Krishnamurti Subtitles home


LO61T1 - What is the mind?
London - 2 May 1961
Public Talk 1



0:00 This is J Krishnamurti’s first public talk in London, 1961.
0:08 Krishnamurti: I think we must be fairly clear from the beginning what is the intention of this gathering.
0:24 I feel that it should not in any way degenerate into mere intellectual exchange of words or ideas, or mere exposition of one’s own point of view, and dispute about that point, but rather to think the problems out together, to not merely watch as at a football, several people acting and playing, but rather take part, each one of us, in the discussion.
1:23 I mean by discussion going beyond the mere intellection, mere verbal exchange; penetrating rather deeply, if we can, into the many problems not only of the individual but of the collective; and if it is possible to go beyond the mutterings, the chatterings, the worldly demands and influences – go beyond all these to discover what is true.
2:21 And perhaps in discovering what is true we shall be able to deal with the many problems that each one of us has. At least that is what the intention of these discussions are to me.
2:41 I am not going to merely expose my ideas, because I haven’t got ideas.
2:49 I don’t believe in ideas. Ideas have no direction, they don’t get anywhere, because ideas are the mere expression of one’s own conditioning, one’s own limitation.
3:17 And to quarrel about those ideas, who is right and who is wrong, seems to me so utterly futile.
3:29 So perhaps we could discuss intelligently, leisurely, hesitantly, so as to capture the whole significance of life, existence, what it’s all about.
4:00 And I feel that is only possible if we could be very honest with ourselves, which is rather difficult.
4:17 It should be really, this discussion, an exposition of ourselves, exposing ourselves to ourselves rather than to somebody else, so that we can penetrate by our own intelligence and by our own precise thinking, penetrate into something more worthwhile.
4:58 So if that is clear, what the intentions of these discussions are, and if I may be allowed, if you’ll allow me, I’ll expose a little bit before we start discussing.
5:25 I think most of us know what’s happening in the world, not only from the newspapers but our own individual direct experience, that there is tremendous change going on – not the change into something but the rapidity of change itself, which is far more significant than the change from one thing to the other: the rapidity, not only in one’s own life but in the life of the collective, the national, but also in the world, among the various peoples of the world.
6:25 And also machines are taking over everything, the electronic brains, the computers.
6:40 They are capable of doing much more, intelligently, quickly than we human beings; they are doing astonishing things.
6:58 They will presently create machines which will be as intelligent as us. They are investigating the question of intelligence, how to bring about machines that will create further machines, without the interference of man. So man is gradually being eliminated.
7:28 And these machines are functioning on the same basis as the human mind, brain.
7:45 Probably they will be able to compose, write poems, paint – the monkey has painted pictures – and so on, so on, so on.
8:00 There is extraordinary change: the world will never be the same as what it has been for us.
8:18 And I think we are aware of all that. And I am not at all sure that we are aware of our relationship to this whole process, because we consider knowledge as an immensely important thing; and the machines are capable of much vaster knowledge.
9:03 And we worship knowledge. Knowledge is very important to us.
9:29 And that’s one side of the problem. Then there is the threat of war, threat of communism or fascism, and all the rest of it.
9:48 And when one observes the enormous, crushing, degrading poverty of Asia, and human beings seeking a system which will solve that problem, and the problem is not solved because of our nationalistic, limited point of view, each system wanting to try to dominate, and so on – you know all these problems.
10:55 And to meet all these problems differently, from a totally different point of view, it seems to me that a revolution is necessary; not the communist or the socialist or the capitalist, or the American or the Chinese revolutions, but an inward revolution, a completely new mind.
11:46 And I think that is the issue, not the atom bomb or going to the moon or who has travelled round the earth half a dozen times in a rocket – the monkey has done it and somebody else will do it and some more people.
12:12 But it seems to me, given all these incidents and accidents, to meet them, one must have a totally different mind.
12:36 Not the so-called religious mind.
12:58 Religious mind, religion which is organized, which is accepted here in the West and in the East, belief in God, the divisions which organized religions create – surely they’re not the problem… they’re not… they will not solve anything; they will only perpetuate more and more division, more and more fear and superstition.
13:46 And belonging to one group or to another group, to one society or another society, to a particular form of belief, to a pattern of action, and all these absurd divisions and limitations, surely are not going to solve the immense problem.
14:18 And I feel it is only possible that not only to meet this, these issues, but also to enter into something which is not merely the putting together of the human mind, which is always within the bondage of time, something which is not merely the outcome of experience, because experience is always limited, is always colouring all action, to go beyond, if it is possible for the mind, beyond the frontiers of the mind, of time, to uncover the immense significance of death, which means really to unravel what it is to live.
