
37:49	K: What makes it? This mind hears you saying that: 'Stop there, don't move.' So I say, 'By Jove, there may be something in it, I'll look.'
38:02	Q: Also the flight doesn't work. K: Of course.
38:07	Q: There would be always hope that it might work, that's not enough. K: Yes.
38:11	Q: I question this, still. Let's put it this way: in actual practical, actual terms - I don't know how to put it. K: Go ahead, sir.
38:25	Q: The movement stops with this... somehow or other, the event seems to be that even in the movement there seems to be movement. Even in the movement there's still the sense of the cause and effect.
38:49	K: Sir, movement is time. Right? The mind is caught in time -I want to get away from the trap for the moment - movement is time. So, mind has evolved through time. And its evolution has been to create this bondage, the wall round itself. That's all. Now we say, how does the mind become aware that it is in a prison? Right? Because it has created the thing and it doesn't know it's a prison. We are saying that it knows it's in a prison when there is pain. Then it makes another movement. But the mind hasn't understood, from the beginning of our conversation, that movement is pain. That's all we are saying.
40:07	Q: The fact is it thinks movement is pleasure...
40:10	K: Of course - pleasure, pain, and all the rest of it. I took that only as a... Q: Yes.
40:15	Q: There is a block in the perception of actuality of this process, as you are saying. That movement is pain, therefore it stays with the pain. That movement is pain, is not an actuality.
40:31	K: Oh, yes, I'll show it to you, but you won't listen. I'll show it to you. I am attached to you and it gives pain. Right? Then I reject you and I'm attached to her. The mind hasn't understood attachment is pain. If it has understood it wouldn't move to another.
41:11	Q: So: 'attachment is pain' is not an actuality.
41:17	K: What are you saying?
41:19	Q: If it is an actuality why doesn't he see it?
41:21	K: Because the mind is caught in the trap of attachment and says, 'All right, this person has caused me pain...'
41:33	Q: Now... K: Wait, sir, listen. 'This person has caused me pain. That person won't.' And I go, when that person causes me pain, perhaps that person will not give me pain. So goes on repeating. That's what we say. Any movement is a trap.
41:55	Q: What brings this about, that actuality... K: We said that, sir. What brings attachment, are you saying?
42:04	Q: What brings about the awareness of the movement?
42:09	K: By listening to somebody or to yourself say, 'Look, attachment is pain. Any movement is pain.' You hear that, and either you receive it or you say, 'Yes' and just leave it. But if you receive it, it is operating.
42:34	Q: But sir, could we not receive it for the moment? What would enable the mind to see this on its own, because that should be possible?
42:48	K: What would make the mind see the trap on its own, and realise that it has created the trap, and any movement within the trap is still another trap, and so on - it's still the making of traps, any movement is the making of traps. Right?
43:16	Q: I think, the mind doesn't want to say all movement is the making of traps, but some movement is the making of traps.
43:22	K: Of course - some movements which are painful, some movements which are pleasure. Therefore I'll hold on to that movement - you follow? Of course.
43:30	Q: It doesn't see the whole. K: So that's what we're saying: does the mind see the whole movement as creating traps? Of course, it sees it.
43:48	Q: Isn't the mind attached to its own movement?
43:51	K: Yes, yes, yes. But any movement, whether it's its own or movement outside - of course. And this movement is considered flowering. Right? 'I have learnt.'
44:12	Q: I've developed my personality.
44:14	K: I've learnt, I've grown, I've understood.
44:18	Q: Are we saying that the mind which is a trap-making device, also there's a possibility of an intelligence coming in and seeing what it's doing, just spontaneously?
44:30	K: Yes. That's only possible - either you hear it, you say that to me, to this mind, and the mind says, 'By Jove, there's something in it' and I'll go on - you follow? - I'll work at it, or that requires an extraordinary awareness, intelligence, or spontaneously it realises it.
45:00	Q: Could we go on to this question of working at it. You see, we say that at least it's reasonable that all movement of thought creates traps - right?
45:08	K: Absolutely. Q: Then we say...
45:10	K: Sir, I don't think we've got that.
45:12	Q: No, but I'm saying: is it possible to work on that?
45:15	K: Yes, to understand it. Q: Yes.
45:19	K: That all movement of the mind is the making of traps.
45:26	Q: By movement you mean thought.
45:27	K: Thought - of course. Q: Time.
45:29	K: Time.
45:30	Q: But if we say 'all'... K: But, Maria, just take that in. Take it in: that all movement, which is thought, is the making of traps. It is such a terrible realisation. It's a great shock, if I realise that - tremendous shock.
