Krishnamurti - Thinking together

Krishnamurti Subtitles

BR79DSS1.6 - Thinking together
Brockwood Park, UK - 24 June 1979
Discussion with Staff and Students 1.6

0:53	Krishnamurti: What shall we talk about?
1:01	Questioner: I wondered: both, for the people who are leaving Brockwood and for us here, when you are not here, what does it mean to work on all of this on one's own?
1:18	K: I don't quite follow what you are talking about.
1:24	Q: I think she says that when people leave Brockwood, like students leave here, that is, when they have finished their education, also probably, when they are away on holiday or whatever, what does it mean to work, continue working on what we are working at here, during the holidays or after you leave.
1:46	K: Is that what you want to talk about? That is, what you are going to do with your lives – is that it?
1:58	Is that it?
2:00	Q: Yes.
2:10	K: Is that what you want to talk about?
2:22	Or you have some other ideas.
2:26	Q: I would like to raise something, Krishnaji. I would like to ask, what is the relationship or the connection between observation, silence, and love?
2:47	K: Observation, silence, and love. Is that what you want to talk about? Before we talk about these things, could we possibly be able to think together?
3:26	It doesn't mean that you accept or reject or put forward your particular opinion and hold on to it, or point of view or a conclusion that you think is right, unyielding – could we, in spite of all that, think together?
4:01	It doesn't mean that we all agree, but have the capacity and the willingness to think together.
4:17	Not about something, either personal or objective, but see the implications and perhaps the necessity of thinking together.
4:41	Thinking. Could we go into that? Would that be of interest to you? And then we could tackle this question, what are you going to do when you leave this place, and also, what does it mean to observe, not only visually, but to observe non-verbally, to observe without any distortion, and in that observation not draw a conclusion or have a conviction about what you have seen, but just to observe.
5:38	And what does it mean to be silent, both physically, to be absolutely quiet, and also, what does it mean to love?
6:00	But perhaps before we go into all that, could we find out for ourselves, what it is to think together, and then from there, we could go into the other.
6:14	Would that be all right? What do you say, sir? Q: Yes.
6:21	K: Do you want to go into this, what it means to think together? I will tell you why. It implies, doesn't it, a relationship that is not opposed to each other.
6:44	You may think one thing, and I may think another and yet we might live in the same room, or the same house, or we are husband and wife, boy and girl, and so on, but if we don't think together, inevitably, there is division in relationship.
7:10	Would you accept that? So, could we find out what it means to think together, and then we can take any particular subject, like observation or what we are going to do when we leave, and so on. Could we go into this?
7:46	Do we see the necessity of thinking together?
7:57	Please bear in mind, not thinking about something – if you are thinking about something, then all our personal reactions arise, our objections, our prejudices, which may prevent our thinking together.
8:19	You may have one particular kind of experience, which gives you great pleasure and some understanding and you hold on to it, and another may have another kind of experience and he will hold on to it, and so relationship becomes impossible under those circumstances.
8:49	So do we first see the importance and the need for thinking together?
9:06	This is a dialogue, this is not just a talk, a talk by me and you just listen and go back, but together we are going into this question, if it interests you.
9:20	If it bores you, you can talk about something else.
9:25	Q: But it seems strange to consider thinking, without thinking about.
9:31	K: We are going to find out what it means to think together. Thinking together, and thinking about something. They are two different things.
9:51	We can all agree or disagree, if we think about something.
9:59	One's prejudice, one's experience, one's knowledge, preconceived ideas, view points and so on, will prevent thinking together about something.
10:14	But if both of us saw – all of us rather, or some of us – saw the need and importance of being able to think together.
10:31	Thinking. You understand? Have I explained this or not?
10:43	Q: I do find it difficult, because I also can't see what you mean by thinking if it is not about something.
10:48	K: We are going to find out, sir. I don't know there is a difference. First I am just stating, if there is a difference. I think there is a difference but I am not quite sure. So let's play with it for little while.
11:12	Do we see the importance or the quality of a mind that is capable of thinking, not about oneself, about what you are going to do, about one's hurts and so on, but can we think without all that interfering?
11:49	You follow what I am saying? Is this too difficult?
11:58	Is this too difficult? Am I talking about something that is a little bit... What do you say?
12:07	Q: Maybe you could specify a bit.
12:11	K: I am going to go into it. First of all, will you listen to what I have to say?
12:20	Just listen. Put aside your objections, if you say, I don't understand.
