Krishnamurti Subtitles home

BR83CB1 - Is there an action not touched by thought?
Brockwood Park, UK - 11 June 1983
Conversation with David Bohm 1

0:16 Krishnamurti: I thought we were going to talk about the future of man. David Bohm: Yes.
0:38 K: Really, when we talk about man we are talking about humanity.

DB: The whole of mankind, yes.
0:44 K: Not the British or the French or the Russian or the American, but the whole of human beings.
0:52 DB: The future is interlinked now, anyway.
0:57 K: As things are, from what one observes, the world has become tremendously dangerous.
1:07 DB: Yes.
1:12 K: Terrorists, wars, and the national divisions and racial divisions, some dictators who want to destroy the world, and so on. And also religiously, there is tremendous separation.
1:29 DB: And I think there is the economic crisis and the ecological crisis.
1:34 K: Yes, ecological and economic problems, problems have seem to be multiplying more and more. So, what is the future of man? What is the future of not only the present generation but the coming generation?
1:58 DB: Yes, the future looks very grim.

K: Very grim. If you were quite young and I was quite young, what would we do knowing all this, what would be our reaction, what would be our life, our way of earning livelihood and so on?
2:27 DB: Well, I have often thought of that. For example, I have asked myself, would I go into science again, and I am not at all certain now, because science does not seem to be relevant to this crisis.
2:42 K: No. On the contrary, they are helping.
2:45 DB: It makes it worse. It might help but in fact it isn't.
2:50 K: So what would you do? I think I would stick to what I am doing.
2:56 DB: Well, that would be easy for you.
2:57 K: For me quite easy.
3:00 DB: But there are several problems, of course, I don't know if you want to discuss them. If a person is just starting out, he has to make a living, right?
3:07 K: Of course.
3:10 DB: There are very few opportunities now, and most of these are in jobs which are very limited.
3:19 K: And unemployment right throughout the world. I wonder what we would do, knowing that the future is grim, very depressing, dangerous, and so uncertain. Where would you begin?
3:46 DB: Well, I think one would have to stand back from all these particular problems of my own needs and the needs of the people around me.
3:58 K: Are you saying one should really forget oneself for the time being?
4:02 DB: Yes.
4:05 K: Even if I did forget myself, and when I look at this world in which I am going to live, and have some kind of career or a profession, and the unemployment, what would I do? This is a problem that I think most young people are facing.
4:33 DB: Yes, it is clear. Well, have you something that you would suggest? Is there something you could suggest?
4:55 K: I don't think in terms of evolution.
4:59 DB: Yes, I understand that. That is the point that I was expecting we would discuss. I was expecting we would discuss that.
5:05 K: Yes. I don't think there is psychological evolution at all.
5:10 DB: Yes. Now, we have discussed this quite often, so I think I understand to some extent what you mean. But I think the people who are new to this, or viewing this tape, are not going to understand.
5:22 K: Yes, we will discuss it, But I want to discuss this whole question, if you will. Why are we concerned about the future? Or only the whole future is now?
5:41 DB: Yes, in some sense the whole future is now, but we have to make that clear. This goes very much against the whole way of thinking, of the tradition of mankind that all of us have been exposed to.
5:54 K: Mankind thinks in terms of evolution, continuance, and so on.
5:59 DB: Maybe we could approach it another way, that is, evolution seems in the present era to be the most natural way to think. So, I would like to ask you what objections do you have to thinking in terms of evolution? Could I explain a point: it has many meanings, this word 'evolution.'
6:17 K: Of course. We are talking psychologically.
6:23 DB: Yes. The first point is, let's dispose of physical evolution.
6:26 K: I mean, an acorn will grow into an oak.
6:31 DB: Also, the species have evolved. For example, from the plants to the animals and to man.
6:37 K: Yes, we have taken a million years to be what we are.
6:40 DB: You have no question that that has happened, right?
6:43 K: No, that has happened.

DB: And it may continue to happen.
6:46 K: Yes. That is evolution.

DB: Now, that is a valid process.
6:50 K: Of course. That is a valid natural process.
6:52 DB: Yes. It takes place in time.

K: Yes.
6:55 DB: And therefore, in that region the past, present, and future are important, right?
7:00 K: Yes, obviously. I don't know a certain language, I need time to learn it.
7:06 DB: Well, also it takes time to improve the brain. If the brain started out small with this, and then it got bigger and bigger, that took a million years.
7:14 K: Yes, and become much more complex, and so on. So, all that needs time. All that is movement in space and time.
7:25 DB: Yes, so you will admit physical time and neurophysiological time.
7:30 K: Neurophysiological time, absolutely. Of course, any sane man would.
7:33 DB: Yes, but most people also admit psychological time, what we call mental time.
7:39 K: Yes, that is what we are talking about. Whether there is such a thing as psychological tomorrow, psychological evolution.

DB: Or yesterday.
7:50 DB: Now, at first sight I am afraid this will sound strange. It seems, I can remember yesterday, and there is tomorrow, I can anticipate, and it has happened many times, days have succeeded each other. So, I do have the experience of time, from yesterday to today to tomorrow.
8:11 K: Of course. That is simple enough.
8:14 DB: Now, what is it you are denying?
8:17 K: I deny that I will be something, become better.
8:24 DB: Now, there are two ways of looking at that. One way is: will I intentionally become better because I am trying, or secondly: some people feel that evolution is a kind of natural inevitable process in which we are being swept along like in a current, and we are, perhaps becoming better or worse, or something is happening to us.
8:44 K: Psychologically.
8:46 DB: Psychologically, which takes time, which may not be the result of my trying to become better. It may or may not be. Some people may think one way, some another. But are you denying also that there is a sort of natural psychological evolution as there was a natural biological evolution?
9:03 K: I am denying that, yes.
9:06 DB: Now, why do you deny it?
9:13 K: Because, first of all, what is the psyche?
9:17 DB: Yes.
9:20 K: The me, the ego and so on, what is it?
9:23 DB: Yes, the word 'psyche' has many meanings. It may mean the mind, for example. Now, do you mean by that the ego is the same thing?
9:30 K: The ego. I am talking of the ego, the me.
9:33 DB: Now, some people who are thinking of evolution are thinking there will be an evolution in which the me is transcended. That is, that it will rise to a higher level.
9:46 K: Yes, does transition need time?
9:48 DB: A transcendence, a transition.

K: Yes. That is my whole question.

