Krishnamurti Subtitles home


RO72DSG2 - The world is on fire
Rome - 2 November 1972
Discussion with Small Group 2



0:00 This is the second small group discussion with J. Krishnamurti in Rome, 1972.
0:10 Krishnamurti: As we were saying the other day, other morning, the house is on fire, the world is on fire, and apparently most of us are not really… have deep intention to put the fire out.
0:44 Both economically, socially, religiously and personally, there is so much disorder – the rich and the poor, the wars, the brutality and so on – which is, that the house in which we live is afire.
1:11 I think most of us agree to that. Right? Can we go on from there? And we are concerned, at least if we are at all serious, with putting out that fire.
1:31 And we are responsible for it. And to bring about a radical revolution, not a physical revolution because that doesn’t produce any change at all, only it modifies, either bureaucracy gets very strong or a new dictatorship, and so on, so on, so on.
1:58 Though in China – I have met many friends who’ve been there, spent many years - there are certain aspects of it that are considerable advancement; the other aspects are rather frightening also, where they are all conditioned.
2:22 At least what I’ve been told and what I read and so on. So I personally feel that the house is on fire and there must be a new kind of order which is born out of the comprehension of what is really disorder.
2:45 In our life there is very little love. So we can discuss that. And perhaps that may be the radical revolution. Because we want to change things out there – socially, economically bring about a different economic organisation or social setup or social structure, and many think that revolution, physical revolution is necessary.
3:26 I don’t know what you think; that’s up to you.
3:33 Physical revolution is necessary – at least that’s what they say – but also you can see what happens when there is complete physical revolution.
3:45 Historically, and you can observe it in daily life all around you, so we needn’t go into that.
3:54 But there must be a radical revolution, psychologically, because from what you are you affect the world.
4:03 There is no question about it. You can play with words of revolution and social change and economic equality and so on, but inwardly what you are you project.
4:20 This also, psychologically and objectively, is so.
4:31 And it may be the central factor in life, in living, in relationship - relationship being between each other, you and me, me and my wife and children and my neighbour, with the world near and far – that there is no love.
5:01 Right? So can we discuss that for the moment or this morning and go into it fairly thoroughly and see where it leads us?
5:13 Whether such a revolution, a psychological revolution, can set the world in order.
5:26 Because to me, I must emphasise this very clearly, that psychological revolution is far more important than the physical revolution.
5:37 I know I’ve repeated this ad nauseum but apparently still there are people who come and listen, say, ‘There must be change there in the economic world, social world, and all the rest of it.’ But who is to change it there, out there?
5:58 You, or you leave it to the corrupt politician. Obviously you. If you are corrupt - corrupt in the sense you may not take a bribe, you may not yield to economic pressures and so on, but inwardly there is disorder, you will inevitably project that disorder outwardly.
6:23 I think that’s logically, sanely true. So, what is one to do actually in a world that we live in?
6:37 What is a human being like you and me to do? Because we have to act, we can’t just theorise – at least I feel I cannot possibly theorise when the house is on fire, who put the house on fire?
7:00 That would be a theory. But to put the fire out first is our concern. That’s an act. Now, what is that act?
7:13 Q: I feel it’s just because most people don’t know when to start the real deal.
7:22 Q: We start here.
7:23 K: We start here. That is where? Here?
7:28 Q: Myself.
7:29 K: In the room?
7:33 Q: I.
7:34 K: I – that’s me. And how shall I, in relationship to the world – you understand, sir?
7:43 – how shall I in relationship to the world that is so corrupt, so insane, what is my relationship to it, what shall I do?
7:56 Q: The starting point to the question is with ourselves, in breaking away.
8:07 K: I am asking you, sir, what shall I do, what will you do facing this thing?
8:17 Will you start out there or out here, in here?
8:25 Let’s be very clear on that point otherwise we’ll keep always going back and forth. You follow?
8:32 Q: So in here, always in here.
8:33 K: Why do you say always in here?
8:35 Q: Because you cannot look for the outside, you cannot look on the outside to get a response, to get the answer.
8:43 I mean you cannot look…
8:45 K: Can you change the politician?
8:47 Q: No.
8:49 K: You may change the present politician through the vote.
8:55 Q: Yes.
8:56 K: Go slowly, step by step. So you say you start out here, in here, with me, with you. How do you start with you?
9:10 Q: By beginning to ask the question.
9:17 K: I’m asking you.
9:19 Q: To begin to pose the question, now, what it is that you come in relationship to – to desire and to pleasure, to violence.
9:22 K: Well go on, sir. What is it? How do I do… what do I do with myself in relation to all this?
9:31 Q: I try to behave in a different way to what I see around.
9:37 Q: No.
9:38 K: In a different way?
9:39 Q: Yes.
9:40 K: What does that mean?
9:41 Q: Well, not by killing nor by hurting people, nor by putting fire on houses, nor by corrupting people.
9:49 I say trying to prevent such a behaviour in an opposite way, in another way.
9:57 K: What is that way?
10:00 Q: That’s the way of friendship with people.
10:05 Q: That’s another way of projecting yourself again, I should think. I should think that only you can pose the question with yourself and from there you begin your relationship with whatever is around you.
10:15 K: Sir, aren’t you, aren’t we, aren’t you interested really in finding out when you say ‘start with yourself’, what to do with yourself?
10:28 Q: What to do with myself?
10:30 K: Yes.
10:31 Q: No. It’s a goal. It’s a protection.
10:36 K: No, no, no, no, no, I’m not talking of goals or perfection.
10:42 Q: Well if you say what I’m going to do with myself, means tomorrow.
10:45 K: No, sir. Just listen. I don’t mean that. What I mean is, I see what the world is – right? – round me, of which I am a part.
10:58 I am the world, the world is me. The two are not separate. I feel this. To me this is a burning reality not just beastly little words.
11:13 And knowing that, what is my action with regard to politics, economics, economic social, religious, relationship - you follow?
11:31 – what is my action in all this?
11:33 Q: Rejection. If there’s any action at all, it is in rejection.
11:40 K: Now what do I reject?
11:43 Q: My belief in the...
11:45 K: No, wait a minute, sir, a little more - belief, that’s only superficial the belief.
11:52 Shall I reject - I’m just asking you - shall I reject the whole structure of thought which has produced this?
12:04 Don’t, sir, go slowly. The whole... I do not know if you have gone into this at all. If you have, forgive me if I repeat it.
12:22 You are the product, the West is the product of Greece – Grecian civilisation, Grecian thought, Grecian mathematics, and so on, Grecian culture, mixed with Judaism and so on, so on, so on.
