Krishnamurti Subtitles home


MA84DSG1.2 - Understanding death
Madras (Chennai), India - 4 January 1984
Discussion with Small Group 1.2



0:17 Krishnamurti: What shall we discuss?
0:22 Pupul Jayakar: I think we will leave it to George to start the discussion.
0:29 Achyut Patwardhan: Let George start.
0:32 K: Who is George?

PJ: He is Dr Sudarshan.
0:35 K: Oh, I thought you were an Englishman.
0:38 George Sudarshan: They don't take me very seriously.
0:40 K: No, I thought, who is George, whether he is English or American. Go ahead, sir.
0:52 GS: Pupulji mentioned about discussions yesterday.
0:57 AP: Day before.
0:59 GS: In which the question was raised about the functioning of different kinds of time. That, is there a time which comes into operation, or which functions even when becoming ceases to be. That when cause and effect have ceased, a person's normal process of causation and memory and expectation and anticipation and all the background accumulated over one's lifetime or even before that, have been given up, have dropped off – is there still a kind of time in which the events are unfolded?
1:46 K: Is that what you want?
1:52 PJ: Krishnaji spoke also of an arising, and a perception which simultaneously negates that arising, a simultaneity of the arising and the negating, and what is the element of time in relationship to that. In essence, Krishnaji, what is the now? What is the now?
2:22 K: Sir, the other day we were discussing about time. There is the past, present and future. The present which is the past, is the future. So, the past, the present and the future are a movement which is time. And in the now, in the present, the past, the future, and the present – the past and the future are now.
3:01 GS: Yes.
3:03 K: We reached that point. And also we said time is not only becoming – anticipation, hope, etc. – but also time is the holding, the sense of possession, sense of accumulated knowledge and living with that knowledge is time also. And is there any other time – time, movement. We said also there is the movement of thought which is a material process, and thought is also a movement. So, time, thought are similar. Right? Now, you are asking a question: is there a non-movement when one has stepped out of this psychological time? There is physical time, naturally – from here to there, etc. Is there a movement which is totally different from the movement of time and thought? Is that the question?
5:00 PJ: If I may put it, can movement and non-movement exist simultaneously?
5:14 K: This is all theoretical, for the moment. But either we are discussing all this theoretically, speculating, or seeing what actually takes place when time as knowledge ceases and the brain doesn't function on the old residue which is knowledge. I don't know if you follow, it is fairly simple.
6:01 GS: You want to talk about the brain ceasing to function or the mind ceasing to function?
6:06 K: No, I would like to separate, if you don't mind, the brain and the mind. The brain is conditioned – education, class. All these are simple. The mind is outside the brain. I know this may be contrary to all the scientists.
6:29 GS: No, no.
6:32 K: But mind, for me is something totally unrelated to the conditioning of the brain and therefore it is something which is not measurable by words or by thought and so on – it is not measurable. Whereas the brain activity and the wastage of the brain activity is measurable. And measure is time. Now, we function from the accumulated knowledge. The accumulated knowledge is me, myself, my ego, my self-centred activity. Right? Now, is it possible not to be self-centred? That is the first question. To be free of the self entirely. Right, sir? I don't know if I am making my point clear. Panditji, do we understand each other?
7:59 AP: (In Hindi)
8:03 Jagannath Upadhyay: (In Hindi)
8:14 K: As long as the self is there, there is time. Right? The self is the product of time – evolution, the me, all the activity of the self-centred brain: my position, my power, etc. – the me. As long as that me, which is the accumulated knowledge and memory, experience and so on, there is the limitation of time. That is all I am saying. Right? I am very clear about it, up to that point.
9:06 JU: (In Hindi)
9:11 K: Do you speak Hindi?

GS: Just understand a little bit.
10:47 Radha Burnier: He says that one may speak of time in whatever way one likes – time as thought, time as movement, etc. There is the time coming into existence and time ceasing to be, which is a process of becoming, that which comes to be, and that which comes not to be, that is the process of becoming in which we are living. But behind it, is there some mind in which there is not this arising and end but some mind which is different from that? If it is so, then it is outside us.
11:48 AP: We are related to it, we can't operate it.
11:50 RB: We can't do something to it.

K: No.
11:53 RB: We can't even...

K: Conceive of it, act upon it.
11:58 RB: Exactly.

K: Long for it.
12:00 RB: Investigate it.

K: No, you can't. Sir, don't accept, we are discussing, answering questions. I am not laying down magically, or speculatively saying something. As long as the self, the me – arising, dying, arising, ending, and again arising, this constant process of becoming, inwardly, and that becoming is time. We have discussed that.
12:44 JU: Not only becoming, but being.
12:48 RB: Being. That is self.
12:51 K: Yes, that is the self.
12:53 RB: Yes, being is self.
12:56 PJ: Being is self?
13:01 K: I will stick to it. There is no being.
13:04 PJ: That is what I wanted to enquire.
13:07 RB: No, when he says being, he means, I am. There is the becoming, but there is also the sense of I am.
13:19 K: Of course.

RB: That is all the same thing.
13:21 K: Same thing. Being. He says they are two, quite. (Discussion In Hindi)
14:13 AP: He wants to ask that after we see this process of rising, becoming, thought arising, thought going, and this stops.
14:26 AP: When this stops...

