Krishnamurti Subtitles home


BR80DT2.6 - Where there is a psychological image you inevitably produce conflict
Brockwood Park, UK - 2 October 1980
Discussion with Teachers 2.6



0:00 This is J. Krishnamurti’s sixth discussion with teachers at Brockwood Park, 1980.
0:08 Krishnamurti: If I may, I’d like to report... students... I met the students the day before yesterday; I’d like to report their conversation, if I may; if it interests you. Only two or three spoke, the rest were silent. I tried to ask them all various questions but only three or four replied. Probably they are very, very shy and rather nervous and so on; you know, first time. I got the impression, if I may, that they are terribly concerned about themselves, like a... naturally. And I wondered if we could help them, and so ourselves, not to be so self-centred, so concerned about their own future, their own, you know, their own intense concern. Perhaps the girls are more sensitive, less selfish, but the boys are much more inclined to be the other way. Perhaps you know that better than I do. Would you agree to that?
2:20 Dorothy Simmons: Yes.
2:22 Questioner: That’s probably so.
2:25 Q: Yes.
2:29 K: One or two, they are very concerned about their hair, beauty... naturally; at that age it’s right. And we talked about thinking, the art of thinking. Of course that is totally new to them and it was rather difficult to plough through all that. Probably they have not given much thought to their own life, to their own way of living, so we began by asking why they were here, whether their parents pushed them here, or did they come here with the help of the parents; did they want to stay here; and they all like to stay here. They said... they all agreed to that (laughs). That’s a beautiful place, people are so nice and so on and so on. Then I said, apart from your studies what are you interested in. One or two said: ‘I would like to know myself.’ I was rather surprised (laughs). ‘I would like to know myself’ - so we began with that. You see, unfortunately they are not... or not used to going, moving. They stop at a certain point and find it awfully difficult to go beyond that. They got stuck when we talked about having opinions about themselves. They couldn’t move out of that concept of what... their own opinions, ‘Why shouldn’t we have opinions’, and so on. And we talked about fear; and we talked a little bit about affection; and about having a feeling of responsibility which comes with affection. That became rather difficult, rather… but I think they understood, more or less. So could we go on from there? Would that be all right? Or what shall we talk about this morning?
5:31 Ingrid Porter: We should probably talk about that, Krishnaji, because I think not being able to move beyond a certain point is not just a problem the students have; I feel it’s pretty apparent that we may be able to move a little further but we also seem to be unable to move beyond a certain point.
6:02 K: Is that so, actually?
6:05 IP: It is so for me.
6:16 K: What do you mean ‘move further’? Please, I’m just... conversation, as two friends talking.
6:24 IP: In the meetings we’ve had with you over the past few weeks we’ve been going more and more into thinking together; and I’ve seen the importance of that, if we are to work together as a group; and I think we’ve been able to do it, up to a point. I don’t know if anybody else agrees with me. I don’t think...
7:07 Q: Yes.
7:08 IP: Sorry, I’m finding it very difficult to...
7:09 K: Up to a point we are capable or we feel we can think together, work together, have the same quality of attention together. Is that it, up to a point?
7:27 IP: Yes; yes. And also, into that, if I may bring this in, I have the feeling - I don’t know how other people felt about it - that in the meeting on Sunday, when you were talking to the school for the first time, you were drawing attention to something in the staff that we weren’t doing as much as we could. I felt you were questioning that we were doing...
8:00 K: I understand.
8:02 IP: ...what we should for the students and ourselves.
8:04 K: So shall we begin with ‘up to a point’...
8:06 IP: Yes.
8:07 K: ...and see why we cannot go much further? What do you mean, if I may ask, ‘going further’? I’m not being facetious, I’m not being verbally clever; I want to find out - this is important point - when we say ‘further’, what do you mean by that? Further in distance – no, I just want to explore it together - further in distance; further in... taking time, further; reaching a certain point and moving from this, where we are, to further. Is that what you mean? All right.
9:15 IP: The further I’m talking about has got nothing to do with time.
9:17 K: That’s all I want to be clear. If it has nothing to do with time, if it has nothing to do from here to there, then what do you mean ‘further’?
9:31 IP: Well, the best way I can put it into words is a depth of understanding, maybe. I don’t know if that’s a very good choice of words.
9:42 Q: Clarity.
9:43 IP: Clarity, I suppose, yes.
9:44 K: More clarity... no, clarity.
9:45 IP: Not more clarity.
9:46 K: You see, that’s why when you say ‘move further’, does it mean more... – please...
9:52 IP: Yes, I know what you mean.
9:55 K: ...I’m not trying to quibble about it. Is it... it has nothing to do with time; it has nothing to do with reaching a point; nothing to do with comparing with where you are to some…
10:16 IP: No, nor quantity, nothing like that.
10:18 K: Yes, achievement and all that. Then why do you say ‘further’? I understand what you meant but I want to clarify it. Then why do you say ‘further’?
10:29 Jim Fowler: Sir, last week, you pointed out to us that we’ve been listening to you for many years and you said that... and you asked us why, after all this time of listening to you, why haven’t you done it... (inaudible).
10:50 K: No, sir, no; we’d better stick to her point for the time being. Which is, she... perhaps some of us feel, too, the same way, there is no clarity amongst all of us. Is that it?
11:10 IP: Yes.
11:13 K: And we get to a certain point and that full clarity doesn’t come.
11:23 IP: Yes, I think I see. What I mean is we follow... we think together and there comes a point when, for me anyway, that becomes an intellectual process; understanding seems to… there seems to be a limit to my understanding.
11:49 K: All right.
11:51 IP: Real understanding as opposed to being clear about it intellectually.
11:57 K: Could we for the moment discuss what is understanding, clarity, perception, insight, all that? Understanding, perception, insight - could we discuss that a little bit? Would that be all right?
12:22 IP: Yes.
12:23 K: What do we mean by understanding? Understanding what? Or not what - just a minute - not what, but the mind that captures, understands, sees it immediately, sees the content of something immediately. Right?
12:59 IP: Yes.
13:00 K: That’s what we understand. Now, how does that understanding, if I may ask, how does it come about? You understand? I want to understand my anxiety; I want to see the whole structure of my anxiety; not parts, little by little, but the whole movement of this feeling - fear, anxious, uncertain, without direction; so I feel anxious, angst, the German...
13:53 Francis McCann: Yes.
13:56 K: Now, how am I to understand it? What is the quality of my mind that captures the whole thing? Let’s talk about it a little bit.
