Krishnamurti Subtitles home


BRGS75CB3 - Thought cannot bring about an insight
Brockwood Park, UK - 31 May 1975
Conversation with David Bohm 3



0:00 This is the third dialogue between J. Krishnamurti and David Bohm, and it includes Dr Parchure, at Brockwood Park, 1975.
0:14 Krishnamurti: What do we start on? David Bohm: Well, we have some suggestions? No? There are many points.
0:30 Well, we could either go into the question of thought which is non-verbal, or into a question I’ve been considering during the last week, of necessity.
0:51 That is, what is the relationship of necessity and freedom?
0:55 K: Oh, yes.

DB: Does that seem interesting?
1:16 K: Thought and...? You said – the first one.
1:19 DB: Well, thought which is non-verbal.
1:22 K: Non-verbal, yes.
1:36 DB: Well, you know, it’s fairly clear that ordinary thought is dominated by the word, by the order of the word, that one word gives rise to an image and the image gives rise to another word.
1:52 K: Yes, a series of verbal associations.
1:54 DB: Yes. So therefore, although it’s not just the word, it is dominated by the word. I mean, it has...
2:02 Now, we could call that verbal thought.
2:06 K: Yes. Is there a thinking at all without the word?
2:11 DB: Well, that’s the question.

K: That’s the question, yes.
2:16 DB: Now, I have the feeling that there is a kind of thinking without the word.
2:23 K: What is that?
2:25 DB: Well, it’s hard to explain, but it’s a thinking which does not follow in this order in which word gives rise to association and association to word.
2:37 K: I’m not at all sure – I’m just discussing – I’m not at all sure that there is any kind of thinking, as we know it without the word, symbol and image.
2:54 And if there is a thinking, is it thinking according...
3:02 or the process of knowledge, a reaction to knowledge, a continuation of knowledge, and so it is still a verbal remembrance, a remembrance of incidents, symbols, words and images.
3:28 If there is no verbal thinking at all, then what is thinking?
3:44 Is there a thinking at all?
3:47 DB: Well, it depends on what you mean.
3:49 K: All right. Thinking, we mean, don’t we, sir, a response of memory, of our conditioning, of verbal associations.
4:10 DB: Well, in that case you define thinking as the word already, so therefore...

K: Yes, that’s...
4:14 DB: If you define it that way, then it’s impossible...
4:16 K: But that is thinking, isn’t it?
4:18 DB: Well, no, you see, part of our question is how we assign the use of words, what is the clearest way. You see, we are engaged in trying to use words in appropriate or fitting ways. Now, for example, if you say reality is not the same as truth, that’s a different way of using words from the common way which identifies reality and truth.
4:41 K: Yes, yes.
4:43 DB: Now, the only justification for changing the use of words is that it would make things more clear, you see. It makes our communication more clear.
4:52 K: That is a description.
4:53 DB: It’s a description but still there are different... It has advantages to use one description instead of another.
4:59 K: Quite, quite. Naturally. If I am describing a house, I must use certain...
5:03 DB: Now, if you say reality is not the same as truth, then you are using words in a certain way which you think will communicate more clearly.
5:16 K: Yes, quite.
5:18 DB: Now, therefore if we raise the question about thinking, you see, are you proposing to define thinking as the response of memory?
5:26 In which case there can be no question that there is no non-verbal thought, you see.
5:31 K: That’s what I want to get at.

DB: Yes, but I mean...
5:34 K: How do you define then or explain what is thinking?
5:40 DB: Yes. Well, you see, let’s explore whether there can be a kind of imagination, for example, which is not merely the association of words.
5:57 You see, ordinarily, the imagination is stimulated by the word.
6:01 K: Yes – word, symbol, and so on.

DB: Yes, that’s right. Now, I think that when somebody has a new insight, then they may appear in imagination.
6:10 K: Is insight imagination?
6:11 DB: Not in itself, but it may be expressed. The first step in realising the insight may be imagination.
6:19 K: Ah, I see. You’re saying through imagination one has insight.
6:24 DB: No, through imagination one begins to realise the insight, to carry it out.

K: All right, sir.
6:32 I question that. I question that.

DB: Well...
6:35 K: We are discussing it.

DB: Yes.
6:39 K: What is imagination then?
6:41 DB: Well, we have to say that imagination maybe...
6:49 it is a kind of display of the meaning of whatever is in your mind.
6:54 K: Yes.
6:56 DB: You see, now, ordinarily, we talk about images but it might be something more general, you see.
7:06 You see, let’s try to put another form of thought. That is, thought is not only... the mind works not only explicitly but through the implicit. Well, implicit means folded-up.

K: Yes.
7:19 DB: Now, the implicit doesn’t follow in the simple order of words – do you see? – there can be a tremendous range of implications. They are not the same as just simply things strung together by words. Do you follow me?

K: Yes, I follow, sir.
7:32 DB: Now, and therefore the imagination helps to reveal these implications.
7:40 K: Is insight brought about through imagination, through verbal, symbol, imagination?
7:55 DB: Not that it’s brought about that way but it may be displayed and expressed that way.
8:00 K: Ah, insight may express it.
8:03 DB: Insight may express itself through...
8:05 K:...through words.

DB:...through imagination.
8:07 K: Through imagination. But is insight different from the word, from the image?
8:16 DB: The insight is different from the image but at the same time when the image expresses insight, it may be different from the image merely expressing the word.
8:25 K: Sir, wait a minute. I have an insight into this fact that reality is a process of thinking, a reality is something that you think about or reflect upon – of which we agreed the other day.
8:47 I have an insight into that. And truth is something totally different from that. Insight, that is, having a glimpse of something that is real, that is true – both real and true.
9:17 DB: Yes. And the question now arises, too, that you want to communicate the insight and you may want the insight to work more broadly.
9:26 K: Broadly – I understand that. But is the capacity or the quality of insight a verbal process?
9:37 DB: No, that is not a verbal process but I was saying something else, you see.
9:42 K: Which is what? I don’t think I’ve understood.
9:44 DB: You see, let me give an example and you can consider it. You see, at one time I can remember as a graduate student at California Institute of Technology, there was a certain problem in mathematics, let’s say.
9:57 Now, one way to work it out would have involved many, many steps, you know, a long formulae. So I had an insight that if you could rotate this thing in a certain direction, and then it would be obvious.

