J. Krishnamurti – Brockwood Park 1979 – Discussion 5 with Buddhist Scholars – Death

J. Krishnamurti – Brockwood Park 1979 – Discussion 5 with Buddhist Scholars – Death

September 11, 2019 26 By Ronny Jaskolski


Krishnamurti:
Sir, your question was, if there is life after death. Walpola Rahula:
May I say a few words about it? K: Of course, sir. WR: You see, I want
to put this question to you because all religions,
as far as I know, agree and accept a life after death. Of course, Buddhism and Hinduism,
they accept not one life but many lives before this birth
and after this death. That is Hindu and Buddhist teaching. But as far as I know, Christianity at least accepts
one life after death, either in hell or heaven. K: Yes, sir, Muslims too.
WR: Muslims too. I don’t know about others very much, but these two, three religions,
they accept life after death. I don’t know, I think,
Zoroastrianism accepts it. And of course, except Buddhism,
in all those religions, there is soul, self, Atman, which is unchanging, everlasting,
permanent substance in man which transmigrates
or is reincarnated. Buddhism does not accept
a self, Atman, or soul, or ego, which is permanent, eternal,
everlasting, unchanging. But Buddhism accepts, man is composed of five aggregates,
physical and… if you put it in brief, as the Buddhist term says,
name and form. K: Name and form.
WR: That you use very often. K: Yes.
WR: Name and form. That is, name means
the mental qualities, and form is the physical body. But these are all energies,
according to Buddhism, forces. And according to Buddhism, what you call death is
non-functioning of the body. K: Yes. WR: But that non-functioning
of the body does not mean the non-functioning
of all other qualities and forces, like desire, will to become, to become more and more
and all that. So as long as man is imperfect, that means,
if he had not seen the truth. Once one sees the truth, he is perfect
and there is no desire for becoming because there is nothing
to become for him. And when man is imperfect,
he has always desire, will, as you suggested this morning, time to become more, become more,
perfect and things like that. So rebirth is there for him,
because he is not perfect. But whatever it may be
according to Buddhism, it is not one unchanging
substance that goes on, but it is the cause and effect,
just as today we live, Buddha says, every moment
we are dead and reborn. And so, in Buddhism, it is wrong
to say ‘reincarnation’, because there is
nothing to incarnate. Then ‘transmigration’ also
is not a good term. And we use now ‘rebirth’,
which is not quite correct, because in the Buddhist term
it is ‘punar bhava’, The Pali ‘Punabbhava’,
that means a becoming again, re-becoming
it is called re-becoming, that is, continuity of re-becoming
unbroken continuity, that is the Buddhist attitude. The question is asked,
in Buddhism, very often, in the ‘Milind Panha’
and many texts, is it the same person
or another one? Answer is, Buddhist traditional
and classical answer is ‘Nacha so, nacha anya’,
neither he nor another. That is the answer,
‘neither he nor another’, that is the continuity process,
it is given, a child is grown up
to be a man of fifty, is he the same child or another one? It is neither the same child
nor another one. In the same way, it is ‘Nacha so,
nacha anya’, neither he nor another. That is the Buddhist
attitude to rebirth. And now I’d like to know what is your attitude
and what is your interpretation? K: Sir, could we take a journey
together a little bit? WR: Yes. You mean,
you want me to answer or… K: No, no, no, journey together,
investigating this thing. WR: Yes. K: Would you say
that all humanity, whether a human being lives in
America, Russia, or India or Europe, is caught in sorrow,
conflict, strife, guilt, great sense of misery,
loneliness, unhappiness, confusion, that is the common lot of all men,
throughout the world? That is,
the consciousness of man, not super-consciousness or
some other kind of consciousness, the ordinary consciousness of man
is the content of all this. Would you agree, sir?
WR: Yes. K: That man, human being
– I won’t say man, because there are
a lot of girls here too. WR: Yes. K: But human beings,
right throughout the world, have the same
psychological phenomenon. Outwardly they might differ
– tall, short, dark and so on – but psychologically
they are greatly similar. So one can say,
you are the world. Would you?
Feroz Meta: Entirely. K: Would you agree to that, sir?
You are the world. And the world is you. Right, sir? Let’s talk about it.
WR: Yes. In a sense. K: Not in a sense,
I want to come to it. It is not partially, it is so. You are born in Ceylon,
he was born in India, another born in America
or in Europe, or including this island, England. Outwardly, one’s culture,
one’s tradition, one’s climate, food
– all that may vary. But inwardly, we have
the same sense of guilt; guilt, not about something but the feeling of guilt,
feeling of anxiety. Right? WR: Yes, rather not guilt,
anxiety I would agree. I would agree anxiety, not guilt, feeling of guilt
in a certain form of society. K: I mean, it’s guilt, unless you are insensitive, brutal,
one feels guilty. But leave, that’s a minor point.
WR: Yes, yes. Stephen Smith:
Perhaps more like guilt, maybe more guilt
in the Western tradition. WR: Yes. SS: And something more like
shame in the Eastern, perhaps. K: In the East they would
translate it differently. SS: But the feeling is the same. K: Karma or it’s their lot
and so on. So let us…
All right, I won’t take guilt. Anxiety.
WR: Yes, anxiety is good. K: Loneliness, despair, various forms of depression, sorrow and fear – these are the common lot of man.
That’s obvious, I mean. So the consciousness of human beings
is its content. Right, sir?
The content is all this. So human beings throughout the world
are more or less similar, apart from their
physical name and form. Would you agree?
WR: Yes. K: So one can say, not as a verbal statement
but the fact, that we human beings are alike. And so deeply you are me. WR: In similarity.
K: That’s what I’m saying. And I am you.
WR: Yes, in similarity, yes. K: Because each person goes
through various forms of hell, tragedies, misfortunes. And so the world,
the humanity is one. Right? Would you agree?
FM: Completely. Humanity is one.
