Krishnamurti - Living is a constant movement

Krishnamurti Subtitles

MA84DSG1.1 - Living is a constant movement
Madras (Chennai), India - 2 January 1984
Discussion with Small Group 1.1

0:19	Krishnamurti: Who starts this?
0:22	Jagannath Upadhyaya: Pupulji.
0:28	Pupul Jayakar: Sir, I am going to ask you a question to lay the ground, to create the ground on which the edifice of the discussion can be built. And the question is: there are only three factors – space, time and matter. We will hear from Panditji what the Buddhist view on this is. We also know that the scientists are investigating this very deeply. We would like to know from you how you relate these three elements outside in the environment and in the inner environment of man.
1:44	K: So, who starts? Panditji, it is your turn. Sir, have you understood what she said?
2:03	Achyut Patwardhan: Yes, we have.
2:04	K: You have talked about it. All right.
2:06	AP: Just a little.
2:15	JU: (In Hindi)
2:24	AP: Buddha begins with the human problem.
2:35	JU: (In Hindi)
3:03	AP: Space, time and matter are therefore, for the Buddha, the media through which man expresses himself. Therefore, they don't begin there, they are not ends in themselves. It is because man operates through these, therefore they have significance, they acquire significance.
3:37	JU: (In Hindi)
4:05	AP: The question is, that man is the principal factor and how he operates in space, in time and through matter is, or how he operates with matter – they acquire meaning because man is using them as means, but if they become ends in themselves, then man will lose himself.
4:39	K: I don't quite understand this.
4:42	PJ: If I may make it clear. Panditji is questioning my question. I started by asking the relationship between time, space and matter. Panditji says that for the Buddha that was not a real question. The reality was man, and these were just the instruments which man used, and misusing them created problems. But they were not the essential problem of man. To which I would reply – I have taken the discussion from the hundreds of discussions we have had previously. Because if we go back to all the previous discussions we have had, we could never ask this question. I am asking this question after having discussed with Krishnaji over the years, and it seems to me that time is an essential element in dissolving the conditioning which blocks man in his pursuit for liberation.
6:20	K: I really don't understand what you are all talking about, sorry. I am not familiar with your terms or with your statement. I don't quite understand what you are talking about. It may be my ignorance, may be my stupidity, but I don't understand.
6:46	PJ: Sir, you mean to say you have no response to this problem of the relationship between space, time and matter?
7:02	K: Everything exists in space. You must have space. Like a tree must have space to grow fully, it must have space, and the nourishment it derives from the earth, from water and so on. So what is the next question?
7:28	PJ: The breaking of the bondage.
7:31	K: The breaking? PJ: Of the bondage which holds the mind of man.
7:35	K: Ah, you are talking of something else.
7:38	PJ: No, it is very connected, Krishnaji.
7:44	K: Would you kindly be simple with me? I am a simple person. Would you kindly state your thing simply, then perhaps I would understand and perhaps the others may understand.
7:56	PJ: I will ask another question. You spoke of time as the past and the future being contained in the now, yesterday.
8:12	K: It is a movement. Yes, it is a movement.
8:17	PJ: Then you touched on another time altogether. I am trying to get to that other time which you are talking about. I used this as a question to probe into it. Leave aside all that.
8:42	K: Panditji, would you...
8:52	AP: As I understand, she asked a question about time, space and matter. Actually, there are two types of time, two types of space, and matter also – there is a subtle and a gross. Now, actually we are not dealing with the grosser part of it at all. When we talk of space, the space between you and me is not the distance of so many feet, but that space is a psychological space. Similarly, matter also is not merely chronological but it is psychological.
9:41	K: Matter – what do you mean by matter? I am lost.
9:47	AP: Time is also psychological. And matter, in the Buddhist terminology we use the word tanmata.
9:57	JU: Dharma.
9:59	AP: That means the psychological quality inhering to the materiality.
10:08	PJ: In other words, thought.
10:13	K: Is that what you are trying to say?
10:19	Radha Burnier: I don't know whether Panditji will agree that dharma means psychological quality inhering to matter.
10:30	JU: No.
10:39	PJ: But thought is matter – you would agree?
