Krishnamurti Subtitles home


MA83S1 - What creates division?
Madras (Chennai), India - 4 January 1983
Seminar 1



0:19 Pupul Jayakar: I suggest that Dr. Sudarshan starts.
0:27 Dr. George Sudarshan: We were talking this morning, Pupulji and I.
0:31 K: Louder, sir. One of those blessed things.
0:41 GS: This morning, Pupulji asked what would be a good topic to talk about. I said, a friend of mine always asks the question, If there is no division, if all is one, how could one become two? And if one has somehow broken into two, what is it that we should do? Is it possible to do anything to make that two into 'one'? I meant it more as a joke, but Pupulji thought it would be a desirable thing to ask Krishnaji, because if something has to be done, let's find out what he has to say. How do we fragment our perception? Why don't we perceive as a whole? That being the truth, how could we perceive any other way? Since we think we perceive not as a whole but in fragments, what shall we do about it? Is there something that we can do or are we forever destined to be in fragmentation?
1:48 K: Would somebody answer that question, sir? You start. Is this your question, sir? That there is one or whole, and we human beings have broken that oneness?
2:10 GS: Let's put it this way. It appears that we are unhappy because we are not the whole. We're unhappy, have anticipation, anxieties, expectations, we have disappointments, because there is something that is not ourselves. The greatest happiness is when we get to know somebody, so that they become one with us, not necessarily become us, but we become part of them. And the greatest unhappiness is when two people who are very close no longer are so close. We say, we have separated, we are not together, we don't see eye to eye, we are not of one mind. When we are unhappy, we think what can remove the unhappiness is for us to become whole.
3:23 K: I'm a layman. Let the experts speak, first.
3:45 Q: I'm not answering the question. Neither am I an expert, but the problem is, as I look at it,
3:59 K: Louder, sir.
4:02 Q: If I compare myself as a human being with an animal, for example, I find there is not this division between the inner and the outer. It is a peculiarly human capacity to have this inner space. From my external behaviour, others may not be able to understand me. There is something which I think is myself inside - inner space.
4:40 K: They can't hear, sir. Very much louder.
4:44 GS: Think that you're lecturing to a big class. Freshmen.
4:51 Q: I will repeat again. The division between the inner and the outer... The division between the inner and the outer is not there in the case of animals, most probably, because we understand animal behaviour from outside. In the case of man, outwardly, the person who looks at me, possibly cannot understand what I am inside. There is something which I call 'inner space', mind, which outwardly people cannot understand. This is essentially because of reason, rationality of man. It is rationality, generally called self-consciousness, traditionally. The rationality, this thought is the reason why I have created this inner and outer space there is no inner space in the case of material objects. Mechanically, we understand material objects. In the case of animals, though there is consciousness, there is no inner space, an animal is not capable of having this so-called self-consciousness, while in the case of man, because of this thought, which divides this total thing into inner and outer, present and future, it is this that creates the division.
6:21 GS: We have a biologist among us who will be able to tell us whether animals have this problem or not.
6:29 Q: I don't think that we are in a position, right now, to say. I don't think we've measured whether an animal has an inner space or not. I don't even know if we are capable at the moment, of measuring such a thing. One can easily assume that an animal does or does not have an inner space. My point is, I don't know if the distinction is a valid one.
6:58 K: But are we answering Dr. Sudarshan? Are we answering his question? As far as I understand, his question is why is there fragmentation in us which causes so much misery, and are we ever whole? In that wholeness, there is certain quality of joy, happiness and so on, and the Dr. asks, why this fragmentation takes place. That's right, sir?

GS: Yes.
7:53 Dr. Sundaram: If we can think of the parallel of light. Light is scattered when it is passed through a prism. Some unity is there and it gets fragmented, due to some factors, because it passes through some medium. When you ask the question, there was a unity, why should it be fragmented at all, what is the method of re-uniting it, or gathering it up into that pristine unity again, we have already pre-supposed that there is and has been a unity. Perhaps, if there has been a diversity brought about later, which is foreign to that nature of the unity, then what is that foreign element that has entered into that original purity, somehow, we must be able to say, by discussion.
8:47 K: But, sir, why do we assume that there is wholeness? Why do we take it for granted that there is some state of mind or heart, in which there is a sense of wholeness, completeness, a non-fragmentary state?
9:12 GS: I was giving some suggestions, that partly we feel happier when those two things which are two, have become one. When two people get together, two ideas get together - I am a scientist trying to put ideas together and making into one. When you unify two theories, when you unify two people, when you see some connections where no connections were seen by others, it appears to me that I feel happier. Others say they also feel happier. In our common language, when we talk, unhappiness is in friends parting, in mates parting, in things which were mine disappearing from me. And happiness is when one is no longer going to ask the question, 'Is it inner or outer, is it mine or somebody else's idea?' The best discussion is one where you don't know where the ideas came from. The best scenery is that where you don't see individual houses and bushes and birds and plants. The best dress is one where you can't say what colour somebody was wearing. It is the harmony of a perception which contains - it's colourful, but which is not separated out into individual things. So, empirically it appears that gathering together is very good. For example, everybody is happy that professor Ravindra has come. Until now, we were afraid that he wasn't with us. Now, he's with us and there is a happiness. You can see it on the faces of everybody here.
10:53 SP: You can add one more.

K: One more. Lot of collection of professors. So, we better withdraw. Sir, are you asking what is the cause of this division, not stating that there is a wholeness?
11:19 GS: It's both a hypothesis and a question. Hypothesis is that, since we seem to be happier when those whom are separate come together, maybe this is a continuing process, that when there is nothing more to be united, that when there is only one perception, that is happiness. If that is so, and it seems to be empirically a very reasonable thing to say, how come that we are not in that state all the time? How come that we see things as different? Secondly, since we seem to live in a world in which much of the time things are not together, what can we do about it? Is it possible, by thought, by feeling, by functioning, by some means, to avoid this breakage? Can we see things together, can we mend our broken life together?
12:21 Radhika Herzberger: Is not the feeling of unity itself sometimes divisive? For instance, the unity that comes from united belief gives us a sense of security and a certain wholeness, but when you put one group against another, that feeling can itself lead to divisiveness. Also, unity that comes from ritual may fulfil a certain need in the individual, give a certain pattern and order to life, but can also be divisive, fragmented, when pitted against another group.
13:16 K: Sir, if I may ask, what is the cause of this division? Why is there this contradiction, this separateness? If I may suggest, wouldn't it be better to start not with hypotheses, but with actually what's going on, which is, you are a professor, scientist, probably very well-known, and I'm not. I'm just an ordinary layman. Why is there this division, of you, with such mind, all the rest of it, and I, a villager, living in some squalid little hut? Why is there not only environmental but physical differences, different opportunities, different capacities? Right, sir? Why is there this division at all, among human beings? Could we start from there? Rather than from a hypothesis that we're all one, and at some periods of our life we become extraordinarily happy, when we are together. That's perhaps, a very rare occasion, a passing event, which passes by, like ships at night. Could we start with this? Why is there this division between you, me and another? Would you admit?

