Krishnamurti - Do you ever come to a point where your brain is in a state of not knowing?

Krishnamurti Subtitles

MA81S3 - Do you ever come to a point where your brain is in a state of not knowing?
Madras (Chennai), India - 16 January 1981
Seminar 3

0:18	G. Narayan: ...May I ask something, sir? You talked of three kinds of time... chronological time, sunset and sunrise measured by the watch, biological time, which is a process of genes and... time in the womb and outside of the womb, and third, we said, psychological time. That's the only thing that is the most important in human existence. Now, psychological time takes various aspects. Sometimes it becomes very light, when one is interested in doing something, sometimes it becomes heavy, and also you have said that psychological time is becoming, in a deeper sense. Now, one sees that becoming does come to an end and there is a state of energy, the psychological time has no grip on you. All the same, it is not the same as the timeless. There seems to be a gap between this. One comes to a state of energy where there is no conflict, where there is no becoming in the sense psychological becoming, but still it is not the same as the timeless, ananta, those things. There seems to be a gap. Is my appreciation right? And can we discuss, because time is being discussed, by the psychologists, by the scientists. He was discussing with me time in theoretical physics where time does play a very important part, and you also say thought and time are the same thing. Can we discuss this...?
2:41	Krishnamurti: Would you say time is action?
2:53	GN: Some time is action.
2:58	K: Is not all time involved in action: physiological, biological, psychological and chronological?
3:13	Satyendra: All time is involved in action. But you seem to be saying something more than that.
3:19	K: I don't want to enter into 'more than that' before we understand this completely.
3:26	S: Time is action...
3:28	K: I would rather start with what is known, and see if the known can come to an end. Not assume that there is something beyond all these three times. I hope you don't mind my talking that way.
3:45	Mary Zimbalist: Sir, are you saying that time has its own action because it is a moving thing or that all human action involves time?
3:54	K: All human action is involved in time, obviously. Would you like to go into that?
4:00	GN: Are you also implying time itself propels action?
4:03	K: Yes.
4:04	GN: Biological time propels action, instinctively, in the same way.
4:09	K: Yes. The whole existence is action, which is time.
4:15	Radha Burnier: In fact, perception is action. Is perception time?
4:23	K: No, that's why I want to come to that...
4:28	Pupul Jayakar: I know that this question is very important, but I was talking to Rinpoche and he, in the course of our discussion, he suggested a question, and as this is the last discussion, maybe that question will include all these questions. That question is: in listening to you over these days and all these years, one feels that the door is about to open, but the door does not open.
5:17	K: So what is the question?
5:20	PJ: Then... Q: You go further.
5:25	PJ: What is it that is inhibiting?
5:53	Achyut Patwardhan: Can we relate these two questions by saying that seeing is in time? But we find that the door to perception is closed because perception is not in time. Related to what you were saying.
6:21	GN: I think, Pupulji, you are saying the same thing, because then you are in a state of energy because you are not caught in becoming.
6:29	PJ: That's why I said, probably it'll contain that question, that's why...
6:33	GN: You see, then it ends there. But when you say the door opens, you are implying something entirely different.
6:39	PJ: No, that is why I said it's possible this question will contain this question. But many of us have had this sense that you are at the threshold, but the threshold is...
6:55	Brij Khare: This is true for all of us, I suppose, but part of the problem also - perhaps, it's implied in your question - is that we are afraid to open the door and what we may find behind the door.
7:16	PJ: I wouldn't say that.
7:18	AP: I would say that that implies that there is someone who opens the door. It is not like that.
7:24	PJ: I don't think that...
7:25	K: Sir, the question is, as far as I understand, it's not the door, it is merely a metaphor. What is it that prevents one, after exercising a great deal of intellect, reason, rational thinking and watching one's daily life and not be too absurdly crooked, what is it that blocks us all? That's the question, isn't it?
8:07	PJ: But I would go beyond that, sir. I would say diligence, seriousness, all the things you have laid down and we have discussed over these years.
8:28	K: But yet something doesn't click.
8:32	PJ: You see, it's not only the way you put it, that, you know...
8:41	K: Yes, that is the same problem, same thing. Suppose I, as an ordinary man, average man, fairly educated, capacity to express oneself, think intellectually, rationally and so on, yet there is something totally missing in all this, and I can't go any further. Right? Is that the question? Further in the sense, I perceive my whole life is so terribly limited. I have earned a good bit of money or not, or I am good professor and so on.
9:31	PJ: I think you are - forgive me for saying so, you are bringing - I say we have done what has to be done. We have made the gestures.
9:44	K: All right, I'll put it this way: What is it that a man or a woman who has studied K, talked all the years, etc., etc. finds himself against a wall? Would you put it that way?
10:03	PJ: It's not a wall... K: Ah, finds himself...
10:06	PJ: It is possible to go through life like this.
10:10	K: Lots of people do.
10:11	PJ: No, no, no. Lots of people don't do it. I can't say I'm either there or there. You see, you are in-between, you are in the middle of the stream. You can't say you are there, nor can you say that you have not started. You must take this into account, sir, even though you say there is no gradual approach, even though you say...
10:35	K: So what is the question? Then I misunderstand the question.
10:38	PJ: I say that it seems to me as if something is at the point of opening, but it does not open.
10:57	K: Could you, like a bud, which has worked the earth, the sun, but the bud never opens, becomes the flower. Is that it? Same thing.
11:11	PJ: Same thing.
11:15	K: Let's talk about it, sir.
11:17	GN: Sir, would you say - I would like to keep to the question I asked - the biological time propels action because of the inherent energy in it. You say, in the same way, psychological time also propels a certain kind of action.
11:38	K: Of course, obviously.
11:39	GN: No. Is then psychological time a deposit like the biological time?
11:47	K: Deposit of? GN: It is a deposit, it is there.
11:51	K: Are we mixing up these two questions? Pupulji says this, sir: I have done most of the things that - I have read, I listened to K for a number of years, I have come to a certain point, I am not entirely with the world, nor with the other. I am caught in-between - right? - I am half-way, and I don't seem to be able to move any further. Would you say that? Move. I am using ordinary...
12:33	PJ: Don't seem to be able to move.
12:35	K: Move, that's it, that's the same thing. What is the factor that is preventing one? That's her question, right? Let's talk it over. Give me a little... Let me warm up.
12:56	S: Why is it that we don't see it the way you seem to see it?
13:02	BK: I think the answer has been suggested by you for several years, and that has been the intellectual emphasis we have been giving.
13:12	PJ: I am not prepared to accept it. You see, when I put Krishnaji this question, all this I have seen and gone through...
13:23	BK: The analysis part is over? The neo-cortex has been repressed?
13:27	PJ: Beg your pardon?
13:28	BK: I mean the rational part of the mind has been repressed?