12:42 That is, the Greeks maintained - that’s what I’ve been told by experts who know something of what they are talking about; we’ll take it with a pinch of salt - that measurement was necessary – measuring, measurement.
13:09 Mathematics is based on measurement, thought is based on measurement, all the technological world which the present civilisation has developed, is based on measurement.
13:26 Right? And the Orient, that is India, which spread, exploded over the whole of Asia, said measurement is illusion.
13:48 Listen to it; I am not taking sides. They said it was illusion and their word ‘ma’ is to measure, maya is illusion, and has got other meanings which I won’t go into.
14:04 So, they said, the West said measurement is essential for growth, culture, living.
14:12 The others said measurement in any form is illusion. Because measurement - listen to it - measurement means time, from here to there, and time is the invention of thought – they don’t say this, I am telling you this – and one must reject all that to find out the immeasurable, which is not measurable.
14:50 Just listen to it. But the ancient Indians employed thought to go beyond the measure.
15:02 You get it? They said you must control it, you must subjugate it, you must discipline it, concentrate.
15:10 You follow? So you have these two movements in the world. One establishing firmly measurement as a way of life.
15:26 Measurement means – listen - comparison, imitation, conformity, and the whole structure of religious, Western religious civilisation is based on imitation, conformity, personal mythological worship, and so on, so on, so on.
15:51 They said it’s all wrong and you must go beyond it, all beyond measure.
15:59 Therefore they said control. To go beyond measurement they use thought. You follow? I wonder if you understand this.
16:08 Q: So it’s the same thing.
16:11 K: That’s just it. They started out, but it’s the same movement. Now, what I want get at is – it’s terribly exciting this - you know? - you don’t know what it means – the whole movement of thought is this.
16:41 Right? And it is based on measurement, both sides.
16:51 And they’ve built up extraordinary structure, both technologically, psychologically and philosophically, in the sense philosophy is the love of truth, which is measureless, but they used the intellect to cultivate all kinds of theories about truth.
17:17 They have built this enormous structure, and I am part of it, as you are.
17:25 You’re following all this? Right, sir? I’m just stating facts, it’s not my opinion. And I am part of that.
17:49 The religion, the nationality, the economic environment, the social division as class, Brahman and all that - I am the result of all that.
18:10 Right? And I, or you, together I produce this world.
18:21 If I want it changed I must reject, totally, everything.
18:30 Reject all measurement.
18:38 You understand what I am talking about? Which is, reject – please don’t misunderstand – all the movement of thought completely.
18:50 Thought has produced this – the class divisions, the economic divisions, the religious divisions, the me and the you, we and they, the communists, the socialists, the Maos – you follow? – the division is created by this measurement of thought.
19:18 And I am the result of it. And if I, if the mind - this mind is the result of it – and if that mind is to put the fire out – fire, which has been created by measurement, by thought - the mind must reject the whole structure of thought.
19:44 Yes, sir.
19:45 Q: May I ask some questions?
19:47 K: Sir, don’t even ask me, this is a…
19:50 Q: Who is the entity who has said that there is fire in the house?
19:55 K: Who is the entity that says there is fire in the house?
19:58 Q: Isn’t that mind too, isn’t that thought too?
20:02 K: No. Observation. Of course, it’s an observation. I see. When I put a pin into myself, it’s pain. There isn’t, ‘Who observes the pain?’ – it’s pain carried over through the nerves to the brain cells and so on, which says pain.
20:21 Q: But judging that the world is on fire, isn’t that thought too?
20:24 K: No, no. It’s an obvious fact.
20:26 Q: Yes, you are not making a judgment.
20:28 K: No, it’s not a judgment.
20:30 Q: It may be a judgement that fire is bad. I have a confusion in my own mind about this. I accept everything you’ve said but the premise that the fire is, in itself, bad and I must put it out – why must I put it out, not perhaps just contain it, because I happen to feel the fire is useful.
20:48 K: No, no. I don’t... No...
20:51 Q: Why must I put it out?
20:52 K: No, wait, sir, I’ll show it to you. There is war going on. Middle East, Far East and so on, so on - war. Economic war, social wars, violence and so on. That’s a fact. Isn’t it? It’s not a judgment.
21:06 Q: But it is judgment to say… (inaudible) K: Wait, wait, wait, I’m coming to that, I’m coming to it.
21:13 Just go step by step. I see obviously there is violence in different forms, extreme form, in a minor form, and I have produced this.
21:27 I am responsible for this. What shall I do? Being responsible for violence I must end it, mustn’t it? Or do we accept violence as the way of life? Yes, sir.
21:46 Q: May I suggest that even violence, to judge violence as a bad thing – is it so?
21:51 K: No, no, no. I did not - please forgive me - I did not judge it. I say - wait a minute, let’s proceed further. I live in Vietnam, North or South. My son is killed. That’s a fact. And I’ve said, ‘I must stop the wars.’ Not only my son is killed but I see what is happening around me.
22:25 That’s all. That’s not a judgment. I don’t want my son to be burnt by various – you or me. That’s not a judgment.
22:37 Q: I’m not saying that there is no fire. I am just suggesting that the entity who says that there is fire in the world is also thought.
22:45 K: No, no. No, wait a minute. Is it? Or is it a verbal communication of a fact? Which is the employment of thought, but the fact is not.
22:57 Q: Could we discuss that?
22:59 K: Do you want to discuss that? Oh, it’s terribly interesting if you go into it. Because please, sir, look at yourself, not me, not what I am telling you but look at it.
23:13 The fact is my son is killed.
23:20 Either in New York by what‘s happening, or in Vietnam. That’s a fact. And I see other sons, brothers, wives, women killed, and I am responsible for it – right?
23:36 – because I am the world. It’s not just an idea. That’s a fact to me, a burning fact. And I say, ‘Please, for God’s sake, I must stop this.’ Is that a judgment or is it facing the fact – look - not forming a conclusion, but the fact tells me you have to do it.
24:02 I don’t know if you follow this. I have a toothache, pain. Pain says… I can’t stand the pain, so I go to the dentist, something or other. That’s a fact.
24:15 Q: Aren’t we perhaps speaking more specifically of conflict?
24:22 What we see is conflict.
24:23 K: Yes, sir, we went into it the other day. Conflict – right?
24:27 Q: No, but what he is speaking about, what he is unable to recognise, is that the conflict exists and you can perceive that without thought, you can see it.
24:39 K: You can see it. That’s all I’m saying.
24:41 Q: And leave it as a fact and not make a judgement.
24:43 K: You’ve been to India. You see starvation, poverty, degradation. That’s a fact. And seeing it you say, ‘Can I do anything?’ You don’t say, ‘Well, I mustn’t judge.’ I must do something about it!
