Krishnamurti - When I observe fear, that fear is me

Krishnamurti Subtitles

ND81S3 - When I observe fear, that fear is me
New Delhi - 5 November 1981
Seminar 3

0:19	PJ: Krishnaji, this is the last discussion in this series of discussions. The field is very complex, consciousness and the mind. Most of us have a mind which is filled and occupied with an infinity of complexities. Even though, perhaps, we made some ingress into this matrix, the density of it makes penetration or revelation of the full length and breadth and width of it impossible to comprehend in the very short while before us. Therefore, instead of pursuing these fragments, which we have been doing, of this total consciousness... In all that we have said, there is one big question which remains imprinted on the human mind, and that is the ‘how’ of it. Most people see that there is a shrinkage of space in the human mind because of the various pressures which operate on it, pressures of technology, pressures of population, pressures of incapacity to face complex situations, violence, terror, all of it is only increasing to narrow the space which is available to us within which to explore. I would suggest, sir, that in this last hour and a half that we have, if you go into, not specific problems of fear or what is the future, which all come into the major problem of what is the future of man, but lay bare the structure of the human mind, and bring us face to face with the structure of thought. One of the major problems we have is, most discussions concern themselves with the content and meaning of human thought. Though content and meaning are very important, when you are talking of a mutation at the root of the human mind, I think the structure of that mind, the structure of thought and the structure of perception and the action which leads to an ending of these complexities, not piecemeal, but an ending, can only... – I won’t say come about – can only be laid bare. It’s for each one of us to investigate for ourselves into these complexities. I think if you laid bare the structure, I’ve known you for many years, so I know you’ll never answer ‘how?’ – yet the ‘how’ of it is at the root of our inquiry.
4:49	K: I think that lady should come to the front.
5:02	PJ: Why don’t you sit there, you will find shade.
5:17	K: Would you add something, sir?
5:20	G. Narayan: May I ask something? Obviously, there is an increase in suffering, especially man-made suffering – poverty, war, and changes brought about by various developments in mechanics and engineering. So, the young man is drowned in this suffering and fear, and finds it difficult to come to terms with life. In this context, what is the nature of wisdom?
6:10	K: You were asking that same question yesterday. Sir, this morning we talked over together fear, the whole movement of fear. How do you listen to those statements? How do you read those statements? What is the impact of those statements? We said this morning, desire, time, thought, the hurts, the whole of that is fear, right? And you tell me that. You say it very clearly in words which are common, you have communicated to me the truth of it – right? – not the verbal description of desire, time, fear, thought. Your very statement, and listening to that statement, I am not arguing with that statement, I’m not opposing it, or comparing what you say to something I already know, but I am actually listening to what you said. It has entered into my consciousness, that part of consciousness which is willing to observe, willing to listen, willing to comprehend entirely what you are saying, what you have said to me. What is the impact? Is it a verbal impact, or a logical impact, or you have talked to me at a level where I see the truth of what you have said. I would like to discuss that a little bit, because that may reveal the state of my own mind, not the state of your mind, but the state of my own activity of listening, the impact of your statement, and the depth of the truth of what you have said. What does it do to my consciousness? Would that be all right?
10:05	PJ: I feel, sir, that we will enter into another dialectic.
10:13	K: I have a horror of all that. PJ: I would suggest you take us further into it. You have an hour. We are still at the periphery, unless you open it up and perhaps, later enter into the discussion. But I think you have to open it up much more.
10:48	K: I don’t quite follow how to open it up, I’m looking at it. What do you mean ‘open it up’?
10:57	PJ: I am asking you the ‘how’ of it.
11:02	K: Play devil’s advocate. PJ: Yes. I will ask you. You’ve said what you’ve said this morning. We are speaking of the future of man, to the danger of technology taking over man’s functions, man seems paralysed. You said there are only two ways – either the way of pleasure or the way of another movement...
11:36	K: Inwardly.
11:38	PJ: I am asking you the ‘how’ of the other movement. Don’t tell me that there is no ‘how’, and leave me.
11:51	Q: Let me try and make it a little more earthy. We have to quench fear if we have to be free, otherwise we drown ourselves in pleasures. Increasingly, in this world, fear increases because of the processes that have been set in motion. How do we begin to quench certain aspects of this fear, so as to open the way to freedom?
12:35	K: Sir, when you ask ‘how’, you are asking for a system, for a method, for a practice. That is obvious. Q: Not from you.
