Krishnamurti Subtitles home


MA79S4 - Can a human problem be resolved instantly?
Madras (Chennai), India - 27 December 1979
Seminar 4



0:22 K: I hope you all had good lunch. Need we go back to the question of exploitation? I don’t think we need, need we?
0:56 Pupul Jayakar: Sir, a query was made to me after the discussion by someone outside, and they made an inquiry which you may like to comment on. One of the difficulties in understanding what you are saying is that when you use the word ‘intelligence’ or when you use the word ‘love,’ these are words which are part of our vocabulary, our language, our knowledge. So we put into those words the whole two million years of human knowledge, and we respond to your word with this knowledge of these two words. This intelligence which you talk about, or the love you talk about, is it out of this vocabulary of knowledge, or are you using them in a very special sense?
2:02 K: I think the word ‘intelligence,’ according to a good dictionary from ‘intelligere’ which means to read between the lines, the implication there being not only you read what is printed, but also in between, which means that you have to have a subtle mind, a quick mind to grasp that which is not printed. That’s the real meaning of the word ‘intelligere’ — to read between. Now, that is the common meaning. When we say, ‘He’s an intelligent man,’ we generally mean educated, up-to-date, modern, rather sophisticated, inclined to take every side and never standing very firm on anything. I think we are using the word ‘intelligence,’ it is not the product of argumentation, making a gambit, which is saying something to catch the other fellow. I think I mean by the word ‘intelligence,’ unrelated to the limited, fragmentary way of thought. Thought is born of knowledge, experience knowledge can never be complete, so thought is always incomplete. Therefore intelligence is above and beyond thought. And love, it’s as commonly understood to mean, in that so-called love there is sex, pleasure, remembrance, attachment, possessiveness, anxiety, and many things involved in what’s generally accepted in that word, ‘I love my wife.’ In that relationship is all the content of this, and I would say that is not love. A man who is attached, dependent on another — psychologically, I’m not saying I’m not dependent on a policeman, or the postman or the milkman. Any form of personal attachment with regard to a woman or a man denies love. Because in that attachment there is loneliness, fear, and a sense of possessiveness, all that is implied and I think, for me that is not love.
6:20 Q: Then the crucial question arises, sir, how to blend that intelligence and that love which is beyond thought with things in daily life which is bound by thought?
6:41 K: What is the action of that love which is beyond thought in daily life? Are you asking that, sir?