10:41	AP: No, yesterday I had a talk with him about dharma. There are two definitions of dharma.
10:48	K: Dharma? AP: Dharma.
10:51	AP: The Buddhist definition of dharma is: that which is the quintessential character or inhering in a particular substance. If you eliminate it, that substance cannot be called by that name. So, dharma is the inherent suchness of that particular object, of matter. So, you have to see that both time, space and matter are not dealt with, in the sense in which the scientist approaches it, from matter into something else. But we are approaching it the other way about, and we are saying that psychologically these are the factors operating.
11:37	K: Sir, would you agree that matter is solidified energy?
11:50	AP: No sir, this is very important because this gentleman, I have found, is wavering on this point.
11:56	K: What? AP: He is wavering on this point.
11:59	PJ: He does not accept this so easily.
12:02	AP: Yesterday, I found he is wavering on this point, so better have it cleared.
12:06	K: Look, what are we talking about? Just let me be simple. We are talking about time, thought and space. Would you agree to that? Time, thought, space and matter – why do you bring in matter?
12:34	PJ: Matter is that which is manifest.
12:39	K: Do we agree to that? (Discussion in Hindi)
13:41	PJ: He would say that thought is not matter.
13:49	K: I should have thought thought is. Thought is matter. Now, let's go at it.
13:55	AP: I say that unless you have a body, unless I have a body, I cannot have my senses. The five senses come into existence because I have a body, and because I have the senses, I have thought.
14:18	K: What?
14:19	AP: Thought comes into existence by the sensations that are carried to the brain by the five senses.
14:44	JU: (In Hindi)
15:54	RB: He says that thought is not matter, in the ordinary sense of the term. In the ordinary sense of the term, this is matter, the microphone is matter and so on. But thought may be regarded as matter in a special sense, because thought is what gives character, characterises the mind, and that which characterises anything is its distinguishing quality. It distinguishes it from everything else. What distinguishes the mind from everything else is thought. From that point of view, thought can be said to be matter.
16:42	JU: (In Hindi)
17:09	RB: Every thought is different from every other thought. I am just translating. And because it is different from every other thought, it has an existential quality which makes it into matter.
17:39	K: So, what?
17:40	PJ: The question is – you asked the question – would you accept that thought is a material process.
17:52	K: That thought is a material process, not whether one thought is different from another thought and so on.
18:02	RB: Thought arises from the memory in the brain, and therefore it is a material thing.
18:08	K: That is what I am saying.
18:11	RB: Memory is lodged in the brain.
18:13	K: Now, translate that in Hindi.
18:22	JU: (In Hindi)
19:14	PJ: As I understand it, he says knowledge essentially is not matter. It can help create matter.
19:30	K: What? RB: He says, he accepts that there is a recording process in the brain, although he is not a scientist, but he says knowledge in essence is not matter because the material process of the brain may assist the arising of knowledge but it is not knowledge per se.
19:59	K: Now, I would like to know what you mean by knowledge.
20:07	AP: (In Hindi) (Discussion in Hindi)
21:06	AP: Let me translate. I said that the five senses coming into contact with the sense object carry sensations to the brain, and then knowledge is born as the child of those sensations. Therefore, without the sensations there cannot be knowledge. Therefore, knowledge is a process subsidiary to materiality of the senses. Now, to that he is saying something else.
21:35	RB: But Krishnaji is asking him, what is knowledge?
21:39	K: That is all. What do you mean by the word knowledge, to know?
21:48	JU: (In Hindi) (Discussion in Hindi)
23:44	RB: He says that the sense organ is material, the object of sense is material, but through contact of the object of sense with the sense organ, knowledge arises. That knowledge is not material because the instrument may be material but the effect is not the same as the instrument. And therefore one cannot conclude that because the instruments are material that the effect also is material. He says knowledge is different from matter because it belongs...
24:24	K: But where is the knowledge stored? (Discussion in Hindi)
24:36	PJ: Where is knowledge stored?
25:00	JU: (In Hindi)
25:03	RB: In memory, he says.
