Krishnamurti Subtitles home


SY70DSG1 - What does it mean to look at something as a whole?
Sydney - 23 November 1970
Discussion with Small Group 1



0:00 This is the first small group discussion with J. Krishnamurti in Sydney, 1970.
0:09 Krishnamurti: What shall we talk about?
0:14 Questioner: I would like, if we could, to talk about the problem of identification with the image that I have of myself as a person and with whatever else I identify with.
0:38 Q: I have a problem. I have been thinking… (inaudible) …it seems to… (inaudible)
0:50 Q: Can we talk about what is silence? And what is its importance?
0:56 K: What is time?
0:57 Q: Silence.
0:58 K: Silence.
0:59 Q: Silence. And why is it so important?
1:04 K: I don’t know how...
1:06 Q: I wonder if we might discuss what means to be serious. What it means, what you mean, when you say ‘to work’.
1:17 Q: Sir, could we talk about when you go into a problem now in the hall, you go into it step by step and see it very clearly. Is this the way we have to look at our own problems as they come up in everyday life, or is that only a method you have got of sort of doing something in the hall or is it the way that we should do it ourselves, step by step?
1:45 K: No, sir, I wonder which shall we discuss, which shall we take so as to cover all these questions. I wonder if we could take up your question, sir, which is, the thinker and the thought, wasn’t it?
2:08 Q: Yes.
2:09 K: Would that, if we took that up and went into it, perhaps we could cover all the rest. Shall we do that?
2:19 Q: Yes. (Pause)
2:26 K: Do you think these two, that is, the thinker and the thought, are two separate things or two separate movements?
2:52 Q: They seem to be.
2:54 K: Why?
2:56 Q: That’s just the way it happens to be.
3:05 K: Is it habit that we have? It is a habit, isn’t it? The thinker and the thought are two – we seem to think they are separate. It maybe because we haven’t really questioned it. We just accept it. We say the thinker and the thought. The censor and the thing that is to be censured. Right?
3:33 Q: Yes, but whenever my mind begins to move it already does that.
3:42 K: Wait. Let’s be clear. First of all, let’s be clear what we are doing before we begin to analyse or look. Not analyse – look into it. Why is there this division?
3:57 Q: I have a feeling of fear at accepting or feeling my thought and my thinking process as being the same. I am afraid of that.
4:31 K: I wonder if it is that, sir. Or is it the desire to postpone action? You follow what I mean? The thinker is separate from the thought – we think so. And this division in us as the experiencer and the experienced and so on, this gap, what do you think that gap is?
5:36 Q: It is the cause of all the trouble. It seems to be the cause of all the trouble.
5:44 K: That is just it. Now why is there this gap? And what happens in that gap?
5:53 Q: It’s time.
6:00 Q: There’s a failure to meet reality, to face things as they are.
6:10 K: No, no, sir, you understand the question we are asking each other? One realises there is this division between the thinker and the thought, the analyser and the analysed and so on. Now, why is there this division and what happens in that division between the two, in the gap? What takes place?
6:41 Q: Conflict.
6:44 K: Why? Why?
6:49 Q: We bring our own opinion into it.
7:02 Q: (Inaudible)
7:06 K: No. Look, there is the observer and the observed. There is that land, and there is the observer sitting here. There is this division. What takes place between that and the observer? Why this division first of all? There is physical division – right? – and the psychological division also. Why is there this division, first of all? You can understand the physical division because the distance and all the rest of it. Why is there the psychological distance and what takes place between the observer and the observed in that gap?
8:08 Q: (Inaudible)
8:09 K: Don’t jump. Go slow. Go slowly at it.
8:14 Q: One reacts to what is aware.
8:22 Q: One names. One names it.
8:24 Q: Is it our memory from the past?
8:25 Q: I feel a demand put on me by...
8:29 K: Look, sir, you are sitting there, I am sitting here. There is a physical difference, distance. Then there is the distance which… you as the observer and me the observed. Right? The distance, the psychological distance. What takes place there? Look at it. Don’t answer it, yet. Don’t jump to some conclusion. Just see what takes place there.
9:03 Q: Fear.
9:06 K: (Laughs) Do go slowly, sir.
9:14 Q: We name it.
9:17 K: We name it.
9:18 Q: Do we see only what we want to see and not what actually is there?
9:29 K: Would you look kindly without giving an answer? You are sitting there, I am sitting here. There is a physical distance and also perhaps there is a psychological distance. What takes place in that interval between you and the thing observed, which is me? What takes place there? What is the movement? What is the action? What is happening in that space?
10:11 Q: (Inaudible)
10:18 K: (Laughs) Put the question differently. You think. There is thought. There is an interval between that thought and the next thought. It may be a minute, a second interval or a few seconds or an hour interval – what takes place there?
10:50 Q: It happens too quickly.
10:57 K: Now don’t let it act quickly. Just see what happens.
11:03 Q: Is it time?
11:07 K: Either it is silence – right? – or it is non-verbalised movement of thought. Wait a minute, wait, don’t agree with me yet. Or is it an interval in which thought is waiting to capture again another thought?
11:49 Q: Yes.
11:50 K: Verbalise another.
11:51 Q: It is like a television screen which is… (inaudible)
11:56 K: What is taking place, sir? Do look at it. Go with it very, very slowly, you will find out. You said just now you wanted to identify… you have an image of yourself and you are concerned with identification. Right? What is the observer doing in the interval between the observed? You understand? Sir, shall we approach this thing differently? What do you think is action? What is action, the doing? Not the having done or will do – what is action? The doing. Is there ever a doing, or always having done or will do? Go on, sir, which is it?
13:32 Q: Always about to do or having done, with us.
13:35 K: I don’t know. You find out. Action implies acting, doesn’t it? That is the active present. Right? Active present of the verb ‘to do’. Right? The active present of that word ‘to do’ is to act, is acting. Acting now, the movement. You follow? Now is there such thing... are we ever aware of doing, acting? Or always having acted and will act? You follow? Now, why do we do this? Knowing acting is always present. Active present. Apparently there is no active present in us in acting, it is always back or forward. Why?
15:01 Q: We are verbalising. We are caught between reacting to yourself and thinking all the time.
15:10 Q: We are waiting for the result.
15:15 K: No, madame. I don’t know. You are guessing. You see?
15:20 Q: Sir, in acting it brings back images of the last time you did that sort of thing.
15:26 K: So you are never acting.