14:29 Stephen Smith: It seems to be paradoxical, sir.
14:35 K: What, sir?
14:36 SS: It seems to be paradoxical because... the quality of the mind that understands it is free of it.
14:41 K: No, no, no, no; I... no, I want to observe - let’s move away from understanding for the moment - I want to observe the whole nature and structure of my anxiety...
14:56 SS: Can you do it if...
15:01 K: ...with its sense of fear, loneliness, sense of, you know, uncertainty, without any... something to hold on to - all that is implied in that word. And the description of it all is not the real; so can I capture the whole thing, as it were? I don’t know if I’m conveying this.
15:36 SS: But then it won’t be anxiety alone, will it?
15:38 K: What?
15:39 SS: It won’t be anxiety alone, it will also… (inaudible).
15:42 K: No, I am taking anxiety just for the…
15:46 SS: But can you... is it possible to isolate anxiety in that way?
15:53 K: All right, sir, then take something that will cover the whole field. You follow what I mean?
16:07 SS: Yes. What about image-making?
16:10 K: Take that; all right; take that, image-making. Now, I want to... you see, I want to have immediate perception of the whole movement: the mechanism that creates the images; why the images are made; and the stability, the security, the apparent permanency of the image. You follow? I want to... - not ‘want to’, you understand? I’m... quickly - I want to capture this whole movement of it. I don’t want to analyse it because that... I want to... it’s like plunging into the water... you know? Therefore I ask myself what is the nature of my mind that doesn’t... that is incapable of this total perception of image-making - the cause, the consequences and all that. Right, sir? Now, wait a minute, I want to go into it. Now, we can see why images are made: security; sense of permanency; in that image I feel safe, certain, there is no disturbance and so on. And also I know, I am aware, or perceive the cause of it. The basic deep-rooted cause of image-making is total sense of insecurity. From there I create this whole movement of image-making. I feel make... having an image there is a sense of being. Without an image there is nothing; so that nothingness is terribly frightening; so I keep this machinery going. Right? Do we move from there? Now, can I, can this brain, can this mind apprehend the whole thing? You understand my question? I mean, when I see a colour like that red, I see that red. The red is red everywhere. I don’t know if I’m making...?
19:48 SS: The red is red?
19:51 IP: Everywhere.
19:52 SS: Everywhere.
19:53 K: So in the same way, can I see the picture, the nature of image-making, the cause and so on, completely? I don’t know if I’m conveying anything.
20:15 Wendy Agnew: It seems difficult because one’s involved in the image-making. I mean, one’s not involved in the colour but one is involved in the image-making.
20:26 K: Of course you are... I said... no... like red, seeing red, it’s red always. No, it doesn’t matter; sorry, that may be a wrong simile; cut it out. What I’m trying to ask myself is: why don’t I... why doesn’t my mind see the whole movement of it?
20:50 SS: Well, the image itself is a part, surely.
20:57 K: Is a part; all right; part of me.
21:02 SS: Or just a part.
21:04 K: Part of my mind.
21:05 SS: Well, it’s a... I’m rather thinking of it as a part rather than the whole.
21:12 K: It’s a part. Now, why doesn’t... is the part preventing the perception of the whole?
21:20 SS: Yes.
21:21 K: Put it any way you like. I have an image about myself. I realise I have created the... mind has created the image, the cause of it, the consequences of it and so on and so on. Is that part of my mind? Or it’s the whole of my mind?
21:51 IP: When you say ‘I realise’...
21:55 K: No, I...
21:56 IP: ...what... no, but what realises that I am caught in this image-making process? What do we mean by realise? We see it?
22:07 K: He said, ‘Is this image-making only a part of my mind?’
22:09 IP: Yes?
22:10 K: I am answering that question. Is it part, or it’s the entire mind is doing this? Words, images, pictures, ideas - which is the same thing. Right? Or... you disagree? Symbols, conclusions - all that is my mind. Why do you call image-making a part? I don’t know if I’m...?
22:51 IP: No, it’s clear.
22:53 K: So, now, wait a... Now, wait a minute. When you use the word clear, do you see the whole nature of the mind is to do this?
23:05 Scott Forbes: Is it possible, sir, to see it up to a point?
23:21 K: No, no. He... we went into that. I can’t see up to a point.
23:25 SF: So that there’s only complete seeing or no seeing at all.
23:27 K: Yes.
23:28 IP: But this is the problem. We’re discussing it now...
23:31 K: (Inaudible)?
23:32 IP: We’re discussing this now...
23:33 K: Yes.
23:34 IP: ...and you’ve drawn the picture of how it is all one process.
23:36 K: Yes.
23:37 IP: And I think we’d all say yes, we can see that. But what do we mean when we say ‘we see that’? We’ve understood it, thinking about it?
23:49 K: That’s what I want... that’s... come to. Next... we have explained it. We have understood the explanation. Now, apart from the explanation is it a fact? You follow? I don’t know if I’m conveying this?
24:11 Shakuntala Narayan: I can’t really say I see it unless I’ve dropped it, can I?
24:19 K: No, no, why do you drop it? I haven’t even dropped it.
24:22 SN: No, that’s what... But I can’t say I see it, you know; I really can’t say I see it.
24:27 K: Ah, now, wait a minute. What do you mean by seeing?
24:32 SN: Well, I think seeing it is being free of it.
24:38 K: No. You see, you have already come to a conclusion.
24:40 Mary Zimbalist: Or isn’t it the reverse?
24:43 K: Now, just a minute, just a minute; see what you have done. Forgive me... I am not bullying you or anything. See what you have done. Which is, you have already come to a conclusion: ‘I must be free to see.’
24:58 SN: Well, what does seeing mean then?
25:02 K: Enquire into that. Don’t say ‘I must be free to see’. I don’t know if I’m...?
25:11 MZ: Is it not that, perhaps, mostly when we say we see something, it is the partial quality or mechanism still going on, so that we don’t see in the sense that maybe Shakuntala is talking about but we see in this partial way?
25:34 K: No, when we say, ‘I see’, what do... no, don’t... let’s examine that word; go into that word. ‘I see.’ What does it mean? What do you see?
25:46 SN: Well, when I see an object...
25:47 K: Ah, no...
25:49 SN: ...it’s very clear.
25:52 K: That’s clear. I see this; that’s simple.
25:56 SN: Yes.
25:57 K: When I say I see I’m anxious, I see that I’m making images - what does that mean, seeing of it?