12:31	Just find out how to listen. Will you? Have you ever found out what it means to listen?
12:48	To listen without the interference of your own attitudes, your own values, without projecting your own understanding or not understanding, but just to actually listen.
13:10	You had jazz last night, you played jazz. I believe it was awfully good. The whole thing was very good, I believe. I was not there, because I haven't been very well. Now, to think about jazz, your own personal vanities or your dislike or like interferes.
13:37	Right? So, we are used to thinking about something.
13:49	Now, I want to find out, with your help, together, if thinking is not common to all of us.
14:03	Thinking, not about something – thinking. Right? Can you think and find out what is the nature of thinking?
14:24	Do you understand what I am saying? Is this getting too difficult? Tell me, please. If it does, we will move to something else.
14:39	Q: When you say just thinking, do you mean more inquiring, looking?
14:50	K: All right. You think about something, don't you?
15:01	What happens when you think about something?
15:09	Go on. Let's talk it over.
15:13	Q: You are focused on a particular subject.
15:16	K: Yes, you are thinking about a particular thing. What takes place in that process? Thinking about something, about a particular incident or a statement and so on – what goes on there?
15:45	Go on.
15:47	Q: You draw from your memory.
15:53	K: You draw from memory. Right? So, what takes place when you draw from memory?
16:12	Q: You kill what you are thinking about.
16:17	K: You kill what you are thinking about? I am not quite sure. He said just now, you draw from memory the whole movement of thinking.
16:37	You are following this? Observe it, in yourself. You have had an experience, pleasant or unpleasant, that has left a mark, a memory, and from that memory, you respond.
16:57	Right? That is called thinking, isn't it?
17:08	So, when you begin to think from a memory, which is the residue of a particular incident, what takes place?
17:23	Go into it.
17:26	Q: Then you don't deal with the incident that is taking place at that particular moment.
17:31	K: So that is, your memory prevents you from observing what is actually happening.
17:42	Is that what you are saying?
17:52	So, can you observe or listen without the interference of the past remembrance?
18:08	You are following?
18:12	Q: When you talk about thinking together you are not talking about that kind of thinking, you are not talking about mutually blocking out our observation by delving into our past or our memories.
18:28	So, surely you must talking about some other kind of thinking, when you say, can we think together?
18:39	K: What do you think I think?
18:46	Q: Thinking, besides memory, it also includes reasoning.
18:53	K: All that goes on, quite right. Reasoning, logically or illogically. Observing, distortedly or accurately, or hearing clearly.
19:09	Q: Trying to anticipate the consequences, etc. K: Yes.
19:15	K: We are used to that. It is our habit. I am asking something else. It may have no meaning at all, but I think it has. I may be wrong. I would like to be corrected. Is there a communication between two people or with a group of people, in which memory doesn't operate?
19:56	This may be too difficult. If it is, I will stop.
20:01	Q: In the first instance, there would be content to the thought. Are you suggesting in this possible other kind of thought there would be content or no content?
20:17	K: Wait a minute, let's begin again. What do we mean by communication?
20:28	I want to tell you something and I use words.
20:36	The words have been learned, memorised, to express a certain feeling or a certain thought, pleasurable or unpleasurable.
20:51	So, we are using words to communicate and the word must have the same meaning to you, as to the speaker.
21:08	You are following all this?
21:11	Q: Yes.
21:18	K: If both of us are interested in the same subject, at the same time, with the same intensity, we are both in a state of communication.
21:33	Right? You see that? That is, we both of us are concerned about something.
21:48	We both of us are deeply, seriously involved in it.
21:55	We both of us have used words to convey our interest, our desire to comprehend, and so on.
22:11	So what is the state of our mind when we are like that?
22:19	You understand? Have you understood what I am saying? Now, is that thinking together?
22:30	Q: Yes.
22:33	K: From that state, you think together – right?
22:39	Q: It depends on the subject matter. Because if you are going to think together about a thing like jazz, different thought comes up in everybody's emotions.
22:51	K: I don't think you have heard. I am sorry, Miss Pratt, I am not quite sure I have made myself clear. I am not talking about jazz or any particular subject.
23:08	We said communication is to share together an understanding of a statement – understanding of a statement, understanding of an incident – together, we are sharing that.
23:37	But before we share it, we use words, words which you and the speaker have learned, memorised.
