Krishnamurti Subtitles home


SA65D6 - This movement of life in which there is death
Saanen, Switzerland - 9 August 1965
Public Discussion 6



0:01 This is J. Krishnamurti’s sixth public discussion in Saanen, 1965.
0:11 Krishnamurti: What shall we talk over together this morning? Questioner: Could we learn about… (inaudible) pleasure and action without motive?
0:27 And may I put the question: is not… (inaudible)?
0:32 Q: (Inaudible).
0:47 K: (Inaudible)… madame?
0:51 Q: (Inaudible)… what is… (inaudible)?
0:59 What is the real essence of pain?
1:07 (Inaudible).
1:41 K: What’s the first question?
1:43 Q: What is the essence of pain and what… (inaudible).
1:44 K: What is the other question?
1:46 Q: Why do we want pleasure more and more.
1:48 K: And the other question?
1:51 Q: What is the essence of pain.
1:55 K: May I repeat those two questions? What is the essence of pain; and I’ve… as far as I could understood the other question, why do we crave for pleasure more and more.
2:19 Q: May I say… (inaudible)? I wonder if you’re not… (inaudible) something easily. You said that the essence of time is no time. You said that to be healthy is to be vulnerable and to be ill is to be invulnerable.
2:45 That’s the first thing. The second thing: Why have you not spent years and all the months of those years at some school such as Rishi Valley?
3:05 The third thing: whether one has gone very far or not very far, the issue seems to be whether one sees or does not see.
3:30 What is the… is there some catalyst? And, if so, what is it that makes all the difference? Or is it a matter of being lucky enough to be hit by lightning?
3:50 K: The other question is: haven’t you rather gone rather easily and quickly into the question of time by saying time is no time; and also…
4:09 Q: Vulnerability.
4:10 K: …vulnerability, of which we talked about yesterday.
4:14 Q: To be healthy is to be vulnerable.
4:17 K: Yes. To be healthy is to be vulnerable, not only psychologically and physically. And what is the other question?
4:26 Q: Why have you not spent years and all the months of those years at the school… (inaudible)?
4:34 K: Oh, I understand. Why have you spent so...
4:39 Q: Why have not… (inaudible).
4:42 K: Oh, why haven’t you. (Laughter) K: Why haven’t you spent much longer time at the schools in India, to which I go every year for a month - is that it?
5:00 Q: Yes sir.
5:09 Q: Is it possible, sir, to discuss energy, the… (inaudible) and the dissipation of it?
5:13 K: Is it possible to discuss more deeply the question of conserving energy.
5:20 Q: Sir, as you talked about motive, could you please give some example of a motiveless action… (inaudible) to an ordinary or untrained mind?
5:40 K: Would you please explain motive and give an example of an action which is not without motive.
5:52 Q: (Inaudible)… talking about a new society?
6:01 K: En fin. What do you mean when you talk about a new society. I…
6:13 Q: (Inaudible)… life and death alone… (inaudible)?
6:30 K: Ah?
6:35 Q: We go through birth, life and death alone; may we speak about this… (inaudible).
6:42 K: We go through life and death alone. Would you please talk about more of that aloneness - is that it?
6:52 Q: (Inaudible).
6:55 K: Yes, talk… Now, that’s enough questions. (Laughter) K: Now, how do we answer all those questions?
7:12 What do we mean by a new society; aloneness; life and death; and have you not slurred over, rather too simplified time by saying no time; and why don’t you spend much longer time in those two schools in India.
7:51 What was the other question?
7:57 Q: (Inaudible)… vulnerability.
8:02 K: Vulnerability, all right. How do we answer all these questions?
8:12 Q: The question that you did not repeat was: At every point the issue is does one see or does one not see, and what makes the difference between the two?
8:46 K: What is…? Ah, what is the difference between seeing and not seeing.
8:49 Q: What brings about… what turns the key in the lock? One does not see and then one does see. But one never can see what… (inaudible). What makes the difference?
9:03 K: Sometimes one sees, and most of the time one does not see.
9:10 What is the reason when one does see.
9:17 Right? I wonder if you cannot answer all these questions – I’m just suggesting it - by considering that question: What do we mean by a new society?
9:42 May we explore that together, and perhaps in that exploration we shall be able to answer all these questions – may we?
9:56 Except the question why I don’t spend much longer time… (Laughter) K: … in the two schools I go every year for a month, much longer.