15:27 Q: Not aware of your action.
15:29 K: No, no. No, no, you are never acting, you are always… action is always in the shadow of the past or in the shadow of the future.
15:43 Q: Yes.
15:45 K: Right? So the shadow of the past is the observer. No?
15:58 Q: Yes.
16:14 K: So, what we are discussing? What is it we are discussing?
16:19 Q: How to bridge the gap.
16:23 K: I want to find out for myself, living in this mad world, what to do. Right? That is my concern. I mean, I am sure that is your concern too. What to do in this world.
16:42 Q: We start with knowing what to do here.
16:49 K: Ah, no, not what to do there – what to do.
16:51 Q: What to do.
16:53 K: You follow? Doing. Moving the chair.
16:56 Q: All right. All right.
16:58 K: The active present of action. I see all action is within the shadow... under the shadow of the past. Right? All action, as far as I know. Or, what I will do in the future. Right? And what I will do in the future is the projection, modified, of the past. Now let’s be very clear on this – right? Don’t… Right, sir? So, my life and my action is always between the past and the future. Right? And that is what all humanity is doing. I don’t know if you…
17:56 Q: Yes.
17:57 K: I am a Hindu, communist, Marxist, Maoist, and I have learnt what all those people have said, the pattern which they have laid down, which is the past, and I am acting according to that.
18:16 Q: Even more simply, it is myself.
18:21 K: Myself.
18:22 Q: An image.
18:23 K: So, I am acting according to something which I have learnt.
18:27 Q: Yes.
18:28 K: Which is the past. Having learnt implies the past. So I am acting always in the shadow of the past. Which is acting always according to my conditioning. Right? Now, I say is it possible to act without conditioning? Because this is what all humanity is doing. You follow, sir?
18:57 Q: Yes.
18:58 K: So, I say to myself: is it possible to act without the past?
19:07 Q: Yes.
19:08 K: Which is, the past is the pattern of my conditioning. The pattern which is established as the observer. Right? And I act upon the observed. Right? So, action is always behind.
19:32 Q: Yes, driven.
19:33 K: Never doing.
19:34 Q: Yes, true.
19:35 K: Now wait a minute. Right?
19:37 Q: Yes.
19:38 K: What shall I do?
19:39 Q: What shall I do?
19:42 K: Ah! (Laughs) This is what the Catholics do – you follow? – the communists, the readers of the red book, the Hindus – every human being is doing this. And therefore there is no radical change at all. I change the pattern – one day it is red, next day it is black, next day – you follow?
20:14 Q: Yes.
20:16 K: So I ask myself: is action possible without the red book? Sorry – ‘the red book’ you know...
20:34 Q: Yes.
20:37 K: Quite. Which means action which is really new. New in the sense not rooted in the past. Now, is it possible? Otherwise I am a slave. Thought is… I am finished. It is a red book, a black book, it was Hitlerian brown book, Mussolini black, and so on, so on.
21:10 Q: Sir, physically we have to act like that. I mean if you drive a car...
21:15 K: Wait, sir. Wait, sir. We will come to the physical later.
21:18 Q: But I am saying there’s a division somewhere.
21:21 K: You will see. First let us settle this and then come to what to do with the car. Not begin with the car, with which you are very familiar, and then tackle the other. The other way round. You see why?
21:38 Q: No, I don’t see why.
21:41 K: (Laughs) Well, don’t agree.
21:42 Q: Sir, if the past isn’t acting at all what is acting?
21:47 K: We are going to find out, sir. We are going to find out. He said first, without the past I can’t drive a car. Quite right. And so what happens? He is concerned with the driving of the car, which necessitates the past, and he’s stuck there. Right? But he hasn’t opened the door, a wider door. Which is, the wider door is: can there be action without the red book?
22:40 Q: Surely we can only act anew.
22:44 K: I don’t know what it is.
22:46 Q: I don’t know either. I have been asking…
22:49 K: Wait, sir.
22:50 Q: …for a long time. How long do you keep asking this question?
22:53 K: No. You haven’t asked it yet. I am asking.
22:56 Q: How do you see?
22:57 K: I am going to show it to you in a minute. Avanti. You have asked that question, have you?
23:04 Q: Yes.
23:06 K: Why have you asked it? Because we must be absolutely clear – you follow? Why have you asked that question?
23:15 Q: Because all my actions are unreal. I have no real basis with my identity.
23:20 K: Who told you that?
23:24 Q: I see it.
23:27 K: Which means what? You yourself have seen for yourself, without anybody telling you, that all action is the past.
23:37 Q: I don’t know to what extent I have seen it.
23:42 K: That’s where the trick is.
23:44 Q: Quite. Now I would like to know what total seeing means.
23:48 K: Seeing means understanding. Seeing that everything I do is related to the past. Seeing. You follow? As I see the microphone as clearly, as definitely, as positively...
24:02 Q: Yes, but...
24:03 K: Wait, sir. As I see poison. You follow? I see. I will never touch poison, that bottle. Because I know it is dangerous. Right? Do I see this thing the same way?
24:21 Q: Not quite. That’s all I know.
24:25 K: Why don’t I? That is the whole…
24:28 Q: You don’t know anything else.
24:29 Q: Because you haven’t looked.
24:30 K: No. I am not interested in anything else. I see action being that. Right?
24:35 Q: Yes.
24:36 K: And I say to myself: is it as real as I see a snake, as I see something, as a shark in the sea, really dangerous?
24:49 Q: That is already a new thing, to see it like that.
24:54 K: Of course you must see it, otherwise you will just play with it.
25:00 Q: When you see it you shy away from it.
25:04 K: No, no, I don’t shy away from it. You see?
25:07 Q: I want to see it. Show it to me.
25:09 K: Just see it, sir. Not shy away from it or run away from it. Just look.
25:13 Q: Isn’t the reason we don’t see it because we...
25:17 K: I don’t know. I can tell you ten different reasons why you don’t see it, but the fact is you don’t see it.
25:25 Q: It’s the degree.
25:28 K: Then why don’t you?
25:30 Q: What prevents us from seeing?
25:32 K: Yes. What prevents you?
25:34 Q: I am only the past thinking and looking.
25:40 Q: There’s a security of having this big reservoir behind you.
25:47 K: All right. Is that what is preventing you? The feeling of being secure prevents you from looking if that thing which you call secure is really secure. You follow? You have taken it for granted the past is secure and you say, ‘Well...’ You never say: is it secure?