Q: Yes, more or less that. How it is blended with daily life? You say intelligence and love that is beyond thought, then how do we bring it into the thought world, will it not get contaminated?
7:03 K: You can’t. No, no, when I say you can’t, you are making it an idea. It is not a fact, is it, sir? You are accepting, perhaps not totally accepting what I say love is. Then from that, you’ve just heard that, or you may have heard that before, but you say, ‘How am I to bring that love into my daily life?’
7:40 Q: Should I bring it, and if I bring it, how?
7:57 PJ: Bring it into my daily life.
8:02 K: What you are bringing?
8:05 Q1: That intelligence, that love, Krishnaji, that intelligence and that compassion and that love which you are saying is beyond the realm of thought, am I to stay with that for all the time or shall I relate it to my daily life which is bound by thought?
8:31 Q: Is that an easy choice?
8:33 Q: I don’t know all about this, I’m just asking because I feel like asking it, because it is crucial to me. I don’t know whether it is easy or difficult.
8:43 K: Some of you probably believe in God, don’t you? You believe, and then you say, ‘I believe in God, then how am I to bring that God into my daily life?’ Right, sir?
9:10 Q: That is also a question. That question also is relevant.
9:16 K: This is the same question. Instead of using God, you use love. And how am I to bring God or love into my daily life? Which is a belief in something which may be illusory or born out of fear and has no validity of such God or such love, surely? This is simple, isn’t it, sir? Suppose I believe in — what? — reincarnation, suppose I believe in that. I don’t, but suppose I believe in that — then I say to myself, ‘How am I to bring that belief into my daily activity?’ Can I? I can, twist everything to my belief. Now, in the same way are we saying that love is a belief?
10:46 Q1: Are you asking us, sir? I am not saying anything. I am only seeking clarification from you. When you say love, intelligence, compassion, are beyond the realm of thought, and when you’re also concerned, in our daily life, how these two things can be blended.
11:11 K: I will tell you. Very simple. Be free of jealousy, be free of attachment, dependence, any form of self-importance, then perhaps the other will come. If I want to find out something, if I want to climb a mountain I must give up certain things, mustn’t I? Go lightly. I want to find out what love is, which doesn’t exist, perhaps, or may exist, I want to find out. Then I must do certain steps. It isn’t that I can bring that to this. Now, sir, can we go on with what we were talking this morning?
12:11 PJ: As this is the last discussion, we started with one problem, one challenge, the fact of the necessity of a total change in the human mind.
12:35 K: We have said that.
12:38 PJ: And the urgency for such change. Now we have discussed through these two days. Can we take what we have discussed and see whether any light has been thrown on this fact of change of the human mind?
13:08 K: Yes, I mean we haven’t even started into it. We are being sidetracked all the time. Unless the human mind which is the result of many million years, with all the experiences, knowledge, and living in a routine, knowledge multiplying, we know all that And that mind, whatever system it creates for a new society must be limited, obviously, because knowledge is always limited. There’s no complete knowledge of anything. So systems, societies, all those cannot change man. This is the central issue: whether the brain, the human mind — mind being the sensations, the nervous responses, desires, thought, and the deep-seated memories of a thousand years — can that be transformed? That is the real question. Otherwise, we’ll just keep repeating the same pattern in the same field moving from one corner to another corner and think that is change. So I’m asking, is that possible? I say it is possible, not because I’ve read a great deal or any of that business, but one can observe oneself very clearly, and it is possible to change the very sense of the mind, brain. Then you will ask, how?
15:26 PJ: Instead of asking ‘how,’ can we ask what is the situation in the mind, what is the state of consciousness in which the possibility of this change is?
15:43 K: Yes, I’m going to show you in a minute. This is our consciousness. We know what the contents of that consciousness are. May I go ahead, rattle along? The contents make up the consciousness, without the content there is no consciousness as we know it. May I proceed? No, no, don’t shrug your shoulders.
16:24 George Sudarshan: I am just listening.
16:26 K: Either you are listening with a slightly cynical air or listening as a person who is not a scientist, as a human being with all the problems of humanity: the catastrophe in personal relationships, the sorrows, the agonies that one goes through, the sense of disappointment. If I was a scientist and wanted a Nobel Prize and you don’t give it to me and I feel... I want to put a knife into somebody. As a human being this is the problem. Can I, apart from all the gurus and all that nonsense, is it possible to bring about a deep change in the mind? That’s all my question. And I say it is possible. Shall we go into it?
17:52 How do you listen to what is being said? This is not a gambit. This is not exploiting you. How do you listen to a statement of that kind? Somebody, Mr Sarabhai tells me that this mind, centuries old, with all the accumulated knowledge of sorrow, pain, anxiety, the whole thing, he tells me that it can be changed — the cells themselves, which hold the memory of these million years, which, like Pribram and others say, ‘Yes, it is so,’ that they contain... So, you tell me that. How do I listen to you? That is very important. How do I listen to a statement of that kind? Please, I’m putting myself... How do I listen to it? Or I say, ‘What nonsense, it is not possible’? Do I listen to it as though it was my profound problem? Not you have created the problem but I realise it is my problem. Though you have stated the problem, I realise it is the very core of my being which you are questioning. So am I willing to examine that? Or I’m merely saying, ‘Well, you go on with it, rattle along, I’ll see if I improve or not.’ You follow? So before I enter into that, it’s important to find out how we listen to a statement of that kind. Is it my problem or your problem which you are imposing on me? When I hear that problem, is it an idea? You understand what I mean by an idea, in the sense, that I hear it and translate what I hear into an idea. ‘Idea’ in Greek means observe, not what we’ve made it. So how do I listen? Is it an idea or is it a deep-rooted fact in my being? I want to find out. Because I have tried this, that and the other thing, I am mature enough. I have gone into various things and I say, ‘This is the central question, you’re quite right, sir, I accept it with my being.’ I don’t know if you’re following what I am talking about. Therefore it’s not your problem, it is my problem. I have to solve it. You are not going to solve it. We may discuss about it. We may have a dialogue in which we can feel out. We’ll help each other, but it must be my blood, my tears that say, ‘It is so.’ I am not being romantic or emotional.
22:31 GS: If I may follow it up with a question. I don’t want to be cynically listening, but I’m listening with great attention. It seems to me that what discussions, theories, analysis, talking to other people, all produce is the probability, is a nurturing ground for this transformation in oneself, is the change in oneself, is the mutation in oneself.
23:04 K: The oneself is the rest of humanity. It’s not my personal self. I have no personal self. I am the result of a million years of human endeavour. So I am the world, it is not my personal salvation. You may not accept that, but that is how I start. Because I see all human beings go through misery, confusion, quarrels, relationships so destructive. This is common to all the rest of us.
23:56 GS: But if at a certain time the problem is intensely my problem, not an intellectual problem, not something that I am interested in solving for somebody else, but my own problem, then I am the whole world in a somewhat different sense. I am not aware of anybody else’s problem.
24:15 K: It is a problem to me, sir.
24:29 K: We haven’t come to that yet.
24:33 GS: My aim is not to help humanity, it is only to solve my problem.
24:39 K: No. The problem of humanity. Not ‘my’ problem.
24:46 GS: Yes, but is it the same thing as saying it is the problem occupying my total attention at that time, without either distinction of myself from the other people or identifying myself with other people?
25:07 K: No, sir. As I said, sir, ‘I am the rest of mankind.’
25:16 GS: In the sense in which Dr Sarabhai would use it? Or in the sense in which somebody who believes in reincarnation would use it?
25:23 K: Oh, yes.
25:29 K: Biological, that’s part of my knowledge.
25:36 K: All that. That’s part of my being, also, I’ve inherited all that.
25:42 K: Genetic as well as — I explained it this morning — genetic as well as belief, the whole, that’s what I said. I am, my brain is the result of human endeavour:
26:03 GS: Just a minor aside — do you subscribe to this kind of antiquated superstition that the mind is only associated with the material called brain?
26:14 K: No, sir, no, come off it, sir, you’re not, we’re not dumb.
26:19 GS: No, no, but these biologists...