12:52	K: When anybody asks the ‘how’, ‘How am I to play the piano’, all that is implied – practice, a method, a mode of acting. When you ask the ‘how’, you’re back again to the same old pattern of experience, knowledge, memory, thought, action. You are back in that system. I don’t know if you are following my point. Can we move away from the ‘how’ for the moment and observe the mind, or our own brain, how to look at this whole movement of fear, not the ‘how’, but pure observation of it? It is not analysis. Observation is totally different from analysis. I will explain if you want. In analysis, there is always the search for a cause. In analysis, there is the analyser and the analysed. That means the analyser is separate from the analysed. Right? That separation is fallacious. It is not actual, ‘actual’ being that which is happening now. All that process is involved in analysis. The analyser and the analysed, seeking a cause, or the many causes of that particular action and so on. Observation is totally free of analysis. Just to observe. Is that possible? To observe without any conclusion, without any direction, without any motive, just pure, clear looking. Is that possible? Obviously, it is possible. When you look at those lovely trees, it is fairly simple. But to look at the operation of the mind, the whole movement of existence, to observe it without any distortion, which is entirely different from analysis. In that observation the whole process of analysis, cause, is revealed and you go beyond it. Am I opening it up? I can look at that tree without any distortion, because I am looking, optically. Now, is there an observation of the whole activity of fear, without trying to find a cause or asking how to end it, or try to suppress it, or run away, just to look and stay with it, stay with the whole movement of fear? By ‘staying with it’ I mean to observe without any movement of thought entering into my observation. Then I say, with that observation comes attention. That observation is total attention. It is not concentration, it is attention. It is like focussing bright light on an object. Attention is that. The focussing of that energy, which is light, on that movement of fear, ends fear. Analysis will never end fear. We can test it out. That is, is my mind capable of such attention, which is to bring all the energy of my intellect, emotion, nerves, to look at this movement of fear, without any opposition, or support, or denial, or all that?
19:43	PJ: May I say something?
19:45	K: Please. It’s not one dog speaking.
19:52	PJ: Thought arises in observation. Does one stay with the observation of fear? Then what happens to thought? Does one put it aside? What does one do?
20:11	K: No, I explained.
20:14	PJ: Thought arises, which is also a fact.
20:18	K: Just listen. You explained to me this morning not only the personal fears, but the fears of mankind which is this stream in which is included thought, that is desire, time, thought, and the desire to end or go beyond it is all the movement of fear. To look at it, to observe it without any movement. Any movement is thought.
21:07	PJ: But, sir, this is where I would like you to proceed. You may say any movement is fear...
21:16	K: Is thought, I said, thought.
21:19	PJ: But in that observing, thought arises, which is also a fact.
21:26	K: No, it doesn’t. No, please listen. I said, desire, time, thought, thought is time, and desire is part of thought. You have shown the whole map of fear – just a minute – in which thought is included. Right? PJ: Yes.
21:59	K: There is no question of suppressing thought. That’s impossible.
22:06	PJ: Then what does one do with thought, if it arises.
22:10	K: It won’t arise, when there’s complete attention.
22:14	PJ: Sir, you are positing something. You take it for granted that such a state of attention exists.
22:25	K: No, I don’t. I said, ‘First, look at it’. We hardly give attention to anything. Right? You have just now said something about thought. I’ve listened to it very, very carefully. I was attending to what you were saying. Can you – not you personally – can you attend?
23:02	PJ: But see, sir, the attending is to what arises.
23:11	K: No. Look. Find out, Pupulji, what is attention.
23:17	PJ: No, sir, I would like to… K: All right. All right.
23:24	PJ: For an instant, attention is. K: Beg your pardon?
23:29	PJ: For an instant, attention is. K: Yes.
23:35	PJ: In that state of attention, attention is not, and thought arises. This is the state of... this is the mind. There is no doer, because that is pretty obvious. It is neither possible to remain immovable nor to say that thought will not arise. If it is a stream, then the stream will flow.
24:22	K: Are we discussing what is observation?
24:33	PJ: We are discussing observation, in that observation, I’ve raised this problem. That is the problem of attention, that is the problem of self-knowing, that is the problem of our minds, that in observing…
24:50	K:...thought arises. PJ:...thought arises. So, then what? Do you stay with the observing of fear? Then what does one do with thought? That’s what I want to make clear.