26:11 Q: But it gives me a continuity of some sort, doesn’t it? It is a pattern. It’s at least something.
26:23 K: So, what have you discovered? Discover something, sir, discover as you go along.
26:28 Q: Right.
26:29 K: Which is, you have said something, which is, a continuity.
26:32 Q: Yes.
26:34 K: Which means what? Go on.
26:37 Q: The past.
26:38 K: No, no. No, no. Go slowly. Continuity. (Pause)
26:45 Q: That means we expect?
26:53 K: What is continuity? No. Go, sir. Go into it. What is continuity?
27:13 Q: Thought.
27:17 Q: Death.
27:20 Q: Fear of it ending.
27:22 Q: Doing the things that are to be done.
27:24 Q: Fear of it ending.
27:27 K: Fear of ending. Fear of ending, is it? Why are you afraid?
27:30 Q: My life is centred in this; I don’t want it to die.
27:38 K: No, sir. I want to continue, isn’t it? I am afraid that if the past didn’t continue, what am I? Right?
27:56 Q: Yes.
27:58 K: So I am the past. Watch it, sir. Watch it closely. I am the past. So, the past is tremendously important because it gives me a feeling of complete security.
28:17 Q: Incomplete.
28:20 K: Complete, I feel safe. I feel safe in driving a car.
28:25 Q: Oh yes.
28:26 K: No, watch it, sir, watch it, watch it. Driving a car, speaking a language, the familiarity of the people I live with. I don’t like a new change of scene, change of food, change of climate, because I am used to the same continuity. Change of habits. I can’t stand changing habits. I like to feel my beliefs are permanent. So, what have I learnt from that?
29:09 Q: Satisfaction. The satisfaction I get out of it.
29:17 K: No, no, not only satisfaction. What have I seen in this?
29:32 Q: That we are afraid to let go.
29:34 K: No, no. No, you see, you are all... What have I seen?
29:39 Q: I, myself, not here now. It is a memory. I am a memory.
29:59 K: What have I seen? I have seen – what? You tell me, sir. You tell me. I am telling you. You tell me for a change.
30:05 Q: I can see... (inaudible) …there is a great big horrible emptiness lying around the corner… (inaudible)
30:15 K: What have I seen? (Pause) What I have seen is – I may be wrong – that I want to be certain. Right? I will see what it means, I want to be certain. Which means what? Anything uncertain, change, I don’t want. Because in that there is no certainty. Certainty being permanency. Right? I want things to be permanent – my relationships, my driving a car, everything I want stabilised, permanent, secure, certain. Now is there anything certain?
31:15 Q: I’ve heard you say this… (inaudible)
31:22 K: No, no, not what I have… You find out. Is there anything certain? If there is nothing certain then what am I doing? I am pursuing thinking the moon is cheese when it isn’t cheese at all, and yet I think it is cheese.
31:56 Q: I want it to be.
31:57 K: I want it to be. Therefore I am deceiving. You follow? I am caught in an illusion, something which is not so. Why can’t I let go? Why can’t I?
32:22 Q: Yes, sir.
32:28 Q: But don’t we find a certainty in what we have discovered as knowledge and laid down as this?
32:46 K: No, no. After all… This is too… You see?
32:50 Q: I can’t let go because I am it already.
32:59 K: Sir, let’s put the problem again differently. Knowledge is always in the past, isn’t it? Knowledge is the past. And I am acting. Action is according to the past, according to the knowledge. Which is knowledge being continuous. Like scientific knowledge, constant experimentation, accumulation, information, gathering, gathering, gathering, and acting. Gathering and going to the moon. You follow?
33:55 Q: Yes.
33:56 K: So, knowledge driving a car is necessary. Right? And action according to knowledge becomes inaction.
34:10 Q: Psychologically.
34:12 K: Wait.
34:14 Q: But we can go to the moon.
34:22 K: No, no. No. If I act according to the past it is a repetition, therefore it is not action. It is inaction.
34:35 Q: From your point of view.
34:36 K: No. Not my point of view. It is not my point of view.
34:40 Q: We think it’s action.
34:42 K: Is it? Is it? Question it, sir.
34:45 Q: You mean the person isn’t totally…
34:47 K: No. If I am doing something according to accumulated knowledge, the past, it must be repetitive. Like a gramophone playing the same record over and over, modified, a little bit here and there, make little more noise, a little less noise, but is repetition. Right?
35:15 Q: Yes.
35:18 K: That means what? To me, repetition gives a sense of continuity and therefore a sense of security. Repetition – you follow?
35:37 Q: Yes.
35:38 K: That’s all. It is like living in a prison and repeating, walking round the cell, and talking about freedom, talking about God, talking about love. You follow?
35:53 Q: Yes. We think can get out like that.
35:57 K: And that’s not freedom. It is not my opinion or your opinion. It is not freedom. Living in the prison and walking round the cell or in the yard and saying, ‘I am a free man.’ So I say there is something totally wrong in this. Totally wrong, not partially. Totally wrong. Therefore I am asking myself: is it possible to act without the red book? You follow? Now I have come round in a different way. Is it possible to act outside the prison? I know what it is to act inside the prison. We all do it. That is fairly simple and fairly clear. Simple in the sense it is monstrous, absurd, but that’s what we are used to. Now, is there an action outside the prison at all? Which means without the red book. Before, it was the Catholic book, Protestant, now it is the red book, Mao. Now I am asking: is it possible?
37:25 Q: Sure.
37:26 Q: It happens sometimes.
37:29 K: Ah! I don’t know. I don’t know.
37:33 Q: Not before we have seen that we are in a prison.
37:38 K: Sir, look, sir, don’t say it is possible.
37:42 Q: Well I am in a prison.
37:44 K: No, no, don’t say… You must say it is impossible.
37:47 Q: Action is impossible.
37:50 K: No. (Laughs)
37:52 Q: That which can…
37:53 K: No, look, listen to what I am saying. I am used to the repetitive action of walking around in the cell or in the yard. That’s all I know. You come along and tell me: look, that is not walking, that’s not freedom, that’s not living, that’s a monkey caught in a trap, moving in the cage. And you ask me: find out what action is outside the prison. Right?
38:32 Q: Not quite. I don’t know if there is an outside.
38:38 K: I am asking you. I am asking you. You are asking me, you know this action and you say: is there an action without the red book? Find out. Right?
38:52 Q: Yes.
