Krishnamurti - Attention leads to learning

Krishnamurti Subtitles

ML70DSG5 - Attention leads to learning
Malibu, California - 21 March 1970
Discussion with Small Group 5

0:26	K:What shall we talk about?
0:55	Q:Something for the sake of breaking the ice...
0:59	K:Don't break the ice. Q:[Laughs] OK.
1:03	K:What shall we talk...?
1:05	Q:Psychoanalysts often talk about the censor and about resistance, and I'm interested in hearing a discussion on the nature of the censor and resistance. Maybe they're the same.
1:16	K:The censor and resistance. Q:Yes.
1:32	K:Should we talk about that? I suppose anything will do except… [laughs] Perhaps we could talk about that, enlarge and come into that, if we talked about, a little bit, about attention. Shall we? Would that be worthwhile, talk about the inattention and attention? Because it seems to me we pass most of our lives in inattention, except in moments, or events, or crises where we have got to pay attention, where we have to give our mind and heart and everything we have to solve that issue. But most of the time we spend our life, don't we, rather drifting along, though we are very occupied, and the very occupation becomes a form of inattention, where there isn't much to do there, you keep rolling. Would that be of any consequential interest? How does this happen, that we waste our life so inordinately, drifting along, and totally - we won't use the word 'totally' - with a great deal of inattention in our lives? I was told of an article recently written in one of the weekly magazines, where the Zen Buddhist monks, Zen monks, were able so completely be attentive that their reactions were very slow, because they had trained themselves with a great deal of attention and interest, so that any reaction which an ordinary human being would have was very slow. I don't know if you…
5:37	Q:Reaction to what, sir?
5:39	K:Ordinary physical reactions, psychological reactions, psychosomatic reactions.
5:51	Q:You mean it was thought out kind of slowly and...
5:55	K:No, it was just observed without any response. You see, I'm trying to...
6:09	Q:I think we would generally think that that was inattentive, because we usually respond very fast or react fast.
6:43	K:I wonder how we can approach this, if it interests you at all.
6:48	Q:What is attention?
7:02	K:Do you think attention has a very limited meaning? Like concentration has a very limited meaning, hasn't it? Do you think? I don't know how far you've gone into it, that's why I daren't... Should we plunge into it and go on? I don't know if you really want to, if you're interested in this, because, you see, I think, in understanding attention we should be able to observe ourselves much more clearly, without any resistance, without the censor. Because understanding oneself is of primary importance, obviously - oneself who is a living entity and therefore the observation must also be very attentive in that living sense, in which, as we said, there is no censor or resistance. So, in understanding myself, or yourself, or a human being one must have this quality of attention. That is, in watching oneself, if you have done it at all, there is a process of learning which is not accumulation. The accumulation then becomes the censor and a means of resistance. I don't know if…
9:53	Q:The attention would be an openness, an awareness...
9:57	K:No. We're going to find out, we're going to explore it together. I want to watch myself, I want to learn about myself - not according to Freud, Jung, or some other specialist, or not specialist - I want to learn about myself. The first thing I have to learn is to unlearn the meaning of that word 'to learn.' Learning implies, generally, accumulation of knowledge from which to act, to think, to function - technological field, in the science, and so on, engineers, and so on. Now, here we are dealing with a very living thing. The self, which is to be understood, is a living, moving, vital thing, moving all the time, changing, and I have to learn about it. Now, if I learn about it, to learn about it, the observer must come fresh to it. If he comes burdened, he's already translating what he sees according to his previous knowledge. I don't know if this… So he's always translating what he sees in terms of the past. The past then becomes the censor and therefore censor says, 'I'll resist this and accept this.' Right, sir? So, the problem then is how to observe without accumulation. Learning through observation without the process of accumulation taking place, so learning is a movement - not from a movement, from a root. I don't know if I…
12:31	Q:It's not just accumulation, it's also exclusion as well. Wouldn't it be not only accumulation but exclusion?
