Krishnamurti Subtitles home


SA65D3 - In negation is action
Saanen, Switzerland - 6 August 1965
Public Discussion 3



0:00 This is J. Krishnamurti’s third public discussion in Saanen, 1965.
0:12 Krishnamurti: Shall we continue with what we were talking yesterday morning?
0:24 I think it is very important to understand this question of a positive activity and the negative which is not the opposite of the positive.
0:56 I feel it is important because we must, not only for ourselves but also being conscious of the world’s events and the need for a tremendous, radical revolution in our lives, one must, it seems to me, understand this question very fundamentally.
1:45 We need to change. Our whole way of living, thinking, feeling must radically undergo a mutation.
2:03 And I think that’s fairly obvious for anybody who is at all sensitive, aware, living in this mad, rather insane world.
2:17 I think it is fairly obvious that there must be this mutation. I don’t know how strongly you feel that as a human being, but it seems to me man has suffered so endlessly, found various subterfuges, escapes, but he hasn’t really, fundamentally gone beyond this elementary suffering.
3:11 We either worship suffering, as they do in Christianity, or they try to escape by various forms of inventions and drugs and ideas and images and symbols in the East.
3:40 And I feel that unless one understands this positive and the negative, there will not be a radical mutation taking place.
3:59 We may change in areas that are of little value - change in the economic world or the social world or change in our relationship, but that means very little.
4:20 We are talking about a mutation that is not brought about by will, by the principle of pleasure, and therefore to bring about this mutation one must understand this enormous problem of what is the positive and what is the negative, which is not the contradiction of the positive or the opposite of the positive.
5:07 The negative is not a reaction to the positive.
5:14 So we must - I repeat again, though perhaps one labours the point - one must understand the structure, the nature, the meaning of the positive, because without understanding that we can’t go into the other.
5:43 We can escape into a kind of negative, bland, mystical, sentimental, devotional nonsense, which has no validity at all.
5:59 So we must still more explore, without seeking an end of it, this question of what is the positive.
6:23 We were saying yesterday the very essence of the positive is the seeking and the finding.
6:42 I don’t know, I’m greatly… it interests me tremendously, this question.
6:50 If I may use the word, I’m very excited about this; I never thought before about this point.
7:00 Or - not thought about it - it has never happened to me.
7:10 And the positive, we said yesterday, is this self-centred activity which identifies itself with a formula, with a utopia, with a social activity and so on.
7:37 And also we said it is the positive that follows, that believes, that conforms, that obeys, that possesses, dominates, and accepts domination, because in that area of the so-called positive one feels secure, one feels safe.
8:08 And the mischief begins when we deny the impermanency of everything that we touch.
8:36 Because the positive mind wants a shelter at any cost, because to be without shelter, without anchorage, without comfort, is to be without fear, and so it establishes an ideological area as God, as atman, or all the Hindus and the Christians and the Buddhists ideas, and established as a formula and hold on to it with grim death.
9:24 Now, there is another area which needs great exploration, understanding, unfolding, which is, where there is seeking there is always a finding.
9:56 The seeking implies distance, and the reaching, finding, is also a further distance.
10:16 Please, you know, I’m not giving a talk; we’re going to discuss this; we’re going to talk it over, discuss – it’s the wrong word, but you know what I mean - we’re going to talk this over.
10:35 Please stick to the point, not say how to stop war in Vietnam.
10:44 Perhaps we shall stop a war in Vietnam by approaching it differently.
10:51 When the mind admits distance – you understand?
11:07 – distance as the time involved seeking and the time involved in finding, the seeking and the finding is distance, a duration, and that’s… in that mode of thinking we are caught.
11:47 That is, time we use to annihilate the distance; we use time as a means of overcoming the distance, but time itself is distance.
12:05 Right? Please, this requires…
12:14 Look, let me put it differently. I have an image of myself: an extraordinary being - always our images are always most extraordinary, lovely, divine, spiritual, lovely beings - and I am just what I am: cruel, vulgar, ambitious, worldly, plenty of money or lack of money and wanting money - you know?
12:52 - all that sort of stuff. I am that, but the image is something entirely different.
13:00 To reach that image and be identified totally with that image needs time, which is, to cover the distance; and the covering of that, the reaching of that, is a positive action.