26:11 WA: You recognise it; it’s something you’re recognising, your... (inaudible)’
26:16 K: Just a minute. Recognise what?
26:19 WA: Well...
26:20 K: Does the explanation conform to the fact? You understand what...? I have explained. You... we say, ‘I understand; I see the explanation.’ Then is the explanation the fact? It’s just words. Right? So is the word different from the fact?
26:53 MZ: Sir, don’t we see an action in ourselves but do we not also only see it partially? We (inaudible) we’ve talked about image-making and at least I can see how the mind, what it does inside, how it wants to seize on a known thing and match them up and so forth and so on, but this is a very incomplete seeing. I’m not seeing a theory or words; I’m seeing it actually going on in my mind but I’m only seeing part of it, what’s happening at that moment. I don’t see the overall...
27:34 K: So you are only seeing that which is being explained, which is a part.
27:40 MZ: Yes.
27:41 K: Now, is that so? I’m not saying it is not; I want to question it. You understand my question? My question is: you have explained to me and that explanation has a relationship to the fact. Then, looking at that fact, which is image-making and so on, I only see a part of it. Right? That’s what you are saying. Now, I say is that so? Or we are so accustomed to the idea that we can only see part and so keep on repeating. I don’t know if I’m... Please...
28:40 SS: That’s another image, you’re saying.
28:42 K: Just go with…
28:43 SS: Only seeing part is another image. Only being able to see part is another image.
28:50 K: That’s just the point.
28:55 SS: Yes.
28:58 MZ: Are you saying that the totality of the action is contained in the atom of it, in the instance of it?
29:03 K: Yes, that’s what I’m saying. You see...
29:11 MZ: Then why do we... (inaudible).
29:13 K: Just a minute, let me go into it a little bit. I have no conclusion about anything. I have no opinion. And I really mean it. I have no opinion, no conclusion, no idea about it. I start with that - right? - because my conclusions, my thought, my idea are all part of the image-making. I don’t know if you see that. No? Right, sir?
29:54 SS: Yes.
29:55 K: If I see that, then I have come to it as though I’m watching it for the first time. Right? That’s where our difficulty is. Am I looking at the image-making - looking, you understand? - seeing, observing - let’s use the word observing - am I observing the image-making, the whole machinery of it, the consequences of it, the cause of it and so on, as though I was looking at it for the first time? Right?
30:44 SF: Sir, could I suggest that even that might not be enough...
30:54 K: No, no...
30:55 SF: ...because when I did look at these things for the first time, I can’t say it was any improvement over what I do now.
31:03 K: Ah, wait; no, no. You see, you’ve already...
31:05 SF: So it’s more than...
31:06 K: I want to find out whether I can look, observe for the first time this whole machinery. Don’t say, ‘I have observed,’ Now, do it. Forgive me for...
31:23 WA: It seems that one of the problems here is that when I’ve thought about, sort of, recognising is that when one… as soon as one uses… one usually observes it by explaining it with words, and in a certain sense the word recognises the feeling; it’s not looking at it the first time.
31:40 K: I didn’t say... you are using the word recognise.
31:43 WA: Well, I was thinking that’s how I usually observe, I recognise what’s happening.
31:47 K: So that means... what does that recognition mean?
31:54 WA: Well, it means that I’m not seeing it the first time, for the first time.
31:59 K: No, you’ve already remembered this and...
32:00 WA: (Inaudible).
32:02 K: So I’m asking can you observe as though for the first time; which means your mind is not jaded; your mind is not in the process of recognition; your mind is not remembering and saying, ‘Yes.’ I don’t know if I... That means you are looking for the first time the whole image-building.
32:52 MZ: But sir...
32:54 Doris Pratt: Does that mean pushing aside memory?
32:59 K: No. What?
33:01 DP: Pushing aside memory as you look?
33:04 K: No, no; no, I said...look, not putting aside; there is... Putting aside is another image. Right? In order to get... move further than this you say, ‘I must get rid of that’. That moving away from that is another image. I wonder if you see this. Sir, look, I hear for the first time the image-making because I never even thought about it. You have told me but I’ve listened not with complete attention, I say ‘Yes, image-making, we all have images, nationalistic... you know, and so on and so on and so on; yes, what about it; leave it.’ But when you are persistently telling me: observe the image-making and the consequence, etc., and then you tell me: look at it as though you have never thought about it, never seen it; just look at it.
34:31 SS: I think the word time is a bit tricky because when you say time, people tend to think or one tends to think you know, last time, first time, next time, but it’s not that.
34:49 K: Ah, ah, ah... Look at it, look at it. Forget... as though for the first time. Remove all those words; just look.
34:56 MZ: Sir, may we right now ask: what is it you look at in yourself?
35:05 K: I’ll tell you. What are you doing, if I may ask, before I tell you - what are you doing? You have heard the image-making - right?- the consequences of it, the cause of it - you have heard it. Now, having heard it, what goes on? Begin from there. May I? What goes on, immediately?
35:39 Raman Patel: Recording, sir.
35:42 K: What?
35:43 RP: Recording of it; the recording what you have heard.
35:46 K: No, you’ve heard that, sir, you’ve heard it.
35:47 MZ: No, what actually happens right... at least for me…
35:50 K: I’m asking you.
35:52 MZ: I see an instance of images in me right away.
35:56 K: I’m asking you...
35:58 MZ: An instance of image; some image in me I’ve got or the process of an image happening as he asks the question. Now, you...
36:12 K: I think you are making it too... If you’d kindly listen for a second. You’ve heard all this. When you hear it, what takes place in the mind? You understand my question? Do you understand my question? What takes place?
36:29 WA: I start trying to find something to match what you’ve said.
36:34 Q: Yes; yes.
36:40 K: That’s just... which means what?
36:47 FM: Comparing....
36:49 K: No. Which means what? Just go into it a little slowly.
36:54 Jane Hoare: It seems that when I see the red as an impression…(inaudible).
36:58 K: No, leave the red alone.
37:01 JH: Yes, but as Wendy just said, there is an immediate comparison: is this real? Is this...? So there’s a questioning comes up at the same second.
37:18 K: No, madam, look.
37:19 FM: (Inaudible).
37:20 K: You tell me image-making; and you point out the nature of it, the cause of it, the whole movement of it. I hear it. I can’t help hearing, you’re telling me. Then, as you are telling me the whole movement of the nature of the... what is... what am I... what is my mind doing? I don’t know if I’m...? You understand, sir, what I’m saying? What is it doing?
37:54 SS: Just looking at that process.
