Krishnamurti Subtitles home

ML70DSG4 - Being serious without belief
Malibu, California - 15 March 1970
Discussion with Small Group 4

0:09 K:Shall we go on where we left off yesterday? Shall we go on where we left yesterday? I was wondering how to sustain a continuous seriousness. I think if we could go into that a little bit and come back to what we were talking about. Is it the intellect is not serious at all? A fragment of our life, which is already fragmented, seems to take supremacy over other fragments. The one fragment is this intellectual struggle, intellectual assertions, theories, formulas, what should happen, what should not happen - you know, the whole intellectual drama. And is the intellect really serious? Serious in the sense, a sustained total comprehension, which has nothing to do with formula, with theory, and belief. Can the intellect, a fragment, be ever serious? Serious in the sense, a continuous drive, a continuous, sustained observation without any distortion. And most of us are intellectually trained in a society that demands the intellectual output rather than a total output of the human being. I don't know if I'm conveying anything. Could we go into that a little bit? Why has this happened? Why has a part of me... has become so supreme - dictating how the body should behave, what it should eat, drink, smoke, sex - dictating everything, and dictating the morality, the virtue, the social behaviour, and the private behaviour at home, and so on - apparently, technologically and psychologically, it has become supreme. Why? Why has one part of this whole structure which is the 'me,' why has that become important?
5:09 Q:It seems to me that part of the reason is that we don't know how to use it properly. We don't understand what it's good for, how it works.
5:23 Q:In the society a specialty wasn't it necessary to have the intellectual development, so the technical development, so we produce the goods. Now that we have the goods we don't need it; what we are doing is something that isn't necessary.
5:36 K:Are you saying, sir, that technological development, which is the intellectual activity, has dominated the whole existence of man?
5:49 Q:It was necessary because there wasn't enough to go around.
5:52 K:Is that the reason?

Q:But we thought that.
5:56 K:Is that so?

5:59 Q:Like that's part of controlling, it's part of... our whole culture wants to control nature using the intellect for that and each of us tries to control ourself using the intellect for that.
6:17 K:Sir, watch in yourself - if I may come back to oneself - why has the intellect taken such extraordinary importance in your life, in one's life? Leave society, culture, all that, out - why has it taken in one's life such vital import?
6:46 Q:Isn't it that same demand for security we were talking about yesterday?
6:51 Q:Sir, we think our ideas are something that don't change.
6:58 K:Look into yourself, sir, look into yourself. Why have you given such... why has it taken such importance in my life, in your life? It hasn't in me, but I'm just asking: why has it?
7:21 Q:Our training was that.
7:25 K:If it wasn't trained, wouldn't you do exactly the same thing?
7:30 Q:I'm not living in the country, I think I might...
7:32 K:Ah, wait, sir, wait, sir, don't be so clear about it. I'm not at all sure you wouldn't.
7:38 Q:Living on a farm, milking the cows...
7:42 K:No, no. Even then there would be always, 'My cow is better than the other cow.'
8:01 Q:That's comparison then.
8:05 K:Comparison - why? Push it, sir, push it down and find out why. Why do you do this? You understand, sir, what is implied in this? The whole hierarchical outlook of life, on life - the better, the higher, the nobler, the limitation of the verb 'to be' - in that which we are caught. If you go into it you will see why we have given this thing such a diabolic importance.
9:04 Q:Because I can see one reason, it's because the past and the future are so important. We've made the past and the future very important - what will happen and what did happen. That's why we compare. It doesn't matter right now if you have a better cow, because what the whole image presents, what happened in the past and what's going to happen in the future.
9:33 Q:Sir, in order to see what you mean when you say that we live in the intellect, could you perhaps say what else there is to live in?
9:41 K:Ah, no...
9:42 Q:Because if you say if we live in the intellect, I think that it may not be clear for us just what that means.
9:51 K:That means, sir - it's fairly simple - the future, the ideal, the formula, the belief - the whole structure of what should be - the utopia, the ideal, the perfect state, the perfect God, the perfect disciple, the perfect master, the perfect - you follow?
10:17 Q:The controller you were talking about.
10:18 K:Yes.
10:20 Q:Which means we're living for something.
10:25 K:Don't... See what is happening, sir, and from that you'll find out.
10:34 Q:Your question of why - I've seen a lot of children. I've seen, experience with a lot of children and children almost always compare themselves with others - they say, 'My muscles are bigger than yours, my father is stronger than yours.' It seems to me it's a part of... that everybody grows up with that universally. And we have to then, through understanding, work it out. [Inaudible]
11:03 K:Dr Weininger, you live - if I may be a little bit... not being personal, but... - you live in the intellect, don't you?
11:11 Q:Yes.