K: Obvious – quite.
10:10 DB: Now, that was expressed through the imagination of rotating...
10:14 K: Ah, but I’m asking: Is that insight, which you had, brought about by imagination?
10:22 DB: Well, no, I didn’t say it was. I’m saying that it was expressed through imagination.
10:28 K: That insight expresses itself through imagination.
10:32 DB: Yes.
10:32 K: Now, is that insight... how does it come about?
10:37 DB: Well, we didn’t try to say that, you see. You see, the insight does not come about through thought.
10:42 K: No, that’s all I wanted – that’s all.
10:44 DB: But at the same time there is a thought which may express the insight.

K: Ah, yes. I understand that.
10:48 DB: And I would call that non-verbal thought. I mean, it would be thought whose content was essentially not arising in the word, you see.
10:59 K: You have an insight.

DB: Yes.
11:01 K: And that insight expresses through words, through images, through symbols. That I understand.
11:08 DB: Yes.

K: That is clear. But is the insight a movement of thought?
11:14 DB: No.

K: No.
11:15 DB: No, but, you see, there may be... I want to make a distinction between that movement of thought whose order is primarily from that insight, from another movement of thought which comes mostly from mechanical...
11:31 K: Yes. Yes.

DB: Right. Now, I would call that non-verbal thought, in the sense...
11:36 K: Which one would you call non-verbal?
11:38 DB: When it comes from the insight, when it is expressing insight.
11:44 K: Ah, ah. Just a minute, let me get it. When insight expresses itself, that expression is non-verbal – is that it?
11:57 DB: No, the expression may be imaginative and then verbal later. For example, your insight about reality and truth was eventually expressed through words.
12:05 K: Words – yes.
12:06 DB: Now, I would propose that that use of words is different from somebody who just simply had...
12:12 K: Ah, I see. Yes, yes, I understand. I understand.
12:15 DB: Right. Do you follow me now?

K: Yes, I follow. I understand.
12:20 DB: I want to distinguish two ways of using words and images, and two ways of using thought. Right?

K: Quite, quite.
12:35 Is insight separate from thought and separate from action?
12:50 DB: Well, what do you mean by separate?
12:52 K: I mean by separate, it is... I have an insight into something.

DB: Yes.
13:05 K: Does that insight express verbally? Naturally it does.
13:14 And action from that insight.
13:17 DB: Yes, that follows from the insight.
13:19 K: Yes, follows from the insight. Is that action different from the action of thought?
13:26 DB: Yes, from the action which is produced by thought alone. Right?

K: Yes, thought alone.
13:31 DB: Yes. So that’s the point I was trying to get at.
13:34 K: Yes, yes.
13:34 DB: There is one kind of process, which is thought working on its own, in which the word produces the associated image and the image produces the next word and altogether they produce an action.
13:45 K: Yes, yes, that’s what I was trying to get at.
13:48 DB: That is one process.

K: Yes, that’s one process. Quite. That is, thought-action, insight-action.
13:57 DB: Yes.
13:58 K: The action of thought is different from the action of insight.

DB: Yes.
14:03 K: That’s what I want to...
14:05 DB: Yes.

K: Yes.
14:05 DB: The action which is produced from thought alone.
14:09 K: Yes, yes – I understand that.

DB: Because... Yes, all right.
14:14 K: Then what is the relationship between the action of insight and the action of the process of thought?
14:24 Is there a relationship?
14:25 DB: If the process of thought is working alone, there’s no relationship, except...
14:32 K: So you are saying: Insight, a verbal expression, an action.
14:39 Insight, non-verbal, action.
14:45 DB: I don’t get that. There are two forms of insight, is that what you’re saying?
14:50 K: Two forms of insight.
14:51 DB: There is insight which is expressed verbally or imaginatively and that leads to action. And there is another insight, you say, which just acts. Is that what you’re saying?

K: That’s what I’m saying.
15:01 DB: Yes.
15:06 K: The insight-action, in that, there is no division, there is no separation, there is no time interval between insight and action.
15:20 DB: Yes.

K: The other is: Insight, expression verbally, and acting.
15:29 DB: Well, the verbal expression, in my view, is an action already.
15:32 K: Is already action – all right.
15:34 DB: In other words, we could say that one form of insight may immediately express itself in words.
15:40 K: I’m trying to break it up. I want to see it. I have an insight into...
15:54 that organisation, any form of organisation does not lead to truth.
16:06 Wait, wait, I’m going... I had an insight to dissolve the Order of the Star.
16:18 I had an insight. It was an action taken immediately.
16:24 DB: Yes, but in that action, you, of course, used words and various things.
16:28 K: Of course, of course, of course. But the action born of insight is something totally different from the action born of thought.
16:37 DB: Yes, we agree on that.

K: That is the... Right.
16:40 DB: Yes, but my feeling is, you see, in the action born of insight, there may arise words, there may arise something else.

K: Sure. I understand.
16:48 DB: In other words, there’s not a great distinction. According to the requirements, it may express itself one way or another.
16:55 K: I’m not sure.
16:56 DB: Well, you did use words, for example. Let’s take the insight about reality.
17:02 K: Yes, let’s stick to that.
17:03 DB: There, of course, it became necessary to put it in words.
17:06 K: Yes.
17:07 DB: Which I don’t think was fundamentally different from any other action. You see, in other words, that was the appropriate action at that moment.
17:17 K: I think there is a fundamental difference.
17:19 DB: Well, what is the difference then?
17:20 K: That’s what I’m trying to get at.
17:29 Isn’t there an action which is non-verbal, non-reasoned out, an action which is not the process of thought?
17:48 Is there an action which is not in the field of thought?
17:57 I don’t know if I am making myself clear.
18:05 Now, let’s go back a little bit, may we? What is action? I mean, we all discussed this. Action is something that is taking place now, being made – all the rest of it – acting now.
18:31 Is that action different from the action which is part of time, part of thought, part of a process?
18:45 DB: Yes, well, we have to distinguish. If at any stage you want the action to enter the field of reality, say, to produce a real effect, then you must enter this field.

K: Of course, of course.
19:04 DB: Therefore, if you want to communicate the action to other people...

K: I understand that.
19:08 DB: Right. Now then we’re proposing: Is there an action which does not enter this field of reality?
19:12 K: Yes, that’s it. For the moment, I’m not concerned with communicating to others. I’m concerned... we are concerned, trying to find out if there is an action which is not a process of thought, an action which is of truth – if I can put it – an insight which acts instantly.
19:42 That’s all I want... I want to question that.
19:51 DB: Well, perhaps one action that acts instantly is to see the falseness.
19:55 K: Yes. Yes.
20:02 I don’t want to take images. It’s difficult to take examples. I have an insight into the fact that people believe in God.
20:18 I’m taking that as an example. People believe that.
20:21 DB: What is the nature of your insight then?
20:24 K: The insight that God is their projection.
20:28 DB: Yes, and therefore false.