K: Ah, no! Even the scientists are inquiring into this.
26:28 Achyut Patwardhan: Sir, does this not shift the issue to... In the very question, you are bringing time to a crisis.
26:47 K: Yes, yes, perhaps, yes. Please let me be clear. It is a universal problem. Which means ‘universal’ not of the universe, but the human problem. As I am one of these human beings, it is not my individual salvation to escape from all this, but it’s a problem which faces all humanity. That’s all. Right, sir? No, not, not as a clever idea, but as a thing that touches me deeply like a wound, like my wife leaving me, like my not getting a promotion, or failing in an exam, it hurts me. So am I with that gut feeling, or is it just an intellectual concept? So, if it is not an intellectual concept and an idea which I am trying to investigate and play around, but if it is something actual happening, then how do I listen to the problem? Not the problem which we have posed but the problem which you have shown to me, shown to us as human beings. How do I look at it? How do I observe it? Come on, sirs. Do I ask the professors? Do I ask you, as a brain specialist, can this be done? And the brain specialist is experimenting on animals. Poor animals... any harm. I was going to say something. Man has killed fifty million whales. That’s irrelevant, a side issue. How do I find out? You have exposed the problem of all humanity because you are articulate, you are capable, and so on, and I realise as a human being it’s my problem, how do I listen to it? How do I see it? How do I observe it? You understand? Do I go to you and ask for an answer? The specialists, the experts, the gurus, the various money-maker industrial gurus, what do I do? What am I to do? Answer me, sirs. Do I look outside myself? Social environment, all that. How do I look at it? Narayan, what do you say? Come on, sir, move!
31:30 G. Narayan: There’s something in this I don’t comprehend. When you say there is a change in the very aspect of the human brain cells.
31:43 K: I said, Narayan, it is possible, for me. Please, I may be deceiving myself, I may be crooked, anything, but I say, ‘It is possible.’ And I am asking you how you observe this question, how you listen to it. It is your problem, not mine. It is a problem in front of all of us. So how do you look at it? What is your response to it? Probably you’ve never been put this question before.
32:38 GN: While I don’t look for an outside agency...
32:45 K: Yes, yes, move. Move!
32:48 GN: While I don’t look for an outside agency I cannot say anything by way of expression, saying, ‘This is what I’m doing, this is not what I’m doing.’
32:59 K: No, I said, how do you look at it? Here is a problem — mathematics. You know how to resolve a mathematical problem, if you are a mathematician. Here is a human problem, how do you respond, what do you do with it?
33:24 Q: If you are serious, it may produce fear. When you want to change...
33:36 K: Why should it produce fear?
33:39 Q: Because I don’t know what I’m going to be, after the change. You don’t want to give up.
33:55 Q: Say, I’m a merchant, and I’ve been doing business, and I find myself in a crisis. That may change my whole way of life.
34:07 K: May not. Which means what?
34:10 Q: May or may not, and hence it may produce a feeling of insecurity and fear, and so I don’t want to do that.
34:20 K: You mean because of fear, where it might lead, you don’t want to examine it?
34:29 Q: Yes.