16:11 With all these problems, it seems to me a new mind is absolutely essential; not an English mind, not an Indian mind, or the Russian or the American, and all the rest of it, but a mind that captures the whole significance, that has broken down the conditions, the values, the nationalities, that goes beyond the words of which it is a slave.
17:05 So it seems to me that is the real issue, that is the real challenge.
17:33 And how is one to come by it?
17:42 That’s what I would like to discuss, if I may state what I want to discuss.
18:02 That’s how… I would like to find out, I would like to discuss intelligently and, you know, precisely, without sentiment, without arrogance, to find out if there is a way, or no way, to come by it, if there is a path, a discipline, a course, a method, a system.
19:01 Or all those methods, systems, disciplines, ideas have to completely go overboard, completely be wiped away from the mind, and the mind made fresh, young, innocent, light.
19:26 Now, how is this possible? And I hope you want to discuss the same thing as I do.
19:39 If you don’t, it doesn’t matter, we’ll discuss something else.
19:50 Questioner: In many of your talks you have explained to us that love is the answer to most of our questions.
19:58 K: May I just finish what I have to say, and then you can discuss with me? Sorry.
20:30 I am not trying to take… I’m not the only person here to talk. You will talk presently, please, but let me carry on a little bit, unfold a little bit more, and then we can set the ball rolling.
21:09 One talks in India, and that land, that unfortunate land having so many people, an ancient land with so many traditions, which has had several so-called teachers who have laid down what is right and what is wrong, what method to follow, how to meditate, what to think, what not to think, they are bound, they are held in their pattern of thinking.
21:52 And here too in the West, the same process is going on.
22:04 We don’t want to change. We are always constantly seeking security in everything we do: security in the family, security in relationship, security in ideas.
22:30 We want to be sure, and being… the desire to be sure inevitably breeds fear, and fear brings about guilt and anxiety.
23:10 And if we look within ourselves, we see how terribly we are afraid of everything, of most things.
23:19 And there is always the shadow of guilt.
23:34 You know, in India, to put on a clean cloth makes you feel guilty.
23:43 To have one square meal makes you feel guilty because there is poverty, dirt, squalor, misery.
23:57 Here it isn’t so bad: the welfare state, jobs, there’s physical security, but one has other forms of guilt and anxieties.
24:22 We know all this but unfortunately we don’t know how to shake ourselves away from all this, shake these off, throw them off so that our mind is again fresh, innocent and young.
24:48 Surely such a mind is necessary to discover if there is a reality, if there is a God, if there is something beyond all the words and phrases and conditionings.
25:09 It is only, surely, the innocent mind, the mind that is made new, that can see, perceive, observe.
25:39 So considering all this, what is one to do?
25:48 Is there anything to be done? And if there is something to be done, what it is to be done?
25:57 In what direction?
26:04 I do not know if you are following what I am talking about, if what I’m talking about has any meaning to you at all.
26:22 Because what I’m talking about is very serious – not serious in long-faced moods, you know, all that business; serious in a much more intense…
26:38 the urgency, the immediacy.
26:56 And how is one, where is one to begin, what is one to do?
27:07 Can we discuss that?
27:14 That is if you also feel and observe the necessity of such a mind.
27:28 Now, one might ask: what do you mean by the mind?
27:36 Shall we begin with that?
27:46 Right?
27:55 Q: The mind goes round and round but it never goes beyond its own limitation. One tries and tries and tries…
28:10 K: The gentleman says the mind goes round and round, never beyond its limitation.
28:18 I don’t think, sir… Now, wait a minute, let’s discuss this, because I don’t want a question and answer meeting.
28:32 First of all, before we say it goes round and round, what it is, what it’s not, we must discover the whole content of the mind, mustn’t we?
28:41 What is the mind? Please don’t answer me; I am going to expose a little bit.
28:59 What is the mind? And how do we answer your question of that kind?
29:12 What is the operation, what is the process that is set going when such a question is asked?
29:29 Please observe your own mind, not wait for me to answer.
29:36 I have put to you a question: what is the mind? Now, how do you begin to respond?
29:45 And what is responding?
29:53 Where do you find the answer to the question?
30:04 Which brings up a point, if I may go on, which is: how do you observe a thing?
30:22 How do you observe a tree?
30:38 Do you observe the totality, the wholeness of the tree, or merely the surface of the tree? The tree is the root, the trunk, the branches, the leaves, the fruit, the flower, the fruit, the dead leaf – the total thing is the tree.
31:15 How do you observe a total thing?
31:23 Am I pushing it too far? I hope I am not making it too abstract, am I?
31:35 So, when we ask the question, what is the mind, how do you observe, what is…
31:44 from what centre do you observe?
31:55 There is a challenge, and how do you respond to that challenge, from what centre, from what background?
32:14 And to observe something entirely, totally, what have you to do, how do you do it?
32:45 Q: One has to look with comprehension, not with the mind.