13:27 That’s what we have been educated, conditioned to believe, and finding a centre which is permanent, beyond the image, because we soon realise that the image is still self-fabricated, manufactured by ourselves or by the mind, and so we want another image which is not invented by the mind, which is God or a reality or a utopia and so on and so on and so on.
14:07 And all this involves distance, and to cover that distance we think time is necessary.
14:22 That’s fairly clear.
14:37 That is, we cross the space created between the actual and the ideational and beyond the ideational, so we create a space which we call distance, and to cover that space we need time.
15:12 And time, if you have at all observed it in yourself, gone into yourself and observed it very realistically, not mythologically, is the most detrimental thing because the ideal, the image, is non-factual.
15:45 The ideal, the image is based on pleasure and therefore inherently… in it there is the seed of sorrow, and I cannot face the fact of what actually I am.
16:15 The facing of the fact of actually what I am, the what is actually, needs no time, but the other needs time.
16:30 You’re following all this? You follow? This is tremendously interesting, you follow?
16:40 Oh, gosh. Hm? (Laughter) K: So we have invented time as a means of avoidance of what is.
16:59 And to look at what is, you need have no distance between the observer and the thing observed.
17:09 You are…? But you need distance between the fact and the image, so time then breeds disorder in helping us not to face what is.
17:48 Right? Right, sir?
18:05 You’ve got it?
18:22 Right. So the distance, which is time, which needs the effort to cover that distance is not only a waste of energy but inherently it is breeding disorder.
18:56 So the positive is the way of disorder.
19:13 Please… You see, what we are concerned is the radical mutation of the human mind, whether that mind can be completely transformed through time, or is it to be transformed immediately?
19:58 You’re following?
20:06 And I see time as an element of disorder so I reject time totally, but I don’t know what comes next - you follow? - but I reject time as means of bringing about order because time, which is the distance between the fact and the image, and the time which is used to cover that distance is disorder.
20:45 I see that completely, not as an idea, not as a… in a particular… as a fragment and so on, but totally.
21:12 Then when I reject time, time which creates the distance and the space, the space round the image and the space round the fact…
21:39 Am I…? Are you…? No, no, please, don’t listen to me. Listen to yourselves as we are talking. There is this fact… Yes sir? Questioner: Excuse me, sir. I think at this moment we pose the question thus.
22:06 It is: Does it exist any kind of positiveness through which the mind can move from the negative state without… (inaudible), without contradiction?
22:29 Otherwise… (inaudible)...
22:31 K: I’m coming to that, sir. Wait a minute.
22:35 Q: …through the positive.
22:36 K: Of course. I’m coming to that. Sorry, I… You are quite right, but I want completely to understand the nature and the structure of the positive before we go into the other.
22:55 Because I see there is a distance of a different kind, which is not this distance.
23:06 I didn’t want to start with that.
23:14 (Pause) Look, as long as I am functioning within the field of the positive, which is of time, which is covered by the distance between the fact and the image, and as long as there is this reaching out, this searching, finding, which is all still a form of greed and pleasure, which is… still breeds pain, suffering, anxiety, fear, all that, I… there is no mutation possible.
24:11 If… when there is an understanding of that, what we call the positive, there is a moving away from that to something else.
24:27 The moving away is not the… a distance - you understand? - that is not an idea.
24:41 The negative is not an idea to which you are moving away from the positive. That’s why one must understand this question of distance.
24:53 Look, you are sitting there and the speaker is sitting here.
25:02 There is a distance between us, between you and the mountain, between you and the person who is sitting next to you.
25:15 That’s an actual fact. To reach the mountain you need time.
25:30 There the object is very clear: you want to get to the top of… Diablerets and you walk or take the lift and so on and so on.
25:51 But inwardly, inside the skin, inside this whole structure of consciousness and the limits of consciousness, is there a distance?
26:14 Distance between what? You are…? There is a distance only when there is a centre which creates space round itself and that centre moves to another centre as… the movement driven by pleasure or by pain is still the continuation of that centre in a different field.
26:47 Right?
26:48 Q: But, sir… (inaudible) about space, when I take the mountains, I see this space, but when you speak about space in psychological space, there is only time.
27:06 Which kind of other space we can think about in this case… (inaudible)?
27:13 K: Sir, that’s… we… listen. Yes, quite; I understand that. Sir, look. What does space mean to you?