K: False. I have an insight. And the belief, if I had a belief in God, drops away instantly.
20:39 DB: Yes.
20:39 K: It is not a process of thought, it is a process of an insight into truth.
20:50 DB: Or into falseness.

K: Or into falseness. And that action is complete. It’s over. I don’t know if I’m conveying it. That action is whole. There is no regret, there is no personal advantage, there is no emotional – etc.
21:12 It is an action that is complete.

DB: Yes.
21:18 K: Whereas, the action brought about by thought into the investigation of an analysis – if there is God, if there is no God – is always incomplete.
21:31 DB: Yes. I mean, I understand that. You see, we have to get clear. Now, there’s another action in which you do not use words, where you try to realise the insight. Let’s say you talk to people.

K: Yes, yes.
21:44 DB: Now, is that complete or incomplete, then? You see, you have discovered about God – right?
21:49 K: Yes, yes.
21:49 DB: Now, you see, other people are still caught in this and therefore you...
21:53 K: No, but the man speaks from an insight.
21:57 DB: He speaks from an insight but at the same time he starts a process of time. Right?

K: Yes, that’s right. To convey something – of course.
22:04 DB: To convey something. To change things.

K: Of course, of course.
22:08 DB: Yes. And now let’s consider that, just to get it clear. You see, it’s starting from an insight but it is conveying truth.
22:14 K: Yes. But it’s always starting from an insight.
22:17 DB: Yes. And in doing that, you may have to organise it, and so on.
22:26 K: Of course. All the rest of it follows.
22:28 DB: Yes.
22:32 K: And the action of a reasoned thought is different from the action of insight.
22:39 DB: Now, what is the difference when insight is conveyed through reasoned thought, you see? Let’s come to your insight again about God.
22:46 K: Sorry.
22:47 DB: And you have to convey it to other people. You must put it in a reasonable form, and so on.
22:51 K: I understand – of course.
22:52 DB: And therefore isn’t there still some of the quality of the insight as you convey it?
23:00 K: Quality of the insight...
23:02 DB: Well, you have the insight into God, you see?
23:04 K: Yes, yes – insight into God. Good idea!
23:11 DB: Now, you must find a reasonable way to communicate it. Right?

K: Quite.
23:15 DB: Because if you don’t, people will say – you know. And therefore, in doing that, the truth of the insight is still being communicated in this form.
23:31 K: Yes, yes.
23:32 DB: And I’m trying to say that. Right?
23:33 K: Yes, yes.
23:33 DB: And in some sense that is thought.
23:35 K: No, but, you see, I have an insight into it and I act. Because God is meaningless to me.
23:42 DB: Yes, and your action...

K: Wait a minute. But in conveying to another verbally that insight, his action may be...

DB: He may be incomplete.
23:53 K:...incomplete. His action will be incomplete unless he has an insight.
23:57 DB: That’s right. So you must convey what will give him an insight.
24:00 K: Yes. Can you give an insight?

DB: No, not really. But, I mean, whatever you convey must somehow start something.
24:09 K: Yes, yes, yes. That can only happen when you yourself have dropped.
24:12 DB: Yes, when you have dropped it. But there is no guarantee that it will happen.
24:16 K: No, no, of course not.
24:21 DB: And that depends on the other person, whether he’s ready to listen, and so on.
24:25 K: Yes, listen.
24:26 DB: And that may depend partly on…

K: So we come back to the point. Is there a thinking which is non-verbal? That’s where we began.
24:39 DB: Well, it depends on how we use language. I would say there is a thinking which carries, which conveys the insight that is non-verbal. The thinking itself is not non-verbal, you see, since...

K: I don’t quite understand.
24:51 DB: Well, look, there is the thinking which is dominated by the word, which...
24:57 K: Yes, I understand that.
24:58 DB: Now, there is another thinking whose order is determined not by the word, you see, but by the insight.
25:06 K: I see. I see. Is insight the product of thought?
25:10 DB: No, but insight works through thought.
25:13 K: Ah, that’s different. That’s different. Yes.
25:15 DB: Yes.

K: But...
25:19 DB: Insight is never the product of thought.
25:21 K: No, absolutely not.
25:22 DB: But it may work through thought. Now, I wanted to say that that thought, through which insight is working, has a different order from the thought...
25:32 K: I see. Quite, quite, quite.
25:34 DB: And I want to distinguish those two.
25:36 K: Yes, quite.
25:40 DB: I think you once gave an example in the past of a drum vibrating from the emptiness within.
25:48 Now, I took it to mean that the skin was like the action of the thought.
25:52 K: Quite, quite.

DB: Right?
26:00 K: Yes, that’s right.
26:06 K: Sir, how does insight take place?
26:17 Because if it is not the product of thought, not the process of organised thought, and all the rest of it, then how does this insight come into being?
26:36 DB: Well, it’s not clear what you mean by the question.
26:41 K: How do I have an insight that God is a projection of our own desires, images, and so on?
26:50 And I see the falseness of it, or the truth of it. Now, how does it take place?
27:03 DB: I mean, I don’t see how you could expect to describe it, you see.
27:08 K: Is it... You see, I have a feeling, insight or whatever you like to call it, that thought cannot possibly enter into an area where insight, truth is.
27:32 DB: Yes.

K: It operates anywhere else, but that area can operate through thought.
27:44 DB: Yes.
27:47 K: But thought cannot enter that area.
27:51 DB: Yes. I mean, that seems clear. If we say that thought is the response of memory which is some material process.

K: Yes, yes, yes.
27:59 DB: Then we could say that that cannot be unconditioned and free, you see.
28:06 K: Yes, that cannot – no. So, then what is non-verbal thinking?
28:16 DB: Well, I just said the expression of thought, that thought which expresses some non-verbal insight, whose order is some non-verbal insight.
28:28 You see, if you say non-verbal thinking, it’s not clear what you mean because the word ‘thinking’ already implies...
28:34 K: Implies verbal. Yes, I understand.
28:36 DB: Well, it implies something going on in the domain of thought alone.
28:38 K: Yes, quite, quite. Sorry. Yes.
28:40 DB: So the word ‘thinking’ implies an activity by thought alone.
28:43 K: Yes.
28:43 DB: But I’m trying precisely to discuss an activity not by thought alone – do you see? So therefore we might use the word ‘non-verbal thought’, which is a little bit...

