Krishnamurti Subtitles home


LO65D6 - Is it possible to look at fear out of silence?
London - 9 May 1965
Public Discussion 6



0:00 This is J. Krishnamurti’s sixth public discussion in London, 1965.
0:09 Krishnamurti: In all these talks here we seem to have covered a great deal.
0:18 We talked about several things.
0:26 And I’m wondering whether our life as it is now is so superficial, we have most of the things that we want physically, and most of us are so easily satisfied with little pleasures and, if you are rather clever, with intellectual concepts and theories and arguments.
1:10 And the more we are clever, the more we think we are very deep, vital.
1:20 And if we have read a great deal, it gives us a certain sharpness of mind, a disputatious mind, and able to quote and give an impression that we are very deep and very vital.
2:04 I was wondering if it is possible for a very clear… very clever mind to go very deep, or a mind that has so much knowledge and information.
2:35 Because, it seems to me, given the world situation as it is, most of us live for pleasure and we seek for the prolongation of that pleasure, an intellectual pleasure or sensual pleasure, and when that pleasure wanes we seek other forms of pleasure.
3:31 And there is very little joy in our life, in our relationship, in our activities.
3:39 I don’t think we’ll be able to find joy through pleasure.
3:50 I think the two things are entirely different. And the difference is not in words or in action or in great deal of knowledge.
4:14 I think it is a matter of understanding pleasure and going beyond it.
4:24 And then only it is possible to have joy or whatever… another word you’d like to use, like bliss.
4:44 And being… seeing what the world is, what most of us are, we seem to find it very difficult to go very deep within ourselves, and I don’t see how one can find this joy or be in that state of mind unless one goes profoundly within oneself.
5:25 And, as we were saying the other day, the understanding of pleasure ends all illusion.
5:49 Because if one has illusions of any kind about oneself and self-identifying oneself with a joy, an image, a pleasure, a vision, an idea, a theory, it gives certain satisfaction, a certain quality of pleasure, but I’m afraid this self-identification with something is still the pursuit of pleasure.
6:33 And how is one to go within oneself so profoundly, so deeply, without effort, without the time-binding nature of time?
7:16 To go within oneself, is it a matter of time?
7:26 Is it a matter of constant awareness, constant examination, constant watchfulness, a continual effort to put away the things that one knows are rather stupid and so perhaps discover?
8:03 Does time and pleasure make the mind non-religious?
8:17 Make the mind non-religious in the sense of that… in the sense that religion for most of us is authority, ritual, repetition and acceptance and so on.
8:49 When one has brushed all that aside, as most so-called intellectual, modern people do, do we find something much more significant?
9:11 Because to me the religious quality of the mind is very important.
9:34 I mean by that word religious mind, a mind that has understood the nature of pleasure, that has freed itself from fear and therefore has no illusion or does not create illusion for itself, and so capable of living with facts, with what is, and, so living, is capable of going beyond.
10:39 Such a mind, seems to me, is the religious mind, that has… fundamentally has understood the nature of pleasure, the nature of time and obviously fear.
11:07 As we were saying the other day, fear in any form, conscious or unconscious, breeds darkness, breeds illusion.
11:30 One seeks, as an escape from fear, authority, all the network that man has developed in his escape from fear.
11:53 And to be aware of the network and so to be free demands, naturally, an awareness, an awareness in which there is no effort, mere observation.
12:21 And most of us, I’m afraid, are not serious enough to pursue to the very end.
12:37 We are so easily put off; we are so easily satisfied with a little experience, with a little knowledge, with a little understanding.
12:56 So the question arises, inevitably: What is a human being to do, who is in agony, who is in sorrow, fear, striving after position and prestige and all the rest of it?
13:24 What is a human being to do to cut through all this so that fear doesn’t ever arise again?
13:46 I do not know if you have thought about this matter; perhaps we’ll discuss it afterwards, after I’ve talked a little.
14:11 How is one to be free instantly of fear?
14:19 Not mere… not physical fear, which does affect the psychological fear, but the psychological fears that breed physical fears.
14:44 How is one to be free of fear?
14:51 We are using the word how not… as a question, not as a means or as a system of… through which to be rid of fear because, as we said the other day, the ‘how’ is disorder because the ‘how’ implies time, and time does breed disorder.
15:28 So being aware, conscious, one knows one is afraid of so many things inwardly.
15:48 How can one step out of it?
15:59 It seems to me that’s one of the major problems of our life.