K: Not fear. You’re aware, you are cognisant, safe in the known. And you say, ‘If I examine this, I might get lost.’
34:45 Q: Yes.
34:46 K: So you would prefer living in the ground you know.
34:56 Q: That often happens in experience.
35:00 K: Now, what is your response to this problem? You have emotional problems, don’t you? Problems of relationship, what do you do with it?
35:23 Q: We must give total attention to the problem.
35:28 K: No, not ‘must,’ sir. What do you do with it? If you have tummy ache, what do you do?
35:33 Q: We attend to the problem.
35:37 K: Which is, you act. You do something: take a pill, go to a doctor, examine, all the rest of it. Now, is this an acute problem, as acute as if you had a real disease.
36:24 Q: Many times it is not an actual problem, although I have read about it, you don’t see it as an actual problem.
36:33 K: Sir, you have listened to the question, haven’t you? We have been round it, in detail to point out what the problem is. It is your problem as a human being. How do you respond to it?
36:55 Q: I feel this is not an academic problem, this is the real problem of humanity. You must do something about it, you do something about it.
37:01 K: What will you do?
37:03 Q: We attend to the problem, look at the problem.
37:05 K: You are attending now. Not ‘we will attend,’ you are attending to it now. What do you do? It seems to simple, I don’t see what is the difficulty is. Either I say, ‘I don’t know, it may be nice, but it doesn’t mean a thing to me. Or I say, ‘Am I translating what you’re saying into an idea, a concept which I’m going to think over and agree, disagree.’ Or it is a problem you have put to me, which is, ‘I’ve got cancer and you must cure it immediately.’ Get on to the table. It is as acute as that. It is an immediacy of demand. What do you say, sir?
38:27 GS: I’ll say something which I’m afraid you are not going to like.
38:30 K: You can say what you like, I neither dislike nor like.
38:35 GS: Because I’m a scientist, therefore I can only look, acting as I do.
38:42 K: But you’re a human being before you are a scientist. Ah, don’t dodge this. Answer my question, if you don’t mind.
38:55 GS: I’m a human being also.

K: First!
39:00 GS: Scientific human being.

K: No, sir, no. Please, sir, do be honest, straight and answer me. Don’t play with me, sir. Please, forgive me.
39:15 GS: It seems in terms of personal, empirical evidence, that you do have a crisis, you do have a problem, and that problem is the problem of all times, all history, all beings, because it is the only problem. You find the solution to it, that crisis disappears. There is a transformation, and as long as that transformation has taken place, there is a certain period in which there is no misery. Gradually problems begin.

K: No. No, sir, we are misunderstanding.
40:00 GS: I predicted that you were not going to...
40:03 K: Ah, no. It’s not a question of I like or dislike. It is a question of not meeting the problem.
40:12 GS: The words that you mentioned this morning seem to imply that if you have ever solved a problem, there are no more problems, the problem is solved once and for all.
40:26 K: Yes, sir.
40:28 GS: And once the problem is solved, there are no problems.
40:30 K: No. By understanding one problem completely, I have solved all the problems — human problems.
40:41 GS: Right.

K: Not right.
40:46 GS: I agree what you say. One could define the complete solution to that one problem by saying if you have understood it completely there are no more problems. I must confess that all people I normally talk to, live a life in which the problems are only solved for a time. I have not come across in the ordinary course of life
41:19 K: There’s a person in front of you who says there are no problems. Either he’s a cuckoo, demented, self-conceited, illusory, or you are facing the man. What is your response? Don’t remain in that camp, but come and join. You see, you’re all playing tricks. Sir, you have stated that to me as human problem. And I have accepted the problem, and I see that in the resolution of that, something totally different might take place in the world. Right. Now, I say, ‘I’ve heard it. You have explained it very carefully to me and it is in my blood, it’s not just an idea. It’s in my very breathing, I am concerned.’ Then what am I to do? What is the manner of this change taking place? I can’t go to anybody because they’re a nut like me. The gurus, the whole bunch of them, they are just like me, only with different coats, different manners, different faces, but they are like me. So I won’t go to anybody. I won’t. You understand my position? So I say, now what? I can’t ask God. He won’t ring the bell. I can’t ask anybody. So I’m absolutely, left completely alone. You follow what I am saying, sir? So what do I do? I don’t know what to do. Right? When I say I don’t know, I’m not expecting anything from anybody, nor from my own inner suspicions, desires. I really don’t know. Then what is the quality of my mind, when I say I don’t know? I don’t know what to do, how to bring about this transformation, I recognise the brain... but I don’t know. So what is the quality of my mind that says, ‘I really don’t know’? I’m not expecting grace. Christian grace, or Hindu... I’m not expecting anything. I don’t want it because it might be out of my own human memory of grace, of salvation, moksha, springing all that up. I say, ‘I won’t...’ There is nobody that can help me in the resolution of this problem. Therefore, I don’t know. So I don’t depend on anybody. Then I say, ‘What is the mind that says, ‘I don’t know’?’ You understand, sir? You are meeting, sir?
46:21 GS: I am with you most of the way.