27:31 Space between where you are and where that mountain is – right? - the space created by the tent, within the tent and outside the tent.
27:51 Right? So we only know space where there is a centre.
28:05 There is the tree; the tree creates the space.
28:15 Right? Surely. A building creates space outside and inside because the building is the centre.
28:31 Right? That’s… Right? Now, we only know space where there is a fixed point which… round which there is space and beyond.
28:50 Right? That’s fairly simple. Right. Is there any kind of space other than that?
29:02 If there is only space created by the object, there is only space created by the image which has been brought about, which has been put together through pleasure, which is an idea, therefore an abstraction which we call the centre, that centre creates space round itself.
29:34 And when we realise that, there is no freedom.
29:45 If space is only the outcome of an object, or an idea, or a centre, or an image, then within that field there is no freedom.
30:04 Right? That’s… And so a man who wants to find out what freedom is, not curiosity but actually what freedom is, must understand this question of space, whether there is… whether it is possible to be free of the centre which is the image which has been put together through pleasure.
30:40 And as long as there is an activity within that space which has been created by the image or by the centre there can be no freedom and therefore there can be no mutation.
31:02 Right?
31:04 Q: And if the mind, thought… (inaudible) of time and space, why thought… (inaudible) this idea of space?
31:29 K: What, sir? Why is it that thought cannot enter into…?
31:31 Q: No; end, to end it… (inaudible).
31:37 Q: If thought has created space and time why can’t thought end it.
31:43 K: Thought has created space and time, and therefore why can’t thought end it.
31:51 What is thought? Oh, no, don’t let’s go back through all that.
32:01 Can thought end anything, sir, actually? I am greedy, violent. Can thought end it? It can run away from it; it can find another substitution for it; it can suppress it; it can control it, but can thought, which is the very nature of greed, because thought is the reaction of memories which are the accumulated pleasures and remembrances, that thought which has created greed, and so thought itself is greed, can that end greed?
32:52 Oh, come on, sirs.
32:55 Q: Water cannot wipe away water.
32:59 K: Oh no… All right, all right… (inaudible). All right.
33:06 Q: (Inaudible)… in the space created by that centre, there must be a container of all the activities which that centre… (inaudible).
33:28 K: Yes; yes. You see, I want to go on.
33:40 Because we have so far been considering the nature and the meaning and the structure of what we call the positive in life, and this positive in life is productive of disorder because it admits time and all the rest of it.
34:12 And the mind sees that as a whole, not fragmentary disorder, but total disorder.
34:24 Then it moves away from it, as one moves away from poison naturally.
34:31 If you are neurotic you play with poison; you take a little bit of it, drug… get used to it and all the rest of it, but if you are… if one observes it with a healthy, clean - you know? - all the rest of it, you move away.
34:46 So the movement is not a reaction to the positive.
34:59 And the movement is not towards anything. If it moved to a point, that point would still be the projection of the positive as a reaction.
35:20 So the mind, having understood the nature of the poison, has moved away naturally.
35:34 This movement is negation because when I reject something, either I reject because I react to it, the reaction being pleasure or pain, or I reject it totally because it is finished, it has no meaning any more.
36:07 So the rejection creates the negative… ah, rejection brings about the movement of another quality which we call the negative.
36:19 Right?
36:20 Q: To understand that, the question of space… (inaudible) when I reject… (inaudible) there is a movement in space.
36:38 When I reject… (inaudible) there is no movement, not in space… (inaudible).
36:39 K: Yes, yes, but we’re not concerned for the moment space; we’ll come to that a little later, sir. I mean, this I must understand very clearly whether I’m rejecting through pleasure and pain reaction, or I reject it because I see the whole nature of it and therefore it is not a rejection; it’s a natural movement away.
37:15 Right? Now, what takes place there?
37:24 I know the positive… I know what exactly takes place within the field of the positive.
37:35 I know most intimately; there is no deception; - you follow?
37:46 – there is no illusion; there is no covering up. I have seen that clearly, every angle, every recess, every secret movement, every pursuit, search, finding, all that; I see that very clearly, therefore there is no movement which breeds illusion because in that movement there is no… the pleasure principle is totally absent.
38:39 Right?
38:40 Q: (Inaudible)… use the word space… (inaudible)… move away from a limited space or… (inaudible)?