13:31	K: No, no, no, no.
13:32	PJ: No, I don't know that. I have observed...
13:35	K: I am very rational. PJ:...my mind in its movement. I have gone into the process of time, psychological time, I have seen its movement.
13:54	RB: But can you say there is diligence in that sense that...
14:00	PJ: You see, what is diligence? RB: Yes, that's what I am asking, what is diligence. PJ: What is diligence?
14:07	K: The meaning - you know what that means. It is related to, usually, to a religious spirit, religious - I am using the word 'religion' in the ordinary sense of the word: a diligent priest, a diligent follower of Christ, Krishna, whoever it is. It means to pay attention and to remember the saviour, the saint, and listen to his words, carry it out in action, live it every day in detail. That is the meaning, I believe, of diligence. Now, I want to get away from all this for a minute. Let's get away from all this. I have read K and followed him, investigated, listened, read and all the rest of it. I am neither there nor there, I am caught somewhere...
15:14	PJ: You see, sir, let me clarify, open it up a little more. And I hope I am speaking for... K: Avanti, avanti.
15:26	PJ: Some of the things you say seem so to me. I can't say that they are totally unknown to me, but there seems to be a point at which some leap is necessary.
15:54	K: Sir, either in the Christian terminology, you are waiting for the grail, for grace to descend on you. Right?
16:07	PJ: Perhaps.
16:09	K: Perhaps. That's what I am saying. Or you are looking for an outside agency of some kind, to break this - right? Do you ever come to the point, Pupulji, if one may ask, that you remain at a point, - I am just asking - where your brain is no longer saying, 'I am seeking, searching, asking', but absolutely in a state of not knowing?
16:44	PJ: You see... K: Just a minute. I'd like to expand that a little bit. You understand what I'm saying? PJ: Yes.
16:57	K: When the brain says, realises, 'I don't know a thing', except technological - leave that. Do we ever come to that point?
17:13	P: You see, sir. It does not say, 'I don't know a thing...'
17:18	K: I don't know.
17:19	PJ:...but the brain ceases to function. You see, I...
17:23	K: Ah, ah, ah...
17:24	PJ: No, you must get this, you must understand. It is not that it says, 'I do not know', because any movement of saying, 'I do not know...'
17:33	K: No, you are missing my point. PJ: No, I am not missing.
17:42	K: I'm afraid I am not making my point clear.
17:45	S. Rinpoche: Please repeat it.
17:48	K: You want something changed, sir?
17:50	Q: Can we move this?
17:53	K: Poor chap, you - Achyutji, you move over there, or come over here, Achyutji, come over here. Achyutji, come over here, sir. Sir, sir, Achyutji, look, there is plenty of room, sir, come on, be polite. Concede a little. That's better, isn't it? I am just asking this question, Pupulji: a state of not knowing: I think that is one of the first things that's demanded. Not in the sense - I'm just exploring, sir - in the sense, we are always seeking an answer - right? We are always searching, arguing, we never come to a point of utter emptiness of not knowing anything, not knowing. I don't know if I'm conveying something. Do we ever come to that? So the brain is really at a standstill. Because the brain is always active, searching, asking, arguing, occupied. That's the word - occupied.
19:56	PJ: You see...
19:57	K: No, just a minute, just a minute. Occupied. I am asking, is there a state of the brain when it is not at all occupied with anything, with itself, with... all the rest of it. Is that the blockage? I am just asking, I am not saying it is. What do you say, Achyutji?
20:35	MZ: Sir, would you say that in that emptiness there is as part of that, a tremendous openness where nothing is being sought, there isn't any movement, but the state of openness of that brain is at its highest?
20:57	K: No, I wouldn't introduce all those words for the moment. I am just saying, is there a moment when the brain is totally unoccupied.
21:14	Sunanda Patwardhan: There are moments when the brain is unoccupied.
21:17	K: That may be mere day-dreaming.
21:19	SP: What do you mean by totally unoccupied?
21:21	K: No, don't you know what it means, unoccupied?
21:26	SP: One knows.
21:27	BK: It does not think at that moment.
21:29	K: Ah, ah, ah...
21:31	BK: It's blank. K: Ah, ah...
21:33	MZ: That's why I asked...
21:34	K: This is a dangerous thing to... because we're already translating it.
21:42	SR: Yes, that's right.
21:45	Jagannath Upadhyaya: May I?
21:47	K: Please, sir, of course.
21:58	JU: (In Hindi).
24:09	PJ: He says all action - please correct me if I'm wrong - all action is bound within a time-space framework. Is it - I won't go into all the details of what he said - the ultimate question is: is it that you are trying to bring us to the point, is it that all action as we know it, it is bound by time and space, is really illusion...
24:54	RB: Or negated. PJ:...or negated.
24:57	K: Is negated. Is that a theory or actuality?
25:02	PJ: I am just positing his question. And that you are speaking of that state...
25:12	RB: No movement.
25:13	PJ:...which lies between two actions.
25:28	JU: (In Hindi).
25:38	PJ: In between two actions.
25:45	K: What is it, sir?
25:46	GN: Talking about the space between two actions?
25:48	PJ: The space between two actions.
25:51	K: No. Should we begin by enquiring what is action, and come to that? Shall we? What do you say, Pupulji? What is action?
26:10	JU: (In Hindi).
26:21	BK: In reality there is no action.
26:23	K: No, sir, what... Look, sir, you are all theorising. You are all theorising. I want to know what action is, not according to some theory of action - the doing.
26:40	BK: Tell us what is action. (Translated)
26:43	RB: He is saying action is merely the movement of thought from one point in space to another or one moment of time to another. That's what he is saying.
26:57	GN: He is implying action is time-bound.
27:00	RB: He says action... there is no actual action, it is only the thought which moves from...
27:11	K: I am not talking about thought moving from one point to another point but acting, the doing.
27:20	RB: Then you are speaking of physical action?
27:23	K: Both physical and psychological - action. To go from here to there is action. RB: Yes.
27:31	K: What do we mean by that word?
27:34	PJ: Isn't it movement?
27:37	K: Look, Pupul, I go to the office every day, that is action.
27:41	PJ: It is also movement. K: Yes, keep it, don't move...
27:45	PJ: No, but because you are saying what is action, I must put another word in.
27:51	K: Movement.
27:53	RB: What is meant by 'it is reaching somewhere'?
27:58	PJ: Reaching somewhere.
28:01	K: Physically? RB: Physically, mentally...
28:04	K: Psychologically. Is that what you call action?
28:10	RB: It is what is normally action.
28:12	K: Ah, ah, I question it. You are not meeting... I act according to my belief - right? I act according to my experience, I act according to my ambition, greed, envy - that's action: according to my desire, ambition, greed, envy and so on. It is in that realm is action, our life. Right? Right? Now, you see...