K: One. If you see that, accept it,
then what is death? Who is it that dies? The name, the form? And also the anxiety, the pain,
the sorrow, the misery – does that also die? You’re following my point, sir? Can we discuss this a little? That is, to me,
the world is actually the ‘me’, it’s not just words. I am the world, in the sense – I may
have different physical contours, physical facial differences,
height and colour and so on, but we’re not considering that. Psychologically, we go
through extraordinary miseries, tragedies and uglinesses, hurts. So that is the common
consciousness of man. Right, sir? That is the stream
in which man lives, psychologically. Right? Then what is it to die? If you really accept that
or see it as being real, not imagined or idealistic,
but it’s a fact. If you accept that fact, then what is death,
what is it that dies? The body? The form, the name? The form and the name
may be different from you, you are a man, woman
and all the rest of it. So that is the common stream
in which mankind lives, with occasional
spurts of happiness, rare moments of great joy, rare moments
of sense of great beauty. But that’s part of our common life, this vast stream is going on
all the time. Right? It’s a great river. Right? Would you…? Let’s discuss,
you may disagree completely. Mary Zimbalist: Sir, are you saying
that in that stream the whole notion which most people share
of some individual consciousness is a complete illusion?
K: I think so. MZ: Why does mankind
have that inevitably, then? K: Because this is part of our
education, part of our culture, both religiously and worldly, that there is you,
you are an individual, you – you know,
the whole idea of it. And also the word ‘individual’
is really misapplied, because individual obviously
means one who is indivisible. But we’re all broken up. So we can hardly call
ourselves individuals. FM: We are fragmentary. K: We are fragmented
– fragmented, broken up. So if we see that man’s consciousness
is that of the world, the world…
FM:…of all humanity. K:…of all humanity; in that vast river
which has no beginning, which is still going on, and you and another
are part of that stream. I and another die. What happens to all my desires,
what happens to all my anxieties, fears, longings, aspirations, the enormous burden of sorrow
which I have carried for years – what happens to all that? FM: When the body dies?
K: When the body dies. FM: It commingles
with the world stream. K: It is part of that stream.
FM: Exactly. MZ: It never was yours at all. K: It’s not mine,
it’s part of that stream, which has manifested itself as K,
with his form. Sir, don’t… this is very drastic
what I’m saying, compared to all the religions. WR: Now I am with the question.
Now in that stream there is K. K: Ah, wait a minute, aha, no!
There is no K. That’s the whole point. There is only that stream – that stream is made up of desire,
anxiety, despair, loneliness, all the travail of mankind. That is the river. FM: As well as their opposites,
the opposite of pain and sorrow. K: It’s part of that river.
FM: Part of that river. K: My pleasure,
which lasts for a few days, and then I pursue it,
and then I cry if I can’t get it, and I’m flattered if I get rewarded, so it’s part
of that vast river. FM: Would you say, sir, that that which we call
the individual is a misnomer. K: Not only misnomer.
FM: Because of our ignorance. K: It’s not only misnomer,
I don’t think it exists: because you have a separate name
and a bank account, but your consciousness is like
somebody else, everybody else. FM: But, sir, if we say
that it doesn’t exist at all, then we would have to say
that humanity also doesn’t exist. K: No, no.
I’m going to go into it, don’t… So if we see that, if we not only see it logically,
reasonably, factually it is so – you’re born in India and
I was born in Europe, or in America. We go through the same hell,
through the same rat race. MZ: Sir, may one, just to be sure
so far that it’s clear there is nothing apart from that
in the human… K: Wait, I’m saying that.
I’m coming to that. In that stream, man has invented
gods, rituals, the saviours, the Virgin Marys, Krishnas, all that
– they are all part of that stream. They’ve invented these. MZ: But apart from the inventions,
the illusions, is there any other something? K: Yes, is there anything spiritual? MZ: Apart from that,
other than that. K: Yes. I understand. Is there anything
that is not of time? MZ: Of the stream. K: Is there in the stream,
you’re asking – aren’t you? – anything which is not man-made,
let’s call it for the moment. Is that what you’re asking? MZ: I’m not sure
if what you mean is, is there something
that is not of the stream in the human mind, consciousness,
whatever you want to call it. K: Man has invented
that there is something… MZ: No, non-invention.
Something real. K: Not in that stream. Not in that river. MZ: No, I’m not asking if there’s
a something else in the river, I’m asking is there something else
in man except the river. K: Nothing. MZ: Because there is a… K: No Atman, no soul,
no God – nothing! Don’t accept it, please. MZ: There is enormous
implication in that. K: There is
a tremendous implication. MZ: Because if that were so,
there would be no end to the stream. K: That’s what.. but, no! The man who steps out of… I don’t want to go further here,
I want to go slowly, step by step. If that is so,
that we all, all human beings, their common consciousness is this,
made up of this vast river. Right, sir?
You may not accept this. WR: No, I’m not
accepting or rejecting, I am thinking about it, meditating. What Mary said
was a very important point. K: Yes.
WR: Then… K: We’ll answer that presently.
WR: Yes. Is there no escape from… K: I’m going to answer it presently
– not escape. WR: Or whatever it may be. K: But we’re considering death,
you see. So that stream is
common to all of us, our consciousness is of that stream. Shakuntala Narayan:
Are you saying, sir, that thought is common to all of us because all this is a creation
and manifestation of thought. K: Yes, thought,
not only creation of thought, but creation of thought
which has created illusions. SS: And the operation
of those illusions. K: And the operation
of those illusions – Christian, Buddhist,
Hindu, Muslim, British, French, Russian,
various ideologies – all that is part of the stream. FM: May I ask, sir, is it a case of
thought as it is here with us now, and functions as it does,
which has created these illusions, or is it that mind
as a universal constituent, as a universal factor, in the process of thinking through what we commonly
call the particular person releases these ideas. K: I think,
let’s go a little bit slowly. I want this to be clear,
that we are part of that stream. FM: Yes, that is so. K: And when the body dies, the desires, the anxieties, the
tragedies and the misery goes on. K: I die.
FM: Yes. K: And that stream,
that river is going on. FM: Yes. K: Right, sir?
Or do you reject this? I don’t see how you can reject it.
WR: No rejection, nor acceptance. K: No, just wait – right? WR: Only waiting for the conclusion.
K: Quite right. So that river
manifests itself as K. WR: Not the whole river. K: The river, which is desire
– river is that. FM: One of its manifestations is K. K: The river manifests,
not one of the manifestations. FM: Well, then how does… K: No, sorry.