23:50	We both speak English or we both speak French or Italian, whatever it is, and we say, yes, we are in that state of mind when the words have been used and the words no longer play a part but we are in a state of communication, in a state of observing together.
24:20	Have I made this clear? I think it is clear, unless I am dumb.
24:27	Have I made this clear?
24:28	Q: Yes.
24:32	K: From that, is there a thinking together? I have got it.
24:44	You have understood what I have said?
24:59	Let's make a statement which is common to all of you, to most people.
25:07	Which is, most people in the world, and probably in this community too, are self-centred.
25:16	That is a common factor. We can go into the whole nature of what it is to be self-centred, explain it, not agreeing or disagreeing – explanation, to which we would probably all agree – and hearing that statement, seeing the implications of that statement, the activities born from that statement, we both of us are interested to see the nature of self-centredness, what it means.
25:59	We can go into what it means and what is implied and so on, but we both of us are together looking, observing.
26:14	And from that observation, from being together about that, could we then think together about it?
26:25	You follow what I am saying? I think I have got it clear. Sorry – I am not using you to make myself clear.
26:37	Have you understood this, or you are looking somewhere else?
26:48	You have understood it? Now, are you in that state of communication, so that from that state we think together?
27:04	You have understood my question? Then we can think together about something.
27:16	Not think together first about something, but rather the other way round.
27:23	Understand?
27:31	Would you explain to me what you have understood? Go on. Shakuntalaji, you agreed, you said you understood. Go on.
27:52	Q: It is a sort of finding one another's rhythm, isn't it?
27:57	K: Ah, not quite, no.
28:00	Q: I am using the word 'rhythm...
28:07	K: You and I are not involved in it. We are hearing a statement, that human beings all over the world are inclined, or generally are self-centred.
28:27	You hear that statement and you say, what do you mean by that, and there are explanations, and so on, the consequences of being self-centred.
28:40	We both are involved in this examination of this statement.
28:48	And when we are so involved, our minds are together.
28:59	We are in a state of communication with each other. No? Come on, sirs.
29:10	Q: If we don't agree on the statement, can we still be communicating?
29:15	K: No. Of course not. But we both of us have examined that statement, what is implied in it, what are the consequences of the self-centredness, when there is self-centredness, there is no relationship, though one may be married and have sex but actually when one is self-centred, there is no relationship.
29:41	That self-centredness is to be ambitious, to seek success, my success – all that is involved in this self-centredness.
30:07	Now, we are examining the implications and the activities and the consequences of being self-centred.
30:15	Both of us are interested in it because both of us want to find out.
30:23	Right? Now, when we are in that state of communication, both of us are interested, both of us are passionately concerned, both of us are at the same level.
30:49	Then from that state, you can think about various things together.
30:56	I wonder if you get this.
30:59	Q: You are saying that the state is there before.
31:05	K: No, the state comes only when both of us are interested in a particular thing.
31:13	It is not there. I am interested – what? One is interested in what?
31:24	What are you interested in? Not casually, but deeply, what are you interested in? What is going to happen to you when you leave? Is that it? Find out what are you interested in deeply.
31:47	Q: Isn't that in the category of thinking about something? Where the fact is we are here now.
31:53	K: Yes.
31:54	Q: So, if we start with thinking – as you are implying, together now, then we come on to thinking about.
32:06	K: No, sir. Are we in a state of communication?
32:16	Q: You say when we are self-centred, there is no relationship, but we find that within self-centredness, there is a good deal of relationship, very satisfactory. K: Oh, for goodness sake.
32:28	Q: Sorry, sir, but that is the fact.
32:31	K: Is it a fact?
32:32	Q: Yes, within self-centredness we find good relationships.
32:36	K: Is it a fact that when one is self-centred, that 'self-centred' means wanting one's own success, one's own fulfilment of certain ambitions, and you are also in that same process, what is our relationship?
33:06	We may hold hands, you may sleep together, but our thoughts – we are miles apart.
33:15	No?
33:24	Q: I think there is a kind of relationship where A uses B, and B uses A, both out of that state of self-centredness.
33:33	K: But that is not relationship, it is exploitation. I exploit you and you exploit me. If I exploit you because it gives me pleasure to talk an audience, then there is no relationship between you and me, obviously.
33:54	Q: Nevertheless, a very strong kind of bond is formed.
34:00	K: Not a bond – it is a form of habit.
34:08	I am attached to that habit, which I have formed during 20 years of exploiting each other, and I am caught in it, it is a trap one is caught in. It is not a bond.