28:52	PJ: What is the fundamental question?
28:55	K: I don't know. I am trying to ask the fundamental question which you raised at the beginning, and which Narayan also carried on in a different terminology,
29:08	is: what is making us not flower? I am using that word - with its beauty, in its aesthetic sense, with its perfume, delight, you know, the whole thing. What is it - that's what you are asking. Is it basically thought? I am enquiring, please, go with me a little while. Is it thought? Is it time, is it action, or I have not really, deeply read the book, which is myself. I have read certain chapters, - you follow what I mean? - certain pages of that chapter but I have not come to a point: I have read it and I totally finished with the book. You understand what I'm...? I wonder if I'm making myself...
30:34	PJ: But, you see, at this point, I ask: I have read the book. There is no saying I have read the book completely because every day, every minute the book is adding a chapter.
30:55	K: No, no. Ah, there we are - at last.
31:04	PJ: You see this thing, this is really, really so.
31:07	K: Sir, does Panditji understand?
31:08	AP: Yes, sir. He understands.
31:11	K: Sir, I am asking the question, whether we have ever read the book, not according to Vedantists or Buddhists or Islam, etc., etc., or these modern psychologists, Freud and so on. But have we - if we read the book, it includes all that. Right? I don't know - that's simple.
31:42	AP: (In Hindi).
32:08	K: I think this is very important, Pupul.
32:12	PJ: Can one ever ask: has one read the whole book of life?
32:17	K: No, no, you will find if you read the book at all, there is nothing to read.
32:26	JU: Yes, this is possible. K: Ah, ah, ah...
32:35	AP: (In Hindi).
32:42	JU: (In Hindi).
32:45	Q: He says it's possible. K: Is it possible?
32:48	AP: I say don't be so quick to answer because the depth at which you are asking this question...
32:58	PJ: Then there is nothing to read? SP: There is nothing to read?
33:01	GN: You said if you have read the book, there is nothing to read.
33:04	PJ: No, no, no.
33:06	K: No, no, for God's sake. I am still here!
33:19	JU: (In Hindi).
33:40	PJ: He says you have been saying that if there is a perception of the instant in its totality, then the whole is revealed.
34:01	K: Yes, but that's just a theory. SP: You have said it.
34:05	K: Who the hell cares who said what?
34:08	PJ: He says that is just a theory.
34:15	K: Forgive me, sir, I'm not criticising you or anything. Pupulji asked a question, sir, 'I have lived a long life, I have listened to lots of people, including you, including K, including Gandhi, including all the people, you know, I have listened to them all, and I have also gone to various gurus, I have also meditated - Zen, blah, all the rest of it, and at the end of it, there are just ashes in my hand. You understand? AP: Yes, sir.
35:00	K: You understand?
35:01	PJ: No, sir, that is not my position. That is not my position.
35:05	AP: She says I am in the midstream...
35:07	PJ: I'm not, I won't say that there is...
35:10	K: Ah, ah, ah, I don't accept you are in midstream.
35:12	PJ: That's just it. You see, I won't say there are ashes in my hand.
35:18	K: No, we are missing, wasting time.
35:20	PJ: No, sir, I'm asking this. No, sir.
35:23	K: What is it you want to say?
35:26	PJ: If I say there are ashes in my hand, I have to walk out.
35:31	K: No, no. What do you mean action is in your hand? Go slow.
35:35	PJ: I say there are ashes, ashes in my hand.
35:39	K: What do you mean?
35:41	PJ: That all that I have done these years...
35:44	K: Is futile.
35:46	PJ:...meditated, gone into myself, is just nothing, then I have to walk out.
35:52	K: Do you? PJ: Maybe by...
35:54	K: Ah, ah, no, do you? PJ: I don't walk out.
35:57	K: No. Why?
35:59	PJ: Because I don't see them as ashes.
36:04	K: As ashes?
36:07	GN: She is implying it has been fruitful to some extent, it is not just ashes. PJ: It is not ashes.
36:13	BK: No, not only that, there is more to come.
36:15	SP: No, no, there is no 'more to come'.
36:17	BK: I haven't arrived.
36:19	MZ: I have come a long way, I have come to a certain point that has covered all fields that have been explored...
36:28	K: All right, so what have you done? You have gone to a certain point, you have done all this. Let's admit it. You have done all this. You have come to a certain point, and you are stuck there. Is that it?
36:43	PJ: I have come to a certain point, and then, not knowing what to do, where to move, how to turn...
36:55	GN: She is saying she is stuck.
36:56	RB: You mean that the breakthrough doesn't come.
36:59	PJ: The breakthrough doesn't come.
37:00	K: Why don't we be simple and stick to that? I have reached a point, that point is all that we said, and I am stuck there.
37:13	PJ: You must understand one thing. There's a difference, Krishnaji. To come, to travel a journey and then say, be in despair, and say, what.
37:24	K: You are not like that. PJ: I am not in despair.
37:26	K: So you are not in despair. PJ: No.
37:28	K: Then next what?
37:30	PJ: But I am also awake enough to see that having travelled, the flower has not blossomed.
37:45	K: So you are saying why doesn't the flower blossom, the bud open, put it any way - right?
37:54	AP: May I put it in some other way, just to take it out of the person, because I feel it is very necessary to take this out of any personal...
38:03	K: Of course, that's what Pupul is talking...
38:05	AP: I know, sir, but its language is very...
38:07	K: Avanti, avanti.
38:08	AP: So, what I want to say is that you speak to us, and there is something within us which responds and says this is the true note, this is the right note, that's it, but we are not able to get it. So we see that that is the right note and yet we don't seem to be able to...
38:34	PJ: Achyutji, I want to tell you something. I have wept in my time, I have had despair in my time, I have been in darkness in my time...
38:42	AP: I am only saying... PJ: But I...
38:44	AP: I am paraphrasing you...
38:45	PJ:...but I have also had the resources to move out, and having moved out of this, I have come to a point when I say, 'Tell me, I have done all this'.
39:05	K: Pupul, I come to you, and I ask you this question, this very question which you are putting now, I come to you and put that question. What would be your answer? You understand my question? You understand my question, Radhaji? I come to you...
39:29	RB: And ask why...
39:30	K:...all that Pupul has said to me just now, I come and say that to you, what would you answer? What would you answer, sir, or you? What would you answer? Instead of asking me - you understand what I'm saying? What would you answer, what would you tell me?
39:59	MZ: But, sir, if one could answer, one would not be in that state.
40:03	K: No, no, you're missing...
40:05	PJ: You see, the strange thing is, sir, I know my own answer.
40:10	K: Do you? PJ: Yes.
40:12	K: What is that?
40:15	PJ: I'll use a word again, you will... Go and do tapas again. K: What is tapas?