K:...confusing.
28:52 DB: Yes.

K: Yes. I understand.
28:57 DB: You see, that is, a thought process whose ordering or origin is non-verbal, you see.
29:02 K: Yes.

DB: From beyond... somewhere.
29:04 K: Yes. I would like to go into this question, if I may. How does this insight take place? If it is not the process of thought, then what is the quality of a mind or quality of observation in which thought doesn’t enter?
29:34 And because it doesn’t enter, you have an insight. Am I making... or am I using words wrongly?
29:44 DB: Well...
29:47 K: We said insight is complete.
29:56 It is not fragmented as thought is. So thought cannot bring about an insight.
30:06 DB: No, well... No. I mean, thought may communicate the...
30:12 K:...communicate the insight.
30:14 DB: Or it may communicate some of the data which leads you to an insight. You see, for example, people told you about religion, and so on. In other words... But eventually the insight depends on something which is not thought. I mean...
30:30 K: Yes, insight is not dependent on thought.
30:33 DB: Yes.

K: Right? Then how does that insight come? Is it a cessation of thought?
30:48 DB: Well, it could be looked at as cessation.
30:51 K: Is it thought itself realises that it cannot enter into a certain area?
31:10 That is, sir, the thinker is the thought – the observer, experiencer, all the rest of it.
31:25 And thought itself realises, aware, that it can only function within a certain area.
31:34 DB: But doesn’t that itself require insight? Before thought realises that there must be an insight.
31:40 K: That’s just it. That’s just it. Does thought realise there must be insight?
31:47 DB: Well, I don’t know. But I was trying to say that there would have to be insight into the nature of thought before thought would realise anything. Right?

K: Yes, yes, that’s right.
31:55 DB: Because thought by itself cannot realise anything.
31:57 K: Nothing.

DB: Or, well, understand...
32:00 K: Yes, yes, yes – we understand. We are coming to something.
32:04 DB: Yes. But in some way, we said truth can operate in thought, in reality.
32:10 K: Yes, yes, yes. Thought... I mean, truth can operate in the field of reality.
32:16 DB: Yes.

K: Right. Now, how does one’s mind see the truth?
32:31 What is the... Is it a process? Is it a...
32:36 DB: I see. The meaning of your question is that... you’re asking whether there’s a process of seeing – right?
32:41 K: Yes. What is the process?
32:42 DB: I mean, there is no process, because that would be time again.
32:46 K: Yes, the timing. That’s right.
32:52 DB: But I would like to... You see, let’s consider a certain point, that there is an insight about the nature of thought, with the observer is the observed, and so on.
33:02 K: That’s clear.
33:03 DB: Now, there’s a question.
33:14 You see, in some sense thought must accept that insight or carry it or, you know, to respond to it.
33:22 K: Or the insight is so vital, so energetic, full of vitality, it forces thought to operate.
33:35 DB: All right, then there’s the necessity to operate.
33:38 K: Yes, necessity.
33:40 DB: Now, that’s fine. But, you see, generally speaking, it doesn’t have that. You see, we get into a circle because it doesn’t have that vitality, and then you say because it’s thought. Right?
33:49 K: Of course, of course.

DB: In other words... So in some indirect way thought has rejected the insight, you see. At least it appears to be so.
33:59 K: Sir, most people have an insight but habit is so strong they reject the insight.
34:05 DB: Yes, I understand that. I’m trying to get to the bottom of it, you see, to find out, to see if we can break through that rejection, if you see what I mean.
34:13 K: Aha. Break through the rejection, break through the habit, the conditioning which prevents the insight.
34:22 DB: Yes.
34:22 K: Though one may have an insight, the conditioning is so strong you reject the insight.
34:27 DB: Yes. Yes, you see, the...
34:31 K: This is what happens.

DB: That’s what happens. You see, I looked up the word ‘habit’ and it says: ‘a settled disposition of the mind’ – you see, which I think is very good, to say...
34:41 K: What is that?

DB: A settled disposition.
34:43 K: Ah – disposition of the mind.
34:45 DB: It’s been disposed in a certain fixed way which resists change, you see.
34:50 K: Yes.

DB: But now we are back... But then, you see, we get caught in the same question: How are we going to break that very settled disposition?
35:01 K: Yes. Quite.
35:04 DB: I mean, it’s sort of like concrete, you see.
35:09 K: I don’t think you can break it.

DB: No.
35:11 K: I don’t think thought can break it.
35:13 DB: No. But I mean, you were asking for that intense insight which necessarily dissolves it.

K: That’s right.
35:28 Right, sir. May I go just a little bit over it? One has an insight into truth and reality.
35:42 One’s mind has lived disposed, and formed habits, and all that, in the world of reality. It lives there.
35:53 DB: Yes, and it’s very rigid.

K: Rigid. Right.
36:00 You come along and point out the rigidity of that. I catch a glimpse of what you’re saying, which is non-thinking.
36:10 DB: Yes. I catch a glimpse.

K: I see it.
36:13 DB: In a glimpse only.

K: In a glimpse. But this conditioning is so strong, I reject it.
36:22 DB: I don’t do it purposely, it just happens.
36:24 K: It has happened.

DB: Right.
36:25 K: Because you helped to create that happening.
36:37 Is that glimpse, first of all, strong enough to dissolve this?
36:45 And if it is not strong, then it goes on.
36:54 Can this – that’s what I want... – can this conditioning dissolve...
37:08 Can this conditioning... You see, that’s it. I must have an insight into the conditioning otherwise I can’t dissolve it.
37:18 DB: Yes. Maybe we could look at it like this, that this conditioning is a reality, a very solid reality.
37:25 K: Yes. Very solid.
37:28 DB: Which is fundamentally what we think about.
37:31 K: Yes, what we think about – quite right.
37:33 DB: Now, ordinarily when I look at reality I don’t think it’s what I think about – do you see? – I say it’s what is.

K: Yes.
37:41 DB: Right? It’s true or actual. You see, I’ve been looking at that – to say that ordinary reality is not only what I think about but it fits actuality, to some extent, the actual fact.
37:54 K: Yes.
37:55 DB: Now, that’s the proof of its reality.
37:58 K: I understand that.
37:59 DB: Now, at first sight it seems this conditioning is just as solid as any reality.
38:05 K: Yes, quite.