25:05	K: Which is the brain. Therefore knowledge is material, a process. (Discussion in Hindi)
25:51	RB: But he is saying two things which are contradictory, I think, because... (Discussion in Hindi)
26:13	RB: He says, memory is a quality of the mind. Achyutji was saying that if the brain dies then there is no memory, so it is not a quality of the mind but it belongs to matter.
26:33	AP: I said memory is a product of the brain cells.
26:41	K: Sir, no. As far as I understand, watching myself – I may be totally wrong, subject to tremendous correction – experience is simple. From experience there is knowledge. Without experience there is no knowledge. Agree? Then that knowledge is stored in the brain, in the brain cells, and the brain cells are material process, so thought is a material process. That is all I am saying. Which is held in the brain cells of the brain, and memory is part of those cells and thought is born from memory. That is, the whole process is time, the whole process is within a certain space, limited and so on, and matter is this process, which is thought.
27:53	RB: Is observation or perception without the word, which you are talking about, a sort of a knowledge?
28:02	K: No.
28:04	RB: In your terminology it is not.
28:07	K: Don't use 'my terminology'. I am just using ordinary English words. I have an experience, I was driving a car and I ran into another car, that is an experience. And I learn from that accident to be much more careful when I drive. That is my knowledge, knowledge stored in the brain, so I am watchful next time. And so, in that watchfulness, thought and all the rest of it arises. What is the problem? I don't quite see all this.
28:47	PJ: No, but what would be valid to ask,
28:53	PJ: out of perception... K: Are you going off to perception?
28:57	PJ: No, because it was raised just now.
29:00	K: Before we go into perception I would like to know if Panditji agrees to this thing.
29:06	AP: I also want to fix him on this particular point.
29:09	K: Stick him!
29:22	JU: (In Hindi)
29:54	RB: He says experience is different from conclusion. If you look at the microphone and say it is a microphone, it is a conclusion which is based on a previous seeing of the microphone, and so on. But experience is something which precedes that. Experience precedes the conclusion.
30:20	PJ: But if I may say, Krishnaji has not come to that point. He is asking, that which is stored in the brain as memory, that is a material process.
30:35	K: That is all I am saying.
30:37	JU: (Discussion in Hindi)
31:11	PJ: (In Hindi)
31:17	JU: (In Hindi)
32:13	PJ: (In Hindi)
32:19	JU: (In Hindi)
33:12	AP: Sir, I don't agree with you.
33:15	RB: You haven't told him what he has said.
33:18	PJ: He has drawn a distinction between knowledge and experience.
33:23	K: Just a minute, Pupul, I don't quite understand.
33:26	PJ: I asked him, what makes you say that experience precedes knowledge?
33:32	K: What? PJ: I asked him, what makes you say that experience precedes knowledge, is previous to knowledge? He says experience precedes the fact of my naming it. And I said, what makes you say that? To which he says, knowledge has to have a support, the support being a material thing.
34:07	JU: (In Hindi)
34:16	PJ: For experience you need matter.
34:22	K: Why do you go into all this? I have an accident in a car. I am driving a car. Don't call it material and all the rest of it. There is an accident. My radiator is smashed to smithereens. And that is recorded. When I drive next time I am much more careful. That is, I have had an experience. From that experience I have acquired knowledge. Right?
34:59	AP: Sir, I have understood what you are saying. But he is not willing to accept. He says that the crashing of the radiator is experience, but knowledge that arises out of that is not material. That is what he is trying to say.
35:17	K: Where is it stored, that knowledge?
35:21	AP: Sir, he is not accepting this. (Discussion in Hindi)
35:41	K: Would you ask him, most politely, to forget all about Buddhism and talk as a human being. Would I be insulting you, sir, please, I am most respectful, Panditji, but could you forget Buddhism for a minute, and just talk to me as two human beings? Look, sir, Panditji, a person like me, I have not read Buddhism, I have not read Christianity, I don't know a thing about all this. Right? And as a human being – human being – I see knowledge as a means of action. That action either perfectly carried out or not.
36:52	JU: What is this action?
36:54	K: Wait, I am not talking about action. I am just saying, my experience... starts, life is an experience. And from that experience there is a great deal of knowledge acquired. Like the scientist, they go on experimenting, experimenting, till they add, add to what they already know, and keep on going. And all that knowledge is stored in the brain. That is simple. That is all my point. And therefore knowledge is part of a material process, as thought. That is all. I may be wrong. Correct me. That is all I am saying. Not as a Buddhist or a Christian or a Muslim, forget all that and let's talk about it.