45:55	Q: Yes, you're right.
45:56	Q: It always raises the question: is there any thought which is not the making of traps? You see, we have to be absolutely sure - right?
46:04	K: Yes, of course. Q: Yes, because we just said that the mind which is still involved in thought, in traps, is capable of suddenly seeing what it's doing.
46:10	K: No, no. Q: Therefore, is that thought?
46:13	K: Only when the mind... when thought has its right place, then it has an insight.
46:21	Q: But would you say when thought has its right place it is not the movement? K: It is not a movement.
46:25	Q: Okay. Well, that's important. K: Of course.
46:27	Q: Thought in its right place is not a movement.
46:30	K: Of course!
46:31	Q: We have to get clear - what is a movement?
46:36	K: When thought has realised its own limitation and therefore it won't move in any other direction except within the limitation, that movement is not the movement of which we are talking about.
46:52	Q: You're saying that there is a limited movement and an unlimited movement.
46:55	K: That's right. The limited movement is the technological knowledge, and blah blah blah - all that.
47:02	Q: Yes, and the unlimited movement is what you're talking about.
47:05	K: Yes. Which is the actual flowering. That's what I want to get at slowly. Q: No. Which is the actual flowering?
47:14	Q: The unlimited. Q: The unlimited movement.
47:16	Q: The true unlimited movement was the actual flowering. Thought is a false unlimited movement.
47:20	Q: Yes, that's what... It's the false unlimited movement which is the trap, because that unlimited movement always leads beyond itself to attachment and to things outside of itself.
47:33	K: No, no. Inside. You see, how immediately you...
47:36	Q: Right, right.
47:39	Q: Now what is it that flowers?
47:42	K: We're going to find that out, sir. This is really... First we lay down the ground rules, as it were, which is, as long as the mind creates the trap, and is caught in the trap, and says, 'I must get out of the trap', it is still the movement of a limited mind.
48:03	Q: It thinks it's unlimited - right? - that is the illusion.
48:08	K: Yes, yes, yes, yes. That movement, it thinks is unlimited, because it can move, move, go. Whereas we said any movement within the limitation is still limitation. The mind can move from one corner of the field to another corner of the same field, and thinks, 'Yes, I've moved, I've grown, I've changed, I've done this, that.' So, do we realise the limited movement of the mind, thought? Therefore it has its place.
49:05	K: Don't say 'little thing'. Mind is limited, we said. No! Thought is limited. And therefore it acts within that limitation - technology, driving a car, language, and so on.
49:24	Q: Thought is in itself limited - right? Not by comparison with something else.
49:28	K: Of course, of course. Thought in itself is limited.
49:30	Q: You don't have a boundary. K: No, no, of course not. That's why, sir, I don't think that we have understood that really profoundly. Would you go into it, sir?
49:43	Q: Well, it's hard to explain but ordinarily we think of a limit as a boundary and beyond that is something else, so one field limits another through the fence.
49:53	K: Would you say then, when the movement of limitation creates a deception, that is: moving into another dimension, into another field?
50:08	Q: Yes. You see, if thought imagines a boundary, and then it will already imagine something outside the boundary.
50:13	K: Outside the boundary - quite. Q: So that is not thought - right?
50:15	K: Quite. Quite.
50:19	Q: Are you saying that the appreciation then of thought as having its own limits is not to be thinking in terms of boundaries but is to see the very inherent limitations of thought?
50:33	Q: Yes, that thought is inherently limited in itself.
50:37	Q: And that's different from seeing it as a boundary.
50:39	Q: Yes.
50:41	Q: If it's a boundary it's bound to look over the fence, or try to.
50:44	Q: Yes. K: Sir, do we realise that? That thought in itself, in its very seed, is limited. It may grow into a mountain but it's limited.
51:02	Q: The thought doesn't see it as an inherent limitation but it sees in relation to the centre from which it moves, and sees it in relation to what it was before, and therefore the outer limit.
51:15	K: So, as long as there is a centre from which it is moving - same thing, sir.
51:22	Q: Well, then we experience the centre and the periphery, which is a false projection of thought, right?
51:28	K: Yes, that's right. Once I've understood the truth of this fact I don't have to fool around. Q: I don't have to explain. It's a deception.
51:40	K: That is, thought inherently, in itself is limited. And thought pretends to go beyond the limited - which is still the limited.
52:00	Q: That is the movement.
52:02	K: Right? I live in this circle. The mind lives in this circle, which is limited, and says, 'I'll go beyond it.' But the 'beyond' is still the product of the limited mind. It's simple.