16:09 Time is not the factor.
16:16 Time will never resolve fear.
16:25 Time being not only thought but thought which creates the tomorrow as a means of getting rid, time as a means, a gradual process; either it is analysis or examination, and so on.
17:02 The utilisation of time does not free the mind from fear.
17:11 So what is one to do?
17:26 One has… it seems to me, one has to understand this whole problem of pleasure - not fear - because pleasure is the central factor of our life; it’s the guiding principle of our life.
18:05 Please, as I said, do not merely listen to words but actually be aware of what the nature of pleasure is, actually, factually, how we… all our thought, all our activities, our desires is based on this extraordinary, intricate desire... pleasure.
18:57 And when there is an understanding of this pleasure, fear comes to an end because it is pleasure that breeds illusion.
19:35 Not the ultimate, deep psychological pleasure, but the everyday pleasures inwardly to which thought gives continuity.
19:55 So to understand pleasure, one has to examine the whole… one has to be aware of this whole process of thinking.
20:20 We give such extraordinary significance to thought, to ideas, to concepts, to formulas.
20:31 There are the physical formulas which are necessary, but is psychological formula necessary at all?
20:54 So why do we give such extraordinary importance to thinking, to the intellect?
21:17 I’m not saying that we should be stupid, uninformed, dull, but why this extraordinary importance to the intellect?
21:43 If one doesn’t give importance one is… then gives importance to either sensate values or to emotions, but as most people are ashamed of emotions and sensate values, the intellect is worshipped.
22:05 But why? Please, when I ask the question, find out… let’s find out why, both of us together.
22:26 Important books, theories, the whole intellectual field, and that is considered so important in our life - why?
22:47 If you’re very clever, it may give you a better job. That I understand... we understand that. If you are technologically trained highly, it has certain benefits, profits.
23:07 But why do we give importance to ideas?
23:20 Isn’t it because we cannot live without action?
23:41 All relationship is action.
23:54 All relationship is a movement, and that movement is action.
24:03 And ideas become important when we separate action from idea.
24:33 To us action is not important, relationship is not important, but ideas are much more important than all other factors, all other facts.
24:50 So our relationships, which is life, are based on idea, on organised memory as idea, and so idea dominates action, and hence relationship is a concept, not actual action.
25:40 I think relationship should be this or that, but I don’t know actually what relationship is.
26:09 So not knowing what relationship is actually, factually, ideas become all-important; the intellect becomes all-important which breeds, theories, what should be and what should not be, and so action is a time-binding nature.
27:06 That is, action involves time because idea is of time.
27:33 That is, action is never immediate, is never spontaneous.
27:53 Action is never related to what is, but is related to ‘what should be’ or what… an idea, and hence there is a conflict between idea and action.
28:21 So we’ve made life such extraordinarily complicated thing.
28:29 There is idea, action, action based on pleasure or duty or responsibility or what you will; then pleasure breeds illusion which is incapable of meeting the fact, the what is, and hence fear.
29:03 It’s not a matter that you agree or disagree with what is being said.
29:16 If one observes, this is so.
29:26 And the intellect is not a total thing, it’s a fragmentation of our life, it’s a fragment of our life, and yet that fragment takes tremendous importance.
29:58 And hence, being a fragment and having… which has such tremendous importance, our life, our living is fragmentary; it’s never a complete thing, a whole.
30:17 Probably most of us know all this, know that... or aware or conscious, feel, that there is a constant conflict going on between idea and action.
30:45 And the separation between idea and action involves time.
31:03 And where… when the… when there is the question of time then there is disorder.
31:14 We won’t go into it now because we’ve discussed it enough.
31:23 So we know all this; perhaps some of us directly know this, watched oneself and seen this as fact.
31:33 But apparently we don’t seem to be able to go beyond this. (Inaudible)... know very well it’s no good being too clever, being able to quote, the cerebration that goes on.
31:51 We know that very well it has not tremendous importance, and yet we play with it.
32:01 And we also are aware the nature of pleasure, the nature of pleasure as habit, sexual, in different habits that one has - we’re also aware of it.
32:37 And also we are inwardly, deeply anxious.
32:44 There’s a deep sense of guilt and desperate loneliness.
33:11 And also we know there is fear, and yet we don’t seem to be able to go beyond all this.
33:27 Now, how is it possible for a human being to step out of this circle, this everlasting, vicious circle?