GS: Yes.
15:26 K: What causes this division? What is division? Is time a factor of division? Time itself means to divide. Etymologically. Time means to divide, disperse. Yes! Is time a factor of this division? You have studied for many years. And I have not. You have evolved in a certain direction, and I've not. So, are we divided in knowledge, are we divided in our experiences, in our reputation? You follow? This whole process of division taking place in the human mind, human heart, what is the cause of it? I'm submitting that it may be time is a factor. Time is, inherently, a divisive process.
17:08 PJ: Isn't time, also, a connecting process?
17:13 K: No. Somebody answer. Can never be.
17:19 PJ: I'm asking in one particular sense, that time may be a dividing process but if you did not have time to connect one to the other, the sense of the fragment would not arise. It's time which connects one to the other. Therefore, the very connection makes you realise that there is fragmentation.
17:55 K: Aayiye! Oh, I forgot. Come and sit here, please. You all know her. The big lady from across the river. Can time bring about unity, you're asking.
18:19 PJ: Time makes us realise that we are fragmented. Time makes us realise that we are fragmentary.
18:28 K: No, no, no. I'm asking, if I may, is time one of the factors of this division? Time, which is inherently a divisive process. Right? I don't know if you agree to that.
18:45 PJ: But, sir, why do we talk of division at all?
18:52 K: Because we are.

PJ: No, but we talk of division because we have some concept of a whole.
19:00 K: No.

SP: Let me say, I feel different.
19:04 K: Avanti. It's getting very hot. Go on.
19:08 SP: Sir, to put it very simply. I'm not talking of time. I'm saying, I feel different because I experience. I experience unhappiness, I experience happiness. As an experiencer, I feel I'm a different entity. Therefore, the very process of experiencing divides. It creates the 'me' as against the other. Even though you may experience the same thing, I am also experiencing.
19:35 PJ: But the factor which connects you to your unhappiness is a factor of time. It is the connecting link.
19:57 K: What creates division?
20:00 PJ: What creates division is time.
20:07 K: Wait, wait, wait. Slowly, slowly, slowly, my lady. Would you say time, the etymological meaning, as well as an actuality, time is one of the causes of division?
20:25 PJ: Yes.

K: Would you agree to that?
20:29 GS: I'd like to disagree a little.

K: Delighted, sir! I'm using the word 'time' in its root meaning.
20:47 GS: I realise that. I would like to say that, I would like a little sharper definition of the time. There are two different notions of time. Professor Sundaram made this example of light being dispersed. But if the only thing that happens is the light being dispersed, we can put them together by simply inverting another prism and putting it back, and they will go back. So, the separation is really only an apparent separation. However, there are situations in which once they are separated, they cannot be put together, like Humpty Dumpty. And situations in which they could be put back together. Similarly, the functioning in time involves two different kinds of time. One is the disordered time, time of entropy, time of events, times which creates separation. There is another kind of time which doesn't create unity, but which is the functioning of unity. Because unity is not a state of stasis, it is not a situation of featurelessness, but a functioning of fullness, a dynamic coherence. If you have to have that particular dynamic coherence, there is a measure in which things are taking place, which is not an external time. If a person is absorbed in a dance performance, he must see movement, but he is not aware it's already been 45 minutes and she's still dancing. If you start thinking, obviously the time has created a divisiveness. We must distinguish between the time which is of the part of the movement which is the experience of the richness of the unity, and the time which Krishnaji talks about, I believe, which creates divisiveness of sections of parts. If the parts are like lotus petals, all pieces of the same thing, then they are not really separate but fulfilling the unity of the whole.
23:04 K: I am separated from my wife. The reparation is never complete. So, that which is repaired is always breakable. My wife and I have separated. Why is there this separation? That's what I'm asking, not all your marvellous theories. I'm not being sarcastic.

GS: No, I realise that.
23:43 K: Why have I separated from my wife and she has broken with me? That is the human problem. And you're talking about the two meeting together, making a whole. Do we ever meet together, perhaps sexually, I don't mean that. Do we ever meet together, or is there always division? We may tolerate each other. You follow? We may tolerate each other. I consider that toleration is a form of indifference.
24:35 GS: I agree.
24:36 K: So, I'm asking, I have separated from my wife and this separation brings all kinds of anxieties and loneliness. And you want me to repair that separation, 'repair' in the ordinary sense of that word. To bring two broken pieces together with some glue or something and perhaps that glue is much stronger than the original thing. But I'm just asking. The division has taken place. And there has always been a division. Me, my wife. Me, and the heavens, you know, all the business. So, why? Not we have ever united. We were never united. You are a scientist. If I am your wife, I'm a cook. I hope not. Please, forgive me. And what? I bear your children, I cook, I look after them. You go off to your laboratory, have a thundering good time there. You come home... and chamailler. That is, squabble. That's our relationship, that's what is taking place in the world. That's actuality. I'm asking what is the root of this, constant separation, and constant attempt to come together.
26:48 Asit Chandmal: Sir, could I ask a question? You've distinguished between two different types of time. You said there is a time, which Krishnaji talks about, which is separation, conflict, and the other time which is unity, but it's not static, it's dynamic, there is movement. Would I be right in saying that, in Krishnaji's terms, movement is time only when it's movement from, to? If there is only movement, there is no time.
27:19 GS: I would agree with that. If we define time in that particular context, in which there is from, to, perception of the difference, rather than perception of the motion, that time is a sectioning, it's a separation. Krishnaji, I would like to agree with everything that you say, but I very rarely find a chance to do it. It's always a pleasure to disagree with you. One point I would like to make, respectfully, is that I don't think your caricature of always being in fragmentation or it being a very rare thing, is really my experience. The feeling of unity, the feeling of overwhelming fulfilment and motion without separation is not so rare. If it was so rare, one would not pray for it, wish for it, one would not hanker for it. My wife would be very unhappy with the caricature that you make. She did bear my children, I hope. Even though I am now physically away from her, she is 10,000 miles away. I really don't miss her, because I constantly think of her, and of the fact that we are one, even though we are so far apart. When we were physically close, maybe we are not so close, because we may disagree about certain things. But there are many times when the difference between her and me, is less than the difference between me and me. To the extent that I am able to see another as an aspect of myself, or myself as an aspect of another person, it seems to me that the differences are simply what shall I say? Simply a source of joy.
29:23 K: Hold on, sir. First of all, I'm not making caricature of life. I'm stating the fact that we two are separate, basically. All this is imagining. Actually, we are separate.
29:43 GS: Are we separate? I always talk differently from you but...
29:46 K: Wait, sir! At first I'll start, if I may, from facts. That is, I am married. My wife has her own movements, her own desires, her own ambitions, and I have my own. Right? Right? There is the division. Actually. She goes off to the office, and I go off to my office.
30:20 Q: Sir, the sound has gone.
30:23 K: She thinks differently from me. She might like me. She might love me. But she's thinking differently, different attitude, opinions, judgments. So am I. I'm tremendously ambitious. I want to be the Prime Minister or whatever it is. And she wants to be a success in her life, right? There is a division, right away. That's all I'm talking about.
31:01 GS: But this is not very different from one person's desire for oneself. One time you want to be correct, and be content with everything, another time you get ambitious, you want to be the Prime Minister. Then you say, no, Prime Minister is not good enough for me, one must become the absolute, greatest mind in the world. Or the greatest cook in the world.