DB: If not more so.
38:07 K: Much more solid – quite. Is that conditioning dissolved, comes to an end, through thinking?
38:25 DB: Well, it won’t, because thinking is what it is – do you see?
38:28 K: Yes. So thinking won’t. Then what will?
38:33 DB: Well, we’re back again, you see. We see that it’s only truth, insight.
38:41 If we can see there is something false there.
38:43 K: I think, sir, something takes place.
38:44 DB: Yes.
38:50 K: I see I am conditioned, and I separate myself from the conditioning.
39:04 DB: Yes.
39:04 K: ‘I am different from the conditioning’. And you come along and say, ‘No, it isn’t like that – the observer is the observed’.
39:13 DB: Yes.
39:22 K: If I can see or have an insight that the observer is the observed, then the conditioning begins to dissolve.
39:32 DB: Yes, because then it’s not solid.
39:37 K: No, there is no conflict – all the rest of it takes place.
39:42 DB: Yes. You see, if you say reality is what I think about – I am the thinker who is thinking about the conditioning. Right?
39:50 K: Of course, if... That’s right, sir.
39:52 DB: Now, if I can see the thinker is the thought, you see. In other words, the thought of the conditioning is the thinking process itself.
40:03 K: Itself – quite.
40:06 DB: And therefore the thought is projecting the conditioning as if it were some reality that was not thought. Do you see?
40:13 K: Yes, yes.

DB: It seems very solid.
40:20 But in fact, it is thought – do you see?
40:22 K: Yes. What takes place, sir, if I who have been in the habit, disposed, and all the rest of it, that the observer is different from the observer – what takes place when I realise or see, have an insight, that the observer is the observed? What takes place?
40:56 Then does thought enter into that... I’m putting it wrongly.
41:06 What takes place when you show me or give me, or help me to have an insight into the observer is the observed?
41:17 What takes place in me when I see that?
41:27 DB: I mean, I see that the conditioning is nothing, you see, that it is not that.

K: No. No, I want...
41:34 No. The perception of that is the ending of the conditioning.
41:39 DB: Yes. Well, because... one sees that the conditioning is not what I thought...
41:46 K: I can explain afterwards.

DB: Yes.
41:49 K: The fact... the reality... the truth is, when there is the realisation the observer is the observed, then in that realisation, which is truth, the conditioning disappears.
42:09 DB: Yes.
42:10 K: How does it disappear? What is necessary for that... for the crumbling of that structure?
42:22 DB: Well, I think it’s merely that there’s the insight into the falseness of it, you see.
42:28 K: I can have an insight, sir – just a minute – I can have an insight into something that’s false, and I go on that way, go along in the false, accept the false and live in the false.
42:39 DB: Yes, well...
42:41 K: I don’t know if I am conveying something. Sir, I want to bring it into...
42:48 DB: Well, it’s not merely that it’s false, but...
42:50 K: I want to bring it into action in my life. I have accepted reality as truth.
43:00 DB: Yes, well, now we...

K: Just a minute.
43:02 DB: Right.
43:02 K: I have accepted it. I live in that.
43:05 DB: Yes.
43:07 K: And my gods, my habits, my everything – I live in that. You come along and say, ‘Look, truth is different from reality’, and you explain it to me.
43:19 How will I break that tremendous life, that tremendous weight, or put away that tremendous conditioning?
43:36 I need energy to break that conditioning.
43:43 Does the energy come when the observer is the observed?
43:51 I don’t know if I’m... Because I see the importance, rationally, that the conditioning must break down, and I reason, I see the necessity of it, I see how it operates, the division, the conflict, and all the rest of it involved.
44:21 Now, when I realise that the observer is the observed, there’s a totally different kind of energy comes into being.
44:32 DB: Yes.

K: That’s all I want to get at. Right, sir?
44:36 DB: Yes, it’s not the energy of reality then.
44:39 K: Energy of reality – that’s it.
44:41 DB: I feel it better when I say, ‘The thinker is not the thought’. I don’t know...

K: Yes.
44:46 DB: It’s the same thing, really.
44:47 K: Same thing, yes. The thinker is not... Right.
44:50 DB: I mean, the thinker is the thought, rather.
44:52 K: Yes – the thinker is the thought. Now, is that energy different from the energy of conditioning and the activity of the conditioning and reality?
45:07 And is that energy the perception of truth?
45:14 And therefore it has quite a different quality of energy.
45:20 DB: Yes. It seems it’s the quality of this empty space.
45:24 K: Yes.

DB: And of being free, you see.
45:29 K: Yes.
45:30 DB: Not being bound by the conditioning.
45:34 K: Yes. Now, wait a minute. I want to make it practical to myself. I see this. I see this whole thing that you have described to me.
45:49 And I’ve got a fairly good mind – I can argue, I can explain it, all the rest of it – but this quality of energy doesn’t come.
45:59 And you want me to have that quality of it, because... out of your compassion, out of your understanding, perception of truth, and so on, you say, ‘Please, see that’.
46:17 And I can’t see it because I’m always living in the realm of reality.
46:27 You are living in the realm of truth and I can’t...
46:34 there is no relationship between you and me. I accept your words. I see the reason for it, I see the logic of it, I see the actuality of it, but I can’t break it down.
46:50 I don’t know if I’m...

DB: Yes.
46:51 K: How will you help – please, I’m using that word hesitantly – how can you help me to break this down?
47:05 It’s your job – I don’t know – because you see truth and I don’t.
47:12 And you say, ‘For God’s sake, see this’. How will you help me? Through words? Then we enter into the realm, of which I am quite familiar.
47:43 This is actually going on – you understand, sir? So what is one to do? What will you do with me who refuses to see something which is just there?
48:04 And you point out that as long as we live in this world of reality, there is going to be murder, death – everything will go on there.
48:15 There is no answer in that realm for any of our problems. So what will... how will you convey this to me?
48:30 Hold my hand?

DB: No, I...
48:32 K: Wait, I want to find out. I’m very keen. I want to get out of this, but I don’t know...
48:50 This is our problem, sir. You come here, I come here, we talk to the students, you tell them something, I tell them something, but the weight of their conditioning, of their desires, of their youthfulness which is wasted on them – you follow? – and how will you say, ‘For God’s sake, get out’?
49:22 DB: It’s only possible to communicate the intensity, it seems.
49:29 I mean, we already discussed all the other factors that are dis-communicated.
49:43 K: You see, what you say has no system, no method – because they are all part of the...
49:52 You say something totally new, unexpected, to which I haven’t even given a single moment of thought.
50:00 You come along with a basket full and I don’t know how to receive you.
50:09 So you are concerned. I don’t know... I’m sorry. So what will you... how will you operate then?
50:29 Sir, this has been really a problem, you know, of the prophets, of everybody.
50:38 DB: Well, nobody it seems has really succeeded. I mean, it’s...
50:41 K: Nobody has. It’s part of the education that keeps us constantly in the world of... in the realm of reality.
50:51 DB: Yes. And that identification of reality and truth.
50:56 K: Yes, of course, sir, all the rest of it.
50:59 DB: Yes, I understand. You see, everybody is expecting a path marked out in the field of reality.
51:17 K: You see, you talk of a totally different kind of energy from the energy of reality.
51:25 DB: Yes.
51:27 K: And you say that energy will wipe all this out. But it will use this reality.
51:33 DB: Yes, it will work through it.