33:56 It seems to me that’s the major question, not the investigation and analysis, the endless words and the definition of words.
34:14 We know all that. Now, how is one to step out of it?
34:28 I hope I’m making myself clear.
34:39 Is there a different approach to this problem at all? It seems to me we’re always approaching life from the periphery, always from the outside to the inner, and so making things so complex, so hard, so intricate.
35:23 Is there a different approach to the… altogether?
35:33 Let’s leave it there for the moment and let’s approach it differently.
36:00 Pleasure is not love.
36:09 Pleasure is the continuation of memory, which feeds pleasure and sustains pleasure.
36:25 And pleasure is not love.
36:40 And if there is love, what we call love, it’s surrounded by jealousy, anxiety, loneliness, fear of losing and so on, which is what we call love.
37:19 And for us beauty is again pleasure.
37:56 Beauty is the result, for most of us, of stimulation: a beautiful building, beautiful face, beautiful sunset, a cloud in the sky.
38:21 We call that beautiful because it’s a stimulus, and is there beauty which is not the result of a stimulus, which is unrelated to pleasure?
38:58 So our life is without love, nor is there the sense of beauty which is not a result.
39:26 And most of our life as we are, we are second-hand human beings.
39:38 There’s nothing original, nothing actual, and therefore we’re never… we never know what is... to be creative.
40:01 We all want to be… express ourselves as an artist, as a technician, in different ways we want to express ourselves, and this expression is generally… is part of what we call creativeness.
40:40 How can there be creation when there is fear, pleasure and the involvement of time?
40:57 Surely creation means, doesn’t it, ending, not the continuation of something I have known, however pleasurable, however significant.
41:36 It’s only when there is an ending completely then there is something new.
41:52 So we are afraid to end; that is, we’re afraid to die - die to all the pleasures, to the memories, to experiences, and so we continue, never ending and therefore we are never creative.
42:36 So it seems to me beauty, love, death and creation all go together.
42:57 But that cannot exist when there is fear in any form, or pleasure.
43:11 Now, one has heard this, you may approve or agree or disagree, but that doesn’t matter.
43:21 These are obvious facts. Not according to me; one can observe this. Now, how is one… - I’m using the word how not… as a question, not offering a method - is it possible for you and me to step completely out of this system of time and pleasure?
44:06 Is it possible to look at fear out of silence?
44:27 That is, is it possible to look at fear not as something to be got rid of, to be analysed, to find the cause of it, and so on and so on and on, but to look at fear as it arises not with thought but out of silence?
45:01 That is, can one look at a flower non-botanically and without feeling - because feeling is thought - to observe a flower non-botanically, without thought and therefore without feeling.
45:54 That’s fairly simple, if one has done it. It’s fairly easy because the flower is not of great importance in our life; it doesn’t interfere, it doesn’t do… mess our life.
46:19 But to look at our activities, at our problems as they arise without thought and feeling and therefore without time, to observe.
46:52 You see, we look at things from a centre which creates space round itself.
47:20 I look at you from my centre of memories, all the rest of that, a centre, and that centre creates a space round itself, and through that space I look.
47:41 So I never look at you; I never observe you.
47:50 I only observe you through my space which has been created by a centre, which is the experience, knowledge, memory.
48:12 I can only look at you when there is no centre, really look as I can look at the flower.
48:33 So I… so to observe without a centre which is the time-binding nature, which is the result of pleasure, and therefore that centre is always creating illusion and never coming face-to-face with fact.
49:15 So can I look as I can look at a flower, a cloud, a bird on the wing, with that…?
49:34 I can look at a cloud without a centre, without a word, the word which creates thought - I can look at it, but can I look at every problem - the problem of fear, the problem of pleasure – look without the word?
50:11 Because the word creates… breeds thought, and thought is memory, experience, pleasure, and therefore a distorting factor.
50:32 (Pause) You see, really, it’s quite simple; it’s really quite astonishingly simple.
51:08 And because it is very simple, we mistrust it.
51:15 We want everything very complicated; we want it to be cunning, and all cunning is covered with perfume of words.
51:44 If I can look at a flower non-verbally - and I can, anybody can do it, if you give sufficient attention - can’t I look with that same objective, non-verbal attention to the problems that I have?
52:18 To look out of silence, which is non-verbal and therefore non… the thinking machinery in operation, which is pleasure and time.