I’ll make it a bit clear. The river manifests itself as K.
FM: Yes. K: That’s agreed. WR: Then river manifests also as R. K: Also manifests… No!
River manifests itself as K. K has certain capacities by
tradition, by education and so on, to paint,
to build a marvellous cathedral. But we’re talking psychologically. Look, sir, let’s go back to it. The river is that,
we agree. WR: I don’t know. K: What do you mean, sir,
you don’t know? WR: I fully agree that whole
humanity without exception… K:…is one. WR: All these, what you describe as
suffering and all that, is common. K: Yes.
WR: To all humanity. In that sense, all are equal,
not all one. K: No equality or anything. We are of that stream.
WR: Yes, that’s all right. K: I am the representative
of all mankind. Me.
Because I’m of that stream. WR: Well, that I don’t know. Giddu Narayan: It’s
a qualitative thing, qualitatively. K: What do you mean qualitative? GN: When you say,
‘I am of that stream’, all the qualities of the stream
are in me. K: Yes.
GN: That’s a qualitative thing. K: Yes, that’s right.
All the qualities of that stream. GN: Not that I’m the whole river.
WR: Yes. GN: But the drop contains
all the qualities of the river. K: But the river is that.
GN: Yes. K: The river is that. MZ: Would it be helpful
to use the example of a wave: the wave is no different
from the rest of the ocean. K: Yes. MZ: But it manifests as a wave
which disappears. K: If you like, put it that way.
But this must be clear. Each one of us
is the representative of all mankind because the representative
is of that stream and mankind is of that stream, therefore each one of us is the representative
of the whole of that stream. WR: That is better. That’s better. K: Yes, allons-y.
I mean, yes, let’s go. That stream manifests itself as K. Or as X – forget K – X.
Manifests itself as X. With a form, name, but that stream also
has this quality, which is,
in that stream there is art, there is everything is in there. WR: Not only X, there is Y. K: Dozens, X, Y, Z. WR: Yes, that’s right,
that’s what I want to make it clear. K: Oh, yes,
A, B, C, X, Y. Yes, begin with the alphabet,
that’s right. So, as long as mankind
is in that stream, and one manifestation of that stream
leaves the stream, for him, he’s completely
free of that stream. WR: So you are not whole humanity, because if you leave the river, then you leave…
then whole humanity is liberated. K: Just a minute, sir,
just a minute. That stream has manifested in X, and in that manifestation, if X doesn’t free himself
completely from this stream, he’s back in it. MZ: But, sir, this is the moment
that the earlier question refers to. K: I’m coming to that.
MZ: What is there? You said there was nothing
separate from the stream. K: Wait, wait, wait.
I haven’t explained it. There is nothing. There is that stream. Right? It manifests itself as A. In that manifestation, with all the education and
environmental influences and so on, if that A doesn’t
step out of that stream, there is no salvation for mankind. MZ: Sir, what is there to step out? K: Leave, finish
with your anxieties, sorrows, all the rest of it. MZ: But you said there was nothing
except the content of the stream. K: As long as I remain
in the stream. MZ: What is the ‘I’? K: ‘I’ is the thing that has
manifested itself as A, and A now calls himself individual, which is not factual,
which is illusory. But when A dies,
he’s part of that stream. That’s clear. MZ: Yes, but if A is composed
of the water of the stream… K: Yes. MZ:…how can the water of
the stream step out of the stream? K: Oh, yes. T.K. Prachur: Sir, there is
some logical error in our… K: In my explanation.
TP: Yes. Once you say this, that you are the
representative of mankind, humanity, which is the… K: Is that so or not? TP: Yes.
K: Don’t say yes, sir. Aren’t you the representative of
whole of mankind, psychologically? WR: Yes, I think that is too general
and too vague a statement. K: No, it’s not vague.
I have made it very clear. That stream is this content
of our consciousness, which is agony, pain,
desire, strife – all that. WR: That is common to all.
K: Absolutely. WR: In that sense,
all humanity are equal. K: No, I don’t want… WR: All humanity is one
in other words. K: I don’t want… You’re insisting…
WR: Yes, you can say that. But I can’t accept your attitude, your position,
that I am humanity. No. K: Ah, of course, sir,
if I accept that stream, I’m part of that stream, therefore
I am like the rest of humanity. WR: Like the rest.
K: I said that, therefore a representative
of all of that stream. WR: That also I accept.
K: That’s all I’m saying. WR: But you can’t say,
‘I am that stream, whole stream’. K: No, I am that stream. MZ: But, sir,
maybe we’re being literal, but there’s a concept in this
somewhere of a sort of a container which contains the stream. K: No, not container, not the ships
that carry containers and all that. No, no, don’t bring in containers. MZ: What is it that can
separate itself from the stream if it is only made up
of the water of the stream? K: Part of that stream is
this egotistic concept. That’s all. MZ: No, but what can separate? How can water divide itself
from the ocean? K: You’re missing my whole point. WR: Her point is this: which is it
that steps out of the river. MZ: Yes. WR: That is the question.
K: Wait, wait. If that is the question,
I’ll answer it presently, I’ll answer it.
I’m pretty good at this. I’m only joking. WR: Yes. We understand.
Yes, as a joke. I hope it will not be a joke. K: No, sir. It’s much too serious.
WR: Yes. K: You see, all this implies,
when you ask that question what is it that steps out, you’re positing an otherness, something which
is not of the stream. Right? WR: Or rather you are positing this.
K: Ah, I’m not! I haven’t posited anything at all, I’ve only stated
what is actually happening. I won’t posit anything, I’ve said, as long as man
does not step out of that stream, there is no salvation to mankind.
That’s all. FM: Sir, may I add a word here? I think the question
which the lady asked implies an identifiable
permanent entity. K: No, there is no
permanent entity. FM: No, what I’m suggesting is… MZ: A something, I’m not making it
more definite than that. K: I know what you’re trying to say.
MZ: There has to be X or I don’t know what to call it. GN: Is that some
aspect of intelligence? MZ: Something. GN: Some aspect of intelligence.
K: That’s what he’s saying. He is saying the same thing.