DB: Yes. So, there are two questions: one is, will the me ever improve? That is one argument. And another argument is: even if we suppose we want to get beyond the me, can that be done in time?
10:04 K: That cannot be done in time.
10:06 DB: Yes, now we have to make it clear why not.
10:09 K: Yes, I will. We will go into it. What is the me? If the 'psyche' has such different meanings, the me is the whole movement which thought has brought about.
10:32 DB: Why do you say that?
10:34 K: The me is the consciousness, my consciousness. The me is my name, form, and all the various experiences that I have had, remembrances, and so on. The whole structure of the me is put together by thought.
10:56 DB: Yes, well, that again would be something which some people might find it hard to accept.
11:02 K: Of course, we are discussing this.
11:04 DB: But I mean also to try to bring it out. Now, the first experience, the first feeling I have about the me is that the me is there independently and that the me is thinking.
11:16 K: Is the me independent of my thinking?
11:20 DB: Well, my own first feeling is the me is there independent of my thinking, and it is the me that is thinking. Like, I am here and I could move, I could move my arm or I could think or I could move my head.
11:30 K: Yes.
11:32 DB: Now, is that an illusion?
11:37 K: No.

DB: Why?
11:43 K: When I move my arm, there is the intention to grasp something, to take something, to put something. First, it is the movement of thought, and that makes the arm move, and so on. My contention is – and I am ready to accept it as false or true – that thought is the basis of all this.
12:16 DB: Yes. Your contention is that the whole sense of the me and what it is doing is coming out of thought. Now, what you mean by thought though, is not merely intellectual thought.
12:26 K: No, of course not.

DB: But what more?
12:29 K: Thought is the movement of experience, knowledge, memory, and thought. It is this whole movement.
12:38 DB: It sounds to me as if you mean the movement of consciousness as a whole.

K: As a whole, that is right.
12:48 DB: You are saying that that the movement is the me, right?
12:52 K: The whole content of that consciousness is the me. That me is not different from my consciousness.
13:07 DB: I think one could say that I am my consciousness, because if I am not conscious I am not here, right?
13:13 K: Of course.

DB: Now, is consciousness nothing but, say, what you have just described, which includes thought, feeling, intention?
13:22 K: Intention, aspirations.

DB: Memories.
13:24 K: Memories, beliefs, dogmas, the rituals that I perform, like the computer that is being programmed.
13:36 DB: That certainly is in consciousness, everybody would agree, but some people would feel, or many people would feel that there is more to it than that, that consciousness may go beyond that.
13:45 K: Let's go into it. It is, the content of our consciousness makes up the consciousness – the content.
13:58 DB: Yes, I think that requires some understanding: the ordinary use of the word 'content' is quite different. If you say that the content of a glass is water, so the glass is one thing and the water is another. The glass contains the water, or the word 'content' would suggest that something contains it.

K: All right. Consciousness is made up of what it has remembered: beliefs, dogmas, rituals, the nationalities, fears, pleasures, sorrow.
14:35 DB: If all that were absent, would there be no consciousness?
14:42 K: Not as we know it.
14:43 DB: But there would still be a kind of consciousness?
14:45 K: A totally different kind.
14:47 DB: Then I think you really mean to say that consciousness, as we know it, is made up...
14:51 K: I said that. Consciousness, as we know it, is all that.
14:55 DB: As we generally know it.

K: Yes. And that is the result of multiple activities of thought.
15:08 K: Thought has put all this together which is my consciousness: the reactions, the responses, the memories, the remembrances, extraordinarily complex intricacies, subtleties. All that makes up consciousness.
15:36 DB: As we know it, right?
15:38 K: I have said that. As we know it. Whether that consciousness has a future?
15:48 DB: Yes. Does it have a past?
15:51 K: Of course, its remembrances.
15:53 DB: Why do you say it has no future then?
15:56 K: If it has a future it will be exactly the same kind of thing, moving. The same activities, same thoughts, modified, but the pattern will be repeated over and over again.
16:14 DB: Are you saying that thought can only repeat?
16:17 K: Yes.

DB: But there is a feeling that thought can develop new ideas, for example.
16:23 K: But thought being limited, because knowledge is limited. If you admit that knowledge will always be limited.
16:38 DB: Yes, well, that again might require some discussion.
16:42 K: Of course, we must discuss it.
16:45 DB: Now, why do you say knowledge is always limited?
16:48 K: Because you, as a scientist, you are experimenting, adding, searching, so you are adding, and after you some other person will add more. So knowledge, which is born of experience, is limited.
17:10 DB: Yes, some people have said it isn't. They would hope to obtain perfect knowledge, or absolute knowledge of the laws of nature.
17:20 K: The laws of nature is not the laws of the human being.
17:25 DB: Well, would you want to restrict the discussion to knowledge about the human being?

K: Of course, that is what we are talking about.
17:31 DB: Even there you could question whether that knowledge of nature is possible, too.
17:34 K: We are talking about the future of man.
17:37 DB: All right, so we are saying that man cannot obtain unlimited knowledge of the psyche. Is that what you mean?

K: Yes, that is right.
17:46 DB: There is always more that is unknown.
17:48 K: Yes, there is more and more unknown.
17:54 K: So, if once we admit that knowledge is limited, then thought is limited.
18:00 DB: Yes, thought depends on knowledge, and the knowledge does not cover everything, therefore thought will not be able to handle everything that happens.
18:12 K: That is what the politicians and all the other people are doing. They think thought can solve every problem.
18:19 DB: You can see in the case of politicians that knowledge is very limited, in fact it is almost non-existent! Therefore when you lack the adequate knowledge of what you are dealing with, you create confusion.

K: Yes. So then, as thought is limited, our consciousness, which has been put together by thought, is limited.
18:53 DB: Can you make it clear? That means we can only repeat, stay in the same circle. One of the ideas might be, if you compare with science, that people might think though my knowledge is limited, I am constantly discovering.
19:05 K: But what you discover is added to, but is still limited.
19:13 DB: It is still limited. That is the point. I think one of the ideas behind a scientific approach is that, though knowledge is limited, I can discover and keep up with the actuality.
19:25 K: But that is also limited.

DB: My discoveries are limited. And there is always the unknown, which I have not discovered.
19:33 K: That is why I am saying, the unknown, the limitless, cannot be captured by thought.
19:39 DB: Yes.
19:41 K: Because thought in itself is limited. If you and I agree to that, not only agree, but it is a fact.
19:56 DB: Perhaps we should bring it out still more. That is, thought is limited even though one may easily verbally admit thought is not limited, there is a very strong predisposition.
20:07 K: Feeling.