12:43	K:Of course. Resistance means exclusion. The moment I resist, I exclude, naturally. So the question is: how to observe, to learn and not to accumulate. It's quite… if you go into it, it becomes quite subtle, quite extraordinarily interesting. To know oneself without the pressure of the past interfering with what is being learned. Now, how does this happen? Analysis implies the analyser, the censor - right? - a fragment separating itself from other fragments and assuming authority to analyse. But that fragment is interrelated with the rest of the fragments which go to make up the human entity. So, to observe without analysis - I don't know if you follow all this - which means not to come to a conclusion ever, never to say to myself, 'I know myself' - so that is the problem. So, the specialists have said, you know, the people like the Zen and other people, said cultivate attention, awareness, cultivate awareness so that there is no interference of the past. They don't put it that way, I'm translating it that way. I don't know if it interests you all this, does it? (You've got a bad eye, I've got a bad tooth - to make up.) So that is really one of the major issues of attention - to attend without the observer, the censor, the entity that resists, that is capable of focusing, and therefore concentrating, and therefore excluding. I don't know… All right, let's go… I see the importance - I'm using the word 'I' as just a means of communication, and so on - there is the importance of learning the whole structure and the nature of oneself. The oneself is the rest of the humanity - that's obvious so we don't have to beat that to death. Oneself is the whole social, environmental, cultural result. And to bring about a social, or environmental, or cultural change, revolution, one has to begin the change, the revolution in oneself - obviously - because one is the rest of humanity. It is not oneself first and humanity next, it is a total movement of the human being. Right. To change implies learning about oneself. And to learn there must be freedom, a curiosity, and an intensity. That's obvious. Now, learning implies the non-interference of the censor, the censor who is the past, the accumulated knowledge, both the personal, and impersonal, and all the rest of it. Now, is it possible… can one learn without accumulating? Right? Can we start with that? Now, how do you proceed? Go on, sirs. I want to learn about myself. Can I observe myself without the word? Because the word invariably condemns or justifies.
20:17	Q:Also words are the result of culture.
20:21	K:Right. Look at the difficulty you are going to have: to observe without the word. Try it. Do it. You'll see how extraordinary difficult it is. Jealousy, to observe the feeling without introducing the word 'jealousy,' because that word has many connotations, condemnatory generally. So to observe that feeling and learn all about it without the word.
21:03	Q:Sir, one thing I notice when I do that is that a censor comes into it, and the censor tries to… as the words come up the censor tries to push...
21:13	K:No, no, that's… If you push it away you're resisting.
21:16	Q:I know, that's what I mean.
21:19	K:See what is implied in it.
21:25	Q:Sir, when you ask that question are you speaking in terms of a physical reaction that you may feel?
21:32	K:Physical, psychological, the whole of it, not just physical response, because physical response is related to psyche, and so on - interrelated responses. To observe without naming it - which implies condemnation, or justification, or various forms of suppression. Right? Can the mind observe, learn, watch, listen, without naming, without any form of resistance?
22:38	Q:Any descriptive term also?
22:43	K:Obviously, because the description is not the described.
22:48	Q:But why do the descriptions… [inaudible]
22:53	K:The word then colours the observation, because the word says 'jealousy,' or 'anger,' or whatever it is, and the word has already condemned it.
23:10	Q:Isn't it something, say, painful, when you experience the sense of pain, what remains? That is the immediate thing, it isn't that the words...
23:20	K:No. If one has a physical pain… Q:Or psychological.
23:26	K:…psychological pain - watch it, it's very interesting - why do you have psychological pain? It's a form of resistance. No? The censor doesn't like it. The censor, who is the accumulated knowledge, doesn't want that particular kind of response, or reaction, or experience, or incident, event, and so on, so he shrinks from it, he doesn't like it, it's painful to him. Can one… I mean… Observation without the censor implies all that.
24:19	Q:But does the pain develop because of the censor, or is the pain something separate from the censor?
24:29	K:No. How can it be different from the censor? If there was no censor in the psychological sense, would there be pain?
24:44	Q:Doesn't an animal feel...
24:45	K:Don't bring in the animal, [laughs] we are human beings. Let's stick to this - difficult enough as it is, without going to the animal.
24:55	Q:Sir, why do we have this need to name these various things that go on inside us? Is that a part of...
25:02	K:No, it's part of our culture, part of our resistance, part of our… saying, 'I'm learning about it.'
25:11	Q:But it also has to do with an insecurity. If you see something and you can't name it, something really different... K:That's right, that's right.
25:19	Q:A way to remain in control. Q:Right.
25:22	Q:We're talking about a psychological pain that develops. If we don't name it as jealousy or hatred, but you sense some feeling of pain, and your reactions do something. The censor is doing that. Now, my question is a strange one: you say when there is no censor there is no pain…
25:47	K:Is there? Q:You have to begin somewhere though.