GN: Some aspect of intelligence. K: Yes, is there some aspect
of intelligence in the stream? MZ: Call it anything. GN: Yes, which sees the…
K: Which sees the… yes, and therefore steps out. GN: Which sees
the futility of the stream. K: Yes. MZ: And it is, we’re saying, you’re
saying, it is part of the stream that quality, it’s in with
all the other human things, something is able…
K: Just a minute, just a minute. MZ:…to separate itself
from the rest of the stream. K: A is part of that stream. Let’s go step by step
if you don’t mind, then we won’t mislead each other. A is part of that stream. That stream has
manifested itself as A. So A perceives he’s suffering. Obviously. Right? No?
GN: Yes. K: His anxiety, he is living and he says,
‘Why am I suffering? What is this?’ And so he begins to reason,
begins to see. Why do you introduce
some other factor? MZ: Can you then say that some perception
that is still part of the stream… K: No. MZ: Or some molecule, or something.
K: No. No. You are not listening,
if you don’t mind my pointing out. WR: May I add a word, sir?
K: Yes, sir. WR: According to Buddha’s teaching, in that stream,
there is also wisdom which sees. K: No. I don’t know what…
forgive me. WR: No, I know, because in that stream,
which is called, in other words, in Buddhist philosophy
it is very well explained, as Mary puts the question, there is wisdom
which sees the whole thing. It is that. GN: Which sees what?
WR: The whole thing. Whole view, whole thing. The reality, which sees the reality, which sees as it is,
as we discussed this morning. And then is there stepping out,
that seeing is the stepping out. MZ: Are you saying that there is an action
of stepping out without an actor? K: Yes. Go with me. I’ll explain it. I’ll explain it,
but you don’t have to accept it. I think it’ll be logical,
reasonable and fairly sane unless one is completely besotted, we can examine it. A is of that stream,
with a name and a form. And as he lives, he realises
what he’s going through. Right? In that realisation,
he says, ‘I’m suffering’. Then, he begins to enquire
into the whole nature of suffering and ends that suffering. I’m taking one aspect
of this stream. Ends that suffering. And he is out of that stream. That entity is really unique,
who is out of that stream. Scott Forbes: So it’s something
there that wasn’t there before then? K: The moment A realises
that he’s suffering and doesn’t escape
from that suffering, enquires, explores
without any motive and so on, into the nature of suffering, and has an insight into the whole
structure of suffering, that very insight
ends that suffering. WR: That insight also in the stream.
K: Ah, no. You see, the moment –
you’re positing something, I’m not. WR: From where
you are bringing insight? K: No, I said…
I brought in insight very carefully. A realises he’s suffering. Suffering is part of that stream.
WR: A also is part of the stream. K: Yes, that stream
has manifested itself in A. A living, realises he’s suffering, he doesn’t escape from it, because he wants to know
the whole nature of it, the nature and the structure
and what is behind suffering. So he examines it, both logically, sanely
and also non-verbally. Looks into it. And the very looking into it
is the insight. It’s not of the stream,
the looking into the suffering. WR: That looking in,
from where does it come? K: He’s concerned, I said that,
he’s studying, he’s exploring, he’s questioning the whole
beastly thing, he wants to know. WR: That means it was not
a part of the river. K: No, sir, you’re… SB: Krishnaji,
because we’ve been saying that something
steps out of the river. K: Wait. I won’t use that word,
‘stepping out’. SB: No, and it seems now
that what we’re saying is that something comes into being
which never was part of that river. MZ: Insight.
K: Yes. I said, no. We are interpreting, let me… You follow me and see if I’m wrong,
then correct me. A is of that stream,
A is suffering, A says, ‘Why?’ He’s not concerned
what the teacher said. He said, ‘I know all that,’
he pushes all that aside. Why is there suffering? In the very enquiry of it – the enquiry depends
on your capacity to put aside interpretation,
not escape and all the rest of it – in the very enquiry into the nature
of suffering and the cause of it and the effect of it, in that very enquiry is insight,
comes insight. Insight isn’t in the stream.
SS: Right. WR: I say it is in the stream. K: Why, sir? WR: You see, it has in itself the capacity
of producing and ceasing. K: The stream itself
has the capacity… WR:…of continuing and producing
and ceasing it. Stopping it. That insight also is
part of the stream. Just as all that misery… K: No, sir, no, sir, I wouldn’t… WR: And where did
that insight come from? K: I’m telling you, sir. WR: You say
A is part of the river? K: Yes.
WR: And then A… K: A is suffering.
WR: Suffering. K: A begins to enquire. A begins to
– wait! – in his enquiry, he realises
enquiry can only exist when there’s complete freedom
from all escapes, suppression and all the rest of it.
WR: Yes. K: So in that moment of enquiry
there is insight, when he doesn’t escape, when he doesn’t suppress,
when he doesn’t rationalise or seek the cause of suffering, in that very moment of examining,
is insight. GN: You’re implying insight is born,
it is not of the stream. K: Don’t introduce
‘born, not of the stream’. You see, you are misleading,
you want it part of that stream. GN: Where does it come from,
insight, then? K: I’m telling you.
GN: From enquiry. K: From the freedom to enquire. GN: Where does that freedom
to enquire come from? K: From his own examination. WR: But he is part of the river.
K: No. You’re missing the point. SF: Krishnaji, are we saying this, that A, which is just
a form and a name, normally is nothing more
than a name and a form, plus all that
there is in the river. With free enquiry…
K: A begins to enquire. SF: Right, A begins to enquire and
then A, if he has this insight… K: No, no.
He has not the insight. SF: He is no longer
a part of just that river. K: Scott, would you just
follow it, step by step? A is part of that stream, A is the manifestation
of that stream, a wave of that stream,
or whatever you like to call it. Now, A is going through agony. A examines it. And the examination
is very important because, if he escapes, it is
not examination, not exploration. If he suppresses, it’s not. So he realises
– please follow this step by step – that as long as he’s not free from the blockages
that prevent exploration, and therefore he puts them aside, he’s free to enquire. And in that freedom is insight. TP: Sir,
there is a missing link here. K: There may be ten, sir. TP: It appears that
what Narayan is saying that if the person is
part of the stream, a representative of the stream, and when enquiry begins,
examination starts, freedom comes to enquire.