11:13 Q:In what way?

11:17 Q:Not so much.

K:No, no, no! Not so... not at all or... [laughs] you can't have a little and not so much. But let us see.
11:27 Q:Yes.
11:29 K:You do live in... we do live in the... Why?
11:42 Q:Because there's seeming security.
11:49 Q:But why? We really don't know why.
11:52 K:Don't you?

Q:I don't think so.
11:54 K:We'll find out. We'll find out.
12:02 Q:It seems like a lot of it is to be in touch with other people, to communicate.
12:08 K:But we're not at all in touch with other people.
12:11 Q:It has the opposite effect.
12:12 K:Quite the opposite effect - it is an isolating process. I've isolated myself - my image, my formula, my God, my this, and over that I look at somebody else, but still there is the wall.
12:34 Q:When we answer why, it seems every time we say something we're guessing in a way. We're seeing if what we say actually meets with our experience. It doesn't seem like we're getting anywhere.
12:44 K:Yes, sir, watch it, sir. Look, go a little bit, sir. You're too verbal, if I may say so - go slow. That means we are living in the future, aren't we? The ideal, the formula, what should be, the better, is always over there. Right? Why do I live that way?
13:27 Q:[Inaudible]
13:37 K:I live in the past and in the future - right? - I live in my memories, in my imagination, in my hopes, fears - they are always the past, despair, except hope in the future. So living in the past, mustn't it inevitably create a future of idealistic hope? I don't live now but the past and the future. I don't know what it means to live now. I really don't know. So there is the past and the future. Would that be right, sirs? Past and the future. And - go on - why do I live in the past? I know nothing else but the past. What I want to know about the future is the hope, which is its own hell. Right? So that's all. Why do I live this way?
15:33 Q:Yesterday we talked about the fact that there was uncertainty in the present and that...
15:43 K:Ah, ah, I didn't say uncertainty in the present. I want to be certain in the present.
15:51 Q:Secure.

15:52 Q:Secure. Again, that security. And there seems to be security in the past because it's something that's known. So we cling to that.
16:04 K:We cling to that and yet I'm living in the future.
16:08 Q:Projecting.
16:10 Q:Living for the future might be better...
16:12 K:All right, living for the future - what should be. The function of the intellect apparently is to live in the past, as it has acquired knowledge, add to the past through the present, and that's living, that's intellectually operating, functioning - scientifically, technologically, every way. And the dissatisfaction of the past is the hope of the future. Because the mind can't be completely satisfied living in the past. Right? Then what?
17:34 Q:Is it because of the element of time?
17:39 K:That is time. After all, living in the past is time, and the future is time. We're asking, sir, aren't we, why has the intellect become so extraordinarily important?
17:58 Q:That includes the emotions, when you say the intellect?
18:01 K:No. It controls the emotions. It says, 'That's good to have good emotions' - you follow?
18:08 Q:A thought, a prejudice is an emotion, a feeling. It's a strong thought.
18:14 K:Strong thought. I don't...
18:18 Q:So the intellect is not distinct from the emotions.
18:20 K:I don't like him.

Q:Yes, that's also emotion.
18:24 K:No, wait, sir, look. Is it?
18:26 Q:Because he did something, because he is a threat...
18:29 K:I don't like him because he has this. It's a conclusion made by the intellect, a thought, and the thought doesn't like that, and so on. So, let's... we'll come to the feeling presently.
18:50 Q:Because when you say intellect, people tend to think perhaps you're talking about abstract thinking and cerebral activity.
18:58 K:No, no, no, sir. No, no.
18:59 Q:The intellect which acts in our life, acts in our lives as strong feeling, and strong prejudice, and drive. And that's emotion. But if I just think, it has no meaning, but when I think with feeling then it does mischief, then it divides, then it projects into the future.
19:18 K:That is so. Then what?
19:20 Q:Sir, when you say intellect, are you saying intellect as distinct from emotion or are you saying the intellect which includes emotion and emotional response?
19:30 K:Yes. Let's include emotion for the moment. Let's be clear. We include emotion into it - prejudice, like, dislike. Now, wait a minute.