38:49 K: Ah, ah… Sir, may we for the moment forget space? Sorry. Forget space for the moment; we’ll come back to it tomorrow or another day, but let’s forget for the moment space. You see, it’s very important to understand this rejection, this putting away, this falling away.
39:14 Q: Perhaps we should not use the word movement, movement away.
39:20 K: Use any word as you like as long as we both have the same communication.
39:29 Look, when you see a poisonous thing you move away both physically as well as psychologically.
39:51 I wonder if you have rejected anything that gives you pleasure. Have you? Yes? No? En voyons (40:58) Yes?
40:02 Q: Of course, if you eat something… (inaudible) but you know you cannot digest it… (inaudible).
40:21 K: Ah…
40:24 Q: (Inaudible).
40:26 K: Ah… Caramba. (Laughter) K: The lady says: I eat something which gives pain, therefore I reject it.
40:47 I’m afraid we must leave that and go on.
41:04 Do you do anything without motive?
41:20 Give up smoking or whisky or whatever one is a slave to, will you give it up without any motive?
41:33 Have you ever done it?
41:40 Not because that particular food gives you pain, therefore you give it up, but to give up something which is pleasurable without motive, because of a greater pleasure.
41:57 Right? One has never done it.
42:05 So that our tragedy is that. You will give up something because of greater pleasure, therefore it is still within the field of the positive. That’s we have been hammering at for the last two days.
42:26 So we said the understanding of the nature and the structure and the significance of the positive in itself is moving away from it.
42:42 There is no motive to move away, but when you see the structure itself has no meaning, you’re already out of it.
42:51 Q: In order to see the meaning of the positive and understand it really and be able to reject it intelligently, you must have gone through a lot of self-knowledge.
43:10 K: You… Look, look, look, what is implied: you must have gone through a lot of self-knowledge, which means time.
43:19 Q: Which means?
43:30 K: Time.
43:37 Q: (Inaudible).
43:44 K: Sir, just a minute.
43:55 We’ve asked a very simple question.
44:02 Have you done anything without motive? Pleasure, pain, just to do something without arriere-pensee (45:06), something without some other quality - have you?
44:31 So our question then is really to find out whether you can – you, the listener – can do anything without a motive.
44:57 To be kind, to be generous, to be non-greedy, non-acquisitive, to be without violence; not because you want heaven, not because you want peace, not because you want to live a comfortable life, but just to give it up.
45:27 If you have not done it then I’m afraid you can’t go any further because we’re entering into a dimension, into a field in which there is no motive but only action.
45:49 You understand?
45:58 There is only action, no motives. But motive and action is the positive and therefore disorder.
46:14 Unless you have understood that so completely, you can’t go into the other, do what you will.
46:23 You may just say, ‘Well, go on talking about it; I like it’ - it has no meaning. But when you have done that, an act without motive, then you…
46:45 Q: (Inaudible).
46:47 K: Pardon?
46:50 Q: In spontaneity… (inaudible) without motive.
46:57 K: The word… spontaneity, the questioner says, is without motive. That word is very dangerous word.
47:09 We think we are spontaneous when we are not.
47:16 To be spontaneous; it’s a most extraordinary thing to be spontaneous.
47:28 To jump into the river when you see somebody drowning, without calculation, without heroism, without the onlooker, is a very rare incident.
47:42 And to be really spontaneous demands an immense understanding of the positive.
48:00 You see, the world of the positive is totally unrelated to the world or to the dimension of the negative.
48:21 That is the first thing one has to realise.
48:26 Q: But it’s not the opposite.
48:32 K: Oh, I said it’s not the opposite, under any circumstances. There, there is only action, not motive and action, therefore there is no idea and action.
48:53 Oh, sir, come on.
49:04 You know, as far as I understand electricity, it’s only when the positive and the negative meet there is an explosion.
49:19 Right? But there is never an explosion in the positive. Right? It is only in that field where there is… in that field which is negation, total negation, there is a positive movement which is the meeting of the negative and the positive, which is action.
49:54 Are you getting headaches? (Laughter) Q: (Inaudible)… do nothing but look at it?
50:14 K: Do nothing? We have done a tremendous lot. Oh, my…
50:26 Q: (Inaudible).
50:37 K: You understand?
50:46 So one finds out the positive, as we know, is the most destructive, and that’s why the world is so destructive; that’s why the human beings are so monstrously ugly, destructive.