38:00 Q: (Inaudible).
38:01 Q: It’s moving.
38:02 IP: Thinking about whether that is so.
38:03 MZ: Yes, but isn’t even that... (inaudible).
38:04 DP: I see it is so.
38:08 MZ: Isn’t that examining a theory?
38:09 K: No, you...
38:10 Q: (Inaudible).
38:11 K: All right, all right; no...
38:12 MZ: In yourself... (inaudible).
38:13 K: Maria, you’re missing... She says, ‘I think about it.’ Right?
38:18 Q: But what does that mean?
38:19 K: Wait. I’m coming to that. That’s your reaction.
38:22 Q: Yes.
38:23 K: Right? You hear this and your reaction is, ‘I’m thinking about what you are saying’. Right?
38:32 Q: Yes.
38:33 K: Stop there for a second. But you are not listening.
38:38 IP: Right.
38:40 K: You understand what I’m saying?
38:44 IP: Yes.
38:46 K: If you are thinking about it, you are caught in the reaction to the statement which you hear. But without reaction can you listen? I don’t know if I’m making this...?
39:06 IP: It’s very clear. This is the question I was asking.
39:11 K: Wait... stop a minute. We’ve got it; we’ve come to the point. Can you listen without your reaction?
39:18 WA: The reaction is so quick.
39:22 K: Yes, all right, it is quick. Why is it quick?
39:28 Q: (Inaudible).
39:29 K: Watch it. Why is it quick?
39:32 Q: Because the new disturbs and it wants to become known.
39:43 K: Are you answering my question?
39:57 WA: It seems as though it just immediately goes in and starts into the thing that… (inaudible).
40:11 K: Take a moment, take... hold it; go slowly, if I may suggest. A reaction, the pleasurable reaction, it endures. Right? Are you following this? You understand what I’m saying? I see something that gives me great pleasure - I hold it. Right? That means what? Oh, come on...
40:52 SF: That you’re no longer looking or listening; you’ve turned it into...
41:00 K: No, sir; any reaction that is pleasurable is... has a certain…
41:07 Q: Time.
41:08 K: …time, a certain length of it. Anything uncertain, anything new, anything which has to be questioned, I’m... (inaudible). I don’t know if you see this. Right, sir? Am I barking up the wrong tree? Now, can you... will I listen to what you are saying about the image - listen? Or is that impossible? That’s what you are doing with your student. Right? You want them to listen to you; and they can’t listen because… So can I listen to a statement of that kind, which is image-making, without any movement on my part? You understand? Then will I not see the whole of it? You understand what I’m saying? It’s very interesting; watch it... You tell me the image-making, the cause, the whole movement of it. I listen. I listen without any resistance, without any reaction, without any sense of ‘Oh, my God, how am I to...?’ - nothing; I just completely listen. Then there is no image.
43:53 MZ: What is happening in the brain?
43:59 K: No, I...
44:04 MZ: What is happening in terms of... (inaudible).
44:06 K: What’s happened to the brain; I can tell you. Watch it. You’re all too... go... My... the brain is used to quick reactions. It’s its nature, it must; must see the danger and it must react. It must react immediately to any kind of pain; it must react immediately if there is... a man wants to hurt you with a... and so on; it must react. Right? If I have pain, if I react very, very slowly, something is wrong. So the brain has to react quickly. Right? Now, why does it react so quickly to some statement - right?- why should it react? There is no danger, there is no pain, there is no sense of destroying you or anything - why can’t it listen? You understand what I’m asking?
45:32 MZ: Well, in that listening - I repeat my question: what is happening in the brain?
45:43 K: I’m telling you.
45:44 MZ: No, sir, you described what goes on when we don’t listen or when there’s danger... (inaudible).
45:50 K: Ah, no, no; no, you have missed my... you missed my point; you missed my point. Forgive me.
46:00 MZ: You said there’s no danger anymore, no… (inaudible).
46:01 K: Please just listen; you’re not listening, you are going on with your own… Oh, my God. I said it is necessary for the brain to react. That’s clear. Is there any danger in hearing the image-making? Of course there is danger, so the reaction is very quick.
46:44 Q: Yes.
46:46 K: I don’t know if you follow it? Right? My... If I don’t have an image...
46:56 IP: You are nothing.
46:57 K: I am nothing, so my reaction is immediate.
47:00 RP: Sir, which means you are always living in time.
47:01 Giselle Balleys: But sir, is it not also another image that I am nothing?
47:13 K: No, no; just see what is happening. As she wants to know, ‘What is happening to my mind, to my brain when I listen?’ She’s asking that; she keeps on asking that. What happens? You ask...
47:28 MZ: You see, I don’t accept the defence theory as necessarily immediate and therefore (inaudible) listening. I understand that there is danger in not having images and all that. But one can surely go beyond that and not being motivated by a sense of danger which makes a reaction.
47:47 K: Then why do you react?
47:50 MZ: But...
47:51 K: Please answer my question.
47:52 MZ: Well, I’m saying that one can get to the point of not reacting to danger signals...
47:57 K: No, you... I understand, Maria; you have not answered my question. Why then... why do you react and so prevent yourself from listening?
48:09 MZ: I don’t say I do react. I’m asking you what is the mind or brain doing when it’s only listening.
48:22 K: It’s completely quiet.
48:25 MZ: But for most... well, for me, that statement… (inaudible).
48:33 K: Has no meaning; has no meaning. Why?
48:40 MZ: Because it’s unknown.
48:44 K: What?
48:46 MZ: Because it’s utterly unknown.
48:51 K: No, that’s not an answer. He says in listening there is such attention there is nothing else, I’m just listening. You say that’s not possible.
49:07 MZ: But…
49:08 K: No, wait a minute, lady. You say that’s not possible and you say, ‘I don’t understand it.’ And I am asking why don’t you understand a statement which he has made that when you are listening completely, which means complete attention, there is no reaction, no image?
49:30 MZ: You hear the words.
49:34 K: Please answer my question.
49:36 MZ: I can’t answer your question.
49:38 K: What do you mean you can’t?
49:41 MZ: Because the mind goes on, the mind doesn’t stay still... (inaudible)...
49:44 K: Ah, that’s the whole point what I’m saying.
49:46 MZ: And therefore you hear the words and you don’t respond with reactions but still there is some motion in the mind; it doesn’t go blank... (inaudible).
49:57 K: No, it is not blank.
50:00 MZ: What is it?
50:01 K: It is in a state of attention...