38:54 K: And your immediate response says it is not possible, it is impossible. Right?
39:01 Q: Yes. (Inaudible)
39:03 K: It is impossible. Because I only know this, what the hell are you talking – sorry – what are you talking about?
39:11 Q: That’s true.
39:14 Q: But then outside the prison is there action as we used to know it?
39:21 K: I don’t know. You see, you have never put these questions. You are ready to answer, but you don’t know what it means. So I must find out. Right? You have left me with a conundrum. You have left me with something which I haven’t understood. I want to find out.
39:44 Q: How do you proceed from the prison?
39:51 Q: You can’t.
39:54 K: Look, sir, you know what is possible, don’t you? In anything, what is possible. Possible come up to the room. Possible to drive a car. You can learn it and drive. It is possible. It is possible to go to Everest. It is possible to go to the moon. It is possible to live under the sea. Right? So, the possible is always… (laughs)
40:25 Q: No.
40:26 Q: No, I mean...
40:29 K: The possible is always… can be done.
40:33 Q: Yes.
40:34 K: Which means you have already done.
40:36 Q: Yes.
40:37 K: Now, what is impossible is possible.
40:45 Q: Right.
40:46 Q: But it’s only possible to me. Yes.
40:51 K: They said it is impossible to go to the moon, twenty years ago. Man said, ‘By Jove, is it? Let’s find out.’ Worked and worked and worked and worked, and got to the moon. If they said, ‘Oh, it is quite possible,’ then it’s finished.
41:15 Q: Yes.
41:17 K: But the impossible became the possible, because we applied.
41:23 Q: This is asking the…
41:25 K: Wait. No. Wait. This, in the same way, I see the impossibility of leaving the pattern, the red book. And I say if it is impossible then I must find out. If it is possible then there is no point. I don’t know if you see it. So, now I want to find out a way of living, which is acting – living is acting, acting in relationship and all the rest of it – I want to find out if I can live without the red book. You who are committed to the red book say, ‘It is not possible, old boy.’ You follow?
42:35 Q: Yes.
42:36 K: Because you are committed to that. You are involved in the red book. And therefore to you it is not possible. But to me when you say it is impossible, I want to find out. You follow?
42:51 Q: Yes.
42:52 K: And I am going to apply. I am going to put my energy, my thought, my life to find out if it is possible. The impossible.
43:05 Q: I am doing this. I am doing it, but I can’t get over the hump.
43:09 K: I will show you, sir. No, it is not a question of getting over the hump. You will see it. (Pause)
43:13 Q: I think: who is going to find out.
43:32 K: I am going to find out, first of all by learning how to look at the red book. Right? I have accepted the red book because it was a stimulus from the black book. The black book I am used to. The red book is very stimulating. I have accepted it. I don’t know why I have accepted it, but I have accepted it. It promises a new world, a new revolution. You follow? I have accepted it. Now I must find out how to look at that red book. Am I looking at that red book in opposition to the black book? You follow what I mean?
44:53 Q: Could you restate that another way?
44:56 K: Oh lord. Am I… I am asking myself: I have really looked at the red book or have I merely accepted it? Right? I have either accepted it because it was a contrast to the black book or it is diametrically opposed to the black book and I like to… because I am a violent human being, I liked something violent, because the old is... I am fed up. So I must… which way am I looking at this red book? As a contrast, as an opposite or as a new kind of stimuli? You follow what I am talking? Which am I… what am I… how am I looking at that red book? Because ten thousand – no – seven hundred million Chinese say red book, and so I repeat red book. Why am I… have I looked at the red book? You understand what I mean, sir?
46:14 Q: Yes.
46:15 K: Now, how have I looked at it? Have I looked at it in any of these... along these lines: stimuli, contrast, opposite? Or have I taken the red book, black book, brown book as a whole and looked at it? You understand, sir?
46:37 Q: Yes.
46:39 K: Which have I done? Taking the whole of it, not the capitalist purple book – you follow? – and the black book, brown book, red book, the Jesuit book – you follow? – all that. Have I taken the whole of all these books as a whole – not, ‘I can’t read them all, I have no time’ – taking all of them together I say: look, have I looked at it as whole or have I looked at it the sense as a stimuli?
47:18 Q: Not as a stimulus, but it comes up in fragments in a way.
47:26 K: So then you are not looking at it as a whole.
47:31 Q: Yes.
47:32 K: Therefore I have to learn – look at it – I have to learn to look at all these blasted books as a whole. Can I? So I say to myself what does it mean to look at something as a whole? You see, we are learning something – you follow? What does it mean to look at something as a whole?
48:01 Q: I don’t know what it means... (inaudible)
48:12 Q: Isn’t that looking without the self, without the opinion, without the background?
48:13 K: I don’t know.
48:14 Q: How do you drop the self, the opinion?
48:16 K: I am going to find out. You see, I want to learn about it, I want to find out. I can’t say I know what it means. I must say: what does it mean to look at something as a whole? To look at a human being as a whole, not as a Catholic, Protestant, communist, Maoist, capitalist and so on – to look at a human being as a whole. What does it mean? No, sir, don’t shake your head, tell me.
48:51 Q: I have no idea. I am still thinking about it.
48:57 K: Don’t think about it – there it is.
49:00 Q: No, no.
49:01 K: You see, you have touched something. Thought is the response of the memory. The past. So when you are answering a new question you can’t answer it in terms of thought.
49:21 Q: And I seem not to be able to answer it in any other way.
49:27 K: Wait, wait. Wait. You people are so… Wait. So you say: how am I to look at this world – Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, Zen – you follow? – the Maoist, this whole mess, as a whole?
49:48 Q: Just to look at it and to deny the fragments, from the books.
49:54 K: Which means what?
49:56 Q: Just to look.
49:57 Q: Just looking without the fragmentation of the books.
50:01 K: Which means what? Do you do it?
50:08 Q: Rarely.
50:09 K: Do you do it as non-Catholic, non-Hindu, non-Buddhist, non-Zen, non-Mao, communist – you follow? Do you?
50:20 Q: One can at this level.
50:23 K: This merely because I am stimulating you.
50:25 Q: I can’t. This is like seeing yourself... (inaudible)
50:27 Q: No, one does it other times too.
50:29 K: What does that mean?
50:30 Q: One doesn’t see the significance in what happens.
50:31 K: Then what happens?
50:33 Q: There is just a movement, an energy, a movement and an energy, or a nothing. I don’t know.