K: How do you know it stops?
14:29 AP: No, for the time being, like the traffic light, it stops. It does stop for a certain while. Like the traffic lights will stop all traffic, like that. When it stops, he says, is there any such thing as 'I am'?
14:46 RB: As being.

K: No.
14:53 RB: To put it simply, when becoming comes to an end, is there a being?
14:58 K: Yes, of course. Being – what do you mean being? Who? What?
15:04 AP: Sense of I.

PJ: No, may not be a sense of I.
15:10 K: Wait, what do you mean by being?
15:13 PJ: Existing.
15:15 K: What exists? What is existing?
15:18 PJ: The sense that there is a living, an existing.
15:24 K: The moment you acknowledge you are living, then the ego is in operation.
15:29 PJ: No, Krishnaji, I won't accept that. When becoming ends – to most of us it is possible for a thought to end, which is becoming. The what rests when thought ends, is not a dead state.
15:57 K: What?

PJ: Is not a dead state.
15:59 GS: It is not a dead state.

K: Oh no, of course not.
16:02 PJ: So, there is a state of life which is existing.
16:12 K: No.
16:14 GS: Could I mediate between you two? It seems to me that – even though there is only a slight difference – when you talk about being, is it a statement about a condition of functioning, or are we talking about an object? If you say a being, by definition it is an object.
16:32 PJ: No, I am not talking about an object.
16:34 GS: Right. So, when you talk about living or being, to the extent that there is no separation of a knowing person from the rest of the world, to the extent that there is vyapti, complete identification with all that takes place without claiming anything for yourself – there is no separation between you and anything else. That state of being is different from that of all beings.
17:05 PJ: If I may put it very simply – if I am watching outside, when I am listening to you talk, there is being. Why do you deny there is being?
17:16 K: I don't know what you mean by being. This is what puzzles me.
17:21 PJ: a being means something is. If you say there is nothing...
17:31 K: Panditji, perhaps you may put it differently.
17:38 K: No, I am not saying.

RB: He is asking.
17:40 Q: Oh, I am sorry.
17:42 JU: (In Hindi)
18:11 AP: Ask him if he is saying this.
18:14 RB: He says there is no difference between being and becoming.
18:18 RB: When becoming ends, being ends.

K: Yes. (Discussion In Hindi)
19:54 RB: He is saying again that becoming and being are the same. When there is becoming and being, there is self with all its retinue of activities, etc., and when it ends, then the self also ends. But when there is the end of all this, of thought, etc., then is there something or is there nothing? Is there something which sustains, in which everything is sustained?
20:34 PJ: If I may ask, what is the distinction you draw between becoming and being?
20:40 RB: He doesn't. He says it is the same.
20:42 PJ: Then why are they two words?
20:46 K: What?

PJ: Why are they two words?
20:48 K: I don't know why you have introduced being.
20:52 PJ: But there is such a being.

K: I question it.
20:56 RB: In Sanskrit there are not two words. Bhava means both being and becoming.
21:03 K: You are stumped by having quoted Sanskrit.
21:08 AP: This is the offshoot of a discussion which I had with Panditji which becomes very relevant. Panditji was saying that pragnya, that is, what you call intelligence, I said it is unrelated to intellect. Only when the intellect recognises that it is finite and it is limited, it ceases. In that emptiness alone intelligence can be born. So there has to be a total break between intellect and intelligence. This is what I was saying. That word intelligence is translated as pragnya, which is a very special Buddhist word because that is also compassion. Now, he seems not to agree.
22:07 K: Not to agree.
22:09 AP: And he seems to say that there is some kind of a relationship between the X and the Y.
22:17 K: What is the X and the Y?
22:19 AP: X is the intellect, Y is intelligence.
22:22 PJ: We have not yet got to that.

K: You are introducing a new factor.
22:26 AP: I am not. I am saying, this discussion, this particular discussion of being and becoming and if there is anything left – I said that unless there is a negation, there cannot be a positive.
22:42 PJ: But I would like to go into it more. Becoming is differentiation. Is a state of differentiation.
22:53 GS: Differentiation.

K: I understand.
22:59 PJ: Being is a state of non-differentiation, I am saying.
23:05 K: You stick to that and I stick to this.
23:09 GS: Then there is differentiation.
23:11 K: No, that is what I was going to say. Could we have a dialogue about it? Not, I stick to mine and you stick to yours.
23:21 PJ: I would like to explore it.
23:24 K: Why do you differentiate being and becoming?
23:28 PJ: Because there is a state from which things arise and into which things disappear.
23:37 K: Which is the self.
23:39 PJ: But the self may not be manifest as that. It may not be the sense of 'I am' directly. As I said, as you look out through the window and you listen, what is that state?
23:58 K: I don't quite follow.
24:00 PJ: A state of attention – I will use different terminology – a state of awareness or attention, what is that?
24:11 K: In attention, there is no self.
24:17 PJ: There is no self. Then what is it?
24:20 K: What?