25:52	K:I begin observing the censor. The censor is observing himself and seeing how he produces pain.
25:59	Q:But who is observing? K:Wait, wait, that's the point. Who is observing the observer? Right? The watcher is to be watched. Who is observing the observer? Which is, if the observer is not, is there an observer at all? No, this becomes too complex, sir, let's go slowly. Because this is quite difficult to go into it. As we said, I want to learn about myself, observe myself. In the observation I discover there is the censor, the censor who is the result of the past, is the past - like, dislike, various forms of experiences, memories, fear - is the past, he is that. As we said, he separates himself from the rest of the desires, fragments, hopes, fears, and says: I'm going to change, I'm going to control, I'm going to censor. But he's still part of the fragment. Now, can there be observation without the censor, of the parts? Because if there is the censor, there's always a conflict going on, a contradiction, and therefore this battle, the inward struggle, the battle. So I see this very… one sees this very clearly, either intellectually or verbally, and now to find out the reality of it is quite a different thing - right? I want to find out if I can observe without the censor - to observe you who have flattered, insulted, hurt, stolen, whatever it is, without any interference of the past. There'd be reaction, naturally, but not the memory involved in that reaction. I don't know if I'm… You've hurt me. When I see you next time, to observe you without the hurt - I don't know if… - without the memory of the hurt. Because if I have the memory of the hurt, there's a resistance against you and a fight, both outwardly and inwardly. That's one point. Suppose you steal my purse, my bonds, whatever it is, if one has it - thank God I haven't got any - so then how do I meet you? Or if you're my wife or my husband and we have lived for so long together, the image of you and the image of me is so very deeply rooted, can I look at her or him, can the mind… can there be observation of him, of her, without the image? So the observation of her or him is total attention, isn't it? I don't know if… To attend without naming, without identifying thought with the image, without the censor, all this needs a tremendous inward discipline - discipline in the sense of learning. The very act of learning is its own discipline.
32:04	Q:Sir, is it possible to observe without a censor so long as one has a motive for observing or a motive for understanding? K:Of course… obviously not.
32:14	Q:So as long as one has a reason for finding something out he would always observe with an image.
32:19	K:Of course. No, wait a minute. I want to learn about myself. Is there a reason behind that want? There can be a reason, because I want to escape from misery, from conflict, from various forms of travail, and so on - that can be the motive for learning about myself. And in observing I discover the motive and put it aside, say that's not learning. So all these things are involved in learning, in being attentive when there is observation. Now, most of us are inattentive. Right? How is that inattention to end and attention take place? Is that the question? Is that the right question? How does it happen that the mind can be totally attentive, in the sense we are talking about, when most of our life is spent in inattention? How is this to change?
35:31	Q:You mentioned earlier the Zen Buddhists who practise some sort of attention, in their own way, they have their own way of doing it, now that's not the attention you're talking about, obviously.
35:51	K:I don't know the meaning of their word 'attention' because that's… Look, sir, I don't know if you've gone into the question of meditation at all, any of you. There, the whole Asiatic concept of meditation is control - control of the body and the bodily responses and not to allow thought to wander at all, but completely focused, concentrated, and so bring about a tranquility of the mind in which alone that supreme something can be understood, or revealed, or lived. I'm putting it very crudely but that is generally the idea. And one sees the tremendous danger of this. I don't know if you're interested in all this. Because I met a man once - not 'I,' doesn't matter - we met a man once, he had given up a very good position as a some kind of bureaucratic position, high up, because one morning he woke up and said, 'I pass judgment on others and I want to know what the meaning of truth is, because I am passing judgment all day long - this should be done, that should be done, he should go to prison - you know, all the rest of it.' He said, 'I want to find out the truth of it, what is truth.' So he disappeared. That's easy in India because you can put on a robe of the monk and wander from village to village and they'll feed you, and clothe you, and be very respectful to you - that's the tradition, the man who leaves the world seeking truth is to be maintained by society - and there are crooks who do that too, that's understood. So for 25 years he was meditating - 25 years, he was an oldish man, and they brought him and he said, 'You know, I was listening to your talk the other day about meditation and I see what I've done, I've really hypnotised myself, I have projected my own desires, feelings, the knowledge about truth, and so on, and lived in a vision of one's own creation.' For an old man to admit that much was tremendous. Which means the observer is meditating. The observer is controlling the rest of the fragments. So, to observe without control. I don't know if you've ever done all these things - great fun. Because control means resistance - one fragment opposing another fragment.
