Krishnamurti Subtitles home


OJ72DSG3 - Direct perception
Ojai, California - 31 March 1972
Discussion with Small Group 3



0:00 This is the third small group discussion with J. Krishnamurti in Ojai, California, 1972.
0:13 I don’t want to be conspicuous. (Laughter) I think we could perhaps approach what we have been discussing the last two mornings from a different... with a different approach.
0:53 I think it is more or less abundantly clear that one has to be completely a light to oneself.
1:06 Do we see this? Because the world is completely mad, corrupt. It doesn’t matter where you go, it is the same problem, whether in India, in Europe or here.
1:26 There are a thousand contradictory systems, teachers and so on.
1:39 And amidst this chaos one has to be a light to oneself.
1:46 That is, I think, the essence of all this. Do we see this clearly? That is what I would like to establish first and before we go further. I don’t want to teach you a thing, because I have nothing to teach.
2:06 It is like entering into a vast ocean, sea, where it is not chartered, there is no compass, no rudder and you have to find your way in it.
2:41 I don’t know if you want to be as serious, as deadly earnest as that.
2:53 Personally, I mean, as a human being, I can’t approach anything except from that point of view.
3:05 In talking with you, in discussing, one can’t – to use an unfortunate word – compromise.
3:24 I don’t want to help you. If I do then I am back in the old game.
3:41 I don’t want to teach you, I don’t want to correct you, I don’t want to tell you this is right, this is wrong, this should be done, this should not be done, how to meditate, what not to meditate, who to follow, who not to follow.
3:57 But seeing what is happening in the world, with friends, with people who you have known for years, and what the world is like outwardly, in which there is no justice, no order, no beauty, except in nature – I am talking of human beings – it is absolutely necessary, it behoves us to be completely a light to oneself, and not depend on anybody.
4:40 I think if that is clear you have an extraordinary health, physically. I don’t know how serious you are about all this.
4:56 So if some of us are serious then the implication of that is total abandonment of all authority, including this yellow and red shirt (laughs).
5:16 Q: (Inaudible) K: Authority in the sense, psychological authority – not the authority of the law that says keep to the right or left of the road.
5:31 Now, do we start from that?
5:38 Q: I have found one thing perplexing, and that is the sharp line which it sounds as if you sometimes make between the outer and the inner, so that outer authority, acceptance of the laws of nature and so on is one thing, but inner authority, total freedom, is another.
6:02 Where is the boundary?
6:03 K: I don’t think there is a boundary. There isn’t a demarcation or a frontier – one side you are free and the other side you are not free – I don’t think there is a line that so clearly divides the two.
6:27 At least, look at it, sir, I am not saying dogmatically.
6:49 You see, essentially I don’t divide... I mean, essentially there is no division between the outer and the inner; in essence, deep down.
7:03 And the refinement of that essence is the inner and the unrefined form is the outer.
7:19 And one has to find this out for oneself. It isn’t saying, ‘Well, somebody has made a line there and there is the outer and that is inner. You must go one step across from time to time.’ I don’t know if I am making myself clear.
7:39 To see this is to have intelligence.
7:48 If I have no intelligence – I’m talking about my… you follow? – if I have no intelligence the problem becomes extraordinarily complex.
8:00 Where am I to act in freedom and where am I to act not in freedom?
8:10 Outwardly there is no freedom, except perhaps in this country a little more than in Russia or China or India – India there is fairly… and Europe, in London, in England there is fairly… you can do practically what you like – thank God, still.
8:38 Q: Political authority doesn’t really matter, it’s so superficial.
8:40 K: No, no, no, no. Political authority, religious authority, authority of the law...
8:43 Q: Laws of nature.
8:44 K: No, wait, sir. I don’t know what the laws of nature are.
8:48 Q: But there are the laws of the body, for instance.
8:50 K: Yes, I mean, that is not a law. You eat healthy food or you don’t eat healthy food. You want to do certain exercises and so on, keep it healthy, and that’s that.
9:05 If you overdo, if you over-sex, overdrink, over-smoke, overindulge, the body pays for it.
9:12 Yes, sir?
9:13 Q: There’s a question that arises here, which is that science has indicated that much of my personality is based on chemical reactions within my body, and that my conditioning is in fact a chemical process.
9:27 K: Oh, yes, sir. Yes, sir, of course it is. That is obvious, sir.
9:31 Q: But how do I resolve that, how do I get around it if my conditioning is imprinted in my brain cells.
9:41 K: Wait, sir, look, look, look. The psyche is infected (laughs), is conditioned by the outer environment, obviously, isn’t it?
9:55 That’s clear, isn’t it? What I eat, what I drink, the way I… the whole thing shapes my psyche, and in turn the psyche says, ‘I mustn’t be conditioned that way.
10:15 I must be free irrespective of what the physical conditioning is.’ Don’t you say that?
10:26 I may be blind, I may be short-sighted, I may only have one leg, but yet there is this sense of wanting to be complete, whole, free.
10:38 Isn’t there? Knowing that the outer affects the inner. So, in knowing the outer affects the inner and the inner can control the outer, obviously, is intelligence.
10:56 No?
10:57 Q: But my body chemistry makes me a very violent person.
11:04 K: Wait, sir, does it?
11:05 Q: I’m very aggressive.
11:06 K: Does it? Does it?
11:10 Q: It’s been shown to.
11:12 K: Do look at it. You eat meat, you drink, you are frustrated, you are frightened. The fear, the frustration, the lack of total perception makes you violent.
11:26 Not just because you do certain… you have certain chemical reactions. Surely this is all well-established, isn’t it?
11:38 I am sorry to be a little emphatic, but I am not; I want to get on with the stuff.
11:47 Are you violent, sir, because of the environment you live in?
11:51 Q: Partially.
11:53 K: No, I am talking the essence of violence. Partially, of course; because if you are brought in a little village in India with only half a meal a day you have no energy to be violent; you accept.
12:12 And you then say, ‘It is my lot, my karma, my state. Perhaps next life I’ll be better off.’ But you haven’t the energy to say, ‘Well, I want to go and blast all these people who are driving in cars.’ Q: Maybe we take an example.
12:30 That is, maybe we accept doing physical yoga because we say, ‘Oh, that is clearly not manipulating the mind.’ Now where is the boundary?
12:43 Some people say, ‘Well, then you might also try a few breathing exercises, try repeating a mantra.’ Which is physical and which is…
12:52 K: Sir, I do every morning – sorry, I don’t want to talk about it – I do every morning an hour and a half of yoga and breathing.
12:59 Q: Right. Your intelligence has told you that that’s all right.