PJ: What is it?
24:24 GS: She wants to know what is it?
24:26 K: What it, what do you mean it?
24:30 GS: What gives attention?
24:33 PJ: What is the nature of attention?
24:35 K: Ah, that is a different question. No, that is a different question.
24:39 RB: Are you asking what is the nature of attention.
24:45 PJ: The ground of attention.
24:46 RB: Yes, ground, a substratum from which attention...
24:49 PJ: What is the ground of attention?
24:51 K: Attention has no background.
24:53 GS: Right, I agree.
24:56 K: The great man agrees.
25:08 GS: There are two kinds of functioning in physical universe. That is, in the discussion of physics. One is the kind of functioning which is labelled by discrete events in which you have a chronology, you have a sequence of things, and then you construct laws connecting the events. And so you say: the wind is shaking the branches, the wind is caused by difference in temperature, and you find one event causing another event which is causing another event and you feel very pleased that you are able to understand a number of things. But then there is another kind of functioning in which you do not differentiate. For example, an object which is moving freely, and it was a great discovery of physics when people decided that free motion does not require an explanation. You don't say why is it continually moving? You simply attribute it to the nature of things, to say that that is the nature of objects – to move. And one can enlarge, generalize the scope of the things so that most systems function in a sense without history. Most pure developments of a system, of an isolated system – isolated in the sense that there is no other – a complete system has no history, has no events in it. When does history, when do events come? Events come when you are putting a system which is functioning by itself within the matrix of something else. And then you say, something which is moving in a curved fashion is really not natural because we like to think it moves straight. So we ask the question, why is it moving straight? Why is it not moving straight? So, the first kind, the chronological kind of unfolding takes place when you have an incomplete system, incomplete in the sense that there are ideals for the behaviour of the system which are not external to the system. And when you measure the actual performance of the system against these ideals, then you talk about events taking place and chronology. But when a system is complete within itself, it is not featureless but its functioning has no chronology, there are no events within the system. Unfortunately we are so used to the idea of chronology that the natural evolution always is a very puzzling thing – an evolution in which there are no happenings. So, whenever there is the motion which contains things taking place but in which you cannot put definite causes and effects, we feel very concerned, we feel very anxious, we feel that we do not have a full understanding. We want to break it up, discretize and function the thing. Perhaps these two possible kinds of unfolding may be useful with regard to, as models for the discussion, that there is one kind of time in physical time, in which events take place, in which second law of thermodynamics, entropy, recording, memory, anticipation, causes, effects, all these things take place. Another one in which you cannot say what is the cause and what is the effect because there is no breaking up of the events with regard to that.
28:43 K: When does that take place?
28:45 GS: When the system has no ideal to compare itself with.
28:48 K: Which means what?
28:50 GS: We refer to it as a closed system, what we mean is really a complete system.
28:53 K: Would you say in all systems, whether bureaucratic scientific, religious systems, in all systems there is inherent decay, entropy.
29:08 GS: Yes.
29:11 K: Right?

GS: Yes.
29:12 K: So, as long as the brain is collecting, it forms a system. As long as the brain in collecting, it becomes a system.
29:27 GS: Right. Quite right.
29:30 K: So the collection which becomes a system, inherently is a decaying process, degenerating process. How is it you and I are agreeing?
29:48 GS: I must be growing older, wiser.
29:51 K: You must be growing older, or both of us are decaying.
29:58 GS: No, probably we are finding not much difference, separation.
30:03 K: Verbally.
30:06 GS: But Krishnaji, I am concerned about your attention to the brain – let us disagree slightly – because the brain also is part of the physical system, and I don't have to pay that much more attention to my brain than I do to the trees or to the birds. Sometimes I use them but then sometimes I use the tree also. So, as long as I do not feel so attached to what happens in my brain, what happens in my mind – I don't like mind – what happens in the brain, thought waves, and the functioning of the various interconnections and so on, I really should not be too concerned about the fact that the brain is doing this one any more than I am worried about the banana becoming...
30:49 K: Agreed, but as long as my brain is conditioned as, whatever it is, this brain becomes very limited. It has an infinite capacity. And that capacity is being denied by its own limitation. You are a scientist and I am not. You have accumulated tremendous knowledge, and have occasional insight into something, you will keep moving, adding, moving, adding. This addition is the factor of conditioning, obviously. And therefore the brain becomes limited and that addition is the self. We are moving into different terminology. And therefore as long as the self is there, the self is a system, and therefore the self is a factor of deterioration.
32:15 GS: This is what we call the self with the little 's', rather than with the big 'S'.
32:20 K: The self is self, not bigger self.
32:24 GS: No, because the same word is used in two different contexts.
32:27 K: No, I am using only one small 's'. And for me, there is no big 'S'.
32:37 RB: Going back to what Pupulji said, you said that attention has no background. But ordinary people like us...
32:47 K: We are all ordinary.
32:50 RB: We have moments of attention, and attention ends and the self comes back. From where does it come back?
33:08 K: Then it is not attention if it comes back, as long as there is a background, and you say, 'I am attentive'.
33:25 RB: But that means attention is synonymous with liberation.
33:31 K: I don't know what you mean by liberation.
33:33 RB: Liberation from self.
33:38 K: You see, this becomes too complex.
33:41 PJ: If you make a statement that if the self comes back, then the attention is not attention, then we have not even taken the first step. If you make that statement: that if the self comes back then it is not attention, she says, we have not even taken the first step.
34:17 K: Maybe, I don't know.
34:18 PJ: No, I am just saying. The problem with Krishnaji, and I think it is a basic problem, is that he does not accept. He will say it is a gradual process. I am not talking of it in terms of time or a gradual process. There is attention in which the becoming ceases.
34:50 K: Pupulji, let's find out what we mean by attention.
34:56 PJ: Attention means a state of...
34:58 K: No. What does it mean, Pupul? Let's have a dialogue about it. I won't state it is or it is not. What is attention – to attend? Panditji, what would you say, what is attention? (Discussion In Hindi)
36:53 PJ: Attention or perception. (Discussion In Hindi)
37:06 AP: No, I am just clearing a misunderstanding.
37:11 K: Here is a scientist – what is attention to you? Be simple to me.
37:18 GS: Well, I would say attention is when there is no separation, there is no identification of anything else, including perception of any entity. Attention is one in which there are no anticipations and there are no memories.
37:33 K: Which means what? No background.
37:35 GS: No background. We are in agreement for once. Now, I believe – not I believe – I feel that that is the simplest statement: In attention there is no background because background assumes a matrix, an ideal. There is no comparison. Attention is one without the second.
37:59 PJ: There is no disagreement on that. The question, Krishnaji, is, if the self rises ten minutes later...
38:10 K: No, I won't call it self. You see, you are using the word 'self' all the time. I attend, and I don't attend. In that attention there is no background. (Discussion In Hindi)
39:21 PJ: He says attention and inattention are one, are the same thing. They are taking place on the same ground.
39:34 GS: This is the opposite of the position that Krishnaji has elucidated.
39:40 AP: That is precisely what I thought.
39:47 K: I would like to discuss, wait a minute. We were discussing time. Love has no time. Love is not remembrance. Love is not the activity of desire or pleasure. So, activity of desire and pleasure involves time. Love has no time and therefore death has no time.
40:51 PJ: Sir, you give mighty leaps.
40:56 K: What?
40:57 RB: Mighty leaps, she says.
41:01 K: Well, I don't know, is it a leap? Panditji, have you understood what I said?
41:09 JU: (In Hindi)
41:20 RB: The Brahmastra is said to be...