50:45 K: Ah. Look, go slowly madame. Can I look at something, can I look at this world with all the misery, chaos, awful things that are going on, as a whole movement? Not an Australia movement, English movement, Italian- you follow? Which means, can I look at it all without my conditioning? Go on, sir. My conditioning as a Hindu, my conditioning as the Theosophist, as a world teacher – you follow? (Laughs) Can I look at all this mess without my background? So I cannot look at something totally if my background remains. My background is the observer. No, sir. The observer is the thinker. Right? The thinker, the past; the thinker divides the world into Catholics, red book, brown book – you follow? So, thought divides. And why does it divide? And is it not the very nature of thought to divide?
52:41 Q: (Inaudible)
52:42 K: Of course, it is its very nature. Hindu, Christian, you are black, you are brown, you are this – you follow? So thought in its very nature and structure, functions in division. Now, can I look at the whole of the brown book and all the rest of it without thought?
53:11 Q: (Inaudible)
53:17 Q: What looks then?
53:22 K: What looks?
53:23 Q: What is looking then?
53:26 K: Can you look, sir, at me without the word? Can you look at that water without calling it the water, calling it the sea, the bay, Sydney Heads, without the word? Because the word is not that. Right? Now why do you use the word to look at that?
54:05 Q: Habit.
54:07 K: Therefore, what does it mean?
54:11 Q: It’s the past.
54:15 K: Sir, go on, sir, pursue it. Habit. Smoking is a habit. Right?
54:23 Q: Automatic process.
54:25 K: Wait, sir. Smoking is a habit, eating is a habit. You follow? Therefore mind, thought, prefers to function in habits – safer, gives a continuity. Which is walking in the prison (laughs) – right? – and think it is extraordinarily free.
54:51 Q: But one doesn’t choose it. It happens. It is automatic almost.
55:03 K: Why is it automatic? Is smoking automatic? Calling myself a Hindu automatic?
55:13 Q: But you say look at the feeling that rises without the word.
55:24 K: I am asking you: can you look at that – whatever that is – that stretch of water without calling anything, without naming it? Good lord! Naming it a mountain and say, ‘How lovely.’ The moment you use the word, you are not observing. Right? You are off.
55:50 Q: You are back in the past.
55:55 K: You are not observing.
55:57 Q: That’s all we do. We do this all the time.
56:03 K: Therefore, sir, what shall we do? Go into it. What shall we do? Suppress thought?
56:14 Q: We can’t.
56:18 K: They have done it. They have done it. All the monks of the world, throughout the world, have suppressed it. You follow? Have you ever watched them in Rome? They are walking along the street with the book, black book. Daren’t looking at the women or the man – you follow? – there they are. And suppression creates havoc. And when an opportunity offers, they jump out. That’s what is happening. Getting married, asking the pope to go and see his grandmother. You follow? And all the rest of it. So they are breaking out. So, what will you do? Face it, sir. What will you do now? Now we have explained – right? – and we say: can you look at that stretch of water without the word? And you say, ‘I can’t.’ Right? The moment I look I say that is Sydney Heads. The moment I look I say that is a beautiful woman, beautiful tree. Beautiful – you follow? The very word is an escape from observing. Right? Do I see the escape and not how to suppress it or how to change it, but do I see the movement of escape? When I am looking at that, the moment of escape is going on. Right? Therefore I am not looking. I am really interested in looking. Therefore why does this happen?
58:28 Q: When you see this process come it is no longer a problem.
58:37 K: Therefore, can I look at that water without the word?
58:41 Q: Yes.
58:42 Q: One can, sir, by observing the interruptions as they come and then they seem to stop. But then they start again.
58:53 Q: Sir, I can look at the water and I can see what is happening here without a word, but if anything which makes a demand on me, then I...
59:07 K: …you are lost, you are back in the old pattern. So, can you look at yourself without the word, without the censor?
59:17 Q: No.
59:18 K: Wait. Don’t say no, sir. Watch it. I am asking you: can you watch yourself without the observer? The observer being the red book. You follow? Watch it. Can you watch yourself silently? (Pause) Can you watch that shallow water on the bay, you know when you are standing on the beach, and see silently what is happening? You can, can’t you? It is only when you are silent you can see very clearly. Not when you are looking all over the place. When you are really watching silently you can see all the things taking place. Right? So, can you watch yourself silently so that everything comes out, exposed? You know?
1:00:34 Q: If it is possible there, it’s possible here.
1:00:40 K: Of course. If it is possible there, it is possible here. Do you do it?
1:00:46 Q: Not constantly.
1:00:49 Q: I react.
1:00:50 K: I am not talking about constantly. That is another awful thing.
1:00:55 Q: Sir, sometimes there seems…
1:00:59 K: Just to do it. Just once, twice. Once a day, just to see it. Not say, ‘Well, I must see it all the time.’ Which becomes another greed, another form of greed. Just to say, ‘Well, I can watch that water and see what is happening below very clearly.’ In the same way I will watch, see what is happening. I can do it perhaps a second. That is good enough. I will pick it up a little later. You follow? There is fun in this. Not say, ‘It must happen all the time’ – then you are cuckoo. So to come back, I want to find out what is action without the past. Right? If it is a habit like smoking, why have I stuck to this habit? Why is the mind stuck to this habit of smoking? You follow? Take a physical habit, sir. Why? Any physical habit and see how extraordinarily difficult to give up a habit.
1:02:38 Q: Because I look at the habit through the eyes of my habit.
1:02:56 Q: Because it goes on and on. If you stopped...
1:03:03 Q: It’s the physical enjoyment of the habit, so you don’t want to give it up.
1:03:11 K: Then don’t give it up.
1:03:13 Q: No, I am not…
1:03:14 K: I know, I know.
1:03:15 Q: That’s why people don’t want to give it up.
1:03:16 K: Like somebody came up to me the other day after the talk. He said, ‘I really enjoy making money and having a good time, is it wrong?’ I said, ‘Certainly not. Have a good time.’ Here it is. Do tell me, sir. How am I to act without the past? It is really an extraordinary question. You understand, sir? The question itself is extraordinary, not how it is going to happen. Because I see if there is no release from the past I am always living in a prison. God is invited to the prison. You follow? Freedom is invited. Love is invited. You follow? Everything must happen in the prison. And I say, ‘Lord, how absurd that is.’ Intelligence revolts against it. Intelligence. You see? So I must find out. (Pause) You see, to ask that question, I have asked many other questions to come to this question, therefore my mind has now become intelligent. You follow? To be aware that I live in the prison, walk in the prison and in the courtyard, and invite the gods, the angels, the beauty everything into that prison and talk about freedom – the red book, black book – you follow? – and I say, ‘How stupid this is.’ That has already brought sensitivity and intelligence to the mind. Right? That intelligence now is asking this question. It is not personal intelligence, it is the intelligence. I don’t know if you follow. Is asking the question: is there an action without the past, without the red book?