24:58 I’ve lived with – forget myself - with starvation.
25:09 We know all about it. And do you mean to say I mustn’t stop that?
25:15 Q: Yes, I say I must stop that because I have been trained to say that.
25:19 K: No, no.
25:20 Q: But there is no real reason why I must stop that.
25:25 K: Oh yes, sir.
25:27 Q: There are reasons why I must.
25:30 K: Compassion. Ordinary compassion says look…
25:32 Q: Compassion, certainly. Love and compassion which is my whole internal nature, but there is no separate real reason.
25:38 K: No, I am not… Look…
25:41 Q: If I may just take a moment take it away from Vietnam or the starvation of India, which are all things which are terribly emotionally impacted, and put it into just this conflict that we have now, with my ideas, mistaken or otherwise, and your ideas, and from that conflict I feel something will come, something positive will come, what’s necessary and good.
26:06 K: No, no. Wait a minute, sir. What is conflict? A verbal statement is not a conflict. What is behind a verbal statement creates conflict. If I only deal with words and not the content, emotional content behind it, there’s no conflict.
26:28 At least I won’t come into the conflict. I simply say that there is – what? – conflict. Right? That’s a fact. Can a mind that lives in conflict perpetually - wastes itself, that’s a fact – right?
27:00 Q: But may I suggest that there have been theories in biology, like Darwin, who explained even our very being by this conflict, which selects always the best one of us.
27:14 So on a certain point of view this violence that we now judge as something bad could from another point of view be considered as good.
27:22 K: Maybe, maybe, maybe. But I say, ‘My son has been killed and I want to stop your son being killed.’ That’s all.
27:31 Q: Then this is a moral point of view.
27:32 K: Not a moral point, it’s just ordinary compassion. My God, what’s the matter with you?
27:38 Q: It’s thought too.
27:39 K: Compassion is not thought!
27:40 Q: No, I think it is emotion.
27:43 K: It is not emotion! No, on the contrary, that’s why I want to discuss with you what love is.
27:54 Come?
27:56 Q: (In Italian) K: Per favore, si.
28:07 Q: (In Italian) K: Bene, bene, si, si Q: (In Italian) K: Sir, just a minute.
28:31 They won’t listen to me. (Laughter, applause) No, no, no, no, please, sir!
28:47 (Laughter) Q: Why? Now you’ve made an assumption.
28:58 Q: No, it’s true.
29:03 K: I have done it.
29:11 I have done it, and they say, ‘Go and talk to the rich people.’ (Laughter) No, you don’t see the inwardness of all this.
29:34 (Pause) Sir, I am not talking to the rich or to the poor, to the labourer or to the middle class who is comfortably sitting here, I am talking to the man who says, ‘Look, I want to find out.
30:02 I want to see different world. Not ideologically, spiritually – factually, because my son is dead, killed by you, or this or that.’ And it’s you I am talking to.
30:18 If you don’t want to listen, all right, I don’t care. So let’s come back. Apparently, from all our conversation, from the world, what is happening, we are intellectually so tremendously alive, and the rest of us is a little dormant.
30:52 And a person who is at all serious says things must change.
31:04 And they cannot be changed by the intellect. Right? Though intellect is necessary, the intellect has its function, but that alone cannot change the world.
31:23 Right? Intellect is the word, is thought, is the idea.
31:34 Idea identified with emotion is still thought, the intellect, which has its logical, sane function.
31:48 And as that cannot solve it, what shall my mind do?
31:55 Q: I’d like to detach from my mind.
32:04 K: I have to detach my mind – who is the ‘you’ that detaches from the mind?
32:11 Q: With attention.
32:13 K: Madame, don’t, please, this is very, very serious, these things, you can’t just…
32:21 Yes, sir?
32:22 Q: If I accept the premise that it is possible to reject this enormous superstructure...
32:28 K: Ah, don’t assume anything, sir.
32:31 Q: No, I’m not assuming but I’m saying that if I accept the possibility that it can happen then I can reject it.
32:39 It seems to me that it’s a lot of will involved.
32:42 K: I’m coming... That’s right, but…
32:44 Q: It is a tremendous amount of will involved in rejecting this.
32:47 K: I don’t reject, sir. Do you reject when you see danger? You move away from it, don’t you?
32:55 Q: Yes.
32:56 K: Because you see danger, you move away. You don’t reject it, say, ‘I’ll build a wall against it,’ you move away.
33:05 Q: So the danger is inside of me. How can I move away from myself?
33:10 K: So I see a danger, how the intellect with its extraordinarily cunning thought, has created all this round me, of which I am.
33:27 And intellect alone cannot solve it. There must be action which will be whole – right? – and it may be love.
33:37 Q: No, not to me.
33:45 K: What do you mean by that?
33:50 Q: But I think you have to get out of it somehow.
33:55 K: Do you?
33:56 Q: I think I have. I have for myself, if I love...
33:59 K: Not ‘if’.
34:00 Q: When I love...
34:01 K: Not ‘when’. You see how intellectually you’re incapable of facing things?
34:08 Q: Well it’s an intention anyway. It’s hate, isn’t it?
34:15 K: My intention is to go to heaven and I am living in the hell all the time. (Laughter) Intention has no place in this.
34:24 Q: I think love gives a sense of this… (inaudible) K: Please, madame.
34:37 Shall we try to find out by negating, not verbally but actually in ourselves, what it is not?
34:46 Right?
34:47 Q: Not that, not that.
34:52 K: Not theory. Am I capable of denying, not verbally but actually in myself, what it is not?
35:07 Shall we do that? Will you? Sir, when you say ‘right’ it means that you will wipe out from you that which is not love.
35:25 Q: All right.
35:26 K: Ah, you know what it means? (Laughter) Envy is not love.
35:41 Right? Agree? You see? And we are envious. Envy means measurement. Follow this, sir. Envy says you are better than I am, you have more than I have, you are more intellectual, more beautiful, lovely face, I am not.
36:15 So where there is comparison there must be conflict, imitation.
36:23 Therefore that’s not love. Right? Do you compare? You follow, sir? Do you imitate anybody? Imitation is having an ideal.
36:48 Right? So can you say… Look, love may be the only solution for this world.
37:01 Right? And there must be... mind must cleanse itself of its envy.
37:12 Can you do it, can the mind do it? Mind being the whole thing, not just intellect. Can you wipe... can the mind wipe itself from its envy, measurement, comparison, trying to become something?
37:36 Q: Is the question envy? Is that the primary question or is the question of myself, whether I am the creator of all this?
37:50 K: No, which is, envy is me!
37:52 Q: Oh yes.