51:18 And in that field which we call negative, which is a totally different dimension unrelated to the positive and therefore not a reaction to the positive, there is a totally different positive, which is action.
51:49 It is not thought and action or the idea created by… as organised pleasure and action, which is in the field of the positive.
52:01 There is only action, and that action can only take place when there is that… the positive which is not related to the other positive, and the total negation which is action.
52:18 Q: Sir, you asked before, ‘Have you acted sometimes without motive?’ K: My darling sir…
52:24 Q: (Inaudible).
52:25 K: …my darling sir, haven’t you moved away from that?
52:27 Q: But you asked… (inaudible).
52:29 K: I’ve asked another question.
52:31 Q: I’m not able to perform that.
52:33 K: I know you haven’t. Probably we have never done anything without motive, conscious or unconscious.
52:43 Q: But the position is that I am not able to answer this question because I am always afraid that I am not able to see the motive… (inaudible).
53:01 It’s very difficult to answer.
53:02 K: No sir. The gentleman says it’s a very difficult question to answer. The question was whether you and I have done anything without motive. I think I have done something without motive, but I discover that there is a motive so I hesitate to answer that question because there is always some hidden motive.
53:27 Q: Not always. When you love there is no motive… (inaudible).
53:42 K: Oh… (French 54:16). (Laughter) Q: I don’t mean physical love…
53:52 K: Oh… Oh, no. (Laughter) Q: (Inaudible).
53:56 K: (French 54:36). Bien. The lady… the questioner says when you love there is no motive. And she adds further: I don’t mean physical love.
54:05 Q: No, I don’t believe… (inaudible).
54:12 K: Parlez en Francais, madame.
54:17 Q: (French 54:56) K: Bien. The lady… the questioner says when you really love there is no motive. I don’t know what that means.
54:33 Q: If you… I could put it…
54:36 K: (French 55:20). I’m saying you can put it different ways, but it’s the same thing.
54:38 Q: It’s a negative state.
54:41 K: No… (Laughter) K: (Laughs) I’m lost.
54:44 Q: (Inaudible).
54:45 K: No, no, I understand, madame. I understand. We are not laughing at you, please.
54:49 Q: (Inaudible).
54:50 K: Excuse me, I’m not laughing at you. I don’t know about the others. (Laughter) K: No, this is very…
55:01 You see, real love, false love, physical love, sensual love - you know?
55:09 - divided, fragmentary, and the true love, in that there is no motive… No, look, please…
55:24 You see, we are talking of something that is really quite extraordinary, if you have followed it.
55:38 Because we know action based on idea; action derived from or approximating or adjusting itself to an idea – idea being organised pleasure.
56:00 We made that clear. There is this idea and action approximating itself to that idea.
56:08 That’s all we know. We are talking of something entirely different, which is action.
56:22 And to… and that action is not an idea. It is... You know, sir, to…
56:30 Q: Excuse me, I didn’t understand that you talked earlier of the positive state. I thought you were talking in general. Are there anything… (inaudible) you can do without motive?
56:41 Then I say, ‘Yes. Love.’ That is all.
56:54 K: Look, when we know love as jealousy, when we know love interlaced with possessiveness, obstinacy, vanity and domination, you may call it love, but it is something else.
57:27 And a mind that says, ‘Look, I want to taste that something which is not enmeshed in all this jealousy, possessiveness, mine, yours and my property, physical love, spiritual love, divine love and profane love.’ I want to find out something which is not all this.
57:51 I know all this. That’s our daily life, the agony of it all: you love me, I don’t love you, and… - you know? - all that.
58:07 And we say, ‘All right, there it is. Is there something else?’ If I accept that, if I accept this is the only thing, either make the best of it, living in a prison, I decorate the windows and - you know? - all the rest of it, or I go into terrific despair.
58:33 I don’t say there is real love or real spiritual love and…
58:42 I don’t know. The fact is I am this. So unless I… the facts are faced and are free then there is no possibility of the other.
58:56 And we are trying to find out whether it is possible to face facts without pleasure.
59:10 And…
59:17 I will go on, if you don’t mind. Somebody follows it or not, it doesn’t much matter really, does it?
59:28 You see, in that state of negation, in that state of… that which is not positive, there is only action, and therefore no idea.
1:00:03 So can there be action without idea?