1:05:52 Q: That question itself is new, isn’t it? It’s action.
1:06:03 K: Yes. I am going to find out. It must be found out. You follow what I mean? Not just say, ‘Well, I can’t. I don’t know what it means.’ I have got the instrument now, which is intelligence. You understand? The man in the street says, ‘What is wrong with this? What are you talking about?’ You follow, sir?
1:06:28 Q: Yes.
1:06:29 K: He says, ‘For God’s sake, go and jump in the lake or something.’
1:06:32 Q: Is this because he hasn’t gone into it? He hasn’t got the intelligence because he hasn’t been through this.
1:06:37 K: He hasn’t gone through it. No. He doesn’t want to.
1:06:41 Q: No, no.
1:06:42 K: He refuses to go into it. He has got the intelligence.
1:06:45 Q: You have got to lead up to it.
1:06:46 K: He prefers that. So leave him. But I have looked at that man, looked at all this, being a Hindu, Christian, Buddhist – watched all this, and I say, ‘By Jove, they are all acting according to their past, according to their conditioning.’ I am also acting according to my conditioning, according to my black book or red book. So, I am asking. Because I have observed all this, that very observation is asking this question. That very intelligence which has watched all this says: is there an action outside the red book? I have got the instrument. You understand, sir? I can’t keep it. The instrument can’t remain dull. It must work.
1:07:39 Q: Isn’t that itself the freedom?
1:07:46 K: Ah! You see, don’t assert anything.
1:07:50 Q: (Inaudible) That is the question I came with, exactly, we’ve come to now.
1:07:56 K: Yes. Now proceed, sir. From there proceed. Have you got the intelligence – not mine or yours; intelligence – which will find a way of acting without the past?
1:08:11 Q: When the past is the action.
1:08:16 K: No, Madame.
1:08:17 Q: I don’t know. I can only ask the question.
1:08:19 K: Ah, no. You must find out.
1:08:21 Q: I want to find out.
1:08:22 K: Put your guts into it. (Laughs)
1:08:28 Q: Right now? (Inaudible)
1:08:31 Q: Right now.
1:08:33 K: I want to find out. Intelligence says: people live in this terrible prison and call it freedom. In this trap and call that trap beautiful. And I see the falseness of it. And the very seeing of that is intelligence. Right? Now, that intelligence says now: is there an action outside the red book? I am looking. You follow? I am not just waiting for somebody to tell me – which will be another blue book. You follow?
1:09:23 Q: Yes, of course.
1:09:26 Q: You have to do it. I mean, to look at it at all.
1:09:30 K: No, no. Look, look, don’t go back. We have said intelligence is now in operation, sensitivity is now operation, because I watched the world, I read the newspapers, I watched the cinema – you follow? – all that. I have seen all over the world the same phenomenon. Which is, the red book, the black book, the purple book, the Catholic book. You follow? And the book is the past. Red book is the past. It tells me what to do – you follow? – according to Mao. Instead of according to St John or Mark, it is now Mao, St Mao. (Laughs) Quite. And I say: is there an action beyond that red book? I don’t ask that question idiotically.
1:10:33 Q: Do you have to be silent now?
1:10:39 K: My intelligence says... puts that question. That intelligence has to find the answer. Answer in action. Not in a – you follow? So my problem then is: am I really… is there really that intelligence? Not the answer to the question. You follow? You get it, sir? Are you? Is there that intelligence? Not yours or mine – intelligence. Is there, operating in you?
1:11:24 Q: How do we know?
1:11:26 Q: You can only find out when you do something.
1:11:30 K: Ah! I have done.
1:11:32 Q: No, but I mean next time it comes… (inaudible)
1:11:33 K: Ah, I have done. I have been in the prison of the black book, red book, purple book, the Catholic book. You follow? I have finished with those books. Because I have finished with those books there is intelligence. Have I really finished with those books? I think I have, but have I? You follow my question? Have I? Or am I again deceiving myself into a new kind of book? Which means, do I want a success out of this? You follow? Do I want to achieve something? Because the red book promised tremendous achievements. Right? It may not be a book now but may be a mere a sense of achieving something. Achieving a state of mind which is beyond the red book. You follow? You understand, sir? Do I want… I mean… Intelligence implies complete negation of everything in the past. Isn’t it very hot in here?
1:13:17 Q: It is.
1:13:18 K: Oh, thank the lord!
1:13:19 Q: We are in a prison.
1:13:23 Q: Our prison! (Laughs)
1:13:27 K: Oh how nice!
1:13:30 Q: So if we want to achieve anything then we are right back in another prison – right?
1:13:46 K: Absolutely.
1:13:47 Q: Is the wanting to find out a wanting to achieve something?
1:13:58 K: Maybe. Therefore I said I am not interested any more in finding out, but I am really interested to find out if there is that intelligence in operation.
1:14:13 Q: Complete negation.
1:14:14 K: Complete negation of all the books.
1:14:36 Q: One foot’s very firmly in the past.
1:14:37 K: Therefore talking about action without the book is not the right question for you, for me. Right? My right question then is: is the mind free from all the books? I have got to find out. I am not going… You follow, sir?
1:15:07 Q: Yes. (Pause)
1:15:12 K: That means I don’t want any success, I don’t want any achievement, I don’t expect anything, not depend on anybody. It doesn’t mean I am bitter. You follow? It doesn’t mean that I am lonely and trying to escape from that. You follow? Negation of everything which is the observer. If that negation has not taken place there is no intelligence. Right?
1:16:17 Q: (Inaudible)
1:16:20 K: (Laughs) Yes, sir. Therefore am I… is there that intelligence in operation? I don’t know. And I will see that in me there is no sense of holding onto something, psychologically of course, holding on to my memories, holding on to my images, holding on to various successes – you know all that.
1:16:55 Q: Krishnaji, if I want to get out aren’t I still caught? Out of the prison that I’m in, if I want to get out.