K: Which way?
46:27 GS: The way.
46:28 K: No, no, no.
46:32 GS: Exclusive definition makes it difficult to discuss the matter because you assert, and I have no reason to doubt your words,
46:43 K: You can doubt them.
46:45 GS:...that if you have faced a crisis which is all-important.
46:58 K: This is the crisis.
47:03 K: I have.
47:04 GS: No. Not you... then the problem is solved once and for all. There are no further problems that arise.
47:19 K: I don’t quite follow you.
47:31 PJ: You are saying that if a crisis which is total arises, and I face it totally, and there is an ending, then there is an ending to all problem-making.
47:52 K: Yes, yes, I agree. There is no problem-maker.
48:03 PJ: I understand the nuance between problem-making and the problem-maker.
48:08 K: Maker is important, not making. I wasn’t born yesterday.
48:34 PJ: The question he poses, if I can, listening to Dr Sudarshan is, he can move with you up to there, beyond... And that is so with all of us.

SP: It is so with all of us.
48:52 PJ: I can’t say this is a problem of Dr Sudarshan.
48:58 PJ: There is something missing in us.
49:05 GS: Could I supplement it by saying that it appears to me — I have to talk autobiographically because that’s the only true way — that there are many crises I have come across which were total and all-consuming at the time. My friends, relatives, wife, children know about it, and you solve the problem. You believe that you have solved it. As my friend would put it, you have removed the two-ness and you have made it one, that in fact there are no divisions and no problems. So you feel in bliss. You feel happiness, that nothing can hurt you. There is nothing that you want. If God appeared and asked, ‘What boon would you like?’ You would say, ‘Please, come, let’s go for a walk, nothing else.’ But inevitably there is an end, a cloud over that.
50:00 K: Yes, sir.

GS: The cloud has no origin.
50:03 GS: It comes very gently, softly, but eventually it covers us up. We hear you, and I have no reason to doubt your words. Therefore I have simply to say, ‘This was not it, it is yet to come’ — the crisis and the solution.

K: No. I won’t admit that.
50:34 PJ: Is it that our concern has been to meet a crisis when it arises and solve the crisis, because the crisis brought pain?
50:45 K: Yes. That’s right. I’ve got it.
50:50 PJ: But the problem-maker we have never really tackled.
50:56 K: Tackle it, now.
50:58 PJ: You say, ‘How do you tackle it?’
51:02 K: Who is the problem-maker? In my relationship with another, who is the problem-maker?
51:22 PJ: If I use one word?

K: Don’t use one word.
51:26 PJ: Then the million years of experience, knowledge...
51:29 K: No, who is the problem-maker?

PJ: I am the problem-maker.
51:33 K: No. Just come down to earth. These two are concerned in their relationship. Who is the problem-maker in that relationship? Both of them. Has that problem-maker come about through interrelationship? Then that interrelationship is wrong, which creates a problem. Why is a problem arising between them in their relationship?
52:31 PJ: But you are only putting it round that way.
52:33 K: No. I’m not.
52:36 PJ: Now you say it is a matter of interrelationship between two people, and why does the problem arise?

K: Both of us are problem-makers. It is not that I am making the problem and she is not, but human beings are making problems. And the problem is the utter lack of self-knowledge. When there is complete — I’m using the word ‘complete’ though scientifically it’s wrong. I’m very careful — complete understanding of oneself — and it is possible — there is no problem-maker.
53:31 SP: Then, what does ‘complete self-knowledge’ mean?
53:41 K: That the very being doesn’t exist.
53:49 PJ: I have been wanting to question you on this.
53:57 K: Yes, sir! That’s right.
54:01 GS: I could again state it: the being does not exist and...
54:08 K: But it comes up again.