40:50	Q:Am I right in thinking that to observe without control would be to observe without words?
41:00	K:Obviously - all that's implied.
41:02	Q:And if that's the case then is it the case too that while we can lead up evocatively, perhaps in a certain conversation, to someone achieving that. That it cannot be depicted, described - words can't capture that.
41:28	K:No, sir. You see, the word 'achievement' already denies the whole thing, because there's already a motive behind it, to arrive somewhere. You see, it requires a great deal of observation of all this. Sir, come back, let's go back. Is there observation without any control? Control being the censor, resistance, suppression, or saying, 'Well, I've no control...' - that's too silly, either. So, is it possible to observe - not 'possible' - to observe without any of this?
42:45	Q:Wanting to gain something, isn't that interfering with attention? Wanting to gain something, doesn't that prevent…
42:51	K:Of course, of course, of course. After all, if one sees what is happening in the world and in oneself, this fantastic violence, aggression, with all the things implied in it - and playing with non-violence is just idiocy, the ideology of it and all that. To see the implications of violence and be totally free of it - not as an achievement but the understanding of the whole nature of violence.
44:12	Q:Is this observation, when it takes place, something which, say, one can be doing all one's waking hours, or is it something that takes place occasionally?
44:35	K:Sir, as we are listening and discussing here, is it possible to observe… are you observing in that sense which you have talked about just now? Observing, which includes listening and learning - observing means observing, seeing, listening, learning - all a movement. And you're asking: does this happen, can this happen all during the day, or does it happen only, or partially, during the period of sleep?
45:31	Q:Oh, I didn't mean to ask about sleep. I meant, rather, is it something that can happen only occasionally or can one...
45:44	K:It must happen all the time, otherwise no point. You know, from that another question arises, which is: the censor is very deeply rooted - right? - deep down in one's being he's rooted. One can observe superficially, consciously, without the observer - that's comparatively easy if one has gone into it, watches it, you know, that's comparatively easy. But there is this deep rooted censor in the very recesses, in the dungeons of one's being, in the caves of one's heart, and so on. How does it happen to bring all that out? I don't know if it interests you, all this.
47:19	Q:Are you asking if it's possible to end the past once and for all?
47:23	K:No, not quite. That is a question but that's not relevant, if you don't mind, at the moment. Here is a problem which I think must strike everybody. I can… one can be superficially observant - right? - I can observe your red shirt, your silver - whatever it is - dress, and so on, so on, so on, and learn the trick of not condemning. It's a trick. But at the deeper layers, deep down, the censor is in operation, of which one may not be conscious at all. And that censor generally takes charge at the moment of inattention. I don't know if you follow all this. And the moment of inattention is sleep. Am I saying anything scandalous? Because then this censor projects dreams - you know, all the rest of it takes place.
49:04	Q:Will this come to the state that one can be asleep with your eyes open?
49:07	K:Wait, sir. No. Look, don't go off to the results yet - you'll find out. See what takes place. I am inquiring. We're inquiring. I can be… one can be attentive off and on during the day, watching, train oneself like an animal to watch. I've seen that with a great many people who have listened to all this, and say, 'I'm going to train myself to be very attentive and pay tremendous attention during the daytime.' Now, when they go to sleep, inattention takes charge because the attention is so artificial during the day. I don't know if you're… And so sleep becomes a period of inattention. Do you accept all this?
50:22	Q:It seems believable.
50:25	Q:In the waking state also…
50:27	K:Waking state also is inattention, but I am just passing that over.
50:33	Q:I couldn't say one way or other when I'm asleep…
50:36	K:So the question, sir, is to expose the censor completely - you follow? - the censor that's hidden, the censor that is the past. I don't know if you…
51:09	Q:Will that affect the sleeping state?
51:13	K:You will see. Go into it, sir, we'll find out. Don't ask me questions because you and I are exploring. So what is the function of sleep? I don't know if you… Is it a period of inattention - if I may use that word without spoiling your sleep - [laughs] or is it a period which is really attention? I don't know if you are…
51:59	Q:If there's a censor... Q:...then it's inattention.
52:09	Q:Are you saying that attention must be as deeply rooted as the censor in order to function?
52:16	K:No, in order to - not 'in order,' that implies a motive - to live without any form of control, without any resistance, which means without violence, the censor must come to an end. And we are asking the censor, so deeply hidden as he is, how does it happen to expose the whole of that? What do you say? I don't know.