K: Be careful, sir. No, you see,
you are assuming so much. TP: No, but I’m repeating
what you’re saying, the link I want to know.
K: Yes, all right, you’re repeating what I said.
Right. TP: And the beginning of this,
the beginning of enquiry, the beginning
of the capacity to explore without any of the things
of the stream, are they also in the stream?
K: No. TP: Where do they come from?
K: But, that’s very simple, sir. What are you all
making a fuss about? TP: This beginning of the enquiry
is this thing. K: No. Listen. You are not, forgive me, Doctor,
you’re not listening. I said, A is the manifestation
of that stream. Let’s follow it step by step, sir. That stream is…
part of that stream is suffering. A is suffering, so A says, ‘Why, why should I suffer?’ TP: At this point,
I will interrupt you. K: At any point. TP: The number of human
beings in the stream, the question as to
‘Why should I suffer?’, this is the beginning
of the whole thing. K: No. Man has asked,
‘Why should I suffer?’, there are a dozen explanations – the Buddhist, the Hindu,
the Christian and so on, so on. The man who is suffering
says, ‘I see all this – the Buddhist, the Hindu,
the Christian, the Muslim – I reject all that, because that doesn’t leave me
the freedom to enquire. I’m accepting tradition
and authority. I won’t’. TP: Now, seeing these… FM: Sir,
perhaps could we put it this way? That the conditioned enquiry… K:…is part of the stream.
FM:…is part of the stream. K: That’s the whole point.
FM: But the free enquiry… K:…is beginning of… GN:…is getting away
from the stream. FM: No.
K: No. Forget – look, Narayan,
leave the stream alone now. For God’s sake. A is a manifestation
of that stream. A is suffering. A says, ‘Why am I suffering?’ Studies Buddhism, studies Hinduism,
studies Christianity, and says, ‘For God’s sake,
that’s words – out. I’m going to find out myself’. And he begins to enquire. And he realises he can only explore
if he’s free to look. Right? Free from fear, free from reward and punishment, free from any kind of motive,
otherwise he can’t enquire. The moment he’s in that state
of examination, there is insight. This is very clear. FM: And, of course,
very difficult to do. K: Ah, no, I won’t even give… No, I won’t accept
the word ‘difficult’. FM: At first, because otherwise
we wouldn’t be enquiring. K: No. Because we have not
given our energy to this. We don’t care,
we put up with so many things! So leave A alone. But B is part of that stream, and he suffers, he says, ‘Yes, that’s my nature,
that’s human nature, there is no way out, no Jesus,
nobody is going to save me’. He says, ‘All right,
I’ll put up with it’. So he is contributing
to the stream. SS: So the stream
becomes more intense. K: Yes, has more volume. FM: More drive also. K: Of course, more volume is
pressure of tremendous water. So we come to the point:
what is death? WR: Now I want to pose
another question. Now A is out of the river. K: Ah, no, sir. WR: Insight.
K: A is not out of the river. WR: But he has seen, insight. K: He had insight.
WR: Insight. So if all is one humanity,
if A is the humanity, then humanity has seen it. K: No, sir, no, sir. MZ: So has he left humanity. FM: You are looking at it,
perhaps, purely logically. K: No, even logically. FM: What I mean is, logically but accepting
the conditioned states. K: The moment A is aware
of his conditioned state and begins to enquire into it, he has got the energy to put aside. FM: May I just… Now the Buddha himself said,
‘Put aside with right wisdom’. Do you remember
that phrase of the Buddha? WR: What is that? FM: ‘Put aside all shape and form,
all sensation, all perceptions, all discriminative
consciousness itself’. WR: That’s what I say. FM: Put it aside with right wisdom.
WR: That is what I tell you. That is what I said,
that he is making so complicated. K: Who?
FM: No, no. K: You’re all making it complicated,
mine is very simple, I won’t have… WR: That is what I tell you, that is the statement,
that is the idea, but I also… K: May I interrupt here? Say, one doesn’t belong
to any religion. One doesn’t accept any authority. That is enquiry. If I accepted what Christ or
X, Y, Z said, it’s no enquiry. So A rejects
in his enquiry into sorrow, everything what anybody had said. Will you do that? Because otherwise
he’s a second-hand human being examining through
second-hand eye-glasses. WR: Or you can hear somebody
who has seen it and… K: I hear what the Buddha has said. WR: Yes, you can hear it.
K: What anybody has said. WR: Said, and you also can see
independently as he has seen. K: Yes, but, yes, Buddha said, sorrow is the beginning of,
whatever he said. WR: Yes. K: All right, but what he said
is not my meal. WR: Absolutely, that is so.
K: No! WR: That is what I am telling you, but you also can see the same thing
as he has seen. K: Yes. WR: And still you know
what he has said also. K: What? Sir, the printed word
or the hearsay, to a hungry man has no meaning. WR: That is so. K: Reading the menu
doesn’t feed me. WR: That is what I’m telling you,
it is not the menu but the food. K: The food. The food is not cooked by anybody,
I have to cook it, eat it. WR: That is not usually so. K: Wait, I said the man who is examining
the whole structure of sorrow. WR: I should say the other way, that you have to eat
to get rid of hunger. Just because you have eaten,
my hunger will not disappear. K: No. WR: You have prepared the food,
you have eaten and there is food. I also can eat it,
and it is my food. Do you deny that?
K: No, of course not, sir. This afternoon, you’ve eaten lunch, somebody cooked it,
and I ate it, we ate it. WR: Yes. K: But we’re not talking
at food level. We are saying that,
as long as I accept any authority, it doesn’t matter who it is, there is no insight. WR: It is not accepting authority. No.
K: Wait. Accepting descriptions,
accepting conclusions, what Buddha said, what Krishna said,
what A said, and all. To me, the freedom
is from the known. Otherwise I’m everlastingly
living in the stream. You see, that’s why, sir,
either we discuss this factually, say, ‘Look, I will drop
every authority I have’. That means, knowledge, tradition – can you do that? Because that is enquiry, if you, if I am tethered
to a tradition, I can’t; I go round in circles, I must be free of the post and
the rope that ties me to the post. So B accepts suffering.