K: Carpenter, preferably.
31:28 GS: There was a very famous carpenter who was very successful.
31:33 K: Oh, no, no. He was not very successful. The Church made him successful.
31:49 GS: But what I mean is that it's not only a matter of two people. It is a matter of one person being many. That is really the problem.
31:58 K: Same thing, sir. Whether you say many or one or ten thousand, that is the problem.
32:09 Q: Can I clarify questions, here, please? I am confused. Are we asking why we are separate, or are we asking whether we are separate.
32:22 K: We're asking both. We are separate. Why are we separate what causes the separation? That's what Dr. Sudarshan said, that's the first question, why is there division, when there is a perception of a wholeness in which one feels completely happy? Is that it? So, we're asking what is the root of this separation, and can that separation ever end? What is the causation of it? If there's a cause, there's an end to it. That's his question. Sir, this has been a problem for most human beings, hasn't it?
33:30 GS: Yes.
33:35 K: Why there is such squabble between nations, between people. Right? Why is there this terrible, destructive division going on in the world and in me and in my relationship with my wife? That lady, Mrs. Radhaji, she's a Theosophist, I'm not. You're a Catholic, I'm not, I'm a Buddhist, or a Hindu, or some idiotic group. You're a scientist, so there it is! Right away, this terrible division. Then, can this division end? That's my question.
34:42 GS: I thought you were going to give the answer.
34:44 K: Oh, yes, presently.
34:48 AC: Sir, there is division if you're a Hindu or a Catholic, but there is no division if you're a scientist and a carpenter.
34:56 K: Which means in doing excellent work, there is no division. Excellency in anything expels division, doesn't think of division. Right? When he is working in his laboratory at his highest capacity, and you are working with your computers at the highest capacity, you are working, you don't think Dr. Sudarshan is different from you. You are labouring. In labour, there is no division. But, he's a scientist. I'm a carpenter. Right? The world respects him, they treat me with dirt, throw me out when it suits them. There is the division. Not in labour, but in status. When I'm functioning in excellence and he's functioning in excellence, there is no division. But status divides us, which is the invention of thought, as power, position, money, reputation, free passage, and everything he has, and I, poor devil, I'm working in a dirty little shop.
36:29 AC: If he's functioning in excellence, he is not divided, though others may be divided from him.
36:38 K: That's just it! Others divide themselves from me - from him.
36:43 AC: So, the question is, functioning in excellence. What is excellence, what is functioning in excellence?
36:55 K: He'll tell you. That's very simple.
37:01 AC: But then is that the question?
37:03 K: That's a very interesting question. Let's finish that. Right, sir?
37:09 GS: I agree with it.
37:11 K: When you say, 'function in excellence', what does that mean?
37:20 GS: That's a very difficult question. But you know it by the fruit. If you don't think about whether you're functioning in excellence, when you have no comparison, then you're functioning in excellence. But I could rephrase my question to say, how come that I'm not always functioning in excellence? How come we are not all functioning in excellence? If the highest is the best, why are we choosing the next one down?
37:56 K: I'm putting an oar into this, I may be altogether wrong if you're functioning excellently in the field of knowledge, which you are, is that excellence? Hai capito, signore?
38:24 GS: A little bit.
38:26 K: If I'm functioning in the field of knowledge, which I always am, is that excellence? That is always limited. Let me finish -
38:50 GS: I think I'm beginning to get the drift of the question. It's always tricky. I have to listen to you, so carefully. If you are in excellence, in the field of knowledge, are you in excellence?
39:02 K: You are not excellent.

GS: No. I agree.
39:06 K: You agree?

GS: I agree. I agree.
39:11 K: Come? You couldn't, sir.
39:17 GS: If you say so.

K: Not if I say so.
39:27 K: No, no, no, no. As long as you are functioning - not you - as long as I am functioning within the field of knowledge, however extensive, however wide, however deep - knowledge, in that function, based on knowledge, there is no excellence. Because excel - the very word - is to reach the very highest.
40:01 K: I haven't finished, sir. May I finish what I am saying? Forgive me, if you don't mind? I want to make this point very clear, to myself, too. I've made a statement, I must examine it. Knowledge is always limited. There is no complete knowledge about anything. Right? Of course. No, no. Don't quibble.
40:34 GS: Not quibble, but only just to make clear. I'd like to ask Professor Ravindra to come to my aid. When I talk about functioning in excellence in the field of knowledge, the emphasis is on the word 'functioning' in excellence not 'knowledge', because I have the impression that you'd like us to examine knowledge as knowledge of something, rather than in being.
41:04 K: No, wait a minute.
41:06 GS: I make my living by thinking and creating ideas and putting them together. I'm fortunate to be paid for something that I like.
41:17 K: That's a different matter.
41:19 GS: But in that particular mode of functioning, if I'm sitting with my pad of paper, scribbling something, or listening to somebody, or struggling... like Jacob fighting with the angel, then saying, 'Until you bless me, I won't let you go', you struggle with the thing and then something happens. That's what I mean by functioning in excellence, in knowledge. I'm not sure whether I have communicated, but I don't want to be misunderstanding your words. When I say functioning in knowledge, it's not acquiring knowledge...
41:56 K: You're a scientist. Scientific knowledge has been accumulated for 200 years.
42:08 GS: That's only one aspect of it.

K: Wait. Good enough. I can invent others. There are several aspects of science, but science means to know, knowledge. Right? Accept the word. Just let me flow a bit. You're a scientist. You have studied science, experimented, you have hypothetical theories, then you've attempted, learn to see the falseness and the truth of it. You're always moving in that direction, accumulating, discarding, but the process of accumulation is going on, which is called knowledge. I'm saying when you are functioning within that field of knowledge which has been acquired over 200 years, I say that is not excellence. Excellence is something beyond knowledge. Right?