K: Who?
41:24 RB: There is supposed to be a weapon which annihilates everything. So he says you are using that.
41:34 AP: Yes, he says you speak from a pinnacle which is totally unapproachable to us. Not even unreachable but unapproachable, therefore, we are silenced.
41:46 K: I question your statement.

AP: I am translating.
41:50 K: No, sir! It is approachable. I don't put something on a pinnacle and then say it is unapproachable.
41:58 AP: I am just translating. I want to understand.
42:02 K: You put something on a pinnacle and then you say it is unapproachable.
42:12 JU: (In Hindi)
42:19 RB: He is asking if love has an arising and an ending.
42:25 K: No. If it is an arising and an ending, it is time.
42:31 JU: (In Hindi)
42:39 PJ: We cannot discuss it. It is beyond discussion.
42:43 K: No!
42:45 PJ: If it neither arises nor...
42:49 K: No! What is a dialogue? A dialogue is, he questions and I answer. I answer, to that answer he questions and answers, and I receive that answer, I answer it. So, he and I are forgotten, we don't exist. Only the question remains. And if you leave the question alone, it flowers, it has vitality.
43:29 JU: (In Hindi)
43:36 K: What's that? (Discussion In Hindi)
44:06 K: What?
44:07 PJ: I am saying, this is a question of listening, not answering.
44:16 K: Sir, in your own scientific field, two scientists are discussing. They have really forgotten Mr George and Mr X. And the question remains. When the question remains untouched by both, it has movement, vitality, it produces an answer.
44:42 K: Agree?

GS: Yes.
44:43 K: My God, what is the matter with you all!
44:46 GS: But Krishnaji, I believe there is...
44:48 K: Has he understood it now?

AP: No sir, he says, that the moment you bring in a factor which I don't touch...
45:00 K: I am not bringing in any factor.
45:02 RB: He is not saying that, Achyutji. He says, he accepts what you said. There is a question and answer flow. But he says, what has this to do with love?
45:17 PJ: That is the question.

RB: That is what he is saying.
45:20 K: What has to do with life?

RB: Love.
45:24 K: Ah, all right. It has to do with love. I make a statement – it doesn't matter who makes the statement – that love has no time. Where love is, time is not. Now just a minute. You listen, you question it, and I reply. So, there is a communication both verbal and non-verbal. So the question remains, the fact remains. If you let it alone, it begins to move.
46:11 PJ: May I say something?

K: Yes.
46:16 PJ: You said love has no time.
46:19 K: Sir, see the beauty of it, don't crush it!
46:23 PJ: Sir, listen. It is a final question.
46:32 K: Maybe, may not be.
46:34 PJ: No, I am saying it, after listening, that no response arises to it.

K: What?
46:40 PJ: No response, as another question, in the field of questioning, arises out of it.
46:46 K: No, Pupul, there is a response.
46:51 PJ: No question arises out of it.
46:55 PJ: You see, there is a question.