40:23	SP: Do penance. K: She's dead.
40:25	AP: No, no, sir. Q: Meditation.
40:29	Q: No. K: Tapas is dead.
40:31	AP: You see, sir, tapas means... PJ: Burn yourself on that fire.
40:34	AP: No, that you have to still... PJ: Still there are impurities.
40:39	AP:...keep on, which involves time.
40:43	PJ: No, no...
40:44	K: What are you all talking about!
40:47	PJ: I say, burn the impurities.
40:51	K: Ah, ah. Burn impurity.
41:02	PJ: Burn the impurities which are clouding your sight.
41:09	K: Suppose I tell you - suppose, I'm not saying - there is no impurity, to burn. You understand my question? What do you say, Pupulji? Thought is impure. Right? Right, sir? I don't know if you will go into...
41:56	AP: I see very clearly, sir, that you have lifted this whole process of perception out of a personal sadhana. It has nothing to do with the person.
42:08	K: I agree, sir. She is not...
42:12	PJ: The fact is it has not flowered. So?
42:17	AP: That is the barrier of perception.
42:19	RB: No, this is very interesting: Thought is impure.
42:31	Q: It's a reaction.
42:33	K: Ah, ah, ah... RB: Ah, ah, no. But there is no impurity.
42:48	K: When you admit thought is impure, impure in the sense it is not whole.
42:58	RB: Yes, that it corrupts.
43:00	K: No, no. Thought is not whole. RB: Yes.
43:04	K: Therefore it is fragmented, therefore it is corrupt, therefore it is impure, whatever word you like to use. That which is whole is beyond impure and pure, shame and fear and all that, that which is whole. Right? When Pupulji says, burn, do, what is it? - tapas...
43:34	RB: Burn impurity.
43:35	K: Impurity, it isn't that way. Why is the brain - we're coming slowly to it - why is the brain incapable of perception of the whole, and therefore from that wholeness act? You follow what I'm saying? Is the block, the inhibition, the not flowering - is that the root of it, that thought is incapable of perceiving the whole? Right? And thought is doing all this, going round and round in circles. Right? And I am asking myself, I am in that position - suppose I am in that position - I recognise, see, observe my actions are incomplete, therefore thought can never be complete, therefore whatever thought does is impure, corrupt, etc., etc., not beautiful - let's put all that - aesthetically, morally, it's never, it never is. So why is the brain incapable of perceiving the whole? If you can answer that question, perhaps we'd be able to answer your other question. You understand my...? You have understood, Pupulji? PJ: I understand.
45:18	SR: You correctly reinterpreted our question.
45:28	K: So could we move from there? Or is it not possible to move from there? That is, we have exercised thought all our life - right? - thought has become the most important thing in our life, and I say that is the very reason there is corruption. Right, Pupul? I don't know if you agree to... PJ: No, that's the...
46:03	K: No, wait, wait, wait. So, is that the block? Is that the factor that prevents this marvellous flowering of human being? If that is the factor, then is there a possibility of a perception which has nothing to do with time, thought? What do you say, Panditji? You have understood what I'm saying? I realise, not only realise intellectually but actually as a fact, that thought is the source of all the ugliness - call it what you like - immorality, sense of degeneration, all that. Do I actually see that, feel it in my blood? Right? If I do, then my next question is: as thought is a broken-up, limited thing, is there a perception which is whole? Right? Right, Pupul? Is that the block? Would you kindly... Panditji, what do you say?
48:00	JU: (In Hindi).
48:54	AP: He says my mind has been trained in the discipline of sequences. So...
49:07	K: That's mechanical.
49:09	AP: No, so there is no possibility of saying, can this be? Either it is so or it is not so. K: What is so? I have been trained in the sequence of time, in the sequence of thought, thought with its logic...
49:33	AP: That is cause-effect, cause-effect...
49:35	K: Cause-effect, and the whole thing, and my brain is conditioned to that...
49:42	AP: To cause-effect. K:...the chain.
49:45	AP: And if there is no effect...
49:48	RB: No. He says my brain is accustomed to two plus two making four, not to two plus two making five, or three and a half.
50:00	K: Yes.
50:01	RB: So what you say doesn't fit into...
50:06	K: Wait, wait, no, it does, it does. I question it. If Panditji says that thought is complete, then the sequence is right.
50:27	PJ: Thought is complete? JU: No.
50:32	RB: He agrees that thought is not complete.
50:35	K: Moment he agrees to that, he's had...! When you agree that thought is incomplete, whatever thought does is incomplete, and whatever thought does must create sorrow, mischief, agony, conflict. If he admits that - you follow, sir? - I don't know...
51:10	AP: I think...
51:14	K: My question, Achyutji...
51:17	PJ: Sir, may I ask a question?
51:19	AP: (In Hindi).
51:42	JU: (In Hindi).
54:36	AP: The whole process of thought is discrimination. It leaves a thing the moment it discovers that it is the false. So the false is a thought. That which perceives it as false is also a thought.
54:58	K: Of course.
54:59	AP: Therefore the process of perception is still riding the instrumentality of thought.
55:06	K: Ah, now, I understand this question.
55:07	GN: The process of perception is still...?
55:09	AP: Riding the instrumentality of thought.
55:12	K: You are saying perception is still thought. We are saying something different, if I may point out - I may be wrong, subject to correction, all the rest of it - that there is a perception which is not of time, which is not of thought. Right?
55:34	AP: Which is not of time, which is not of thought.
55:39	K: It is not Vedantist and all that kind of stuff.
55:48	SR: So we wanted to know that position more clearly. We wanted to know that position more clearly and more elaborately.
55:57	K: Yes, yes.
55:59	SR: What is that? K: I am coming to that, sir. First of all, we know the ordinary perception of thought, discrimination, weighing and balancing, thought constructing and destruction, thought moving in all the human activities - of choice, freedom, obedience, authority - the whole of that. That is the movement of thought which perceives. Right, sir? Now we are asking, is there a perception which is not that. We are asking, we are not saying there is.
56:46	AP: (In Hindi).
56:51	PJ: I have often wondered what is the value of a question like that. You see, you pose a question.
57:07	K: You say what's the value of it.
57:09	PJ: No, you pose a question, you say no answer is possible.
57:15	K: I'm - No!
57:16	PJ: Is an answer possible? K: Yes. Listen carefully. We know the perception of thought. Thought, as he pointed out, discern, distinguish, choose - right? - thought that creates the structure, the thought that puts in the structure, etc., etc. That is the movement of thought in perception, to distinguish between the right and the wrong, the false and the true, hate and good, all the rest of it. Right, sir? We know that, and as we said, that's time-binding. Right? Right, sir? Now, do we remain there? Which means, do we remain in conflict, perpetual conflict? Right? SR: Right. That's right.