Right, sir? B accepts what he is;
conditioned, miserable, unhappy. You know, what human being is. So he’s all the time
contributing to the stream. So there is no soul,
no Atman, no ego, no permanent me, that evolves. Then what enquiry would be, what’s the state
of the mind of the man, of the human
who has had an insight into the whole nature of suffering,
and therefore the whole stream? Right? What is the nature of that mind? What is the quality? Right, sir? Yes, enquire it. Would that be speculative? It would. SS: Sir, what is the position
of the person who has some insight
or a partial insight? Still in there, isn’t he? K: Like the scientist –
a partial insight. He may be excellent in science but confused and miserable,
unhappy, ambitious, you know. FM: Don’t you think
that the very term ‘partial insight’ means a conditioned insight.
K: Of course. FM: And therefore
it’s part of that stream and it’s true to type generally. K: I wonder if we see this, sir,
or it is an image we are seeing. Because now we’ve created
the image of the river. FM: Yes,
that’s the unfortunate thing. K: Yes. MZ: Sir, can one use
the word ‘insight’ in the same sense as intelligence? Is there a difference? K: You see… Now wait a minute.
Let’s go into that. The stream manifesting
itself as B, and in his activities,
he becomes very cunning, clever. Has not intelligence, no relationship, with cunning, cleverness, chicanery
– all that, but it is essentially part
of love and compassion. What do you say, sir? The love in the stream
is not love. You know, we are saying things
which nobody will accept. If B is in the stream, and he tells his wife or
his girlfriend or boyfriend, ‘I love you’, is that love? WR: As long as there is me
there is no love. K: No, no don’t
reduce it to the ‘me’. B is of that stream. B says to his girlfriend
or boyfriend, ‘I love you’ – love, is that love? WR: In which sense?
K: Love. WR: Love has many hundred meanings.
K: So, that’s what I’m enquiring. The love of a book, the love of your
particular soup, the love of poetry, the love of a beautiful thing,
the love of an ideal, the love of your country, the love of jealousy in which is included
hate, envy, hurt. Is all that – I’m questioning,
exploring – is all that love? And B who is the manifestation
says, ‘Yes, that is love. At least it’s part of love’. Or he says,
‘Without jealousy there is no love’. I’ve heard these statements
a dozen times before. WR: Not only that,
many people have asked me: without the idea of self,
how can there be love. K: Yes, yes. WR: There are people
who put that question also. K: You see, sir, are we
discussing verbally all this? Or realising,
seeing the stream is you, and say, ‘Look, examine, end it’. And so, not being able to end it,
we invent time: I will one day
step out of that stream. So thought invents
psychological evolution. FM: Could we also put it this way: thought invents psychological
development through time. K: Yes, sir, that’s what I mean. FM: Instead of what really belongs
to the psychological sphere, namely the immediacy…
K: That’s right. The immediacy only takes place
when there is insight. In that there is no regret, no saying,
‘I wish I hadn’t done it’. So our action is always
at the time level. See, sir, what is immortality? What is eternity? What is the immeasurable?
They all talk about that. All religions more or less
touch on this, even the metaphysicists
and the logicians and the monks have gone into this:
what is immortality? That is, an author writes a good
book and he becomes immortal. His name becomes immortal. Or a politician – unfortunately
politicians last, endure. We have related immortality
as something beyond death, mortal and the immortal, beyond mortality, beyond death. No? FM: That’s the usual conception.
K: Of course. Well, sir, what have you
to say to all this? WR: What happened to our question?
K: Death – rebirth? WR: Yes, what happened there.
K: I’ve told you. Rebirth is this constant stream manifesting itself into A, B, C,
down the alphabet. I know this is most
disappointing, depressing, and I say, ‘My God, this is too
horrible, I won’t listen to it’. SS: Are you also suggesting therefore death is
part of that stream? K: Yes, body dies. By usage and wrong way of living
it dies. Dies inevitably. SS: But I meant more… K: You see, sir,
to find out what death is, one has to be with death. That means, end. End my attachment, end one’s
attachments, one’s beliefs, end to everything
that one has collected. Nobody wants to do that. MZ: But that, that definition of
death would not be in the stream. K: What? MZ: That action of death
would not be part of the stream. K: No. You see, in the man
who is gone, understood this, he doesn’t think even in streams,
it’s something entirely different. It’s not a reward
for the man in the stream. MZ: No, it’s the action
of the insight, is it not? K: Yes, the action of insight. Action of insight, you cannot
have insight if there is no love, compassion, intelligence,
that’s part of all that. And then, it’s only then
there is a relationship to truth. SS: You seem to be
suggesting in some way then that death is a key. K: Yes, sir. Free investigation,
not the scientific investigation, the thinking tank, you know; but investigation
into this whole myself, which is me, that stream,
myself is that stream. Enquire into that, so that there isn’t a shadow
of the stream left. We don’t do this because we are
too learned, we have no time, we are too occupied with our
own pleasures, our own worries. So we say, ‘Please, leave that
to the priests; not for me’. So have we answered the question? Is there reincarnation, a continuation of the ‘me’
in different forms? I say, no! WR: Of course not, of course not. As you say, I also say,
there is no. First of all, there is no ‘me’
to be reborn, to incarnate. K: No, sir, the stream manifests
and B says, ‘I am I’, therefore I’m frightened to die. WR: Yes. K: And therefore he invents
various comforting theories, he prays, please save me
and all the rest of it. But that stream,
as long as B lives in that stream, his consciousness is
part of that stream, there’s no… he’s only contributing more and more
to the volume of that water. Obviously, sir, if you see that. So there is no ‘me’ to continue. Sir, I mean this is…
nobody will accept this, but it’s the truth. FM: You would agree then, that what is necessary is
to see in this profound… K: Yes, seeing is that.