K: Then you remain with that.
46:59 PJ: That is what I am saying. He is thinking of it as a question arising out of it.
47:08 K: No. Pupul, you take a lotus flower and look at it! Tell Panditji I am rather emphatic. Sorry. Tell me if I have communicated it. (Discussion In Hindi)
47:54 K: And also he said, death has no time.
48:05 GS: Krishnaji, out of kindness for us, could we make these leaps a little shorter? Because already Panditji is saying that he is finding it difficult how to respond to your statement which he completely agrees, identifies with. How to relate that particular statement to the questions that he had before.
48:25 K: Which was what?
48:26 GS: Which was the question of being, becoming.
48:29 K: Which is involved in this.

GS: Right. So, it seems to me, before you go to death, let us talk about love, and the relation to the question. You had previously said that when there is a dialogue between two or many people and the purpose is actually the dialogue, the persons cease and the question remains and it moves around, it speaks through various people and its own vitality functions. I think what Panditji is asking is, that when it is a situation in which he does not know how to respond to the thing, not because he disagrees, not that it is a Brahmastra...
49:24 K: What is it?

GS: Brahmastra.
49:26 K: No, don't introduce that.

GS: Okay.

K: Just ordinary words.
49:30 GS: The ultimate weapon which destroys everything including the launching pad. If you have such a situation, how is he to respond to your earlier suggestion that dialogue has a vitality of its own?
49:44 K: Surely, you have understood what I have said?
49:48 GS: Yes, but I think...

K: You explain.
49:53 GS: I think what Krishnaji is saying is that, first of all, the purpose of the dialogue is not for a person to ask question, the other person to answer, but for the question and answer which come around in a sense to move by itself between people. So, it is not one person giving of his information to another person, but it is a case of the question itself answering itself using people's voices as instruments. But we have always the feeling that somehow or other it must be in terms of a catechism, a question and answer, which can be stated down. But what Krishnaji is saying is that if there is a time when the questions cease, that too is a very valuable time, that too is in fact very natural. In a sense what it shows is an image, it is an echo of what he was talking about earlier, namely, is there a being at this point, or is there a becoming, or is there something which is other than this one? Looked at from one point, there is a being, looked at from another point, when all questions cease, then who is there to ask any question, who is there to understand? That holding the question or holding the answer if there is no question is itself in a sense a dialogue, it is a meditation in which no words are spoken because yato vacho nivartante. So, there is really no need to ask any more questions at that particular point.
51:23 GS: Have I...?

K: Yes, sir.
51:30 K: Sir, let's talk about death. What to you, according to the Buddhists, is death?
51:49 JU: (In Hindi)
52:12 RB: He says when life comes to an end, it is death.
52:16 JU: (In Hindi)
52:22 AP: By the same process of causality which creates life,
52:29 AP: that same process...

RB: brings an end.
52:34 K: What is this?
52:35 RB: By whatever process life came into being, by that same process it comes to an end and that is death.
52:45 PJ: That is causation.
52:48 RB: Kaaran he said.

AP: Kaaran is causation.
52:51 RB: By whatever cause.
52:53 K: No. I exist, because my father and my mother met, and I am born. I live 89 years, or 100 years. At the end of 100 years, I pop off, I die. There is a causation and the end of causation.
53:23 K: Right?

RB: Yes.
53:25 K: Is that what you call death?
53:30 JU: (In Hindi)
54:23 RB: He says that this causation is not at the level of things, that is, at the biological level, at the material level – I wouldn't use the word material – but it is at the memory level, at the thought level. He says in that moment which is past and future and the present...
54:54 K: If you say past, present and future are contained now, that now is death.
55:02 RB: That is what he is saying.
55:05 K: Wait.

RB: He said that.
55:08 K: Oh, too bad.
55:14 GS: You too feel that there should be something to disagree.
55:23 K: Is that what you call death?
55:26 RB: That is according to Buddhist...
55:29 K: What? Becoming and dying, becoming and dying, is that death?
55:38 JU: Yes.
55:41 K: That is a logical intellectual concept. That doesn't interest me. I am dying!
55:49 JU: Then what? You die, I die, all this dies.
55:55 RB: He says the body dying is not death.
55:57 JU: No. Complete. I die. (In Hindi)
56:42 RB: He says that every moment there is an ending, each moment is separate. If he at this moment is where he was when this dialogue began, then he would be in the past but he is not in the past because every moment comes to an end. So there is a death all the time.
57:10 K: That sounds lovely – theoretical. But I have a son who is dying. And I shed tears. I am in sorrow, I am in despair, I am lonely, depressed. You come along and say, causation and ending. That sounds lovely. But I am in pain. What are you going to do about it? No good your coming and philosophising to me.
57:49 RB: No sir, but you said...
57:52 K: No, I want to discuss what is death.

RB: Yes.
57:56 RB: But surely you are not wanting to discuss what is physical death?
58:00 K: Partly. Why not that?
58:09 RB: Not what is physical death, but our response to that.
58:13 K: Physical death, psychological death – death. Don't separate the two and say... (Discussion in Hindi)
59:43 RB: He says that whatever comes into being ends from moment to moment.