25:05	K: When in your attention a thought arises, you totally put aside fear, but you pursue thought. Am I making myself clear?
25:17	PJ: That’s what I wanted to bring out.
25:19	K: I observe. I observe the movement of fear. In that observation, thought arises. The movement of fear is not important, but the arising of thought. Then there is total attention on that thought. Right? What next?
25:59	Q: May I take it from...? PJ: Please, sir.
26:03	Q: May I raise another aspect? Sir, I believe that fearlessness...
26:12	K: Aha. The end of fear. Q: The end of fear.
26:18	K: Not fearlessness.
26:20	Q: The end of fear is non-analytical. The moment you analyse, you become fearful.
26:28	K: We have explained all that.
26:30	Q: But the consciousness with which you observe, that consciousness requires a renewal of thought, every now and then, otherwise you become a vegetable. K: No! All right. There is this stream of fear. Tell me what to do. How am I, who am caught in fear of many kinds, how is it to end? Not the method, not the system or the practice, but the ending of it. We said analysis will not end it. That’s obvious. What will end it? A perception of the whole movement of this, a perception without direction.
27:47	Jagannath Upadhyaya: (In Hindi).
32:26	Kapila Vatsyayan: (In Hindi).
32:59	JU: (In Hindi).
33:11	KV: Sir, he has taken issues with you.
33:17	K: Good.
33:20	KV: You made a statement in speaking about fear – the observation, observation of the movement of fear. I am referring to that because his issue cannot be understood, unless we go back to your statement. He says that the distinction that you have made between analysis and observation, and the rejection of analysis which you have presented, is not acceptable to him. He believes that it is only through analysis that the entire structure of tradition and weight of memory can be broken. It is only when that is broken that observation is possible. Otherwise, to paraphrase, it would always be a conditioned mind which would be observing. He believes that by your insistence on observation as distinct from analysis, perhaps, he asks, there is the possibility or probability of the type of accidents or sudden happenings occurring, of which other people have spoken or known, and if I understand, (In Hindi) and that therefore there can be the opportunity in which – the phrase that he uses doesn’t need translation – of ‘shaktipat’ taking place, that is the destruction of power. Accession of power.
36:10	PJ: May I say one word? Is the nature of looking at fear – I’m answering part of his question – is the nature of observing or looking at fear, or listening to fear, of the same nature as looking at a tree, or listening to a bird? Is it of the same nature, or are you talking of a listening and a seeing which is an optical observing, plus?
36:53	K: Plus. PJ: If it is plus, what is the plus?
37:00	AP: Sir, I would also like …
37:03	K: Take this.
37:08	Achyut Patwardhan: I see a great danger in what Upadhyayaji has said. He says there cannot be observation, unless it is accompanied by analysis. And if there is observation without analysis then that observation may have to depend upon an accident, an accidental glimpse, accidental awakening of an insight. That he concedes as a possibility. My submission to him is, that unless observation is cleansed of analysis, it is incapable of freeing itself from the fetters of conceptualism. The processes in which we have been reared are processes where observation and conceptual understanding go together. It is almost difficult for a modern educated person to observe without simultaneously bringing into operation, unconsciously and consciously, a process of conceptual comprehension. Observation that has not cleansed itself of conceptual comprehension disables itself from what you would call pure observation. Therefore, it is very necessary to establish that analysis is the obstacle to observation. We must see this as a fact, that analysis prevents me from observing, because analysis takes me into the intrusion or interjection of conceptual comprehension, which is not observation.
39:41	KV: Sir, we would like you to...
39:51	K: Sir, do we clearly understand that the observer is the observed? I observe that tree, but I am not that tree. I observe various reactions such as greed, envy and so on, but the observer is greed, is not separate from greed. The observer himself is the observed, which is greed. If that is clearly, not intellectually accepted, but actually the truth of it is seen as a profound... I won’t use the word ‘experience’. A profound reality, a truth which is absolute, I’ll get lost in all this. When there is such observation in which the observer is not, the observer is the past, and when I observe that tree, all the past associations with that tree come into being. I name it as ‘oak’, or whatever, like and dislike. Now, when I observe fear, that fear is me. I am not separate from that fear. So, the observer is the observed. Is that a truth or just a conclusion?
41:58	JU: (In Hindi)?
42:01	PJ: (In Hindi).