FM: Truly see, and that truly seeing is
real action, creative action. K: Is action, the moment I see,
I drop anxiety. The moment I see I’m petty-minded,
it’s finished. FM: It is a complete transformation
of the ordinary psychical process. K: Yes. MZ: Isn’t it really
the crux in all this, and the place where people go wrong,
so to speak, they do not see
in the sense you’re talking about; they see verbally, intellectually
on various levels, but they don’t really see. K: No, I think, mostly
they don’t mind being sorrowful, they say, well, why not? They don’t see, one doesn’t see
one’s own petty reactions. You say, ‘Yes, why not?’ MZ: Or they don’t see
that they don’t see, to put it perhaps childishly. They don’t realise that what
they think is understanding is not. K: No, Maria, I mean
– not you, personally – has one dropped any opinion
that one holds? One’s prejudice – completely? Or one’s experience?
Never! They say, you’re asking,
you know, they say, ‘Please’ – they won’t even listen to you. Do you mean to say
a politician will listen to you? Or a priest, or anybody who is absolutely
caught in his own conclusion? Because there he’s completely safe,
completely secure. And you come and disturb him – either he worships you or kills you,
which is the same. MZ: Or he sees that that security
is a complete fabrication. K: Yes, if he sees,
then he drops these prejudices, his conclusions,
even his knowledge. SF: Sir, for the man who has
stepped out of the stream and is no longer
a manifestation of the stream, there is something else
which is operating. Could we say something
about the nature of that thing? K: Which is intelligence. SF: Which is intelligence
in which… K: Intelligence is love. Intelligence is compassion. SF: And from many things
that you have said in the past that seems to have
an independent existence. K: Obviously. SF: Even before it, or without it
manifesting in him. K: Sir, if A frees himself
– not himself – if A, his consciousness
is no longer of the stream, his consciousness is
entirely different. It is a different dimension
altogether. SF: And that consciousness existed before he stepped out of the stream,
so to speak? K: Now you are speculating.
SF: Yes, I am. K: I won’t play with you. SS: Perhaps another way to say
would be, is there intelligence
without the intelligent person? K: I know what you are saying. That means
– let’s put it round the other way. Wars have created
a great deal of misery. Right? And that misery remains
in the air. It must. Goodness has been also part of man
– try to be good. There is also that
enormous reservoir of both. No?
SS: Yes. K: So what? One doesn’t contribute
to that goodness, but one is always
contributing to the other. MZ: Are you saying the other exists
only in the human psyche, but goodness exists
apart from humanity? K: Let’s put it round this way: there is not only A suffering, there is this whole suffering
of mankind. MZ: Or more than mankind,
there is suffering. K: There is suffering, of course. SS: Suffering is
a universal phenomenon. K: Sir, would you kindly explain,
what is Buddhist meditation? WR: Buddhist meditation, the purest
form of Buddhist meditation, it has taken many forms,
many varieties. The purest form
of Buddhist meditation is this insight into ‘what is’. K: You are using my words,
put those… WR: No, not your words. You are using those words! Long before you, 2,500 years ago,
these words were used. I am using them. K: All right, then we are both
two thousand years old. WR: Old. That’s right. K: Sir, I’m just asking. WR: It is called
Vidarshana or Vipassana. In Pali Vipassana and
in Sanskrit Vidarshana. K: Darshan, yes. WR: It is insight vision, see into the nature of things,
that is the real vision. K: Have they a system? WR: A system is, of course,
developed. K: That’s what I want to get at. WR: Yes, when you take the original
teaching of the Buddha… K:…there is no system. WR: No, it is called ‘Satipatthana’. That is the best discourse by the
Buddha on this insight meditation. K: No, I wanted to…
WR: Wait, I’ll tell you. K: Yes, I am listening, sir.
WR: There is no system in it. And the key point in that
is the awareness. Awareness, that is called ‘Sati’,
or in Sanskrit ‘Smriti’. K: Smriti, yes. WR: And to be mindful, aware,
of all that happens, you are not expected to run away
from life and live in a cave or in a forest, sitting
like a statue, all that. It is not that. And in this Satipatthana, it is
– if you translate it, if it is translated
as establishment of mindfulness, but rather it is the presence of
awareness, the meaning of that word. K: Is this awareness… WR: Yes, awareness of every
movement, every action, everything. K: Yes.
Is this awareness to be cultivated? WR: There is no question
of cultivating. There is no question. K: That is what
I am trying to get at, sir. WR: Yes.
K: Because the modern gurus, modern systems of meditation, modern
Zen – you know all the rest of it, they are trying to cultivate it.
WR: Yes, I tell you, sir. I have written an essay on the psychology
of Buddhist meditation. K: No, I’m just…
WR: Wait, wait. There I said
that this teaching of the Buddha is for many centuries
misunderstood and wrongly applied as a technique. And they have developed
into such a technique that the mind can be instead of
liberating, it can be imprisoned. K: Of course. All meditation, sir,
is imprisoning process. WR: If it is made into a system. K: No, that’s what…
Please, sir, I am asking: awareness, is it something to be
cultivated in the sense manipulated, watched over, worked at?
WR: No, no. K: Wait, wait. So how does it come into being? WR: There is no coming into being,
you do it. K: No, wait sir, no,
just listen what I mean by… WR: You give the interpretation. K: I want to find out,
I am not critical, I just want to find out
what Buddhist meditation is. Because now there is Buddhist,
there is Tibetan, there are various types
of Buddhist meditation, various types of Tibetan meditation,
various types of Hindu meditations, Sufi meditation – for god’s sake –
you follow? They are like mushrooms
all over the place. I ’m just asking: if awareness takes place
through concentration. WR: No, not in that sense. For anything we do in this world a certain amount of concentration
is necessary. That is understood. In that sense a certain kind
of concentration is necessary, but don’t mix it up
with ‘dhyana’ and ‘samadhi’. K: I don’t like any of those
words, personally, ‘dhyana’… WR: But there concentration
is the principle. K: I know, I know. Most of the meditations that have
been propagated all over the world now involve concentration. WR: Zen and various other things,
samadhis, dhyanas, Hindu, Buddhist, concentration is the central point. K: That is nonsense.
I don’t accept concentration. WR: In the Buddhist,
pure, Buddha’s teaching, meditation,
it is not that concentration. There is not that concentration. K: It is not concentration.
Let’s put it out. Then what is this awareness,
how does it come into being? WR: You are aware of it.