GS: I hear you.
43:23 Q: May I ask, sir? When you talk about excellence being something beyond all the experimentation, are you talking about intuition?
43:37 K: Ah, no! No, no. I'm a little frightened of that word. Sorry! I don't accept that word.
43:46 Q: But when you've got it all, the something extra...

K: No, no. My question is, my brain is functioning within knowledge, always in the field of the known. Right? The known is always limited. You can add, you can expand, you can... Uh? The known is always limited. So my thought is also limited. Right? And as long as I'm functioning there, at different levels, different dimensions, different depth, it is still in that field.
44:48 AC: You're distinguishing between excellence in something and excellence.

K: Yes, that's all.
44:54 AC: As long as it's excellence in something, it's obviously limited.
45:00 PJ: May I say one thing more? The scientist, working in excellence in a situation, the division between the excellence in that working, and the excellence of an undivided state within, are they together at that moment? Basically, it is that. There may be tremendous excellence in the working without, but the within and without must be one process of excellence. That is the real problem in life, not the working of excellence outside, or skill outside, but that inner processes are rarely held in that quality of excellence.
46:07 K: Would you consider, if I may ask, Dr, would you consider thought can ever be excellent? Go slowly.
46:33 GS: I know, I am supposed to answer, 'No'!
46:36 K: No! That's being clever.
46:42 GS: I'm very serious, Krishnaji, even though I appear to be a little playful, I'm very serious.
46:49 K: So, am I. I like to laugh.
46:52 GS: Any time you can think that you are excellent, any time you think about anything, any time you can identify a de-limited functioning, which we call thought, which has risen and is seen as separate, clearly you are not in excellence or not in unity. But I find it difficult to - How shall I say this? When I function at the...

K: Sir, be simple with me.
47:26 GS: All right. I have been happy with nothing. I have been happy because I have discovered something, or because I performed a ritual, or somebody was very good to me, or because I said something which I didn't know before.
47:45 K: Is happiness... has happiness a cause?
47:51 GS: No. That's what I want to say. That's what you want to say, also?
47:56 K: No. You are caught. You are caught! You are caught. You are trapped.
48:04 GS: All right, I don't mind.
48:08 K: Because - sir, we're not fighting, please. Thought can never be complete. Thought is always limited, as knowledge is always limited. Thought is the response of knowledge. I don't have to go into it. And as long as I'm functioning with thought, which is knowledge, it's not excellence, it's always limited. That's the scientific problem, your problem. You are discovering, discovering, discovering. Right? And what, at the end of it? Not as knowledge, but in human relationship. I don't want to complicate it - Is thought and desire, love? I love my wife - the thought, the picture of it, the imagination, the structure I have built about her, over 20 years. Right? That is what is separating. Which is time. If you ask me, or if I ask you, is it possible not to create an image about my wife? Not gather, retain, hold, whatever insults, all that, so that I have no image about her, and she has no image. Then, there is no division. You answer me that question. Is it possible in our relationship?
50:33 GS: It happens. I do not know how to bring it about.
50:40 K: That's a different matter. I don't want it to happen, occasionally.
50:45 GS: No, but it happens often.

K: No, no! It can't. If it happens often, it has a continuity. Right? The happening is a remembrance.
51:06 GS: Nothing like the real thing.

K: Yes, sir! Radhikaji, come and sit here. Be comfortable. And talk. Come on.
51:26 AP: That still leaves the problem of fragmentation with which we started. Why is it that we find ourselves fragmented, and is it possible for us to end this self-created division?
51:47 GS: Achyutji, Krishnaji has shifted a gear on the thing by pointing out that if thought ceases, if the images, the memories, the whole sequence of mental processes cease then there is no division. We could re-formulate the question by saying, how come we have thoughts?

K: Aha. That's right. Go on, discuss it, sir.
52:20 Ravi Ravindra: May I ask a question?

K: Not me, sir. I'm not a chairman.
52:31 RR: Are we right now, engaged in anything other than thought?
52:51 PJ: When I was listening to what the Dr. and Krishnaji were saying, listening was taking place. There was no thought. Why should you take thought as a pre-requisite to comprehension? I was listening to them. I comprehended. But there was no thought.
53:20 RR: Either we have difficulty about words here... For example, unless there is some sort of a structure to the sentences, unless there is a logic to this, unless I know the language, I don't know what the hell's going on.
53:39 PJ: I know the language.

RR: But all that is thought.
53:44 PJ: Thought is the formation of verbal formations within me. Does that listening lead to verbal formations within me?
54:03 Radha Burnier: But in an inquiry, there can be thought.
54:09 PJ: But when one is listening to two people having a dialogue, then the listening need not create thought within me.
54:21 RB: No. Listening need not create thought. When Dr. Ravindra spoke, perhaps was he referring only to listening?
54:30 PJ: No, he said, are we not all...?
54:34 K: So many Drs here, my God!
54:36 GS: Mostly doctors, very few patients.
54:39 RR: That's part of the problem, too many doctors!
54:45 K: Sorry. This is a side joke. I said there were so many Drs here, he said very few patients.
54:56 RR: I was trying to place myself in the role of the patient! I have no difficulty in accepting that I'm fragmented, not accepting merely as a chess move, but, at least sometimes, I'm quite clear that I'm fragmented.
55:20 K: Sir, what we have discussed, up to now, Dr. Sudarshan and I have said to his various questions and responses, that thought is a factor of division, in my relationship with my wife. I like to begin very near. To go very far, I must begin very near. Very near is my wife, my world, the little world I live in. And that little world is broken up, as me, my wife, me and my children, me and my nation, me and God, me and you know all that, puja and all the rest of it. And that division is caused by time, time being a movement, as well as thought is a movement. We've gone so far. The division exists as long as I have an image, as I'm building up images all the time between me and my wife, between me and you, me and the German, and so on. Right? We have reached that point, to which we both agree.
56:52 GS: I wanted to add as an aside... In traditional, classical notions of rasas, shringaara is not only when two people are together. There is vipralabdha shringaara, that is when people are apart. It is very important to appreciate the togetherness to be far apart. I'm sure you are allergic to discussions of advaita and so on...
57:21 K: Not allergic. Don't quote at me, that's all.
57:28 GS: All right, I won't quote. Even when you are with the beloved, the most enjoyable, delicious moments, are not when you are absolutely together but when you are holding her face just in front of you. So, it is necessary to have a slight difference.
57:45 K: That's all the process of thought.
57:49 GS: Krishnaji, I have a wife.

