Krishnamurti - Can I look out of silence at my contradictory life?

Krishnamurti Subtitles

SA68D1 - Can I look out of silence at my contradictory life?
Saanen, Switzerland - 31 July 1968
Public Discussion 1

0:01	This is J Krishnamurti’s first public discussion in Saanen, 1968.
0:11	Krishnamurti: I wonder what we are trying to do during these so-called discussions, which are really…
0:24	which shouldn’t be called discussions at all, but rather dialogues, conversations, talking over things together.
0:38	Are we merely trying to express intellectually only or are we trying to understand a way of living that is different from that which you are accustomed to?
1:12	Or are we trying, or rather – not trying – are we exposing ourselves as we are to ourselves so that we can see for ourselves what moods, tendencies, peculiar idiosyncrasies, the states of our own mind and heart, so that there might be a possibility of change?
1:56	Is this what we are trying to do during these discussions?
2:06	If we are trying to do this, and I hope we are, that is, to explore into ourselves, to see what we are, not according to any specialist or a philosopher or an analyst, but actually as we are.
2:49	If we are going to do that, then we must establish from the very beginning a communication between ourselves.
3:16	To communicate with each other we must use words, obviously, but each word to each person is heavily loaded.
3:38	Each word creates in us a form, a design, a content.
3:55	This design, content, form, is actually the ‘me’, the thinker, the observer.
4:09	And if we are merely trying to communicate with each other verbally, then it will be very difficult to understand each other.
4:28	So there is that one difficulty, which is, a sentence, a word, an idea, may be so deeply ingrained in each one of us that we can’t go beyond it. We translate, interpret everything that we hear according to that background. If we are intellectual, if we are emotional, scientific, artists, and so on, everything is translated according to that background, according to that frame in which we have… we live and function.
5:22	And perhaps the speaker has not that at all. Therefore, the difficulty is going to be to communicate with each other so that we understand each other completely, thoroughly, so that there is no misunderstanding.
5:44	Then, there is also another form of communication, which is silence.
6:00	But we cannot come to that quality of silence, whose nature and structure is quite peculiar, if we do not establish between us a communication which will not lead to misunderstanding.
6:23	So we have this problem, to communicate with each other first, verbally, so that the words don’t become a barrier, rather, they help to clear up our understanding of ourselves.
6:45	That must be first… be established between us.
6:53	Then there is a form of communion, which is nonverbal, which needs that peculiar quality of attention and ease.
7:14	You know, it’s like two very intimate friends or people.
7:23	They don’t have to say very much. They don’t have to go into long, complicated explanations.
7:35	They understand each other in that very silence in which there is a communion, a friendship, affection, an exposing of oneself to the other in which there is affection, love.
7:56	So, there is… there are these two issues. First, we must understand before we can go into the things that we are going to talk over together whether it is at all possible to establish a communication in which there will not be the slightest misunderstanding.
8:22	When the speaker says two plus two make four, you don’t make out of it five, or when you say two and two make four, and I don’t make it into six.
8:38	So we must both of us establish that very clearly and very definitely so that we don’t get confused in the form, in the design, in the content of the word.
8:57	When that is very clear then we can go to the next dimension, which is to communion, to commune with each other without word so that there is an empathy, a feeling, a sense of closeness in which there is no barrier.
9:27	Can these two go together at the same time? Not the one first and then the second, or the second first and the other.
9:42	If we could do this, that both of these operate at the same time, then there is a possibility of real understanding each other.
10:03	That is, understanding our problems, our daily struggles, sorrows, conflicts, despair, loneliness, irritation, anger, hate, and all the rest of it.
10:26	And to really commune in silence with each other is going to be very difficult, because there is always the examiner, the censor, the observer who separates himself from the thing observed, seen or thought.
11:18	And when there is this division between the observer and the observed, communion with the observed comes to an end.
11:31	So that’s going to be one of our major difficulties, to listen to each other without the listener.
