Krishnamurti Subtitles home


GS62DSG5 - Seeing authority as a poison
Gstaad, Switzerland - 18 August 1962
Discussion with Small Group 5



0:01 This is the fifth small group discussion with J. Krishnamurti in Gstaad, 1962.
0:30 Krishnamurti: Do you think we have discussed enough or talked about enough authority? Perhaps we have talked sufficiently about it, but it seems to me what is important is not so much talking and analyzing and going into it sufficiently deeply but whether one is actually free from authority, whether the burden is off, or do you still consider it’s not a burden?
1:14 Questioner: I think you said the other day that one’s own desire is a sort of inward authority too. I haven’t quite got this point.
1:41 K: I mean, desire is will, isn’t it? I want to do something or I don’t want to do something - a pervasive, directive urge, a desire, a focusing of all this desire into an action, which is will, and that becomes obviously the authority, doesn’t it?
2:29 Q: Yes.
2:35 K: No, you see, what… I don’t know how…
2:59 Q: It is sometimes difficult to see how our own authority acts. That is… (inaudible).
3:23 K: You see, really, it boils down to this, doesn’t it really, is it possible to live in this world without direction, and live, not merely just float around…?
3:50 Q: That’s just it.
3:52 K: Ah, of course. Not just be pushed around by somebody…
3:57 Q: Or drop everything and… (inaudible).
4:00 K: I mean, to live completely with abundance, but without directive.
4:14 Q: Your conditioning seems to be your nature, to be... so you have to throw your nature. As you say... (inaudible) whatever it is, with the conditioning, You can’t throw the conditioning without your own nature. That’s the way I feel it.
4:34 Q: Can we go deeply in this question: to live without direction? I am in life and there are elements. Against these elements I can have many actions. Originally, what I have to do is I have to choose one action with my background. In the case you speak about, the right action comes without any thought; it’s automatically. Is it so?
5:11 K: Sir, what is implied in choice?
5:23 Q: That I have many direction…
5:28 K: You have several paths.
5:29 Q: Several paths… (inaudible).
5:31 K: And you choose one, and that becomes your direction, you pursue that and disregard the rest.
5:38 Q: This is what ordinarily we do.
5:40 K: What ordinarily takes place. What’s wrong with it? I choose to be - what? - a certain type of character, certain attitude, certain way of living, which is, I believe in something and conform to that belief, and discard other beliefs, and my path has been chosen by me or by circumstance, all the rest of it. What’s wrong with it? Why shouldn’t one live that way?
6:24 Q: (Inaudible)... I cannot say that is wrong. I can say that is struggling, that is… (inaudible).
6:29 K: Why shouldn’t we live that way, before we reject it? That’s what most of us do, don’t we? What is involved in that?
6:42 Q: Limitation.
6:43 K: Why?
6:44 Q: Well, because you’re only on one part instead of the whole.
6:50 K: No... Right, sir, partly that. Let’s explore it a little bit. Is not choice always fragmentary? Must be. And choice implies also resisting others and choosing this, or having understood various fragments, and I prefer this, or my intellect or I reason... everything points... that as a way of living. What is wrong with it? Not wrong; why should - which we do – what is... why do you want to reject it?
7:42 Q: Now introduce the fact that we have different natures, we are different, so it isn’t a question of choice but according to one’s own nature or whatever the word is…
8:08 K: Are we so very different?
8:11 Q: Yes.
8:13 K: Are we? We say yes. Are we? You have a capacity for mathematics. I have capacity for painting. Is that what... capacity makes us different?
8:28 Q: No, because the choice… we have different choice, but we are all in the choice process, so the results will be different but the process is the same.
8:36 Q: It isn’t a question of choice.
8:38 Q: We are discussing the process of choice, not the quality of choice.
8:42 Q: But that’s not the choice. If I am an athlete, if I am built in one way or in another, it isn’t a question of choice. (Inaudible)... to be short or tall or big or fat or have some… you say having capacity; it isn’t only capacity.
9:03 K: No. Then when we talk about individuals being different, what do we mean by that?
9:10 Q: His mind works a little bit differently, in a certain way…
9:15 K: Certain way…
9:17 Q: He has more (inaudible) than somebody else or sees more or understands…
9:21 K: All right. I mean, is… What are we discussing, may I ask?
9:30 Q: We are discussing why this process of choice is wrong; why we think is wrong.
9:43 K: I can answer it, but what? I’ll tell you. What do you think... we live that way, don’t we, sir?
9:56 Q: Yes.
9:57 K: Through choice, deliberation, through purposive, directive focusing, and we pursue that particular path or particular tendency. Right. What’s wrong with it? Why do we want to alter it?
10:14 Q: It’s unadaptable.
10:17 Q: Because it make me suffering... (inaudible) all the time.
10:21 Q: Sir, it is really not satisfactory because if you have choice, it is that you don’t like something entirely.
10:31 Q: But to some extent we have to choose. We have to choose to do a job or to buy a certain house or something, or to come here.
10:44 Q: What’s the basis of your choice of a house, then?
10:48 Q: One thing is wrong with it is that we are what we are now because we utilize that path.
10:56 Q: (French).
10:58 K: Sir, I raised the question and from that all this arose: is it possible to live completely, fully, richly, and all the rest of it without direction, and from that these questions arise, doesn’t it, actually?
11:41 Q: Why are we interested in a particular thing, and in that interest we identify ourselves with that thing, and there we limit ourself to that?
11:53 Q: To go deeper in this question for me: you ask why... you say why you are discussing if it’s possible to live without choice or to live with choice. Frankly, I tell you, I am discussing only because I read or I heard you to speak about. If not, the problem does not exist for me. The choice is normal way to live and I continue to go this way. The problems is born because I heard you to speak about this and the idea lie... Me, I don’t know. That means that the entire problem we are discussing - not the choice; that is one particular aspect - there is a fundamental problem. If this revolution, because is a revolution also to pass between a vision of life in which there is choice, and to pass in another vision of life in which there is no choice. This is a revolution. If this revolution is so important, is so fundamental in the life, why we have to discuss about only because we heard you to speak about...
13:10 K: That’s rather...
13:11 Q: ...and life itself don’t push us in this problem? Why?
13:19 K: I quite agree. Why?
13:22 Q: Why?
13:23 K: I agree. I agree.
13:25 Q: Why?
13:26 K: What do you mean, ‘why?’
13:27 Q: It’s such a question.
13:28 Q: I think because we don’t know any other way. Till now we hadn’t even it possible... (inaudible).