Q:Yes, part of the same thing.
19:43 K:Why is this happening all the time in me, in us?
20:03 Q:Sir, as the mind biologically must have security, as you mentioned, is it possible that in a similar fashion the organism is striving for perfection, psychically, reaching... [inaudible]
20:43 K:But that perfection is always in the future, striving always to achieve the goal which it has invented.
21:00 Q:If we say he we're striving for security...
21:03 Q:And how about pleasure? It seems to be related to pleasure then.
21:08 Q:[Inaudible]
21:20 K:Is one aware that the intellect, in which is included all this business, that it predominates our life?
21:30 Q:Yes.

K:Then why?
21:36 Q:Is it not a search for significance?
21:44 K:Significance to life - to life that has no meaning. A life of striving - you know, all the rest of it - and therefore in that there is no meaning, therefore intellect strives to give a significance or a meaning to it, to live differently. This is a dull stuff, life is, and I'll invent a meaning to it which will make it interesting. That's all.
22:19 Q:And I strive some more.
22:23 Q:Sir, I think... [inaudible] You mentioned how the mind must have security... [inaudible]
22:37 K:Not 'I mentioned,' sir, it is. I mean...
22:40 Q:It is. But you stated it. I mean, we know that the body will compensate if you lose one kidney the other one will grow to twice the size. This is compensation. Is it possible that there is this psychic built-in aim for compensation in that sense, but we find the wrong ways to do it, as we do with the mind seeking security?
23:39 K:Sir, seeking security and being secure are two different things, aren't they?
23:43 Q:Yes. We...
23:45 K:Ah, no, no, no - we are seeking security, and we said seeking security does, you know, create this mischief.

Q:That gives me insecurity. Seeking security is the insecurity.

K:Is insecurity. Whereas to be completely secure, it's finished. It's not that I am seeking security and therefore finding it and clinging to it.
24:12 Q:The mind must have it, as was mentioned, must have it. And there is something comparable psychically, because... [inaudible] at this point there isn't a counterpart to this perfection aspect as there is for the security aspect, but we take the wrong path...
24:57 K:I understand that, sir. Yes, I understand.
25:05 Q:The biologists say that thought developed in evolution, based on fear. Fear was the basis for evolutionary development of thought.
25:19 Q:Fear is itself a thought.
25:28 Q:So you are asking, sir, why one lives in the intellect and why there is this perpetual struggle.
25:36 K:You haven't answered me. [Laughs]
25:38 Q:But isn't that question itself, does it pose a creation of the intellect?
25:45 K:Yes. But I'm saying - and that's only to verbalize a fact that we do live in it - but the thing one has to find out, why has this become so colossally important?
26:04 Q:But what it seems like we're doing, what I'm doing, is that I'm looking at that question with the intellect, and as long as we look at it with the intellect then we're trying to verbalize and trying to do all this. It's the wrong way all the time. We're giving evaluations and analysis of it, of the question, and our experience, but we're still caught in it. No matter what we're doing here, we're still caught in it.
26:42 K:Then, sir, let's look at it round the other way: What is living? There's the body, the whole organism with all its complex demands, the glands, all that - both biological and psychological, the imposition of the psyche on the body wishing it should be this, it should act this way - and all the emotional nature, in which is included pleasure, enjoyment, the delight of looking at... and so on, so on - there's love, and there's the intellect - intellect which reasons, looks, observes, says this is right, this is wrong, evaluates and says, 'I should have done this' - all that. Why doesn't all the three - the organism, love, mind - all work together? Why this one? Why doesn't the whole thing work harmoniously, you know, like a good machine that's ticking over? It cannot be harmonious as long as one is large or enormous, or one is important than the others. I wonder if the intellect has assumed supremacy because it has conceived security in terms of the past or the future. And therefore no security in the present at all. You follow? It says I've had food today, I must have food this evening. So it struggles to have food this evening, and tomorrow. I must have my pleasure, my sex - all tomorrow. Go on, sirs, let's work it out. Or is living in the past, in which there's been security, and that desire to have permanent security in the future - as I want tomorrow, food - has built this idea, has made the intellect enormously important. Therefore it dominates love, it dominates the organism, it dominates everything. And how does it come about that the three - psychosomatic and plus - live harmoniously, completely - you follow? not one against the other, battling? How do you do this? How do you bring this about? You see, we live - ah, I'm getting somewhere - we live in a centre created by the intellect - right? - centre of ideas, self-centred movement, which is still the intellect, the centre which is self-perpetuating, self-centred activity - that's the centre we live in. And that centre must break up, as it does, as we see it operating in ourselves - that centre is breaking it up all the time - I must live differently, I must be different - you follow? - this should not be, this should be. Now, how to break down that centre and live in the whole, not in a part? I don't know if I am making myself clear.
32:58 Q:Your first question interested me very much: how do you sustain a seriousness when most of us here are living in the present right now, with you, and when we leave the environment seduces us... [inaudible] and the sustained seriousness that we have here doesn't sustain.
33:20 Q:Well, just this instance, I could see my interest falling the other way, and the question drops.
33:34 K:Sir, could we put the whole question differently? How does it happen that one can live harmoniously, so that one or the other is not overdeveloped, one or the other is not in conflict, but function, live, act as a whole, sane, holy thing?
34:23 Q:I see that something like building up your muscles, you said...
34:26 K:No, no. No. That means time. I have no time - I'll be dead tomorrow.
34:34 Q:No but what I'm saying is: I see that... you say overdeveloped...
34:39 K:No, sir. No, no, no. Look, sir, we said the intellect dominates, subjugating the affection, physical organ, and so on. I want, I'm asking myself: how does it happen that one can be completely harmonious? Not an idea of harmony which is in the future, but harmonious now? Because from there I can create - you follow? - I can write. Everything will come right.
35:37 Q:We have to quiet this giant muscle which is the intellect that you are talking about.