11:51	And the listener is the word, the form, the design, the content, the tradition, who is the ‘me’, the ego, the traditionalist, the habitual entity who functions in a routine.
12:12	So can we, when we are talking over together our problems, can we listen, observe, be silent, without the examiner, without the entity that says, this is right, this is wrong, this should be, this must not be, I am right, you are wrong, my opinion is better than yours, and so on, so on, so on, so on?
12:54	Can we do this?
13:01	So that we see, you and I, the same thing at the same time with the same intensity.
13:14	Otherwise we have… we are not in communion with each other. If you are… if you or I are not intense at the same time, at the same level, how can we communicate, how can we feel together in examining something?
13:45	So we will try; we’ll go into this as we go along. So, having said that, and I hope it is somewhat clear, and we will make it clearer as we go along, what shall we talk over together?
14:04	Questioner: Sir… K: Just a minute, just a minute, just a minute, just a minute.
14:13	If we are going to talk over together something, we must be serious.
14:26	We must go into that thing completely, whatever the problem is, so at the end of this hour, you are actually free of that problem, not carry it over for another year or for another day.
14:51	So if we are going to converse together over a problem, we must be very serious what we…
15:04	so that we can look into it very, very closely, intimately.
15:19	And intellectually, to examine a problem has no validity at all; that is, to say, ‘I must’, ‘I should’.
15:38	The ideological nonsense is the invention of the intellect, and if we are going to talk over together at that level, at the intellectual verbal level, then it is not worth it, it has no meaning as far as I’m concerned.
16:04	So if we are going to talk over together any problem, any human, psychological, inward problems, we must be very clear that we are not offering opinions, judgments, evaluation.
16:23	We are actually examining, exploring. And if you… you cannot explore if you offer an opinion, what you think it should be or what it must be.
16:40	You can only examine when you are looking very closely, attentively, with your heart, with your mind, when you give yourself to look.
17:00	So, what can we talk over together?
17:05	Q: Can I put a question? K: Si, bene.
17:10	Q: You say, in one conversation, that in this reality, you cannot survive. The only thing you can do is to open the door, and to open this door it means that the mind, it needs quiet, completely silent, and then you say, when they open, when you open this door, if you are very lucky, by an instant things change, perhaps.
17:42	The reality may come in quickly than… Now, my question is: why? If I open the door, why, perhaps? Why?
17:58	If outside there is the fresh air, I open the door, naturally the fresh air comes in.
18:03	K: Yes, sir. Do you want to discuss that?
18:11	You didn’t hear the question? Alright, I beg your pardon. The question is: you have said – now let me here repeat: don’t say what I have said.
18:33	Let’s forget what I have said because there is no authority here. It’s no good saying, ‘Yesterday you said that.
18:44	What the devil do you mean by it?’ What we are trying to do is not to repeat or say ‘Please explain what you meant by that’.
19:00	You have your problems, not what I said. Your daily problems – of despair, loneliness, this, and a dozen problems we have, all interrelated.
19:21	And if you say, ‘Well, please don’t bother about that but tell me what you meant by that, what you said yesterday’, it becomes rather extraneous. Now, the question was: you said all that one can do is to leave the door open, that is, work and leave the door open, and then perhaps truth or reality can come in – perhaps, if you are lucky. Why do you say ‘perhaps’ and ‘if you are lucky’ If you leave the door open, if there is fresh air outside, it’ll come in.
20:04	That is the question. Do you want to discuss that?
20:25	Or do you want to ask something else?
20:33	Q: Sir, I have another question: am I selfish if I refuse responsibility?
20:47	K: Am I selfish if I refuse responsibility.
21:00	Q: Can we talk about children, as regards to education, teaching, and as regards parenthood and raising children?
21:12	K: I am sorry, I couldn’t… I can’t hear. Q: Children – can we talk about children?
21:18	K: Oh, children. Q: As regards to formal education and teaching, and also in regards to the matter of parenthood and bringing up children… K: Ah – that’s enough – can we talk about children, their education, their relationship with their parents, and so on – is that what you want to discuss?