10:09 For a very simple reason: I haven’t the time. You know, there are two schools in India, one in the north and one in the south, and I spend in each place about a month.
10:31 And also I spend nearly a month in each place in Bombay, Delhi, Madras, so about four and a half months are spent in India, and I have no… and I have… and that’s enough.
10:48 What do we mean by a new society?
11:05 We mean by society, don’t we, organised custom, habits of a so-called civilised nation.
11:25 That is generally understood, according to the dictionary meaning, which I looked up this morning by chance.
11:36 That’s what it says. Now, the society in which we live is based on acquisitiveness, greed, search for power, prestige, position and all the rest of it.
12:02 And we are concerned not only with the transformation of the human being, but also are concerned with bringing about a radical change in society, because the human being cannot possibly exist outside of society.
12:33 He is part of society, society being the organized customs and habits of a so-called civilised society.
12:48 That society is based psychologically on greed, envy and all the rest of it, of which each one of us is a part, and is it possible to bring about a change in the human being apart from society?
13:22 Or must we wait for the society, which is, of every human being to change and then only we shall change?
13:43 And the implication in all this is that society, which is organised according to a certain pattern of behaviour, conduct, organised communication and so on and so on, whether that society will admit freedom to a human being.
14:15 You might not be interested in all this, but I’m afraid we have to go through all this.
14:23 Society, as we know, does not consider freedom necessary because society thinks or feels that freedom implies disorder, because then the human being will do what he likes: aggressive, individualism, free… – you know? - all that business.
14:58 So society inherently prevents human beings from being free.
15:13 And can a society exist with a group of people who are free and yet part of society?
15:31 All these are… questions are implied, that a society as it is does not… is not the ground, the area in which human freedom can grow.
15:57 So does a human being seek freedom outside the area of society, or, living in society, find out what freedom is.
16:15 You’re…? Now, we have been talking about freedom, freedom which is not a reaction, freedom which is essentially a state of mind that is… which has put away greed, envy, ambition, self-fulfilment, aggressiveness and all that.
16:49 By negating the positive there is freedom.
17:00 We have discussed the other day sufficiently what is the positive, the area of the human being, society, which is positive.
17:12 By negating that, not intellectually, verbally, idealistically, theoretically, but actually negating it - that is, the human being be in a state of freedom in which aggressiveness, domination, the search for power, self… does not occur, does not take place.
17:40 It is only then there is freedom. Then what has that group or that human being who has come to this freedom, what is his relationship to society?
17:59 Right? Now, to understand that one has to explore, I think, this question of life, death and the futility of a life that is… that faces the inevitable death.
18:27 Right? Please bear all this in mind what we said previously about society. Our society is based on life and death, not as a cycle of life and death, but living and dying.
18:53 And the theory of reincarnation and the theory of resurrection is merely hopeful, suggestive ideas.
19:06 If you accept reincarnation - which is, to be born over and over and over again till the whole mind and heart are purified and reaches the highest point of intelligence and Brahmin and all that rest of it – if you accept that then you must accept that you must behave in this life completely, not postpone it.
19:34 I don’t know if you’re following this.
19:43 If you accept or believe in reincarnation, continuity of… in next life, then it is of tremendous importance what you are now, not what you will be tomorrow, next life, because the next life is shaped by what you are now.
20:06 Right? So reincarnation is not merely a continuity of a human mind and all the rest of it, but it implies that you behave in such a tremendous… with such tremendous understanding that next life you have reached a tremendous height, not gone behind.
20:33 You follow? So next life is not important, but what you are now.
20:42 You’re following all this? So the comfort that one derives in reincarnation – the comfort - is denied when you have to face life now.
21:01 I don’t know if you’re following all this.
21:19 So our society is based on life and death and the futility of a life that ends in death, therefore a society that has… that gives significance according to a certain pattern, and not living in… itself, but a significance to life.
21:55 Right? So a human being living in a society that has no significance in living because there is death, life becomes very superficial, meaningless, frustrating, despairing, without significance, and therefore we say, ‘What is the purpose of life?’ or establish a satisfying purpose, which is not living.
22:32 I don’t know if you’re following all this. Please, this requires attention, not agreement or… this requires tremendous inquiry.
22:49 So this society in which we all live only breeds more superficial activity as amusement, as the Mass, as the entertainment and so on and so on, and therefore life becomes meaningless because there is death.