DB: A tendency to feel that way, that thought can do anything.
20:13 K: It can't. See what it has done in the world.
20:16 DB: Well, I agree that it has done some terrible things, but that doesn't prove that it is always wrong. Maybe you could always blame it on the people who have used it wrongly.
20:25 K: I know, that is a good old trick! But thought in itself is limited, therefore whatever it does is limited.
20:35 DB: Yes, and it is limited in a very serious way, is what you are saying.
20:40 K: That is right. Of course, in a very, very serious way.
20:44 DB: Could we bring that out, say what that way is?
20:46 K: That way is what is happening in the world.
20:50 DB: All right. Let's look at that.
20:51 K: The totalitarian ideals – it is the invention of thought.
20:58 DB: We could say that the very word 'totalitarian' means they wanted to cover the totality, but they couldn't. They couldn't, the thing collapsed.
21:07 K: It is collapsing.
21:09 DB: But then there are those who say they are not totalitarians.
21:14 K: The democrats, etc. The republicans and the democrats and the idealists and so on, all their thinking is limited.
21:23 DB: Yes. But it is limited in a way...
21:27 K: That is very destructive.
21:28 DB: That is very serious and destructive. In what way could we bring that out? I could say, ok, my thought is limited, but it may not be all that serious. You see, why is it so important?
21:40 K: That is fairly simple. Because whatever action is born of limited thought must breed conflict – inevitable. Like dividing humanity geographically into nationalities and so on and so on, religiously, has created havoc in the world.
22:06 DB: Yes, now let's connect that with the limitation of thought. That is, my knowledge is limited.

K: We said that.
22:13 DB: How does that lead me to divide the world...
22:21 K: Aren't we seeking security?

DB: Yes.
22:25 K: And we thought there was security in the family, security in the tribe, security in nationalism. So we thought there is security in division.
22:40 DB: Yes. Now it has come out. Take the tribe, for example, say one may feel insecure, one then says, with the tribe I am secure. That is a conclusion. And I think I know enough to be sure that is so, but I don't. Other things happen that I don't know, which make that very insecure. Other tribes come along.
23:00 K: No, the very division creates insecurity.
23:04 DB: It helps to create it, yes, but I am trying to say, I don't know enough to know that. I don't see that.
23:12 K: But one doesn't see it because one has not thought about anything, looked at the world as a whole.
23:22 DB: The thought which aims at security attempts to know everything important. It assumes it knows everything important and then it says, this will bring security. Now, not only there are a lot of things it doesn't know, but one thing it doesn't know is that this very thought itself is divisive.
23:38 K: Divisive, yes.
23:41 DB: Because I define an area which is secure, divided from another area.
23:45 K: Because in itself it is limited.

DB: Yes.
23:49 K: Anything that is limited must inevitably create conflict.
23:56 DB: Well, you mean any thought that is...
23:59 K: If I say, I am an individual, it is limited.
24:03 DB: Yes.
24:05 K: I am concerned with myself, that is very limited.
24:08 DB: Yes, we have to get this clear. If I say, this is a table, which is limited, it creates no conflict, right?
24:14 K: No. There is no conflict there.
24:16 DB: When I say, this is me, that creates conflict.
24:19 K: Yes. The me is a divisive entity.
24:23 DB: Let's see more clearly why.
24:27 K: Because it is separative, it is concerned with itself. The me identifying with the greater nation is still divisive.
24:42 DB: Yes, well, I define myself in the interest of security, so that I know what I am as opposed to what you are, and I protect myself. Now, this creates a division between me and you.
24:57 K: We and they, and so on. Now, that comes from my limited thought because I don't understand that we are really closely related and connected.
25:06 K: That we are human beings.

DB: Yes, we are all human beings.
25:09 K: All human beings have more or less the same problems.
25:13 DB: No, I haven't understood that, my knowledge is limited, I think that we can make a distinction and protect ourselves, or me, and not the others.
25:22 K: Yes, that is right.
25:23 DB: But in the very act of doing that, I create instability.
25:27 K: Yes, that is right.

DB: Insecurity. So, if we see that, not merely intellectually or verbally but actually feel it, that we are the rest of humanity, then the responsibility becomes immense.
25:50 DB: Yes, well, how can you do anything about that responsibility?
25:54 K: Then I either contribute to the whole mess or keep out of it. That is to be at peace, to have order in oneself.
26:09 DB: I didn’t understand.

K: I will come to that. I am going too far.
26:15 DB: I think we have touched on an important point that we say the whole of humanity, of mankind is one, and therefore to create division there is destructive.
26:25 K: Is dangerous. Now, whereas to create division between me and the table is not dangerous, because in some sense we are not one.
26:33 K: Me and the trees, of course.
26:35 DB: That is only in some very general sense that we are one. Now, mankind doesn't realise that it is all one.
26:42 K: Why?

DB: Well, let's go into that. This is a crucial point. It is clear it doesn't because there are so many divisions, and not only nations and religions but from one person to another.
26:53 K: I know. Why is there this division?
26:56 DB: The first was the feeling, at least in the modern era, that every human being is an individual. This may not have been so strong in the past.
27:05 K: That is what I question. I question altogether whether we are individuals.
27:12 DB: Yes, well, that is a big question.
27:14 K: Of course. We said just now, the consciousness, which is me, is similar to the rest of mankind. They all suffer, they all have fears, they are all insecure, they have their own particular gods and rituals, all put together by thought.
27:46 DB: Yes, well, there are two questions here: one is, not everybody feels that he is similar. Most people feel they have some unique distinction.
27:59 K: What do you mean unique distinction? Distinction in doing something?
28:04 DB: There may be many things. For example, one nation may feel that it is able to do certain things better than another. One person has some special things he does, or qualities.

K: Of course. You are more intellectual than I am. You are somebody else, better, this and that.
28:22 DB: He may take pride in his own special abilities or advantages.
28:28 K: But when you put that away, basically we are the same.
28:32 DB: Yes. We have to say what does it mean. You are saying that these things which you have just described...
28:37 K: Are superficial.
28:39 DB: Now, the things that are basic are what?
28:41 K: Is fear, sorrow, pain, anxiety, loneliness, and all the human travail.
28:49 DB: Many people might feel that the basic things are the highest achievements of man, the highest achievements of mankind are not these.
28:57 K: What has he achieved?