38:03	JU: (In Hindi)
38:31	AP: (In Hindi)
39:09	RB: Part of the problem is in translation. PJ: Semantics.
39:12	RB: To translate anubhav as experience, I think gives a wrong idea.
39:18	K: Don't use Sanskrit words at all, just talk simple Hindi.
39:23	PJ: I just want to ask one thing.
39:25	RB: Sanskrit and Hindi have the same words. You can't talk Hindi without talking Sanskrit. (Discussion in Hindi)
40:17	RB: Something about what the Buddha said.
40:20	K: That is what I am objecting to.
40:22	Questioner: He is saying disease is a word.
40:25	AP: No, I am saying he sees an old man, he sees a sick man, he sees a dead body.
40:34	K: Who sees? PJ: The Buddha.
40:36	K: But I said, don't let us talk about the Buddha.
40:39	AP: No, I am just giving an example how knowledge cannot be separated from experience.
40:44	PJ: No, I want to ask Panditji one question. If experience and knowledge are two separate things, then it is possible to divide them, and only experience. Is it possible to only experience?
40:59	JU: Possible. K: What?
41:02	PJ: If knowledge and experience... K: I have got it.
41:04	PJ: are two separate things, then it must be possible to experience without knowledge. Is it possible?
41:14	K: Wait. Yes.
41:21	JU: Possible. Very possible.
41:30	K: Don't hold your breath.
41:36	JU: (In Hindi)
41:43	RB: He says there can be no knowledge without experience, but there can be experience without knowledge.
41:48	K: No. PJ: But if Krishnaji could pursue what he said just now.
41:58	RB: Anubhav does not mean experience, it means actual perception.
42:04	K: No, I would like to say, you have hurt me. That is an experience. It becomes knowledge, stored as knowledge when it is recorded.
42:21	RB: Yes.
42:22	K: When it is not recorded it is just a lot of words, that is all. Which is an experience, without knowledge. I don't know if you understand what I am saying.
42:34	RB: Yes.
42:35	K: Now, you translate into Sanskrit.
42:38	PJ: For that the recording process must end.
42:40	K: That is all I am saying.
42:42	PJ: And for that, the whole problem of time is inherent in it.
42:49	K: Who would explain to Panditji?
42:51	RB: He understands English quite well.
42:58	K: I am saying, when there is a recording process going on, then knowledge is born. I see that, it is registered as a microphone, and I recognise it next time – it is not a giraffe. Looks like one! That is all. But if there is no registration, or no recording – is a better word – then experience has no meaning then.
43:43	AP: (In Hindi)
43:52	PJ: We are getting... If we can move into...
43:59	J: (in Hindi) (Discussion in Hindi)
46:01	Q: Is he separating fact from knowledge?
46:04	RB: No, what he is saying is, that you say, 'Here is a man.' There is actually no man. That word man comes in due to memory. The actual seeing of the man is different from the knowledge in the form of the man.
46:26	PJ: The whole point is Panditji is using knowledge.
46:33	JU: No, experience. PJ: No, the word knowledge as perception.
46:36	JU: First the experience then knowledge.
46:39	RB: No, he is using the word experience as perception.
46:41	JU: Experience. Perception.
46:43	PJ: No, he is using the word experience because with it, it gets recorded.
46:48	RB: He says the recording is a purely mechanical process, it has nothing to do with the knowledge.
47:07	PJ: I think we should move. We should move into this whole area of time.
47:15	K: Panditji, could we move to something else for the moment and come back to it a little later?
47:21	AP: I think so.
47:26	K: Time is movement. Time as past, present, future – it is a movement. It is a movement as the wind among the trees – it is a movement. Right? The tree is quiet and there is a strong breeze that comes from the sea and moves the tree, moves the leaves. Keep it as a simile, sir. You understand? So, time is a movement. Thought is a movement in space. That is simple.
48:17	JU: Thought is a moving process? In thought, what is a moving process?
48:26	RB: He is asking what moving process is there in thought.