53:28	Q:You have to definitely extend the bounds of your awareness.
53:36	K:No, wait. No, look what you're…
53:39	Q:Because right now I'm only aware at any one time with such a small portion of…
53:46	K:Therefore, how does it happen to extend this attention, not only horizontally but vertically?
53:59	Q:True. I implied that.
54:01	K:Yes, vertically as well as horizontally.
54:04	Q:What's the difference between vertical and horizontal?
54:10	K:You know, going down… [laughs]
54:13	Q:Not only the scope of what you see...
54:16	K:I mean, after all, all science is horizontal knowledge. Right? But the vertical inquiry - not only up but down. You understand my question? Yes? Yes, sir? One observes there is superficial consciousness with all its resistance and censorship in action, and in that observation one learns a great deal superficially. But deep down, can that observation enter into the hidden recesses?
55:42	Q:I personally feel that that is possible. But one of my ways of doing that, strangely enough, happens when I do dream and I have an awareness while I am dreaming, about the fact that I am dreaming, and when I am finished with my dream I look at it, like a puzzle, and I put the whole thing together, and very often I find some secret key to myself that is troubling me, that comes out in the dream, and it’s over, finished then - I have discovered something.
56:22	K:Yes, so you're saying, aren't you, if I may interpret what… if I understand rightly: dreams help one to pull out the censor, to expose the censor. Right? Q:Yes.
56:53	K:Why do you dream at all?
57:02	Q:Perhaps because I am not living in my everyday life as I…
57:11	K:Therefore, as you're not living everyday life - not you personally - I'm not talking personally - as one doesn't live with attention during the daytime, night, asleep, in sleep dreams become a necessity. Right? I question the… I say: why should I dream at all? Not: I must dream in order to expose my… You follow? Q:Yes.
58:00	K:And finding a key to understanding through dreams, and therefore keeping the mind - see the importance - keeping the brain cells and the mind tremendously active all the time, during the daytime, night - you follow? - the whole machinery operating all the time. So one is asking whether dreams are at all necessary and is there a way - I don't mean a method - how does it happen to expose the hidden? We have ruled out analysis - I'm sorry if there are any analysts here, sorry, forgive me - we ruled out the analysts, analysis, because we went into that so we don't have to go into it - we said analysis implies time, the analyser, the analysed - one fragment assuming the authority, the analyser, and so on - so that's out. That's out - it has no meaning to me, personally. Then how is all this to be exposed?
59:49	K:I don't know if you're interested in this. Personally I am tremendously because if the censor is in operation at the deeper layers of one's consciousness, and I'm only… and the mind is only polishing up on the surface, there's no meaning. It has a superficial meaning but it is totally irrelevant. So how does it happen? The deep layers, all their contents are exposed without analysis, without searching. Searching implies a seeker - see all the difficulties in it - who, when he's seeking must recognize. Right? And therefore recognition means he's observing through the past and therefore saying, 'This is right,' or, 'this is good, I'll keep this, I won't…' I don't know if you're following all this. How do you answer this? No?
1:02:54	Q:When one observes, it doesn't seem that there is the censor there. When one is observing there isn't the person watching.
1:03:12	K:No, you've not understood, madame, our question. In the cellar, a great many things are hidden, and I've superficially polished the top floor. In the cellar there are all these things - how do I get at that, to expose, to clean up the whole house?
1:03:44	Q:Doesn't the observing do this?
1:03:55	K:You're saying, does the act of observation in itself reveals all this? Q:Yes.
1:04:05	K:Now, is this from your actual experience or are you just guessing? Please be careful.
1:04:11	Q:Just now, just doing it now. K:No, do... Because, you see, we can invent a lot of theories, suppositions, guesses, and that's no good. You are saying, are you, that the observer, being the observed and therefore no censor, when there is - no, such observation is the factor of revealing the whole content of the cellar - is that what you're saying?
1:04:48	Q:I am asking.
1:04:49	Q:But that seems to be the wrong question because the fact is that we don't observe.
1:04:57	Q:No, like I am observing right now. I don't know if I'm exposing the whole cellar but all I can tell is when things come up I can see them happen, I can see resistances happen.
1:05:08	K:You understand, sir, the meaning of this question…
1:05:14	Q:Yes.