K: Darling, I have heard all this.
59:50 RB: Yes. But what connects them together is memory.
59:53 K: All right. I come to you and you explain that to me. I say, go to hell.
1:00:00 RB: Yes. (Discussion in Hindi)
1:01:42 PJ: None of the Buddhist teachings have dealt with death except as this rising and ending.
1:01:53 K: Ah, Pupulji... I was with a man, some years ago. He was dying. He sent for me. His wife came to see me in tears, and all the rest of it. She said, please come and see him because he is asking for you. I went to him, sat next to him and held his hand. And he said, I am dying. Don't preach to me all your philosophy. I am dying, and I don't want to die. I have lived a fairly good life, fairly moral life, I have got my family, my memories, all the things which I have accumulated, and I don't want to die. And I am dying. What is your answer to that? Don't tell me beginning, arising and all that. Cut that out! (Discussion in Hindi)
1:03:35 AP: He says, this is the assertion of the self.

K: Which?
1:03:40 AP: His saying that I don't want to die.
1:03:42 K: But human beings are that way, what are you all playing at!
1:03:47 Q: Krishnaji, the answer is, he has to die.
1:03:54 K: What?
1:03:56 RB: He says, the answer is, he has to die.
1:03:59 K: Oh God! Is that what you do with your son, with your wife, with your husband? He has to die? Of course he has to die. He has got cancer, he has got tuberculosis, whatever it is, tremendous disease, he is dying. Quite young, and he says, my God, help me to understand this blasted thing! Right, sir?
1:04:44 JU: (In Hindi)
1:05:38 RB: He says death is part of life.
1:05:40 K: Oh, come off it. Stuff it, as they say in England.
1:05:53 PJ: Panditji, then you would say that there is no ending to sorrow.
1:06:00 JU: No.

PJ: Would you say that?
1:06:03 AP: To this sorrow, there is no end.
1:06:06 PJ: That there is no ending to sorrow.
1:06:10 JU: (In Hindi)
1:06:13 RB: He says unless the cause of sorrow is eliminated, it can't end.
1:06:18 K: He hasn't eliminated it. You have to deal with this man who is dying. Right? Nobody held his hand! His wife didn't hold his hand. Somebody comes along like me and says, I will hold your hand and he had some feeling that there was life, love. I didn't talk to him about life beginning, life ending, life is this and that, the other blasted things – he says I am dying, help me. (Discussion in Hindi)
1:09:45 GS: There seems to be a little problem of defining the question. Is the question how you deal with that person?
1:09:55 K: No, how you deal with death.
1:09:57 GS: What I am saying is, in the process there are two things that I can think of. One is, my feeling that my friend is dying, and that he is afraid and he is unhappy and he is unwilling to die. The other question is, what can I do to him to give him help at this particular point. So which of the two aspects are we discussing?
1:10:21 K: Both.
1:10:31 K: I am going to die. I am 89 – I will be in May. I have probably another ten years, I am pretty well and then probably pop off, I am not frightened. I don't want anybody's help. Right? I see that is part of life, I can play all this philosophy. To me, I have lived with death and life together all the time, all my life. Because I don't own anything, I don't possess anything – inwardly, I don't care. Not that I have had a jolly good life. Not that I have had marvellous success. I am not interested in all that. I am dying and living at the same time. There is no separation, for me. I may be cuckoo, I may be idiotic, I may be living in illusion – take it as it is. But my friend, my wife, my son, is dying. He is married, his wife is crying, and nobody has loved him, and he has loved nobody. Both wife and the husband are self-centred, concerned about their beastly little self. And the wife comes and sees me and says, please, come. I go. What does he want? Not your philosophy. Not the beginning and ending and Buddha said this. I say, please! I could have trotted all this out easily. What he wanted was, somebody to love him. Somebody who says, look, we are together in this, old boy. You die, I am dying too. You are lonely, I know what it means. When death comes you are utterly lonely, separated from everything, and that is dreadful fear. And you come and say, beginning, ending. I say for God's sake.
1:13:24 JU: (In Hindi)
1:13:32 RB: He says, if I love, can I give it to him? Is it something which can be given?
1:13:38 K: No, he is with me, not given. It is not something I give. (Discussion in Hindi)
1:15:36 K: Sir, I am not interested in your philosophy. I am not interested in what the Buddha said. I am not interested in what people are saying. I am dying. Don't tell me beginning, rising, ending, etc. I am not interested in that. (Discussion in Hindi)
1:16:15 K: And you come with a lot of words, and those words are like ashes to me, including the Buddha's words. And in my life I have loved nobody and nobody loved me. I have slept with them and I have given them money, I have exploited them, but nobody loved me, and I have loved nobody. And I am dying. And I say, my God, what is my life! I am a great scientist or a great politician, dirty. Don't talk to me about all this. And you come with nothing to me. And so I say, my friend, I hold his hand, when you die, a part of me is also dying. I wonder if you understand all this.
1:17:24 AP: He understands.
1:17:31 K: I have never met you, I have never seen you in my life before. But your wife came to see me and she asked me to come and see you. So, we both are going to die together – I know what it means to die. And I mean it! I mean, I have lived my life dying and living together, never separate. Each day I die. And I say to my friend, let's die, I understand. Then death is not fear. (Discussion in Hindi)
1:19:03 K: Sir, this man had a statue of some beastly little god to whom he had been doing puja every day. When he was dying he didn't care a damn about that. You understand, sir?
1:19:28 JU: (In Hindi)
1:20:31 AP: Sir, the whole position comes to this, that he says that all that you are saying can be framed in causation.
1:20:46 K: I am not interested in causation. I am good at explaining everything.
1:20:54 GS: Krishnaji, you are willing to hold the hand of a man who is dying, whom you had never seen before. Why don't you hold our hand now? We have a problem.
1:21:03 K: You refuse to hold my hand!
1:21:05 GS: I will hold your hand.
1:21:07 K: Ah, but you are not. Sir, when you are dying you wouldn't say this to me.
1:21:13 GS: Well, I don't know.
1:21:16 K: You will be in Austin...
1:21:18 GS: I will come.
1:21:19 K: And I will be in Rishi valley, the filthy little Madanapalle.
1:21:24 GS: But, Krishnaji, we have a problem. We are not physically dying at the moment, but we do have a problem. Many of us are brought up on causation.
1:21:34 AP to