37:53 K: Of course.
37:54 Q: That is the question for me.
37:55 K: I’m only putting it round the other way, sir, that is…
37:57 Q: But can’t the world exist with love and envy and avarice and all the various other nine deadly sins?
38:04 Can’t they all exist together?
38:05 K: Oh, can they?
38:07 Q: They do exist in fact.
38:09 K: That’s all. They exist, and what has it produced?
38:12 Q: Well, obviously, if one side gets… it’s balance. It’s balance, life is a balance. If one side gets the upper hand.
38:20 K: Is love a balance between hate…
38:22 Q: If we put love on this side and envy on this side – if you put…
38:27 K: No, no, no. Sir, sir, sir, that’s merely intellectual. Is love hate? Can you balance hate and love all the time?
38:38 Q: We do.
38:40 K: Therefore what happens?
38:42 Q: Things are not successful… (inaudible) K: So I am asking: can the mind - please follow this a little bit, it’s quite... – can the mind wipe away from itself all sense of envy, which is one of the aspects of the ‘me’?
39:11 Right? Never to compare. You know?
39:20 Q: In our culture that’s something we attempt but it’s reinforced on all sides.
39:32 K: Therefore you have to reject the culture.
39:36 Q: May I ask you, it seems to me that when you say, ‘Can we clear our minds completely of envy or comparison?’ that our tendency is generally to try to wipe it out rather than to perceive…
39:51 K: I am going to go into that, sir, First see what is implied in it. That is, we asked, we said, we may find out what love is by negating what is not love.
40:10 We said envy is not, obviously, love.
40:18 Obviously. So I say: what is envy? Envy is comparison. If I don’t compare my house and my car, with yours which is better than mine - you follow?
40:36 So can my mind, can the mind wipe, put away envy without conflict - follow this - without time?
40:48 You follow? If you say ‘time’, then thought comes in. I don’t know if you follow all this.
41:05 No you don’t.
41:08 Q: Then what you suggest, sir, it seems to me, is to put yourself apart from what we generally call life.
41:20 K: But life has... life is what we are living, which is violent, all the rest of it. And we say: don’t you want... mustn’t you put yourself outside it?
41:32 Q: But how? It seems to me it is not possible, it’s not realistic.
41:38 K: I’ll show it. I have to live in this world not withdraw into a monastery.
41:49 So I have to live in it and be out of it, and that’s what we are going to find out.
41:56 People around me, the civilisation, the culture, the whole structure, is based on – one of the factors is envy.
42:05 Right? Every car, new car - you follow? – envy. Now can the mind put away without conflict, without time, without analysis?
42:26 Go on, sir. Because analysis implies analyser and the analysed. Right? Which is division, therefore conflict, and in that there is imitation and conformity.
42:45 I analyse and I say, ‘I must…’ You follow? And so on. All that implies time. And in the meantime I am being envious.
42:57 Q: No, but I wouldn’t like to be too technical and too analytical, but though, if we want to consider if we can live without envy you must also ask where this envy comes from.
43:06 K: Oh, that’s fairly simple.
43:09 Q: And in our civilisation this envy is part of the consolidation of ‘me’, it’s worthy of myself.
43:20 K: Of course, sir, that’s what we…
43:21 Q: In India, it is, for instance, they have other kind of envy about how high I am in spiritual attainment.
43:27 K: Envy is envy, whether it is a bigger house, bigger car, more beautiful, longer hair, shorter hair - you follow?
43:36 – envy is envy whether it’s India, in Alaska, in Moscow.
43:40 Q: A consolidation of myself.
43:42 K: Which is me. We said that, sir - is part of me. Can you wipe that away from you, from the mind, wipe itself away? Now how is - please follow – time, analysis.
44:01 If that is false then what is it to do? You don’t go...
44:08 Q: If the ‘me’ is whole how can there be fragments?
44:14 K: Who says the ‘me’ is whole?
44:16 Q: But the ‘me’ isn’t whole, it’s in fragments.
44:17 K: That’s it. It’s made up of many fragments.
44:19 Q: Yes, exactly.
44:20 K: Now one of the fragments is envy.
44:22 Q: Is it?
44:23 K: Isn’t it?
44:24 Q: Can you divide the ‘me’ in fragments?
44:29 K: Isn’t the ‘me’ jealousy, envy…
44:32 Q: That’s names.
44:35 K: No, no, no. The names, the words used to indicate the quality, what is behind it. We said the word is not the thing.
44:48 Q: You cannot give me one part of jealousy. I mean, it’s just an idea, it’s a name. (Laughter) K: Sir, it’s just an idea – all right, I agree with you. The ‘me’ is just an idea. Right?
45:00 Q: Divided or...
45:02 K: Wait. The ‘me’ is just an idea. Right?
45:06 Q: The divisions are.
45:09 K: Sir, the ‘me’ is just an idea.
45:12 Q: Of course.
45:13 K: Right. Then why do you give such importance to the idea?
45:18 Q: I don’t.
45:20 K: Don’t say you don’t. No, sir, please, either we talk very, very seriously... Why do I give importance to an idea?
45:28 Q: I would like to come back to what you were saying about how you could live without envy.
45:35 So I said, well, if envy is rooted really in my psychology, that I need this envy to build up what I am, so I can’t do without, I can’t take it.
45:48 K: I’ll will show it to you, sir, I’ll show it to you.
45:50 Q: I’m solid enough without that, so then there is no envy involved.
45:54 K: I’ll show it to you. You have certain conclusions. I haven’t. You say… Please, sir, we are starting to look. To look you can’t have any conclusions. Right?
46:08 Q: Of course not.
46:09 K: Now, I see one of the factors of the ‘me’ is the result of the culture in which I have lived, and so on, so on, so on, which is envy.
46:22 The word is not the thing. The thing is the part of the ‘me’. The ‘me’ is an idea which civilisations upon civilisations has cultivated.
46:38 Now, can that part of me, pushed, wiped away, put away, never come, you know, never enter into the field again?
46:52 Q: May I ask a question about if it is acquire... if we could with our minds eliminate envy from ourselves, because we would not allow comparison, is it not, part of it then, just as important not to compare or not to be compared?
47:05 Because envy is a gift.
47:06 K: Is it?
47:08 Q: Well, if, let’s say love, since it’s only, as you say, words - if love is an ability – it’s a premise – if it were an ability to see clearly if we envy or we compare, it is also from without not only from within, if we allow a situation in which we are compared, envy is then born within us as well.
47:44 Does it not feed itself back and forth?
47:45 K: Madame, it is both within and without. Oh my lord! I have compared myself with you and you compare yourself with somebody else.