1:00:10 Idea, as we said, is based on organised pleasure and memory and experience and knowledge, which are all in the positive.
1:00:28 So what place has thinking in that dimension?
1:00:36 Right? Thought has no place in that dimension.
1:00:44 Q: I don’t follow it, sir.
1:00:54 K: You don’t follow it.
1:00:58 Q: Yes. Thought… (inaudible) no place in this dimension… (inaudible).
1:01:06 K: Yes sir, I understand.
1:01:13 Sir, when do you use thought? Or when is thought taking place? When are you aware that thought is functioning?
1:01:24 Now, wait a minute.
1:01:32 I ask you a most familiar question – ask you, ‘What’s your name?’ and your response is immediate, isn’t it?
1:01:48 Immediate may be divided into a great many seconds, but it is almost instantaneous because you are very familiar with that question.
1:01:56 Let… move a little further. You’re not very familiar with the question which… perhaps the question… what is the mileage between here and Zurich? I’ll say, ‘Well, I don’t know, but I’ll look up; I’ll ask somebody who knows, the garage man.’ And he…
1:02:18 So you have taken time - right? - between the question and the answer. There is a time interval in which you have tried to find out. Now, wait. A familiar question; a question which is not familiar with; then there is a question which you don’t know, to which there is no answer.
1:02:46 There is no answer, no encyclopaedia, no teacher, no book, no scientist, no author has ever asked.
1:02:58 So what do you do? During the time interval between the question and the answer, you are thinking - right?
1:03:10 - you are investigating, you’re asking, you’re waiting, demanding, looking up books, going to the professor, going to the scientist - you follow? – this and that, the priest and the… all that business.
1:03:21 So there thought… in that interval between the question and the answer there was a lag of time which was thinking.
1:03:32 Right? Now, a question is asked in which thought doesn’t function at all.
1:03:44 You say, ‘I don’t know.’ Right?
1:03:51 What is that state, when you actually go… - go into it - when you actually say, ‘Really, I really don’t know’?
1:04:06 That… in that state there is no expectation, - right? - no waiting for an answer, because there is nobody to answer you. You don’t know a thing about death, do you?
1:04:25 You have seen death, but what is beyond, what is the nature of death - you know? - the whole of that extraordinary thing.
1:04:33 And if I ask you, you say, ‘I really don’t know.’ If you are really honest, not wanting to invent theories and all the rest of it, you say, ‘I really don’t know.’ Now, what is that state of mind that says, ‘I don’t know’?
1:04:50 Is there thinking? No, please don’t… You are really so… Is there really thinking? You’re not waiting; you’re not expecting; your brain is faced with something which it cannot possibly answer.
1:05:19 The brain cells are quiet because there is no response, there is no reaction.
1:05:26 Either you become indifferent to that question and walk away or you remain with that question, not knowing the answer.
1:05:36 Right? There you don’t accept. Your mind is… your brain is completely quiet because it doesn’t know.
1:05:47 So is there any thinking?
1:05:57 But your mind is tremendously active, isn’t it? Your brain is active; it hasn’t gone to sleep; it hasn’t become blank.
1:06:11 Now, with that mind which says, ‘I do not know,’ which is…
1:06:21 - I’m only using the word ‘I do not know,’ but the words are not that thing. Right? So that mind, that brain is now completely alive, isn’t it?
1:06:35 Right? Because previously it was waiting for an answer. It was asking; it was demanding, looking, expecting, all that.
1:06:47 When there is no answer at all it doesn’t mean you are asleep.
1:06:56 On the contrary, your whole body, your whole organism, your mind, your brain cells are tremendously active but there is… thought is absent.
1:07:14 Now, to listen with that sense of intense aliveness to that train going by.
1:07:30 Is there a thought?
1:07:40 So it is… so there is a state of mind in which thought is totally absent, and therefore it is in a state of action.
1:08:12 And when that state of mind is asked, has to do something, it does; it is not based on an idea.
1:08:23 Oh, come on. So one has… one knows then the poisonous nature of a positive action.
1:08:44 And when that is totally understood, not verbally but completely, not fragmentarily but wholly, then comes a natural state which is negation, a negative mind, which is not a blank mind, which is not a reaction, which is not a rejection of the positive, therefore it is… such a mind is intensely active, and therefore it is action.
1:09:22 The mind itself is action. Enough, sirs, don’t you think?