21:56	How do we remain honest… Q: …in self-study without stimulating desire?
22:02	K: Without stimulating desire.
22:12	Q: Could we talk about identification? K: Could we talk about identification. No, no, no.
22:28	Q: Can I put my question in French? K: In Italian or French. Q: Alright.
23:01	K: The search for spirituality seems to lead to indifference.
23:25	I’m rather stuck!
23:39	See, what I would – if I was there, sitting there, and somebody else was sitting here, I would like to know, I would ask him how to live rightly – how to live, what is involved.
24:04	Because what is involved in our life is such chaos, such contradiction – the intellect in one direction, activity in another, feeling in another, thought in another, all tearing at each other. We are broken up entities.
24:22	And I would say, look – to him who if I was there and somebody else was here – I’d say, look, I know this. I am fully aware of this – how I behave in the office, at home, and so on, all contradicting each other, inwardly contradicting, broken up. How am I to live a life that is complete, whole, full?
24:49	Wouldn’t you… isn’t that what you want to know also? Q: Yes. K: Ah, no!
25:01	You see the danger? You are used to listening, being told.
25:20	Why didn’t you ask me that?
25:31	Q: It is completely impossible to ask this question, really, because at the very moment you ask this question, you…
25:38	I think you have to go through your own life to find out problems yourself…
25:50	K: You have to go through the problems of your own life and come to conclusions – you see, sir, again…
26:03	I have a horror of conclusions, because conclusions are a pattern according to which I am going to live.
26:16	But leave all that aside. Would it be that what we just now stated to be the real issue, would you be interested in that to talk over? Don’t say yes casually because it may, if you go into it very deeply, it may revolutionise your life and you may not want it.
26:42	You may never go to the office again. Or you may – I don’t say you will. Or you may do something which is real and therefore maybe tremendously revolutionary.
27:07	So if you really want to talk about it in the sense not merely to see this contradiction in ourselves, this fragmentation as the intellect, as the emotion, as thought, as action, if you see that for yourself, and it’s your cognizance, your recognition, your awareness of it, then the inevitable question would be, what am I to do?
27:44	Right? And then perhaps later on we can go into this question of reality, the urge to identify with oneself with something else…
28:05	identify oneself with something else, and so on.
28:12	We’ve got seven days, every morning, so don’t let’s waste time. If this is what you really want to discuss, let’s go into it.
28:30	Shall we? Right, bene.
28:37	First of all, am I – sitting there – am I aware that I lead a fragmentary life?
28:52	Aware, conscious, know. Don’t give awareness a tremendous significance, just keep it at its lowest level: am I, do I know that I lead a contradictory life?
29:18	A life of hypocrisy, because contradiction means hypocrisy. You may not like that word. I do… say one thing, do another.
29:37	So, am I, do I know that my life is broken up?
29:45	Not divorce and husband, wife – broken up.
29:56	Right? Can you, can one say, as you can say, ‘I am hungry’?
30:04	That, nobody can question because you are hungry – you know it.
30:12	In the same way, do I know that my life is a complex of contradictions?
30:35	Or you know because somebody tells you that your life is contradiction?
30:42	The two states are different, aren’t they? You know for yourself when you’re hungry. Nobody has to tell you that you’re hungry.
30:56	In the same way, do you know for yourself that your life is contradictory – love and hate, anger, you know, all contradicting, a dualistic existence?
31:20	If you know it, first of all, how does it come into being?
31:28	Why do I have this contradiction in me?
31:39	Is it natural and therefore I must accept it?
31:50	Or is it something that through society, civilisation, culture, and so on, has brought it about?
32:05	Or my own relationship to everything in life, from my relationship to nature, to other people, is always dualistic.
32:22	I don’t know if you are… Before I can do anything with it, I must know how it comes.
32:38	I say, ‘I love my wife’, or husband and I dislike so many people, I hate somebody.
32:48	There is immediately contradiction. I want to tell the truth and I lie because I am afraid – in that there’s a contradiction.