23:19 I may go to the office every day for the next forty years. My God, just think of it. Just think of a human being, sir, going to an office every day for the rest of his life.
23:44 I do not know if you see the extraordinary sorrow in that.
23:51 And such human being, spending his days in an office and his nights at home, asks, ‘What is it all about?
24:05 Why should I live? What does it mean? I write a book, become famous for a few days, and die… oh.’ So unless we find - not substitute an ideal, a significance - unless we find a different way of living, that is, a different outlook, a different feeling about life, a different inward state of mind, though there is death, then it will be a total cycle.
25:08 Right? Am I making that clear or not? Please, I want to go step by step.
25:19 Q: The last point is not clear.
25:25 K: That point is not clear. Look, sirs, civilisations in the past have lived, like Egypt - not that I’m an Egyptologist.
25:40 I don’t know; I just watch things in life – have lived in order to die.
25:47 All living is an end, therefore they prepare living in order to die.
25:58 The others… other civilisations knew only birth and death as a movement in a whole of life… whole of existence.
26:15 And we modern people belong to neither; we don’t prepare for death, or we don’t treat life and death as a movement in living.
26:31 But for us there is only a routine living, a mechanical living, a frustrated self-fulfilment, and the inevitable death.
26:46 So to us life loses any significance in itself, living, because death is there.
26:56 Right? So unless human beings, you and I - because the others are not interested in this.
27:12 You are here and I’m here. We are talking together, therefore you and I are interested in finding a new way of living, a new society, outside the society, not inside the society, though living inside the area of what we call society, not belonging to it, but outside it.
27:39 And to live outside it there must be freedom from the psychological structure of society.
27:49 One must be free of greed, envy, ambition, the urge for self-fulfilment, the pursuit of pleasure and so on and so on, which we have discussed sufficiently.
28:04 And is it possible for you and me as human beings, not only capable of having enormous energy to untangle ourselves from the structure of society, but also to understand this movement of life which is… in which there is death, but not the death as we know it as the ending - right?
28:43 - not as continuity in next life?
28:51 Right? Am I making myself clear? Oui, madame?
29:00 Q: (Inaudible).
29:03 K: You see, one of our problems, major problems, living in this society, is the utter boredom of life.
29:22 You may have pleasure, you may have cars, you may have God knows what else, but… You follow? And this boredom, this indifference, this mechanical living leads to further misery, further… all the rest of it, and so one has to understand as a human being a life in which there is death, but not a continuity as the me in next life.
30:06 So I have to see this.
30:13 Right? Now, I’m going to try and answer the question of seeing.
30:27 Do I, do we, do you and I see this… the thing which one has described, which the speaker has described in words, with which you have, if we are at all intelligent, aware, we know this?
30:43 Whether in the communist world or in the Christian world or in the Asiatic world, this is the way we live.
30:51 Now, do I see this as an idea, something apart from me because you have described it to me, or do I see it totally?
31:11 Right? So what do I mean by seeing? And when does this seeing take place?
31:32 I know… I can see in fragments: my behaviour isn’t good today - I’m moody, I’m angry, I’m obsessive, rude, dominating and so on, and next day I see something else, try to deal with each fragment as it arises.
32:03 When do I see - see in the sense not only visually, but psychologically, inwardly - when do I really totally comprehend, not as… in fragments, but totally life which… in which is the living and the dying, and a life which is not merely ending?
32:31 You understand…? Right? So my question is: when do I see something totally?
32:47 Not in fragments; not life as death - you’re following? - not life as living for sixty years and dying; not the understanding of death because I’m so frightened of it, and therefore I’m not living.
33:06 I don’t know if you’re following all this. When I’m frightened of death, I’m not living. So when do I see living, dying, living in which is dying, and living, seeing the whole of it, not only as a human being but also in relationship to society, and being free from society as psychologically - you’re following? - when do I see this whole thing so completely so that there is no death, no living as misery, no striving as trying to come to some superhuman state or making tremendous effort to reach greater pleasures - when do I see this whole thing as a total thing?
34:35 Right?
34:42 Are you waiting for me to answer you?
34:46 Q: Sir, our constant companion is the observer.
35:01 K: Constant companion is the observer.
35:09 You see, sir, we’ve been through that. I do not know if you have been here from the beginning of these talks, of these so-called discussions and the ten previous talks.