34:30	Now, wait a minute. Are we thinking together about this or are you saying, you think what you like, but there is a bond.
34:52	There is a bond. There is a bond, deep, abiding, affectionate, loving bond.
35:02	You may hold on to that and say, go your way of thinking about it, I won't agree with you. I keep quiet.
35:11	In that, there is no communication. But if both of us see that self-centredness does actually prevent relationship, in the deepest sense of that word – both of us see it.
35:36	You understand? Even superficially, verbally we see it, or you can see it non-verbally, much deeper, the implication of the self-centredness.
35:53	Q: May I ask a question, sir? You said earlier, two people are interested in something deeply, whatever it is, and then there is relationship...
36:10	K: No, I am not talking about relationship, Shankar, we are talking about the quality of communication first.
36:20	Q: Okay, there is communication when two people are interested in a particular issue.
36:26	K: Obviously, sir. When you and I are interested in building a room or going for a walk, there is common interest.
36:38	Q: Is thinking together more than just communicating together? Is it more than just this close feeling?
36:46	K: Much more. Q: Could you go into the nature of that, then?
36:50	K: First establish communication with each other and find out the quality of the minds that having communicated, are open to each other.
37:09	You understand? No? I have explained this.
37:15	Q: When you are communicating because of a particular interest, isn't that communicating about something?
37:22	K: All right. I have said that. Both of us are interested in self-centredness. That is about something. Now, in that quality of communication our minds are together – about that.
37:47	Now, what is the quality of these two minds that are together? Not about something.
37:58	Have you understood?
38:08	Q: If 'about' is going to bring about that quality.
38:12	K: No not about. The moment we are involved in 'about', we introduce so many contradictions into it: I agree with you, I don't agree with you, it is right, it is wrong, that becomes dictatorial, and so on.
38:29	But before we enter into all that, isn't it important to find out what it means to be in communication with each other first?
38:41	The nature of minds that are communicating.
38:49	Q: Could communication be a total willingness for the other to be as they are?
38:56	K: No. Again, about something.
39:04	Q: Are you saying that the initial common interest brings the two minds together? K: Yes.
39:09	Q: Then there is a together going forward that drops the whatever it is.
39:17	K: Yes, that is right. You have got it.
39:24	With that quality of two minds meeting together, and from there, think together.
39:37	I think this is clear. Right? Will you do that?
39:47	Because I am going to introduce something, presently. Can we do that? That our minds are together, not about something.
40:02	We have come together about something, but the 'about something' has been dropped, put aside.
40:09	Now, our minds are together. Are we?
40:18	Q: Is there a lower and an upper state of communication, or only a state of communication? Excuse me, I don't speak English.
40:29	Is there an upper and lower state of communication, or only a state of communication?
40:39	K: No, just communication. I want to tell you – it is not personal – I want to tell you, I love you.
40:49	There is no upper or lower – I love you. And you may say, well, my dear chap, what do you mean by that?
41:03	Do you say that merely because you want to get something from me? You are missing my whole point. If you have understood this, that thinking together about something has brought our two minds together and we have dropped 'about something' – our minds are together.
41:33	Now, keep that as the together. Let's think about something, from together. You understand the point? I wonder if you get it.
41:48	Q: It requires tremendous attention and energy to do that.
41:58	K: Yes. Not tremendous – we are doing it now, if you are interested in it.
42:11	Don't say 'it requires' – that means you are finding difficulties in how to have tremendous energy and concentration or attention.
42:23	Put all that aside. We are just thinking together about something.
42:33	Then our minds have investigated what we have been thinking about together, about the subject, and we have dropped the subject.
42:43	Now our minds are in a state of communication with each other. It's simple, isn't it? Have you got this? From there, being together, observe a subject which you want to discuss.
43:09	You follow? Jazz, whatever you like – God, meditation – but it is always together.
43:23	You have understood? I wonder if you see this thing. If you once see this, there will be no opposition in thinking.
43:40	Oh, come on, sirs.
43:44	Q: For me, it is difficult to envision a tremendous amount of attention.
43:52	I can see it as a tremendous lack of inattention or of obstacles.
43:58	K: No, sir, you are introducing something which is not necessary.
44:07	Wait a minute, sir. All of us are interested in security. Right?
44:22	Now, let's investigate that together. First, what is implied in that. Could we do that? What is implied? Each one, under this present civilisation and the culture, etc., each one is concerned with his own personal security.