52:19	Q: You see, there's a difficulty. Our language makes it hard to express this because the very word 'limit' is based on the idea of a boundary.
52:25	K: Boundary. Therefore there is no...
52:29	Q: If you say thought is finite, it might be more accurate.
52:31	K: Finite - that's so... Q: That's difficult.
52:34	K: No. Yes, it's rather scholastic, professorial,
52:40	Q: You can say that thought is particular and not universal, you see - that thought is always particular.
52:46	K: All right - thought is particular, broken up, limited, not universal. Once...
52:53	Q: You get the feeling.
52:57	K: Not only the feeling, but the fact. My thought, the thought born of the mind, the brain, and all the rest of it, is always limited, under any circumstances. Full stop. If I realise that, if the mind realises that then it breaks through the limitation. Right? That may be the flowering.
53:47	Q: Yes. That's saying it differently than saying there's something else that comes from something else.
53:59	K: No, no, no. Yes, yes, I understand - cause, effect, cause, effect. No.
54:05	Q: I said that's saying it differently. What you just said is saying it differently than cause and effect, in other words, this and then that. K: Yes. Which means, do I realise, does the mind realise that cause-effect is also a limitation? Unless one goes into - not verbally - do you, as a human being, realise the absolute fact that any movement within the field is limited, is finite, is particular, is not universal, is not cosmic, etc?
55:07	Q: You remain in the chain. K: Of course. Do you realise it? Does your mind realise that? If it does - right? - when it does, what takes place?
55:34	Q: This endless process of its wanting to see the limit by...
55:46	K: That means still moving.
55:48	Q: Yes. So this transition from that to this...
55:53	K: Dr Parchure, you've missed it. The moment it says, 'I will look over the border', the looking is a movement of time, thought, therefore limited.
56:05	Q: But I think, one doesn't see at first sight that this looking is the search for the unlimited. We are trying to get hold of the unlimited by looking. That is a mistake - right?
56:13	K: That's absolutely... washout.
56:16	Q: No, but when you say, 'When the mind realises' now this 'when' is... K: It's up to you!
56:23	Q: So that limitation apart is seen by thought.
56:30	K: No, sir. No. Thought cannot see - what is it?
56:39	Q: What would you like to say? K: No, we must be careful here.
56:43	Q: Can thought see that it is limited?
56:45	K: Yes, I think, it can. Q: Could we discuss that?
56:48	Q: I don't think that we're saying that. Somehow I think that thought doesn't see. Thought doesn't see that it's limited. There's an insight there, which is different from thought seeing it.
57:00	K: That's it, sir, that's it. We've talked about this so much, it gets...
57:08	Q: Yes.
57:09	Q: But at the same time you have also often said thought can see its own limits. K: I think so.
57:15	Q: Yes, from the insight - right? K: From the insight.
57:21	Q: You're taking a double movement there, which is insight into thought. Somehow or other it seems that what we're saying is that the real comprehension of the true limits of thought is something that's not thought, it's something much more, it's an insight that goes beyond.
57:42	K: Sir, first you hear that thought is limited. Right? You hear it. And then we argue about it, why it is limited, who made it limited, and all the rest. We've been through all that. Then we say, when we use the word 'limited' it means, limited, a barrier. And then thought says, 'All right, I'll look over the barrier.' That is still movement of thought, still a movement of mind - movement. Now, have you listened to that? Listened to it - you understand? - so that you're completely' in it' - as it were - there is no argument. It is so! Right? Then isn't there an insight into the whole movement of time, which is limited, all the rest of it? Then we have to discuss: what do you mean by insight? Is insight the product of thought? We're discussing, questioning it. If it is, it's still movement, therefore limited. Limited, finite - I'll change the word - it's finite. Now, do I hear that and realise that? Realise in the sense, a reality - realise. Right? Is that a reality to me?
59:55	Q: I can see that what I was... in some way seeing the limits of thought is really still in terms of the boundary.
1:00:03	K: Yes.
1:00:05	Q: So that there is something...
1:00:08	K: No, no. Q: I'm saying there's a...
1:00:14	K: Am I listening to you when you say, 'Thought, under all circumstances, - noble, ignoble... - is eternally finite, everlastingly limited.' I hear that, you tell me that, and you show me the reason, the logic, and all the rest of it, and I say, 'Yes' instantly there is an insight - it's finished. You follow? It is so!
1:00:59	Q: It's a flash.
1:01:00	Q: But then you also say you realise this insight and make it real. Right? Which means it must come into thought because you have also said what is real is what we think. Right? K: What?
1:01:12	Q: You said then the insight is made real.
1:01:15	K: That is... No. Q: It becomes real.