13:30 Q: (Inaudible)… it’s open to disturbance, obviously... (inaudible)... put this idea to this gentleman that there’s another way of life, he’s immediately disturbed, because there’s a set line chosen.
13:42 K: I may be... the man who speaks may be wrong.
13:45 Q: Indeed, yes, but if he is in... well, let’s call it perfect security, whatever you like to call it, he wouldn’t be disturbed.
13:56 K: No, I... We are rather losing, dissipating. What are we discussing, sir? Yesterday we discussed authority and imitation. Now, we began this morning asking ourselves if one has put away the burden of authority, actually; not verbally, but actually put away authority. You see what is implied in that? If we have understood authority completely in the way we have discussed, then direction is gone, which becomes the authority. I don’t know if I’m making myself clear. Then I have no choice. I don’t know if you…
15:10 Q: But there is still action.
15:11 K: Ah, wait, wait. Don’t bring in action yet. I think there is action... as one begins to free oneself from authority, there is much deeper action than the action brought through choice. Let us discuss a little bit this. If I put away authority, not the policeman’s authority, not the law, but the authority of an idea. You follow what is implied in that? Idea is reasoned thought, organized thought, isn’t it? And that organized thought becomes the ideal or the end to which I want to go. Right? And that end is established through thought, through idea and that becomes the ideal and that inwardly, psychologically becomes the authority. And having that as authority I reject everything else as I go along. I don’t know…?
16:41 Q: Yes.
16:42 K: And that becomes my directive, purposive action based on a choice, which is authority.
16:49 Q: Yes, I can see that.
16:54 K: So if I understand authority, I have no idea, which is... – ah, I’m beginning to see something - I have no idea from which I act. I don’t know if I’m...?
17:21 Many: Yes.
17:23 Q: (Inaudible)... see very well.
17:30 Q: I don’t understand English. From which…?
17:33 K: Wait a minute, sir, I’ll put it differently.
17:34 Q: It’s spontaneous.
17:35 K: Ah, no, don’t use that word spontaneous, then we are… No, I want...
17:37 Q: (Inaudible).
17:38 K: Let’s be simple, stick to certain words, otherwise… Sir, how is directive action to take place? How does it take place? I want to do something physically. I want to go to Lausanne. How does that idea form? Because of need... - you know? - convenience, I have to see the doctor, this or that. You follow? I go there. And I say I must follow a certain idea, a certain belief. How is that belief, idea created?
18:16 Q: You mean the idea that you must see a doctor?
18:23 K: Ah, no, no, no. I’ve got pain, toothache, that’s simple, but the ideal - you follow? - the end which I have created. I don’t know if I am… You’re making me… It’s so clear and simple. I don’t know why I’m complicating it.
18:49 Q: Do you mean to say it’s created by choice?
18:54 K: Isn’t it?
18:56 Q: No.
18:57 K: How? Why do you say no? Why do I say yes?
19:04 Q: Because... (inaudible) it’s an unconscious identification with something. It hasn’t been... it isn’t the result of choice.
19:09 K: How does that identification take place?
19:12 Q: It’s the very conditioning which…
19:16 K: Ah, no, don’t revert to conditioning. Look sir, I become a communist, an idea, an ideal, a pattern which I… I become a communist. Now, how does that idea guide my life? (Inaudible).
19:39 Q: (Inaudible)... before he has chosen communism, what is he?
19:46 K: Ah?
19:47 Q: Before the choice, it is a potential way of living, which is not... which is before the choice.
19:56 K: No sir. Look, I am a capitalist – quotes; I don’t know what a capitalist is... (inaudible) – I’m a capitalist and I don’t like the capitalistic system, of way of living, rich man, poor man, all the rest of it…
20:10 Q: (Inaudible)... of not liking; it is not a choice.
20:13 K: No. I don’t like it and I push that away and become a communist. I don’t like Catholicism and I become a Hindu. It is a deliberate choice. It is not... it doesn’t come in to some mysterious way, but this is what is taking place.
20:32 Q: (Inaudible)... no choice at all.
20:34 Q: But what you ask is how the ideals take form. You ask before, how... what is the way in which the ideal take...
20:46 K: Form.
20:47 Q: ... take this form. Is it not because the proceeding idea... we are tired of the proceeding idea…
20:53 K: I don’t like this and I like that.
20:55 Q: Yes sir.
20:56 K: I don’t like the Hindu and I like to become a Buddhist, a communist.
20:59 Q: I am tired of the proceeding ideas so I change in hoping that in the change there will be something better.
21:06 K: Yes. So that becomes the new pattern, the new authority...
21:11 Q: (Inaudible)... new direction.
21:13 K: ...new attraction, new authority, new etc. Right. Then what? What are we discussing? And from that idea we act. Right? That idea creates action, doesn’t it?
21:29 Q: Yes.
21:30 K: If I am a communist with all the ideation and all that, from that concept I act. Catholic acts from that... and so on. Now, so that becomes the authority, that becomes the pattern, that becomes the guiding force in my life. So, what? So if I inquire into authority and be... if I am to be free from authority, if the mind is to disentangle itself from authority, the creation of idea as a goal, as a pattern from which action can take place, comes to an end. Ah, I’ve got it.
22:33 Q: But that pattern which you’re breaking arises in the first place from habit.
22:40 K: Yes sir; yes sir; habit, contra habit, new forms of habit and so on. Yes. No... You see... Well, go on, sir; let’s go on. I don’t want to plunge into it too much at once.
23:01 Q: I think we’re saying that the outer authority of a church, for instance, is easier to understand than the inner authority which is built by oneself. That was the point, I think.
23:11 K: Yes... No sir. I don’t think I build an idea for myself. It is a reaction from the other and therefore it is not something original. No authority can ever be original.
23:25 Q: Yes. That’s it; that’s it; that’s it. Correct; yes.
23:29 K: Ah, no, no; no, no. I’m saying this. You’re not thinking it out... (inaudible).
23:32 Q: (Inaudible)... we are thinking it out, yes.
23:40 Q: But to act in that way implies seeing the fact all the time and…
23:49 K: No, no, no, no. Don’t reduce it to that yet. First, get the feeling of it, sir. You follow what I mean? Look sir, I have an idea, brought about... - it doesn’t matter how it has come - I have an idea that I must do this. Then I approximate action to that idea. That idea becomes the authority and that authority shapes all my action, all my activity.
24:34 Many: Yes.
24:35 K: That’s so simple. Now, what we are trying to get at: whether it’s possible to remove the authority of idea, which is much more difficult than the authority of the church, which is just too silly.