DB: Let's discuss it.
29:03 DB: I understand that we discussed this often, but I think we must bring it out.
29:09 K: Yes, let's go into it. What have we achieved?
29:13 DB: Well, for one thing people may feel proud of the achievement of man in science, in art, in culture, in technology.
29:20 K: We have achieved in all those directions, certainly we have. Vast technology, communication, travel, medicine, surgery has advanced tremendously.
29:35 DB: Yes, it is really remarkable in many ways.
29:38 K: There is no question about it. What have we psychologically achieved?
29:46 DB: Yes, one point is to say, none of this has affected us psychologically, and the psychological question is more important than any of the others, because if the psychological question is not cleared up, the rest is dangerous.
29:59 K: Quite right. If we psychologically are limited, then whatever we do will be limited, and the technology will then be used by our limited...
30:10 DB: Yes, the master is this limited psyche and not the rational structure of technology. And in fact technology then becomes a dangerous instrument. So that is one point, that the psyche is at the core of it all, and if the psyche is not in order then the rest is useless. Now, the second question is – although we are saying that there are certain basic disorders in the psyche, or lack of order, which is common to us all, we may all have a potential for something else – but the second point is: are we all one, really? That is, even though we are all similar, that doesn't say we are all the same, we are all one.
31:03 K: We said, in our consciousness basically we have the same ground on which we stand.
31:13 DB: Yes. From the fact, I would say the human body is similar, it doesn't prove they are all the same.
31:21 K: Of course, not. Your body is different from mine.
31:23 DB: Yes, we are in different places, and different entities and so on. I think you are trying to say that the consciousness is not an entity which is individual. The body is an entity which has a certain individuality.
31:35 K: That is right. That is all seems so clear.
31:39 DB: It may be clear. But I think...
31:43 K: Your body is different from mine.
31:46 DB: Yes.
31:48 K: I have a different name than you.
31:50 DB: Yes, well we are so different, though similar material, it is different, we can't exchange.
31:55 K: No, we can't.

DB: Because the proteins in one body may not agree with those in the other. Now, many people feel that way about the mind, saying that there is a chemistry between people which may agree or disagree.
32:05 K: But actually, if you go deeper into the question, consciousness is shared by all human beings. That is my whole point.
32:17 DB: Yes. Now, the feeling is that the consciousness is individual and that it is communicated as it were, that it is...
32:26 K: I think that is an illusion because we are sticking to something that is not so.
32:33 DB: Do you want to say that there is one consciousness of mankind?
32:36 K: It is all one.

DB: It is all one, and that is important because whether it is many or one is a crucial question. Now, it could be many which are then communicating and building up a larger unit. Or you are saying, from the very beginning it is all one?
32:52 K: From the very beginning it is all one.
32:54 DB: And the sense of separateness is an illusion, right?
32:58 K: That is what I have said over and over again. That seems so logical, sane. The other is insanity.
33:12 DB: One doesn't immediately feel that the notion of separate existence is insane, because one extrapolates from the body to the mind. One says, it is quite sensible to say my body is separate from yours and inside my body is my mind.
33:26 K: Of course.
33:27 DB: Now, are you saying the mind is not inside the body?
33:30 K: Now, that is quite a different question. Let's finish with the other first. If each one of us thinks that we are separate individuals, psychically, what we have done in the world is a colossal mess.
33:49 DB: If we think we are separate when we are not separate, then it will clearly be a colossal mess.
33:53 K: That is what is happening. Each one thinks he has to do what he wants to do, fulfil himself. So he is struggling in his separateness to achieve peace, to achieve security, which that security and that peace is totally denied.
34:19 DB: The reason it is denied is because there is no separation. If there were really separation it would be a rational thing to try to do.
34:26 K: Yes, actual.
34:27 DB: But if we are trying to separate what is inseparable the result will be chaos.

K: That is right.
34:32 DB: Now, that is clear, but I think that it will not be clear to people immediately that the consciousness of mankind is one inseparable whole.
34:42 K: Yes, sir, inseparable whole, absolutely right.
34:49 DB: Many questions will arise if you once even consider the notion – I don't know if we have gone far enough into this yet. One question is, why do we think we are separate?
35:00 K: Why? Why do I think I am separate? That is my conditioning.
35:08 DB: Yes, but how did we ever adopt such a foolish conditioning?
35:13 K: From childhood – it is mine, my toy, not yours.
35:18 DB: Yes, but the first feeling you get is: I say, it is mine, because I feel I am separate. It isn't clear how the mind, which was one, came to this illusion that it is all broken up into many pieces.
35:33 K: I think it is again the activity of thought. Thought in its very nature, thought is divisive, fragmentary, and therefore I am a fragment.
35:50 DB: Thought will create a sense of fragments. You could see, for example, that once we decide to set up a nation then we will think we are separate from the other nation, and all sorts of consequences follow, which make the whole thing seem independently real. You have all sorts of separate language, separate laws, and you set up a boundary. And after a while you see so much evidence of separation, that you say you forget how it started, and you say that was there always, and we are merely proceeding from what was there always.
36:27 K: That is why I feel if once we grasp the nature of thought, the structure of thought, how thought operates, what is the source of thought, and therefore it is always limited – if we really see that.
36:47 DB: The source of thought is what – is it memory?
36:49 K: Memory.

DB: Yes.
36:50 K: Memory is the remembrance of things past, which is knowledge, and knowledge is the outcome of experience, and experience is always limited.
37:04 DB: Thought includes, of course, also the attempt to go forward, to use logic, to take into account discoveries and insights.
37:15 K: As we are saying some time ago, thought is time.
37:18 DB: Yes, alright. Thought is time. That requires more discussion too, because the first experience is to say time is there first, and thought is taking place in time. For example, if we say that movement is taking place, the body is moving, and this requires time.
37:42 K: To go from here to there needs time. To learn a language needs time.
37:47 DB: Yes, to grow a plant needs time.
37:50 K: To paint a picture takes time.
37:52 DB: We also say to think takes time.
37:55 K: So we think in terms of time.
37:57 DB: Yes, the first point that one would tend to look at is to say just as everything takes time, to think takes time. But you are saying something else, which is that thought is time. That is, psychically speaking, psychologically speaking.
38:14 K: Of course.
38:15 DB: Now, how do we understand that?
38:22 K: How do we understand what?
38:26 DB: Thought is time. You see, it is not obvious.
38:29 K: Oh, yes. Would you say thought is movement, and time is movement?
38:45 DB: Time is a mysterious thing, people have argued about it. We could say that time requires movement. I could understand that we cannot have time without movement.
38:58 K: Time is movement. Time is not separate from movement.
39:03 DB: I don't say it is separate from movement, but to say time is movement – if we said time and movement are one.
39:11 K: Yes, I am saying that.