1:05:15	K:Which is - I'm not doubting you - which is, if there is no analysis, or rather, when we understand the futility of it or see the truth of it, and therefore the time element has gone out of it, in the sense taking time between the top floor and the bottom floor - you follow? - there's no time at all. Because when we understand the process of analysis you also understand the process of time, therefore you eliminate time. I don't know if you do. Therefore we're asking: the observation must be free from time. Right? It isn't that I'm awake during the day, partially awake during the day, and sleep reveals through dreams the contents of the unconscious. Therefore both are necessary - you follow? All that involves time. I have no time. To me time is a horror! Logically, because that implies, time implies an interval between this and that. In that interval a great many other incidents, and stresses, and strains, and events happen, which change the course.
1:07:31	Q:It also implies the search, searching.
1:07:34	K:Change the course. So time is really a most distracting affair. So when one realises that, the realisation of that fact that time is a distortion, a diversion, then where are you? Then what is observation without time? I wonder if you're getting all this!
1:08:17	Q:If you are fully attentive is there a cellar?
1:08:21	K:That's the point, sir. Therefore, what does this full attention mean?
1:08:32	Q:Those moments when I'm not expecting anything then I am fully attentive.
1:08:36	K:No, I don't want moments, I want… [laughs] I'm not interested in occasionally having food. One's life is much too short - I want to enjoy the mountains and the trees, the loveliness of human - you know, I want to enjoy and as long as this isn't clear, all this, there's no joy in life. And joy is always now, not tomorrow or yesterday. So time is a factor which is most destructive. And so, is there observation without time? See what is implied in all this. Time, observation without time, observation without the censor, observation without resistance, without control, without a motive, without an achievement. I don't know if… What does that observation mean? Is it possible? Or we are merely pursuing a fancy, a dream, a lovely thing to be like that but it is just vain, it has no meaning. You see, they say train. Train yourself, practise, watch how you move your toe, your finger, your mind, your thought - you follow? - watch, watch, watch, take time, take years! At the end of it, what? What have you got at the end of it? Not to have reactions when you see Marilyn Monroe? You follow, sir? That's what they're after - which is so idiotic - I don't want to go into all that. No, I don't know, you may laugh, but you see, sir, the monks throughout the world have trained themselves to this. They never see the beauty of the earth, the beauty of the tree, the beauty of a woman or a man - it's just the book and their idea of Jesus, or salvation and truth, it's just - you follow? - a battle going on everlastingly inwardly, never a moment of beauty, tremendous enjoyment of life. So, if I'm serious I must find this - you follow? - it isn't just a dream; either it is so or it is not so. Which means the mind must everlastingly dwell in conflict - that's its habitation. If that is a reality then it's all right, we accept it. That means violence is absolutely part of life, part of man, only tame it, control it, shape it, be violent in certain directions, be peaceful - I say that's impossible to live that way. So, in inquiring, not theoretically but actually - experiment means to put it to the test, to test it as you go along - is such awareness in which there is a total absence of the censor with all its implications - how does it happen? Not tomorrow, it must happen now. If it happens tomorrow it has no meaning, because when it happens tomorrow I've already built dozens of resistances, I've already distorted. I've taken a detour to come to tomorrow; the detour leads me off. So at the end of this, is the mind aware of all this? Aware in the sense, aware of the truth of all this? Not as an idea - the truth of naming, not naming, the description is not the described, the desire to seek and the implications of it, control - you know, see the truth of it - the truth, not the idea of the truth. Is that what we are doing now? Which brings us to another issue, which is: what is love then? Is love a matter of time, culture, a thing of pleasure and therefore dependency? What do you say, sir? Or is awareness love? Is attention, the sense of total - to use the word which is so hackneyed, so spoilt - love? When there is love do you control? Oh, I mustn't go into all this. Yes, sir, you think it out. Watch it and you'll see the most extraordinary things happen.
1:18:41	Q:Well, in love, I should think that there must be awareness.
1:18:50	K:No, sir, not 'I should think.' [Laughs] What is love?
1:18:56	Q:Well, I meant to go on, if I might. K:Sorry.
1:19:01	Q:I wanted to suggest that awareness couldn't be love because one could be aware of torture and one wouldn't love it.
1:19:24	K:Sir, is love a thing of thought?
1:19:35	Q:I should think not.
1:19:38	K:No, no - not 'should think not' - I don't know.