1:01:17	K: No, there is an insight into the whole nature of it.
1:01:22	Q: That's so. And then the insight is realised. You just said.
1:01:26	K: Ah, no. Q: But you said it before - right?
1:01:28	K: No, sorry, I made a mistake there. There is no realisation of insight. There is insight.
1:01:34	Q: There is insight.
1:01:38	Q: Can we, to straighten it out maybe linguistically, say that the mind is - start with the mind - the mind is capable of thought, which is all what we've discussed. The mind is also capable of insight. K: No.
1:01:55	Q: Well, insight can come from the mind.
1:01:57	K: No, be careful now. No. Q: Which is it?
1:02:01	K: My thought is incapable of insight.
1:02:05	Q: Yes, but I'm using 'mind' to try to sort out these entities a little bit.
1:02:10	K: Yes. We said - look - thought, any movement is limited. Insight is not a movement. Q: Yes.
1:02:20	K: Full stop. Stop there. Which means it is not the outcome of memory, it's not the outcome of remembrances, it is a direct perception, not induced by thought.
1:02:45	Q: Is it a part of mind? K: No. Mind being - wait, careful - mind being, as we so far said, is a movement of thought.
1:02:55	Q: Mind?
1:02:56	K: Wait. You see, we must now go back again and break it up. When we are talking about movement we mean the movement of thought. Right? Thought has created the trap. And the trap is known when there is pain. And when there is pain, thought then moves off into another direction. Thought doesn't realise that any movement it makes is pain. To receive that instantly and see the truth of it, is insight. Right? To see attachment is pain, instantly.
1:04:00	Q: But I think, Mary was asking: what has that insight, who has that insight?
1:04:06	K: Insight. There is nobody.
1:04:10	Q: No, but the mind is the organ...
1:04:14	K: Leave the mind. Q: That's a mistake to think of the mind because you're jumping ahead. When you're caught in the trap, anything you say about the mind is still the movement of thought - right?
1:04:24	K: Yes. We began, unfortunately, with the word 'mind'.
1:04:32	Q: We had 'limited' and 'unlimited' for the same process.
1:04:35	K: No, cut out that word 'mind' for the moment. Can thought - we've been through that; I won't go into it again.
1:04:44	Q: I think - I was looking at this - when we say thought is limited in itself, therefore we don't compare it to the unlimited.
1:04:51	K: No, no.
1:04:52	Q: We are just seeing that thought is inherently limited.
1:04:54	K: Inherently limited. When you compare it, you've already - of course.
1:05:02	Q: No, but I think that it's important to really see it has no other references.
1:05:11	K: No, of course not.
1:05:14	Q: Is that what insight is, is to really see without reference?
1:05:19	K: No, be careful, you're, then, trying to see if your mind is referring to something, your thought is referring to something. But we said every form of memory ends in insight. When there is insight, insight is not reference, is not remembrance, is not induced, and so on. Sir, you hear - what, I don't know - something deeply and you see the truth of it instantly. Then it's not memory.
1:06:10	Q: The thought seeing itself as limited, is it also a movement?
1:06:17	K: No. Thought seeing itself as limited - answer it, sir.
1:06:30	Q: This always bring up the point we haven't quite cleared up, what it means to say that thought sees itself. You see, that is not clear. K: That's right.
1:06:39	Q: We're not yet clear on that.
1:06:41	Q: But is there any thought in insight?
1:06:43	K: No. Q: We said no.
1:06:45	Q: We agreed on that.
1:06:46	K: The ending of thought is the insight. Any movement is thought, and thought cannot possibly have an insight. Insight means the ending of all movement, because you see directly and...
1:07:03	Q: But you've said that thought cannot come to intelligence but intelligence can use thought.
1:07:10	K: No, no. Wait a minute. Q: Can insight use thought?
1:07:14	K: Intelligence is insight. Q: Yes.
1:07:16	K: And then insight can use thought.
1:07:18	Q: Yes. Q: That's right.
1:07:20	K: But thought cannot use intelligence because thought is not intelligence, it's limited.
1:07:27	Q: But when there is insight it can then use thought.
1:07:30	K: Insight is extremely intelligent.
1:07:34	Q: But when there is insight then does thought see its own limit?
1:07:38	K: Of course. It is the intelligence that says it's limited.
1:07:42	Q: Yes, but thought also knows it's limited.
1:07:44	K: Of course - both. Q: But that's only...
1:07:47	Q: ...through insight. Q: Yes.
1:07:50	Q: Even temporarily, because it's already thought. In other words, now you're in time.