13:05 K: No. I do it to keep physically well. And when the body is tired I don’t do it. It isn’t a routine I go through. So I do it. As you might walk 10, 5 miles every day.
13:26 Q: Some people practice breathing.
13:28 K: I do it too, sir.
13:29 Q: Some people practice mantra yoga. That you don’t do.
13:31 K: Now, wait a minute, wait a minute. I know you are a dictator, you go back… (Laughter) Q: It’s all physical from your point of view.
13:37 K: No, no, no. Now wait a minute, let’s go into it. The good old stuff. (Laughter) I have had this, sir, in India. I have gone into this with people who don’t play with these things. Mantra yoga to them it is something sacred – you follow? – and they cannot stand being questioned.
13:58 Q: They cannot stand being what?
14:02 K: Questioned, doubted, as I do.
14:05 Q: Yes.
14:06 K: And yet they say, ‘Sir, you are a great man, please, what is wrong with this?’ So let us go into it, sir.
14:14 Physically it is necessary to do some kind of exercises – understood, right? – to keep the body healthy. No? Oh lord.
14:21 Q: Naturally.
14:22 K: And if you do it, yoga, do it. Or exercise, or walk. You know, some breathing. Right. Then you say mantra yoga. You know what mantra yoga is? Of course you do, all of you. Which is repetition of certain... it is really, you go to a teacher, a guru of that class of gurus who teach you, who give you a mantra, that is, a Sanskrit phrase which has special meaning, which relates to the disciple, and the disciple is supposed to have lived, worked with the teacher for a considerable time, then the teacher gives you the mantra.
15:19 You understand? You don’t just pay $35 and get a mantra and then meditate. You understand? Originally, sir, the whole idea was that you go the guru, live with him, he knows you – you understand? – and he gives a you mantra according to what your mind is capable of.
15:42 Right? Then you repeat, verbally, loudly, and later on, silently, and that technique, verbal repetition, silent repetition, gives you a certain state from which you jump off, spring off, or go off.
16:12 Then in that state your body is supposed to get well, your heart, if you have trouble with it, will get well, if your eyesight is not too good it gets better – you know, all these things take place.
16:23 And you say, ‘My God, how marvellous.’ Right? Is it? Physically it may affect you if you live very cleanly, sir, without any conflict at all – your body is like a steel spring, healthy.
16:43 Now why do you have to go through mantra yoga? To get a healthy body?
16:55 Come on, sir. You see what they do in the modern world? You do mantra yoga and you live a rotten life – quarrel, you know, all the rest of it – carry on, and want a healthy body.
17:12 Why should you have a healthy body? Right? You are mischievous as you are. You will be more mischievous if you are more healthy. (Laughter) No, sir, this is so obvious. I think the...
17:29 Q: Very good, very good. And in fact I wanted you to say this, but it seems to me that we still have this problem that what we are saying is that getting well to a degree, and growing up, are two different things – right – but getting well is a problem that many people have.
17:52 They go to doctors, they go to Western doctors, they go to Eastern doctors.
17:55 K: Sir, wait a minute, sir. The latest thing is acupuncture and so on.
17:58 Q: Yes, and so on and so on. So this is an extension of the same thing.
18:00 K: In India, sir, all these things have been played and...
18:05 Q: Yes.
18:06 K: Right. Now, sir, what is it we discussing? We are saying a mind that is completely without any kind of conflict has a much healthier body.
18:24 Full stop. And far more... a mind that is far more alert, active, totally intelligent.
18:33 That is all we are saying. And to do that we say mantra yoga is necessary. No, sir, you don’t, but they do.
18:45 Q: They don’t any more.
18:47 K: Ah, now they play tricks. Somebody else will come along and invent something else and we all fall for it.
18:54 Q: No, the problem is discrimination.
18:57 K: No. The problem is to see – look, sir – is to see I need a good, healthy body.
19:07 That one. To see that the body is highly sensitive. Right? It cannot be sensitive if I am indulging, over-walking, overeating – indulging.
19:27 And a mind and a heart that is really... a heart that really loves people – you understand, sir? – and a mind that is really alert, watchful, active.
19:46 In silence, not in mantra yoga, repetition like a wheel. The Tibetans do that. They have got a prayer wheel which they rattle, rattle, rattle all day long. No, this is... Well, sir?
20:04 Q: I experience a problem in this discussion in terms of seeking physical health as a goal, rather than letting it evolve from within me.
20:15 K: Yes, sir.
20:16 Q: And one of the difficulties I have, both in having read what you’ve written, is that there doesn’t seem to be a distinction between mind, intelligence and feelings.
20:27 K: I think, sir, it is all one.
20:31 Q: Because when I’m listening here, I’m listening in terms of… I feel my feelings, and this is how I experience you and experience this atmosphere, and then when you get into mind and intelligence, I...
20:45 K: No, intelligence is harmony. Not intelligence of the mind, which is cunning. Intelligence is something entirely different from cleverness, from having an extraordinary amount of knowledge and experience.
21:01 Intelligence is… essentially, it has a quality of extraordinary sensitivity.
21:07 Q: What if am I already unable to be clear here, because I am feeling, say, tightness here.
21:15 K: Sir, it isn’t... intelligence isn’t here and stagnation here. Intelligence is total.
21:22 Q: It is integrated, integral.
21:24 K: Yes, whole. That is why we said, sir, there must be obviously harmony between the body, the heart and the mind.
21:33 Harmony.
21:34 Q: But why make it a goal?
21:36 K: I never said so.
21:38 Q: That’s how it feels to us.
21:39 K: I don’t. I say, look. Sir, I don’t make it a goal. We’ve started by saying: I see what the world is like.
21:57 I see, as you must also see, that in this chaos there must be a few individuals, human beings, who are a light to themselves.
22:12 They cannot be a light to themselves if they are disharmonious in themselves, fragmented in themselves – mind, the heart and the body; say one thing, do something else and act something else.
22:30 You follow? A total harmonious, deeply honest...
22:39 That’s all. That is not a goal. Such human beings perhaps can create a new world, a new group, a new civilisation.
22:57 This civilisation can’t create a new civilisation, new culture. Perhaps the few who understand this, feel this, know this for themselves, can create something new.
23:11 That’s all.
23:12 Q: Isn’t honesty simpler for most people to understand than this direct love that you speak of which comes only when the mind is clear?
23:20 K: Sir, mustn’t I... I mean, honesty is...
23:27 Q: So if people know that there is dishonesty in themselves… (inaudible) K: When I tell a lie I know I am dishonest.
23:33 Q: Yes.
23:35 K: And to see that I am dishonest is to see the truth of dishonesty.