1:17:03 K: You will crawl in the prison. Instead of walking you will crawl now.
1:17:13 Q: I think she means wanting to get out of prison is still an ambition.
1:17:22 K: Is it ambition? Is it ambition – just a minute, sir – when you see fire burning, to keep away from it?
1:17:29 Q: No, but you…
1:17:32 K: Is it?
1:17:34 Q: No, not necessarily. It can be made into an ambition.
1:17:36 K: Oh well, you can make it into anything.
1:17:37 Q: But you were saying before that we were doing this.
1:17:41 K: When you see a danger – a python, a cobra, a bear, whatever danger, a shark – you don’t say, ‘Is it ambition to run away from it?’
1:17:53 Q: No.
1:17:55 Q: Because there is instant action.
1:18:02 K: That’s it. So, do you see the danger of these books?
1:18:09 Q: They prevent it.
1:18:11 K: Danger, sir. You don’t… (laughs) Like seeing the danger of a shark, do you see the danger of these books? If you see the danger then it’s finished.
1:18:26 Q: That’s the danger of my whole past then too, isn’t it?
1:18:32 K: The red book we said is the past. The old book or a new book – you follow? – it is the same book.
1:18:39 Q: Well, no. I don’t really see the danger of my past conditioning. It’s somewhere up here, but really seeing it...
1:18:49 K: Why don’t you see it? That means you haven’t really looked. You haven’t said, ‘Look, I must find out.’ Why does the mind hold onto the past? It holds on. I mean, it has to hold on to the past when I drive the car, when you have to do various things, technical things, but here, psychologically, why is the mind holding on to the past.
1:19:23 Q: You always talk as if we have a choice. You seem to talk as if we have a choice.
1:19:33 K: No. On the contrary. I think choice is the most… exists only when there is confusion.
1:19:40 Q: Yes, I know the line of argument.
1:19:43 K: No, no, it is not an argument. A confused man says, ‘Which way am I to go.’
1:19:48 Q: Yes.
1:19:49 K: But a man who sees clearly, he goes.
1:19:52 Q: But I don’t accept my conditioning on purpose, we seem to be given it. You say: why do you hang onto it?
1:19:59 K: Close it, sir – too cold probably.
1:20:02 Q: No, no, it’s just the noise.
1:20:07 K: Ah, the noise. (Pause) Sir, the question then is really: why don’t you see the danger? The shark is out there and you keep on swimming near it. Why don’t you see the danger of the shark? Does it mean you are insensitive?
1:20:51 Q: Possibly… (inaudible)
1:20:55 K: No, no, be simple, be simple. Those are all… You see danger and yet apparently you disregard it. Is it lethargy, indifference?
1:21:13 Q: Don’t we enjoy a sense of danger sometimes?
1:21:20 K: Then if you enjoy the shark, all right go ahead, enjoy it. (Laughter) There’s no point. Have fun with it.
1:21:28 Q: It’s dullness.
1:21:30 K: Is it dullness?
1:21:31 Q: We don’t even see the danger originally though, sharply enough.
1:21:35 K: Why don’t you, I am asking you.
1:21:38 Q: We don’t see what damage it can do.
1:21:42 K: Sir, look, the danger of nationalism, you see it very clearly, don’t you?
1:21:48 Q: Yes.
1:21:49 K: Do you?
1:21:50 Q: Yes.
1:21:52 K: War, separate – all the rest of it. So you are no longer a nationalist. It has fallen away from you.
1:22:00 Q: But that’s outward.
1:22:01 K: Wait, wait, wait. It is outward, inward. It has fallen away from you. You didn’t struggle against it but you saw the danger of it. Actually saw it. As you see the shark you saw the danger of it and it dropped away from you. Now, you don’t see the danger of the red book. As really dangerous, like the shark. Why don’t you? Is it that you are insensitive? Why not? Why shouldn’t you be insensitive? Because you are fairly comfortable, have enough money, live in this lovely climate, affluent society. ‘From the womb to the tomb’ business. And there you are. You say, ‘What the devil are you talking about?’
1:23:06 Q: What is the danger? I don’t see it. What is the danger? You see it; you tell me.
1:23:16 K: What is the danger?
1:23:17 Q: I can’t truly...
1:23:18 K: No, no. What is the danger?
1:23:20 Q: What is the danger?
1:23:22 K: I will show it to you. Nationalism is a danger isn’t it?
1:23:29 Q: Yes.
1:23:30 K: Why? Why is nationalism a danger?
1:23:34 Q: Because it divides.
1:23:36 K: My God, you mean to say you still don’t know what is happening in Europe and America? Good God!
1:23:41 Q: It divides.
1:23:42 K: Divides, armies, navies and the people who love to build these lovely ships. You follow? I see the danger. I see also the danger of religious organisations.
1:23:57 Q: Yes.
1:23:59 K: Catholicism, Protestant – you follow? So I drop it. Right. Do I see the danger of Mussolini, of Hitler, of Stalin, Khrushchev, and company Ltd. Right? So you drop that. Right? You have dropped it, have you?
1:24:27 Q: Yes.
1:24:29 Q: It is easier to see.
1:24:32 K: Wait. Have you dropped their red book? (Laughs)
1:24:36 Q: At the moment yes.
1:24:38 K: Ah, no, no. You don’t say, ‘At the moment I see the danger of the shark.’ You are aware of that shark all the time while you are in the water. You don’t say, ‘At the moment I am watching.’
1:24:55 Q: But those are forms.
1:24:58 K: Ah, no, no, that is not a form. This is actual fact.
1:25:02 Q: Nationalism is a danger.
1:25:04 K: Is a danger.
1:25:05 Q: Yes, yes.
1:25:06 K: The red book is an almighty danger.
1:25:09 Q: Yes.
1:25:10 K: Do you see it and drop it?
1:25:17 Q: I think in the form of external nationalism, yes.
1:25:21 K: Ah! The internal, the thing the red book represents which is imitation, conformity, depending on another, what Mao or Stalin or Nixon or your prime minister, whatever it is, whoever – the red book implies all that. Which is the past. We went through all that.
1:25:43 Q: Yes. I just can’t emotionally equate the two. I can see the danger of communism and so forth, but the danger...
1:25:49 K: Oh no, no, no, the danger of communism is the danger of capitalism, the danger of priests.
1:25:54 Q: Any division, yes.