DB: Yes. Now, they cannot be separated.

K: No.
39:16 DB: Because that seems fairly clear. Now, there is physical movement, which means physical time. There is the heart beat and so on.
39:25 K: Hot and cold, and also dark and light.
39:28 DB: The seasons.

K: Sunset, sunrise, all that. Then we have the movement of thought. Now, that brings in the question of the nature of thought. Is thought nothing but a movement in the nervous system, in the brain? Would you say that?

K: Yes.

DB: Some people have said it includes the movement of the nervous system but there might be something beyond.
39:53 K: What is time, actually? Actually, what is time? Time is hope.
40:05 DB: Psychologically.

K: Psychologically. I am talking entirely psychologically for the moment.
40:09 DB: One tends to keep on thinking.
40:11 K: Of course. We have understood that.
40:15 K: Hope is time. Becoming is time. Achieving is time. Now, take the question of becoming: I want to become something, psychologically. I want to become non-violent – take that for example. That is altogether a fallacy.
40:53 DB: We understand it is a fallacy but the reason it is a fallacy is that there is no time of that kind.
41:03 K: No. Human beings are violent, and they have been talking a great deal – Tolstoy, and in India – of non-violence. The fact is we are violent.
41:20 DB: Yes.
41:22 K: And the non-violence is not real. But we want to become that.
41:30 DB: Yes, but it is again an extension of the kind of thought that we have with regard to material things. If you see a desert, the desert is real, and you say the garden is not real but in your mind is the garden, which will come when you put the water there. So we say, we can plan for the future when the desert will become fertile. Now, we have to be careful – we say we are violent, but we cannot by similar planning become non-violent. Why is that?
42:04 K: Why? Because the non-violent state cannot exist while there is violence.
42:13 DB: Yes.
42:15 K: That is an ideal.
42:19 DB: One has to make it more clear, because in the same sense the fertile state and the desert don't exist together either. I think that you are saying that in the case of the mind, when you are violent, it has no meaning.
42:35 K: That is the only state.

DB: That is all there is.
42:38 K: Yes, not the other.
42:39 DB: The movement towards the other is illusory.
42:45 K: So all ideals are illusory, psychologically. The ideal of building a marvellous bridge is not illusory, you can plan it, but to have psychological ideals.
43:05 DB: Yes, if you are violent and you continue to be violent while you are trying to be non-violent...
43:11 K: It is so obvious.

DB: It has no meaning.
43:13 K: There is no meaning, and yet that has become such an important thing. So, the becoming, which is either becoming 'what is' or becoming away from 'what is.'
43:34 DB: Yes, 'what should be.'
43:38 K: I question both.
43:44 DB: If you say there can be no sense to becoming in the way of self-improvement.
43:51 K: Self-improvement is something so utterly ugly. So we are saying that the source of all this is the movement of thought as time. When once we admit time psychologically, all the other ideals, non-violence, achieving some super state and so on, become utterly illusory.
44:28 DB: Yes. Now, when you talk of the movement of thought as time, it seems to me that that time which comes from movement of thought is illusory.

K: Yes.
44:41 DB: We sense it as time, but it is not a real kind of time.
44:44 K: That is why we asked, what is time?

DB: Yes.
44:49 K: I need time to go from here to there. If I want to learn some engineering, I must study it, it takes time. That same movement is carried over into the psyche. I say, I need time to be good. I need time to be enlightened.
45:16 DB: Yes, that will always create a conflict between one part of you and another. So, that movement in which you say, I need time, also creates a division in the psyche between, say, the observer and the observed.
45:32 K: That is right. We are saying the observer is the observed.
45:35 DB: Yes, and therefore there is no time is what is meant, psychologically.
45:40 K: The experiencer, the thinker, is the thought. There is no thinker separate from thought.
45:50 DB: Yes. All that you are saying seems very reasonable. I think that it goes so strongly against the tradition, or what we are used to, that it will be extraordinarily hard for people to really, generally speaking, to...
46:05 K: Most people, they want a comfortable way of living. Let me carry on as I am, for God's sake, leave me alone.
46:15 DB: Yes, but that is the result of so much conflict that people are worn out by anything.
46:24 K: But in escaping from conflict or not resolving conflict, conflict exists, whether you like it or not. That is the whole point. Is it possible to live a life without conflict?
46:40 DB: That is all implicit in what has been said.
46:43 K: That is right.
46:44 DB: That the source of conflict is thought, or knowledge, or the past.
46:49 K: So, then one asks: is it possible to transcend thought?
46:55 DB: Yes.
46:58 K: Or is it possible to end knowledge? I am putting it psychologically.
47:08 DB: We say ordinary knowledge of objects, of material objects and things like that, knowledge of science, will continue.
47:15 K: Absolutely. That must continue.
47:18 DB: But what you call self-knowledge is what you are asking to end, isn't it?

K: Yes.
47:23 DB: On the other hand people have said self-knowledge – even you have said – self-knowledge is very important.
47:28 K: Self-knowledge is important but if I take time to understand myself, that is, I will understand myself eventually, by examination, analysis, and so on, watching my relationship with others, all that involves time. And I say there is another way of looking at the whole thing without time. Which is, when the observer is the observed. In that observation there is no time.
48:13 DB: Could we go into that further? For example, if you say there is no time, but still you feel that you can remember an hour ago you were somewhere else. In what sense can we make it that there is no time?
48:30 K: Time is division, as thought is division, that is why thought is time.
48:39 DB: Time is a series of divisions of past, present, future.
48:44 K: So, thought is also that divisive. So time is thought, or thought is time.
48:53 DB: It doesn't exactly follow from what you said, but we have explained it.

K: Let's go into it.
49:06 DB: At first sight, one would think that thought makes divisions of all kinds, with the ruler and with all kinds of things, it also divides up intervals of time – past, present and future. Now, it doesn't follow from just that that thought is time.
49:23 K: Look, we said time is movement.