52:42 Just to look. I think that’s the crux of the whole thing: not to approach from the periphery, which only complicates life tremendously, but to look at life with all its complex problems of livelihood, sex, death, misery, sorrow, the agony of being tremendously alone, to look at all that out of silence, which means without a centre, without the word which creates the reaction of thought which is memory and hence time; to look without association.
54:07 I think that is the real problem, the real issue.
54:25 If the mind can look at life that way there is immediate action, not an idea and action, and hence the elimination of conflict altogether.
54:46 Right, sirs, perhaps we’ll talk things over together.
55:05 Questioner: Do you mean you can look at thought in the same way as you look at a flower, without using it, without... you can’t abolish thought but you can look without using it?
55:28 Is that what you had in mind?
55:29 K: Sir, you look at a flower, actually look at it. When you look at it actually, there is no thought behind it. You’re looking at it non-botanically, non-speculatively; you don’t classify it, you don’t… you just look.
55:46 I… Apparently we have never done this.
55:53 Q: And you look at the mind in the same way as you look at a flower?
55:59 K: Wait, wait, no, don’t bother about the mind; that’s a little more complex. Begin with the flower. To look, to listen, to learn, all are the same.
56:16 They’re… it’s all one. But… and when you look at a flower not to let thought interfere with it.
56:32 Then see if you can look at your wife or husband, your neighbour or your country or whatever it is, look without the interference of thought as memory and time and pleasure.
56:57 And as we cannot look, see that we observe, we say, ‘Is there a method to come to that, a system by which I will train my mind to look without...?’ You follow?
57:17 (Laughs) It becomes too absurd.
57:24 A simple fact, which is, that we cannot possibly look at a flower without the interference of thought as memory or as pleasure.
57:47 And can I… can the mind… can there be observation in the same way about everything that arises in me and outside of me?
58:13 (Pause) Not only the flower, but the words we use, the gestures, the ideas, the concepts, the self-identifying memories, the images that we have of ourselves and of others.
58:53 To be so widely aware is only possible when there is an observation of things external, when I can look at a cloud, a tree without the interference of word.
59:27 Surely; this is fairly simple, isn’t it?
59:31 Q: Yes, but Krishnaji, it’s not just the interference of word and the associations; it is the swiftness of association.
59:43 K: Yes sir, the swiftness of association, therefore you’re not looking.
59:52 If I want to see you or see the cloud, see my wife or my husband, I must look and not let the association interfere, but the word, the association interferes instantly because behind it there is a pleasure.
1:00:18 Do see this, sirs, it’s so simple. Once we understand this thing clearly then we’ll be able to look.
1:00:23 Q: Krishnamurti, you said that... (inaudible) just now about look at a flower without thought, then you said without feeling, and yet when one is able to... when one does see a cloud, a flower without thought interfering one gets tremendous energy.
1:00:41 This energy... I mean, we use the word, it seems to me like feeling and I wonder if you can…
1:00:53 K: Ah, you see, sir, I purposely said thought is feeling.
1:01:03 There is no feeling without thought, and behind thought there is the pleasure.
1:01:15 So those three things go together: pleasure, the word, the thought, the feeling.
1:01:23 They’re not separate.
1:01:34 And to look, to observe without thought, without feeling, without word, that very observation is energy.
1:01:51 Of course; obviously, because our energy is dissipated by the word, by the association, by the thought and the pleasure and time.
1:02:07 It’s dissipated, therefore I have no energy to look, there is no energy to look.
1:02:16 Q: If you see that then thought is not a distraction.
1:02:24 K: Then thought doesn’t enter into it, sir. It’s not a question of distraction. I want to understand you - wait a minute - I want to understand you. Why should thought interfere? Why should all my prejudices interfere with my looking, my understanding?
1:02:44 It interferes because I’m afraid of you: you may get my job – you know?
1:02:54 - ten different things. So that’s why I said, we said that one… first let’s look at the flower, the cloud.
1:03:13 If I can look at the cloud without a word and association and the swiftness, as you pointed out, then I can look at myself, at the whole of my… at life with all its problems.
1:03:36 And then you will say, ‘Is that all? Haven’t you oversimplified it?’ I don’t think so because facts are never… facts never create problems.
1:04:02 The fact that I am afraid doesn’t create a problem, but the thought that says, ‘I must not be afraid’ and creates illusion... and so on and so on, that creates the problem, not the fact.
1:04:21 Look, sir, there is the problem... there is the question of death.
1:04:30 We all know it.
1:04:37 We may prolong life another a hundred and fifty years but there is still at the end of it there is that thing waiting.