24:57 Q: Sir, you did say earlier: ‘why shouldn’t I live according to choice?’
25:15 K: Which is according to…
25:16 Q: To idea.
25:17 K: To idea. You follow?
25:19 Q: Yes, yes... (inaudible).
25:20 K: Which is much more significant than choice.
25:21 Q: Yes, so you asked the question, ‘Why shouldn’t I?’
25:22 K: Yes, why shouldn’t I?
25:23 Q: Have we answered that?
25:24 K: I don’t know.
25:25 Q: But you introduced the idea of reaction. I think this is a very good point.
25:30 Q: If we can find out that an idea is a reaction, I think… (inaudible).
25:37 K: Obviously, sir; obviously.
25:39 Q: ...we seem to be coming somewhere.
25:41 K: No, no. I want to remove idea, not... I want action without idea.
25:52 Q: It’s dangerous.
25:54 K: Ah?
25:56 Q: That’s dangerous.
25:58 K: That’s dangerous?
26:01 Q: Dangerous.
26:02 K: I don’t think we know what it means, whether it’s dangerous or not.
26:05 Q: Yes, action without idea is meaningless.
26:06 K: That’s a different statement. I agree. That’s a different statement. But to say it’s dangerous, I’m sorry to say, it has not very…
26:16 Q: (Inaudible).
26:17 K: Now, wait a minute. Idea without…
26:21 Q: No, excuse me, excuse me. Action without idea…
26:24 K: Is impossible. Why do you say it’s impossible, sir?
26:40 Q: I did not say it is impossible.
26:46 K: What did you say then? That it’s not possible…
26:48 Q: I said how... can action exist without idea?
26:50 K: That’s right; same thing. All right. Can action exist without idea? I don’t know. You discuss it; discuss it, sir.
26:55 Q: What’s an idea? Let’s discuss the point and see if it leads to action or not.
27:02 K: I mean, I see this, sir. I am a communist and I have accepted that pattern of existence, way of life, the state - you know? - the whole... (inaudible) of all that; authoritarian, totalitarian, accepting the boss, the big brother and all the rest of it. Now, and according to that pattern of thought, idea, I act. That we know.
27:36 Q: Yes.
27:37 K: Isn’t it?
27:39 Q: Yes... (inaudible).
27:40 K: I have established a particular relationship with a person and that relationship becomes the pattern of action, and according to that pattern I act, modifying, adjusting, denying, accepting, all the rest of it. That’s what we are doing all the time. Right? Which is, idea and action, and there is a gap, and we’re always trying to bring the two together so that there will be no conflict. Obviously, sir. If I can believe that I’m God - you follow? - that is, the idea of God and I identify myself with that idea so completely, I am that, then I have no conflict; then there is no approximation. Idea is the me and that idea is acting, instantaneously. I don’t know…
28:54 Q: The answer then is that action, idea is co-existent.
28:59 K: No, no, no. That is what we want. Sir, take an unbalanced person. He... a mentally ill person.
29:12 Q: Yes.
29:13 K: I believe that’s the latest phrase. There is no such thing as a mentally ill. (Laughter)
29:18 K: Now, if I am mentally ill, I am in that state when I identify myself with something so completely, nothing exists. I don’t know if…
29:33 Many: (Inaudible).
29:34 K: Please, sir... (inaudible).
29:36 Q: You can think you are a teapot.
29:40 K: I think I’m a teapot and I am teapot.
29:45 Q: Yes. You act according to that.
29:49 K: Yes; yes. Now, wait a minute; wait a minute. See that... what is taking place. If I believed I am God’s voice, I am God’s voice.
29:56 Q: Yes.
29:57 K: I’ve so identified myself with that idea that I’m it, I become that it.
30:03 Q: Yes.
30:04 K: If I say I represent the world or India or America, the idea and myself become one, and then in that state I am completely untouchable, completely… there is no conflict, nothing… - you follow? - I have identified myself with that.
30:26 Q: Yes.
30:27 K: Now, most of us are not in that state. We’d like to be in that state.
30:31 Q: But very near.
30:33 K: Ah... No, it’s much more difficult, because we have such conflicts and contradictions and... You know? A saint is one according to... - you know? - who so completely identifies himself with something that he is that, so he has no conflict; he’s in perfect state of bliss, in a state of hypnosis, …whatever you’d like to call it. Now, with majority of us there is a contradiction: the idea and me, and I’m trying all the time to get nearer and nearer, approximating myself to that till there is no conflict, till I say I’ll reach heaven by doing these things and I’ll be God, there’ll be no peace. That’s... So my action is always approximating itself to the idea, and when I’m so completely identified with the idea, action is the idea. There is no gap or time interval or space interval between action and idea. But we are not in that state, fortunately. I mean, then no new idea can penetrate into us.
31:56 Q: Yes, yes, I can see that.
31:58 Q: (Inaudible)... which makes possible the kind of barbarism which goes on in religious circles… (inaudible).
32:05 K: Absolutely, sir. Hitler, Mussolini, and - you know? - the whole... lots of the churches and... They get into this state of complete identification and nothing can disturb them, no new idea.
32:19 Q: Yes. That’s clear.
32:22 Q: Therefore it’s wiser to separate the idea from action.
32:27 K: Oh no. No, no.
32:29 Q: Because when they identify idea and action, they become exceedingly dangerous.
32:34 K: They do.
32:35 Q: If we’re using the same... (inaudible).
32:37 K: They do. They do become... not dangerous only; like a man, like the priest – who was it? - who identified himself with France, he... - you follow? - God was France.
32:46 Q: Yes.
32:47 Q: When you identify yourself with an idea you become very dangerous.
32:51 K: Of course. We all become dangerous.
32:53 Q: Let’s avoid danger.
32:55 K: Ah, no, no; no, no. I don’t want to... I just see this, sir. Please, just a minute. I just see this, that not having identified ourselves completely with the idea, with idea, there is a conflict going on with the majority of us - always approximating. That becomes our authority. No sir?
33:23 Q: If there is an identity, you have stated that it’s a state of bliss for that person.
33:30 K: Ah, no. They think it is bliss. Oh no, that’s English...
33:39 Q: (Inaudible).
33:40 K: Sir, a mentally ill person thinks he is a pot or toast or Napoleon, he’s perfectly happy.
33:48 Q: Yes... (inaudible).
33:49 Q: He is... (inaudible) happy.
33:50 K: He’s perfectly happy. Nothing can approach it.