23:43 Q: There is a high degree of self-deception, that you don’t even know that you’re dishonest.
23:54 K: Sir, you are... I think it is far simpler than all this. You are complicating everything.
24:03 Q: I’d like to ask a question: sometimes out of great disharmony and out of great conflict between desires there sometimes come very creative and beautiful things.
24:19 K: Oh yes, sir, I know this.
24:21 Q: Like I am thinking of music and painting and poetry. How is that possible?
24:26 K: Tennessee Williams.
24:27 Q: For example.
24:29 K: Great conflict between... you know, great conflict, tension, and out of that tension you write, if you have got the gift to write, and you produce something.
24:40 That is not creative. We must give a different meaning to all these words. Creative means a man who is total, whole, not contradictory, not in a conflict, not in tension.
24:57 I used to know some painters, fairly well-known in India, France at one time and in England.
25:06 Before they could paint they had to do vicious things – you understand, sir? – drink, women and violent quarrels. Ah! Then they felt next morning something has happened and they went at it.
25:27 Q: Do you consider that not beautiful, that is, what is produced?
25:33 K: It’s not what I consider...
25:35 Q: Probably it isn’t.
25:38 K: (Laughs) Exactly. Sir, don’t you see... Look, in ancient India, 7th century, there is a statue outside Bombay on an island called Maheshamurti; the sculptors in those days, the painters, the artists, had their guru.
26:04 They sat with him. They meditated for days and days and days. Not just – you follow? – meditate, worked. And at a certain moment they felt this creative thing. Not, they didn’t drink, they abstained, their health – you follow, sir? – then at a certain moment they felt tremendously... then they worked, with the permission of the guru.
26:33 You understand? The guru then said, ‘You are in the right mood, go to it.’ (Laughs) You know?
26:43 Wait, sir, let’s come back. You see, our minds are so complex and so brutalised, so confused.
26:59 We have accepted this, that – you follow? – and for me all this is so superficial, unessential.
27:11 I want to be very simple, sir. You follow? Because I feel truth is something that is so completely simple.
27:23 And a mind that is in tension can’t understand a simple thing.
27:31 To live without tension, to live without struggle, to live without a conflict, inwardly – you understand, sir? – can that be done?
27:43 If you do it you have a naturally most extraordinarily healthy body.
27:54 Now can this be done? Can one be a light to oneself? Because if you light your light from another then it is second-hand. It cannot be lit that way.
28:18 Suppose you have the light and I come to you to get some of that light. A meaningless thing. But if you have light and I have light which is – you follow? – light; it is not yours and mine then, it is light – then we will work together, we’ll create together.
28:39 Q: Can’t one candle light another?
28:48 K: Oh! Light is light, sir; it is not your candle or my candle.
28:58 (Pause) Now please, if that is clear, how do we proceed to come to that?
29:13 How do we walk together so that your light and my light is light – not yours, mine, and his, Catholic – you follow?
29:29 How do we proceed to that?
29:39 Shall we discuss this, sir?
29:47 Can I, living in this world, knowing my mind is distorted, corrupt, polluted, and my heart torn to pieces by my anxiety, fear – you know, all the rest of it – knowing all that, out of this chaos, how can there be a simple, clear, unfading, unwavering light?
30:21 Can this come about through analysis?
30:23 Q: No. Absolutely not.
30:25 K: Quite right, sir. Why? Why do you say not? Be clear, sir, don’t say... be very clear that it cannot. You know what it means?
30:32 Q: I am very clear on it, within myself. I am very clear that it cannot be done through analysis.
30:40 K: Why?
30:41 Q: Because I have experienced.
30:43 K: No, just a minute, sir – what does analysis mean?
30:49 Q: Break down.
30:52 K: Oh no. No, go into it a little more, sir. Let’s look at it, what analysis means. Aren’t we analysing?
31:00 Q: Taking it apart. It means to take apart, separate.
31:03 K: Aren’t we doing that, inwardly? I may not have analysis; I may not go to an analyst; I may not analyse or accept Freud, Jung, Spinner – you follow? – all the spinning that is going on.
31:24 Sorry.
31:25 Q: Even temporarily?
31:27 K: I won’t accept it, because I see the truth that analysis outwardly – you follow?
31:39 – going to somebody, be analysed, or analysis inwardly, dissecting myself – you follow?
31:49 – analysing myself as an outsider looking in and analysing my feeling – is it right, is it wrong, you know, constantly analysing, examining, introspective – you follow? – all that is going on, consciously or unconsciously.
32:13 Right? And that is analysis. I say that is totally wrong because in that analysis there is division.
32:22 Q: Yes, one doesn’t understand the feelings one feels.
32:26 K: Ah, no – it may be I feel because of my confusion.
32:31 Q: What difference does it make?
32:35 K: Then there is no clarity. My feeling may be the result of my conditioning, of my confusion, and if I accept that feeling I am...
32:49 Q: It has a reality.
32:50 K: It has a reality which has no meaning.
32:52 Q: Feeling has no meaning?
32:55 K: No, feeling has a meaning only when it is free from conditioning, when there is no aggression, no competition – you follow, sir? – it isn’t just...
33:19 Wait a minute, sir, can this light come into being – that light is not yours or mine – through any analytical process?
33:35 Outward analysis of the expert – sir, it’s much more complicated than you know when you say you mustn’t.
33:45 It is much too complicated. And that is why we must see the simplicity, the truth of it, and it is finished – you will never again analyse, inwardly or...
33:57 You follow? You see it. That is why one has to go a little bit into it.
34:07 Look, sir, I won’t go... I’m not… I mean, I see the absurdity of going to confessional, either the Catholic confessional or the astrological confessional, or the analytical confessional, the psychoanalytical confessional, or the confession I make to myself, going over what I have done at the end of the day, saying this is right, this is wrong, this should be, this should not be, this I should have said, this I should not have said.
34:58 You follow? All that is introspective. At that level and also at the deeper level. At the deeper, unconscious level introspective examination is going on. The motives, the right motive, the wrong motive – you follow? – the racial, inherited traditional pressures and resisting them – all that is part of analysis.
35:29 And I see in analysis there is division. Going to the priest to confess is division. Going to the analyst is a division; and in myself, dividing myself as the examiner and the examined is a division.
35:52 And I see – just listen, sir – I see where there is division there must be conflict.
36:00 So I see the truth of it – finished. I won’t analyse; it is finished; I can’t. Are we doing this? Are we getting along together?
36:20 So, is there a way of direct perception?
36:33 You follow, sir? Not through analysis, not through confessions, not through constant examination, exploration.
36:46 Q: What about synthesis?
36:51 K: Is synthesis the opposite of antithesis?