35:22 We went into that, and if you don’t mind, sir, it would be a pity to go back to that.
35:36 If you like to put it… if I may put it very briefly: when there is a thinker, the observer, the experiencer, which is the censor, the companion, can there be a total observation?
36:01 So let us, if you don’t mind, we’ll proceed. I asked… we asked: are we waiting for an answer from the speaker how to see totally?
36:23 Will my description help you to see totally, or is there an action in which – I’m trying to find words – is there a total action in which there is neither the fragment nor the observer nor an idea as the observer, but only action?
37:38 All right, I’m coming to it.
37:49 I don’t see life as a whole, life as living, not fearful, anxious, despairing, miserable, in conflict, in… all that.
38:06 And that life… in that life there is death also, and that dying is not an ending but living.
38:21 You’re following? Not… Don’t translate in terms of Christianity, say eternal life.
38:30 In the dying is the living because I am living. Because the living implies there is no fear, there is no sorrow because I’ve understood, the mind has totally understood this question of sorrow which breeds pain.
38:49 So living in which there is no sorrow at all and therefore no fear of dying; and the dying is the living greater.
39:06 How do I, who am accustomed to see everything in fragments - living and dying, living in misery, squalor, poverty, inwardly, outwardly, struggling, struggling, trying to… and dying – now, how do I who see everything in fragments, how do I see this whole thing totally, immediately?
39:44 There is no process of seeing totally, a process. I don’t know if I’m making myself clear. If I say, ‘I’ll practice; I will do this; I will do that; I’ll meditate; I will do…
39:59 be… practice awareness constant…’ So watch it please, carefully.
40:14 Why do I… why does the mind function in fragments?
40:21 Right? If I understand that and negate it, reject it, then I have something else.
40:30 Right? Are you following? Am I making myself clear? Somebody disagree or agree, please. Look, I have divided life into office, sex, family, the neighbour and against the neighbour the religious life, the life of amusement, the monk - follow? - the professor, the various departments separate from each other as the artist, as the scientist, as the housewife and so on and so on.
41:22 Why do I do this?
41:24 Q: (Inaudible).
41:27 K: No, madame, please. Listen, listen, please. I have put the question. Right? Don’t try to answer it immediately. Let it soak; let it boil inside you a little bit.
41:51 Let it simmer so that you know, as you know when the pot is simmering you’ll smell it.
42:00 So let it simmer and let it come naturally. Don’t have one idea which you’re trying to convey.
42:12 So I’m asking you: why is it that we live in fragments, in departments - the artist, the writer, the scientist, the businessman, the religious man, the professor, the... – you know?
42:42 - why? I really don’t know. You understand? I’ve never thought about this. I’ve never felt my way into this. I’m doing it now. Right? So you are… we are doing it together. I want to find out why, not as an idea; it must be the truth, not some opinion.
43:08 Why do we do this? (Pause) Q: May I say, it may be that the mind cannot see the total.
43:38 K: The lady says maybe the mind cannot see the totality. Then you have blocked yourself, finished. When you say, ‘It may be the mind can’t,’ you have stopped.
43:55 I don’t know it can or it cannot. If it cannot then life is a torture. You understand? For God’s sake, don’t sit back and say it cannot and can.
44:13 If it cannot function totally, life becomes fragmentary, contradictory, not harmonious, destructive, the army on one side and the priest on the other, talking both of them peace, preparing for war and destruction.
44:38 So don’t say the mind can’t do it.
44:41 Q: It may be…
44:43 K: Ah, ah…
44:44 Q: … (inaudible)… go beyond the mind.
44:47 K: The lady says go beyond the mind. Please listen. I don’t know how to go beyond the mind. Don’t say only beyond the mind there is a perception of the total.
45:07 So I must begin right from the beginning. Right? When do you see anything?
45:24 Not when you are deliberately trying to see something, do you?
45:31 When you want to understand somebody or yourself, you look, but if that look is a deliberate, purposive, full of effort, then there is… you have spent your energy in effort, in deliberation, in a purpose.
45:57 So to look, those must be absent, therefore your look must be effortless, easy.
46:07 There must be no motive. So now we are trying to find out why the mind lives in fragments, in departments; why the mind has divided life as death and living, and the artist and the expert and so on and so on and so on.
47:08 Why? (Pause) Q: is it because we are… (inaudible)?