33:05	I want to fulfil, express myself and I can’t, or I express myself so badly that it creates misunderstanding and then out of that there’s a fear, there is anxiety, and so on.
33:21	And then there is the good and the bad, the pattern which I have been following for years and I am afraid to let that go because I don’t know what will happen.
33:37	So I live a contradictory life.
33:47	During the day and when I sleep, through dreams, why does it arise in me? I want to live a harmonious, peaceful life, non-aggressive, quiet, if it is possible. I want to live fairly, without too much ugliness.
34:24	And I do everything that brings ugliness – why?
34:38	Is it – I am just suggesting, I am not saying it is so – is it because I am afraid?
34:56	Because I am afraid, I become aggressive.
35:09	Because I am afraid, I am not free to say, yes, this is a lie.
35:20	To acknowledge to our self I am a hypocrite – because I pretend to be something, I have an image about myself which I daren’t destroy.
35:40	Is it I’m frightened? Fear of insecurity?
35:57	I’m talking about inward insecurity.
36:08	What do you say? I’d like your examination, your exploration, what you find.
36:22	You know, only fools give advice.
36:30	We are not fools, I hope, so don’t give me advice. I want to find out why I lead this kind of double life with all the complexities of double life – hypocrisy, neurotic states, isolating myself from others, and so on, so on.
37:22	Are we communing with each other because we are silent?
37:32	Or you are silent because you are looking? Right?
37:39	Right? Are we silent because we are looking into ourselves?
37:49	Or we are silent because we have understood or seen this contradiction, seen it, without reacting to it yet.
38:07	And therefore, seeing is silence. I wonder if you get this.
38:52	I am hesitating because of the responsibility involved in this – ah, you see…?
39:06	The reaction of responsibility comes a little later.
39:15	Do you, do we together, because we are silent, see what is taking place in us?
39:33	May I point out here, we are not mass or group analysing, or a confession.
39:48	We are looking at this human problem, not as an individual problem. It is individual and therefore it’s a human problem.
40:00	This exists, this kind of contradictory life everywhere you go.
40:08	Even with the hermits, with the monks, in India, in Japan, every human being has this problem.
40:22	So, when we are considering it, we are looking at the whole human problem, not my problem.
40:29	I don’t know if you…
40:36	When you reduce the whole problem as my problem, you make it very small.
40:47	But if you regard it, look at it as a human problem, a human being living in Switzerland, in India, Japan, Russia, America – human, the feeling of humanity, then perhaps in that looking, we may communicate with each other at a different level, which isn’t mere sentiment, an emotional state.
41:35	Here is a problem and I’m looking at it, therefore I am silent.
41:49	And what you say out of that silence will have meaning.
42:26	Yes, sir. You don’t have to get up, sir – I’ll repeat it. Q: So we are now facing the fact of hypocrisy – that’s what we are doing now. K: No, no – are we facing the fact one is a hypocrite – we’re not.
42:45	We are facing the fact that our life is contradictory, broken up.
42:54	That’s all. The condemnation or the justification comes after, saying, ‘Ah, it is a hypocritical action, it is a right action’. But, before you react to what you see, do you see it actually as it is?
43:20	Do I see when I say… when I have lied, told something which is not so, do I see it?
43:33	And therefore if I see it, what happens?
43:40	This is where it’s important. That’s why, if you don’t mind, that’s why I’m insisting on this.
43:58	I am confronting a fact that I have lied. That’s a fact. I’m looking at it.
44:09	I’m looking at it without justification, without saying how terrible to lie, or saying I am frightened, therefore I lied.
44:24	Those are all explanations, and those explanations, reactions prevent me from looking, looking at the fact that I have lied.
45:00	So when I look at that fact, or the fact that my life is contradictory, looking at it, what is the relationship between the observer and the thing he is looking at?
45:27	If I am looking at the fact silently, there is only the fact. Right?
45:39	Q: Sir… there’s another observer which is looking at the observer looking at the observer, and…
46:02	K: You mean there is always a superior observer, is that it?