36:56 Q: Analysis.
37:00 K: What is synthesis? Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. That is, the two battling, battling, battling and out of that comes synthesis.
37:16 Q: That is compromise.
37:18 K: That is compromise. A synthesis – that is what the communists, others say. There must be two opposites – capitalists on one side, socialists on the other side or liberal, and the tension between the two produces synthesis, which is the communist.
37:35 And the communists have their own thesis, antithesis and further synthesis. Don’t you know all this?
37:39 Q: Isn’t there a difference between synthesis and compromise?
37:43 K: I don’t want to… I am not talking of synthesis. I am talking, we are talking of seeing directly the truth of this, not through analysis.
38:05 Sir, look, sir, seeing directly that I am fragmented – fragmented, you understand?
38:21 – I have one desire opposing another desire; I want to be famous, I want to be, you know, be peaceful, quiet, lovely country, for God’s sake – and the battle going on inside me all the time.
38:35 Now, and I see how this battle comes into being; fairly simple to see that very clearly.
38:44 And then saying they must all be integrated – which is equally absurd, because who is the integrator?
38:51 Q: Isn’t synthesis a kind of harmony in which there is no more conflict?
38:57 K: No, no, no. Harmony is not the result of conflict.
39:12 You see how we are... Sir, you say the conflict between good and bad produces synthesis which is above the two.
39:26 Q: Yes.
39:27 K: I say no, on the contrary. The very battle between the opposites cannot produce harmony.
39:40 Harmony exists when you see the falseness of the battle. It is there.
39:48 Q: Does harmony come from letting go of belief?
39:53 K: Obviously; one of the factors.
39:58 Q: I mean, if I don’t believe anything I can’t have any conflict.
40:02 K: No. No, no, no, that is the most dangerous thing to say (laughter) because why do we have a belief? Because I am afraid, basically.
40:12 Q: Because I lack faith.
40:15 K: No, no, why should I have faith? In what? In God?
40:21 Q: No, faith in me.
40:22 K: In you? What are you?
40:24 Q: Just what I am.
40:27 K: What is that you are?
40:30 Q: Just feeling.
40:32 K: That feeling may be the result of your conditioning, the result of your confusion, the result of your – you know, a dozen things.
40:40 Q: That is still the basis for operating. It’s still a basis for my operating.
40:44 K: The basis of your operation based on a belief, on faith, that is what the Catholics do.
40:54 They have a faith in Jesus, which holds them together.
41:04 The myth of Jesus holds them from violence, from destruction – you follow? – they have done it, but when the real crisis comes they destroy.
41:14 The Catholics have produced 100 Years War. They have been the most murderous crowd.
41:27 No, sir, don’t. No, do please go step by step, you will see it for yourself.
41:45 Analysis implies division. Division essentially is the basis of conflict – between Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Muslim, Baptist – you follow? – the battle – communist, socialist, liberal, the Democrat, the Republican – battle, battle, battle.
42:08 And I say that battle outwardly is the result of division, obviously.
42:15 Inwardly there is this division – me as an observer and the thing different from me, which I must change.
42:26 And so in that produces conflict. So I say analysis, which is the very... which is division, must inevitably produce conflict.
42:39 It may modify, it may help a few neurotics here and there, but it is the platform of conflict.
42:51 Do we see this – you know? – the truth of it and therefore never again analyse.
43:02 Therefore when you never again analyse, you see clearly, instantly.
43:09 Because analysis implies time, doesn’t it?
43:22 No? I must analyse, which means I must peel off, day after day, day after day, you know, which means time.
43:36 By the end of 80 years I am ready to die. Having analysed myself to death there is nothing.
43:46 Q: You say you see it instantly.
43:51 K: Perceive instantly.
43:53 Q: It. What is it?
43:55 K: See the beauty of that flower instantly.
43:57 Q: Yes, but that’s an innate… In a conflict that exists in an individual, with respect to any abstraction, what is it that you see instantly?
44:09 K: Sir, in conflict, as we said just now, there is division, isn’t there?
44:19 Between me and you, between me and my wife, between me and that man or that woman, that group – division.
44:29 Now, to see clearly that division brings inevitably conflict, what takes place?
44:40 Q: Well, if I see conflict then I am going to go into further conflict.
44:46 K: No, no, no. No, sir. No, I have not made myself clear then. I see... I mean, there is this fact – fact – that where there is division there must be conflict, in the world, outwardly and inwardly.
45:12 The seeing of that fact ends conflict.
45:14 Q: Is the seeing of… now you are saying ‘that fact’ – is that fact now it?
45:24 K: It – that is what I mean, it.
45:29 Q: So is the mere seeing of the conflict.
45:31 K: The truth of it. Not just the...
45:34 Q: But if you use the truth you have already evaluated it.
45:37 K: No, no. We have accepted conflict as a way of life. Right?
45:42 Q: Yes. I don’t know if we have accepted it. Those who are here obviously aren’t accepting it.
45:52 K: I mean, the world accepts it. The world accepts it.
45:55 Q: The world does.
45:56 K: The world accepts conflict as a way of life, and out of that conflict there is aggression, fear, you know, the whole business.
46:05 And a mind says: I want to find a way of living without conflict.
46:13 Which means without fear, without aggression, but a way of living, not just a vegetable life.
46:23 And it sees where there is division there must be conflict. Observer, analysing himself, is a division. And in that analytical process there is conflict. Right?
46:40 Q: In the process.
46:42 K: In the process. To see that very process breeds conflict.
46:50 See it, as you see that thing, ends conflict.
46:59 That is, process, the analytical process is a danger. When you see a cobra, a tiger, you see a danger, therefore you act.
47:14 The tiger is immediate perception, and there is action.
47:21 To see analysis as clearly as you see the tiger is a little more difficult because we are conditioned to analysis.
47:30 Q: But you use the word truth in an absolute term.
47:36 K: No, sir.
47:38 Q: It’s an evanescent thing, isn’t it?
47:42 K: Ah, no, no, no, I wouldn’t… no, I wouldn’t put it in any… is a fading or fixed or absolute or relative, I wouldn’t say that.
47:55 I see the truth that war, killing another, is – to put it in a word – is evil.
48:08 I’ll put that word evil differently – is wrong, put it any way, is immoral, is whatever it is.
48:17 I am killing my brother, I am killing myself. Right? I see the truth of that, that to kill anybody is totally wrong.
48:30 Right? I see the truth of it – you understand, sir? – that to kill is wrong, and therefore I won’t kill.
48:43 I see the truth that confession, modern confession or the ancient, has no meaning, because it divides – and so on and so on.