42:07	K: Wait, sir, I haven’t finished this, forgive me. In that observation, where there is no observer to observe, because there is only the fact, fear is me, I am not separate from fear. Then, what is the need for analysis? In that observation, if it is pure observation, then the whole process of analysis, cause, the whole thing is revealed. I can logically explain everything from that observation without analysis. I wonder if I’m making myself clear? I think that’s what we are missing, we are not clear on this particular point that the thinker is the thought, the experiencer is the experience. Would you agree to that? The experiencer when he experiences something new – what he calls new – he has recognised it, right? You are not meeting my point. I’ve lost you. I experience something. To give to it meaning, I must bring in all the previous records of experiences. I must remember the nature of that experience. Therefore, I am putting it outside of me. But when I realise the experiencer, the thinker, the analyser is the analysed, is the thought, is the experience, in that perception, in that observation, there is no division, there is no conflict. Therefore, the truth of that, when it is realised, that truth can explain logically the whole sequence of it. Have I made this clear or clear as mud?
44:55	KV: Sir, will you explain the distinction between experience and truth as known? How would you explain that? K: I don’t understand you.
45:13	KV: You said the experiencer is the experienced.
45:17	K: Not I said. No. Please, just a minute. Is that a fact to you? Is that a truth, an immovable truth?
45:31	KV: Exactly. How does one know whether this is a truth without the experiencer...? K: Wait. Let us go slow. I am angry. At the moment of anger, at the moment of anger, there is no ‘me’ at all, there is only that reaction called ‘anger’. A second later, I say, ‘I have been angry’. I’ve already separated anger from me. I don’t know if you are following.
46:14	K: Panditji? I’ve separated it a moment later. So, there is ‘me’ and ‘anger’. Then I suppress it, rationalise it, ‘Why shouldn’t I be angry?’ and so on. So, I’ve already divided a reaction which is ‘me’, into ‘me’ and ‘not-me’. Then the whole conflict begins. Whereas, anger is me. I am made up of reactions. Right? Obviously. So, I am anger. Right? Have we come to that point? I am anger. What happens then? Before, I wasted energy in analysing, in suppressing, in being in conflict with anger, all that wasted energy is now concentrated and there is no wastage of energy. With that energy which is attention, I hold this reaction called fear. I don’t move away from it, because I am that. Then, because you have brought all your energy, that fact which is called fear, disappears.
48:20	SG: Sir, the fact called fear may disappear, but if we take the example of the same observation, analysis for the purpose of anger, if we do not rationalise it, where do we go from there?
48:43	K: I beg your pardon?
48:46	SG: We do not rationalise it. The idea is that we just observe, we do not let the thought emerge out of it, or don’t encourage it, then that means there should be no direction to this movement of...
49:03	K: No, you have misunderstood, madame. Do you personally see the fact that anger is you? Don’t say, ‘Yes’, go into it, hold it a minute. You are anger, you are envy, jealousy, all that, you are that. What will you do? What can you do? I am brown or white or pink. That’s a fact. I stay with it. Because I am capable of seeing the truth of that, I can then rationalise, analyse, anything you like, but that’s a fact. Then other things don’t matter so much because there is freedom from fear. You wanted to find out in what manner fear can end. Right? I have shown it. As long as there is a division between you and fear, fear will continue. Like the Arab and the Jew, the Hindu and Muslim, this division, as long as this division exists, there must be conflict. I am not browbeating you, madame, I’m not trying to force you to accept this, but I am just pointing it out.
51:06	PJ: Who observes? That is the natural question which will come out of this.
51:12	K: There is no ‘who observes’. There’s only the state of observation.
51:19	PJ: Does it come about spontaneously?
51:24	K: Now, you have told me it is not analysis – just listen – it is not analysis, it’s not this, it’s not that, and I discard it. I don’t say, ‘I’ll discuss...’, I’ve discarded it. My mind is free from all the conceptual, analytical processes, my mind now is listening to the fact that the observer is the observed.
52:01	PJ: You see, sir, there are two things in this. One is that when there is an observing of the mind, one sees the extraordinary movement in it, which is beyond anyone’s control, or beyond anyone’s capacity to give even direction to it. It is there. In that state, you say, ‘Bring all attention on to fear’.
52:39	K: Which is all your energy.
52:41	PJ: Which actually means, bring all attention onto that which is moving. Let me put it this way. K: Of course. Of course.
52:57	PJ: I have asked you this question before, but I’m asking you again, when you question, the responses which are a reflex with us, do not arise with you.