Q:That's what I'm saying. I am saying we are developing all of the time - we have to stop...
35:44 K:No, no, no, no. No, 'we have to stop' means resistance.
35:51 Q:Which way to stop?
35:55 K:We have to dominate it, we have to put it down - all that is again, we are off.
36:04 Q:I see one can't do that because that's building it up too.
36:07 K:No, no, no. That's not my question anymore. My question is now: how can this harmony take place? Knowing the other thing is overdeveloped. Which means a life in which there is no conflict at all. Conflict is violence, you know, all the rest of it - so how does this happen? Has it anything to do with awareness?
37:37 Q:Sir, it has to do with that we are not being aware.
37:46 K:No, no, I'm asking, sir, I'm asking: disharmony, because we live in disharmony, to come upon this harmony, I'm asking myself if awareness is the key to it.
38:07 Q:Awareness of the disharmony?
38:11 K:No, no, no, forget, forget - you see, you're all translating immediately into something else. Awareness of disharmony in order to be harmonious. I don't mean that. I'm asking if awareness is the key that brings about, naturally, harmony.
38:39 Q:Sir, is awareness an intellectual process?
38:44 Q:Awareness of what, sir? Because the businessman who is generally sharp and cunning is in his way tremendously aware.

K:No, sir.
38:51 Q:He's aware of the slightest advantage.
38:54 Q:Isn't she right?
38:56 Q:Awareness of what?

K:I want to find... I'm going to... We are going to... I'm asking you first a question, sir, whether awareness is the key to this. I don't know what awareness is yet - we are going to find out, we're going to explore it. So far one has explored the reason of disorder and disharmony - the supremacy of one or the other, this supremacy of the soma, the body, or the supremacy of the intellect - emotion or the intellect, or the appetite against the intellect, and so on, so on, so on - the battle. And I say to myself: has awareness - you get it? - is the awareness that will bring harmony, that will make everything equal.
40:00 Q:A function which contains all that and is beyond it.
40:03 K:Yes. I just want to inquire into it.
40:11 Q:My question was related to that: if an awareness of that nature, of that type, you say is not an intellectual process, then what is being aware?
40:24 K:We're going to find out, sir, we're going to find out. We're going to find out what it means to be aware. Because if the intellect says, 'I will calm down,' [laughs] it's a hypocritical thing, and I will just hold myself in, ready to burst at any moment.
40:51 Q:Also that's a calculation.
40:53 K:You follow? And if the body says, 'All right then, I have a chance now' - [laughter] - you follow? - 'Now I can let off the emotions.' So can we... what does awareness mean? Why is awareness important in this? You follow, sir? Here I have a problem. I have a problem. I live in disharmony, in disorder. Either the body becomes extraordinarily demanding, vital - you follow? - with its lust, with its appetites, with its... or the intellect, or the emotions, sentimentality of - you know. And I see that and I say, 'Now, what is the element that will bring all this into perfect rhythm?' So that the body's perfect, you know, healthy, so the emotions are really... they are real emotions, not invented by the intellect, and reason, sane, healthy. I mean, whole implies - I don't know if you've looked at that word - 'whole' means whole, in which is implied health, sanity, and also 'whole' implies h- o-l-y - holy - all that is in that word. Which means the whole thing is whole, sane. Now, what is the thing that will bring this about? Not effort, because effort means... intellect says, 'By Jove, I see that's the way to live, and I'm going after it. I'm going to train the body, I'm going to train...' - you follow? It's gone.
43:30 Q:If you say that is the way to live so I'm going after it, you haven't really seen it.