DB: Yes.
49:28 K: Thought is also a series of movements. So both are movements.
49:33 DB: So thought is a movement, right? A movement, we suppose, of the nervous system.
49:41 K: You see, it is a movement of becoming. I am talking psychologically.
49:49 DB: But whenever you think, something is also moving in the blood, in the nerves and so on. Now, when we talk of a psychological movement, do you mean just a change of content?
50:03 K: Change of content?
50:05 DB: What is the movement, what is moving?
50:07 K: Look, I am this, and I am attempting to become something else psychologically.
50:15 DB: So that movement is in the content of your thought.
50:18 K: Yes.
50:20 DB: So if you say, I am this and I am attempting to become that, then I am in movement, right?

K: Yes.
50:25 DB: At least, I feel that I am in movement.
50:27 K: No, but I am – say, for instance, I am greedy. Greed is a movement.
50:36 DB: What kind of a movement is it?
50:38 K: To get what I want.

DB: To get more, yes.
50:40 K: More, more, more. It is a movement, and I find that movement painful, suppose, and I try not to be greedy. The attempt not to be greedy is a movement in time, is becoming.
51:06 DB: Yes, but even the greed was becoming.
51:08 K: Of course.
51:11 K: So, is it possible – that is the real question – is it possible not to become, psychologically?
51:25 DB: It seems that that would require that you should not be anything psychologically. That is, as soon as you define yourself in any way, then...
51:36 K: No, we will define it in a minute or two.
51:38 DB: But I meant, if I define myself as greedy, or I say I am greedy, or I am this or I am that, then either I will want to become something else or to remain what I am.
51:49 K: Now, can I remain what I am? Can I remain not with non-greed but with greed? And greed is not different from me, greed is me.
52:08 DB: Yes. The ordinary way of thinking is that I am here, and I could either be greedy or not greedy, as these are attributes which I may or may not have.
52:21 K: But the attributes are me.
52:24 DB: Yes. That again goes very much against our common language and experience.

K: Of course, sir.
52:29 DB: Instead of saying that I am my attributes, which suggests that the thought of attribution creates the me. The sense of me.
52:40 K: All the qualities, the attributes, the virtues, the judgements and conclusions and opinions, is me.
52:50 DB: Well, it seems to me that this would have to be perceived immediately as obvious.

K: That is the whole question. To perceive the totality of this whole movement, instantly. Then we come to the point – perception. Whether it is possible to perceive – it sounds a little odd, and perhaps a little crazy, but it is not – is it possible to perceive without all the movement of memory? To perceive something directly, without the word, without the reaction, without the memories entering into perception.
53:38 DB: That is a very big question because memory has constantly entered perception.
53:42 K: Of course.
53:47 DB: It would raise the question: what is going to stop memory from entering perception?
53:51 K: Nothing can stop it. But if I see the reason, the rationality of the activity of memory, which is limited, the very perception that it is limited, you have moved out of it into another dimension.
54:16 DB: It seems to me that you have to perceive the whole of the limitation of memory.
54:19 K: Yes, not one part.
54:21 DB: You can see in general that memory is limited, but there are many ways in which this is not obvious. For example, many of our reactions that are not obvious may be memory, but we don't experience them as memory. Like you say, I experience me as being there presently and not memory. That is the common experience. Suppose I say I want to become less greedy. So, I experience greed and I experience the urge to become as actuality and not merely the result of memory. But I say, I can remember that I have been greedy, but the me is the one who remembers, not the other way around. That memory creates me.
55:15 K: All this really comes down to: can man live, humanity live without conflict? That really basically comes to that. Can we have peace on this earth? And the activities of thought will never bring it about.
55:37 DB: It seems clear from what has been said that the activity of thought cannot bring about peace. Psychologically, it inherently brings about conflict.
55:48 K: Yes, if we once really see or acknowledge that, our whole activity would be totally different.
56:02 DB: Are you saying there is an activity which is not thought then, which is beyond thought?
56:07 K: Yes.
56:09 DB: And which not only is beyond thought but which does not require the co-operation of thought?
56:14 K: Certainly not.
56:16 DB: That is, that it is possible for this to go on when thought is absent?
56:23 K: That is the real point. We have often discussed this, whether there is anything beyond thought. Not something holy, sacred – I am not talking of that. I am talking: is there an activity which is not touched by thought? We are saying there is. And that activity is the highest form of intelligence.
56:59 DB: Well, now we have brought in intelligence.
57:01 K: I know, I purposely brought it in. So, intelligence is not the activity of cunning thought. There is intelligence to build a table.
57:19 DB: Intelligence can use thought, as you have often said.
57:23 K: Intelligence can use thought, yes.
57:25 DB: Or thought can be the action of intelligence, would you put it that way?

K: Yes.
57:30 DB: Or it could be the action of memory?
57:33 K: That is it. Either the action is born of memory, and therefore memory is limited, therefore thought is limited, and it has its own activity which then brings about conflict.
57:44 DB: Yes, I think this would connect up with what people are saying about computers. Every computer must eventually depend on some kind of memory which is put in or else programmed and that must be limited.

K: Of course.
58:03 DB: Therefore when we operate from memory, we are not very different from a computer, the other way around, perhaps, the computer is not very different from us.
58:13 K: A Hindu has been programmed for the last 5000 years to be a Hindu, or in this country you are being programmed as British, or as a Catholic or a Protestant. So we are all programmed up to a certain extent.
58:32 DB: Then we could say there you are bringing in the notion of an intelligence which is free of the programme, which is creative, perhaps.

K: Yes, that is right. That intelligence has nothing to do with memory and knowledge.
58:45 DB: Yes, it may act in memory and knowledge, but it has nothing to do with it in its origin.
58:49 K: It may act through memory, etc. That is right. How do you find out whether it has any reality, not just imagination and romantic nonsense, how do you find out? To come to that one has to go into the whole question of suffering, whether there is an ending to suffering, and as long as suffering and fear and the pursuit of pleasure exist there cannot be love.
59:26 DB: Well, there are many questions there now. The first point is suffering including pleasure, fear, and I suppose we could include anger and violence and greed in there. We are saying first of all, that all those are the response of memory. They are nothing to do with intelligence.
59:50 K: They are all part of thought and memory.
59:52 DB: And that as long as they are going on, it seems to me, that intelligence cannot operate in thought, or through thought.
1:00:00 K: So there must be freedom from suffering.
1:00:04 DB: Yes, that is a very key point.
1:00:06 K: That is really a very serious and deep question. Whether it is possible to end suffering, which is the ending of me.
1:00:22 DB: Yes, again, it may seem repetitious but the feeling is that I am there, and I either suffer or don't suffer. That is, I either enjoy things or suffer.
1:00:32 K: Yes, I know that.