1:07:55	K: From that arises the question, before we go into it further: can consciousness, this whole movement, with all its content, and all the rest of it, can consciousness be aware of itself? Or must it be aware of itself through pain, disappointment, hope, hurt?
1:08:18	Q: You mean, to be aware of what it actually is?
1:08:20	K: Yes. Q: Directly ?
1:08:23	K: No, no, not what actually... can consciousness see itself wholly?
1:08:32	Q: Without the prod of pain. Just see it. K: That's only part. The sum of the parts is not the total. That's good old jargon, a cliche.
1:08:45	Q: We discussed the other day, that we may see something through its consequences, by inferring it. Are you saying we are not to do that but consciousness is going to see directly itself?
1:08:59	K: Sorry, sir.
1:09:00	Q: Are you going to say consciousness must directly be aware of itself?
1:09:05	K: That's right. Q: Not through its consequences.
1:09:07	K: That's right. Q: Not through what it does.
1:09:09	K: Now, can you be aware of that? Can consciousness be aware of itself? Not prodded, not told, or become aware through pain, disappointment, and so on.
1:09:20	Q: Isn't it the same process as that we just discussed?
1:09:26	K: No, I'm asking something a little bit different, which is, thought can become aware that it is limited through pain. We said this, so far. I am expanding that same thing a little bit more, which is, can thought... can consciousness, the totality of it, be aware of itself? I wonder if I am... is that question all right, sir?
1:09:58	Q: Let's try and make it more clear, that there are different ways of being aware of yourself. For example, you may look in a mirror and become aware of yourself.
1:10:09	K: Yes.
1:10:09	Q: Is that the sort of thing you're thinking or discussing?
1:10:11	K: Yes. I can be aware, I can look at my face in the mirror and say, 'Yes, that's my face.' Because I've seen it so often, that face in the mirror, I say, 'That's my face.'
1:10:22	Q: But you're getting a direct reflection of the face, - as if you were looking at it.
1:10:28	K: Can consciousness do that?
1:10:31	Q: It doesn't seem to be the same process as a mirror. It doesn't seem to be a reflection, in that case.
1:10:39	K: No, don't run that simile to death, because he's just taken that as a simile.
1:10:51	Q: There's still that question right there, of how would a consciousness that was involved as it is, get over to awareness of itself? Again we seem to be coming to this business of the inherent insight. K: No, sir. No, no, no, I am asking something else. You know, the totality of consciousness, not the part, but the whole movement. Thought is - listen - thought is limited movement. Is consciousness on the same level as thought?
1:11:42	Q: Yes, or is it more, are you saying?
1:11:43	K: Yes, I'm asking. Or it contains something more, or the 'something more' is still what thought has put in it and says there's something more.
1:11:57	Q: Yes, well, that would be an illusion.
1:12:01	K: Yes, of course.
1:12:02	Q: Is it actually more? K: Yes, yes.
1:12:08	Q: Thought - what is consciousness? Because the approach to consciousness, when you ask a question like this - can consciousness be aware of itself? - the approach to the answer is through thought, and if there is no thought, how do you...
1:12:23	K: Ah, no. No, you see, you have jumped ahead. Have you no thought? Have you realised the limitation of thought, the finite...
1:12:40	Q: Finiteness. K: ...the finite nature of thought? Or you just say, 'Let's go to something else.'
1:12:54	Q: You see, you have said that consciousness is its content, but now you're saying it also is more, or possibly.
1:13:01	K: I'm asking, because we think there is something more in it.
1:13:03	Q: Yes, thought may think there is something more.
1:13:08	Q: There's the business of thinking it's more, or actually more.
1:13:12	K: That's what - you see?
1:13:23	Q: That's a great question. K: No, no. It's very interesting, because man has said in consciousness there is divinity, outside agents - Brahman in India. Here I don't think they think in those terms, but there is a sense...
1:13:44	Q: They speak of Godliness.
1:13:45	K: The God, there is God inside, or me, this consciousness is going to sit next to God. Now, if all that is the movement of thought, all of it, then the whole of consciousness is obviously finite, particular, limited. One must be absolutely clear on this point, because there lies deception.
1:14:29	Q: That's all part of what we've been talking about all week, you know, this, you can't do it yourself and the whole set up.
1:14:36	Q: I'm sorry, but didn't you say once that consciousness included the sensations?
1:14:40	K: Of course. Consciousness is part of sensation.
1:14:42	Q: That is not put together by thought - sensations exist.
1:14:46	K: No. Sensation - when thought identifies with the senses...
1:14:55	Q: When it identifies. K: ...then the old circus begins.
1:15:00	Q: Every sensation is named by thought already.