58:37	K: Right, sir? So you ask naturally, is there an enquiry which will lead us to a state of non-conflict.
58:51	AP: Non-conflict. SR: Non-conflict, yes. That's right.
58:55	K: That's all. Right?
58:58	PJ: Yes.
59:00	K: Which is what? Is there a way of perceiving which is not time-binding? Is there a perception which is not born out of knowledge?
59:17	AP: Out of knowledge. SR: Out of knowledge.
59:19	K: Knowledge being experience, knowledge, memory, thought, action. What? Am I proceeding all right? Right, sir? Now, I am asking, is there an action which is not based on remembrance, perception which is not based on remembrance, remembrance being time.
59:49	AP: The past.
59:50	K: Past. Put it very simply, as he put it: is there a perception which is totally denuded of the past. Right? Right, sir? We are asking. I am not saying there is. Right, sir? Would you enquire with me that way?
1:00:15	AP: There is no question of possibility.
1:00:17	K: Ah, don't argue for a moment, just...
1:00:19	AP: No, I just said... K: Yes, tell him...
1:00:21	AP:...it is not a hypothesis. K: We are enquiring.
1:00:25	AP: We are enquiring, it's an enquiry.
1:00:27	K: I know this, and I realise this implies everlasting conflict. Right, sir? Right? No, I won't...
1:00:43	AP: Yes, sir, etc. (In Hindi).
1:01:34	K: It's a rational question to ask: can this end? It's a rational question, not an illogical question.
1:01:44	AP: (In Hindi).
1:02:08	K: Right. And if you say life is conflict, then you remain here.
1:02:20	SR: That we are enquiring...
1:02:23	K: Yes, I'm coming to that.
1:02:25	JU: (In Hindi).
1:03:23	AP and JU: (Discussion in Hindi).
1:04:00	K: Would you like to put on fighting gloves?
1:04:05	AP and JU: (Discussion in Hindi continues).
1:04:40	PJ: No, sir, the metaphor he uses is: he understands the whole movement of conflict in time...
1:04:53	K: And thought. PJ:...and thought.
1:04:55	AP: And negates it.
1:04:56	PJ: And sees the inadequacy of it. I won't say...
1:05:01	K: Ah, ah, ah...
1:05:02	PJ: Please, sir, listen to me. He says the ill man, the man who is suffering from disease, wants to be cured.
1:05:13	K: Of course.
1:05:14	PJ: But he cannot kill himself before he is cured. What you are asking is: kill yourself.
1:05:21	K: Ah, ah, no, I am not. You've made a case which is untenable.
1:05:25	GN: The analogy doesn't hold.
1:05:26	AP: Analogy doesn't hold because I see...
1:05:28	K: Ah, ah... AP: (In Hindi).
1:05:33	PJ: No, it is possibly, Achyutji, it is possibly the real disease.
1:05:41	GN: Real...?
1:05:43	PJ: You see, he may put it in a different way. All that you call thought held in mind...
1:05:53	K: Let's call it conflict for the moment.
1:05:55	PJ: Conflict. Don't also forget that conflict is Pupul.
1:06:00	K: What?
1:06:01	PJ: Conflict is Pupul, conflict is the 'I'.
1:06:05	K: Yes, yes, from conflict, society, Pupul, me...
1:06:07	PJ: No, sir. K: What are you trying to tell me?
1:06:10	PJ: No, sir, please listen, sir. K: I will listen.
1:06:13	PJ: Ultimately society and all can go down the drain. Ultimately it is 'I'. All these experiences, all these happenings, centres round that.
1:06:28	K: Which is?
1:06:29	PJ: Which is thought... K: Conflict.
1:06:31	PJ:...caught in time as conflict.
1:06:34	K: So 'I' is conflict.
1:06:35	PJ: 'I' is conflict. K: Wait a minute.
1:06:38	PJ: I see it in an abstract way.
1:06:42	K: I mean, no, not an abstract way. It is so.
1:06:46	PJ: Sir, listen to what he is saying, I'm just putting it.
1:06:49	K: I mean, all right.
1:06:50	PJ: You say the 'I' is diseased, is ill. To cure it, you say chop off its head.
1:07:03	K: I'm not saying anything.
1:07:05	PJ: It is that, and we are never...
1:07:08	K: No, I object. You are translating what I am saying to suit your...
1:07:13	PJ: Please, sir, maybe this is what is really the ultimate thing which is stopping us from the final...
1:07:20	K: No, I am not chopping. I recognise, please, Pupulji, let's be very simple. I recognise conflict is my life - right? - conflict is 'me', is my life - right?
1:07:34	AP: (In Hindi).
1:08:00	PJ: He is saying, ultimately this is the thing which is holding all of us back. K: What is that?
1:08:08	PJ: That is, that you may talk of it as conflict, you can talk of it...
1:08:12	K: I am just saying stick to conflict.
1:08:15	PJ: No, but you cannot think of the thing...
1:08:17	K: All right, I reduce all that to the word 'conflict'. Don't beat around, introduce more words. Look, Pupul, all this, thought...
1:08:28	RB: She is saying that if conflict ends, the 'me' ends, there is the block.
1:08:34	K: I don't say that. PJ: I know it!
1:08:38	K: You don't know it. PJ: I know it.
1:08:42	K: You cannot know it.
1:08:44	PJ: Sir, how can you say that? K: That's just a theory.
1:08:47	PJ: No, sir. K: Ah, ah, I'll show it to you.
1:08:50	PJ: No, sir.
1:08:54	K: Do you actually realise that you are conflict? Nobody is chopping anybody's head off. I am saying, do I realise, in my blood, in my heart, in the depth of me, I am conflict, or it's just an idea which I am trying to fit into this? Vous avez compris?
1:09:27	JU: (In Hindi).
1:10:56	AP: (In Hindi).
1:11:05	JU: (In Hindi).
1:11:08	SR: I think Krishnaji is coming to that point.
1:11:11	AP: No, but the word 'silsila', as you know, means continuity.
1:11:17	JU: (Translated from Hindi) So what is that? It is not a permanent thing.
1:11:22	SR: Listen to Krishnaji. He is coming to a very important point...
1:11:25	K: What, sir?
1:11:26	SR: You are coming to that point, sir.
1:11:29	K: Sir, I only know my life is a series of conflicts...
1:11:35	AP: Right. K: 'Till I die. Right? I mean, any man admits this. For God's sake, move!
1:11:43	AP: Yes, this is our life. K: This is our life, and you come along and say to me, must you go on doing this? Find out if there is a different way of looking and acting which doesn't contain this. That's all my point. You understand? AP: Yes, sir.
1:12:08	K: Please, just translate what I said.
1:12:14	AP: (In Hindi).
1:12:30	K: Ah, ah, ah... Oh, for God's...!