33:53 Q: It’s like the child with the toy, isn’t it, the absorption…
33:58 K: Ah, ah, ah... Don’t enlarge it. Don’t complicate it. It’s very simple. With us, we would like to identify ourselves with an idea but we cannot, because for various psychological reasons, so we’re always approximating ourselves to the idea. This is simple… (inaudible).
34:20 Q: It’s very simple.
34:23 Q: Yes, of course. We try to do better, we hold this… (inaudible).
34:28 K: There is idea, the example that I must be good according to Christ or Buddha or this or that and I have that pattern as established through centuries of propaganda, which has become authority in which I’m conditioned - that becomes the pattern, or the state becomes the pattern, and all my activity is approximating itself to that pattern. It’s simple.
34:58 Q: Yes.
34:59 K: This is psychologically what is going on with all of us. And this battle is so constant, so… becomes violent or... all the rest of it... I say I wish there was a god who’d give me permanent peace, and so that we establish. So what we are trying to say is when we are pursuing the question of authority, one has to take into account the idea and action, and when we say there must be freedom from authority, there must be freedom from idea.
35:44 Q: Yes, that I can... (inaudible).
35:47 K: Ah, you don’t accept all this.
35:49 Q: No, but there’s something which makes sense… (inaudible).
35:52 K: It makes sense but you don’t… I mean, it makes... But you see, to say... to live without idea, which means without authority, which means without example, without saints, without an experience which has created a knowledge which must be, and according to that knowledge I live. All that is implied in this.
36:21 Q: And without any choice.
36:23 K: Ah, of course. I mean, the moment I introduce choice I have ideas. Yes sir?
36:28 Q: Can a pattern - you speak of patterns - can a pattern exist without an idea?
36:36 K: Idea and pattern are the same. Archetype, pattern, idea, conclusion, a concept are all the same, surely. We may have different…
36:51 Q: Yes, but then the pattern is by the nature of things a conditioned process.
36:56 K: Of course. No, what... You see, that’s why... if we are discussing, intellectually it’s one thing, then I don’t want to discuss intellectually. If we discuss to find out whether the mind can be free from authority, then we have to consider idea as an authority, whether that idea is created by church, by Hitler, by Churchill, by Roosevelt, or Mr Nehru, or by anybody else. And is it possible to so completely… for the mind to rid itself of idea?
37:51 Q: Yes.
37:52 K: Yes sir?
37:53 Q: Yes.
37:54 K: Ahah. (Laughter)
37:56 K: What do you mean by that, ‘Yes, sir’? Do you just verbally agree?
38:06 Q: No, no, I really agree.
38:10 K: Ah, then you are free of authority, then?
38:14 Q: In some instance, yes.
38:16 K: Ah, ah, ah, pax. Not in some instances.
38:20 Q: But I’m not eternal, sir.
38:22 K: Ah, no, no, no, no, no. You know…
38:25 Q: I am made of instances.
38:28 K: No sir; no sir; no sir. I don’t mean that way.
38:37 Q: Do you mean that the mind then no longer has ideas, that thought... (inaudible) create ideas?
38:46 K: Absolutely right, but that’s... Absolutely.
38:49 Q: No sir. Mind and ideas are two separate things.
38:52 K: Sir, just a minute, sir. I don’t know what the mind is. We won’t enter into that for the moment. We are discussing authority. Right, sir? We began discussing authority. There is the authority of the church, the authority of the specialist, the authority of the scientist, the authority of the wife over the husband, and the husband over the wife and so on and so on. Outwardly we can see these authorities in action. And I am considering what is authority and whether it is possible to be free from authority; and I can reject the outer authority, including my wife’s authority. I put it aside. But what... is it then - my question then arises - is it possible to be free from inward psychological states of authority? if I reject one, because I see it’s absurd, I also, in examining it, must reject the psychological structures which become authority.
40:05 Q: Which is thought itself, no sir?
40:08 K: Ah, no, no, no, no. Don’t introduce... You see, you are too quick. You don’t go step by step. Otherwise you will get lost sir.
40:15 Q: No sir, but the idea is not thought itself? I mean the psychological idea.
40:21 K: I understand all that, sir. Now we are going back again, beginning, because I don’t think we quite catch this.
40:28 Q: Is the root cause for idea the same? What I mean is do different ideas have different… (inaudible)?
40:39 K: Probably.
40:42 Q: Therefore you’d have to go through each…
40:45 K: No, no. Wait sir; wait sir. Let’s come back. Wait; just a minute. I have rejected the outer authority. Right?
40:53 Q: Yes.
40:54 K: Now, is it possible for me, for the mind to reject its own authorities which it has built up, as idea - you follow? - as a way of life, as a particular relationship which I must maintain - you follow? - or experiences which are so tremendously important to me, which become my guide, which act as the censor from which I’m judging? You follow?
41:38 Q: Yes.
41:39 K: All that’s implied. Can I reject all that? Is the mind capable of understanding all this and putting it aside? Only then there is a freedom from authority. You follow what I mean?
41:52 Q: (Inaudible).
41:53 K: And is that freedom from authority worth it? Has it any meaning? You follow what I mean?
42:05 Q: Yes. It’s incredibly difficult to, sir, if I may say so, to listen to you without this process actually going on.
42:13 K: Yes, quite.
42:19 Q: You see... (inaudible) it seems to be impossible because your mind is always full of ideas except when you have an emergency come up.
42:31 K: No sir. You see, you’re not…
42:35 Q: But we are always same circle. I have to reject authority. To reject authority, I have to be without authority.
42:43 Q: It’s not the need for action.
42:44 Q: How can I do? To reject authority I have to be without authority, you say…
42:50 K: Sir, just a minute, sir. Why do you reject the authority of the church, if you have?
42:54 Q: Because it’s clear that’s it’s a stupid things.
42:57 K: Ah?
42:58 Q: Because it’s clear in my mind that is a stupid things.
43:02 K: Now, who has decided it?
43:04 Q: My mind.
43:05 K: What is that mind which says that’s stupid? Keep it simple. Keep it as simple as possible. Don’t complicate it. I say that the beliefs of the church, which is put together by man - by man, not by some supreme big wig... Sorry. I mean... (Laughter)
43:32 K: Sorry. It’s put together by man. You reject it. Why do you reject it? On what basis do you reject it?
43:43 Q: On my judgment.
43:44 K: What is your judgment?
43:45 Q: On the judgement of... (inaudible).
43:46 K: No, wait, wait. What is your judgment...? Go... Sir, don’t jump from… go step by step, word by word. What is that judgment mean? How does that judgment come about? Go slowly. You will see it immediately. In seeing that, you will see something much greater. Go slowly. How does that judgment come about? May I ask something? Is that judgment a reaction? Because you have known some other state of freedom - you follow what I mean? - where a man says, ‘This is rot,’ and he’s a very clever man and capable and clever and he dominates you, and therefore you react, therefore you said that’s absurd.