1:15:03	K: Of course, of course. Q: That's right, it's a question of identification.
1:15:10	K: So, we come to the point: has my mind, has this mind, this brain realised that thought is everlastingly, from the beginning to the end, is finite, limited, particular, incomplete? And whatever it does - psychologically, technologically it can move, it has been to Venus.
1:15:48	Q: Well, that's still finite, of course, no matter how far it moves. K: Of course. But they think that going to the moon, to Venus, is evolution, is growing. This morning or last night, I turned on the television and there was a German gentleman, yellow robes, and all that, on the ITV. He was saying, 'We are practising meditation, yoga, we are teaching yoga in order to learn meditation. Meditation means control. Control your emotions.' You follow? And he's propagating that, and the poor blighters are listening to it.
1:16:39	Q: You.
1:16:46	K: I listened.
1:16:47	Q: I said you were listening. K: I did. I said, 'What rot!' No, you see what we're doing? Everything is in the wrong direction - wrong - it's going contrary to something actual. So, the next thing is, the mind, the brain, thought, is now silent, has its place, and therefore non-movement has entered. Could we say that? Non-movement has taken place. Can you really, actually, say that? Then what is flowering? That is the whole point, sir. Right? We have considered flowering the immaturity of thought moving, and remaining immature always. Right? Thought realises that and says, 'All right, piano, piano, piano.' So it has its place. Then what is flowering? Then what is it that flowers? Right, sir? Can we go on from there? Is this speculative or actual?
1:18:44	Q: You say that when thought realises that it is limited, it is an actual insight.
1:18:53	K: Ah! You see? No, sir. The realisation that thought is limited comes from insight into the whole movement of time. Thought doesn't produce insight.
1:19:20	Q: But thought will act differently from the insight. When there is insight thought will act differently.
1:19:25	K: Yes. When there is insight there is intelligence, and that intelligence can use thought.
1:19:33	Q: Well, actually, thought wouldn't act differently, thought would go on acting the way it's always acted - there'd be a different approach to it. But if thought is actually limited, the insight doesn't change the action of thought.
1:19:46	Q: But thought ceases to try to pretend it is unlimited.
1:19:52	K: What, sir?
1:19:53	Q: Thought ceases to pretend that it is unlimited.
1:19:55	K: Yes, that's right. Q: It loses the initiative.
1:19:58	K: It loses the initiative. Now have I, has your brain got this intelligence now which can operate on thought and say, 'Stay there, function there'? And no psychological movement at all!
1:20:27	Q: Is insight a part of the flowering? K: No, no, don't enlarge it. My question is: have you, have we, got this insight into the whole nature of movement which is time, thought, and so on? If you have not, you haven't listened! You're carrying on with your own ideas, your own problems. What will make you listen? More pain, more operations, more lawyers and solicitors, and all the rest of the works? Kissing the ring of the Pope? You see, sir, this is what I'd like to go into. If there is insight, when there is insight there is intelligence, and thought then has its place. Right? Then what is it that is flowering? We have mistaken, or lived in the illusion, that the movement of thought is the flowering. Now we see it is an illusion therefore gone, put aside. Then, having no illusions about thought, limited, finite, then what is it that is flowering? Right? Well, sir, what is it that is flowering? Because, in this flowering there is no motive, there is no goal, coming to fruition and then - there is no goal, there is no end, there is no motive. All that belonged to thought which is limited, finite. So now, is there a movement which has no cause, no beginning, no end? Which is not born out of some idiotic thought, or some good, noble thought. Is there a movement which is not time? Right, sir?
1:24:07	Q: You call that a movement? K: Oh, yes, it is.
1:24:10	Q: Because the word... K: No, wait, sir. We said very clearly, movement is time, movement is pain, movement is trap. Right? And hearing that and having the insight into it, that which is finite remains finite. Right? Flowering means movement.
1:24:47	Q: It's unfolding. K: Movement. Movement.
1:24:50	Q: Yes.
1:24:53	K: Not this movement.
1:24:55	Q: We have to be clear, you see, in the language.
1:24:58	K: Yes, sir.
1:24:59	Q: Because we were saying before that all movement is trap and now you're saying otherwise.
1:25:02	K: I know. I think, this is a different... Is there movement which is not time? Let's put it that way, sir. Q: Yes.
1:25:10	Q: You want to stick to the fact of saying it's not time, it's not motivation, it's not a goal, it's not... You can only speak of it by negation.
1:25:24	K: We have done that. So I say: is there a timeless energy, whatever it is?
1:25:40	Q: Well, flowering, unfolding.