48:53 I see the fact of it. As I see this red shirt, I see it. As I see that dangerous snake I see it and therefore there is action; total action which frees me from the snake, from the danger.
49:09 That’s all.
49:11 Q: Doesn’t that seeing need to be developed?
49:18 K: No. Now, take that, just take that. That implies time, doesn’t it? All development needs time.
49:34 Q: How about recognition then?
49:36 Q: Awareness.
49:37 K: Ah, no, no, don’t jump to words. No, sir, go slowly, sir. Go slowly at this; it’s quite important. You say… everybody says it takes time.
49:55 You must have years, you must have next life, it is a process, you know, evolve, develop, grow.
50:07 Right?
50:08 Q: I’m talking about right now I’m feeling embarrassed, and it’s very faint at first and gradually I say, ‘Aha, embarrassed’ – I see.
50:20 It isn’t as immediate as seeing the flower. It takes time for me to say, ‘Aha, embarrassed.’ K: Ah, wait.
50:30 No. Does it take time? Because you have taken… you are listening to something and then you become aware that you are embarrassed.
50:36 Q: Yes.
50:37 K: It is there before you are aware.
50:39 Q: It is there.
50:41 K: Wait, wait, wait. Why didn’t you see it?
50:44 Q: That’s what I want to know.
50:49 K: I’ll show it to you. (Laughter) Q: Because you didn’t look, maybe.
50:54 K: Yes, you didn’t look.
50:55 Q: Oh, I didn’t look.
50:56 K: (Laughs) Your mind was somewhere else. You say, ‘Now, am I embarrassed?’ – take it, look and instantly you can see it.
51:03 Q: You said yesterday that seeing the truth of something produces a spurt of energy.
51:15 K: Yes, sir, look what has happened. If I see… look, analysis is not... is wrong or false, it is free, there is energy.
51:30 No?
51:31 Q: Free from the false perception?
51:36 Q: Excuse me, I understand what you say about conflict and killing and evil, or wrong or bad...
51:56 K: I am using words… (inaudible) Q: But if analysis is a tiger, yes. Someone who is a spider who is going to bite my infant child is evil, I will crush it. If I cannot remove the child first I will destroy the spider. If the tiger is going to attack my child I will crush the tiger.
52:15 K: Yes, I understand all this, madame.
52:18 Q: If a person is going to attack my child I will kill the person.
52:22 K: So what are you trying to say?
52:25 Q: Then where am I with respect to killing another? Because I am going to feel good.
52:33 K: What will you do, you are asking, shouldn’t you kill a man who attacks the child, mustn’t you prevent it?
52:44 Q: If I can prevent it, yes.
52:46 K: Yes, but if you can’t, then you will kill him?
52:52 Q: Yes.
52:54 K: Then what?
52:56 Q: That is my question. Then what?
53:01 K: That is your responsibility. Why are you asking me? Look, I said light to yourself. Right? I have a child. I can protect that child against the tiger, against the snake, but men are so brutal, violent.
53:28 Other human beings may kill my child for their own reason. What shall I do? I’ll protect it, I will prevent it, and I may be forced to an act of killing – I don’t know – but what shall I do?
53:55 What does my intelligence say? Not my intelligence or your intelligence; what does intelligence say? Mustn’t you protect the child?
54:01 Q: Mustn’t I protect? Yes.
54:04 K: The child?
54:05 Q: Yes.
54:07 K: Yes. So, if that intelligence operates you will do the right action.
54:19 But to say: what shall I do if…
54:22 Q: Are you saying we cannot formulate intelligence?
54:27 K: That’s all, sir.
54:30 Q: (Inaudible) Q: (Inaudible) K: It is much easier to have a formula – you follow?
54:46 – take refuge behind that formula.
54:48 Q: I understand that. So then if the action is immediate and my response is immediate…
54:57 K: Ah, no, no. Your response must be according to the intelligence that you have which will dictate the response.
55:06 Q: I accept that. But when the man has killed my neighbour...
55:13 K: Madame, that is what is happening all over the world. They are killing, they are destroying – Vietnam and in New York, in Los Angeles – you follow? – my neighbour – may be a thousand miles or a few doors away.
55:24 Q: Yes. And three other neighbours say, ‘Here is the man who has killed your neighbour.
55:32 What do we do with him?’ K: What does the law say to him?
55:34 Q: Call the cops.
55:38 K: What does the law say to him?
55:42 Q: Well, again it’s depending on where you live the law says what you will do with him.
55:52 K: But, madame, what… how… Look, what am I to do? First of all, let’s listen to this. I want to have this intelligence which is... which sees... the intelligence that comes out of direct perception.
56:07 Right? Direct perception – if you have understood that. That intelligence will dictate what should be done under given circumstances. That’s all. That intelligence, the more intelligent the more directly it will act. It may... I don’t know, I can’t tell you what you should do. How can I tell you?
56:39 Q: It’s always new. But I think the question that has been raised can be put it in a different way, and many of us, each of us, I, for example, see some things the way you describe it, directly, and I have no problem.
57:02 I have no problem with going to confessionals, I have no problem with going to war, with killing my fellow man. But, you know, in some area, say, my profession versus humanity or something like that, where I will have a problem of conflict, and evidently I don’t see completely because the conflict is there, and even if I go through this infinite regression of analysis upon analysis upon analysis, it leads only to more – more and more and more.
57:21 K: All right, sir.
57:22 Q: One half plus one fourth plus one eighth, and I never get to one. So the question is: how is it we become seers, total seers?
57:31 K: That is my point, sir. Just a minute. How do you see directly? How do you see…
57:36 Q: …in every situation.
57:38 K: ...everything all the time.
57:39 Q: Which is new. New, continually new.
57:41 K: Wait, sir. That is what it means – to see directly. Not with the previous directness (laughs) – you follow? – not with the memory of a previous perception through which you look.
57:55 Q: Yes.
57:56 K: So to see things directly. Now what does that mean?
58:00 Q: Each time a new situation comes up there is a tendency to...
58:07 K: No, sir, just let’s look at it first. What does it mean to see directly? To look without any ideological or verbal or justifiable image, conclusion.
58:27 Right? To see directly means that.
58:31 Q: From our discussion yesterday we would say to abandon all comparison so there...
58:39 K: No, no, no. Come back. Let’s stick to one simple thing, sir. Can I look without any image?
59:00 Can you look at me without any image?
59:07 Can you look at somebody – your wife and so on and so on, without a single image?
59:20 Find out, sir. And also you have to find out why that image comes into being. You follow? Look at it. Why do I have an image about somebody?
59:35 Q: They have an image of yourself. I have an image of myself so how can I not have one of you?