44:42 Q: (Inaudible).
44:43 K: Wait. You compare and…
44:46 Q: And I choose the other one.
44:47 K: Yes, and you reject. Right?
44:50 Q: That’s right.
44:51 K: Now, that is a reaction, isn’t it? So you will fall into another track of equal nature when it suits you. I don’t know if you’re following what I’m saying.
45:07 Q: Yes, completely.
45:08 Q: Yes.
45:09 Q: Yes.
45:10 Q: Completely.
45:11 K: Right. That is a series of reactions which gives you judgments, ‘No, this is absurd.’ Now, without reaction can you look at it and reject it? Now, wait, wait. Don’t... Go slowly, sir. You rejected though comparison because you had an idea. (French). You’re getting it?
45:32 Q: Yes, I see.
45:34 K: Ah?
45:35 Q: I get it.
45:37 K: So your idea which was brought into being through reaction and comparison rejected the church. Right? Now, wait a minute. You’ve got that?
45:49 Q: I got it.
45:51 K: Now, can you not reject the church without idea, without reaction?
46:02 Q: (French)
46:04 K: Ah, no, no, no, no, no. Sir, sir, you are all so complicated. You don’t look at it very simply. I reject the church, this particular church because I don’t like it. I don’t like the smell of the priest. I don’t like… (Laughter)
46:34 K: ... a dozen reasons, I don’t like it. I put it away.
46:40 Q: (French).
46:41 K: It’s a reaction. Now, that is, I have an idea which reacts. This is fairly simple. What are we... (inaudible)?
46:51 Q: Krishnaji, is the reaction not believing? I don’t believe what one tells me in the church... (inaudible).
46:55 K: It’s also may be a reaction.
46:56 Q: I don’t believe God has said that... (inaudible).
46:58 K: No... (inaudible) I’m not concerned with God or…
47:01 Q: Yes, but is it a reaction?
47:04 K: You’re all so complicating this. It is so darn simple, if you will go into it and hold it for a minute instead of bringing all your ideas. Do you reject authority of the church because you have been told - wait a minute - because you have found it uncomfortable, because you think you must be free? You follow? Those… when you free yourself from reason, for cause, that freedom is a reaction. Full stop.
47:41 Q: The reason or cause is your idea.
47:45 K: Yes. Now, I say to myself that’s a reaction, therefore I’ll drop into communism - you follow? - or become a devout Hindu or a Buddhist - you follow? - which will still be a reaction. Now, I say to myself, is it possible to drop the church - I’m taking the church as an example - without reaction? Then only you are free from authority. You get the point? Just keep... You’ve got the point? At least my point?
48:28 Q: In other words, if you are free from reaction, you are free.
48:38 K: Obviously. Sir…
48:40 Q: Can one be free from reactions?
48:43 K: Ah, that’s what we are doing now.
48:46 Q: Correct.
48:47 K: Don’t complicate…
48:48 Q: No, no, I’m not complicating. You are assuming that I’m complicating.
48:53 K: No, I’m not assuming. I’m just saying… Look sir, I give up one organization, and I join another organisation. The urge to commit oneself - please follow this - the urge to commit oneself to a particular pattern of action is a reaction. Right? Now, I say to myself is it possible to see the truth... truth which has no reaction, saying all organization, whether it is my particular organization of which I am the head or the organization of the colossal structure of the Roman Catholic church, or the... organization, to look at it, see all the... and just leave it, never go... not as a reaction; it’s finished. I don’t belong to any organization after that. I don’t know if I… In the same way, can I look at authority? I see the authority of the Pope representing God, the authority of Krushchev, authority of political world, the authority of the scientist, the authority of my wife, the authority of myself... I see authority everywhere and in myself. Can I look at it, see it without reaction? Which means without saying it’s right or wrong; it is so. You follow? And therefore there is complete freedom from authority, which is not a reaction.
50:59 Q: (Inaudible).
51:08 K: So our question is, from the beginning, whether it is possible for the mind to free itself from authority. To free itself from authority one has to understand reaction. Right? Why I chose Hinduism, Buddhism instead of the thing in which I’ve been brought up, or from the thing which I’ve been brought up, reject and become a communist - reaction. You follow?
51:56 Q: Well, I don’t follow. Why do you have to understand the reaction part, because it is possible - take the authority of the church or spiritual authority - certainly it’s possible to look at spiritual authority, see the implications of it, seeing yourself, how you first got into that…
52:14 K: Oh, that takes too long, too long, too (inaudible). I can just snap out of it completely. I’ve no time.
52:23 Q: Without even seeing the implications of the problem or… (inaudible)?
52:25 K: Finish, finish.
52:26 Q: Sir, why should you step out of it unless you see the falsity of it?
52:30 Q: (Inaudible).
52:31 Q: No, no, no, no.
52:32 K: Now, how...? Sir, sirs, it means you’re going back to the same thing, which is, I must enter into the whole study, the whole structure, understand it, reject it. You follow? Need I go though all that? Need I go through drunkenness, murder…?
52:48 Q: Yes, but you are assuming that you’ve already done it.
52:51 K: Ah?
52:52 Q: You’ve already done it.
52:53 K: No. I see it. I don’t have to enter it.
52:57 Q: Well, once you face the problem, once the problem becomes apparent as a problem to you…
53:00 K: No.
53:01 Q: ...then it doesn’t take long; it takes – what? – a day, half a day...
53:03 K: I don’t want to enter into that problem. I don’t want to go into that problem. I see and I don’t want it.
53:08 Q: But why not?
53:10 K: Wait... Oh... (inaudible) why not? It’s very simple. I don’t want to be told by the Pope or the priest or X, Y, Z what I should do. Finished. I have finished long ago. I may go wrong, I may go to hell, I may... don’t know what I will do, but I don’t want you to tell me what I should do, which doesn’t mean my rugged individualism, because you may be wrong, I may be wrong, I don’t know, but I am not going to take your authority.
53:41 Q: Just because of that alone, not because you see the implications of following authority.
53:45 K: Ah, all... I see... if I see one thing, I… It’s like, sir, taking the tail of a… and seeing the whole thing, I don’t have to go through all the steps of it.
54:03 Q: But it’s been coming on for some time, usually, before you do see it, hasn’t it?