1:12:34	SP: You are denying continuity.
1:12:37	AP: No, he has asked me... SP: Krishnaji didn't say that.
1:12:40	AP: No, no, but I am telling he is asking that question.
1:12:43	RB: Krishnaji asked you to translate him, you are saying something else.
1:12:47	K: Sir, sir, I am using very simple language. My life is conflict, and that's all I know. From the moment I am born - they are discovering new things about babies - from the moment I am born till I die, it's a series of incident, conflict, - follow? All that. That is the continuity, that's all I'm saying. Right? Right, sir? Now, next, I am a reasonable man, thinking man, and say, must I go on this way? - right? You come along and tell me there is a different way which is not this, and he says I'll show it to you. That's all - right?
1:13:48	JU: (In Hindi).
1:14:11	K: What is that, sir?
1:14:13	AP: He says that I accept that this circle in which I am moving...
1:14:19	SP: Is continuity.
1:14:21	AP:...is not taking us anywhere.
1:14:24	K: Now, I come along, I come...
1:14:27	AP: You have come there; he has come with you up to there.
1:14:30	K: Yes...
1:14:31	JU: (In Hindi).
1:15:37	K: What is that?
1:15:40	AP: When you have snapped all anchorage of the past...
1:15:53	K: Who is saying that?
1:15:54	AP: You have said that this is tying you to your past. Now, when you say negate this...
1:16:05	K: I don't say any damn thing. Just...
1:16:10	JU: (Translated) That happens anyway.
1:16:14	RB: No, what he is saying is: Life is conflict, time, thought. That is...
1:16:21	K: Understood.
1:16:22	RB: Yes, he accepts that that has to go.
1:16:25	K: No. I am not saying anything to go or...
1:16:28	RB: No, he is saying that. If that goes then what is the connection with what is to be?
1:16:33	K: I am not talking any connection, anything else. I am a man who is suffering, in conflict, in despair, and I say I have lived this for sixty years, please show me a different way of living. That's all he's asking. He doesn't go about continuity and this and that, chopping somebody's head off. He's talking, please help me to find a way of living without conflict. Right? Right?
1:17:03	RB: Very simple. PJ: Yes.
1:17:05	K: That's all. Would he accept that very simple fact?
1:17:08	PJ: Yes, he would accept this. SR: Yes.
1:17:11	K: Right, sir? SR: I think, yes.
1:17:13	K: Now, if you accept that, then the next question: is there a way of looking or observing life without bringing in all the past? That's all my next question.
1:17:31	SR: Yes, that is the question. So we must stick on that question.
1:17:35	K: Wait, I'm going to, I'm going to stick to that, I've got the platform now. Right? Has he understood this? AP: Yes.
1:17:50	K: No, I must be quite clear.
1:17:52	AP: It is not necessary to translate this.
1:17:54	AP: (to JU) You have understood the question? (To K) He has understood.
1:17:59	K: I have asked myself, is there a way of looking, acting without the operation of thought which is remembrance? Right?
1:18:13	AP: Yes, sir. K: Right, sir? That's my question. We understand each other? Right. I am going to find out. What is perception? I have perceived life as conflict. That's all I know. And you, I come along - somebody, he comes along and tells me let's find out what is true perception. Right? Right, sir? Right? I don't know it, but I am listening to him. Ah, this is important. I am listening to him, I haven't brought my beastly mind, action, my logic, I am listening to him. Is that happening now?
1:19:40	AP: I think so. K: Ah, ah, I question that. You understand what I'm saying? Are you listening afresh to what is being said, that is... that the speaker is saying that there is a perception without remembrance - right? - that there is. Are you listening to it or saying no, there is not, there is a contradiction, all the rest of it, which is, you are not listening at all. That's my point. Got it, sir? I don't know if I'm making myself clear. Right? I tell Achyutji, sir, that there is a way of living without conflict. Now, will he listen to me there? Listen, not translate it immediately into a reaction.
1:20:44	AP: Translating nothing.
1:20:46	K: Right? Are you doing that? Ask him, sir, this is important.
1:20:53	AP: (In Hindi).
1:21:11	JU: Yes.
1:21:13	K: He is listening, therefore there is no reaction, which means what? Oh God, sir, come on, sir. You are already seeing. You get it?
1:21:50	JU: (In Hindi).
1:22:44	K: What's that?
1:22:47	AP: Are you suggesting, he asks, in order to make sure that everyone has understood his question, that the perception that all that one has lived...
1:23:01	AP:...tied to the past... K:...is conflict.
1:23:03	AP:...is conflict. K: Yes.
1:23:07	AP: Then the perception of the falseness of this itself...
1:23:12	PJ: No, no, no...
1:23:14	RB: No, no, he didn't say all that.
1:23:16	JU: (Translated) It has to be just seen.
1:23:18	AP: The perception of this...
1:23:20	K: I only know, sir, that I'm in conflict...
1:23:23	AP: Can you please translate?
1:23:25	PJ: May I say something? If I can translate what I have understood.
1:23:30	JU: (In Hindi).
1:23:34	PJ: (In Hindi).
1:24:36	JU: (In Hindi).
1:24:58	AP: There is the transformation of that moment of perception itself.
1:25:04	JU: (In Hindi).
1:26:10	PJ: The seeing, the perception which was caught in the past, that same seeing, it is seeing. K: No.
1:26:25	PJ: Sir, this is what he has to say. It is an ocular seeing if I may put it that way. That same seeing in an instant cleanses itself and sees without the past. He asks, is that seeing?
1:26:43	K: Is that...? PJ: Seeing.
1:26:45	K: Seeing.
1:26:48	PJ: That instrument, that instrument now. Both corrupted by the past and also free of the past.
1:27:01	K: No, no. Sir, sir, you are a great Buddhist scholar. Right? Right, sir?
1:27:13	SR: (In Hindi).
1:27:17	K: You are a great Buddhist scholar. Yes, sir, you are a great Buddhist scholar, well known, you have read a great deal of Buddhism, you know what Buddha has said, all the intricacies of Buddhist analysis, exploration, the extraordinary structure. Right, sir? Right? You know it. Now, if Buddha came to you now and said, 'Listen', would you listen to him? No. That's all.
1:27:55	Q: I don't catch it, sir.
1:27:57	K: No, no, please don't laugh, it's not...
1:27:59	AP: (To audience) Don't talk, please don't speak.
1:28:02	K: This is much too serious, please, there is not a laughter. Sir, please answer my question. If the Buddha came to you, today now sitting there in front of you and says please, sir, listen. Would you listen?
1:28:27	AP: (In Hindi).
1:29:06	K: And he says to you, 'If you listen, that is the transformation'. He says to you, 'If you listen to me, that is your transformation. Just listen'. Right, sir? That's all I'm.. What? The listening is the listening to the truth, therefore everything goes. Oh, come on!