46:09	Q: In a way. In this very form, about looking at what is the relationship between the observer and the observed, in considering this very question, there is already another observer… K: That’s right. That’s what I said.
46:23	Am I looking at it – please, I am answering that question – am I looking at this fact that I have lied completely silently, without the observer?
46:49	Not a superior observer or a series of observers, but looking at something without me interfering with it?
47:01	Q: Sir, it seems that while one is lying, one is aware that one is lying, and a little...
47:08	comes around the lie, saying it is not really so bad. And then the lie comes out, and then when it is there, we know that one has lied. But there seems to be a justification to accompany this.
47:20	K: Yes, that’s why… When one lies, one knows it and one justifies it.
47:33	And I am asking – please, do pay a little... – I am asking, can you look at this contradiction, this lie, this whatever it is, without justification, without condemning it – just look?
47:55	Look, if I am unhealthy, there is pain.
48:06	Can I look at that pain without reacting to it? Just look at the pain. I am in pain!
48:18	Not saying, how am I going to get rid of it? That will all come later. What am I to do, is it possible or is it not, and so on.
48:26	But can I merely look at it without all the circus around it?
48:43	Can I look at my pain completely silently?
48:50	Oh!
48:59	Right?
49:05	Q: There is always the desire to become free from pain. K: There is always the desire to become free from the pain.
49:15	Can you… Sir, understood – these are obvious facts, but I am asking something impossible.
49:27	If you can go beyond the impossible, as we were saying the other day, then you will know what to do with the possible.
49:34	Right?
49:45	Sir, can I look at anything without the image?
49:52	Apparently that seems to be the most extraordinary outrageous, or mysterious, or something impossible.
50:07	Look, sir, a scientist looks in his lab from a very objective, non-sentimental, non-subjective point. He looks at it.
50:26	That’s not what we are talking about. There is fairly easy because it doesn’t matter to him. But touch him in his core, about his ambition or his love or his this or that, he can’t look. You’re getting the…?
50:50	Q: The word ‘lie’ implies condemnation, doesn’t it?
51:03	K: The word ‘lie’... Q: …contains the condemnation. K: No. The very word ‘lie’ is a condemnation.
51:12	Q: It seems to me; I don’t know… K: No, it is not a condemnation. I have just told a lie.
51:19	I want to hide something which I don’t want you to know. I don’t condemn it. I say, ‘Yes, I have lied’. Though the word is associated with condemnation, and so on, so on.
51:35	I don’t associate it with condemnation, I say, ‘Yes, I have lied’. My skin is brown – full stop. I don’t say, ‘My god, I wish I were whiter or pinker or blacker’.
51:55	Q: I can’t remember my lies. K: Oh, don’t bother. I’m not trying to remember your lies.
52:03	Sorry, don’t – forget it! Q: How can I see them then, if I can’t remember them? K: That’s very good – don’t. But you see, that’s not the point, madame! Don’t take a lie. I’m taking something much… I took that as an example, which is to represent this contradictory life.
52:24	Q: But I don’t feel that contradiction in the concept at all. K: Ah, then, very good. Then it is finished. Then the whole circus is over. Then you’re a happy man or woman.
52:39	Q: I may be making a mistake. K: Ah, you may be. That’s for you to find out.
52:52	Sir, may I ask a question? Because we don’t seem to be getting much further.
52:59	Have you looked at anything out of silence?
53:17	You are looking at this speaker. Can you look at him without any image?
53:24	Just look, not abstractly, dreamily, sentimental, but to look.
53:31	To look means attention, care, affection – to look. And therefore to look means silently.
53:58	Apparently, most of us have not done this at all in our life.
54:11	Now, if you are not silent, how can you commune?
54:18	Commune with this contradiction. You understand?
54:25	I can look at this contradiction in my life and say, how terrible, I must get over it, I must find some way of unifying all this mess, all this contradiction, all this fragmentation, and so on.