K:Of course not, of course not. So what is the thing that will make it whole, in which there must be not the slightest whisper of effort, not the slightest directive? Right, sir? Because the moment the intellect takes charge... So the mind must be free of the directive, sense of effort. Now, how does this happen? Shall I go on, sir? Must the thing come from the outside or must it begin from the inside out? I don't know if I'm using non-technological words, but... So let's tackle it. What does awareness mean? Because I think that is the key. I think - I may change it - you follow, sir? - because we are exploring together, therefore you may find something different. We are together in this. What does it mean? I see this. I see through observation, therefore through experiment, testing, observing the fact, the event, and learning about it, and not make from that... not acquiring knowledge but merely learning. Because knowledge, when it becomes knowledge, it becomes the intellect and then it will say it will guide it. I don't know if you... Can we go on from there?
46:35 Q:Could you repeat that again?
46:44 K:What did I say?

Q:Because when you act from knowledge then it is again the intellect which is guiding. But learning is not to act from knowledge, it is a state of being in which knowledge is not acting.
47:02 K:I see, one observes, the fact. The fact: the intellect dominates, the other two play second fiddle. Now, harmony means functioning together as a whole, not as fragments. Now, the mind sees this, sees how it is broken up. Right? How does it see it? Is the seeing a word?
47:54 Q:Or accumulated knowledge.
47:56 K:No, a word. That is, I must see this thing. Or do I, by the very fact of this dialogue, it is exposed and I see it as I see it in a map - the three operating in contradiction with each other, one dominating, and so on. Now, how do I see it?
48:37 Q:Is awareness maybe spontaneity?
48:41 K:Not... dangerous word, sir, if I may say so, because to be spontaneous implies freedom. And a mind that is... intellect that is dominating, is not free. How do I see this? How does the mind see this thing? See this fragmentation? One fragment supremely important, the rest are minor? I mean, when we use 'see,' how do you see it, sir? You see these three fragments - one a little taller than the rest. And when you say, 'I understand that,' what do you mean by that? Is it a verbal understanding, or is it an observation of what actually is, without any distortion - saying this must not be, this should be? I don't know if... How do you look at it?
50:10 Q:Does the seeing allow for a certain verbal action too? Do we ruin it the moment we ascribe any word to it?
50:20 K:No, I may use words afterwards.

50:23 K:Yes.

Q:The seeing is before the word.
50:27 K:The word - that's right. Before the word, obviously, otherwise the seeing is the word.
50:31 Q:Don't we perhaps immediately...
50:34 K:Yes, that's what I was warning, too. Is it a verbal seeing or actual seeing?
50:44 Q:How can you see it if your mind is always condemning? Your censor is interfering, and you can't see it.
50:51 K:Yes, doctor, but look, sir, this is a fact, isn't it?
50:56 Q:Yes.

K:The fact that one is these three.
50:59 Q:Yes, that's right.

K:That's a fact. Now, how do you look at that fact?
51:06 Q:I'm saying you can't look at it without...
51:08 K:No, no, no, I'm not interested in your condemnation, judgment, evaluation - then you don't see. So put aside all that and look. Then how do you see it? If you put that out - if you put... justification, condemnation, all the rest of it, aren't you looking harmoniously?
51:43 Q:[Inaudible]
51:44 K:No, sir, no, sir, no, sir, do go slow. Are you looking through the intellect, which justifies, condemns, says this is right, society has produced this, etc., etc. - which is all the act of the intellect - and when you put aside justification, condemnation and all that, how do you look at it?
52:24 Q:You look attentively at the whole.