K: It will work this... And it’s all words to me, because society, education, economics, my parents – everything is here.
52:04 All the scientists are working here, all the professors, all the communists – everybody is there.
52:11 You are there and you say, ‘Look’. And I refuse to look.
52:20 DB: Well, it’s not even a refusal, it’s just something more unconscious than that.
52:23 K: Of course, of course.

DB: Yes.
52:36 Well, I mean, I can’t say that we can see a solution, only except to present the thing with more effectiveness.
52:43 You know, that’s...
52:46 K: You can... more effectiveness, with great oratory, with greater feelings. But something doesn’t take place.

DB: I understand that.
53:00 K: You know, the Tibetan, and also there is a part of Hindu tradition – correct me, sir, if I am wrong – that those who are free – in the big sense of that word – never go beyond... never disappear – they are there.
53:34 Sorry – disappear in the sense – I didn’t want to use traditional language.
53:42 You’ve heard of Maitreya.

DB: The great masters.
53:48 K: It’s in Hindu tradition. And in the Tibetan tradition – I don’t know, I’ve been told a great deal about it by those who seemed to know or studied it – that there is a Maitreya who said, ‘I will not go, leave this world of suffering until I help mankind to get out of it’.
54:11 DB: Yes. Is that like the Buddha?

K: Like the Buddha.
54:22 And the tradition says that Maitreya is constantly observing to help people.
54:36 That is his only concern. Not to become more religious and more this and more that, but to drop everything, to go beyond the reality.
54:52 And he can wait till Doomsday – nobody’s going to do it. I don’t know...

DB: Yes.
55:03 Well, what does the tradition say as to how it’s going to happen?
55:06 K: Tradition says life after life, life after life.
55:10 DB: There’s plenty of time then. Well, there may or may not be.
55:15 K: Therefore, I... You follow?
55:24 So when we are discussing this, when we are talking about this, is there a thinking which is...
55:37 I mean, which is not in the realm of reality?
55:42 DB: Well, what do you mean by it? You see, were just saying about thought before.
55:46 K: Yes.
55:47 DB: Well, that perhaps we shouldn’t use the word ‘thinking’ because that seems to imply...

K:Yes. Then what word would you use?
55:52 DB: Well, you might use the word ‘thought’, which...
55:54 K: Thought?

DB: Yes. in the sense of the response of the drum.
56:01 K: Aha, aha. Yes, sir, that’s a good simile.
56:09 Because it is empty, it’s vibrating.
56:12 DB: The material thing is vibrating to the emptiness.
56:15 K: Yes, the material thing is vibrating. Wait a minute. Let’s wait. Is reality nothingness? I mean, truth nothingness.
56:28 DB: Yes, I think... I mean, we were discussing that last time.
56:31 K: Yes – truth is nothing.
56:33 DB: Yes, because if it’s not reality, it must be no thing.

K: No thing, therefore empty.
56:41 Empty being – didn’t you say...
56:47 DB: Leisure is the word.

K: Leisure.
56:49 DB: Leisure means empty, basically.

K: Leisure – emptiness is leisure.
56:54 DB: Yes. The English root of ‘empty’ means at leisure, unoccupied.
56:59 K: Unoccupied. So you are saying to me, ‘Your mind must be unoccupied’.
57:10 DB: Yes.
57:10 K: It mustn’t be occupied by reality.
57:24 DB: Yes, that’s clear.
57:29 K: So it must be empty. It must be... there mustn’t be a thing in it which is been put together by reality, by thought.
57:47 Nothing means that. Nothing – which has not been put...
57:54 which has been put in the mind as thought. Right.
57:58 DB: Yes, it’s clear. It’s just everything is what we think about.
58:01 K: Yes, yes.
58:02 DB: Therefore we have to say the mind does not think about any thing. Is that right?

K: That’s right. That means thought cannot think about emptiness.
58:13 DB: No, that would make a thing.

K: Of course – that’s just it.
58:24 You see, again tradition says – Hindu tradition says – you can come to it.

DB: We discussed that last time.
58:39 K: I’m putting it aside.
58:41 DB: Yes, because anything you come to must be by a path which is marked out in reality.

K: Of course, of course.
58:49 Now, I see, I have an insight into that. I see it. I see my mind must be unoccupied.

DB: Yes.
59:00 K: It must have no inhabitants. It must be an empty house.
59:13 Right, sir?

DB: Yes.
59:19 K: What is the action of that in my life, in one’s life?
59:28 What is the action of that emptiness in my life? Because I must live here. I don’t know why, but I must live here.
59:44 I want to find out: Is that action different from the other action?
59:51 It must be and therefore...
59:53 DB: It has to be.

K: It has to be.
1:00:02 And how am I to empty my mind, the content of...
1:00:11 which makes up consciousness – how am I to empty the content?
1:00:20 Content is reality. Right, sir?

DB: Yes.
1:00:25 K: My consciousness is a reality.
1:00:30 DB: Yes, the consciousness is reality.
1:00:32 K: Yes.
1:00:35 DB: It’s not merely consciousness of reality.
1:00:37 K: Oh, no – consciousness is reality.
1:00:40 DB: Yes.

K: We’re getting something.
1:00:57 And how is that content to be emptied so that it is not a reality?
1:01:09 Let’s put it there.
1:01:11 DB: Yes, it would be no thing. So it shall be no thing.
1:01:15 K: No thing. How is it to be done?
1:01:36 DB: We’ve often gone into this, this question how already.
1:01:40 K: Of course – how... When I use the...
1:01:42 DB: There’s something wrong with the question.
1:01:43 K: Of course. Something is wrong because the very word ‘how’ means reality and thought, and all the rest of it.
1:01:58 Do a miracle!
1:01:59 DB: Well, that’s what we need.