54:39	That is, I am looking at this fragmentation with a lot of chatter, with a lot of saying this must be, this must not be, this I’ll keep, and so on.
54:50	Now, can I look without a word? Word being thought, thought being the form, the content.
55:05	So can I look without this content, this word, this… the ‘me’?
55:34	Please, this is very important to understand this before we proceed any further, because we can verbally communicate, explain in detail over and over again, point out verbally, intellectually, but that doesn’t solve any problem. That doesn’t solve my contradiction or your contradiction.
56:14	So can we step out of that habit, that tradition, and say, look, can I look at this whole existence as a human being, just look at it out of complete silence?
56:39	Q: How can we do it? How? K: How can we do it – now wait a minute.
56:52	How can I look at this problem silently – how – which means tell me the method – right? – tell me a way, a process – right? – step by step?
57:22	That’s what is implied when you say ‘how’. Right? First of all, is there a how? We have accepted that there is a ‘how’, that there is a way, there is a method, and you say, ‘Please tell me’. That is the habitual, traditional way of saying tell me what to do, step by step and I’ll follow you and do it.
58:09	And I say there is no ‘how’, there is no method, there is no system, because the method, the system, by practising it, will not give you silence. Right? It will make your mind more solid, more heavy, more habitual in a different direction, therefore it is not silent.
58:40	So what will you do with this problem? There is no ‘how’. Right?
58:47	But you must see that – there is no ‘how’.
58:52	Q: Otherwise it happens occasionally? K: Ah – otherwise it happens occasionally. Does it ever happen at all? To look at something silently, to be in communion with that thing you are looking at.
59:20	Sir, can I look at my wife or husband silently, without the image which I have built about her or about him?
59:46	You get rather nervous when I put that question, don’t you?
59:59	I said, sir, have you ever done it, I said. Have you ever looked at another without an image?
1:00:12	Not a stranger, not somebody who passes by, but at your wife, husband, friend, your boss, the specialist, so that you are in communion with that person, who is also chattering, has got lots of images?
1:00:38	Am I asking the impossible? Be simple about it, sir. I am, am I not?
1:00:50	Ah, bene. He says, yes, it is impossible.
1:01:13	Bene. He says, I have never done this.
1:01:21	I have never looked at anybody, I mean intimately, with whom I have a certain relationship, without an image.
1:01:28	To me it is almost impossible.
1:01:37	Now, how can I communicate, commune with myself?
1:01:45	Which is, ‘myself’ is this contradiction, and the entity who looks at the contradiction is part of that contradiction. Right?
1:02:02	So when the entity that is looking at this contradiction is himself part of that contradiction, there is no way out.
1:02:18	But can there be an observation without this entity who is part of the fragment?
1:02:32	Q: Doesn’t he have the freedom to discard it?
1:02:44	K: No, sir, I am just asking: can you look at something – I am sorry to repeat this everlastingly – just to look without all the circus about it?
1:03:07	If you cannot look without the observer, you cannot… there can be no communion with the thing observed.
1:03:22	If I have an image about my wife, and she has an image about me, the communication is between these two images.
1:03:39	Which is, between two images that have been built up through time, through days, through many days.
1:03:48	And therefore there is always a contradiction between these two, obviously. So there is always a misunderstanding. She lives in one world and I live on another world, and we are related, we say, ‘I love you’.
1:04:08	And to commune with her means I must look at her without any image.
1:04:19	And I may not want to – that’s a different point. I may not want to commune with her. She’s a bore, or I might be a bore to her. So I have his façade.
1:04:39	But if I want to commune with these many, many fragments, which is ‘me’, I must look at the ‘me’ with all its fragments quietly, silently, without any reaction to it.
1:04:59	Is this getting rather boring, this repetition? Q: No.
1:05:05	K: I wonder. You’re too easy...
1:05:11	Q: Sir, what if you are looking at something that is a bore? What if what you see is a bore?
1:05:23	K: All right, don’t look at it. If my wife is a bore and I have carefully avoided looking at that bore because I have created an image about her which is lovely, I say, all right, keep it. You are playing a double game, a contradiction.