59:39 K: Of course. Why do I have an image about myself? Why should you?
59:45 Q: It is an ego thing.
59:46 K: Who has put it there?
59:48 Q: Myself.
59:49 K: Therefore what will you do?
59:53 Q: If I knew that… (laughs) K: Sir, no, we will go into it...
1:00:02 Don’t... It becomes terribly simple and clear if you once say, ‘I have an image about myself.’ We pretend – you follow, sir?
1:00:13 You say, ‘Yes, I have an image about you, about my wife and about myself.’ Because I have an image about myself I have other images adding to that image.
1:00:25 Now why do I have an image?
1:00:34 Because what happens if you have no image?
1:00:43 Image is division. Right? The Catholic has an image about himself – the soul, the body and Jesus – right? – the myth.
1:01:04 And he lives in that myth, in that image. So can I... And it has been contributed through culture, through his living in a particular country – you follow?
1:01:19 – education, all that, and his own… he wants to be somebody – he wants to be famous, he wants to be a writer, he thinks he is much nobler, greater, more – you know?
1:01:35 So first to see the image.
1:01:45 And to see that one is… that that image and the creation of the image divides people.
1:02:00 Right? And to see that is the end of it. If you see the image-making and the image are the most destructive element in life, as dangerous as that snake, then what will you do?
1:02:22 You don’t argue. You don’t argue with a poisonous snake, you move, you do something.
1:02:33 But we don’t see the danger of the image.
1:02:36 Q: Then a fear comes back.
1:02:43 K: Face that fear. If I have no image what happens? I am afraid. Because what am I then?
1:02:53 Q: You don’t know.
1:02:55 K: Therefore I am afraid. So I say: all right, I will find out first that I have an image.
1:03:05 What happens if I have no image? Fear. Then fear comes because thought says: what will you do without me who is the maker of images?
1:03:18 So thought produces fear.
1:03:27 So you see all that, sir, directly, and then finished.
1:03:42 Otherwise you are never a light to yourself. You live in the image of others or in the image of your own light, which is darkness.
1:03:54 Q: Can image be crushed instantly, that instantly?
1:04:07 K: Don’t you do that when you see a dangerous snake? Instant action.
1:04:10 Q: That depends on conditioning too. The dangerous snake depends on conditioning too.
1:04:20 K: Wait, wait. Follow it. Of course it does.
1:04:23 Q: As the image does.
1:04:25 K: No, wait, sir, look, take it slowly. What takes place? The image… the conditioning about a snake. Because your fathers, your grandfathers, tradition – you follow? – the constant repetition: dangerous.
1:04:42 Snakes are dangerous. That has been put in your mind and that conditioning acts.
1:04:51 Q: Conditioning leads me to act immediately.
1:04:53 K: That conditioning acts, not you acting. That conditioning says: danger, move. Now wait a minute. Your conditioning says image is necessary. Follow it up, sir.
1:05:21 And you see what happens when you have an image.
1:05:23 Q: Right. My conditioning says image is necessary.
1:05:26 K: Of course.
1:05:27 Q: All right. Then what if I want to let go of images?
1:05:32 K: Wait, sir, first see, first see. Your conditioning says danger, snake is a danger. Your conditioning says image is necessary.
1:05:40 Q: Yes.
1:05:43 K: You don’t see the danger that all images are dangerous.
1:05:50 Q: That’s not my conditioning. My conditioning is: image is necessary.
1:05:55 K: That is what I am saying. There your condition says it is dangerous, with a snake. Here your conditioning says images are your safety.
1:06:06 Q: All right, but you what you seem to be asking me...
1:06:09 K: No, wait, sir, do listen to this. That one conditioning says: dangerous. This conditioning says: not dangerous. Right? So you go on with the image. But somebody comes along and says, ‘Look what you are doing. That is the most dangerous thing you are doing because it divides people. Not only you, in yourself, between you, your wife, your children, your neighbour – that produces war, that produces conflict.
1:06:41 And you say, ‘No, I am frightened to be without an image.’ You follow, sir?
1:06:52 And you don’t act because your conditioning is much stronger than your direct fear.
1:07:04 Direct fear is that, and direct fear is this also. But you refuse to accept the direct fear. So you say, ‘By Jove, both are dangerous.’ Q: But I’m having a conflict. My conflict with you is that you don’t seem to give anything time.
1:07:27 K: I won’t, because that is how we have lived.
1:07:30 Q: There is a process that has to go on that involves time.
1:07:37 K: No, sir. No, sir. No, I... (Laughter) Time means... Look, sir, I am violent. Give me time to get over it. Ah, why not? Please give me time to get over my violence, because my violence needs expression, and I must kill people, I must throw bombs, I must hurt people.
1:08:07 Give me time, I will gradually get over it. In the meantime I am being violent.
1:08:10 Q: Well, that’s a puritanical position.
1:08:12 K: No, no! It is not puritanical. That is what we are doing.
1:08:16 Q: No, I mean, if I feel violent it doesn’t mean I have to kill somebody.
1:08:21 K: No, sir, I am not saying that. I said… I took: I am violent and I must get over it. Right? Get over it means time. In the meantime I am destroying. In the meantime, between now and when I shall be free from violence. And I say that is… I mean, what an absurdity.
1:08:41 Q: No, in the other I’m being destroyed in the meantime. Let’s say that I have images and I feel images are necessary, so in the meantime I am being destroyed.
1:08:51 K: Therefore being destroyed is the most dangerous thing.
1:08:56 Q: But not until it becomes dangerous to me.
1:09:00 K: It is dangerous to you.
1:09:01 Q: But I’ve got to perceive it as dangerous.
1:09:02 K: Therefore I say: perceive it. (Laughter) Q: That takes time.
1:09:08 K: No. (Laughter) Q: Okay, looking takes time, before I see.
1:09:13 K: You didn’t take time there. Your conditioning said: danger, act.
1:09:19 Q: But could I stand there? If my conditioning says act, could I stand here? Because that is what you are asking me to do.
1:09:27 K: Yes, sir. Look at the danger of an image.
1:09:30 Q: But you are asking me to act contrary to my conditioning.
1:09:33 K: Obviously. (Laughter) Wait, sir! That’s just it.
1:09:36 Q: But I stand and let the snake bite me, though?
1:09:40 K: No, my darling, sir, I didn’t say that. Sir, look at what happens when your conditioning has said that snake is the rattler: danger.
1:09:53 And you act.
1:09:55 Q: Yes.
1:09:56 K: Your conditioning says: protect yourself through images. And you act, protecting it. You protect your image and I protect my image. You have an image about your wife, your children, and they have an image about you. They separate. So there is a battle between you. So your conditioning is producing conflict.