47:53 Q: But are we not always comparing? I don’t mean we compare but we allow others to compare.
47:59 K: I can’t help what the others do.
48:01 Q: Well is that also not just a way of preventing it towards love, in allowing others to compare us?
48:08 K: I said all… I am not talking about others, I am saying about you. Sitting there I say: is envy part of love?
48:20 And you all say it can’t be. Right? Is that an idea or a fact?
48:28 Q: It’s a fact.
48:32 K: That means no envy at all.
48:39 You know what it means, sir, to live beautifully? Well, no, we won’t go into it.
48:46 Q: I would be telling you lies if I said yes.
48:51 K: (Sighs) And is love, pleasure? We are coming nearer home. Go on, sir, answer it.
49:12 Not only sexual pleasure, pleasure of every kind, and the pursuit of it.
49:30 Is love attachment?
49:41 So I see love is not attachment.
49:50 Attachment implies fear. Right? No?
49:55 Q: Yes.
49:59 K: So fear is not love, attachment is not love.
50:08 Is love pleasure?
50:11 Q: Yes.
50:13 Q: Not completely.
50:16 Q: No. (Laughter) K: Ah, lovely people you are!
50:26 Lovely. You refuse to face reality. (Laughter) Q: It’s pleasurable.
50:39 K: I love you and you don’t love me and I go through hell.
50:51 Right? Is that love?
50:54 Q: No.
50:57 K: But… Is love jealousy? But it gives me great pleasure to be jealous.
51:17 You’re mine, you mustn’t belong to anybody, without you I am lost, I am lonely, I am unhappy, I am miserable.
51:27 And I say, ‘I love you.’ Is that love?
51:31 Q: No.
51:32 K: Don’t say no.
51:33 Q: May I ask you…
51:36 K: This is how you live.
51:45 And the pursuit of pleasure. Right, sir?
51:48 Q: May I ask you a question? May I ask you a very old question? What do you suppose love to be that you want to know what it is?
52:01 K: I don’t know what it is.
52:02 Q: No, but I mean, why are we trying to find out?
52:04 K: Because…
52:05 Q: Because we spoke about love as something.
52:06 K: Wait, sir, I said to you. I said to you it may be the one thing that may solve the whole problem.
52:12 Q: You suppose that.
52:13 K: I said it may be. So I said to find what may be or may not be, the mind must wipe... put away these things.
52:26 So from my... I see for myself - not you - I see for myself attachment of any kind is not love.
52:43 But which doesn’t mean that I am irresponsible. You follow? You understand? I see for myself very clearly that pleasure is not love.
53:03 So what does that mean?
53:11 I enjoy. I do enjoy a lovely day, a lovely tree, a beautiful face.
53:24 It is a pleasure, I enjoy. What’s wrong with it?
53:34 So the priests have said: don’t look. Right? I don’t know if you’ve found that. Don’t look. Pick up the bible and look. Right, sir? (Laughter) So, love is none of these things, and human beings like me and everybody else, caught in the things which are not love.
54:15 And I say that maybe the only answer which will reply to everything - economics, social caste, everything from that centre.
54:34 There is no method is there? Let’s be clear on this. Method implies a system, a practice. I tell you this way, if you do this, this, this, you will be free of envy.
54:57 Then you listen to it. You think I have… not envious, therefore you would like to achieve that state, therefore you will practise it.
55:07 Right? I say don’t do it. See the impossibility of practice. That means time. That means the very practice is motivated by envy, because you want to get there.
55:25 Q: Sorry, excuse me but I see a contradiction in the... perhaps it’s not and you can explain it to me.
55:37 This process here seems to me, takes time and is really quite intellectual when you say, ‘Look,’ and go from one point to another carefully exploring – that takes time and a lot of thought.
55:51 K: Yes.
55:52 Q: And it’s not immediate.
55:53 K: No, but I’m going to show you the immediacy of it presently, sir. Follow this. So don’t follow – right? Right, sir? Don’t follow anybody. Including me.
56:10 Q: We don’t follow teachers.
56:16 K: Primarily me. Because you are very easily influenceable. Right? So move from there. So can you wipe away this traditional acceptance of practice.
56:42 You follow, sir? Following a method. Can you wipe it away instantly? Because you see how false it is. Therefore the seeing, when you see the false you are seeing through intelligence.
57:02 Right?
57:03 Q: And also throwing away the non-method method.
57:09 K: But this is not a method. When I say ‘method’, means all methods.
57:15 Q: But one can see and not do. One can know better. And we are all in that line.
57:23 K: Now then the problem arises: what do you mean by the word ‘seeing’?
57:32 Intellectually seeing, verbally understanding, or actually seeing the microphone?
57:39 So I come to the point: seeing implies nonverbalisation.
57:51 Right? Verbal – the word is the symbol, the image of thought.
58:04 Right? Can the mind look at what it calls envy, without the word and it’s implication which is involved in the usage of that word ‘envy’?
58:22 Right, sir?
58:26 Q: You mean without judging?
58:30 K: Without judging, without evaluating, without condemning, without justifying.
58:37 All that’s implied in observing.
58:40 Q: Isn’t that psychoanalysing?
58:41 K: No.
58:42 Q: But for me this is exactly psychoanalysing.
58:45 K: No, for you...
58:47 Q: Yes?
58:48 K: Sir, I am saying no, and for you it is. Please see what I am talking about, don’t stick to your point. Don’t say it is psychoanalysis.
58:55 Q: You are stating this point, though.
58:57 K: I’m showing you, madame.
58:58 Q: Yes.
58:59 Q: Then sometimes you imply that psychoanalysis is something wrong.
59:04 K: No.
59:05 Q: (Laughs) And I just want…
59:06 K: Listen, sir.
59:07 Q: The seeing without judging is psychoanalysing.
59:11 K: Psychoanalysis means what it says. Psycho – self – analysis. Wait, sir. The word, sir, please!
59:21 Q: (Inaudible) K: Do you know what analysis, the root meaning of that word ‘analysis’ means? To break up. To break up.
59:32 Q: Don’t stick with that word.
59:34 K: Ah! When you use the words ‘it is self-analysis’ I say it is not. Therefore I have to explain it. I say self-analysis implies analysing the broken parts, the self analysing itself.
59:55 The self which is the me, which is the thought, analysing – no - examining, looking at the broken parts.
1:00:05 The analysis means that. Sir, I am using the dictionary meaning of that word.
1:00:10 Q: Yes, but this is wrong.
1:00:12 K: Wait! (Laughter) You see these…
1:00:15 Q: It’s a fact. You know sometimes we have inherited words which are not clear what it is.