JU: (In Hindi)
1:21:40 GS: We are brought up in causation. So even in the case of the structureless function, the total attention, even in the structureless function, even in the moment of total attention, we are always asking the question, but how is it that if we are in total attention now, at another time we are out of total attention?
1:22:08 K: Be out of it. Who cares?
1:22:11 GS: You do not care, but we care. Because in some sense, even when we think we are approaching attention, we are still wondering, my God, even this shall come to an end – even this. So we are afraid of death all the moment.
1:22:24 K: That is what I am asking – dying each moment. Don't play with words. You are a scientist, you have accumulated knowledge, you have a position – all right, die to it. But you won't!
1:22:43 GS: You would be surprised what I could do.
1:22:45 K: Ah, I am not interested – die, be humble. Humility, sir.
1:22:53 GS: It is possible to deal with all those things.
1:22:56 K: Not possible, do it!
1:23:00 GS: But still, without any position, without any functioning, without anything, there is still the temptation. I am speaking, I think, for Panditji also. There is still the vasana, the manner in which one is brought up, one has dedicated one's life to ask how, why, when.
1:23:21 K: That has no meaning when you are meeting the end, when you are meeting something which is tremendously a crisis, you are not asking how, when, why.
1:23:30 GS: But Krishnaji, you are not showing enough compassion to us.
1:23:33 K: Ah no, that is a terrible thing, what you are doing.
1:23:41 GS: No, but please understand, we are not worried about physical death, we are worried about the death of death. You say, be in total attention, that is death. Be in total love, that is death. We are afraid of the end of that particular thing.
1:23:55 K: No, I say, I am attached to my wife, and I know jolly well I am not, but I pretend to be attached. I am attached to my wife – die to that attachment. Die to my name being somebody or other. I was offered a lot of money for a reward – tremendous, equal to Nobel. I said, for God's sake, who do you think I am? Right, sir? I don't want to be, not I. To me all that is a terrible thing human beings are doing, for me. So I don't join the race. So I say, I am attached, I am going to be free, be free of attachment – that is death. I have accumulated a lot of knowledge – end it. See what happens.
1:25:12 GS: But we are most attached to causation.
1:25:17 K: What is causation?

GS: Of asking how, why.
1:25:21 K: No, we don't, sir. Do you really ask that question when you are in pain, when you are in desperate loneliness?
1:25:33 GS: No, but we are in this intermediate state. Now, when Panditji is asking. He is struggling to understand how he can reconcile the idea of causation – how, why – to the statements that you are making.
1:25:53 K: I could tell you why, it's very simple. It doesn't take a tremendous brain to find out the cause. And end the cause. I eat, overeat, and I have tummy ache. I go to the doctor and he says, old boy, don't eat so much. And I say, all right, I won't eat so much. The cause has ended. Or I am jealous of my wife – she is not my wife, sorry, I am pointing – I am jealous of my wife because she is mine, nobody touch her. Mine: my money, my fame, etc. So I am jealous. The cause is possession. I say, all right I won't possess. Move!
1:26:47 K: What, sir?

AP: Perfect, sir.
1:26:51 K: Tell Panditji.
1:26:53 AP: If I have understood. If I can understand the cause, then it will be very simple for me to wipe it out.
1:27:01 K: But it is simple to understand.
1:27:04 AP: And if you accept that the cause can be wiped out, not by some divine thing or anything, that you can wipe out the cause. When you wipe out the cause, that which is, is love, that which is, is compassion.
1:27:22 K: I don't say it. Wipe out the cause.
1:27:24 AP: Wipe out the cause, that is all.
1:27:26 K: Find out what goes on behind it.
1:27:28 AP: He was saying that that is mysticism, therefore I said that, it was in relation to that. I don't know anything about it. I just say, you can end the cause. Full stop. My knowledge ends there.
1:27:44 K: I wonder why we make such ado about finding causation of anything. Human psychology – I am not too scientific and all that. I say I know. I am greedy and I want a lot of money and I fight for it. That is the cause – my greed. It gives me power, position, and if I have knowledge it gives me great position and so on. [K chants in Sanskrit]
1:28:18 GS: You are quoting Sanskrit.
1:28:29 JU: (In Hindi)
1:29:57 K: Sir, would you agree death is an ending? Both biological and psychological, it is an ending. Right? So why not end it now? Forget all your knowledge. Put an end to the blasted whole thing! Sorry, I am not telling you what to do, Panditji. So, we haven't understood death. We have explained death, but we haven't understood the depth and the beauty of dying, so that everything is new, fresh.
1:31:02 JU: What is the beauty of dying?
1:31:05 GS: What is the beauty of dying. He says, what is the beauty of dying?
1:31:10 AP: Beauty after dying or before? Beauty of dying.
1:31:14 K: What?