1:29:55	JU: (In Hindi).
1:30:01	K: You can't argue with the Buddha. You can't argue with the Buddha.
1:30:06	JU: (In Hindi).
1:31:08	RB: He is saying, sir, that attention...
1:31:12	K: Ah, no... RB: No, listening...
1:31:14	K: I am not concerned.
1:31:15	RB: No, he is saying that listening itself is Buddha.
1:31:20	K: Yes, sir.
1:31:21	RB: And.. K: That, stop!
1:31:27	K: But we don't! That's all my point.
1:31:31	AP and JU: (In Hindi).
1:31:55	K: No, sir, would you listen to me? If Buddha talked to me now... I am sitting, you are the Buddha. You talk to me. I say, sir, I listen to you because I love you. Do you understand, sir? I have no argument, I have no, I don't want to get anywhere because I see what you say is truth, and I love you, and that's all. That has transformed everything.
1:32:42	AP: (In Hindi).
1:33:07	K: Sir, nobody listened to him, that's why there is Buddhism.
1:33:12	JU:(In Hindi).
1:33:13	K: No, tell him that, for God's sake!
1:33:16	JU: (In Hindi).
1:34:14	K: What is that, sir?
1:34:17	AP: He says there is no Buddha. K: No, sir...
1:34:20	AP: Just listen. There is no Buddha...
1:34:22	K: Of course. AP:...there is no speaking of... There is only listening...
1:34:28	K: Yes.
1:34:29	AP: ...and in the right listening...
1:34:31	K: That's all I've said.
1:34:32	AP: That's what he has understood. K: That's all.
1:34:35	AP: That's what he has understood that in right listening is the quintessence of that wisdom which transforms...
1:34:49	K: Yes. Not wisdom... You see, sir... Now, just listen to me. This is conflict. Right, sir? A man like me comes along - he may be cuckoo, he may be nutty, anything you like. He comes along and says there is a way of living without knowledge. Right? Don't argue, just listen - without knowledge, which means without the operation of thought. Right? He says there is, and he will explain to you, he'll explain very carefully how it is done. I don't know if he...
1:35:45	AP: (Translates in Hindi).
1:36:05	JU: (Translated) I would like to know...
1:36:11	K: What, sir?
1:36:13	AP: You proceed.
1:36:17	K: I know my life is conflict, and I'm asking, is there a way of looking, listening, seeing which has no relationship to knowledge. Right? I say there is, and next question is, as the brain is full of knowledge - right? - it has learnt, learnt, learnt, how can such a brain understand this statement? You understand what I am saying? Hai capito? Explain it, sir.
1:37:14	JU: (In Hindi).
1:37:25	AP: He says that you have just placed the question that he has posed in his mind, you have given word to it.
1:37:34	K: Yes. Right. I say that brain cannot answer this question.
1:37:42	JU: (Translated) That is my question.
1:37:44	K: So, wait, wait. This is conflict, this brain is used to this - right? Right, sir? I'm speaking slowly. This brain is used to it, habituated to it, and you are putting a new question to it, so the brain is in revolt, it can't answer it. Right?
1:38:12	JU: (Translated) It is being explained that it is in revolt. But it is possible.
1:38:25	K: And the speaker says, don't be in revolt, listen. Right? Translate it. SP: He understands.
1:38:41	AP: He understands. (Translates in Hindi).
1:39:07	JU: This will happen, this can happen.
1:39:12	K: Right? So he said try to listen without the movement of thought. Right? That's simple. Which is, can you see something without naming it? Which is, the naming is the movement of thought. Do it. I don't know if I'm making myself... AP: Yes, sir, perfect.
1:39:47	K: Then, find out what is the state of the brain when it has not used the word in seeing.
1:40:01	SR: Yes, this is very important.
1:40:04	K: Ah? Wait, wait, I'm moving very slowly, please, I'm going on, I'm not stopping there.
1:40:09	SR: Yes.
1:40:10	AP: (Translates in Hindi).
1:40:17	K: Naam roopa (name, form), no, no...!
1:40:20	SR: Word. AP: Not roopa.
1:40:22	K: Naam roopa, I'm glad I caught you out.
1:40:25	AP: I'm sorry.
1:40:34	PJ: Look, may I say one thing? He said can you see a thing (then in Hindi).
1:41:01	K: Now, you tell me what you said to him.
1:41:07	PJ: Can you see something without the word...
1:41:11	K: Yes.
1:41:12	PJ:...and in that seeing can you observe the state of your brain which is observing without the word.
1:41:22	K: That's right. That is, the brain. Which means what? The brain has been trained in words. Right? Now when the brain realises it's caught in the net of words, and you come along and say observe without the word, see what is happening in the brain. You follow my point? You understand what I'm saying? What is happening to the brain - now, now?
1:41:59	PJ: The brain is still. K: That's the point. That is, I realise my brain is full of knowledge, knowledge being partly words, experience, sensations - it is that. And you come along and say observe your wife, the tree, the cloud without the word. Is that possible? I am married to her for forty years and suddenly you say to me, observe her without the word, the symbol, the image. And the brain says, 'I can't do it'. Right? Then begin the arguments. I don't know if you follow what... Which is an escape from its incapacity to see its incapacity. I wonder if you get this point. Achyutji, translate, I don't know if you can...
1:43:20	AP: Yes, sir, he has understood everything.
1:43:24	K: All right. So what has happened to the brain when it realises its incapacity? I don't know if you get the point. It says, 'I can't do anything'.
1:43:40	SP: I can't do anything.
1:43:43	K: Right? Have you come to that point? Which is actuality, not theory. Have I come to the point to observe without the word, realising my brain is moving, revolving, acting in a verbal net, and it suddenly realises what you are asking it, it cannot do. I don't know if you... So it becomes... says, 'I can't do it'. That means I've stopped doing anything. I don't know if you... When the brain is in such a state, there is a perception which is not born of records. I don't know if I made this clear. Would you see if he has understood this.
1:44:56	AP: (Translates in Hindi) then JU: (in Hindi).
1:45:51	K: Its very incapacity is the truth.
1:45:54	JU:(In Hindi).
1:46:14	PJ: Panditji, Krishnaji, just now has said something which I want to tell you. He said its very incapacity, the brain's very incapacity is the truth.
1:46:38	AP: This is not a matter of logic alone. This is what he is saying.
1:46:50	K: So my whole life has changed. I don't know if you see that. So, you follow what is happening? It realises its incapacity - right? - therefore there is a totally different learning process going on. I wonder if you capture that. Which is creation. You follow? Ah, ah.
1:47:30	JU: (In Hindi).
1:47:33	AP: (In Hindi).
1:47:50	PJ: He has answered this. He says, this is itself the very learning process, and this is creativity.