K: I haven't.
57:52 GS: What I'm saying is, I do know what I'm talking about.
57:55 K: I'm sure.
57:57 GS: It's not a thought, it is experience.
58:05 K: You're a doctor, scientist. What is experience without the experiencer? There is no experience without the experiencer.
58:23 GS: I'm in trouble again. Please, say something, get me out of this.
58:27 RR: May I also take a step a little further back? And maybe confess to you a heretical thought, that I'm not that troubled by what you call 'division', maybe there is differentiation.
58:46 K: But that was the origin of our discussion, where we began, why is there this division between the Catholic and Protestant, Buddhist and Muslim, Hindu and so on, so on?
58:59 RR: But, sir, you always think, whenever I hear you, you always go to the Catholics, Protestants and Hindus. There can be differentiation. Things are different...
59:14 K: We're all different. We're all different. Difference. And he says that difference, in that difference there is no unity. When you have a feeling of wholeness, there is a certain quality of joy, all the rest of it. And as long as differences exist use whatever word you like, different colours and so on, there must be - all the rest of it. That's what we started with. Right, sir?
1:00:01 RR: I'm sorry that he agreed to this.
1:00:03 GS: Actually, I did not. He is slightly misquoting me.
1:00:07 K: I'm not quoting. It's what I understood.
1:00:12 GS: Okay, misrepresenting.

K: Ah, no!
1:00:17 GS: Stating, contrary to facts. The point we started the discussion with, just before you came, was an observation that it appears that in separation, not differences, in separation is unhappiness, and in togetherness is happiness.
1:00:39 K: That's all I'm saying.
1:00:41 GS: He made a distinction between 'difference' versus 'separation'. Differentiation he did not consider to be a bad thing, and I tend to agree.
1:00:52 Q: You also used the word 'fragmentation'.
1:00:59 AP: Ravindra, he used the word 'fragmentation', that's a very important word in delimiting the discussion, that why is there fragmentation? This was the question. Then Krishnaji said, 'Can it be traced to thought?' That is where we are. And we have not come to any conclusion. We are examining whether fragmentation can be traced to thought alone or are there any other causes. Because he also said, that which has a cause must have an end. If we have said that thought is the cause of fragmentation, we have come to the end of it. But we haven't, we're still examining whether there are causes of fragmentation, other than thought.
1:01:57 K: Linguistic, climatic, food, clothes, environment, so-called culture, I read the Bible, and you read the Gita, he reads the Koran, and somebody reads Marx. So, sir, we've come to a point, we're going off all the time. Agreed?

AP: It's a very interesting point. I think we should pursue it a little.
1:02:25 GS: In addition to thought being the cause of the thing, also images, whenever there is a comparison, or anticipation not being satisfied. I expect that Sunandaji would make something. I expect one taste and the taste is slightly different. But if I'm not anticipating it... So, in addition to thought, there is also the question of comparison. I would like to distinguish between these two mental activities.
1:02:56 AP: You are calling them types, but I think in conclusion.
1:03:01 K: Comparison, Achyutji, he's saying, is one of the factors of fragmentation which is measurement. Measurement is time.
1:03:17 GS: We probably will not quite agree with you. Time is measurement, but measurement is not time.
1:03:24 K: Go into it, go into it. I'm open to correction.
1:03:32 GS: We talked about two different kinds of time and I tried to illustrate it by following Prof. Sundaram's example of light being dispersed - actually, that's a very unfortunate word - light being displayed as different colours, the peacock colours. If you put another prism at the other side, the whole thing is re-combined, so you see these two as two different aspects of the same thing. It has not been dispersed at all. It has only been displayed. If you look at an object, a piece of sculpture, face on, then look at it from another side, you see a different picture, but you've not lost the original. But there is another kind of dispersal which cannot be put together, like Humpty Dumpty, who could not be put back together. If there is an evolution, a process, a happening, which has lost something because you cannot recover the original, that particular thing produces a different order of evolution. I would consider the second kind of development to be the time that Krishnaji is talking about, obviously he doesn't want to abolish time, like Joshua, who held up his hand, prevented the planets from moving. We want to have a time which is a component of a dynamic evolution, but we do not want a time which is the cause of dissolution, not necessarily total, cataclysmic dissolution, but dissolution as entropy production, as disorder, as losing something. Prof. Ravindra, or somebody else, brought it up the fact that in time is not necessarily a dissolution, not necessarily a comparison, but an unfolding, a transformation, but a reversible transformation, you could put it back together. So, we must distinguish between these two, and I assume that when Krishnaji talks about time, he's talking about the second kind of time.
1:05:44 K: Yes, sir.
1:05:45 GS: There is a simple Malayalam song, which starts, 'Samayamaam rathatil'. Consider time as simply a chariot, by means of which you go from place to place but nothing has happened, you simply see things, you perceive the fullness of things by seeing the various aspects of them. So, if you have a cycle of events, if you have a complicated rhythm, and the rhythm is expressed in time, that time is not a dissolution, it is a disordering time. But if, in the process of time, something has been lost, which cannot be gained back again, that is a dissolving, dissolution, disordering time, a time which is bad. In the second kind of time, there is a comparison between the starting and the ending, ending is separate from the start. The ending is less than the beginning. In that case, of course, something has happened. Whenever we talk about this time, there is a measurement of the order, then you say the order has decreased from one situation to the other one. There is a comparison, configuration, you look at the watch and say, 'My God, time has passed!' because you're comparing two configurations. And when you say, 'It has been too long or too short', we are comparing one anticipation with another anticipation. But if you're enjoying something, then there is no sense of time. You know something is unfolding, but there's no comparison or anticipation.
1:07:25 Q: Could I ask a question? I would like to bring it back to two points. One is what Achyut raised, the question of fragmentation, and the other, Krishnaji agreed, when Prof. Sudarshan said that the reason there is fragmentation and division, is that we think at all. Krishnaji has also stressed that we observe things the way they are, observing now what is happening, I would say that there is an awareness of separateness here, simply because we think, we classify, we categorise. I would like to echo Ravi Ravindra's question, what are we doing right now? Which is supposed to be a laboratory. I imagine we were invited because, being the Drs, we are good symptoms of the disease.
1:08:44 K: Take it up, it's your court, sir.

RR: I give it back to you, sir.
1:08:52 K: We reached a point, as far as I understand, we both agree, both see the same thing. When we see the same thing together, there is no division. Not agree. We rarely see the same thing together, because we're divided, our thought is, perhaps, the major cause of the division. And also, you said comparison, which is measurement. I am not, you are. You are beautiful, I'm not, and so on. Constant comparison which is measurement, I am short, you're tall, I must be better and so on. Is not comparison a part of time? 'I am not, I will be', which is comparison. Right, sir?
1:10:12 GS: Yes. I understand now what you meant by comparison.
1:10:16 K: Measurement is time. The whole scientific, technological world is measurement. If you have no measurement, there will be no technology. It started with the Greeks, I won't go into it. So, if you admit measurement, which is time, which is comparison, which is thought, all those are divisive factors. Then the question arises, which you put really and we've gone away from it, can thought end?