53:16	K: I don’t quite follow. PJ: When you question... When you are questioned or you question yourself, in our minds the responses immediately arise, your responses do not arise, you hold a question.
53:37	K: Yes, that’s right.
53:40	PJ: What gives you that capacity to hold fear in consciousness? I don’t think we have that capacity.
53:51	K: I don’t think it’s a question of capacity. I don’t. What is capacity?
53:59	PJ: I will cut out the word ‘capacity’. There is a holding of fear. K: That’s all.
54:07	PJ: This movement which is like this, gets immovable.
54:12	K: That’s right. PJ: And fear is ended.
54:17	PJ: With us, it does not happen. that clarity, which love brings, hold it, not ask, ‘What is love? What is not love?’. It is like a vessel holding the water. You are all sceptical? Panditji, what do you say? You see, sir, when you have an insight – I’m using a word which perhaps we can discuss – I’m using the word ‘insight’. When you have an insight into fear, fear ends. The insight is not analysis, time, remembrance, all that, it is immediate perception of something. We do have it. Often, we have this sense of clarity about something. Is all this theoretical, sir? PJ: Sir, no, no.
56:27	Q: Sir, I find that... when you speak of that moment of clarity, I accept that. But it must come as a result of something that has happened, and it must move from period to period, from level to level. My clarity cannot be the same as your clarity.
56:51	K: Sir, clarity is clarity, it’s not yours or mine. Intelligence is not yours or mine.
57:03	Q: The content changes with each change in the mass of knowledge.
57:15	K: What are we discussing now? PJ: Sir, I would like to go into it. I’ll start with one statement. In observing the movement of the mind – I won’t bring in fear – in observing the movement of the mind, there is no point at which you say, ‘I have observed totally and it’s over’.
58:00	K: You can never say that.
58:03	PJ: You are talking of an observing which is a state of being. You move in observation, your life is a life of observing. K: Yes, that’s right.
58:20	PJ: Out of that observing, action arises, out of that observing, analysis arises, out of that observing, wisdom is that observing. Unfortunately, we observe and then enter into the other sphere of non-observing, and therefore, always have this dual process going on. None of us can say we do not know what observing is. None of us can say we know what a life of observing is.
59:04	K: Pupulji, can’t you observe – I’m taking this very simply – can’t you observe a person without any prejudice, without any concept? PJ: Yes.
59:21	K: What is implied in that observation?
59:25	PJ: What is implied in that observation is...
59:29	K: You observe me or I observe you. Better, you observe me. How do you observe me? How do you look at me?
59:44	PJ: Why should there be a ‘how’ in looking?
59:47	K: No, not ‘how’, what is your observation of a person?
59:55	PJ: I’ll tell you what I would say.
59:59	K: I’m asking you. PJ: If you’re asking me,
1:00:02	K: You about me. Don’t bring in others.
1:00:04	PJ: I observe you... It sounds very... saying it, but I observe you...
1:00:20	K: What is your reaction in that observation?
1:00:27	PJ:...with the energy... with all the energy I have, I observe you. Please, it becomes very personal. That’s why I won’t.
1:00:40	K: I’ll move away from it. Sorry. Forgive me.
1:00:47	PJ: I can’t say that I don’t know what it is to be in a state of observing without the word.
1:00:53	K: Could I take this example? Excuse me for repeating this. I am married. I’ve lived with that woman for a number of years. I have all the memories of those twenty years or five days. Now, how do I – not ‘how’ – in what manner do I look at her? Tell me. I am married to her, I have lived with her, sexually and all the rest of it, and when I see her in the morning how do I look at her – not ‘how’ – what is my reaction? Do I see her afresh, as though for the first time, or do I look at her with all the memories flooding into my mind?
1:02:13	KV: Either is possible.
1:02:17	K: Anything is possible, but what happens, actually? Do I observe anything for the first time? When I look at that moon, the new moon coming up, with the evening star, do I look at it as though I have never seen it before? The wonder, the beauty, the light – I’m not going off into some poetic romance – but do I look at anything as though I was looking for the first time?
1:03:11	Q: You are asking, can we die to our yesterdays and to our past?