54:07 K: Perhaps. Sir, look what we are doing. Either we are deducing - you follow what I mean? - putting one after the other, reason, analysis, and coming to a conclusion, and then from that conclusion, act, which is still a reaction.
54:34 Q: Or not act is a reaction also, then.
54:39 K: Yes, of course. Either you through analysis come to a conclusion and therefore decision…
54:46 Q: Yes.
54:49 K: ...or instantly you see.
54:52 Q: Yes, but I think this lady’s point is not a bad one, in the sense that we... it may take the rest of the day or the rest of the week to churn this thing over, surely.
55:06 Q: (Inaudible).
55:07 Q: Suppose you don’t... (inaudible); suppose your mind takes a rather... the path of a fast analysis... (inaudible)?
55:09 K: Oh, take it, take it.
55:11 Q: And we might look at, say, Confucianism and drop it without... (inaudible).
55:14 Q: (Inaudible).
55:15 K: Now... if you have seen Confucianism once, you have dropped it, you have dropped the whole gang.
55:26 Q: Not necessarily, I don’t think.
55:29 K: Why not?
55:30 Q: I mean, I don’t think you drop every... I mean, for myself I could... it doesn’t really matter very much which religion… that doesn’t... in that sense… (inaudible).
55:38 K: (Inaudible)... it doesn’t matter; we call the whole organized control of man’s mind. You’ve got it?
55:52 Q: No, but you mentioned the possibility of immediate, total perception.
56:00 K: Sure.
56:01 Q: All right, and I say well, when I see a problem, then my mind analyses it, reaches a decision.
56:08 K: But the problem is there. I don’t have to see it. I don’t have to wait for the problem to come to me. I go to Rome, I go to London, I go anywhere, my wife is next door to... - you know? - and I see if she dominates me, or I dominate her, and there is the… in that small little... - you know? - the whole thing is there. I don’t have to go to Rome.
56:26 Q: But you’ve got to be constantly aware the whole time… (inaudible).
56:33 K: Ah, ah... That’s a second... Why...? You see, you are making… Look sir, we began - authority.
56:39 Q: (Inaudible)... look, you might get it for one moment, and then… this is the sort of thing which I’m sure actually happens, that the thing drops...
56:47 K: No, no...
56:48 Q: (Inaudible)... something else.
56:49 K: Sir, wait a minute; wait a minute. Take… Now, wait a minute. There is a bottle marked ‘Poison’ - you look at it and you say, ‘By Jove, that’s a dangerous thing,’ and you don’t unconsciously take it into your mouth afterwards, when you’re not watching. It’s finished once and for all. Haven’t you? Even in darkness you are so careful: you take a match, you put on the light, you… (inaudible).
57:22 Q: Yes, but the difficulty is poisonous doesn’t taste... it tastes very bad, this other stuff… (inaudible).
57:28 K: Then leave it alone; then carry on with it.
57:31 Q: It isn’t marked ‘Poison’ every time.
57:33 K: Now, wait a minute. So in... No, no; no, no, you’re missing… If you see authority as poison, as you see the bottle marked as poison, then it’s finished.
57:43 Q: That’s true...
57:44 Q: I think we shouldn’t…
57:48 Q: If I say that what you say is simple, it means I’ve understood it.
58:02 Q: It means that… Q Excuse me, sir; don’t interrupt.
58:07 Q: (Inaudible).
58:08 Q: No. If that is the case, then I explain to him why he is in error.
58:14 K: Explain... (inaudible) ask me, sir. (Laughter)
58:17 Q: Sir, can I ask you this question...?
58:21 K: Ah, he wants to explain something to that chap.
58:27 Q: No, no, it was a question, because I feel that the divergence which has emerged from the fact that you see and he does not see…
58:36 K: No, I think he sees, but he hasn’t seen the poison as clearly as the bottle marked ‘Poison’. That’s all. If you see it once, it’s finished. It’s not a question of being aware, how to be aware, what am I to do, you... Sir, it is all so simple. You have a bottle in your bathroom, which is dangerous, marked ‘Poison’. It has a rattle on the top or whatever it has. So...
59:09 Q: But it wasn’t simple for him.
59:12 K: Ah, because... - I’ll tell you why - because he won’t allow himself to see the thing as poison. He plays around with it. I say go on playing. It doesn’t matter; till you see it is poison, you’ll go on playing.
59:30 Q: He was using a different frame of reference, and he was interpreting the significance of the word seeing, which is an error.
59:40 K: Yes sir, quite.
59:42 Q: No, what Krishnaji means, with respect to my question, was that if I see the bottle marked ‘Poison’, I recognize it as poison... (inaudible) I take it off the shelf and handle it, and play with it instead of leaving it alone?
59:55 K: Do you? Do you? Do you? Do you actually take the bottle and play with it, taste it, smell it, when you say, ‘For God’s sake, keep away from it’?
1:00:05 Q: Not... no, I may read the label.
1:00:08 K: But you know the label is good enough.
1:00:13 Q: Yes.
1:00:14 K: You don’t go and taste that poison. (Laughter)
1:00:17 K: Oh, come off it.
1:00:18 Q: No, but to read the label implies something before.
1:00:21 K: Oh... Look here, you don’t play with words, for God’s sake... (inaudible) clear about it. As long as you don’t see authority as poison you’ll play with it, full stop.
1:00:36 Q: No, it so happens... (inaudible) I see it as poison, but nevertheless, how did I see it as poison? I saw it as poison because my mind saw the problem and looked at it, made the analysis that you said I’d made, which is true, and reached a decision.
1:00:49 K: All right. You have taken ten years to do this. Right?
1:00:53 Q: Longer.
1:00:54 K: Or fifteen, thirty years. I said, ‘My God, what a waste of time. Why didn’t the man see it clearly at the beginning? Why go through all this?’
1:01:01 Q: Yes, why not?
1:01:02 K: What do you mean ‘why not’?
1:01:03 Q: Why didn’t I?
1:01:05 K: That is the problem. You’re not sticking to that.
1:01:09 Q: It’s your problem.
1:01:10 K: Why had you to go thirty years to say, ‘By Jove, it may be poison’? You’re not quite sure yet. And I say what is the matter with that man?
1:01:24 Q: No, you would normally say he’s stupid.
1:01:27 K: Ah, no, I don’t say anything, sir.
1:01:29 Q: No, that would be... (inaudible).
1:01:30 K: You have taken thirty years and somebody else says immediately, ‘That’s poison. I won’t touch it.’
1:01:37 Q: Yes.
1:01:38 K: Right. How does this take place, this difference?
1:01:43 Q: How indeed.