1:10:28 And you say that is all right, that is the way to live.
1:10:36 If I have no image I don’t know what will happen, therefore I am frightened.
1:10:47 Q: No, I have no conflict except, you know, the concept of evolution, of time to go through this process.
1:10:57 K: Ah! (Laughs) Time is necessary for that tree to grow into a big tree.
1:11:05 Q: Yes.
1:11:07 K: Is it necessary, psychologically, time, to be free from the image?
1:11:18 I say not, because it is so obvious. Because you refuse to see it. You refuse to see the danger – you follow, sir? – actual danger of being a Catholic.
1:11:31 Q: But doesn’t my conditioning prevent me from looking?
1:11:35 K: That’s right. So go to your conditioning.
1:11:38 Q: But not instantaneously.
1:11:39 K: You can do it.
1:11:42 Q: I can’t do it. (Laughter) Q: How else could you look at it? You either look or you don’t. It isn’t partial.
1:11:51 Q: Looking involves undoing, letting go of relinquishment.
1:11:55 K: Let go.
1:11:57 Q: Why is time involved?
1:11:58 Q: One can’t do that instantly.
1:11:59 K: Why not?
1:12:00 Q: Only you can do it instantly. (Many voices) K: When it is painful, toothache… when you have pain, toothache, you go instantly.
1:12:07 Q: If I am going to jump from a 5-storey building, eventually, I have learn to jump from a 1-storey building first.
1:12:13 K: You are not jumping from a 5-storey building.
1:12:17 Q: But fear feels like that.
1:12:20 K: (Laughs) No.
1:12:21 Q: Is it possible that what you are talking about is the time it takes to do the act of seeing, which is no time at all, and what you are talking about is the time that lapses from your birth to the time that you do the act of seeing?
1:12:35 So you say it takes time because you are referring to the apparent lapse between your birth and the act of seeing.
1:12:42 Q: Yes.
1:12:43 Q: But what he is talking about is the act of seeing itself which takes no time.
1:12:46 K: That’s right, sir. That’s right. That’s clear. That’s clear.
1:12:51 Q: It seems as if perhaps through the postponement of seeing – and that’s what takes time, the postponement.
1:12:59 Q: But I am experiencing all you as generals and I am out in the field, and I say, ‘It is great for you, General, to sit back and talk about it being instantaneously, but it does take some time to accomplish this.’ K: Sir, sir, be simple.
1:13:14 Do be simple, sir.
1:13:16 Q: Maybe that’s not being in the field.
1:13:18 K: Look, I want to see somebody. I have made an appointment this afternoon to see somebody. I have made the appointment – right? Obviously several hours have passed before I see him. Right? Is that what you are saying, the several hours? Or the decision that you have to see that person?
1:13:44 Q: That is an act of seeing, it’s immediate.
1:13:49 K: The first is the act of seeing. Look, sir, I, born in India, conditioned.
1:14:11 I live in that country. That country says you must be at war with the Muslim, because they are – etc., etc.
1:14:22 Now I see – see – the truth that division is a battle.
1:14:32 Right? Division is a battle – the truth of it. Then what takes place? I say, ‘Now, I mustn’t be a... forget being a Hindu. I will strip myself of being a Hindu. They have got all kind of rituals. It will take me a couple of days.’ You follow?
1:14:49 Q: Now that’s what I am talking about, the couple of days.
1:14:51 K: But seeing division is conflict, and the action of it may take a couple of days.
1:14:59 Q: Okay. I’m okay.
1:15:02 K: Ah! The seeing is the immediate act, which has further act.
1:15:10 Q: Yes. You have to write a letter of resignation.
1:15:17 Q: It takes time.
1:15:19 Q: You have to write a letter of resignation from being a Hindu; that takes time.
1:15:39 K: Yes, that takes time.
1:15:54 Q: But perceiving doesn’t.
1:16:05 K: But the decision… the seeing the truth that division is conflict, that is important, not the other.
1:16:33 (Pause) Q: You were saying like in the case of the snake that you see it and you see that it’s a dangerous thing and it can harm you and from that seeing you act, but very often when a human being is placed in an extremely dangerous situation he can’t move, he freezes, and even though he sees let’s say the car bearing down on him and it’s going to kill him if he doesn’t move, he just physically cannot move and he is killed.
1:16:58 Now I find very often I will see the danger of an image in my mind but I freeze.
1:16:59 K: Because you probably don’t want to act.
1:17:00 Q: I don’t know if that is the reason or...
1:17:01 K: Sir, this is so simple; I don’t know why you complicate this.
1:17:02 Q: It seems simple, yes, it does seem simple, but the actual action sometimes doesn’t come.
1:17:04 K: Sir, one afternoon in India, northern India, I was staying with somebody, I was by myself in that house, and a man came to me and he said, ‘There is a tiger which has killed a cow. Would you like to see it?’ And I said, ‘I’d like to see the tiger.’ And he said, ‘That can be arranged very easily by tying a goat and you remain on the top of a tree. We’ll build a platform and you can stay there and you can see the tiger.’ I said, ‘No thank you, I don’t want to be sat there in that way.’ So he left.
1:17:27 And that afternoon, later, I said, ‘I’d like to meet it,’ so I went out into the woods. Don’t get nervous, please – there is nothing... (laughter) I am still here. I went out to see the tiger and went deep into the forest and suddenly there was absolute silence – you know? – all the birds stopped singing, everything was absolutely still.
1:17:47 And I said, ‘By Jove, there is something dangerous here.’ And I wanted to go forward to see what it was.
1:17:57 The body refused. The body instinctually went against a tree with its back and it stood there.
1:18:08 There must have been danger because everything – you know? Have you ever been? You must have. Complete stillness. I waited and nothing happened. I moved a bit and I went further.
1:18:23 And there was an opening, and I stopped because there was a tremendous stillness.
1:18:31 And there were about 50 or 100 big monkeys looking at me.
1:18:43 (Laughter) So that is – you know, sir – you act when necessary.
1:18:52 This is all so simple. So let’s get on with this.
1:18:57 Q: What about the tiger, what happened next?
1:19:04 (Laughter) K: You see, the tiger must have been there.
1:19:06 Q: Oh, you didn’t see the tiger?
1:19:07 K: I didn’t see the tiger. The tiger must have been there, nearby. I have seen a tiger on another occasion, but I won’t go into storytelling. But the tiger must have been there. The body instinctually must have known. You follow? The mind refused to accept it till it saw it – you follow? – and the body knew it and body said: I must protect myself.
1:19:32 Therefore it went against a tree and held. You know? Let’s get on with it, sir. So, now can this direct perception take place not just on occasions?