48:31	K: Of course there is.
48:36	PJ: It arises from the past. (Discussion in Hindi)
49:45	RB: He does not admit that thought is a movement. He says there is no movement, it just arises and dies.
49:53	K: That is not so, in daily living. (Discussion in Hindi)
50:46	K: Don't go back to knowledge. (Discussion in Hindi)
51:06	K: What?
51:07	PJ: I asked whether time was movement.
51:10	JU: (In Hindi)
51:24	RB: He says time is not movement. It is only the movement of memory which makes...
51:30	K: Which is time.
51:32	PJ: Which is thought. RB: Which is also thought.
51:34	K: Pupul, just convey this. Where there is movement there is also non-movement. You get it? Get this idea. Now, just a minute, let me finish. There is movement and at the same time, non-movement. When both of them run together harmoniously, movement and non-movement, life then is something entirely different. That is all I want to say.
52:03	PJ: Say this again, sir.
52:06	JU: This is possible.
52:08	PJ: Sir, if I may say, let us explore this. What do you mean, can we explore this movement and non-movement as a simultaneity?
52:30	K: Ah, wait. First of all, let's admit life is movement. Living is movement.
52:39	AP: Jagat – the word means movement.
52:46	K: Panditji, let's speak simple English. Life is movement. Living is movement. In that movement there is time, there is everything.
53:01	JU: Sir, life is not movement. Movement is knowledge. I am. (Discussion in Hindi)
53:27	RB: He now says life is not movement. He says the knowledge is movement.
53:33	K: No – I move, I begin, I sit, I get angry, it is constant. Movement is life, otherwise I am dead. (Discussion in Hindi)
54:55	K: I would like, sir – just look at a tree. It is quiet. The wind comes along and blows it. There is movement. And also, when that wind stops, it is quiet. That is all I am saying. Human life, living, is a movement – is a movement, life is movement.
55:20	JU: All this knowledge.
55:22	K: No, movement, I go and see her.
55:25	AP: It has nothing to do with knowledge. Independent of knowledge, there is a movement.
55:32	PJ: A seed becomes a tree.
55:33	AP: The stars are moving. JU: No, no. Not moving. (Discussion in Hindi)
57:06	RB: He says movement is only memory and knowledge, there is no actual movement.
57:13	K: I come to see you. RB: Yes.
57:16	K: You live across the river.
57:18	RB: I told him that living is movement. He says, no it is not. (Discussion in Hindi)
58:10	K: I want to tell you something. I have known her. She lives across the river. I go and see her. Right? Which is, the knowing her for the last fifty years, and the movement of those fifty years, which is memory, and I go, walk across the bridge and go and see her. The whole of that is movement.
58:43	JU: This is knowledge. K: Based on knowledge.
58:45	JU: Your knowledge. K: Yes, darling, I am saying that!
58:49	AP: It is based on knowledge but it is a movement.
58:51	JU: No. K: Yes, sir. Forget your Buddhism. As a human being, I have met you, ten years ago or fifteen years ago. I come to Benares and I see you. I recognise you because I have met you fifteen years ago. Now, all that is a movement: coming to see you, from Madras to Benares, taking a jatka, and coming to your house to see you, that is based on memory, knowledge and my travelling to Benares. That is all, that is a movement. Simple. Keep it simple. Right? Would you agree to that? That is all. I am not catching you. That is all I am saying. Life, living, is a movement, constant movement.
1:00:05	JU: In mind.
1:00:07	K: Wait – don't translate it more than what I am saying. Don't translate it into Buddhism. As a human being, this is what is happening all the time – action, reaction, and that action and reaction, like a tide going out and coming in. That is a movement. You can't say this is not movement. It is a movement, coming in and going out. You understand, sir? No, don't have to salute the damn man, I am just showing it to you. Would you consider that movement? And also I am saying, because there is movement there is also non-movement.
1:01:05	JU: My finger... K: Wait– before you jump.
1:01:09	JU: My finger moves. K: Hey, hold.
1:01:13	JU: Not move. My finger is not moved. This place and this place. There, my finger is not moved. This finger is... (in Hindi)
1:01:42	Q: This is bad Buddhism. JU: No, no.