50:03 MZ: To what?
50:04 K: To what is being said; that’s all, I’m saying.
50:08 MZ: What is the action of the mind in that attention?
50:12 K: I’m saying attention. There is no... you can’t ask what is the state of the mind when it is completely attentive. He says be attentive, you’ll find out.
50:23 MZ: That’s not an answer.
50:25 K: Oh, that’s an answer.
50:27 MZ: Then we’re throwing words around, as far as I can see.
50:32 K: No, no, no, not at all.
50:35 Denise Sullivan: Isn’t any other state a state of reaction, essentially?
50:44 MZ: That’s the point. The mind, subtly, invisibly, quickly brings, mobilises certain patterns.
50:54 K: We know all that, Maria. You are not answering my question. When you listen with attention, what is the state of your mind? Answer that question. Either it is inattentive, therefore reaction, recognition, say, ‘By Jove, danger,’ this, that and the other; or you are so attentive and therefore you are completely listening to the truth of something that is in the image-making.
51:45 MZ: In the what?
51:47 K: In the image-making.
51:49 MZ: Then you are examining the image-making?
51:56 K: What?
51:58 MZ: Are you examining the image-making?
52:03 K: No; lady, you’re not... look, you’re not thinking with... you’re not observing yourself, you’re trying... Look, he makes a statement to me that the image-making, the cause of it, the consequence of... he has explained very carefully; now, while he is explaining, I am attuning my... I am becoming very, very attentive to what is being said; therefore in that attention there is no reaction. That’s all I’m saying.
52:46 Q: That’s all you’ve ever said .
52:49 K: What?
52:51 Q: That’s all you’ve ever said. That covers everything.
52:55 K: For the moment that covers that. That is, when there is attention there is no reaction. When I am hearing every word that you are saying so completely, therefore attending, my mind is inactive.
53:21 RP: Sir, in other words, there is no division between what you are hearing...
53:34 K: What?
53:35 RP: In other words, there is no division between what you hear and the mind.
53:40 K: If you like to put it that way, yes. There is no division. I am listening, sir; apparently that seems to be… Ah?
53:47 IP: That’s what I would like to ask: why does it seem to be so impossible to do that?
53:53 K: Does it interest you?
53:59 IP: Yes.
54:01 K: If it interests you, you are paying attention to what is being said. Then find out whether you are actually attentive.
54:16 SF: You said that the mind is inactive?
54:20 K: Yes, because when it is listening, it’s not chattering, it’s not going off, saying, ‘What is he talking about’ and so on and so on; it is just listening, sir. I used the word inactive in the sense that it has no reactionary movement of its own. What is your difficulty?
54:49 MZ: Because I come to a vacuum.
54:50 K: Be a vacuum.
54:51 MZ: Well, a vacuum...
54:52 K: Ah, you see, you...
54:53 DP: As soon as the word vacuum arises, you... (inaudible).
54:56 K: You’re all...
54:57 MZ: We are using words descriptively, Doris. What happens actually in the mind is that all movement ceases, in a way.
55:09 K: That’s all I’m... not ‘in a way’.
55:14 MZ: But that is a vacuum.
55:16 K: That is not a vacuum.
55:18 MZ: It means that I don’t move with any of the things the mind serves up.
55:25 K: Yes. Not you move...
55:27 MZ: No, the attention...
55:28 K: Mind... - no, let’s be precise - the mind doesn’t move in the pattern it has been accustomed to.
55:38 MZ: Yes, but does the mind stop moving, and what does that mean?
55:39 K: Yes, I said it stops; I explained very carefully. You are not listening, Maria. That is, I’ll repeat it again; he makes a statement about image and my habit is to think about it – right? – I’m thinking about it, so therefore I am not actually following him but I’m thinking whether it’s logic, whether it’s sane, whether is he rational, whether it is blah, blah, blah. I don’t do all that. I say I want to find out what he’s saying, the truth of what he’s saying, the content of what he’s saying. That’s all. Therefore my mind is very alert. That’s all I’m saying. That’s all.
56:47 MZ: Well, you say, ‘I want to find out the truth of what he’s saying...’
56:53 K: I want to...
56:54 MZ: Now, what one recognises instantaneously that all the answers the mind will give, all the scales of weighing are out, have no meaning in this so one... some other factor has to come in and operate... (inaudible).
57:15 K: It is... the other factor is... – I’ve told you – the other factor is the sense of acute listening so that the image-making is coming to an end as I’m listening.
57:40 SF: Now, sir, that implies that... when you said that the mind is inactive...
57:50 K: Not... don’t stick to that word. The mind is active when it’s attentive.
57:54 SF: Right, but if the image-making is coming to an end, then there’s also something else going on...
58:02 K: No, sir, you’re all...
58:03 SF: ...besides just this...
58:04 K: No, keep it simple, sir; why do you make it so complex?
58:09 SF: Well, it seems to be complex.
58:13 K: I’m talking about listening. Listening is... it is complex but you can understand this, what it means.
58:24 WA: It seems we don’t seem to be able to understand what it means to listen.
58:32 K: What?
58:33 WA: Listening.
58:34 K: Apparently you... one doesn’t.
58:36 WA: No, well... then I don’t understand how we understand. What do we do?
58:42 K: All right, let’s begin; just... let’s experiment with this. Will you listen to what I’m saying? Listen, not, ‘Oh, you’re right; you’re wrong; what’s my reaction; why do...’ Just listen. Will you? Will you?
59:09 MZ: Yes.
59:12 K: We raised the question about image-making; that may be the central root of the whole mind; root... that is its movement. Image-making, the cause of it is security, be certain, feeling a sense of identification with the image; giving you a certain quality of strength; being identified with an image that I am a British - that gives you great strength. And the consequences of that image is division - my image as a Hindu, your image as a Christian, and so on. Have you listened to that? Ah?
1:00:18 WA: I’m sitting worrying about what listening means... (inaudible).
1:00:24 MZ: (Inaudible).
1:00:26 K: I’ve told you. I said listen; not what it means to listen. You see?
1:00:35 WA: That’s the...
1:00:36 K: Now, wait a minute. How are you going to ask your student to listen to you? You’re going to teach him history; how are you going to help him to listen? That’s all you want, don’t you? You know all about history or... whatever it is, as much as you know, and you want me to listen to you - right? - because if I can listen to you, I have absorbed it. Right? But if my mind is wandering; if I’m say, ‘Oh, for God’s sake,’ I’m not listening. How will you help me to listen?