GS: You said, the beauty of dying.
1:31:17 K: Yes, sir.

GS: He is asking, what?
1:31:19 K: Do you understand what I said – the beauty of dying? So that the brain is free, alive, it has incarnated anew. But we haven't understood death. You have explained death, you have described death, you have found the causation, but you haven't understood the quality of dying.
1:31:52 JU: (Discussion in Hindi)
1:33:43 PJ: Existence is rising on negation.
1:33:46 K: What?
1:33:49 PJ: The new is arising on negation.
1:33:54 K: What?
1:33:56 PJ: The new rests on ending.
1:34:02 K: What are you all talking about?
1:34:03 Sunanda Patwardhan: Creation. He has translated what you said like this: that the new is coming into being with dying – and that is the beauty of which you are talking.
1:34:18 K: No, I am talking of dying.
1:34:21 SP: That is what he said. You said there is great beauty in dying, to which he responded like this, that in the dying the new is born and that is the beauty.
1:34:32 K: Look, I don't want to be reincarnated next life. I want – not want, I am using 'I' for convenience – to incarnate now, so that there is something new taking place, not... I give up.
1:34:59 JU: (In Hindi) (Discussion in Hindi)
1:36:40 GS: Someone shoud just translate without commenting on it. No, she is going to translate.
1:36:49 K: Translate, somebody!
1:36:52 AP: All this is on the basis of a negation.
1:37:00 K: What?
1:37:03 SP: May I say something?
1:37:06 K: It's over. It's over.
1:37:08 PJ: The beauty is, that in dying there is a new birth. The new birth rests on negation.
1:37:22 SP: Krishnaji, because of this, he says, that which is all that we are, exists on that negation.
1:37:29 K: What are you all talking about?
1:37:30 SP: He is interpreting it like this, sir.
1:37:32 K: Don't interpret.
1:37:34 SP: He is interpreting.
1:37:36 K: You see, sir, knowledge is the enemy of death. Knowledge is the enemy of love. Love is not knowledge.
1:37:49 AP: Knowledge is the enemy of love.
1:37:52 SP: (In Hindi)
1:37:58 GS: But I think I can paraphrase what he said in words which would be much more acceptable. Instead of saying negation, one simply says, in the ending of the known, of the causation, is movement which is of a totally different kind. And he says, that is the beauty of death.
1:38:19 AP: I wish he would say that. Then there is no further question.
1:38:23 K: That only means you have never died.
1:38:28 JU: (In Hindi)
1:39:07 SP: He says, am I right in translating him like this, that out of nothingness existence comes, our existence. And therefore this existence has no reality.
1:39:16 RB: He is going off into something.
1:39:19 SP: Conceptual.
1:39:21 AP: I don't think we are meeting.

K: No.
1:39:24 AP: That is what I think.

PJ: In any case we need to stop.
1:39:27 SP: It is quarter past eleven.
1:39:30 K: Sir, I said very clearly for myself, I don't want to be reincarnated next life. I want – 'I want', it is a quotation. What is important is to incarnate now, which means to die to all the things I have known – all my knowledge, all the Buddha's teaching, everything I have known. What I have known is memory and that is just a froth, just words. And I say that is not love, that is not death, that is not time or the timeless, and so I say, I want to find out what it means to die. Not causation, all the rest of it. The feeling, I possess this. I must be free of it – now. Then in that dying there is something astonishingly new taking place. It has got tremendous energy, not knowledge. Sorry.
1:41:16 PJ: Sir, I think you must stop.
1:41:19 K: No, to me death is something extraordinary, not just an explanation: causation, ending, death is something like birth! Everything is dying. That tree which is now 100 years old, will die. All right, dust to dust, etc. But I say, it is all theoretical, it is all problematical, but human beings must experience what it means to die, living. That is all. Sir, there is no humility when you have tremendous knowledge. Sorry, I am not referring to you two gentlemen. I am just an ordinary man, and I see knowledge is death of everything, death of love. If I am married, if I have a wife and my whole relationship is based on knowledge with her. And I say, my God, where is love in all this? I am off becoming a professor in some blasted university and she cooks. Sorry, I feel this very strongly, if you don't mind. Sir, I am not saying anything against you gentlemen, please, if I am, I apologise, I am not. I don't want one explanation. To me explanations have no meaning any more. Whether the Buddha's explanation, your interpretation, Nagarjuna, or his. I don't want explanations. I am full of explanations. I say, please, I am dying, help. I am terribly lonely, frightened, letting go everything I have known, and you come and tell me something of which I know already. Give me fresh water. Not the water that everybody has walked in. I want fresh water.
1:44:47 RB: Sir, you should go rest. It is really late.
1:44:51 K: Yes, sir.