1:48:03	K: Come nearer, sir. Sir, I realise my life is struggle, nobody has to point that out to me.
1:48:20	AP: (Translates in Hindi).
1:48:25	K: Right? Right? It is so, that's a fact. And you come along, tell me you can end all that instantly. I don't believe it - it can never happen. I begin with that. You follow what I mean? You come and tell me this whole struggle, this monstrous way of living can be ended immediately. My brain says, sorry, you are a cuckoo, I don't believe you. Right? But you say, look, wait a minute, I'll show it to you. Right? I'll show it to you, step by step I'll show it to you. But you are all the time resisting, saying I don't believe you, old boy. You may be God, you may be the Buddha, you may be what you like but... Right? And you tell me look, listen to me, take time, in the sense, have patience. Patience is not time.
1:49:53	AP and JU: (Dialogue in Hindi).
1:50:19	Q: He asks if it's a quality.
1:50:21	AP: Not quality. Avastha is not quality.
1:50:24	K: No, impatience is time. Patience has no time. Come on, sir!
1:50:35	AP: (In Hindi).
1:50:42	JU: (In Hindi).
1:50:45	AP: (In Hindi).
1:50:49	SP: He says what is that patience which is not...?
1:50:52	K: I said to you, life is conflict. I come along and tell him there is an ending to conflict, and the brain resists - right, sir? And I say let it resist, but listen to me, don't bring more and more resistance. Just listen, move. Don't remain with resistance.
1:51:26	AP: (In Hindi.)
1:51:33	K: Come on, sir!
1:51:34	AP: (In Hindi).
1:51:48	K: That is, to watch your resistance and keep moving. That is patience. Ah, has he understood? AP: Yes, sir.
1:51:59	K: To know the resistance and to move along - that is patience.
1:52:05	AP: (In Hindi.)
1:52:15	K: Right, sir? Right? So he says, now, don't react but listen to the fact that your brain is a network of words and you cannot see anything new if you are all the time using words, words, words.
1:52:42	AP: (To JU, translated) Have you understood?
1:52:43	JU: Yes.
1:52:44	K: So can you look at something - your wife, your tree, your sky, the cloud - without a single word. Don't say it's a cloud, just look. Right? When you so look what has happened to the brain?
1:53:09	AP: (In Hindi).
1:53:40	K: What actually happens, not theory, actually happens when you are looking without a word? The word is the symbol, the thought, the memory, knowledge - all that.
1:53:57	AP: (In Hindi).
1:54:10	K: No, what happens? Watch it, watch it in yourself. What happens? It is in a state of shock, it is in a state of staggering. Right? Right? So have patience, watch the staggering. That is patience. Do you understand? Has he...?
1:54:32	AP: Yes, sir, I think so. (then in Hindi.)
1:54:54	K: To watch, to see the brain is in a staggering state and be with it.
1:55:01	AP: (In Hindi).
1:55:06	K: So, as you are watching it, the brain quiets down. Then look with that quiet brain at things, observe. That is learning. Hai capito (Do you understand)?
1:55:28	AP and JU: (In Hindi).
1:55:53	K: Has it happened? Ah, ah...! The bond is broken. I don't know if you see it. The chain is broken. Has it happened? That is the test. So, sir, let's proceed, shall we? Shall we proceed? I have listened - right? - I have seen... not 'I' - there is a listening, there is a seeing and there is a learning, without knowledge. I don't know if you see that. Right? Do you see? So, then what happens? What is learning? Is there anything to learn at all? You follow, Pupulji? Would you explain, sir?
1:57:22	AP: (In Hindi).
1:58:02	K: Ah, ah, there is something introduced which I feel is not right. SP, AP, JU, and PJ (In Hindi). (Translated: It's a state).
1:58:23	PJ: Seeing, listening and learning. (In Hindi) What is there to learn?
1:58:36	SP: In that state what is there to learn.
1:58:41	K: Which means what? You've wiped away the whole self.
1:58:46	PJ: You've wiped away the whole self.
1:58:48	K: I wonder if you see this. Because the self is knowledge. Got it? Self is made up of experience, knowledge, thought, memory, and memory, thought, action - that is the self. Right? Now, sir, just a minute. Has this happened? If it hasn't happened, let's begin again. That is patience. I have got infinite patience. I wonder if you understand this. That patience has no time. You get it? Impatience has time. I wonder - right?
2:00:00	AP: Yes, sir.
2:00:03	K: What, sir?
2:00:04	AP: That is...
2:00:05	K: Basta (enough)? You are asking me to stop?
2:00:08	AP: I think that we have come to a point.
2:00:13	K: All right, sirs. No, I have come to a point where you have to say yes or no.
2:00:21	SR: That's right.
2:00:23	K: It's not just you have come to a point.
2:00:27	JU and AP: (In Hindi).
2:03:27	K: What? What's happening?
2:03:31	RB: He is asking what will come out of this observing, listening? Is this state to go on or will something come out of it which will transform the world?
2:03:45	K: Ah, wait a minute.
2:03:47	AP: I said this is too early a question...
2:03:49	K: No...
2:03:50	AP: Because you have to stay with it first.
2:03:52	K: The world is me, the world is not separate.
2:03:58	SR: Nothing is left.
2:04:00	K: The world is me.
2:04:03	SR: Then what is that?
2:04:05	K: World is self, different selves. SR: Right, sir.
2:04:10	K: That self is me. SR: Right.
2:04:14	K: Now, what happens when this takes place - actually, not theoretically - what happens? First of all, there is tremendous energy, boundless energy, not energy created by thought. You understand the difference? The energy that's born out of this, knowledge and all, and there is a totally different kind of energy, which then acts. That is, that energy is compassion, love. Then that love and compassion is intelligence, and that intelligence acts.
2:05:10	AP: That action has no root in the 'I'.
2:05:16	K: Ah, no, ah, no. Sir, darling, just listen, sir. His question was, if this really takes place, what is the next step? What happens?
2:05:37	AP: Yes.
2:05:38	K: What actually happens is, you have got this energy which is compassion and love, and intelligence. That intelligence acts in life.
2:05:49	AP: To which intelligence I put the acid test...
2:05:55	K: Intelligence is this, is... AP: Is that.
2:05:58	K: No, no, darling. When the self is not, the other is. The other is compassion, love and this enormous boundless energy. That intelligence acts, it's not just intelligence. Now, translate that.
2:06:25	SP: He understands.
2:06:29	K: And that intelligence naturally is not yours and mine. That's too damn silly. AP: That's all that I was saying. I wanted to apply a test to it that unless - if it is yours and mine then it is not intelligence.
2:06:45	K: Of course. AP: That's all I said.
2:06:52	K: Right, sir. Is it time? Oh, yes. Two hours.