1:25:43	K: I like that word 'flowering', there's some beauty in it, not just some dreadful... Q: Some dreadful...
1:25:52	K: Some dreadful technical thing.
1:25:55	Q: It's another dimension - how can it be described? It can't be described.
1:25:59	K: No, I'm using the word because it is not static. Right?
1:26:06	Q: It's life. K: No, don't call it life. It's not static, it's not something: 'Yes, finished'.
1:26:19	Q: But yesterday you were using the word 'flowering' in the sense of the bud unfolding, developing, coming out. Is that what you mean here?
1:26:29	K: Not quite that. Q: Not quite, but that...
1:26:33	K: Sir, let's wait a minute, let's approach it differently. Is there any movement which is not of time, which is not of thought - thought, movement, all that? Is there any other kind of energy? Energy is movement, energy is acting, it's not just static energy. There's no such thing as static energy.
1:26:58	Q: It's active.
1:27:04	K: Thought has exercised its energy, thinking it's flowering, and discovers the illusion of it, through insight, and all that. So it says... that illusion has gone. Right?
1:27:24	Q: Right.
1:27:28	K: What then takes place? That's what we are discussing. All right, if you don't want to use the word 'flowering' then let's use another word - energy. Is there expanding energy? Expanding.
1:27:52	Q: It is the same notion. K: Yes - expanding energy. And that is creation. You follow? Right, sir? Q: Right.
1:28:05	K: Not painting, and all that blah - sorry, Picasso and company - that is real creation. Don't agree with me, this is something we have to really... I want to find out. The brain realises its limitation. The brain realises its limitation, the insight into the limitation has changed the quality of the brain. Right, sir? Would you say that?
1:28:44	Q: Yes, it means that the attempt of thought to do this has stopped. Right? K: Yes. Therefore the quality of structure or whatever, the brain has undergone a change, it is not functioning in the same way. There's a new birth in it - I don't know, whatever you like to call it. Is that clear? Can we go on from there? Q: Right.
1:29:13	K: So, is there an energy which is absolutely limitless, which is not finite? Which is not measurable, therefore not finite. You follow, sir? Q: Yes.
1:29:47	K: Which thought under no circumstance can capture, imagine it. Is there such energy? Could we put it this way, sir? When insight has shown that thought is limited, finite and therefore there is in the brain itself a state... in itself there is emptiness. Q: Right.
1:30:40	K: Could we go round that way? Q: That's right. Yes.
1:30:43	K: It's empty. We have to use carefully this word. It's empty in the sense: nothing that thought has put in it.
1:30:54	Q: Yes, it has no structure of thought.
1:30:57	K: No structure of thought. It's empty.
1:31:02	Q: Are you suggesting this energy is something...
1:31:06	K: ...inherent in that emptiness.
1:31:13	Q: Right.
1:31:23	K: Then what is the function of that emptiness? Wait a minute, I'm going slowly. What's the use of it?
1:31:31	Q: That's a wrong question.
1:31:33	K: No, I'm putting it purposely to find out - a wrong question, of course - but I'm purposely putting it, asking myself: what is the point of it? All right, there is an empty mind, full of energy - what? You follow, sir, what I mean?
1:31:48	Q: So you don't know that? K: I do know it. No, you're missing my point. I'm a human being. Right?
1:31:58	Q: How do you know that? K: What?
1:32:00	Q: From the state of this energy, how do you know you're a human being?
1:32:04	K: No, no, no. I'm beginning again. I'm a human being - representative of all humanity, and so on. As such, man has gone through hell, various forms of hell, the pleasurable hell, the... hell's hell. He's been through all that. And you come along and tell me thought is finite, any movement is pain. And because you're telling the truth - the truth, not ideal, opinion, judgement, the truth - and I have been through all this agony, suddenly I understand it - have an insight into it. So my intelligence is operating, in daily life. And intelligence says, 'All right, this is so, there is vast energy in emptiness.' Right, sir? Because it is so profoundly, actually empty, in that there is energy, boundless. All right. Then what? You follow?
1:33:38	Q: Ya. K: Then what?
1:33:43	Q: Is there a 'what'? K: I'm asking you. All right, you've got it, or somebody has it. Don't you say, 'Then what?'
1:33:51	Q: You mean what to do with it?
1:33:53	K: No. Q: What happens?
1:33:58	K: What function has it in daily life?
1:34:01	Q: Well, that's what I meant, yes.
1:34:14	Q: You see, that doesn't seem like the right question to me. That seems to come from... from thought.
1:34:19	K: Because man says, 'What?' You come to me. I say, 'This extraordinary explosion of energy has taken place.' and you say, 'All right, old boy, what about it?' What?