1:19:52 Directly – see myself angry, instantly finished.
1:20:02 Never again anger.
1:20:13 Being envious, see that clearly. You know? Not analyse and go through all the justifications – finished.
1:20:27 Because envy is danger. Envy implies comparison, conflict – you follow?
1:20:38 – aggression – all the ugliness that comes out of envy. To see that. To see a habit, sir. I don’t know if you have ever done this. To see a habit, a physical habit – let’s take for instance – what takes place?
1:21:01 I see a habit – scratching my head or scratching my nose or whatever one I have. Now, to see it, not justify it, not control it, just to see that I am doing this.
1:21:16 Then what goes on? I have seen it, but the body has set up a habit, hasn’t it?
1:21:26 I go and scratch. Not resisting, not say, ‘I mustn’t scratch,’ but watch it.
1:21:36 You understand? To watch it, that I am going to scratch, that I am frowning; the habit. So the perception and the awareness of the habit.
1:22:02 Perception is not awareness.
1:22:13 I don’t have to be aware to perceive. Am I contradicting myself? I will explain. When I have watched the dangerous snake, I come up upon it, and it rattles – it is a rattler.
1:22:47 There is challenge and the response; immediate. The challenge makes me aware. Right? Right? You are waiting. Dead silence. I am not the monkey.
1:23:16 The challenge has forced me to be aware.
1:23:28 And the challenge, which is envy, forces me to act – act enviously or act non-enviously.
1:23:44 So challenge makes me respond according to the challenge.
1:23:59 No? According to the challenge I respond, adequately or inadequately.
1:24:08 The adequacy and the inadequacy of that response is dependent on the challenge.
1:24:21 If there is no challenge at all, is there any awareness of response to anything?
1:24:34 I am making it a little complicated. Just look at it.
1:24:40 Q: There is no response if there is no challenge.
1:24:45 K: Therefore?
1:24:46 Q: The response creates the challenge.
1:24:49 K: The response creates the challenge and the challenge creates the response.
1:24:54 Q: Yes, they are the same thing.
1:24:57 K: Same thing. Now, if there is no challenge...
1:25:00 Q: …there is no response.
1:25:03 K: No response. Wait a minute, sir. No response. What takes place? Do I go to sleep?
1:25:08 Q: There is no event, anyway.
1:25:09 K: Do I go to sleep? If there is no challenge of any kind do I become dull, do I become stupid, do I become...
1:25:20 Q: No.
1:25:22 K: So what is that state of mind that is not dependent on challenge?
1:25:30 Q: Freedom.
1:25:31 K: Ah, don’t put it into words. I don’t know.
1:25:42 We need challenges otherwise we go to sleep.
1:25:49 I am challenging you all the time, now, here.
1:25:52 Q: Yes.
1:25:53 K: I am forcing you – sorry, forgive me the word – I am putting you in a corner and making you look.
1:26:01 That is a challenge. And you respond, saying, ‘No, I am conditioned; I will take time; you must...’ You follow? Now, if there was no response you would remain in your conditioning, wouldn’t you? Obviously. So you depend on a challenge to break down your conditioning and respond.
1:26:25 Or respond according to your conditioning. I say to you: please, that is not a light to yourself.
1:26:36 To be a light to yourself you don’t need a challenge at all.
1:26:43 Q: You spoke a few minutes ago about the difference between perception and awareness.
1:26:49 K: I am coming back.
1:26:50 Q: That’s right. Now you are saying that awareness was not necessary in order to perceive.
1:26:54 K: No, because first you have to understand this challenge, response.
1:26:57 Q: Then you see, sir.
1:26:58 K: Then your mind is a light to itself and it sees.
1:27:06 But I have to be aware of my conditioning, the challenge, the response of my conditioning to the challenge – I have to be aware of all that.
1:27:19 Otherwise I just respond without being aware of my conditioning. The moment I am aware of my conditioning – see the truth of it – the seeing is freedom, to look.
1:27:34 I don’t know…
1:27:37 Q: Yes, but you were saying that perception and awareness are different.
1:27:48 K: Slightly. I think it is. I am inquiring, because I think there is...
1:27:55 Q: If you are unaware you don’t perceive anything.
1:28:00 K: Yes.
1:28:01 Q: You are just mechanical.
1:28:02 K: Sir, you see...
1:28:03 Q: You still respond…
1:28:04 K: Of course.
1:28:05 Q: ...mechanically, but you don’t perceive.
1:28:09 K: Perception implies, doesn’t it, freedom?
1:28:17 Perception is freedom.
1:28:19 Q: Yes.
1:28:21 K: Freedom from my justification.
1:28:23 Q: From that which one perceives.
1:28:27 K: Freedom doesn’t demand challenge. I mean, it is free, therefore it has no challenge or response. It is free. But it will act intelligently in freedom.
1:28:40 Q: It’s not a reaction.
1:28:43 K: It will act intelligently because it is free.
1:28:51 Now, the mind that is free has no need to be deliberately aware.
1:29:01 It is looking.
1:29:03 Q: That’s right. Yes. It’s deliberately aware it’s not aware.
1:29:10 K: Of course. It is twenty-five past twelve; I didn’t realise it. Sir, look, let’s come back. There is only one thing. I mean, we must come back to this. The essence is: to be a light to oneself.
1:29:38 That means no conflict.
1:29:52 And conflict must exist where there is division.
1:30:05 (Pause) You see, sir, I saw somebody – it was a minister, prime minister – and we talked about all this, a little bit vaguely because, you know...
1:30:24 And the person said, ‘How can you apply this in politics, because the very nature of the structure of which I am a prime minister prevents.
1:30:40 I must maintain division – I can’t…’ You follow?
1:30:48 ‘And if you are really interested in it,’ I said, ‘don’t be a prime minister.’ That is rather too difficult.
1:31:31 (Laughter) Q: But that suggests you can be something else. Your answer to that prime minister suggests that he could be something else.
1:31:36 K: Of course, if he wants to be. But he doesn’t want. He likes it. He likes to be the boss of the country. It gives him power, position, corruption, pollution – he is in the middle of it.
1:31:50 Mr (inaudible) Q: The president, that’s not the prime minister.
1:31:54 Q: In your talks that was written, it has a beautiful suggestion that governments in the future might be run by computer.
1:32:06 K: Oh, yes, I’ve…
1:32:07 Q: That’s a beautiful idea.
1:32:08 K: I know, I said… Sir, I talked to a minister once. I said, ‘For God’s sake, why don’t you have computers run the government?’ He said, ‘What, get rid of us?’ (Laughter) Q: (Inaudible) K: Time is up.