1:25:55 K: So I say: do I really see it as a danger and therefore it has dropped away from me, therefore no book?
1:26:03 Q: I just wish I could see my own house in the same kind of light. I could drop it.
1:26:13 K: Wait. If I don’t accept the red book…
1:26:17 Q: Which is your red book.
1:26:19 K: The black book, the white book, and also I won’t accept my own book.
1:26:24 Q: Yes.
1:26:26 K: You follow that, sir? I won’t accept my own book either.
1:26:30 Q: (Inaudible)
1:26:31 K: Ah! (Laughs) If I don’t accept your book how silly of me to accept my own book.
1:26:37 Q: I do it nevertheless.
1:26:44 K: My own book is your book which you have expressed in a different way. That’s all.
1:26:56 Q: Yes.
1:26:57 K: Ah, don’t say yes. Therefore my book is not at all important.
1:26:59 Q: But if I see a shark I know from my past experience that the shark can hurt me personally, but if I look at the world I am not necessarily going to be hurt personally.
1:27:16 K: Aren’t you? My God, don’t you know what is happening in the world? What are you talking about?
1:27:28 Q: But it doesn’t hurt me a lot.
1:27:30 K: Of course it is going to hurt you. The people who are living in New York are having a terrible time. People living in India are starving, they are having a dreadful time. Because you are living on this little island or big island and everything is secure, you say, ‘Well, I don’t care.’ Is that intelligence?
1:27:52 Q: No.
1:27:55 Q: No, I don’t say I don’t care.
1:28:00 K: It comes to that.
1:28:02 Q: I care.
1:28:03 K: Oh no you don’t. When you say it doesn’t affect me personally, it means that you don’t… as long as you in this place are completely safe, everything is all right. But it isn’t safe. You have shut out all the Asiatics out of this country and one day it is going to burst. (Laughs) Those eight hundred Chinese can’t contain in their land, they say, ‘My God, there is Australia, let’s go and swamp them.’
1:28:37 Q: Is it the thinking that prevents us being vulnerable to...
1:28:53 K: Why aren’t you vulnerable, sir? Why aren’t you? Does it mean you are only vulnerable if it affects you personally?
1:29:02 Q: Sir, even…
1:29:04 K: Wait, sir, listen. Listen, old boy. Only as long as you are safe everything is lovely with the world. I am afraid so.
1:29:17 Q: It’s a terrible feeling of impotence about the rest of the world. You feel it but what can you do?
1:29:26 K: I am not talking about doing. You can’t do anything. What can you do to those people in East Pakistan who are dying? You can’t do anything.
1:29:39 Q: I will send some money.
1:29:40 K: You can’t. Giving ten dollars and you think… That is not doing. I am asking you: why aren’t you sensitive, aware, intelligent to the book? Your book or the red book, why don’t you see the danger of it?
1:30:06 Q: Isn’t it because we don’t see it as a whole book?
1:30:12 K: Sir, we have been through all that.
1:30:16 Q: You are saying that conditioning, my conditioning is the cause of all that business out there in the world, because I’m doing it.
1:30:29 Q: So we never actually look at all that out there. We come here and say we have looked at it but we don’t actually ever look ourselves.
1:30:34 K: No, sir. Why – I am asking, you don’t answer – why aren’t you aware of all this? Not theoretically but actually, like a shark. You are aware of a shark when you are in the water. You are in the water, you have no sharks but you have the politicians. You have the red book people, the black book people. You follow? The danger of that, why don’t you see it? What is wrong with you?
1:31:06 Q: Are we afraid to look?
1:31:12 K: I don’t know. Find out. Are you afraid to look?
1:31:20 Q: Is it because we do separate ourselves? Is it because we separate ourselves from it?
1:31:28 K: Don’t you separate yourself from the shark? (Laughs)
1:31:32 Q: It would be the end.
1:31:42 Q: The end of what?
1:31:44 Q:Of me, of my past, of this conditioning.
1:31:48 K: What do you know if there is an end of you? How do you know if there is not something marvellous or tremendously dangerous?
1:31:57 Q: I just don’t want to.
1:32:03 K: Then, sir, you don’t want to look at the red book. That’s all. Be simple.
1:32:12 Q: What you said before seems to imply that I am personally the effect of my conditioning.
1:32:22 K: Obviously.
1:32:23 Q: It is the cause of what is going on.
1:32:25 K: Obviously. If each of you... Obviously.
1:32:29 Q: I don’t like to this.
1:32:34 Q: Sir, even if I feel in my daily life the result of the danger of all these things, it seems as if because of the demands of what is happening about me and life, seems to… just as if the mind is going on like a circus and so one pushes these things away just to be able to go through. One ignores it.
1:33:14 K: Sir, you see, sir, do you feel – feel, you follow, not just theoretically – the world is you and you the world?
1:33:30 Q: Not at this moment.
1:33:32 K: Not this moment, I mean, sitting here. I mean feel. You follow what it means?
1:33:36 Q: Yes.
1:33:39 K: There isn’t this terrible division, the community and you separate, you different – you follow? The feeling that you are part of this world. Right? Then what will you do? Whatever you do out of confusion will affect the world in which you live. If you want to change the world through throwing a bomb, you affect the world. Right? And the response to a challenge of this kind, through bombs, is the most primitive, most stupid answer. So is there a response and an answer which is total? Not the bomb or – you follow? – something else – is there a response in which you really totally act?
1:34:41 Q: To see my own conditioning which is causing all this. My conditioning is causing all this.
1:35:10 K: No, no. Your conditioning isn’t causing that. Your conditioning is the result of all that. You see, don’t separate it. I suppose we ought to stop, sir. Just listen, sir. Look, I want to find out… intelligence says I must find an answer to an action which is non-fragmentary. Right? Which is non-fragmentary, which must be whole. I know what fragmentary action is. I can act as a Catholic, a Hindu, communist, socialist – you follow? – which are all fragmentary – as a scientist, what you will. So I want to find an answer, an act which will include all this, and be beyond all this. Right? What is that total action? What is a total observation? To observe that without the word. The word being thought, idea, the power – you follow? To observe that without the word – word, association, image, knowledge, all that is implied. Right? Now, to act without all that. Which means to act completely out of emptiness. I don’t know if you can… Which is not insanity. I can look at that with emptiness – you follow? – when there is no word. Right? I can now... intelligence can now say: now there is an action without the word, there is also an action without the book, which is completely out of total emptiness, which means no past.