K: The gentleman says one has to look with comprehension, not with the mind. Now, what do we mean by comprehension? I am not quibbling with words, sir.
33:02 Don’t, if I may suggest, don’t introduce one set of words for another set of words.
33:10 So, please, let’s go together a little bit. Now, what do we mean by observing? What do we mean by seeing, perceiving?
33:32 Now, each one obviously has a meaning, interpretation according to his own knowledge, or we refer to the dictionary.
33:52 When we use the word ‘see’, what do we mean by it?
34:00 Seeing, not only with the eyes, we not only mean that but also we mean something else, don’t we? Seeing. I say, ‘Yes, I see something very clearly’.
34:14 What does that mean? That means we have not only physically seen the thing but also we have gone beyond the words – don’t we?
34:35 I see – see – that nationalism is the most stupid form of emotionalism, without any rationality, without any sense. I see it – please, not you.
34:56 I see it because... There’s no ‘because’ – first, I see it.
35:03 First, there is immediate perception of the falseness of the thing. Then I rationalize it, give explanations, how it separates people, you know, all the rest of it: the poisonous nature of nationalism, to call oneself a Hindu, Indian, Englishman, German, whatever it is, it’s…
35:31 it’s so destructive. I see all that at one glance: immediate perception.
35:39 I don’t have to be told, I don’t have to reason with lots of people to find out and come to a conclusion through deduction or induction. I just see it, as I see to belong to any organized religion is really the most corruptive, destructive existence.
36:14 I see it. Now, what is this capacity to see?
36:23 You are following what I… And do I see the totality of the mind?
36:41 Not the segments of the mind, not the intellectual part, the emotional part, the part that retains knowledge and uses knowledge, the part which is ambitious, which is contradicting itself not to be ambitious, and so on, so on – do I see the totality of the thing, or merely waiting for someone to tell me what the mind is?
37:37 I think it is very interesting and very profitable, if I may use that word in a world of commercialism, if we could find out for ourselves, each one of us, what we mean by seeing.
38:06 You know, I don’t have to be told when I’m hungry.
38:15 I know I’m hungry.
38:24 No amount of description will give me the experience of hunger.
38:34 I have direct experience. Now, can you and I have direct experience of this nature of the mind as a total thing?
38:58 And when you do have an experience of something as a whole, as a total thing, is there a centre from which it is being experienced?
39:19 Am I making it too abstract and too absurd?
39:31 Let me put it… Am I talking too much?

Q: No.