44:48	Right? He may say, I am also concerned with my wife's security, my children's, but it is my security, identified with my family, with my wife, with my nation, with my god, with my guru, with my priest, or whatever it is.
45:09	Let's think together about it.
45:16	Now, what happens when each one of us, in this modern world, is thinking of his own personal success and security?
45:29	What happens? Go on, it is so obvious.
45:36	Q: There is division.
45:40	K: What does that mean?
45:41	Q: There is no moving together. K: Wait – what does division mean?
45:47	Q: There is a clash of differences.
45:49	K: Find out what division means. Divided.
45:55	Q: Separated. K: The consequences of it, sir. Follow it through, right to the end.
46:02	Q: Isolation.
46:10	K: Division means conflict, doesn't it.
46:21	The different nations, British, French, German, Indian, American, there is a division, there is always economic conflict – the conflict of the pride of being British or American, and the economic conflict, social conflict – conflict.
46:47	So, division invariably means conflict. The Hindu and the Muslim, the Arab and the Jew, totalitarianism opposed to so-called democracy.
47:06	So, when one is seeking one's own fulfilment, one's own ambition, one's own security and success, that inevitably must create division.
47:22	Right? Obviously. Now, wait a minute, follow it through, follow the sequence of this division.
47:40	It exists in the family between brother and sister, between father and mother, this division exists when he goes to the office and she goes to do some other work, so they are always living in conflict.
48:03	It is inevitable. Is that so or not? Don't agree with me about anything. Don't accept what I am saying at all. Examine it. I am not the authority. So, we have created a world where each one of us is seeking security and fighting others.
48:30	Right? This is so obvious. Now, wait a minute, do we see this thing together? Or you have reserve, you say, no, it is not quite like that. If it is not quite like that, put forward what you have to say, let's examine it.
48:57	Q: It seems that we need securities. We need security.
49:02	K: Of course we need security. We need security.
49:10	Q: Apart from that, there is also the desire for security.
49:13	K: You asked a question: we need security.
49:21	Do governments, countries, priests, the economic conditions, all the environment, does that give us security?
49:33	Has it given us security? You may be temporarily secure – there is always war, there is always competition.
49:53	So, does individual desire for security, does it not bring about danger, insecurity?
50:07	Go on, think it out.
50:17	Are you following all this or are you asleep?
50:26	One is a Hindu living in India, identifies himself with that country, and in that identification, there is a certain security.
50:38	One only identifies with something that is enduring. You don't identify yourself with the wind.
50:51	So, when one identifies oneself with a country, then you try to protect that country, you are proud of that country, and all the rest of the nonsense goes on, and the man who lives across the so-called frontier, he is also exactly like you, so there is a battle going on, quarrels, you know, all the rest of it.
51:19	So, I am questioning when this culture, civilisation is encouraging sustaining individual success, your personal success, your personal security, whether you are not destroying mankind.
51:50	Not that there should not be personal security, as it is, unless we all join a commune, but then, through that commune, one says, I am secure here.
52:07	You follow? This process goes on throughout history.
52:14	Now, we have examined it, sufficiently. Are our minds together on this?
52:28	Right? Which means that you see the danger of division, you see that there can be no relationship when there is any form of me first and you second, or any form of I must fulfil myself, I believe this at any price and I won't yield – all this is the movement of division.
53:13	One is a Catholic, one is a Protestant, and all that nonsense that goes on.
53:20	Right? Now, we have examined it. Are we together in this?
53:32	Careful, now. Don't accept anything that I am saying. Are we together? Have you examined it fully? Does that mean, if I am a scientist and I have studied and made a success of my study, and become a scientist and have position, money – do I give that up?
54:02	Q: Not necessarily. K: Examine. Not necessarily – why not?
54:09	Q: Because if you are paying attention to this desire to make money, be a success...
54:16	K: Look, as things are, as society is, I must do certain things.
54:26	I can't give up my job and say, I won't have security. That is nonsense. Right? Are we together on this?
54:45	That means you are no longer French and you are no longer British or American, or you don't have any hidden desires for fulfilment.
55:12	See the whole consequence of this. When you do, and see the result of all this, our minds are together, aren't they?
55:26	No? Yes or no? Then being together, being together in that sense, does that give us the capacity to think together about anything?
55:47	You get the point? Q: Yes.
56:00	K: You can think together about God, think about any religion, any vows – anything.