DB: Now, I think you are saying that suffering arises from thought,
1:00:41 DB: it is thought.

K: Identified. Attachment.
1:00:48 DB: So what is it that suffers? There is this feeling – it is really the opposite of the feeling of pleasure it seems to me. Memory may produce pleasure and then when it doesn't work, when it is frustrated, it produces pain and suffering.
1:01:05 K: Not only that – suffering is much more complex, isn't it? What is suffering? The meaning of that word is to have pain, to have grief, to feel utterly lost, lonely.
1:01:33 DB: It seems to me that it is not only pain, but a kind of a total pain, very pervasive.
1:01:42 K: Suffering is the loss of someone.
1:01:46 DB: The loss of something very important.
1:01:48 K: Yes, of course. Loss of my wife or loss of my son, brother, or whatever it is, and the desperate sense of loneliness.
1:02:01 DB: Yes, or else just simply the fact that the whole world is going into such a state.
1:02:09 K: Of course. I mean, all the wars.
1:02:12 DB: It makes everything meaningless.
1:02:14 K: What a lot of suffering the Falklands War has created.
1:02:18 DB: Yes, all these wars.
1:02:20 K: And wars have been going on for thousands of years. We are carrying on with the same pattern of the last 5000 years or more, of wars.
1:02:38 DB: One can easily see that the violence and hatred in wars will interfere with intelligence.

K: Obviously.
1:02:44 DB: It is not quite so obvious. I think some people have felt that by going through suffering
1:02:50 DB: people become –

K: Intelligent?
1:02:52 DB: purified like metal being refined in the crucible.
1:02:57 K: I know. That through suffering you learn.
1:03:02 DB: Or you are purified in some way.

K: You are purified. This is, through suffering your ego is banished.
1:03:11 DB: Yes, dissolved, refined. It doesn't. People have suffered immensely. How many wars, how many tears, and the destructive nature of governments?
1:03:30 DB: Yes, they have suffered any number of things.
1:03:33 K: Multiply them – unemployment, ignorance, all that.
1:03:37 DB: Disease, pain, everything. But, you see, what is suffering really? Why does it destroy intelligence, or interfere, prevent it? Why does suffering prevent intelligence? What is going on really?
1:03:51 K: Suffering is a shock, I suffer, I have pain, it is the essence of the me.
1:04:05 DB: Yes, the difficulty with suffering is that it is the me that is there that is suffering. And this me is really being sorry for itself in some way.
1:04:14 K: My suffering is different from your suffering.
1:04:16 DB: It isolates itself, yes. And it creates an illusion of some kind.
1:04:21 K: We don't see that suffering is shared by all humanity.
1:04:26 DB: Yes, but suppose we see it is shared by all humanity?
1:04:30 K: Then I begin to question what suffering is. It is not my suffering.

DB: Yes, that is important. In order to understand the nature of suffering I have to get out of this idea that it is my suffering, because as long as I believe it is my suffering I have an illusory notion of the whole thing.
1:04:46 K: And I can never end it.
1:04:49 DB: If you are dealing with an illusion you can do nothing with it. Now, we have to come back. Why is suffering the suffering of humanity? At first, I feel pain in the tooth, or else I have a loss, or something has happened to me, and the other person seems perfectly happy.
1:05:07 K: But also he is suffering too in his own way.
1:05:10 DB: Yes. At the moment he doesn't see it, but he has his problems too.
1:05:14 K: So suffering is common to all humanity.
1:05:16 DB: But the fact that it is common is not enough to make it all one.
1:05:20 K: It is actual.
1:05:22 DB: Yes, but I want to say, are you saying that the suffering of mankind is all one, inseparable?
1:05:27 K: Yes. That is what I have been saying.
1:05:29 DB: As is the consciousness of mankind.
1:05:31 K: Yes, that is right.
1:05:32 DB: That when anybody suffers, the whole of mankind is suffering.
1:05:37 K: If one country kills hundreds and thousands of human beings... The whole point is: we have suffered from the beginning of time we have suffered, and we haven't solved it.
1:06:00 DB: That is clear that it hasn't been solved. We haven't solved it.
1:06:03 K: We haven't ended suffering.
1:06:06 DB: The thing you said, which is, the reason we haven't solved it is because we are treating it as personal or as in a small group. That is an illusion. Any attempt to deal with an illusion cannot solve anything. We would like to make it very clear.
1:06:22 K: Thought cannot solve anything, psychologically.
1:06:27 DB: You can say that the thought itself divides. Thought is limited and it is not able to see that this suffering is all one. And therefore it divides it up as mine and yours and theirs, and that creates illusion which only multiplies suffering. It seems to me that the statement that suffering of mankind is one, is inseparable from the statement that consciousness of mankind is one.
1:06:55 K: We said that. Suffering is part of our consciousness.
1:07:01 DB: But one doesn't get the feeling immediately that this suffering belongs to the whole of mankind.
1:07:08 K: The world is me, I am the world.
1:07:10 DB: Yes, you have often said that.

K: Yes. But we have divided it as British earth and French earth, etc.
1:07:18 DB: Do you mean by the world, the physical world or the world of society?
1:07:21 K: The world of society, the psychological world chiefly.
1:07:27 DB: So, we say the world of society, of human beings, is one. When I say I am that world, what does that mean?
1:07:37 K: The world is not different from me.
1:07:39 DB: The world and I are one, and we are inseparable.

K: Yes. That is real meditation, you must feel this, not just a verbal statement, it is an actuality. I am my brother's keeper.
1:08:05 DB: Many religions have said that.
1:08:07 K: That is just a verbal statement, and they don't keep it, they don't do it in their hearts.
1:08:13 DB: Perhaps some may have done it but in general it is not being done. There may have been a few.
1:08:20 K: We human beings haven't done it. Our religions actually have prevented it.
1:08:25 DB: Because of division, every religion has its own beliefs and its own organisation.

K: Of course. Its own gods and its own saviours. So, from that, is that intelligence actual, or is it some kind of fanciful projection, hoping that will solve our problems? It is not to me. It is an actuality. Because the ending of suffering means love.
1:09:10 DB: Before we go onto that, we may clear up a point about 'me'. You said, it is not to me. In some sense it seems that you are still defining an individual.
1:09:21 K: Yes.