GS: Can thought end?
1:11:05 K: Has time a stop? To quote Shakespeare, a little bit. I'm not a scholar. Can time have a stop? While you are accumulating knowledge, as a scientist or carpenter I prefer carpenter, or you prefer scientist. I am a carpenter. As long as I'm an apprentice, and learning, learning, learning, till I reach a certain stage, where I think I've got most of it. That's the same as yours. Right? That has taken me time, and it has taken you time. You have measured, I have measured. I was an apprentice, now I'm a master carpenter. So, I am saying, time and thought are similar. Both are movements. And that is the factor of division. Whatever is limited, and knowledge is limited, must create division. As long as I'm living in the known, I'm going to keep on dividing, fragmenting. Now, is it possible to be free of the known? Not hypothetically, not as a theory, not as a question to be bandied about, but if one puts that question seriously, is there an ending to time? Not the time of... you understand?
1:13:16 RR: Sir, I have an observation and a question. If I am understanding you rightly...
1:13:27 K: You're not understanding me. You're understanding what has been stated, which may be false or right.
1:13:36 RR: The question about ending of time, seems to be intimately connected with the quality of attention.
1:13:50 K: Then we have to enquire what is attention, so we go off. First, if I may put the question, can thought end? Surely, as a scientist, as an engineer, from the bullock cart to the jet, that is time. But to discover the jet, you had to put away all the engineering, pistons, and all that, and be open to something that may... You know, science, all that. Put it in your own language, they will all understand.
1:14:44 GS: But there are still questions.

K: Oh, yes!
1:14:47 GS: I'm tempted to ask a supplementary question... I'm going to go one step beyond this one... Then the question arises, since it appears sometimes that time has come to an end, and then, like allergies, it comes back again, why does it come back again? I don't know how to say it, because Krishnaji could ask the question, 'Your statement that sometimes it happens is a memory, a thought, therefore, that's not your experience, it's hearsay, inadmissible evidence'. But, talking in ordinary language, it appears, somehow or the other, that there are times time has ceased. Two days ago, a friend of mine came to see me and said, 'Do your morning devotions with me because I am feeling disturbed'. He's a psychiatrist, so, he's naturally disturbed. I did, and we both felt that nothing could ever go wrong with the world. But Radhika has just said about rituals dividing people, but this ritual united. It was early morning, the sun was rising, and nothing could possibly go wrong with the world. But yesterday, I had to travel by second class train, it was strenuous, it was difficult.
1:16:20 K: Everything went wrong.

GS: It was hot, and... mosquitoes. Some things go wrong. They're both qualities of experience, I'm glad I did all these things. But, now, nothing could go wrong, I'm with Krishnaji and all of you, But I know, after a while, I'll have a little headache, or cough. How come, from this unfragmented state, where time has ceased, time comes back again. Before that, I'd like an expression of agreement or disagreement.
1:16:58 K: Sir, I heard Giscard D'estaing when he was the Prime Minister, telling the French people, 'La France est stable'. 'France is stable, firm, steady, strong. Go for your holidays happily'. Next day, there was a colossal strike.
1:17:41 RH: What you're trying to say is that feelings of unity have nothing to do with real unity.
1:17:47 K: Yes, of course!
1:17:49 AC: I want to ask this question, again. A scientist looking at data, before he formulates a hypothesis he's just looking at data. Or a botanist looking at a new tree, or looking at a woman for the first time. There is a looking, and then it becomes knowledge.
1:18:15 K: Go on, sir. I don't quite understand.
1:18:19 AC: There is a looking, there is a timeless state. There is a looking without thought. But then it becomes knowledge. That state ends.
1:18:31 K: Only when thought creates the image in the looking.
1:18:39 GS: I'm agreeing with you. I'm surprised, myself.
1:18:45 AC: But I am questioning that. If there is a looking in which the image can enter, and create knowledge and memory, has that been looking at all?
1:18:55 K: Of course. That is the point.
1:18:59 PJ: Sir, doesn't the clue, forgive me for asking, doesn't the clue seem to rise in that instant?
1:19:12 PJ: In that instant. Instant. Before anything happens, before thought arises, before what he calls... that instant, just before it arises. I feel that the clue to all fragmentation, or the other, rests in that, in that instant. Is it possible to negate everything which comes in the way of that instant being a direct, whole perception?
1:20:02 K: Pupulji, the question arises, who is the entity that negates? Be careful, you're back in the same old thing.
1:20:19 PJ: Why do you say that, sir? Perception negates.
1:20:23 K: Don't negate, I'm saying.

PJ: Then what do you do?
1:20:30 K: Answer that question, sir.

GS: I think I know the answer.
1:20:39 GS: As long as someone negated, that person is standing behind to be able to wipe it off. If you can say there was perception without a perceiver. Now, I know, you mean exactly the same thing as what I say, namely, that there was no perceiver. If you said the perceiver was removed, then there was an active agent who removed that perceiver.
1:21:11 K: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
1:21:12 PJ: I'm not sensitive to any kind of complexities. If you keep on at this, then it just refuses to dissolve this.
1:21:26 GS: Krishnaji is asking me to make a pedagogic point, namely, that we must shift emphasis from the negation of the perceiver to the statement of perception by itself.
1:21:44 K: That's it.
1:21:45 GS: Therefore, as long as one says, 'I must not be the perceiver', there is that 'I' who is waiting...