K: No, no, I know, I know.
39:38 I’m afraid… You see, that’s what is going to happen, you’re going to listen and I’m going to talk, and that will become most destructive to you, not to me.
40:04 You see, you want to experience – ‘experience’, in quotations.
40:12 What do you mean by it? You want to experience the totality of the mind – isn’t it?
40:20 When you say, ‘I want to see’, you mean really, ‘I want to experience the totality’ of anything – the feeling of the total feeling of life, the total feeling of not holding on to something.
40:49 You want to experience it.
40:56 Now, is the totality of anything experienceable – as we use that word with all its meaning?
41:18 You see, when we want to experience then it is translated in terms of what has already been experienced.
41:36 Right? Ça-va? I mean, that goes?
41:48 So experience is always in terms of what is known.
42:00 And if you have never experienced the totality of the mind, never experienced it, how will you know what the totality of the mind is? You see the problem?
42:14 No, don’t, please, this is very… this involves a great deal, it is not just agreeing with me.
42:30 You know, when you fly there is the earth below you, 30,000, 40,000 feet below you, and you go across Pakistan, Iran, Middle East, Crete, Italy, France, England, America, and all the rest of it.
43:04 They are all divided.
43:17 And apart from this artificial division created by man there is the totality of the earth.
43:35 To feel this whole earth, which is extraordinarily beautiful.
43:50 Now, to feel the quality of that totality, must you experience it in terms of what you have already known, or is it something that is not experienceable as a thing that you can recognize?
44:39 Am I going too fast into the question or would you like… You see, we are asking ourselves: what is the mind? Now, how do you find out? What is the mind? The mind is the capacity to recognize, to hoard knowledge as memory – which is the accumulated experiences of centuries of human endeavour, conflict, being, and the individual experiences in relation with the past to the present – the capacity to design, to communicate, to feel, to think rationally, irrationally; the mind that is in a state of self-contradiction, pulled in different directions; the mind that feels gentle, quiet, serene, and the other that feels brutal, ruthless, superior, arrogant, vain; the mind that says, ‘I am the English…’ or the Indian; the mind that is in contradiction within itself; the mind that is unconscious, deep down, the collective, the individual, the inherited; and the mind, the superficial mind that has been educated according to a certain technique, certain knowledge, certain ways of behaviour and action; the mind that is seeking, searching, wanting permanency, security; the mind that always has hope and within it always the sense of frustration, failure, despair; the mind that says, ‘I know what it is to love and wanting to be loved’ – the totality is all that, isn’t it, surely? That’s all the mind, which animals have and you and I have: animals less and perhaps we have more.
47:58 The mind that can remember, that can recollect; the mind that is very intellectual, sharp, precise; and the mind that says it must go beyond all this, must reach somewhere, must experience a totality, a timeless, an immeasurable state.
48:31 So, that’s all the mind. We know of it in segments.
48:48 We know of it when we are jealous, angry, hateful, or when you are aware of it in self-contradiction. Or there are some dreams, hints of things that have been, that one wishes once again.
49:16 That’s all the mind, the mind that says, ‘I am the soul’, the mind that says, ‘I am the Atman, I am the higher self, I am the lower’, I am this, I am that, I am the other, the mind that’s caught within the limits of time – because all that is time – and the mind that is a slave to words, like the English are slave to the word ‘the Queen’, ‘the Christ’, and the Indian is slave to his set of words, and the Chinese, the communist, and all the rest of them.
50:21 Now, one realizes all this, then how do you… then what is the mind?
51:00 Go on, sir, please discuss. What’s the…

Q: Would not understanding come through self-awareness?
51:09 It seems to me fear…

K: The gentleman asks: would an awareness…
51:16 and understanding come through awareness – the gentleman asks – understanding of all this?
51:23 No, sir. Sir, I am trying… Perhaps I haven’t made myself clear. After all, that’s the purpose of these talks, to make oneself clear to each other.
51:46 You see, sir, there must be change.
51:55 I’m taking that a little bit, for a while. A calculated change is no change at all, the change that is sent through practice, discipline, control, ruthless domination, arrives at a certain point. That’s no change at all because it’s mere continuity of the same thing in a different way, under a different guise, different clothing.
52:42 And there must be change radically and immediately. That is the only change, not a progressive, evolutionary change. That’s gone, finished.
53:10 How is the mind to come to that change, so that it has wiped away everything, wiped away its conditioning, its brutalities, its stupidities, its fears, its guilt, its anxieties, wiped them away so that it’s new?
53:47 I say it is possible to wipe it away on the instant. And that’s the only way, not the analytical process, not the investigation, examination, you know, all that.
54:16 To wipe the slate clean with one stroke.
54:24 Don’t translate it as the grace of God, don’t say it is not possible for me, it is possible for somebody else – then we’re not facing the issue, then we’re avoiding it.
54:43 That’s why I said at the beginning, we need very clear, precise thinking, a ruthless inquiry.
55:09 Q: This instantaneous wiping away, there can be no thought of any kind in it.

K: Yes, sir, but how is it to be done, what is the action?
55:29 You understand, sir, that’s what I mean? You know very well what is happening in the world, don’t you, much better you know than I do, because I don’t read newspapers. I know what’s happening, because I travel, I see people, big ones and little ones, and all the rest of it.
55:48 You know what’s happening. And there must be a tremendous revolution within one to answer to this chaotic world, messy world.
56:21 And as I said, it is possible.
56:31 And I would like if I may, without trying to stop you from discussing, to continue in that line – you follow? – to inquire along those lines.
56:50 Not say, how do we get at this and how do I improve myself, what do I do, and… It will come after.
57:05 What action should I do with the atomic war, should I… – you know, all that stuff. The movement, Bertrand Russell movement, or this movement, leave all those aside for the moment and let us pay attention to this one thing and pursue it to the end.
57:45 Please, I don’t want to dominate this meeting at all; that’s far from my intention or my feeling, because I am nobody, it doesn’t interest me. That’s irrelevant. What I…
58:00 Isn’t that also your problem? Whether we’re young, old, isn’t that your problem?
58:08 Q: I think this is the paramount problem for all of us.