1:19:41	Q:I'll rephrase that now. [Laughter]
1:19:53	K:Then what is pleasure? What is pleasure and love? These are dangerous questions - you follow, sir? No, no, don't… What relationship is sex to love? If pleasure is not love - be careful, I'm not saying it is or it is not, we're inquiring - then what place has enjoyment? I don't know if you've gone into all this.
1:20:39	Q:It seems to me it would depend on how you use your pleasure, how you use your sex.
1:20:46	K:Ah! No, no. Who is using it? For God's sake don't… Use - what do you mean use?
1:20:52	Q:I might rephrase it. In other words, if sex is just lust or something like that...
1:20:57	K:Sir, wouldn't you approach the problem, approach it… by negation come upon the positive? Which is, what is joy and pleasure? What is enjoyment? Enjoyment, sir. Enjoyment, doesn't it mean no memory of having enjoyed? Right, sir? Come on, sirs.
1:22:05	Q:I think it's the feeling you get when you have complete communication...
1:22:09	K:No, sir. No, don't… [laughs] If you remember your enjoyment and are enjoying that remembrance, it is pleasure and therefore it is not enjoyment. So is love pleasure? For God's sake, sir, this is such a tremendously serious thing we're playing with.
1:23:01	Q:Pleasure is a dead thing. By definition, pleasure is a remembrance.
1:23:09	K:Obviously.
1:23:11	Q:Then love can't be that because love is not...
1:23:14	K:So what relationship - follow it, sir, careful - what relationship with sex, enjoyment, joy, pleasure, remembrance - you follow?
1:23:32	Q:It would seem to me that pleasure excludes love because it excludes relationship, but love can include sex, it can include...
1:23:43	K:Oh, I don't know anything about all this, sir. Look at the complexity of it, sir. First see how complex this question is. I mean, throughout the ages, man, in seeking God, whatever it is, says no sex - you follow? - to serve God you must be celibate. You follow?
1:24:09	Q:I see that. It doesn't seem right.
1:24:11	K:Don't say it doesn't seem right or wrong, go into it. Because they said desire is wrong, therefore kill out desire. And they can't kill out desire, therefore they concern themselves with the desire for Jesus, for saviour - you follow what I mean? - or social reform, or whatever it is, missionary work and helping the heathens, and all that. Until the mind understands this whole business of the observer, and all that, and also the sense of joy, which has nothing to do with entertainment, being entertained, or getting joy of reading a poem, and pleasure, sex, tenderness, kindliness, gentle - you follow? - the whole of that.
1:26:02	Q:Sir? I don't exactly understand how enjoyment has nothing to do with reading a poem and getting joy from reading a poem or…
1:26:14	K:Look, sir, to derive enjoyment through something is to depend on something.
1:26:22	Q:But you can enjoy something.
1:26:24	K:Ah! I enjoy the sunset because I'm joyous [laughs] - which is different - Sorry, I'm…
1:26:32	Q:Yes, I see.
1:26:41	K:If I have a problem eating my heart out, how can I look at those mountains? I'm sorry, you all ought to be sitting here and I there. You see, what we are talking is so contradictory to everything. I don't know… I mean, the priest, the Catholic priest is revolting against the Church, after going through tortures to say, 'Now I won't anymore' - it has no meaning. So, sir, this is it. I don't know how much you have communicated with each other. Is it time? Q:Nearly half past five.
1:28:44	K:An hour and a half - that's enough.
1:28:47	Q:If I understand it correctly, you're not asking what should be the relationship between sex and love but what is it in fact, and I don't see how that could possibly have a simple answer. It is what is. I can't see how we can say it is this or is that.
1:29:00	K:No, sir. We can't put these into categories but what we can do is… I mean, as human beings have to relate all this, the truth of all this, or the beauty of all this, and so one has to inquire endlessly. You follow what I mean?
1:29:37	Q:One does have to start out with a particular strategy.
1:29:40	K:No, no, no, no. The moment you observe when there is joy, you say, 'What strange phenomenon this is' - suddenly to feel extraordinarily something and see the pleasure of it - you follow? - how pleasure comes out of it. Which is thought cultivating that incident as pleasure and pursuing that. Oh no, this requires enormous attention - you follow? - watching like a hawk.
1:30:43	Q:Does this watching root out the deep censor or does it just free the mind from the effects of the censor?
1:30:51	K:No, in this watching there is no censor at all. This watching implies the absence of the observer.
1:31:20	I think we'd better stop, don't you?