K: No, it’s very... Do a miracle.
1:02:06 How can you do a miracle to a man, or bring about a miracle in a man who lives in this...
1:02:16 with the content? You follow, sir? I’m trying to find out: Is there any action which will dissolve the whole content?
1:02:38 You follow?

DB: Yes.
1:02:48 K: I think, the difference is, consciousness is not of reality – consciousness is reality.

DB: It is reality.
1:02:58 K: That I think is...
1:03:06 DB: Well, let’s try to make it more clear. Consciousness is ordinarily thought to reflect reality.
1:03:11 K: Yes. Yes, that’s again duality, and all the rest.
1:03:15 DB: Yes. It is reality. In some way... You see, I think we should make it clear that consciousness in some way reflects on what is actual.
1:03:27 For example, we have the reality of the table in our minds and we may see its actual effect.
1:03:39 So that consciousness is some peculiar combination of reality and actuality so far as I can see.
1:03:45 K: Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. I accept that. I see that.
1:03:50 DB: And what we need is – I mean, if I could put it – we need instead truth in actuality, you see.
1:04:01 Could I say we need... You see, the emptiness works in actuality from truth, you see.
1:04:07 K: Yes.

DB: That the act of emptiness...
1:04:11 K: The act of emptiness...

DB:...is actuality too.
1:04:14 K: Is actuality – yes.
1:04:16 DB: But there are two kinds of actuality then.
1:04:18 K: That’s just it – yes, quite. Dr Parchure: The mind appears to be like in a computer-like state. It doesn’t answer unless questioned. At all other times it is empty. It acts only memory as a technical part, or in reality. But if not asked, if not challenged, it stays in a state of emptiness.
1:04:44 K: No, but we are not in a state of emptiness. One’s mind is not in a state of emptiness, it’s always occupied – my problems, my desires, my sex, my money, no money, my God, what people – it’s occupied.
1:05:06 It’s never empty.
1:05:18 DB: Are you saying that when we start from where we are, then we can’t say such a thing? Is that what you’re implying?
1:05:28 K: What is that? Yes, yes, he’s implying that.
1:05:32 DB: Now, when we start from where we are, it will not be much use to discuss, you know, how the empty mind will act – is that what you are...
1:05:44 Because you say our mind is now occupied.
1:05:47 K: Yes, yes. No, your mind – sorry, I’m not... – your mind is not occupied.
1:05:57 I’m saying your mind is not occupied. But that unoccupied mind lives in reality.
1:06:08 DB: Well, it acts in reality.
1:06:09 K: Acts in reality. Lives, acts in reality.

DB: Yes.
1:06:13 K: Its actions must be different from the... etc. – we know.
1:06:26 It’s a one-way relationship, as we said the other day.
1:06:31 DB: Yes, well, one ought to clear it up, in the sense that you’re continually gaining information from this field of reality.

K: Yes, of course.
1:06:41 DB: But it is not affecting you deeply. I would try to put it like that.
1:06:44 K: It is not affecting that emptiness.
1:06:45 DB: Not affecting it in depth. It merely carries information, I mean.
1:06:49 K: Yes, that’s right.
1:06:50 DB: Whereas conditioning affects you deeply. I mean, influence affects you deeply. I mean, that’s the difference.

K: Yes.
1:06:56 DB: When ordinary consciousness is influenced by reality...
1:07:01 K: We said consciousness is reality.
1:07:03 DB: Is reality, but it is also all the influences. Let’s put it that it is the field of influence. You see, the conditioning...
1:07:12 K:...is the field of influence. Yes.
1:07:13 DB: Yes. So information may influence you.
1:07:17 K: Of course it does, but it is still...
1:07:20 DB: Right? But it does not influence the emptiness.
1:07:23 K: No, no, no – that’s right.
1:07:26 DB: As you were saying once, it leaves no mark on the emptiness. Right?
1:07:31 K: You see, after all, sir, one is seeking complete security.
1:07:39 That’s what one wants. And one is seeking security in reality.
1:07:49 DB: Yes.
1:07:51 K: And therefore one rejects any other security.
1:07:56 DB: Yes. I think there’s a conviction that reality is all there is – it’s the same as truth, and that’s the only place you could find it.
1:08:02 K: You come along and say, ‘Look, in nothingness, there is complete security’.
1:08:09 DB: Yes. Now, let’s discuss that because at first sight it may seem very implausible, you see.
1:08:14 K: Of course, I mean...
1:08:16 DB: Well, not only because nothing is, you know, nothing, but also...
1:08:20 K: No, no, just a minute, sir. Just a minute, just a minute. I say to you – if I may – I say to you, ‘In nothingness there is complete security and stability’.
1:08:37 DB: Yes.
1:08:38 K: You listen and you get an insight into it, because you’re attentive and you’re...
1:08:46 there is conversation between us going on, and you say, ‘By Jove, that is so’. But your mind, which is occupied, says, ‘What the dickens is this?’ DB: Well, perhaps it would be more like this, to say it sounds reasonable on one side but on the other side you do have to take care of your real material needs.
1:09:08 K: Of course, of course, of course – I mean, that’s understood.
1:09:11 DB: You see, in other words, there arises a conflict, because you could say that it appears reasonable what you’re proposing, but this doesn’t take care of your material needs.
1:09:20 K: Of course, of course.

DB: You’re not secure, you see.
1:09:21 K: Therefore they call it, the world of reality, maya.
1:09:26 DB: Why is that? I mean, what’s the connection? How do you make the connection?
1:09:30 K: Because they say to live there, is necessary, in emptiness, and if you live there, you consider the world as maya.
1:09:38 DB: Well, that’s...
1:09:39 K: We have been through that.

DB: Yes. You could say all that stuff is illusion, but then you would find that you were in danger, you see – angry, and so on.