PJ: No, I'm not talking of that. In the very fact of listening, observing, before anything comes in to being, there is a certain space. I don't say anything about 'I negate'. There is space. The clue to whether there is something whole or fragmentary, rests in that. And I am here, putting it before you.
1:22:30 K: Would you say perception is only possible when the brain is still? Right, sir?
1:22:44 GS: I don't know about the brain. When there is stillness.
1:22:50 K: I don't like to use that word. When the whole physical organism is still. That means there are no sensory responses.
1:23:08 PJ: Now, please... No sensory responses, but the sensory flow is there. The sensory responses are different from the sensory flow.
1:23:27 GS: Again, let me act as teacher, for a minute. If I understand it right, the statement is when there is no separation between the stimulus and response. I wouldn't want to say the brain is still, then the person is dead. You're receiving signals, and reacting to it, you're shifting your toes and scratching your nose, but it is simply not seen as separate things, no stimulus and no response to it. There is a homeostasis, a functioning without fragments in the external world.
1:24:10 PJ: Yes, that is...
1:24:14 GS: But Pupulji is saying, could we not focus attention on the moment of total perception? Is that where the clue lies, as to what goes wrong afterwards?
1:24:29 PJ: Out of that, whether the fragmentary or the other, both are potentially there.
1:24:39 GS: This is a question which we all want to get answered.
1:24:44 K: What is the question, sir?
1:24:48 GS: In the moment of total perception must be the clue whether you fragment afterwards or not.
1:25:00 K: That means an insight, without analytically splitting that word, where there is insight, perception, death and all the rest of it, why does it disappear and fall back into the old... Now, before answering that question... Sir, our existence, I'm talking of our life, is a tide going out, a tide coming in. Right? Tide that can go very far, tide can come right up, at great speed or very slowly. That is, action, reaction, reward and punishment. Same movement, I'm putting it differently. Now, perception only takes place - I'm positing, I may change it - perception only takes place when this movement, out and in, stops. Right? First, let's be clear about what I'm saying.
1:26:38 PJ: If I may make one... Before we even come to the point you pose, can there be a slowing down of the inner processes of time?
1:27:01 K: I wouldn't say 'slowing down'. When you say 'slow', that requires measurement, time... I wouldn't use that word.
1:27:12 PJ: But we can't take leaps the way you take leaps.
1:27:16 K: Just a minute, Pupulji. Our life is a tide going out and coming in. Right, sir? Would you agree to that?
1:27:32 GS: A supplementary remark, I was talking to a friend who has been practising yoga. He's a chemist, so he's safe. He was saying that he was puzzled by statements in traditional texts, he said, 'I can develop...' that is, perceiving the physical extension of the person to be not just the body but connected with the universe. He said, 'I have done all those and they all function, but I cannot move a blade of grass in a fashion which anyone else cannot. So, the question of in and out could be a situation in which you make yourself smaller than the smallest, and bigger than the biggest, so that you really don't see a separation between you and the world. You see the tides, the ebb and flow, but not what is you and not you.
1:28:29 K: No, that is me.

GS: Ah, right. Okay.
1:28:35 K: Right? Right, sir?

GS: Yes.
1:28:48 K: Not me, sir, I don't want to hold the fort.
1:28:51 Q: Isn't this ebb and flow intimately connected with a sense of future?
1:28:58 K: Of course, it's the whole reaction.
1:29:01 Q: With the sense of my own future?
1:29:07 K: Pupulji asked, if I remember rightly, subject to correction, only in perception there is no time, if I understood. And I said, perception can only take place when this ebb and flow stops.
1:29:40 Q: That in that perception must lie the clue to both how and why do we immediately after that become fragmented again.
1:29:54 K: I think I can answer that question.
1:29:57 PJ: I said this. In that instant prior to manifestation of anything, arising of anything, there is the potential of both, potential of the fragmentary, and potential of the total. And I still stick to my point that even this ebb and flow is a concept.
1:30:26 K: No, no! It's not a concept.
1:30:28 PJ: I am saying unless one can first slow down the movement of thought and time within one.
1:30:36 K: I don't want to slow it down.
1:30:41 GS: You know that he will never agree to a process which is gradual, either it is, or it isn't. But your point is very important.
1:30:53 K: I catch it very well.
1:30:57 GS: Please tell us.

K: No, sir, just a little. I was discussing this question with Dr. Bohm, and another professor of that quality, and I said - subject to your correction. Please. I said when there is such perception, the cells in the brain change also, so that there is no falling back. The falling back is when the whole - do you understand what I'm saying?
1:31:46 GS: Now our question is how come our cells don't do this? We always come back to...

K: Yes, sir, I'm saying, we always come back because there is no fundamental change. That is not a slow process of change, but immediate change. 'Immediacy' - not in the sense of time.
1:32:23 GS: Cataclysmic change.

K: No! That's too drastic.
1:32:29 GS: Total transformation.
1:32:31 K: Not transformation. Not from one form to another form.
1:32:36 GS: From form to formlessness, creative formlessness.
1:32:41 K: Not creative. I wouldn't use all those big words.
1:32:46 PJ: Sir, let me ask you one thing. This state of perception in which obviously thought plays no place, thought has no place, which is the direct contact with the brain cells themselves, if they're going to mutate, has to come into being. Now, you don't tell us how it comes into being.
1:33:19 K: I'm showing it to you. I'm showing it to you, clearly. That when there is an insight, when there is pure perception, the whole conditioning has gone into fundamental change.
1:33:48 K: You can never become violent again.
1:33:51 PJ: Please let me -
1:33:59 K: Aha! I know how you're going to catch me. I understand this trick. What are you saying, secretly?
1:34:22 PJ: Sir, every insight,
1:34:31 K: You follow? They accept the two... And, after they accept it, I say, 'My God, is it so?'
1:34:41 PJ: They may accept it, but their brain cells haven't changed.
1:34:44 K: Of course, it's just a theory.
1:34:49 PJ: So, every insight must have some operation on the brain cells.
1:34:57 K: Just a minute. I'm taking one thing. If you have an insight into violence - most human beings are violent - 'insight' in the way I'm using it, which is my meaning, not my meaning, the meaning, the significance of it, there's a radical change in the brain cells. You're never violent again. No, no. Don't accept it! Just look, look at it first, before you deny it.
1:35:38 PJ: You can't deny it, because...
1:35:42 K: You can deny it, you deny it when you become violent!
1:35:47 PJ: I deny it when I know the nature of insight.
1:35:52 K: I'll tell you what the nature of insight is. Insight, in which there is no remembrance, no time, no interference of thought. When there is no interference of thought, no time, your whole conditioning is broken down. It's not a series of insights. It's not series of insight. Then you are allowing time and all the rest of it. To have insight, a profound - you understand all that?
1:36:41 PJ: But, sir, last night when we were discussing, we came to a very profound moment, when many of us felt we had a direct comprehension of what was being said. Now, I would say that is insight.
1:37:03 K: Aha! I wouldn't call that insight. Question it!
1:37:06 PJ: Then we are lost, because we don't know what it is.
1:37:09 K: I wouldn't call that insight.

PJ: Why?
1:37:12 K: No, don't let's enter into this.

PJ: But let us know why.
1:37:18 K: I wouldn't like to discuss it, as these people weren't there.
1:37:23 PJ: Take any other discussion.
1:37:26 K: I'm taking a simple, daily fact, which is violence. Man is violent and so on. An insight into violence, completely ends all violence.
1:37:45 RB: Would you say that...?

Q: Please. Does an insight into violence end not only violence...?
1:38:06 K: Violence means comparison, imitation, conformity, all that. Violence is not just anger and hate.