56:10	Then we are always together.
56:26	You see, that means we are willing to listen to find out.
56:34	Right? Are you? Are you willing to listen?
56:48	Watch carefully. Listen, in the sense, no interpretations, no interfering, just listening.
57:01	Aren't our minds together when you are listening?
57:12	All right. When you are attentive, really attentive, we are not divided.
57:21	You have discovered this? Discover it for yourself, not because I tell you.
57:33	When there is complete attention, on your part, on another's part, there is no division.
57:44	Are you in that state? Please, go on.
57:55	So, is that not love?
58:04	We are answering Mr Smith's, Steve's question.
58:11	That is, when there is complete attention, there is no division.
58:23	Q: There is silence in that. K: Of course. Attention is silence.
58:34	K: The moment any projection of thought comes in, it is inattention.
58:41	So you discover something, if you pursue, that thought itself is divisive.
58:55	Do you see that? Really see it? Good.
59:06	So there is a state, a quality of mind, which in itself, has no divisive factor.
59:25	You understand?
59:36	Q: We seem to be using thought in two different ways. We seem to be talking about thinking in two different ways. We are saying that thought itself is divisive.
59:49	K: Oh, absolutely. No, I came to that point after all this, we spent an hour on it, and I said, when there is complete attention, there is not only silence, but that quality of mind that in itself has no division whatsoever.
1:00:17	And that may be the quality of that extraordinary thing called compassion.
1:00:31	Now, have you got this? Get it into your blood so that it is not a question of forgetting it when you leave.
1:00:43	You don't forget your face. Absorb this through all your pores, so that you have a quality of mind that has no division, in itself.
1:01:19	You asked the other day, what is atmosphere?
1:01:26	Remember? Can it exist in the garden, can it exist in the sitting room, in your room, and this and that.
1:01:39	When we are all attentive together, as we were just a few seconds ago, there was a quality of atmosphere. Did you notice it?
1:01:50	So, go on, flower from there. Don't stop there, move from there. A mind that is not divisive, in itself, has a quality of that attention and therefore compassion, and in that state, what is relationship?
1:02:23	You understand? You get it?
1:02:30	Because some of you are going to marry, or a boyfriend or whatever you are going to have, and you will say, we love each other.
1:02:42	That is a lovely word, isn't it?
1:02:49	Having that mind in which there is division. How can love exist when there is division, in itself? You are capturing it?
1:03:10	Got it?
1:03:19	Ravi? You have gone away or you are still here?
1:03:25	Q: I am still here. K: Good.
1:03:32	K: Have you understood this?
1:03:40	This is real education.
1:03:49	You can learn about mathematics, any other subject, but you can't learn about this.
1:03:59	You have to discover it, you have to delve into yourself, you have to ask questions.
1:04:08	I asked a question, can we think together? And a lot of objections.
1:04:16	Q: Sir, could I just come back to that again, Because I think it is confusing the way we are using the word thought.
1:04:27	We say that thought is divisive, and when we look at it in a certain way, it obviously is. Yet, we also ask, can we think together? When we talk about that kind of thought, it is not divisive.
1:04:41	K: Of course, not. To build a rocket, to go the moon there were 300,000 people were employed in it.
1:04:50	They were all thinking together, each man doing his particular little job.
1:04:57	Q: Yes, but there is also a kind of thinking together about other problems. K: Oh yes, surely.
1:05:05	But you may think together about something, because there is reward in it or there is punishment in it, and go home and still carry on this individual, separative, self-centred action.
1:05:28	That is what we are talking about.
1:05:30	Q: But there is another kind of thinking together, as well, which is not divisive, at least that is what we have suggested, that comes from communication, and it is an entirely different activity than the thought that is divisive.
1:05:46	K: Sir, we went into it.
1:05:48	Q: Is it similar to what you have said in the past, that thought is not intelligence but intelligence can use thought?
1:05:56	K: Obviously. You see – I mustn't go on – when there is attention, that is intelligence.
1:06:09	Then that attention and that intelligence can use thought, knowing it is divisive, so it is intensely alert so that it doesn't bring about activities in this division.
1:06:26	You understand? Now, can you – please, we must stop – can you now give complete attention?
1:06:50	Again, not about something – attend.
1:07:03	In that attention, we are together. Right? You see it? Right, we better stop. Is that enough for this morning? You want food. Is that enough? Q: Yes.
1:07:21	K: Shall I get up? May we get up?