1:01:45	PJ: I think this is based on this concept of kshana – that each second is complete and total in itself. And therefore to connect them is for him a...
1:01:59	K: This is destroying the very brain – keep on repeating this thing. Panditji, all that I am saying is, very simply, life is constant movement and action. That is all. Right? This is a fact.
1:02:27	PJ: If we could explore a little.
1:02:29	AP: (In Hindi)
1:02:32	PJ: But, Achyutji, if we could take a leap. And the leap is, he has said that movement and non-movement can co-exist. I would like to explore that with you.
1:02:51	Sunanda Patwardhan: He also made another statement, because there is movement there is non-movement.
1:02:56	K: Yes, because there is movement there is also non-movement.
1:03:00	AP: That is what Krishnaji says, he doesn't say that.
1:03:02	PJ: No, Krishnaji. Let us take the leap and hear what he has to say.
1:03:09	K: What? Who?
1:03:10	PJ: You, sir. I would like to discuss that.
1:03:13	K: I have said it. Thank God that light is out. Look, there is darkness and light. The tree needs both. Right? A flower needs both, light and darkness. So, life is a movement and also, there is beside this movement, there is non-movement: there is also quietness, stillness, darkness. Darkness in the sense, not metaphorical darkness, but darkness, which is quiet, non-movement. This is happening to us all the time. I think a great deal – not me – one thinks a great deal and also there is no thinking, when it rests.
1:04:23	PJ: But are they simultaneous?
1:04:25	K: No, they are not. PJ: They are not simultaneous.
1:04:28	K: Therefore I say, is it possible both of them move together? Movement and non-movement. Non-movement is death.
1:04:44	JU: Death? PJ: Death.
1:04:48	K: Death.
1:04:51	K: Movement is living, and death is non-movement – together. Panditji, you understand? What is the trouble? What is the problem?
1:05:17	K: Wait a minute, I will explain. PJ: No, I would like to...
1:05:22	K: I am attached to you. And also, if I am free of attachment, I am still with you. We both are together. What is the difficulty? You understand what I am saying? I am attached. If there is no attachment, it doesn't mean I have lack of affection, love. So, freedom from attachment is death, is non-movement. I wonder if you understand. Have you got it? No, wait. If you get it, translate it. I am both living and dying at the same time.
1:06:15	RB: When you bring in attachment, it creates a little...
1:06:18	K: No, cut it out. I am living, moving, thinking, and also...
1:06:24	RB: Everything comes to an end. K: Every day, every moment.
1:06:29	RB: Yes. K: Now, explain that. That is, living, moving and non-moving. That is life.
1:06:38	PJ: But what is the state of that mind?
1:06:40	K: Wait, let her translate this carefully.
1:06:45	RB: I think Achyutji will be able to translate better.
1:06:49	AP: I have not understood.
1:06:53	JU: But I have.
1:06:56	K: What is the difficulty?
1:06:58	RB: My Hindi is inadequate – that is the difficulty.
1:07:02	K: Go on. Put any old words to convey it.
1:07:08	Q: Both in English and Hindi, slowly.
1:07:11	RB: No, in English, Krishnaji has spoken. There is the movement in life of affection of all of living. And at the same time, when everything comes to an end, it doesn't continue in thought, in whatever it is, then there is no movement. Is that what you are saying?
1:07:42	K: What is the difficulty in translating? Sir, I will make it very simple. Every minute I am living and every minute I am dying. That is all. There is dying, living – together.
1:08:07	RB: Krishnaji, is this the same as thought arising but not being recorded?
1:08:15	K: Yes, something like that. But don't give thought – then we go off into what is thought, etc. I am living. Living is a movement.
1:08:29	RB: Yes.
1:08:31	K: The ordinary movement, not super-movement or subconscious, just living is a movement, which is time. And also dying – not at the end of my life, but dying.
1:08:47	RB: Continually.
1:08:49	K: To put it another way: gather, abandon, gather, abandon. If you can translate that.
1:08:59	PJ: He has understood this.
1:09:05	JU: (In Hindi)
1:09:12	K: What is that?
1:09:13	RB: He says – he doesn't want to say. (Discussion in Hindi)
1:09:32	RB: He fully accepts this.