GS: Again, the being is there.
54:11 K: Once the being doesn’t exist, there is no dirty cloud coming up.
54:17 SP: He says that such an experience is illusory.
54:21 K: You’re not meeting this.
54:26 PJ: What do you mean when you say, ‘Being does not exist’?
54:32 K: What is the being which you all cling to? What is being? Being a scientist? Being a professor? Wait! Being a husband? Being a general, an academician? What do you mean by ‘being’?
54:52 PJ: ‘Being’ is the sense of existing.
54:57 K: Is that what you call ‘being’?

PJ: To me that is.
55:01 K: Have you a sense of existing?

PJ: Yes.
55:05 K: No, don’t answer me so quickly. No, I won’t be so quick. You say, you have a sense of being. When you use the word ‘sense,’ what do you mean by that? I must be absolutely clear on this. Is it a sensory perception of being?
55:35 PJ: It is to me as real as looking and listening.
55:42 GS: I think that with you.

K: Yes, sir.
55:51 K: You’re going back to the same thing: ‘There have been times...’ and the cloud comes back. Which means that being still is there.
56:04 GS: Let me see if I can express myself. Normally when we are aware of being, we are aware of being something, in relation to something: being in happiness, being without problems, but being something. It appears to me what Krishnaji is saying about ceasing of the being is that all these sensations are not there.
56:34 PJ: I’m sorry, I am not talking of that. I am not talking of being something. I’m talking of the sense of existing, of being alive. Sir, there is such a thing. Please, let us go a little slowly.
56:55 K: Pupulji, forgive me, when do you feel a sense of being alive?
57:08 PJ: When all other being something ceases — this does not cease.
57:23 K: Would you put the question this way, can a problem be resolved instantly? Not a mathematical, human problem. Instantly, in the sense, immediately.
57:44 GS: Mathematical problems can resolve instantaneously also.
57:47 K: Yes, I want to leave that. I know, I know that. I’m taking this specifically. Can a human problem be resolved immediately?
58:13 K: Just a minute. I have a human problem, whatever it is. It is generally carried over. From day to day, for a year or two, whatever, it’s carried over. During that time this problem is strengthened more and more. During that time, the problem gets involved with other problems, like a fungus. Now, instead of doing that, can a problem be resolved, immediately? Which means not allowing time. If I allow time, fungus grows...
59:21 GS: I could claim a near approximation to that. You want me to answer truthfully, so I will try to be as truthful as possible. I have memories of times when in the course of a word being spoken or a word flying across, suddenly the whole world changes, and all problems that are bothering you at that time cease. If somebody asked you, ‘Is there anything you’d like to happen?’ you’d say, ‘No, everything is happening as...’
59:57 K: Yes, you’re going back to the same thing. It comes back. You’re not answering my question. Can a problem be solved immediately, not allowing time for it to grow?
1:00:25 Q: Does your question imply that you don’t allow time even to understand the problem?
1:00:32 K: Wait. Quite right.
1:00:35 Q: It takes some time to understand all the dimensions of the problem.
1:00:39 K: Understand means analysis, examination, exploration, remembrance and so on. All that is time.
1:00:50 Q: Just to study. In real life. When you’re faced with a problem in real life, just studying the problem takes time.
1:01:00 K: No, sir. I’m asking you. Please, sir, just listen. I have got a problem — human problem, not any other problem, for the moment. He is pointing out there are scientific problems which can be solved instantly.
1:01:22 GS: Sometimes.
1:01:29 K: I am asking, without admitting time, analysis, search for the cause, understanding it, groping the... all that involves time. The cause, effect and so on. I say if you have no time — you’re not allowed to do that. Some god says, ‘Your head will be chopped off if you allow that,’ and you have no time. What happens? You have never asked that question. You never put yourself in that position and say, ‘Look, I won’t admit time.’ The point is this: You come along and tell me: it is a human problem and it is a problem that affects all humanity. It is not my personal problem, my solution, my salvation, my moksha, I’m not interested in that, that is nonsense. This is the problem, and I have to solve it instantly, not allow time. What takes place then? I have broken the tradition of time. There is something else takes place when I’ve broken something. When there’s an ending to something, there is a beginning. We never end anything, sir. Death, of course, is the final end. But to die before death, which is an ending. It’s the ending to time. Right, sirs.