1:05:44	If you love that, keep it.
1:06:13	Yes, yes, that’s what we said; we said that.
1:06:47	Ah... I see my husband as he is, sometimes, without the image, but, if I am asking myself, I am looking at my husband without the image, that’s not possible.
1:07:11	You’ve gone... I’m sorry, don’t take the poor husband or the poor wife – we are looking at something else, much more… nearer, which is in your own mind and your own heart.
1:07:31	Q: If the problem is created by thought, then you look at it in silence, without thought, then there is no thought, therefore no problem.
1:07:56	K: The answer is in itself.
1:08:03	Look, sir, why we are saying… why we are insisting on this question: we said communication, verbally, can be made very clear, exactly what we mean by using the word and defining the word and explaining the word. And we both agree about that word.
1:08:31	Then it becomes fairly easy to communicate with one another.
1:08:38	But we have got a different problem, which is, I realise my life, my way of living is contradictory, double, divided, and I know I have lived that way, with all the pain and the misery of it, and I say to myself, what am I to do? How am I to get out of it?
1:09:22	And you tell me, ‘Look, don’t look at it that way, as the observer watching this contradiction, because the observer himself is part of that contradiction’.
1:09:36	So, there is a different way of approaching the problem. That is, look at it, if you can, silently.
1:09:50	Like two friends, very intimate friends. They can be very quiet.
1:09:58	They have their own problems, and in their quietness, in their silence, some other activity takes place which may solve this problem.
1:10:22	I think we’d better stop, don’t you. It’s twenty to. Sir, you can’t pay attention more than quarter of an hour.
1:10:40	I have understood – what do you mean by silence.
1:10:48	Don’t you know what it means without my telling you what I mean by silence?
1:10:54	Q: Focused attention. K: No, no, no, don’t put it into words yet.
1:11:03	Don’t you know what silence is? In this valley, when you wake up in the middle of the night, except there is the noise of the stream but that noise is within the silence of this whole valley.
1:11:29	Haven’t you felt it? Q: This is a physical silence… K: Mama mia!
1:11:42	This is physical silence – have it! You know what physical silence is?
1:11:54	You don’t say, ‘What is your silence? What do you mean physically silent? Tell me about it’. You know it. Right? You walk in the woods and everything in the evening is very still.
1:12:14	You know the physical silence, with all the beauty in it, the richness, the quietness, the immeasurable magnificence, dignity of it – you know it – and apparently you don’t know what psychological quiet, silence is, inward silence, and you say, ‘Please tell me about it, put it into words’. Why should I?
1:12:46	Why don’t you find out for yourself if there is such silence?
1:12:56	I may be telling a lie, it may not exist – why do you accept it? But, if you say, look, I want to find out how to – not what silence is, but how to look at this contradictory nature and the structure of it, because I have always looked with an observer, with the examiner, with the analyser, and I suddenly realise the analyser himself is the analysed.
1:13:30	So I say, ‘By Jove!’ – that’s a discovery for me. You understand? That’s something which I’ve discovered. Therefore I say, that’s right, I won’t do it that way. So, I am looking for another way of doing it. So, I say, ‘By Jove, there is this way, which is to look completely quietly’.
1:14:01	Can I look at my pain, the toothache, without rushing immediately to the doctor, taking a pill, you know, going through all that excitement and fear?
1:14:14	Can I look at that pain quietly, silently, not saying, ‘It’s my pain, my God, what am I to do?’ Haven’t you ever done all this? No?
1:14:41	I don’t know what there is, but… You see…
1:14:51	You mean to say, sirs, you have never looked at a flower silently?
1:15:03	How sad that is. Isn’t it sad that you have never looked at anything out of a full heart?
1:15:24	I don’t know what happened, sir. You see, you’re always theorising.
1:15:34	You always give it a clenched fist, don’t you?
1:15:43	We’d better stop – we’ll do it tomorrow.