K: Yes, sir. If that is the problem, how… what do we do?
58:15 How do we capture this thing?

Q: That… …something we seem to be trying to grasp and can’t.
58:21 K: Ah! No, wait. When you try to grasp, when you try to capture something, surely we are already translating in terms of the old.
58:59 Sir, mustn’t you be very clear if this is your problem?
59:08 Not that I am imposing a problem on you: then there would be a contradiction between you and me. I’m not.
59:19 I am only stating the problem. If you don’t see it that way, let’s discuss it.
59:30 But if you do see it that way, then it’s your problem. It’s your problem, not mine.
59:42 Then you and I have a relationship, then we are in contact with each other to find out an answer to it.
59:55 But if I am merely imposing it on you, and you say, ‘Well, by Jove, that man is this and that and the other thing’, then there is no relationship.
1:00:09 And if it is not your problem, I say, why isn’t it your problem?
1:00:17 You follow? Because look what is happening in the world, because there is more and more externalization, more and more the outward things are becoming more and more important: going to the moon, who goes up to the moon, you know, infantile things are becoming tremendously important.
1:00:59 Prosperity is destroying freedom.
1:01:07 And if you can say that in India or in Asia, they say, ‘Please, go and talk to the Americans’, because everybody wants prosperity, food, clothing, shelter – they must have it, inevitably.
1:01:29 But that isn’t the whole works.
1:01:41 So, if it is your problem as well as the speaker’s – it’s not a problem to me because I have gone into it, and all the rest of it – if it is a problem to all of us, then how do we answer it?
1:01:55 How do we set about?
1:02:04 Q: We can only say we don’t know.
1:02:09 K: The lady says we don’t know, we can only say we don’t know. Now, wait a minute, just…
1:02:16 What do you mean by saying, ‘I don’t know’? Please, this is very important, don’t just brush it aside. When we say, ‘I don’t know’, what do we mean by that?
1:02:30 Q: I just mean that.