47:11 K: All right. Why do you divide the outer life and the inner life?
47:18 Q: (Inaudible).
47:23 K: So you’re saying we are… we live in fragments because we have different attractions.
47:33 Q: Yes, you are something… (inaudible).
47:34 K: That’s enough, sir, that’s enough.
47:35 Q: I feel that… (inaudible). We have the model, so we have something to reach.
47:47 (inaudible).
47:56 K: I haven’t got it yet.
48:22 Q: It seems that we give substance to the ego by clothing it in these various guises.
48:40 K: We give substance to the ego by clothing it in different ways.
48:52 Q: If the mind could be perfectly quiet perhaps we could… (inaudible).
49:03 K: If the mind could be perfectly quiet then we could see the total. But how do I get the mind to be perfectly quiet?
49:16 Q: By rejecting positive thinking.
49:26 K: By rejecting positive thinking. Sir, sir, look, make it much simpler than this. I’ve got it. Right? When do you see anything totally?
49:48 Now, leave that for the moment; let’s approach it differently.
49:58 You know what beauty is? Do you? Please, don’t answer.
50:14 Don’t jump to words and say something.
50:22 Don’t. What is beauty? Is beauty brought about by any stimulus? When you see a beautiful mountain, a magnificent building, a lovely face, or read a poem or listen to a music, or see the light on the snow of an evening, and you say, ‘How extraordinarily beautiful that is,’ is that beauty?
51:12 Does beauty depend on stimulus? Ah, no, don’t agree or disagree because if you’re not going to go through this you…
51:28 it hasn’t… you have to feel what beauty is, not agree with words, or not.
51:35 So one has to find out… Sorry, that’s why I closed my eyes because you’re all in agreement or disagreement and therefore you’re not inquiring.
51:49 If beauty is dependent on stimulus then the reaction of that stimulus depends on the various characteristics, conditionings, temperament, therefore it becomes merely good taste, and…
52:17 which has nothing whatsoever with beauty.
52:27 So is there beauty without stimulus?
52:36 I can see the lake, clear, blue or green, with extraordinary life in it and the reflection of the mountain on it - does that make me feel beautiful, or do I know beauty from that?
53:03 Or is beauty independent, something entirely different from any stimulus, from any reflection on the water, the mountains, the face?
53:18 I can read a poem and go emotionally ecstatic, shiver over it, but surely that’s not beauty; that’s a stimulation through imagination, through nerves and all the rest of it.
53:45 So is that beauty?
53:52 And if it is not beauty then how does the mind which has depended… which has been dependent on stimulus, and as most of us are – drink, sex, pleasure, mountains - you follow?
54:22 - stimulus, as most of us are dependent on a stimulus which gives us a certain excitement, a certain sense of heightened energy, which makes us say, ‘That’s a beautiful building,’ or ‘That’s an ugly building,’ how is such a mind to see beauty which is not…
54:54 - or not ‘see beauty’ – which is beauty which is not dependent? I don’t know if you’re following all this. Right? Leave it there for the moment. I am coming at it from different ways.
55:19 What is love? We know what we consider love, which is jealousy, possessiveness, domination, my family as opposed to your family, my country opposed to your country, my God and your God, the profane and the spiritual - which are all fragments.
55:55 Right? Do I know love without jealousy, without possessiveness? So I have to find out what…
56:12 So what is love? So there are three questions – you understand? – now. What is a total seeing, not fragmentary seeing?
56:30 When I see, I see life totally: death, birth, sorrow, the whole of it, not in fragments.
56:45 And I say to myself, living in this world: what is beauty?
56:52 So… there are so many museums, so many paintings, so many books, all influencing, all stimulating, all trying to shape my mind.
57:10 And some say, ‘That is beautiful’, and others not. So I depend on stimulus. And is that stimulus beauty? And I say, no, that is not; it can’t be.
57:32 Seeing a beautiful building or a beautiful face or a mountain or the reflection on the water, and saying ‘That’s beautiful’, I know that’s not beautiful.
57:49 So I have rejected negatively, not knowing what beauty is – right?
58:00 - rejected what has been considered beauty, which is a stimulant. Right? I’ve rejected it completely. Right? Please follow this. And also I see what love is, as we know it, as we human beings know it: jealousy, anxiety, sense of loneliness, becoming… not feeling loved and wanting to be loved, sentimentalism, emotionalism - you know?