K:Do you? Don't theorize about it, then we play tricks. Can you look at this table, sir, without being caught in the description? Because the description is not the table. Right? Can you look at it without the word? Saying it's a marble, I like it, I don't like it, strange painting - you know, all the rest of it, go through it - how ugly, how beautiful, etc., etc. - just to observe.
53:25 Q:And even observe without looking at a table.
53:28 K:Ah, no, no - how can I observe without looking at...
53:32 Q:It's a great idea.
53:34 K:Then you are looking at the idea of a table. Can you look that way? And when you do look that way, don't you see the whole of it, not just what you think it should be. So can the mind look at the three fragments without the word, and therefore justification, or adjustment, and so on, without all that, can the mind look at this fact?
54:31 T:Five minutes left.
54:36 K:He wants five minute's rest.
54:40 T:There are five minutes left.
54:41 K:I see.
54:51 Q:It has to become quiet.
54:59 K:Does it, sir - quiet? What does that mean?
55:03 Q:I can't see this table - thoughts keep coming in to block it.
55:10 K:No, sir. Look, sir, do look at it, it's very interesting, do look at it. If you really want to look at that table, is there any thought? When you are inattentive, all the things happen. Therefore awareness and attention is the factor of harmony. I don't know if you are... If I don't look... if the mind doesn't look... if the mind looks with any distortion, which is of effort, judgment, etc., etc., then the observation is distorted, disharmony, not harmonious. Now, to look at it with harmony is to look at these fragments without any distortion, prejudice, want, must not, all the rest of it. And doesn't that itself create silence? Not the mind must become silent but that itself...
56:49 Q:The looking.
56:53 K:If I want to look at that tree, or that sunset, or these lovely hills, I look. And that very look wipes away everything else.
57:05 Q:Are you saying we're not interested in looking?
57:08 K:No, no. No. Then you will say, 'How am I to have the interest?' [Laughs] We are caught in a trap then. But to see the fact that we live in disharmony, to see how this disharmony, this disorder has come into being - of intellect, and so on, so on - just to see it. And the very seeing of it has its own silence. Because without... if there is a noise I can't look at those mountains. The very looking at those mountains is bringing about its own silence. So how do you look? Through the intellect? Do you look at that tree, those hills, or do you look at these fragments, the intellect, and so on - how do you look at all this? With chattering? Can we look at this question in another way? You know, control has apparently become extraordinarily important, because they say you must have... the body must be completely controlled, your mind must be completely held so that it doesn't wander off. And your emotions and everything must be trained. So, meditation implies to make the body sit completely quiet. That's the beginning of it. And to make that body completely quiet, train it by being aware of every movement of the body. Right? I don't know if you have ever gone into all this. Watch your body move, or make the body move - the toe, the ankle, the knee, and so on - gradually watch it, watch it. You follow, sir? So out of this watching, the body becomes extraordinarily healthy. I don't know if... Have you ever played with this kind of stuff? So, then in the same way, watch your emotions, watch your thoughts, watch so that it doesn't move away from the direction it has been set. Which is, 'I must think of God.' I'm using the word 'God,' or an ideal, or some phrase, or something, or other - Jesus, the Buddha, what it is. So that there is... your mind is held in that line, in that groove. So control has been imposed on this, and we have accepted this as the way of leading a very straight, orderly life. That is very disorder... that itself is disorder. I don't know if you see this, because that means, you know, the whole thing is resistance.
1:02:18 Q:One idea is dominating...

K:I mean the whole... We are saying don't do that, that's all wrong, but be aware. Be aware without distortion, without choice, without giving a direction. And that very awareness will make the body quiet. You follow? Not the other way. I don't know if you...
1:03:07 Q:Will you discuss anger from the same point of view? I'd like to hear you talk about anger.
1:03:11 K:Anger.