1:01:23 Q: If you tell him about history and all the interest that is in it, he might listen. If he is not listening...
1:01:34 K: No, sir, you have missed my... How will you help him to listen?
1:01:38 Q: Well, if he’s not listening and you say to him listen, he’s not going to listen.
1:01:43 K: So what will you do with me? How will you help me to listen to what you are saying?
1:01:49 SF: It’s not really a good analogy, sir, because that’s a completely different kind of listening than what we’re talking about here.
1:02:00 K: No, it is the... sir, it is the same movement further. That’s all. Begin with there.
1:02:05 MZ: Well, all right, but if we begin with there, say, very quickly, if you say to us nationalism is divisive, I venture to say everyone in the room sees it instantly. But what do we see? We see the whole process and all the examples in one flash and it’s over.
1:02:26 K: That’s all. Why?
1:02:28 MZ: But your mind has… (inaudible).
1:02:29 K: Why...? No, just a minute. Why?
1:02:33 MZ: The evidence… (inaudible).
1:02:35 K: No, please... Which means what? You are all so… Which means what?
1:02:41 GB: We see the truth of it.
1:02:47 Q: We see the fact.
1:02:49 MZ: We’ve looked at something and seen the truth of what you say and the fallacy of…
1:02:55 K: You have not explained. I see... You said just now - please quietly listen to me for a minute, if you don’t mind - you said just now, ‘When you say nationalism is divisive, the consequences of the division, I see it instantly’ - why?
1:03:13 SF: Because it’s obviously so.
1:03:16 MZ: Because we’re... it’s like looking at the… (inaudible).
1:03:19 K: So what does that mean? Go...
1:03:22 IP: We listen to you.
1:03:25 K: So quick. What does that mean?
1:03:27 SS: No, it means you are no longer a German or an Englishman or an American or whatever.
1:03:30 K: You see, you see, you see...
1:03:31 IP: You have no ideas about it... (inaudible) seeing it.
1:03:33 K: No, you are...
1:03:34 RP: We are not reacting, sir.
1:03:38 GB: Not reacting..
1:03:39 RP: At least for the time being we are not reacting.
1:03:44 MZ: We see a fact.
1:03:46 K: So you see a fact - right? - Iran and Iraq; you see a fact; so your mind acts quickly when... go on, when what? When you see fact. Right?
1:04:05 Q: Yes.
1:04:06 K: Right?
1:04:08 Q: Yes.
1:04:09 K: Fact which is observable.
1:04:12 MZ: Yes.
1:04:13 K: So you cannot see a... anything a little abstract. Is that it?
1:04:21 SN: I think it’s more difficult to see something that’s subtler than…
1:04:25 K: So your mind is not subtle.
1:04:30 SS: I think the difficulty is in the process of abstraction itself, that is...
1:04:40 K: Yes, sir; look, sir...
1:04:43 SS: ...hearing the word and then the mind in reaction goes from that word to something else.
1:04:55 K: Look, sir, if you don’t mind; you said it’s fairly observable that Iran and Iraq; very simple, very observable, actually going on, murdering each other. Now, image-making is as dangerous, as observable as that. Right? Right?
1:05:13 DP: Yes.
1:05:16 K: Actually observable: the British with their image, the French with their image - same thing. Right?
1:05:25 SS: Yes, but we’re trying to look at the question of the... You see, a number of people have raised the question that this... of the difficulty of seeing this as a fact; not, you know...
1:05:31 Q: It seems if you listen to a...
1:05:32 SS: This is the point.
1:05:33 K: No, you are missing...
1:05:37 Q: ...musical note...
1:05:40 SS: No, I’m trying to feel... (inaudible).
1:05:44 K: They are both observable, both factual; and why do you see that very clearly, Iran, Iraq, and why don’t you see this equally clearly, immediately?
1:05:59 SS: Well, I wonder if one does, you see. I wonder if one does because it’s easy to see it as in the newsprint - right? - Iran and Iraq...
1:06:09 K: No, no, no; no, not as...
1:06:11 SS: ...but when the... if you’ve actually seen that, you’ve also seen that you yourself have no national identity...
1:06:17 K: That’s all I want to get at.
1:06:21 SS: Well, I’m questioning whether that has actually happened, you see, whether we do see that...
1:06:26 K: Ah, that’s for you...
1:06:27 SS: ...or with when America is threatened, the Americans feel terrible...
1:06:28 K: That’s for you...
1:06:29 SS: ...or when Germany is threatened, the Germans feel terrible or... you know, this is a point.
1:06:34 K: Sir, I see Iran and Iraq and I say to myself, am I a Hindu, British... If I am, out; it’s gone. I see the danger of that and the danger if I am a nationalist. It’s finished.
1:06:56 MZ: But sir, the quality... the nationalism is, in a way, a part of the image-making totality...
1:07:03 K: That’s all. Carry on...
1:07:05 MZ: Now, it’s easy to look at the part and see...
1:07:10 K: Ah...
1:07:11 MZ: ...beyond that, but the whole action of the mind seems to be a process…
1:07:14 K: I am doing that; you are... I am doing it.
1:07:18 MZ: …to get out of one’s whole process of mind is more difficult than nationalism, I suggest.
1:07:24 K: We are doing it now but you are not observing what is happening. Forgive me for pointing out.
1:07:32 Q: It seems if I hear that bird, the naming process is working.
1:07:47 K: Same thing, naming...
1:07:49 Q: Yes, but that’s where the difficulty is. The pure attention is when... is there often and yet to move in life there has to be the naming process.
1:08:07 K: After all, Iran and Iraq, you know, they have their images. Right? Right? Finished. It is these images that are destroying the world. Right? Right? Catholic image and the... and so on and so on... (inaudible). My mind says... sees the whole of it, sees any image, as my image about myself, my image as a Hindu, my image of... (inaudible) because it is fundamentally destructive.
1:09:03 IP: So why don’t we see the whole of it? We seem to be able to see parts quite clearly, as Mrs Zimbalist was saying and...
1:09:17 K: I think you are... I think by saying constantly, ‘We only see the part,’ you are doing... you are preventing yourself. When you... that’s not a part, Iran and Iraq is not a part; it is... there is the whole thing. Right? Why don’t... You see, it is there. But when you say, ‘That’s only a part,’ you’ve really not understood the whole nature of image-making.
1:10:02 Q: Isn’t it like that image-making is like a physical law, a universal law; if you see it apply in one place, it’s true throughout. I mean, it isn’t just an isolate thing in Iraq and Iran, it’s a...