1:09:34	K: Therefore, see what happens. Therefore, see the consequence of it. There is recording and destroying the record. The recording is memory, and abandoning that. This is simple enough.
1:10:00	PJ: How do you say it is simple, sir? I would like to investigate the mind in which this takes place.
1:10:11	K: Wait. The brain is recording, and also, don't record.
1:10:19	PJ: What do you mean by 'don't record'? If you don't give that, if you don't penetrate that, then...
1:10:26	K: I will tell you what I mean.
1:10:31	RB: Are you saying that the brain, being mechanical, records, but no fuel is given to it so to speak, psychologically.
1:10:45	PJ: No, I am asking. The brain records. Is there a simultaneous arising of a perception which destroys?
1:10:57	K: Yes. That is all I am saying. That is all. Keep it simple. Therefore, there is movement and non-movement. Right?
1:11:32	RB: If the perception arises naturally, which destroys the recording, then does everything continue to be recorded? In your brain, for example, does everything continue to be recorded?
1:11:48	K: No, leave the recording for the moment because that complicates the issue. I am living and dying at the same time.
1:12:03	K: That is all. RB: Yes.
1:12:06	K: Keep it simple and then you will get the depth of it. If we kind of record, we will get lost. I live, I move, and also at the same time, non-movement. I don't know if you understand. Suppose I own this house and I am attached to it, and therefore there is no ending to it. But when I see, when there is a perception, the implication of attachment, then that very perception ends attachment. Therefore, it is a dying and living at the same time.
1:13:03	K: I wonder if you understand. RB: Yes. K: That is all. Is that possible? You understand? We say yes, I understand, but is that possible? Panditji? The implications are quite, I mean, there are tremendous implications in this – gathering and letting go. It is not gathering and holding and then letting it go.
1:13:59	K: I wonder if you understand. RB: Yes.
1:14:03	AP: Gathering, holding...
1:14:05	K: Not holding.
1:14:10	RB: Not gathering, holding, letting go,
1:14:12	RB: but gathering, letting go. AP: That is what I am saying.
1:14:15	K: You see the beauty of this? RB: Yes.
1:14:18	K: I wonder if you see it.
1:14:22	AP: Gathering, no holding, letting go.
1:14:29	K: No, we are friends, don't salute me. Is this possible in life? Are we talking theoretically or actually?
1:14:46	JU: Theoretically. RB: He says theoretically.
1:14:50	K: Ah! Then there is no point to it.
1:14:58	JU: This is truth, my truth.
1:15:01	K: Sir, I mean, the holding is the problem, not gathering and letting go – holding. Then I have to renounce, then I have to do something about it, but when there is gathering and letting go, it is like a tide coming in, tide going out. Time is the holding.
1:15:41	JU: But time...
1:15:43	AP: Take it in, sir.
1:15:45	K: Time is the holding. Right?
1:15:58	RB: Yes, time is holding.
1:16:00	JU: No.
1:16:03	K: Wait, sir. I may be wrong, Panditji may be right. Let's find out. When there is gathering and letting go, there is no interval, it is constant movement. You follow? But the holding separates the two. Have I explained, sir? Holding. The holding is the me. The holding, that which has been held, is the ego, the me, the person, which is time. Self is the time and the holding is the self.
1:17:01	JU: (In Hindi)
1:17:10	K: Do you see what I mean? RB: Yes.
1:17:21	K: Sir, it is like a drum – drum, mrudangam – it is so tuned, any note can be struck on it. When the brain is so empty but tuned...
1:17:42	JU: Wholeness.
1:17:44	K: I am going off to something else, I mustn't. What are you talking about? (Discussion in Hindi)
1:18:07	PJ: We will have another discussion.
1:18:10	K: Yes, but I want this to be clear. I am getting to something.
1:18:44	PJ: He wants to get to something.
1:18:49	K: No. What was he saying?
1:18:51	PJ: It is just of the drum, it is an image.
1:18:58	K: Do we see – please don't accept anything I am saying – but the holding, which is memory, etc., the holding is the nature of the self. But when there is this constant movement, there is no self. After all, the self is the holding of memory, knowledge, experience – all that is the nature and the structure of the self. From moment to... etc., but if there is no receptacle – receptacle, vessel.