Q:Anger, from this point of view of an awareness. You get angry.
1:03:19 K:No, I don't think you'll ever be angry. And therefore there's no need for suppression. You're ahead of anger. I don't know... Sorry to put it that way.
1:03:33 Q:The reason I mention this is because psychologists and psychiatrists...
1:03:37 K:You see it coming, you can feel it, and you know how to deal with it. We know how to deal with it after it happens. Awareness is to see it arise and deal with... and soften it down as it happens.
1:04:06 Q:You are saying that we will really know how to deal with it. Now it's a matter of our doing it. It really will happen...
1:04:19 K:Sir, do it now, you will see it for yourself what extraordinary thing this is. Not because I say. What I say has no importance, but...
1:04:32 Q:[Inaudible] ...the total organism...
1:04:38 K:Yes, sir, obviously. A man who is extraordinarily energetic is not angry. A man who has got this sense of complete harmony, you know, complete security, then what in... I mean - sorry! [Laughs]
1:05:08 Q:Is it true that... does love always flow out of this full awareness?
1:05:13 K:Ah, no, no. Sir... [laughs] Do you think a flower that is full of perfume saying, 'This is love'?
1:05:31 Q:I don't mean the idea of love.
1:05:33 K:I'm saying a flower - there it is. It's got so much perfume, lovely, so tender... Intellect says love must be personal, impersonal, godly, noble, fine, this, that - you know? - make a nice mess of it. I mean, this whole Catholic world is now in revolution because it has accepted that in the service of God you must be a celibate.
1:06:25 Q:Or pretend to be, or seem to be.
1:06:29 K:Celibate - don't actually sleep with a woman but bottle it inside yourself but don't do it outwardly. And also it's the same in India, the same in Asia. They boil, burn, destroy themselves inwardly, but outwardly Jesus, and Buddha, and, you know, all the rest of it. So we are saying, seeing all this phenomenon, the harmonious life is only possible in the observation of the fact, the event, and looking at it - and nothing else. How you look matters, not what you look at. I don't know... If there is a distance between the observer and the observed then it's finished.
1:07:54 Q:If there is an observer.

K:If there is an observer. The flower with perfume doesn't say, 'This is love, this is beauty, I am full of this, I am full of that' - it is that.
1:08:23 Q:Sir, the very situation, the distance between the observer and the observed. Is there another way of putting that phrase 'distance,' is there another way of looking at that?
1:08:38 K:Another way of looking at it, sir, is to look at it without the observer, to look at it so that there is only this thing that's observed, not the interpretation of what is observed. And when you do look at the fragments - intellect and all the rest of it - as the non-observer, are there fragments? I don't know if you... You follow, sir? The observer is a fragment. The observer observes the fragments, the three fragments. And so he becomes the separate entity, an outsider who is looking in. But the observer is the thing that he observes. He may put himself outside but he's part of those three. So the observer is the observed, and therefore no distance. And can the mind look that way without identifying, saying, 'I am the whole, I am this.' Sir, look, another extraordinary thing takes place when you look... I mean, to look, as we generally do, as the observer and the observed, that has created its own discipline, its own disorder. But to look without the observer requires a discipline in the sense of tremendous learning to look. Right?
1:11:02 Q:Learning in looking.

K:Learning in looking.
1:11:05 Q:Not in... [inaudible]

1:11:08 Q:But doesn't that take time?

K:No, sir.
1:11:10 Q:The two are the same.

K:No, sir, it doesn't take time. Look, sir, look at those mountains without the observer - just look, sir, and see what takes place. I wish you were sitting here instead of me; you would see it. You see, that's really quite... To look without the image - you follow, sir? - that's what it means - to look at my wife, husband, the hills, the trees, the birds, the whole movement of this beauty without the image. Because the image is the observer. The image is the intellect. You see, sir, how tied it is? How tied together it all is. So one has to take the whole of it or not at all. [Laughs] You can't say, 'Well, I like a fragment of it, I am going to use it.' Then you are going to destroy the whole thing.
1:13:03 Q:Could you say a few more words about that, this sustained seriousness - For a while we can sustain it. You brought up the question yourself, because I haven't heard you say anything about it: sustained seriousness.
1:13:19 K:Sustained... We have done this. A whole hour we have spent at it!
1:13:22 Q:[Inaudible]
1:13:24 K:Ah! If you spent a whole hour and a half at this, you will do it the rest of the time, naturally. Including going to the cinema. [Laughs]
1:13:45 Q:This doesn't leave out playfulness, does it? [Laughter]
1:13:50 Q:I hope not.
1:13:54 K:It all depends on what you mean by playfulness. [Laughter]
1:13:59 Q:[Inaudible]
1:14:04 K:Sir, that means enjoyment is something entirely different - joy is entirely different from pleasure.
1:14:11 Q:Yes.

K:Ah, no!
1:14:16 Q:I think there is some kind of a connotation to the word 'seriousness' that...
1:14:22 K:Of course, of course.

Q:To the word.
1:14:28 K:What time is it, sir?

Q:Half past twelve, sir.
1:14:31 K:Oh, I think we'd better stop, don't you?