1:10:27 K: That’s just it, sir. Do I see in the part - right? - you call it the part, I don’t - do you see in that the whole? Of course; it’s simple enough.
1:10:52 Q: Is every reaction an image?
1:10:54 K: No, my lady, I am asking you do you see in the Iraq and Iran war the whole image of the world? Right? Do you see it?
1:11:16 Q: Yes.
1:11:18 MZ: I am sure we do.
1:11:21 K: Ah, no; you see, Maria, you are...
1:11:23 MZ: But you see, sir...
1:11:24 K: God, you people are...
1:11:25 Q: (Inaudible).
1:11:26 MZ: The mind is having to recognise constantly, react to factual thing, necessary to get through the day, to operate. Is it that we don’t see where you’ve gotten over into the wrong territory? You have to have images of certain things, you have...
1:11:54 K: Oh, that’s understood, Maria; don’t explain all unnecessary.
1:11:58 MZ: Is it that we don’t see the border-line between the false… (inaudible)?
1:12:00 K: Oh, yes... No, sorry, sorry; you’ve gone off to something. I am asking you - please pay a little attention; not... please pay attention - which is, do you see in Iraq and Iran war the whole image-making which has produced that?
1:12:19 MZ: Yes.
1:12:21 SF: I think we have to say no. By the way that you have been talking about seeing, we have to say…
1:12:26 K: I see you... obvious you haven’t.
1:12:28 SF: ...we have to say no.
1:12:29 K: I see you haven’t. I say why don’t you? There is the root of all this, the image-making.
1:12:42 SS: That’s true but also you can’t say that there’s a progression from one to the other; that’s...
1:12:56 K: What?
1:12:57 SS: I say you can’t say that there’s a progression from one to the other; that is... in a way there isn’t a progression from saying the war in Iran and Iraq and then image-making; it’s an undivided process. Do you see what I mean?
1:13:16 K: Yes, I understand. But the image-making process has produced that. Right? So the... You follow? Move.
1:13:34 WA: Somehow I don’t seem to see that my images produce the same thing. There’s a gap there.
1:13:41 K: Of course it does.
1:13:44 WA: Yes, but you say of course, but there’s still something there that… (inaudible).
1:13:52 K: If I have an image of any kind, I am Iraq and Iran.
1:13:58 MZ: When you say of any kind, one sees that the image-making process produces Iran and Iraq, but the image-making process also enables us to survive in this world.
1:14:10 K: I said... Maria, you go back to that over and over and over again.
1:14:14 MZ: I know, sir, but you just said the image...
1:14:16 K: You haven’t moved.
1:14:17 MZ: ... that any image-making process...
1:14:18 K: I’ve said psychological images. It’s all very clear.
1:14:22 MZ: Yes, but it’s the grey area between (inaudible).
1:14:25 K: There is no grey area. You are insisting on grey area. You see, we’re not even listening.
1:14:36 WA: Is this because we don’t want to listen? What is it that... (inaudible)?
1:14:49 K: I don’t know.
1:14:50 WA: I can’t understand what it is why...
1:14:51 K: All that I am saying is this image-making has produced wars. Right? Right, sir? Right?
1:15:02 SS: Yes.
1:15:04 K: That’s all. The image-making is producing this dreadful war between those two; so my mind immediately says this is the law, that where you have an image, apart from... - I am talking of psychological image - where there is a psychological image you inevitably produce conflict; full stop. If I hear that, personally, the very hearing wipes away my image. Where are you?
1:16:05 MZ: I am thinking that…
1:16:08 K: (Inaudible). Where are you?
1:16:11 MZ: This again seems blazingly true, when you say it. Now, I’m trying to find out why do I say...
1:16:21 K: Ah, ah... You see, that’s what I…
1:16:23 MZ: Yes, but Krishnaji... (inaudible) these things... (inaudible).
1:16:26 K: I’ve examined them ad nauseam. I am saying you are not listening.
1:16:32 MZ: Well, is it what makes me (inaudible) say that something else...
1:16:41 K: You are going on...
1:16:42 MZ: ...or have I simply thought about this in the usual way, examined it, seen the instance and seen the truth, or is some other factor making one see that?
1:16:49 K: You see, there is no other factor except your own observation, your own intelligence that says there is the whole work there. My intelligence says there is the root of all that. And if I say, ‘I like that’, I join it. It’s as clear as mud (laughs). What are you trying to say?
1:17:27 MZ: I’m still trying to find out what goes on in the mind or the brain...
1:17:46 K: I’m...
1:17:47 MZ: ...when we listen to that, what is saying that…?
1:17:53 K: Nothing is... Look, Maria, would you listen for a change? Would you listen?
1:17:57 MZ: Yes, sir.
1:17:58 K: I don’t think you do. I’m very serious in this matter. I don’t think you are listening. I said very clearly there is the whole image-making that has produced that. Do you see the fact of that?
1:18:20 MZ: Yes.
1:18:21 K: Right? Do you?
1:18:23 MZ: Yes, sir.
1:18:25 K: Now, what does that mean? Answer it; what does that mean when you say, ‘I see the fact of that’?
1:18:34 MZ: I see that is the root of all the...
1:18:39 K: That is the image-making which has produced the image-making in me. So the seeing of that, looking at it without any reaction destroys any image in me. There is the danger. If I have that, I am a danger. That’s all. It’s finished. Don’t say, ‘What happens to the mind when there is no image?’
1:19:15 MZ: I’m not asking... (inaudible).
1:19:17 K: That’s what you are asking.
1:19:19 MZ: No.
1:19:20 K: The mind is active.
1:19:21 MZ: No, I’m not saying what would happen if, what would be...
1:19:25 K: Please proceed what you’re...
1:19:26 MZ: Sir, I’m saying what happens now.
1:19:27 K: I am telling you what happens now. The clarity of that is the clarity of my mind. There is no clarity as long as I have an image. Clarity is clarity, clear light.
1:19:54 JF: Sir, is the silence you were talking... discussing with Dr Bohm; in your last discussion with Dr Bohm you said that action must stem from this, that silence. Is this this clarity that you are talking about?
1:20:21 K: I don’t know what we discussed, sir. I’m sorry. Here I’m talking about a mind that is free of image. That’s all. A mind that is free of image is clear. Right, sir? Have you understood this, Maria, or still at it? Would you kindly answer me?
1:21:08 MZ: Well, my mind goes immediately in what you have just expressed. But... the but is... is that apparent perception... As I don’t understand what is happening in the mind when it happens at that moment, I...