RB: No, I understand. But does then violence include indifference, greed..? Would you say an insight into violence removes everything?
1:38:29 K: What is that, I don't quite follow.
1:38:32 GS: Does an insight into violence destroy not only violence, but all other impediments or negative things.
1:38:42 K: I don't know what you mean.
1:38:45 GS: You said that once you have an insight into violence,
1:38:51 K: You know what violence is, it's not just anger, it's not just hate...
1:38:58 AC: If you have insight into violence, you say violence ends. Must there be insight into anger to end anger, and insight into sorrow to end sorrow? But I think your statement has to be put differently. You can't have insight into violence which ends violence. You have insight or you don't. If you have insight, there's no violence.
1:39:19 K: That's it. That's all I'm saying.
1:39:23 RR: Since clearly there is such great importance attached to insight, I, therefore, now wish to ask, here I am, a man without insight, and I understand the words...

K: I'm not sure, sir, when you say, 'I'm a man who doesn't know what insight is'. I'm not sure you're being accurate.
1:39:49 GS: He's saying that he accepts
1:40:04 K: St. Paul on his way to Damascus, had sunstroke.
1:40:09 GS: But anyway it's blinding.

K: Sunstroke, I've had it, so...
1:40:16 GS: Leave St. Paul. You said that the blinding insight is not a case of something being temporarily seen, or acquired, but the fact that it has ceased...

K: That's all, that's all.
1:40:33 GS: He says, I've had little things, but I don't have this blinding insight. Please, give it.
1:40:39 RR: Also, you have really just substituted one word for another. You said, in order to have this radical change, one needs insight. But what do I need in order to have this radical insight?
1:40:54 K: I'll tell you.

RR: Please.
1:40:58 K: We start it all over again? What time is it?

SP: Eleven fifteen.
1:41:06 K: All right, sir, I'll tell you. Would you admit that thought is limited? Right? Knowledge is limited. They're related, thought and... They function like the computer in the field of the known. Right, sir? Not agree, but that's a fact. The computer works in the field of the known, that known may be encyclopedic and so on, I function always within the field of the known. There may be occasional - I'm not talking of that - but the fact that both the computer and I function within the field of the known. Right? The known is the remembrance. The remembrance is the accumulated experiences in the past. The past is the observer. Of course. The past says, 'Don't do this. That's a snake, don't go near it!' Right? So the past, which is the accumulated experience, which is knowledge, which is thought. So, the past is controlling, shaping, modifying the present, And the future goes on. Right? This is all obvious. We're functioning like a computer, in the field of the known. And as long as there is action within the field of the known, it's going to get worse and worse, because it's fragmented, the problems created within the field of the known are innumerable, and thought is trying to solve them, which is in the same field. Right? Am I all right, so far? Right? Agree?
1:43:51 GS: I have minor reservations.

K: Add a little bit.
1:43:58 GS: There are thoughts which seem to serve to end thoughts.
1:44:05 K: But it's still thought!
1:44:07 GS: I know! That is our problem.

K: Yes, that's what I'm saying. Right, sir, so far?
1:44:14 GS: It doesn't become worse and worse, it probably becomes more habituated.
1:44:18 K: Same thing. Put it any way you like. The problems between human beings are getting worse and worse, squabbles, quarrels, misery, you know all that. And thought is saying, 'My God, I must do something about this'. Having created it! Right? That's all. As long as we live in the field of the known, we cannot solve human problems. Human problems are created by thought. Of course, sir! Come on. Right?
1:45:06 RR: It's difficult to disagree with you without sidetracking.
1:45:09 K: I'm not sidetracking.

RR: No! I'm sidetracking.
1:45:13 K: Then, we're not meeting.
1:45:18 AC: Can I come back to this question of the mutation of the brain cells? How do you know that the brain cells undergo mutation?
1:45:29 K: I don't know.
1:45:33 AC: It's very important, sir. You do know.
1:45:36 K: Moment you know, it is not.

AC: Exactly! So, why do you say it?
1:45:45 GS: Perhaps, you use it in a stylised sense. I find it very difficult to think that the brain cells are really my cells.
1:45:55 K: The brain cells contain the memory.
1:45:59 GS: Sort of. They are devices.

K: Therefore, it's me.
1:46:03 GS: What you mean is a total mutation of the whole apparatus.
1:46:07 K: Yes, sir.
1:46:09 GS: It could be material apparatus or it could be the software.
1:46:12 K: Psychological apparatus, I'm talking about.
1:46:18 GS: There is a problem in this statement because we're always told that when you really fall in love, you have fallen in love, but when you know, you never fall out of it.
1:46:30 K: Falling in and out of love, I question all that. It may be pure sexual attraction.

GS: But how are we to know? How do we know that we have seen? The answer you have to give is when you are never out of it.
1:46:48 K: That's right.
1:46:52 PJ: I think we should stop for today.
1:46:55 K: I must finish this. I must finish this. If you and I both see the fact, that in the known, human problems can never be solved. That's a large pill to swallow, but it's a fact. Even Dr. agrees with me. Right? Right? Do you...? If you say that, you're already moving out of it, a little bit, that human problems can never be solved in this field. That's what we were discussing, last night at the dinner table. Then you have to look around to find something which will answer our human problems. If it isn't thought, because thought has created the problem, then you have to look around to find what is there. And Dr. Sudarshan comes along and tells me, 'Old chap, if that is so, then you have to have a perception so pure, with such profound depth to that perception, which is an insight, that will bring about a mutation in your conditioning. He's told me that. I say, I don't believe him. I'm sceptical. But I'm investigating, I'm probing, digging into his statement. He goes away, I shan't see him - I hope I'll see him again soon - but he's gone, so I've got to find out. Right, sir? That's all. You want to be told. I don't want to tell you. Therefore, you are both the teacher and the disciple. That's all. Right, sir?

GS: Yes. You don't want it to become another thought, another part of knowledge.
1:49:34 GS: It leaves us where we are. Well, slightly further.
1:49:45 Q: It leaves us within ourselves.

K: Ah, no! Sir, you tell me this, that within the known, there is no answer to the human problem. That's a tremendous statement, from you. I receive it, partially doubtful, partially inquisitive, partially analytical, sceptical, which means, I've not listened to you at all. When I listen to you, that doesn't exist. What you have said is true. Right? Therefore, the thing has transformed. Not transformed, has mutated. When you say something and I see the absolute truth of it, there is a flash of light, as you've said. But that flash of light is not intermittent. It isn't an occasional summer thunderstorm. That truth, which you have told me, is so blinding. Right? That means, I must be so attuned with you. You understand? What you say is not yours.
1:51:38 GS: So, as long as we say, 'Please tell us', we are listening to you', we are not.
1:51:49 K: That's your relationship with your students. Right, sir, where are we, you and I? We'd better stop.