K: Ah, no, no, you don’t mean that. Excuse me, let me unravel it a little bit.
1:02:52 You know, there are different states of knowing and not knowing.
1:03:04 If you are asked a familiar question, you would answer immediately, wouldn’t you, because you are familiar with it, and your response is instantaneous.
1:03:19 If you are asked a complicated question, you would take time. The lag between the question and the response is the process of thinking, isn’t it?
1:03:36 That thinking is looking into memory to find the answer.
1:03:46 This is obvious, not a complicated thing I am talking about, it is very simple.
1:03:55 The time interval between the question and the answer is the process of so-called thinking, which is the response of memory.
1:04:09 Then if another question was asked, still more complicated, of which for the moment you don’t know the answer, you say, ‘I don’t know’. When you say, ‘I don’t know’, you’re waiting to find out either in the reservoir of your own memory or looking to somebody to tell you. Please, this is so clear, isn’t it?
1:04:41 You say, ‘I don’t know’. That is, you are waiting, expecting to find out.
1:04:51 Just a minute, just a minute. Can you honestly say, ‘I don’t know’?
1:05:00 Which means no expectation, no looking into memory, obviously; which means the mind completely says, ‘I really don’t know’.
1:05:20 Which is a very destructive process if you don’t…
1:05:27 if it isn’t a real thing. You follow?
1:05:38 So there are different states of saying… states in which you say, ‘I don’t know’.
1:05:52 But when the mind is inquiring into this question: what is… how… in what…
1:06:04 how to bring about, by what means, how does it come about that there is a new mind?
1:06:13 You can’t say, ‘I don’t know’. You follow? Either you’re saying, ‘I don’t know’, because you are waiting for me to tell you, or you don’t know, therefore there is no expectation, therefore there is no state of wanting to experience that state.
1:06:38 You follow what I mean?
1:06:52 So let’s begin again.
1:07:01 As I said, what is essential is to understand not only the details, the nature of the intellect, the nature of knowledge, the slavishness to words, to realize what is in the comprehensive mind, the unconscious, all the rest of it, but to see the totality of it.
1:08:07 And to perceive the totality of something, there cannot be an observer which is observing.
1:08:15 I think this is a little bit too…
1:08:22 We have to wait for a few days more; a few more discussions, we’ll come to that.
1:08:36 And I feel what is important is the understanding of what is perceiving, seeing, observing.
1:09:25 Q: It seems we can only see through words. As soon as one comprehends a thing, one puts words around it in order to see it.
1:09:35 K: Do you… The lady says you can only comprehend through words, and the moment we understand something we clothe it in words.
1:09:49 Do you understand through words?
1:09:58 No, first of all, please, are we aware how slavish we are to words?
1:10:09 First of all, are we aware of that? England, India, Russian, God, love – aren’t we a slave to these words?
1:10:33 And being slaves to words, how can you comprehend something which is not word?
1:10:47 Because something totally is not word. I don’t know if you…
1:10:55 Love, for example, that word, misused, corrupt, divided as the divine, sexual, you know all the… It’s… we are slave to that word.
1:11:11 And being a slave, can I understand the total nature – which must be an astonishing thing – of that word? The meaning, the significance, that the whole universe is contained in that word.
1:11:43 You see, what we are trying to do, isn’t it, most unfortunately perhaps, is, we are slaves to words and we are trying to reach something beyond words.
1:12:04 And to uproot, to shatter the words and be free of words, gives you an extraordinary perception – the vitality, the vigour of perception.
1:12:34 And to be free of words, will you take time? We say, ‘I’d better think about it, I must be aware, I must practise awareness, I will meditate, I will read Bertrand Russell’, and say words are necessary in social… – you know – and the importance of words, I must stick to words, I must… – you know.
1:13:05 Or will you see the importance that a mind which is a slave to words is incapable of looking, observing, feeling, seeing. And therefore that very clarity, that very truth destroys the slavishness.
1:13:44 I am sorry to put so much emphasis…
1:14:00 Q: One might see it for an instant but then the mind immediately closes down again.
1:14:05 K: No. The lady says we see it for an instant.
1:14:12 Is that a fact? Do you see for an instant that a thing is poisonous, and go back to it?
1:14:25 Q: We don’t see it then.

K: That’s all – you don’t see it.
1:14:33 Q: But the self is surely the word; the self can’t see beyond the word, can it?
1:14:39 K: The lady says the self cannot see beyond the word.
1:14:50 You see, the moment you introduce the word ‘self’ we have to go into that whole question of what is the self.
1:15:00 But we’re trying to… I mean, look, please: are we aware that we are slave to words?
1:15:16 You know, don’t you? You know you are a slave to words, do you?

Q: Yes.

K: Wait. Then what happens?
1:15:27 Q: You wonder what you can do about it.

K: Is that all?
1:15:34 Do you sit and meditate about it and play around, or do you say, ‘By Jove, I’ve never realized that I’m a slave to words’, and, bang, finished?
1:15:55 Q: It’s the only way we can communicate with each other though, through words.

K: Ah! Of course that’s the only way; here we are, we are using words, otherwise I couldn’t talk to you and you couldn’t talk to me. But that surely is not slavishness to words.
1:16:12 I mean, take a communist. He is a slave to words: Marx, Stalin, you know, I don’t have to go into all that.
1:16:20 And the so-called Christian and the Hindu, he is a slave to words: the symbol, the cross, and the whole world being on that word.
1:16:40 Go to Rome, go anywhere and you’ll see: just the word.
1:16:50 And in this country. Don’t you know all this, in this country?
1:17:01 So – we’d better stop – so I am just saying… We’ll continue the day after tomorrow – isn’t it?
1:17:08 Q: Yes.

K: The day after tomorrow, isn’t it?

Q: Yes.
1:17:19 K: You see, we have used the word ‘mind’, and we may be slaves to that word.
1:17:32 And we worship the word ‘mind’. ‘Oh, he has a brilliant mind, he is very clever’.
1:17:49 And we cultivate the mind. All our education is the cultivation of the mind.
1:18:04 And surely what we are trying to find out is the totality of anything, which is not the word: the feeling that you embrace the whole thing without barrier of the word.
1:18:29 Don’t you know?
1:18:41 So we’ll continue, if we may, the day after tomorrow at seven o’clock.