1:21:56 K: Why do you want to understand?
1:21:57 MZ: ...(inaudible)...
1:21:58 K: No, wait a minute, wait a minute. Why do you want to understand?
1:22:01 MZ: I may fool myself, maybe not in this instance but in some other.
1:22:06 K: No, no, I’m talking of this instant. Why do you go off to something else? I am talking if you see that clearly: the cause, the image, human beings creating two images and fighting about their blasted images, and it’s the same with me if I have an image; so the clarity of that has dispelled my... the image which I have. That’s all I’m saying.
1:22:39 MZ: And I’m asking… (inaudible)...
1:22:41 K: No, have you got that?
1:22:43 MZ: ...or am I seeing something, perhaps more clearly than usual, also logically?
1:22:52 K: What?
1:22:53 MZ: There’s a danger that logic can be leading you to that same statement and not… (inaudible)...
1:22:59 K: What is wrong with logic? It has got its paradoxes, which means contradictions, but what’s wrong with it?
1:23:09 MZ: Well, surely when you talk about looking at something...
1:23:15 K: That is... have we examined that logically?
1:23:18 MZ: Logic is not the only... (inaudible).
1:23:23 K: I did not... I said I have examined that logically and I see logically as long as you have the image you must be part of this destructive business. And then intelligence comes in and say, look, have you this image, wipe it... It’s finished.
1:23:56 JF: Sir, surely any element of understanding necessarily has to be at an intellectual level, and after that it’s a question of a state of mind.
1:24:11 K: Sir, intellectual understanding is no understanding.
1:24:15 JF: Well, what other kind of understanding is there?
1:24:20 K: I can explain to the Arab and to the Jew, they are a Semitic race, they have divided themselves as Jews and Arabs because of their tradition of their bringing, one has one book, the other has the other book and they are fighting about nothing. Logically they listen to all this but logic doesn’t solve anything because they are still…
1:24:50 JF: So the issue is really one’s state of mind; that is the issue, the quality of the state... of one’s state of mind.
1:24:55 K: That’s what we are saying, then. The image the Jew has, the image the Arab has is destroying them.
1:25:02 MZ: But you just said that logic doesn’t get you anywhere.
1:25:07 K: No.
1:25:08 MZ: Or wouldn’t get them anywhere.
1:25:10 K: Not them - us I’m talking; they wouldn’t even bother to listen to you. Do you mean to say Mr Begin is going to listen to you? Of course not.
1:25:20 JF: But we... (inaudible) listen to you but we’re still blocked. Presumably it’s because of our state of mind that we are blocked.
1:25:29 K: Sir, I have explained all that just now. My intelligence says that is the same as this. And that intelligence says... that intelligence operates, therefore it has no image. Right? Don’t agree with me if you don’t.
1:26:00 MZ: I can’t answer that, Krishnaji. I don’t know if it’s intelligence or… (inaudible)...
1:26:07 K: No, because you haven’t exercised it, you haven’t listened; (inaudible) back again, ‘I don’t know what it is.’ If you want to be the devil’s advocate, you are perfectly welcome, but you are here, both of us are here to understand certain things, which means we are applying our minds, our hearts to the understanding of the image-making which has brought about war between these two. Now, come back home: have you got images?
1:27:13 IP: Yes, we obviously do.
1:27:19 K: What?
1:27:21 IP: Yes.
1:27:24 Q: Yes.
1:27:26 K: Then what are you going to do about it? Are you going to carry these images for the rest of your life? Which is what Iran and Iraq are doing, Arab and the Jew, the Hindu and the... and so on and so on; they are all doing this throughout the world. You see, either we like the image - keep it, if you like it; we are playing their game. You see, as educators, what are we going to do? Right, sir? All those boys and girls have images, definite, very deeply rooted.
1:30:40 David Woolf: There seems to be a danger in looking at this image-making process.
1:30:45 K: Yes, sir.
1:30:46 DW: And yet if we haven’t done it ourselves, how can we ask the students to face that danger?
1:30:55 K: Yes, sir, ask... you are all the... Yes, sir, that’s a question you have to solve.
1:31:53 DW: Yes.
1:31:54 K: You see, the difficulty, sir, is, this question arose with those students when I met them, a little bit, but their minds are too immature - you understand? - they are too... they are not alive to all this; and they... because I was insistent and went into it a little bit, they paid a little attention; but how will you help them not to have an image? If I have an image and they have an image, what am I going to do? I know what I would do. I would talk to them about it. I have got an image, see... go into it, keep on. You follow, sir?
1:32:42 DW: The danger seems greater for the older person than for the younger person.
1:33:07 K: Yes, sir.
1:33:12 DW: He has accumulated more.
1:33:21 K: It’s a great danger to all of us, not... You follow? It’s strange, sir, we are willing to listen here, the group of us; outside they won’t even listen to you. You understand? You understand, sir?
1:34:10 DW: Yes.
1:34:11 K: They won’t even listen to you. So since we are a group of people who are willing to listen, let’s... - you follow? - let us shake up the...
1:34:15 SF: I can’t see how we’re very much different, sir, because…
1:34:33 K: He said that, sir.
1:34:38 SF: …we don’t listen.
1:34:39 K: No, he said, ‘If I have an image, how can I help that boy, the student not to have an image?’
1:34:42 SF: And how do we even look at our own images?
1:34:46 K: Yes, you... You know very well you have got an image.
1:34:53 SF: Yes.
1:34:54 K: So, and the boy or the girl has an image, so can’t we educate each other not to have images?
1:35:03 SF: Well, it’s not at all certain what that process is, sir.
1:35:09 K: Oh, we have just now shown, sir.
1:35:13 SF: All that we’ve shown, as far as I can see, is that we don’t in fact look or listen at…
1:35:20 K: No, no; observe what has happened in Iran and Iraq. See what is happening. That’s the result of images. It’s so obvious.
1:35:32 SF: Very obvious.
1:35:33 K: So if I have an image, I will be like that.
1:35:40 SF: Is seeing that enough?
1:35:44 K: That’s enough. Begin with that. Don’t... ‘Is that enough?’ Begin with that. And move from there.
1:35:53 SF: How does one move from there?
1:35:55 K: I’m showing you. If I have an image, is my mind making images all the time? Verbal, conclusions, opinions, they are all images. So... You follow? (Inaudible). One image is good enough to wipe out all the other images.
1:36:21 Ten past one; we’d better stop.