58:35 - possessive… all the ugly turmoil of despair in it.
58:43 Right? And I see that is not love. Fact, not an idea. I say that can’t be. If love is mere torture then you can call it what you like but it’s not love.
59:04 So I… the mind says that… reject it, totally.
59:12 Right? You’re following all this? What is total perception? What is beauty? What is love?
59:29 When I reject without motive, without reaction, what has taken place?
59:38 You answer me, sirs.
59:50 What has taken place?
1:00:03 (Pause) Right?
1:00:26 What has taken place? My mind is in a state of negation, isn’t it? Do listen to it carefully. Right? I haven’t yet found out what is the positive. The positive is not… the positive is the fragment. By denying all that, my state is in negation.
1:01:00 My mind is empty because it doesn’t depend on stimulus, it doesn’t depend on sex, it doesn’t depend on jealousy, on possessiveness, to feel, all the rest of it.
1:01:17 And also I see beauty is not stimulus; it must be something entirely different.
1:01:26 And also I see living in fragments can never bring about the total; putting the fragments together can never bring the total.
1:01:36 So I see all that and I’m in a state of negation.
1:01:49 I’m in a state… the mind is in a state when it is completely negative, not blank.
1:02:07 It’s full of vitality, full of energy, but there must… need another element.
1:02:21 Right? Are you following all this? Or, rather, am I making myself clear? You know, in electricity there must be two, the positive and the negative.
1:02:46 I’ve only the one side of it. Now, what will bring about the other?
1:02:59 Right? Got it? The negative has its own movement. Right? It is not still. It has its own movement.
1:03:27 And when there is no movement at all – right? – then there is a positive that comes to meet it.
1:03:39 Right? You’re following this? Look at it yourselves, sir; don’t listen to me. Do it and you will see it in a second.
1:03:53 That is… - oh, it’s marvellous, sir, come on - that is, the mind has lived on fragments and has… is in a state of continuous conflict, effort and competition.
1:04:12 And that mind now says, ‘Finished; I’m not going to enter into that field at all.’ But in not entering into that field it has become negative because I see the absurdity of it, the mind sees the foolishness or whatever word it is.
1:04:42 And because the negative state has its own movement – right? - and it is only when that negative state is completely still - not blank, but full of energy and therefore stillness - then the positiveness comes into it, not from any direction, but in itself.
1:05:20 Right? This needs a little thinking; careful.
1:05:30 Look, sir, sit very quietly without any movement.
1:05:45 What happens? Your mind wanders off; you try to control it, try to resist it; go through all that quickly, but your mind… your body, your nerves, your brain cells, the whole thing is quiet.
1:06:16 Right? Then if you sit, if your mind is completely quiet, which is a state of negation - right?
1:06:38 – then what happens?
1:06:47 There is another factor coming into, isn’t there?
1:06:58 There is another movement taking place in it which is not created by any stimulus, but because it is so completely in a state of void, emptiness, negation, passiveness – right?
1:07:26 - in which there is no movement at all, the movement created by a negation which says, ‘I must go further.’ Right?
1:07:40 Are you…? Right? Then… Wait. See what happens. (Pause) Then, surely, there is a movement which is not created by the mind, for the mind has nowhere to go; the mind is not expecting an answer, waiting, hoping, searching, looking, finding.
1:08:26 So when there is an absolute negative, passive stillness, in that comes a different movement, therefore the positive and the negative are meeting.
1:08:49 That is, the man and the woman, if I can call it. Don’t… I’m sorry, I mustn’t call it anything. The two are met. Right? Now, with that mind – right? – look. With that mind which knows both complete negation and complete positiveness - not the positiveness of fragments, but such a mind that knows this extraordinary positive and the negative – with that mind look.
1:09:41 Look at beauty - you follow? - love, and the nature of a mind that sees totally.
1:09:53 Right?
1:10:03 So, now… So it’s only a mind that is completely still with this passive/negative state that can see totally, totally life without sorrow.
1:10:27 Right? Life… dying which is not an ending, because dying then is the renewal of a new thing - renewal.
1:10:39 If I die to yesterday, to all the memories of yesterday, my mind is fresh, innocent, alive.
1:10:49 But if I’m afraid of death it is still...
1:10:57 So I’ve found now a way… found how to look at everything totally out of complete emptiness which is positive.
1:11:10 Right?