1:04:46 Now, to look at that as a fact, not rationalise it, not escape from it through belief, through various escapes that one has, but just to be actually in contact with that fact.
1:05:15 And you cannot be in contact with that fact which is death if you don’t know what ending is: ending to all pleasure, not to certain pleasures.
1:05:38 Then I… the mind can look at that issue in a totally different way.
1:05:54 And take the other issue, the question of affection, love.
1:06:16 How can a… how can there be love when there is competition, ambition, fear, jealousy?
1:06:34 Obviously it cannot be, and yet without it our life becomes extraordinarily shallow, empty.
1:06:52 Now, can I look at my jealousy without the word, without thought, without association...
1:07:06 (inaudible) just to look at it as a fact.
1:07:15 Now, to look at it as a fact demands energy... so no dissipation of energy as thought, as an avoidance, association, word... must come in.
1:07:38 I see that. I see that to observe that fact demands tremendous energy.
1:07:52 Because I understand it, all dissipation of energy ceases. I don’t have to struggle against it.
1:08:02 Q: (Inaudible). Does that mean, Krishnaji, that when a real, genuine problem in relationship arises, I notice in myself that immediately there’s a strong rush of emotion which involves thought and brings me right into…
1:08:27 K: (Inaudible).
1:08:28 Q: … complication, the whole thing. Now, what you’re saying now is that that process arises because I don’t bring enough energy to the observation.
1:08:35 K: You cannot bring enough energy to the observation because you are dissipating it through thought, through word, through emotion, through feeling and all...
1:08:44 Just… sir, look at a flower. For goodness sake, apparently that seems to be the most difficult thing to do.
1:08:54 Just observe a...
1:09:01 You see, we never look out of silence.
1:09:19 We look out of a lot of noise, with a lot of noise and disturbance.
1:09:42 If I can look at a flower out of silence, therefore out of thought… no thought, all the rest, out of silence, I can look at myself.
1:10:00 I can look at all the problems which exist in me.
1:10:07 Q: Does that dissipate the problem, sir?
1:10:19 K: Beg your pardon?
1:10:25 Q: Is the problem then dissipated?
1:10:28 K: Is the problem then dissipated. Now, wait a minute. How you look at it is of the highest importance. Do you look at it as an experiencer observing that thing?
1:10:47 You’re following? Do I look… is the observer different from the thing observed?
1:11:00 I... – what? – I’m jealous, I’m envious, I hate somebody.
1:11:15 Now, in that there is the hater and the hated, the experiencer and the thing experienced.
1:11:31 Now, are the two separate? The observer, is he separate from the thing observed?
1:11:45 I observe the microphone.
1:11:52 That thing is separate because I know the nature of the microphone, what it is; it’s something different from me.
1:12:13 I am jealous. The feeling of jealousy is different from me, for most of us.
1:12:28 I am jealous. That is, the observer is separate from the thing observed, which is jealousy.
1:12:43 But is it separate? Is not the observer himself jealous? Not he is separate from jealousy.
1:12:57 Q: Then you’re not looking at the thing you hate; you’re looking at your hate.
1:13:05 K: Ah, no, no, no, no. Use… No. Look at it a little more. Please, consider it a little bit more.
1:13:13 Q: You are not there to look; there is only that whatever is there.
1:13:31 K: Sir, let’s go back. Look at a tree.
1:13:43 You observe the tree with your experiences, and there is the tree.
1:13:53 The tree is different from you. Right? This is so. Now, can you look at that tree as… not as an observer?
1:14:11 You don’t know what it means?
1:14:23 Q: No.
1:14:24 Q: Yes, you can. Yes.
1:14:26 K: Wait, wait, wait. No, do... go slow, go slow; don’t be so quick. What does it mean to look at a tree without you as the observer?
1:14:38 Have you ever done it?
1:14:47 Q: Sometimes.
1:14:51 K: Sometimes?
1:14:55 Q: I did with a flower this morning.
1:15:08 I was rather taken by surprise, but I couldn’t describe any reaction at all.
1:15:17 K: It’s… Sir, we’re not talking about reactions. Please, don’t… keep to one thing. Look at a tree, not from a centre, not as an observer.
1:15:47 Look at your wife, your friend, your husband, not as an observer, not as the husband or the wife or the friend with all its memory; just to observe.
1:16:04 Please, this is one of the most difficult things to do. You can’t just use words. You have to look.