1:00:20 K: I am saying it is not…
1:00:22 Q: It’s not right.
1:00:23 K: I am using the word, please, strictly etymologically, according to the dictionary.
1:00:30 Q: Exactly.
1:00:31 K: When I use the word ‘intelligence’, it is the English – the dictionary meaning means – listen, sir - to keep alert and also ‘legerere’.
1:00:46 Q: Yes.
1:00:48 K: Which means to read inter, between the lines.
1:00:52 Q: (Inaudible) K: Please, sir, just listen! I am telling you something. Have the courtesy to listen, sir. I am not telling you you are incourteous but just find out. To read, intelligence means that. Now, I say to you it is not through practice that you put away, which implies exercise of will – will being, I’ll explain what that word means, will being a determination by thought to act in this or that way.
1:01:39 Right? This doesn’t imply determination at all. Determination means building a wall against something. So, can the mind look without judgment, explanation, justification, condemnation?
1:02:01 Don’t say no.
1:02:05 Q: I wonder if the problem doesn’t exist because we want to answer you with yes or no, rather than say, ‘I don’t know,’ and go from there.
1:02:15 K: Yes. That’s all I am trying to tell you, sir! Don’t know. I don’t know where this is leading.
1:02:20 Q: Yes, exactly.
1:02:22 Q: May I ask you whether you agree with my thinking, that it would imply if we do not judge any longer but it would imply to do completely away with a sense of values, with any value, and quality.
1:02:42 K: No.
1:02:43 Q: You do not agree?
1:02:45 K: No.
1:02:46 Q: Because value is a thing which...
1:02:48 K: Sir, I’ll come to that later.
1:02:50 Q: …which is a judgment, isn’t it?
1:02:51 K: I’ll come to that later. Can I look at myself, can the mind look at itself, can you look at me or your friend or your wife, without the image that you have built?
1:03:08 That’s all. Image being judgment, evaluation, condemnation, all the rest of it.
1:03:16 Just to look. Sir, if you want to listen to somebody you can’t be talking, chattering away, can you?
1:03:37 Can you? If I want to listen to you I can’t be talking the person next to me.
1:03:45 I can’t. If I want to listen to you, I must be free to listen, mustn’t I? I must look at you, I must listen to you, I must care for what you are saying. Otherwise I can’t listen to you. So in the same way, can I look at something without judgment?
1:04:09 Right, sir? Do it. Therefore to see clearly there must be freedom from conclusion.
1:04:26 Now, to see - listen to this, please just listen - to see clearly there must be freedom – right? – from condemnation, all the rest of it.
1:04:41 The seeing in freedom is the insight. Isn’t it? That is…
1:04:49 Q: The seeing in freedom…
1:04:51 K: …is insight.
1:04:53 Q: Clarity.
1:04:54 K: Look, look, sir, just listen, just listen, don’t try to understand me.
1:05:00 Q: No, I’ll try not to.
1:05:07 (Laughter) K: No. I said if you want to listen to somebody, if your mind is… if you are talking to somebody you can’t listen.
1:05:24 If you are chattering in yourself you can’t listen. Listening implies care, attention.
1:05:36 And only then you can find out what the chap is saying - really, beyond words.
1:05:46 And that means freedom to look, to listen. Freedom from prejudice, from conclusion. Now, that is an insight, isn’t it? By Jove, I see that. That to look there must be freedom. Right? And the look is an insight into conclusion, condemnation, judgment - which impedes freedom to look.
1:06:20 That’s an insight, isn’t it?
1:06:23 Q: Yes.
1:06:24 K: Now, what happens? Just listen to it. I have an insight there, and I draw a conclusion from it.
1:06:35 I say mind must not conclude to be free. You follow this?
1:06:41 Q: That’s a beautiful thing.
1:06:43 K: I’ve drawn a conclusion. I have drawn a conclusion that the mind must not have prejudices to be free.
1:06:56 That’s a conclusion. The scientists are doing this. They have an insight and their culture makes them conclude and act from a conclusion.
1:07:13 So can you look and therefore have an insight without ever drawing a conclusion?
1:07:21 Oh you…
1:07:23 Q: That’s living.
1:07:25 K: That is living, sir. You don’t know what it all means, come on.
1:07:33 Q: Could you repeat?
1:07:43 Could you more or less repeat what you said? I didn’t follow what you said.
1:07:45 K: You didn’t follow what I said? I’m sorry, I can’t repeat it.
1:07:52 Q: I don’t ask for the same words, but just freely.
1:08:00 Q: What you were saying in the last two minutes only, she means.
1:08:02 K: Two minutes?
1:08:03 Q: Yes.
1:08:04 K: I don’t know, I can’t repeat it.
1:08:05 Q: You were saying, excuse me, you were saying that…
1:08:06 K: Please tell her.
1:08:07 Q: Yes. I’m not quite sure but let’s to go where we were left. You were saying when we see that the mind that is not free cannot make the communication, it is a conclusion, and… (inaudible) K: But seeing is not a conclusion.
1:08:18 Q: Ah bon. All right. All right. That’s what I want to...
1:08:22 K: Of course. And when you draw from that a conclusion it prevents you from further seeing.
1:08:29 Q: Yes, all right.
1:08:30 K: See it.
1:08:31 Q: Yes, yes, right.
1:08:32 Q: But seeing is a whole bunch of small conclusions. I am by professional training, whether I’m good at it or bad, my own profession requires me constantly to see and to listen, hopefully without advanced prejudices, and most important to the real thing, without value judgments.
1:08:49 No value judgments. But I do listen to you or listen to him or go and investigate something else and take all these pieces and compare them with a great deal of past knowledge and make continuous, tiny little… (inaudible) K: That’s a different matter.
1:09:03 Q: …hopefully without value judgments. But I cannot perceive blue unless I know what red is – and blue and red and green... (inaudible) Q: That’s a technical procedure.
1:09:10 K: That’s a different matter isn’t it, sir?
1:09:13 Q: Why is it a different matter?
1:09:15 K: Look, I’ll show it to you, I’ll show it.
1:09:22 The mind has seen - seen in the sense not verbally but actually - that conclusions in any form prevent perception.
1:09:34 That’s a fact - you follow? – a burning fact to me. I have to act. I act from that intelligence - you follow? – not from a conclusion...
1:09:51 Q: I don’t follow that, because I don’t know where the fact goes off and the conclusion begins.
1:10:03 K: Sir, I said: what is intelligence? According to the dictionary meaning, is to keep an alert mind and to interlegere, to read between the lines.
1:10:17 Q: Yes.
1:10:18 K: Wait, wait. I cannot read between the lines if I have any prejudices.