1:34:35	Q: These two points cannot be brought together - the daily life is finite.
1:34:39	K: Yes. What? You have made daily life, thought, into something that's finite, and you suddenly have got this - what? What is the relationship of 'that' to this? If it has none, throw it out, I don't want it.
1:35:03	Q: No, but you may discover it.
1:35:04	K: Then I've discovered it - all right. I'm asking this: what relationship has that thing to this daily life?
1:35:19	Q: Couldn't it completely transform that daily life?
1:35:21	K: No, don't answer it. Watch it in yourself while I'm talking otherwise you can speculate. What is the relationship of 'that' to this? Sir, is intelligence the instrument of 'that'? 'Instrument' - quickly.
1:36:02	Q: The intelligence is, as you say, the instrument in which 'that' can operate in daily life.
1:36:09	K: Yes. We said the compassion is the medium between 'that' and this.
1:36:20	Q: Compassion. K: Compassion is intelligence.
1:36:24	Q: Yes, we agreed. Yes.
1:36:28	K: What, sir?
1:36:32	Q: Nothing. I didn't say anything. K: Are we speculating about this?
1:36:34	Q: Yes. K: No, I'm not.
1:36:36	Q: No, I don't think you are but there's a quality to getting it too...
1:36:42	K: Abstract? No, I've said that. Look, we said love is not thought, love is not remembrance, love is not a picture - sexual pictures, images, and all that - love is not remembrance. We negate everything that is not love - jealousy, hate, violence, all the rest of it. Then, in negating that entirely, there is that thing which we called 'love'. Right? What is the relationship between love and compassion? The Buddhists have explained it very cleverly - I won't go into that - because they want everything categorised, put in their proper logic, and all the rest of it. The relationship between love and compassion is intelligence. We've been through that - right?
1:37:52	Q: Are you saying love, compassion, intelligence are one, but they are related in that way?
1:37:58	K: Yes - one packet. Q: You used the word 'related'.
1:38:00	K: I withdraw that word. Q: Yes.
1:38:02	Q: Aspects of one thing. Would you say they were aspects of one thing?
1:38:10	K: I wouldn't say 'aspects'.
1:38:15	Q: Are you saying that this whole thing - love, compassion, intelligence - is what is between the creative energy and daily life?
1:38:21	K: That's it, that's it, what I am trying to get at. I had forgotten that for the moment. If that is not, and suddenly one realises the so-called emptiness, it has no meaning. I'm getting it - at last! That's what I want to get at. Right, sir?
1:38:46	Q: Excuse me, I just want to ask one question at this point, if I may. You can experience that emptiness and it doesn't mean anything without compassion.
1:38:54	K: What, what?
1:38:56	Q: He says you can experience that emptiness, but it doesn't mean anything without that compassion.
1:39:02	K: Yes, sir - no, no, no. You must understand the nature of love - in daily life, not in a kind of romantic imaginary love - in daily life realise that, have an insight into that, then the nature of compassion - passion for all things, it means - rocks, all that. And then the relationship between the two is intelligence. Without all that, the other emptiness is meaningless. Because that is reality, that reality operates through this. I don't know how to put it.
1:39:55	Q: If you say this energy operates through love, compassion, intelligence, in daily life, then would you say that is flowering?
1:40:01	K: That's flowering. Yes, sir. Again, that's flowering. Yes, I would say that's flowering.
1:40:07	Q: That it flowers in daily life. K: That's right. That's perfectly right, sir. Does this make any sense? To a New York guy? No, sir, it's very important this, because it transforms one's life totally. Because in that there is an extraordinary sense of creation going on. I think, this whole thing is pure religion. Religion - you understand - not the Christian Church, and all that blah - real religion, this is it. Now, after having said all this, where are we, actually? Am I back into the trap? Is my thought caught in the trap and acting in the trap? Is that my daily life?
1:41:59	Q: Ten past one.
1:42:01	K: By Jove, how quickly time has gone.
1:42:08	Q: There's no more time.
1:42:14	K: Does it affect one's life, this? You see, sir, there is this whole Indian tradition - correct me, sir, you know about the Indian tradition - that this energy exists. Right? They call it Brahman or highest principle, and so on. And that supreme intelligence, energy, is in you - all that you have to do is to remove, like an onion skin, peel off, and there you discover it. And also there is the whole theory that the awakening of certain centres, you come to that. You see, all these are the movement of thought put together. You follow?
1:43:29	Q: Is it a part of the same process where thought thinks that it is beyond, or it is out of consciousness, or more than consciousness? K: Of course, of course. I think, we'd better stop.