1:16:10 Q: Well, when I look at a tree, it gives me a feeling of pleasure, so that shows that I’m looking as an observer.
1:16:25 K: Therefore to look at a tree or at a person without being the observer is to commune with that person or with that tree - commune.
1:16:52 I look at my wife, husband, at a person.
1:16:59 Generally, there are all the prejudices, memories, and through that memories I look.
1:17:14 That is the centre from which I look, therefore the observer is different from the thing observed.
1:17:29 And in that process thought is constantly interfering: association and rapidity of association.
1:17:41 Now, when I realise the whole of what… the implication of whole of that instantly then there is an observation without the observer.
1:18:02 Then what takes place between human beings? It is fairly simple to do this with trees, with nature, but with human beings, what takes place?
1:18:24 When I… if I can look at my wife or husband non-verbally, not as an observer, it’s rather frightening, isn’t it?
1:18:50 No? Because my relationship then with her or with him is quite different; it is not, in the sense, personal; it is not the pleasure, and I’m afraid of it.
1:19:30 I can look at a tree without fear because it’s fairly easy to commune with nature, but to commune with human beings is much more dangerous and frightening because my relationship then undergoes a tremendous revolution.
1:19:59 Before, I possessed my wife and she possessed me; we liked being possessed.
1:20:12 We were living in our own isolated, self-identifying space.
1:20:27 And you… in observing, I remove that space, I’m directly in contact.
1:20:35 Which is, I look without the observer and therefore without a centre.
1:20:54 Unless one understands this whole problem, merely to develop a technique of looking becomes frightful.
1:21:09 Then you become cynical – you know? - all the rest of it.
1:21:41 (Pause)

Q: It’s more difficult to look at one’s boss in that way.
1:21:43 K: More difficult to look at one’s boss that way.
1:21:50 I think some… Sir, you try it, do it - not try it – do it.
1:21:57 Q: Sir, if I look at anything, look at a tree, and know I am looking, aren’t I the observer?
1:22:11 K: You can’t help that, can you, sir?
1:22:12 Q: But that’s not... (inaudible).
1:22:13 K: Visual look you can’t help unless you are blind. You see that tree, but why all the past coming into your look?
1:22:36 If I listen, why should all my past come when I’m listening?
1:22:44 Because when I’m listening I’m learning. Learning is entirely different from accumulating knowledge.
1:22:59 In accumulating knowledge, I… there is the centre which - all the rest of it - is established, but if I’m learning, which is listening, there is not the listener.
1:23:12 Sir, try… do this. That is, be completely attentive - you know? - be attentive to the speaker, to what he’s saying; be attentive to the way you are listening; be attentive to that noise outside of the bus going by or the cars going by; be attentive to somebody coughing - totally attentive.
1:23:47 Then is there a centre? Is there an observer who is attentive? There is only a state of attention.
1:24:01 Q: There is the observer if one thinks one might miss something.
1:24:07 K: No, you’re not doing it. Oh, ma... You’re not doing it. I said… Do, sir, do do this. For two seconds do this: attentive to the colour, to the walls, to the noise; attentive to your thoughts, to your feelings, the way you’re sitting, standing, listening.
1:24:37 Be totally attentive, not fragmentarily... completely with all your being - your nerves, your body, your eyes - everything attentive.
1:24:50 Then is there a centre from which you are being attentive?
1:25:07 But if you say, ‘I must be attentive,’ and then, ‘How am I to be attentive?’ then you begin the whole circus.
1:25:19 Q: Within that awareness, complete awareness, is communion, as far as I understand it.
1:25:42 K: Yes sir.
1:25:43 Q: But this complete awareness also includes the complete awareness of everything, not only outside but inside... (inaudible).
1:25:46 K: I don’t…
1:25:47 Q: I cannot quite…
1:25:48 K: Ah, no sir. No sir. When you are attentive there is neither outside nor inside.
1:25:57 You listen to that car going by, to that cough, to the colour, to what you’re thinking, feeling.
1:26:10 Just be attentive, not say, ‘That is… I like or dislike’ - just be attentive.
1:26:15 Q: That is always so, isn’t it, sir?
1:26:21 K: No, it is not always, sir. Sir, do it.
1:26:31 Q: And you will also be attentive to the apparent impossibility of being totally attentive. Is that right?
1:26:38 K: Yes sir. Be attentive to inattention, not try to become attentive.
1:26:50 I think we’d better stop, don’t you?