1:10:31 Right? So intelligence is a mind without prejudice. Now it has to operate in the world, it has to put the fact, as he explained, colour, blue, red, white.
1:10:46 So from intelligence it acts not from a conclusion.
1:10:49 Q: I think that part of intelligence is...
1:10:58 I wouldn’t draw the distinction between prejudice and conclusions.
1:11:01 K: They are all the same - prejudice. After all, I’m...
1:11:05 Q: I see a difference between drawing a tentative conclusion towards being able to see more, and having a prejudice which blocks my vision.
1:11:14 K: Ah. Any conclusion blocks a vision.
1:11:17 Q: Even tentative?
1:11:19 K: Tentative – obviously. Why should I have a tentative conclusion? When I am looking why should I make... (laughs) – you follow?
1:11:27 Q: Because it becomes a technical tool, like being able to see red. Like learning a language.
1:11:32 K: But I said that, sir. I said a mind that has no conclusion is an intelligent mind.
1:11:43 Right? That intelligence operates.
1:11:47 Q: How? How is it operating? It is operating by drawing those conclusions.
1:11:54 K: No. When conclusions are necessary it uses and drops it.
1:11:59 Q: How?
1:12:00 K: I’m not going to tell you. Have that intelligence and you will see how it acts. It would be a conclusion on your part if you said - you follow? – intelligence will do this, that and that and that.
1:12:18 So, let’s come back.
1:12:23 Q: Well isn’t the trouble that different insights – there can be different insights...
1:12:29 K: No.
1:12:30 Q: Can there be one insight?
1:12:32 K: Sir, look, look, very simple. You and I have agreed, all of us have agreed to call this a microphone.
1:12:42 Right? If you and I agreed, all of us agreed to call it an elephant, it’s all right too. Right?
1:12:50 Q: This is an agreement.
1:12:51 K: No, no, it’s a verbal agreement about a fact.
1:12:55 Q: Yes.
1:12:56 K: Now, to have an insight means that you and I see the same thing.
1:13:04 Because if you have no prejudice, no conclusion and I have no prejudice, no conclusion, we must see the same thing.
1:13:13 That is blue. Because you and I both have agreed to call that blue.
1:13:20 Q: But your insight might be different than the insight of another person.
1:13:25 K: No. If it is a real insight it is not different.
1:13:31 Q: If I am not separate then I am not going to have any separation from anything – is that so?
1:13:38 K: That’s right. You don’t see the beauty of this!
1:13:40 Q: Because if you – if I follow in that - your insight would have to be the identical with the insight in that case.
1:13:51 K: Ah, no, no, no.
1:13:53 Q: In that case, conflict would be eliminated automatically. In that case there is no conflict. Because only an exact conflict on the basis that one insight might be different from the insight of another, because, after all, what is ‘we’ and ‘I’ we don’t know.
1:14:10 K: Oh yes I do.
1:14:11 Q: They are different.
1:14:13 K: Oh yes we do.
1:14:15 Q: Krishnaji, this is impossible. This is impossible, because if I show a piece of cheese to a dying man it can’t mean the same thing if I show the same piece of cheese to me.
1:14:25 K: Écoutez. You are not dying are you?
1:14:27 Q: No but I mean it’s obvious.
1:14:28 K: I am talking to you, not to the dying man.
1:14:29 Q: It’s obvious. It’s obvious. It depends what state we are in.
1:14:33 K: No, no.
1:14:34 Q: We can’t see the same thing.
1:14:35 K: When you say - please listen, sir - when you say your insight is different from mine or another, you have already divided the insight.
1:14:44 Q: No I did not divide the insight.
1:14:48 K: You have divided…
1:14:50 Q: People who are not…
1:14:52 Q: My history, his history.
1:14:56 K: What were you were saying, sir?
1:15:00 Q: Well that… Well I say we do not know what we are. We cannot talk of a person because a person…
1:15:07 K: We are not dealing with that. We’ll deal with that tomorrow, or…
1:15:10 Q: If there was one insight in the world, if there could have been one insight, it would have been achieved.
1:15:17 It could be achieved anyway, theoretically.
1:15:18 K: I’m not interested in...
1:15:20 Q: But what has been achieved is only that one insight has always been in conflict with another insight.
1:15:27 K: Sir, sir, please just listen. If you and I have wiped away from us all evaluation, judgment, etc., etc., you must see the same thing as I see, because then you are not separate from me, we are looking at the same thing.
1:15:50 Q: But they are not identical.
1:15:54 K: When you say ‘identical’, it is separation.
1:15:56 Q: But you know we want to stay human, we don’t want to change, we want to live within the realm of humanity.
1:16:03 This is a separation.
1:16:05 K: Allez-y. (Laughter) Q: No, but...
1:16:10 Q: It’s very dangerous, sir.
1:16:14 Q: Please go back to the meaning of love.
1:16:18 K: I said that, sir. Love is not envy, attachment, fear, jealousy.
1:16:33 Can the mind wipe those things away from itself completely? Without any conflict, without time, which means now.
1:16:49 You have been trained in time, that’s why you find it difficult!
1:16:57 Your culture said: take time, old boy, gradually, don’t rush at it.
1:17:06 In the meantime enjoy yourself, killing - you follow? (Laughter) And I said I want to find out, I want to see if there is beauty of love or not.
1:17:23 To me, it’s… not tomorrow, I want - you follow? - like I am hungry. So I say, since all that is not – and it is one of the most difficult things to understand, pleasure and fear, I have to find out what pleasure is, what fear is.
1:17:49 Without understanding those two I cannot possibly come upon… the mind cannot possibly come upon this thing called love.
1:17:58 Q: Can I ask you about that word ‘understanding’ and perhaps change it to the word ‘perceiving’.
1:18:02 K: Call it what...
1:18:03 Q: But there is a slight difference.
1:18:07 K: I’ve used that word ‘perceiving’. I’m fed up with that word, therefore…
1:18:19 (Laughter) So I’m concerned with pleasure and fear.
1:18:26 When those two exist in me, there is no love.
1:18:32 Q: Can one say that love unites and fear divides?
1:18:37 K: Oh, that’s just a theory. I don’t... Sir, I’m... I don’t want theories, I’m hungry. Give me food, not words.
1:18:46 Q: Oh, yes, yes.
1:18:47 Q: But is this words? Is the question I have been asking, is that words?
1:18:55 K: I don’t know. Find out. To find out, wipe the mind clear of all prejudice. (Laughs) So what is pleasure? I must find out. You mean to say I cannot enjoy a lovely day?
1:19:21 I cannot look at a marvellous sunset, see the beauty of a leaf?