DB: Is that right?
1:09:23 K: When I say 'I' I am using the word 'I' as a means of communication.
1:09:31 DB: What does it mean? In some way, let's say that there may be two people, A who is the way you say, and B who is not.
1:09:42 K: Yes.
1:09:44 DB: Now, that seems to create a division between A and B.
1:09:48 K: That is right. But B creates the division. So what is the relationship between the two?
1:10:01 DB: B is creating the division by saying, I am a separate person, but it may confuse B further when A says, it is not that way to me.
1:10:09 K: Yes, that is the whole point, isn't it, in relationship? You feel that you are not separate, and that you really have this sense of love and compassion, and I haven't got it. I haven't even perceived or gone into this question. What is your relationship to me? That is what I am saying: you have a relationship with me, but I haven't any relationship with you.
1:10:51 DB: I think one could say that the person who hasn't seen is almost living in a world of dreams, psychologically, and therefore the world of dreams is not related to the world of being awake. But the fellow who is awake can at least perhaps awaken the other fellow.
1:11:08 K: You are awake, I am not. Then your relationship with me is very clear. But I have no relationship with you, I cannot. I insist on division, and you don't.
1:11:29 DB: Yes, in some way we have to say the consciousness of mankind has divided itself, it is all one, but it has divided itself by thought.
1:11:38 K: That is what we have been through.
1:11:40 DB: Yes, and that is why we are in this situation.
1:11:43 K: That is why all the problems that humanity has now, psychologically as well as in other ways, is the result of thought. And we are pursuing the same pattern of thought, and thought will never solve any of these problems. So there is another kind of instrument, which is intelligence.
1:12:10 DB: That opens up an entirely different subject.
1:12:13 K: Yes, I know.
1:12:16 DB: And you also mentioned love as well.
1:12:19 K: Yes, I said that.

DB: Or compassion.
1:12:22 K: Without love and compassion there is no intelligence. And that you cannot be compassionate if you are attached to some religion, if you are tied to a post like an animal tied to a post, and it can think it is compassionate.
1:12:45 DB: As soon as your self is threatened, then it all vanishes. what you really think is important.
1:12:52 K: The self hides behind...

DB: Other things, noble ideals.
1:12:57 K: Yes, it has immense capacity to hide itself. So what is the future of mankind? From what one observes it is leading to destruction.
1:13:19 DB: Well, that is the way it seems to be going, yes.
1:13:21 K: Very gloomy, grim, dangerous. And if one has children, what is their future? To enter into all this? And go through all the misery of it all? So education becomes extraordinarily important. But now education is merely the accumulation of knowledge.
1:13:56 DB: Yes, every instrument that man has invented or discovered or developed has been turned toward destruction.
1:14:03 K: Yes. Absolutely. They are destroying nature, there are very few tigers now.
1:14:14 DB: Very few?

K: Tigers. They are destroying everything.
1:14:17 DB: They are destroying forests and agricultural land. Overpopulation. Nobody seems to care.
1:14:29 DB: There are two things, one is, people are immersed in their own problems.
1:14:33 K: Immersed in their own little plans to save humanity.
1:14:38 DB: Most people are just immersed in their plans to save themselves. Those others have plans to save humanity. But I think also there is a tendency toward despair implicit in what is happening now, in that people don't think anything can be done.
1:14:54 K: Yes. And if they think something can be done they form little groups and little theories.
1:15:03 DB: There are those who are very confident in what they are doing and those who lack confidence.
1:15:08 K: Like most prime ministers are very confident. They don't know what they are doing really.
1:15:14 DB: But then most people haven't much confidence in what they are doing.

K: I know. If you have tremendous confidence I accept your confidence and go with you.
1:15:22 DB: Yes, but since thought is limited...
1:15:29 K: That is, the future of man, mankind, the future of humanity, I wonder if anybody is concerned with it. Or each person, or each group, is only concerned with its own survival?
1:15:51 DB: I think the first concern is, and almost always has been, with survival in either the individual or the group. That has been the history of mankind.
1:16:00 K: Therefore perpetual wars, perpetual insecurity.
1:16:06 DB: Yes, but this is, as you said, the result of thought, which makes the mistake on the basis of being incomplete, to identify the self with the group, and so on.
1:16:17 K: You happen to listen to all this. You agree to all this. You see the truth of all this. Those in power will not even listen to you.
1:16:28 DB: No.
1:16:30 K: They are creating more and more misery, more and more the world becoming dangerous. What is the point of you and I agreeing, seeing something true? This is what people are asking: what is the point of you and I seeing something to be true, and what effect has it?
1:16:52 DB: Yes, well, it seems to me that if we think in terms of the effects we are bringing in time.
1:16:59 K: Yes, and also it is a wrong question.
1:17:02 DB: We are bringing in the very thing which is behind the trouble. That is, the first response would be: we quickly must get in and do something to change the course of events.
1:17:13 K: Therefore form a society, foundation, organisation, etc.
1:17:17 DB: But our mistake is, to do that we must think about something, and that thought is incomplete. We don't really know what is going on, and people have made theories about it, but they don't know.
1:17:27 K: Come down to it: if that is a wrong question, then as a human being, who is mankind, what is my responsibility? Apart from effect, etc.
1:17:49 DB: Yes, we can't look towards effects. But it is the same as with A and B, that A sees and B does not. Now, suppose A sees something and most of the rest of mankind does not. One could say mankind is in some way dreaming, asleep.
1:18:12 K: He is caught in illusion.
1:18:14 DB: And the point is that, if somebody sees something then his responsibility is to help awake the others up. To get out of the illusion.
1:18:28 K: That is just it. This has been the problem. That is why the Buddhists have projected the idea of the Bodhisattva who is compassionate, and is the essence of all compassion, and he is waiting to save humanity. It sounds nice. It is a happy feeling that there is somebody doing this. But in actuality we won't do anything that is not comfortable, satisfying, secure, both psychologically and physically.
1:19:21 DB: That is the source of the illusion, basically.
1:19:25 K: How does one make another see all this? They haven't time, they haven't the energy, they haven't even the inclination, they want to be amused. How does one make 'X' see this whole thing so clearly that he says, All right, I have got it, I will work. I am responsible, etc. I think that is the tragedy of those who see and those who don't.