1:20:14	AP: Container. (Discussion in Hindi)
1:21:21	AP: Again, he is coming back.
1:21:23	RB: Krishnaji is saying holding is the self.
1:21:28	AP: No, he is again, you know, it is twisting again. He says that existence means holding.
1:21:37	RB: Self is existence, it is the same thing. What exists is the self.
1:21:44	AP: Why do you say that? I don't agree.
1:21:46	K: Look, tides goes out, tide comes in. There is lumber on the river, in the sea. What remains on the shore is the self. But the water is moving all the time.
1:22:00	K: You understand? RB: Yes. If nothing remains, there is no self.
1:22:12	K: Look, the other day in California there was a tremendous, terrible rainstorm. It left on the shore all timber, every kind of debris. That is the self.
1:22:35	K: But when there is nothing – you follow? RB: Yes.
1:22:41	K: Explain to him about California. RB: I can't.
1:22:44	AP: Please, please. RB: Tide and all that. (Discussion in Hindi)
1:23:20	K: Of course, sir. You have agreed earlier. Don't let that...
1:23:29	AP: In between, he was trying to say that the nature of existence is holding, and existence and holding are similar words. I said I won't accept that.
1:23:42	Q: He is conveying the same feeling by using the word existence. I may be wrong.
1:23:49	AP: You see, he is trying to equate existence with holding. I am saying no. Then he says that is a vedantic position. I am saying let us stick to the facts. The facts are what you said, that there is a storm, that storm brings in a lot of debris, and the storm abates, the debris remain. The debris is the self.
1:24:16	K: That is all I am saying.
1:24:20	PJ: In other words, it is a residue.
1:24:22	AP: It is a residue. That is right. That is the word.
1:24:31	PJ: What he said of creation and simultaneous ending – there is no debris.
1:24:41	RB: But when there is an interval. PJ: Then the debris comes into it.
1:24:52	RB: And if there is no tide, if it is all going in or coming out, then also it is...
1:25:03	JU: (In Hindi)
1:25:10	K: The tide going in and tide coming out, water going out, water coming in, in that there is no time, but the holding is time.
1:25:19	PJ: That is nature. The tide coming in and the tide going out is nature.
1:25:26	AP: That is existence.
1:25:28	K: Right, sir? He doesn't admit that.
1:25:33	PJ: I think you should stop, sir.
1:25:35	K: I am just saying, nature doesn't think about time. It has no time – it grows, it dies, it is just... life is that. But we have invented time: Arising, setting. Baby, adolescent, reaching a peak and declining. All that is time. But the tide going out, tide coming in, it is like the tree growing, they are not thinking of time, it just grows and dies. But we have invented time. That is, I am a baby and I become a man and achieve this, and die. So time, would you say, time is becoming.
1:26:56	PJ: You must accept it.
1:27:00	K: Don't go back to Buddhism.
1:27:03	AP: No, I am using Sanskrit words.
1:27:05	K: I am an ordinary person. I am not learned. I see, I've been a baby, and I see maturity, all the rest of the problems in maturity, and so on, and I am going to die. This is natural. But when I say, well, I must become that, I must get enlightened, I must become the guru or I must become the prime minister – that is the process of time. I don't know if you see. Am I cuckoo?
1:27:38	Q: No, sir. This is perfect.
1:27:42	PJ: You must stop.
1:27:44	K: Wait a minute. Just a minute.
1:27:51	RB: And all knowledge is holding.
1:27:53	K: Of course it is. Therefore, see what happens to the brain. That is what I am asking. It is all the time fresh. And therefore it never grows old. You understand? Never degenerates. I don't know if Panditji understands. Explain that a little.
1:28:24	PJ: (In Hindi) Because it is always being born and being destroyed, the brain never grows old. It never grows old. It is always being created.
1:28:53	K: What makes the brain old is the holding. The holding is the wastage of energy. I can go on talking about it.
1:29:11	PJ: No, but you must stop. Even this thing has said that you must stop talking.
1:29:20	K: You mean to say we have taken all that time to come to this little silly thing?