1:19:28 I enjoy it, looking at a sunset. I enjoy looking at the water. What? The mind then says, ‘Marvellous, that water, that piece of water with the light of the sunshine, the beauty of it, the calmness, the colours.’ At that moment I am tremendously with it.
1:19:58 Next moment, thought comes in and says, ‘Oh what a lovely time that was.
1:20:07 I must have more of it.’ Now that is the pursuit of pleasure.
1:20:18 If I don’t have more of it, I get angry, frightened. So you have it. So to understand what love is there must be the understanding or the perception or seeing the structure and nature of thought.
1:20:39 So thought is not love, obviously. And all our relationships are based on thought.
1:20:50 Q: May I ask you a question?
1:20:57 Why do you personally use words, I mean the form of a talk, to convey a certain thing which we call love now?
1:21:08 Why is this form used?
1:21:10 K: Now wait a minute. Communication implies not only verbal. Sharing together, that’s really the meaning of that word – means to share, to think together.
1:21:28 Create together, live together. That’s the whole meaning of that word ‘communication’. Now, I communicate to you in English, verbally, because that’s the language you understand, the language I understand.
1:21:47 Now, I convey these things verbally, but much more deeply.
1:21:55 Not the words but the depth of it.
1:21:59 Q: But still, why do you use the philosophical lingo?
1:22:03 K: What is the philosophical lingo?
1:22:04 Q: That’s what you have been using now, during these two hours.
1:22:07 K: Ah, just ordinary words. ‘Pleasure’ is an ordinary word, ‘love’ is an ordinary word. I am afraid, I am attached to you.
1:22:17 Q: But let’s say we could have been sitting silently, we could have been singing...
1:22:21 K: Wait, wait, wait.
1:22:22 Q: We could have been making a walk.
1:22:23 K: I have done that too.
1:22:24 Q: We could have done a lot of things.
1:22:25 K: I have done that too. You can’t walk with fifty people. (Laughter) You can’t. If I walked with one, the fifty will say, ‘What the hell are you doing, why don’t you also walk with me?’ Q: I am just asking.
1:22:41 K: I’m telling you, sir. So this goes on, and it’s simpler to talk like this.
1:22:51 And – wait a minute – the verbal communication is necessary as long as the conscious mind is acting.
1:23:02 Right? Whether you can listen unconsciously is another matter.
1:23:11 I don’t know if you ever tried this. Because the deeper layers of the conscious is much more active, much more sensitive, not so habitual, it’s more pliable, more quick, more alive.
1:23:33 Q: But the danger could be that this…
1:23:38 K: Ah, that’s why I say…
1:23:40 Q: ...philosophical lingo would be taken as the aim and denote, breed further philosophy, and philosophy being its own subject.
1:23:47 K: That’s why I use, if I may point out for myself, very simple words.
1:23:56 And English is marvellous in simple words.
1:23:58 Q: All words are second-hand though, they’ve gone through millions.
1:24:04 K: Which is second-hand. There may be a thousand years of second-handed...
1:24:10 Q: That’s the trouble, that words have come through so many hands, whereas following you, as you say, taking this in beyond the words, that I follow, that I follow completely.
1:24:24 K: That’s very difficult, sir.
1:24:26 Q: Yes, but there I following you. Then the words already divide us because...
1:24:32 K: No, sir.
1:24:34 Q: …the word ‘love’, for instance, will already have a different meaning for you, then it may have had for Plato, for instance, or for other people.
1:24:43 K: I don’t know anything about Plato. (Laughter) Q: Certainly, but he is the man who actually has... he’s, I should say, a first-hand man for the word of love, in ourselves.
1:24:58 He has created really a word of love in this complete sense, which then has come through the millions.
1:25:05 K: Oh no, sir. Oh no. Aristotle wasn’t the only bird.
1:25:08 Q: Certainly not, but he was one of the first birds.
1:25:09 K: Previous to Aristotle - just a minute, sir - previous to Aristotle in the Indian history, five thousand, six thousand, seven thousand years, those are talking about love.
1:25:16 There is a marvellous thing, talking about love.
1:25:17 Q: Certainly. I’m talking about our civilisation and about how our minds are working.
1:25:20 K: I know, I know, I know.
1:25:23 Q: And that is the trouble.
1:25:26 K: So, sir, please. Please, can you put away all your second-hand knowledge and look?
1:25:35 Q: Excuse me, this gentleman was asking why you are speaking why you were speaking, why you are speaking to pose these questions with us.
1:25:43 Can we assume therefore that you’re asking the question as well and to look at it in that light, rather than to seeing you answer.
1:25:50 K: Yes, that’s all. Quite right.
1:25:52 Q: And that this is no relationship with one another again, as relate to whoever is with us, with the words, with the same attention.
1:25:58 K: Sir, look, I can have relationship with you if I stayed here for the next ten years or ten days or next month.
1:26:07 We can communicate and walk together - you follow?
1:26:09 Q: (Inaudible) …at one particular level, yes.
1:26:13 K: Yes, at one level.
1:26:15 Q: Yes.
1:26:16 K: But fortunately I am going on Sunday. (Laughter) Q: We have relationship now.
1:26:22 K: That’s all.
1:26:25 Q: (Inaudible) K: That’s all.
1:26:31 Q: No but the danger is that we have in our civilisation, like you say, and in also in India actually...
1:26:37 K: All civilizations are muck!
1:26:38 Q: …we have a tendency to intellectualise.
1:26:40 K: That’s it.
1:26:41 Q: We want to verbalise.
1:26:42 Q: We want to believe him.
1:26:45 K: Don’t. I am nobody to believe.
1:26:48 Q: We have a big tendency to that. So if we come in a talk and if we start arguing and having ideas and counter ideas we might go on. And this is what you want to stop. That’s why I asked why you use this technique of talking instead of, let’s say, sitting or walking or playing.
1:27:05 K: I’ll tell you, sir.
1:27:06 Q: Playing with a ball or… (laughs) K: I have told you, I have told you. I talk for the simple reason - for myself, I am not talking for you – because I have something to say.
1:27:23 Like a flower, it is something. It doesn’t say, ‘I am talking, you must listen.’ It has got its own perfume.
1:27:35 If you want smell it, take it home with you, go. If you don’t it’s all right. It exists for itself. And because it loves, communicating. That’s all, sir. But if doesn’t communicate, it’s all right too. So we have tried so many things.
1:28:06 I’ve been talking since the age of 15 and we have tried so many things: little groups, big groups, walking, talking…
1:28:20 Q: Camp fires.
1:28:22 K: Camp, everything, and unfortunately each one goes away with something which he wants.
1:28:30 Not with the real. I think that’s enough, isn’t it?