1:01:45 K: (Inaudible)... it’s so simple. Do you want an analysis of it?
1:01:54 Q: (Inaudible)... caught in the analysis, I should think.
1:02:02 K: I know. He’s going to be caught presently anyway. (Laughter)
1:02:06 Q: Well, I can tell you why I think the reason is.
1:02:12 K: Yes, what is the... ? You have taken thirty years and somebody else says, ‘No, I won’t touch it. I won’t touch that whole thing.’
1:02:18 Q: Yes.
1:02:19 K: Why?
1:02:20 Q: I think the reason is that in childhood one gets accustomed to looking for information about anything which is puzzling, and then that childish, immature process of looking for information, for better information, then for the basic authority and so on, continues until you see it.
1:02:43 K: And the other boy also has been brought up in the same way, in education.
1:02:50 Q: No, sir, he wasn’t, because he saw it very much earlier. I don’t know why but he wasn’t brought up that way.
1:02:58 Q: (Inaudible)... right in the middle of it.
1:03:01 K: What, sir?
1:03:02 Q: If you forgive me for being personal...
1:03:05 K: Go ahead, I don’t…
1:03:07 Q: You weren’t brought up that way.
1:03:08 K: Why not?
1:03:09 Many: (Inaudible).
1:03:10 K: My God, what do you mean…?
1:03:11 Many: (Inaudible).
1:03:12 Q: (Inaudible)... than the rest of us, surely.
1:03:13 Q: More so than ourselves.
1:03:14 K: Sir, don’t... (inaudible).
1:03:16 Q: Well, anyway, you saw it right from the beginning.
1:03:20 K: You see and I don’t see. I have taken thirty years to see. And you see it immediately. Now, what has taken place? Why have I taken thirty years? And it’s the same thing that’s going on now. You see immediately idea as authority - you follow? - and you say, ‘No....’ and you have dropped it. What the consequence will be you don’t know, but you say that is... no authority of idea. Now, I sit back and take time. I take years and years and just before I die I say, ‘By Jove, how true.’ (Laughter)
1:04:06 K: Wait a minute; wait a minute. So what happens? Why am I taking so long?
1:04:12 Q: Because you looked and saw, and I was just thinking about it.
1:04:16 K: No, sir, why am I taking thirty years? Why did you…?
1:04:20 Q: Because I was thinking about it rather…
1:04:22 K: No, no, no, no.
1:04:25 Q: It’s not a difference in the quality of the mind?
1:04:29 K: No, then... Do let… (inaudible). Sir, look, you take thirty years, another takes one year, a minute. Now, leave that person alone. Don’t say the quality of mind, he is different, he is that. Leave that person alone. Why am I taking thirty years? What is implied in that?
1:04:54 Q: Well, you’re pushing the… Sorry.
1:05:00 K: Go ahead, sir; anybody; I mean, we’re all discussing…
1:05:06 Q: Well, you’re pushing the problem on continuously.
1:05:08 K: Why am I doing it? What is the thing that prevents me from seeing immediately, as you see it immediately? What is it?
1:05:28 Q: He’s afraid to let go.
1:05:31 K: No, no, no. Do… Look what is involved.
1:05:36 Q: Because really I don’t see authority as a poison. Really I enjoy myself with authority.
1:05:42 K: No sir. We’re not discussing authority. You see something immediately and I don’t, and I’m asking myself why I don’t. That is the question now, not authority; leave authority.
1:05:58 Q: Yes.
1:05:59 K: You see something and I don’t see. Why?
1:06:01 Q: Because I looked.
1:06:02 Q: Because you don’t want to see it. You’re satisfied.
1:06:04 K: Yes. Let’s go a little deeper.
1:06:07 Q: It’s in the wrong frame of reference.
1:06:12 K: Yes, go on a little deeper (laughs).
1:06:19 Q: It’s a reaction.
1:06:23 Q: Because I am afraid.
1:06:25 Q: It’s so simple asking but there is no answer. Why and why?
1:06:29 K: Ah, you’re going to find out, sir.
1:06:35 Q: (French).
1:06:38 K: Bien; alors.
1:06:43 Q: (Inaudible).
1:06:46 K: You see what we are doing now? Just go slow. What are we doing now? You see and I don’t see. I’ve taken…
1:06:58 Q: (Inaudible).
1:06:59 K: No, no, no, no, do... You see and I don’t see. I take ten days, you take a second and I say to myself, why? Now, when I put that question ‘why’, what am I doing?
1:07:23 Q: Thinking.
1:07:25 K: Ah, ah, ah... Stop, stop, stop. What am I doing?
1:07:32 Q: Seeking.
1:07:33 Q: Inquiring.
1:07:34 Q: Looking for an answer.
1:07:35 Q: Comparing.
1:07:36 K: (French) Let me talk for two minutes, will you?
1:07:39 Q: Please.
1:07:40 K: You see; I don’t see. And when I say, why don’t I see, what am I doing? What is actually taking place in my mind? I am looking for an explanation. Right? Isn’t it? Explanation of laziness, fear, time, lack of interest - explanations. Right? So what am I doing? Explanations are distracting me. Am I making myself clear?
1:08:29 Q: Yes.
1:08:31 K: If I have no explanation - there are explanations - but I say no, I mustn’t be distracted - you follow? - by explanation, by words, by what people say, don’t say. What is the state of my mind which is not seeking an explanation, but is faced with the fact that you see and I don’t see? You see the difference? Do you see the difference, sir?
1:09:09 Q: Yes.
1:09:10 Q: If I did I’d say yes, obviously.
1:09:12 K: No, no, no. You see sir... Wait a minute. My son dies and I’m paralyzed for the first week - that’s all right - then the next week begins explanations: why, hope, fear, despair, loneliness, anxiety, reincarnation, resurrection, I don’t believe in any of this, I rationalize, only there is death because when… You follow? What has happened? I have dissipated the fact. Right? Right? You get what I’m talking?
1:10:00 Q: Yes.
1:10:01 K: I’ve dissipated the fact and I lean back. Now, the fact is he sees and I don’t see. You get it? And you have given me explanations of fear, reaction, because he’s not so clever as you are, you are this and that, and ten different... and at the end of it I am left with explanations - you get what I’m saying? - but not with the fact. Then what happens if I have no explanations, no time interval - you follow? - then what happens? Come on, sirs, what happens? Actually what takes place? You see, I have removed the time interval - you follow? - if I’ve broken the time interval, I look, he looks. I think it’s a tremendous thing, sir. I don’t know if you’re catching this.
1:11:30 Q: Look at what now?