K: Of course, of course, of course.
1:09:50 DB: Right. Now, you seem to be calling for a confidence that nothingness will take care of you physically, you know, in every way, you see.
1:09:59 In other words, from nothingness, you say there is security.
1:10:03 K: No – in nothingness.
1:10:04 DB: In nothingness, there is security. And this security must include physical security – at least the way it... Or does it?
1:10:12 K: No, I say psychological security first.
1:10:13 DB: Yes, all right. Yes, but the question always immediately arises...
1:10:16 K: ‘How am I to be secure in the world of reality?’ DB: Yes. You see, because one could say, ‘All right, I accept that that will remove my psychological problems, but I still have to be physically secure in the world of reality’.
1:10:29 K: Yes. Therefore, if I have... if there is no psychological security in reality but only complete security in nothingness, then, if that is so, if that is a reality to me, then my whole activity in the world of reality is entirely different.
1:10:53 DB: I see that, but, you see, the question will always be raised, ‘Is it different enough?’ K: Oh, yes, it’ll be totally different because I’m not national, I’m not English – nothing.
1:11:04 DB: Yes.
1:11:04 K: Therefore, our whole world is different. I don’t divide the...
1:11:10 DB: Well, let’s say we bring back your example of the one who understands and the one who wants to communicate it to the other.
1:11:16 K: Yes.
1:11:18 DB: Somehow what doesn’t communicate there is the assurance that it will take care of all that.
1:11:25 K: Ah, it won’t take care of all that.
1:11:27 DB: No, I want to get it clear, you see.
1:11:29 K: It won’t take care – I have to work here.
1:11:31 DB: Yes, all right. Well, we have to begin. You see, because if you just say what you said, there is sort of an implication that, you know, in nothingness you will be completely secure in every way.
1:11:43 K: Yes. That is so, absolutely.

DB: Yes. But now we have to ask: What about the physical security in the field of reality?
1:11:47 K: Physical security in reality. At present I have no security.
1:11:54 DB: Yes.
1:11:56 K: I am fighting all my life. Right?

DB: Yes.
1:12:00 K: I am battling economically, socially, religiously. If I have no... if I am inwardly, psychologically, completely secure, then my activity in the world of reality is born of complete intelligence.
1:12:21 DB: Yes.
1:12:22 K: Which doesn’t exist now, because that intelligence demands... intelligence is the perception of the whole, and so on, so on, so on. Now, as long as I’m English, I shan’t... I cannot have security, and so on, so on. So I must work to get rid of that.
1:12:40 DB: Yes. Well, I can see that, let’s say, as you become more intelligent, you become more secure, of course. But when you say complete security, you know, there’s always the question: Is it complete?
1:12:51 K: Oh, it is complete, psychologically.
1:12:53 DB: No, but not necessarily physically, you see.
1:12:55 K: No, but that feeling of complete security inwardly makes me...
1:13:00 DB:...makes you do the right thing.
1:13:02 K:...right thing in the world of reality.
1:13:03 DB: Yes, I see that. I mean, I would rather put: You can be the most secure as you can possibly be if you’re completely intelligent, but you cannot guarantee that nothing is going to happen to you.
1:13:13 K: Of course, I mean... But I don’t mind.
1:13:15 DB: You don’t mind, because of psychological security.
1:13:18 K: I have no fear.

DB: In other words, you say even if something happens to me, it does not deeply affect this.
1:13:22 K: No, of course not.

DB: Yes.
1:13:26 K: My mind is rooted or established in nothingness, and it operates in the field of reality with intelligence.
1:13:37 DB: Yes.
1:13:37 K: And that intelligence says, ‘There, old boy, you cannot have security unless you do these things’.
1:13:45 DB: You’ve got to do everything right. Yes.
1:13:48 K: Everything right. Everything right according to that intelligence which is the – etc. – of truth, of nothingness.

DB: Yes.
1:14:00 And if something does happen to you, nevertheless, you still are secure. I mean, if you could say...

K: Of course. If my house burns down, I... But you see, we are seeking security here, in the world of reality.
1:14:19 DB: Yes, I understand that.

K: Therefore there is no security.
1:14:22 DB: Yes. I mean, as long as one feels that the world of reality is all there is, you have to seek it there.

K: Of course.
1:14:30 DB: Now, therefore...
1:14:37 then one can see that, in fact, in the world of reality there is no security. Everything, you know, depends on other things, which are unknown, and so on.

K: Of course.
1:14:46 DB: And that’s why there is this intense fear. Now, what’s called for, you know, what’s necessary...
1:14:53 K: Sir, you mentioned fear. In nothingness, there’s complete security. There is therefore no fear.
1:15:05 DB: Yes.
1:15:08 K: But that sense of no fear has a totally different kind of activity in the world of reality.
1:15:21 I have no fear. I work. I have no fear I won’t be rich, or poor – I work. I work, not as an Englishman, German, Arab, and all the rest of that nonsense – I work there intelligently.
1:15:36 Therefore I am creating security in the world of reality, for every...
1:15:42 DB:...for everybody.

K: You follow?
1:15:43 DB: You’re making it as secure as it may possibly be, you see.
1:15:46 K: Of course.
1:15:47 DB: I mean, the more clear and intelligent you are, the more secure it is.

K: Yes. Because inwardly I’m secure, outwardly I create security.
1:15:56 DB: Yes. On the other hand, if I feel inwardly, I depend on the world of reality, then I become disorganised inwardly.

K: Of course.
1:16:06 DB: But of course, everybody does feel that he depends on the world of reality.
1:16:12 K: So the next thing is: You tell me this and I don’t see that, I don’t see the extraordinary beauty or the feeling or the depth of this, saying, ‘Complete inward security’.
1:16:34 DB: Yes. I mean, I think that, you know, possibly this sort of notion is present among people but they get so many bad experiences that it gets lost, you see.
1:16:48 K: Wait a minute, sir.
1:16:49 DB: I mean, implicitly there is a feeling that if you were really right inside, nothing can harm you, you see. I think this notion... I’ve seen many people express this idea, especially when I was younger, but then, you know, so many things happen and gradually it gets...
1:17:05 K: I am not sure, sir.
1:17:06 DB: Well, I’m not sure people really understand.
1:17:08 K: Yes, that’s it.

DB: But there is a sort of an idea.
1:17:10 K: Ah, that’s an idea.

DB: Yes, it’s a notion of some sort.
1:17:13 K: That’s it – there is a notion.
1:17:14 DB: Yes. There’s a sort of faint echo of this.
1:17:17 K: I don’t want an echo.

DB: No, of course not.
1:17:21 K: Therefore I say, ‘Look, how are you going to give the beauty of that to me?’ You see, that’s...
1:17:50 Sir, talking about, for the moment, a different thing. What subject, or what is the thing we are going to discuss with all the scientists?
1:17:59 DB: Oh, well, we haven’t considered that. I was going to...
1:18:01 K: Sorry, it just came to my mind.

DB: Yes. I mean, I was going to ask you about that, because one question is, you know, what to discuss, and also, you know, what the form should be, and so on.
1:18:20 K: Yes. I think we’d better stop here for the time being.
1:18:22 DB: Yes, well...

K: What time is it?
1:18:24 DB: It’s five minutes to five. I think that’s sufficient, isn’t it?
1:18:28 K: Jeeves!

DB: Yes. I mean...
1:18:30 K: Right. That’s enough.