1:03:15	K: No, sir. We are always looking with the burden of the past. Right, sir? So, there is no actual looking. This is very important. When I look at my wife I don’t see her as though it’s the first time I have seen that face, the causation of that is the memories. Right? So, my brain is caught in memories about her or about the politicians, about this or that. So, I am always looking from the past, right? Just listen to it, not only with the hearing of the ear, but listen at depth. I am asking is it possible to look at that moon, at the evening star, as though it was the first time I’ve seen that beauty, without all the associations connected with the moon? Can I see the sunset, which I’ve seen in America, in England, in Italy and so on, can I look at that sunset and say, ‘By Jove, this is the first time I have seen it’? Ah, don’t say ‘Yes’. That means my brain is not recording the previous sunsets. No, don’t say... This is the most...
1:05:42	SG: It’s very rare, but it can happen, sir.
1:05:46	K: Not rare.
1:05:49	Q: The question is how does one... because I would say it is open, there may be that, very rarely. How does one know it is so? Is it the memory of the first looking coming in as the illusion of that?
1:06:03	K: You are asking, how do you know you are seeing the moon and evening star for the first time?
1:06:10	Q: It may be the memory of the first time which is appearing.
1:06:14	K: Just a minute. I know what you are saying. That leads to another question, is it possible – I’m just asking, investigating – is it possible not to record, except what is absolutely necessary? Panditji, join me, please. What do you say? Why should I record the insult I may have received this morning, or the flattery? They are both the same. Why should I record it? Yes, you flattered me. You said it was a good talk, or ‘You’re a marvellous person’, or he comes along and says, ‘You are an idiot’. Why should I record it? Ah, I am asking. PJ: I am asking you. You ask the question as if there is a choice possible for me to record or not to record. K: There is no choice. I’m asking a question to investigate, put the drill into it. Would you answer this question, Panditji? Because the brain is registering. The squirrel on that parapet this morning, the kites flying by, all that you have said in our discussion at lunch, it is recorded. It’s like a gramophone record, playing over and over again. It’s occupied. The mind is constantly occupied. Right? Now, in that occupation you cannot listen, obviously, you cannot see clearly. So, one has to inquire why the brain is occupied. I’m occupied about God, he is occupied about sex, she’s occupied about her husband, somebody else is occupied with power, position, politics, and cleverness – why? Why this occupation? From morning till night and even when you go to sleep the brain is occupied. Go on, sir, you don’t... Is it that when it is not occupied, there is fear of being nothing? You understand my question? Because occupation gives me a sense of living. But if I am not occupied I say I am lost. Is that why we are occupied from morning till night? Or is it a habit, or it is a sharpening itself? You follow? Or this occupation is destroying the brain, making it mechanical. I don’t know if you follow all this. Now, I have stated this. I’ve said, ‘Is it, is it, is it?’ How do you listen to that? Do you – not you Panditji, but does one see that one is occupied, actually? And seeing that one is occupied, remain with it, not say, ‘I won’t be occupied, I must not, it’s good for the brain’. Just say, ‘Yes, I am occupied’. See what happens then. Because when there is occupation, there is no space in the mind. So, when I look at my wife, as though for the first time, it is the mind that is not occupied. We were going to talk about sorrow, weren’t we, Pupulji? Or shall we’ll leave it now? I will do it on Saturday. Madam Simoneta asked a question, is it personal or universal? Why are you not concerned about the individual? That’s your question, isn’t it? Why do you make it all into universal? What’s that?
1:13:00	GN: From what you said this morning, everything is universal and nothing is personal and individual including consciousness and thought. K: Of course. Are you an individual? Not you, madame. Am I an individual, because I happen to be tall, short, I have a name, a form, maybe a bank account, or no bank account, certain capacities – does that make me an individual? What is an individual? Go on. Is my consciousness individual, mine? Is my brain mine? Or has this brain evolved through thousands of years? Brain, not my brain. But it’s my pride, my sense of security, of independence, sense of vanity, all that makes me think it is my special brain. This is so obvious. This leads to a totally different... Or, I am the collection of all the experiences of mankind. The story of all mankind is me, if I know how to read the book of me. So, you see, we are so conditioned, if I may use that word, with respect, we are so conditioned to this idea that we are all separate individuals, that we all have separate brains and these separate brains with their self-centred activity are going to be reborn over and over and over again. Right, sir? I question this whole concept that I am an individual – not that I am the collective. You understand, sir? I don’t know if you follow this. I am humanity, not the collective. What time is it?
1:16:43	GN: It’s 5:31.
1:16:48	K: All right, sir? You disagree, probably, with the whole circus.