1:11:38 K: Look at that fact that he sees and I don’t see. Then I see, not only he, but I also see. I don’t know if you’re…You’re quite unsatisfied with this answer, aren’t you?
1:12:14 Q: Yes.
1:12:15 Q: (Inaudible)... this is the difficulty, I find, it’s… I think Mr Berry might agree with me in this that you can follow this logically and verbally, right up to the very point itself.
1:12:26 K: Yes, but… (inaudible).
1:12:28 Q: But then…
1:12:30 K: Now, wait a minute. That’s the point. You have followed intellectually, verbally, up to a point.
1:12:36 Q: Well, you feel as though you’ve got almost to that very point without actually having that thing itself.
1:12:39 K: Which is what? What have you done?
1:12:41 Q: Do you mean at that point both are seeing the fact?
1:12:59 K: That’s all, sir.
1:13:02 Q: Yes.
1:13:03 K: There is not ‘he sees and I don’t’ - we both see the thing, because why? Why? I haven’t dissipated, as I had dissipated all my energy through explanations, search, longing, hoping, despairing, anguish. You follow?
1:13:28 Q: No, I think you’re giving me more credit than I deserve. What I say is that when I see the fact that I don’t understand as fast as he does, I didn’t understand, then that itself is a fact and I stay with that fact. It’s a fact.
1:13:44 K: Ah, no, no; no. I’ve gone much beyond that.
1:13:47 Q: Yes.
1:13:48 K: Ah, no, no, no, no, no. That’s fairly simple. He sees, I don’t see. That’s a fact. (Inaudible)... I am not interested in that. Of course it’s a fact, but I say why don’t I see. I don’t see because I’m dissipating energy: explanations, saying is my brother going to live, is my son going…? You know all that - explanations, words. Which means what…- wait - which means I live with the fact that I don’t see and he sees. You see how I’ve come to that fact, not…? Are you getting what I’m talking…?
1:14:39 Q: (Inaudible) fact to live with, isn’t it? I mean, you have to be with the fact that you don’t see.
1:14:45 K: Now, but I have... therefore I’ve removed all explanations.
1:14:52 Q: (French).
1:14:53 K: C’est ca.
1:14:55 Q: I mean, that is the fact, isn’t it? We don’t see.
1:15:02 K: Yes sir; my dear chap, yes; I don’t... we don’t see. Now, you see, you are sticking at something. Wait a minute. Go slow. You have taken ten years and another takes a second. That’s a fact. Then you say, ‘Why am I taking so long,’ and by putting that question to yourself, you are asking for explanations, answers, so you’re seeking answers, explanations. What happens then? You have dissipated, and it is this dissipation that prevents you from seeing instantly.
1:16:06 Q: Seeing what?
1:16:08 K: Ah, ah, ah...
1:16:10 Q: (Inaudible). I’m sorry, I don’t quite follow.
1:16:12 K: Seeing authority.
1:16:13 Q: (Inaudible)... the poison of authority?
1:16:15 K: Immediately.
1:16:17 Q: You’re talking as a physicist.
1:16:20 K: What is that? I don’t know, comrade. (Laughter)
1:16:27 Q: The shortest distance...
1:16:29 K: Between two points? (Laughter)
1:16:33 Q: The minimum dissipation of energy.
1:16:37 K: Therefore the man who sees immediately is all there and the man who does not see, he’s looking round, lazy, every... explanations which is a form of distraction and waste of energy. If he said, ‘Look, my son is dead. I am going to be with it completely. My wife has left’ - you follow? – and not say, ‘Oh, I am…’ explain, jealous, envious: ‘Why that man? Why not... (inaudible)?’ You know? All the...
1:17:18 Q: What would be the corresponding thing in regard to authority that you would say to yourself?
1:17:25 K: Authority… Sir, why don’t we see authority as poison immediately, the whole of it, not just parts of it?
1:17:33 Q: But then what...? You say, ‘My son is dead. I’m going to stay with that.’ Well, if you say, ‘Authority is poison, I’m going to stay with that,’ but that’s begging the question, surely.
1:17:40 K: No. Oh no.
1:17:42 Q: Sorry.
1:17:43 K: Sir, look sir, my son is dead. My wife has left me, and to live with it...
1:17:51 Q: That’s something you know.
1:17:52 K: Ah, I know that’s a fact...
1:17:57 Q: Yes.
1:17:58 K: But what happens? She has left, she’s left the house, but I’m jealous - you follow? – I’m angry, furious with the man, with her so-called disloyalty - you know all that idiotic nonsense - which are all waste of energy. Right? So what am I doing? I’m not living with the fact. I’m running away from the fact. Right? Then, if I live with the fact, then I say, ‘Quite right; why shouldn’t she leave me?’ Then the whole process is different. You follow? Now, in the same way, he says, ‘I don’t see.’ He sees authority is poison completely, not at one level - totally, whether it’s the authority of the wife, authority of the Pope, authority of the church, authority of... anybody - you follow? - psychologically. Right? He sees that immediately, I don’t. The fact is I don’t, so instead of dissipating my energy, saying, ‘Oh, why don’t I? Why shouldn’t he be…?’ You follow? I live with that fact: I don’t see. What does it do to you?
1:19:18 Q: Well, I find I just continue not to see.
1:19:22 K: Oh, no. On the contrary. What does it do to you? You have become much more sharp, haven’t you? Your mind is uncluttered. It’s all alive, because you’re not wasting.
1:19:42 Q: That’s…
1:19:44 K: And when you do look, you look as clearly as him, instantly. You see, we have been brought up in time as a means of achievement. Oh, I don’t want to go into all that. You see, sir, to live with authority implies... to live with the poison of authority, you have to… the mind has to see that it is dissipating itself and its energy through reaction, through explanation, but the man who sees instantly, he is not reacting, he is not explaining, he is not seeking ways and means, and analyzing to get rid of it, all that. He sees it, and I don’t because my energy is gone. We’ve got three more discussions, haven’t we - Sunday, Monday and Tuesday. Now, what shall we discuss those three days?
1:21:43 Q: Action without idea would be very interesting.
1:21:48 K: No, what I mean... when we leave at the end of these discussions, there must be boiling something. You follow? Not just keep on going... (inaudible).
1:21:58 Q: What about...
1:21:59 Q: Time… (inaudible).
1:22:00 Q: I was going to say listening.
1:22:03 K: Anything, sir. Let’s discuss it tomorrow…
1:22:08 Q: (French) sans direction.
1:22:09 K: Sans direction - bene.
1:22:10 Many: (Inaudible).