It happens. You see, in the Satipatthana,
one great thing is, you live in the action
in the present moment. K: Wait, sir. WR: That is one form
of Satipatthana. K: Yes, sir. The moment you say
in the present moment, you don’t live
in the present moment. WR: That is what it says, that you
don’t live in the present moment. And Satipatthana is
to live in the present moment. K: Ah, no, no, no,
you are missing it. How is one to live in the present? What is the mind
that lives in the present? WR: The mind
that lives in the present is the mind which is free from… K: Yes, sir, go on, sir,
I am waiting, I want to find out. WR:…free from the idea of self. When you have the idea of self either you live in the past
or in the future. K: The now is,
as far as I, one sees, – not I, one sees, generally – the past modifying itself
in the present and going on. WR: That is the usual.
K: Wait. That is the present. WR: No. K: Then what is the present? Free of the past. WR: Yes. K: That is free of the past,
which means free of time. So that is the only state of mind
which is now. Now, I am just asking, sir,
what is awareness? Does it come… How does it flower,
how does it happen? You follow? WR: There is no technique for it. K: I understand. WR: In asking how it happens,
you are asking the method. K: Quite right.
I am losing it. Let’s cut out… I used the ‘how’ just to ask a question,
not for a method. I’ll put it round the other way. In what manner does this awareness
come into being? I am not aware
– suppose, I am not aware. I am just enclosed in my own petty little worries
and anxieties, problems – I love you, you don’t love me,
and all that is going on in my mind. I live in that. And you come along and tell me,
‘Be aware of all that’. And I say,
‘What do you mean by being aware?’ WR: When you ask me that,
just be aware of that pettiness. K: Yes. So that means be aware… WR: You said of the pettiness. K: Yes. Be aware of your pettiness. What do you mean by that? WR: Be aware of that.
K: Yes, sir, I don’t how to be,
I don’t know what it means. WR: It is not necessary
to know what it means. K: What do you mean
it is not necessary? WR: Be aware of it.
K: Yes, sir. You tell me, be aware of it. I am blind. I think that is an elephant, how am I to…
You follow my question, sir? I am blind and I want to see light. And you say,
‘Be aware of that blindness’. I say, ‘Yes, what does it mean?’ It is not concentration. So I say, ‘Look,
awareness is something in which choice doesn’t exist’. Wait, sir. Awareness means
to be aware of this hall, the curtains, the lights,
the people sitting here, the shape of the walls, the windows
– to be aware of it. Just a minute. Either I am aware one part,
part by part by part by part, or, as I enter the room,
I am aware of the whole thing: the roof, the lamps, the curtains,
the shape of the windows, the floor, the mottled roof,
everything. Is that what you mean, sir? WR: That also is
a kind of awareness. That also is awareness.
K: That is awareness. Now what is the difference
– I am not categorising, please, I am not being impudent,
or inquisitive, or insulting – what is the difference between that sense of awareness
and attention? WR: It is wrong
to put ‘sense’ of awareness. There is no sense of awareness.
There is awareness. K: All right.
That awareness and attention. You see, we have
abolished concentration except when I have
to drill a hole in the wall, I hope I am drilling it straight,
I concentrate. WR: No, no.
We have not excluded it. There is concentration
but that is not the main thing. K: No, that is not awareness. WR: But concentration
may be useful or helpful. K: To drill a hole straight.
WR: Yes, yes, like that. For awareness also,
it may be helpful, but it is not concentration
on the central point. K: There must be a certain
sense of concentration when I learn mathematics. WR: Yes, for anything, sir. K: Therefore I am just putting
that aside for the moment. What is attention? To attend. WR: How do you explain,
for instance, awareness, mindfulness, attention, how do you discriminate these three: awareness, mindfulness
and attention? K: I would say, awareness in which there is no choice, just to be aware. The moment when choice
enters into awareness, there is no awareness.
WR: Right. K: And choice is measurement,
division and so on. So awareness is without choice,
just to be aware. To say, ‘I don’t like, I like
this room’ – all that has ended. WR: Yes. Right. K: Attention,
to attend – in that attention
there is no division. WR: Also that means no choice.
K: Leave it for the moment. Attention implies no division:
me attending. And so it has no division, therefore no measurement
and therefore no border. WR: In attention.
K: In complete attention. WR: In that sense
it is equal to awareness. K: No, no, no.
WR: Why not? K: In awareness
there may be a centre from which you are being aware. SS: Even if there is no choice?
WR: No, that is not awareness. K: Wait a minute, sir,
I must go back. GN: You are making a distinction
between awareness and attention. K: I want to. SN: Are you saying attention
is a deeper process? K: Much more,
a totally different quality. One can be aware
of what kind of dress you have. One may say,
‘I like it’, or ‘I don’t like it’, so choice doesn’t exist,
you are aware of it, that’s all. But attention, in that there is no attender,
one who attends, and so no division. WR: In awareness also
you can say the same thing, there is no one who is aware.
There is awareness. K: Of course, that’s right. But it has not the same quality
as attention. WR: Of course, as we discussed, but I don’t want
to go into these words, but the Buddha’s teaching
of the Satipatthana is that in the satipatthana
practice of meditation, there is no discrimination,
there is no value judgement, there is no like or dislike.
You only see. That’s all. And what happens will happen
when you see. K: In that state of attention,
what takes place? WR: That is another explanation. K: No, no, no, not explanation. If you totally attend, with your ears,
with your eyes, with your body, with your nerves,
with all your mind, with your heart in the sense
of affection, love, compassion – total attention –
what takes place? WR: Of course, what takes place is an absolute revolution,
internal and complete revolution. K: No, what is the state of such a mind that is completely attentive? FM: It is free of the stream. K: No, that we’ve finished with. WR: That stream is dry now,
don’t talk about it! It is desert now! K: I am asking
what is the quality of the mind that is so supremely attentive? FM: Compassionate. K: You see,
it has no quality, no centre, and having no centre, no border. And this is an actuality,
you can’t just imagine this. That means has one ever given
such complete attention to sorrow? SS: Is there any object
in that attention? K: Of course, not. WR: Object in the sense of…?
K: Subject and object. WR: Subject and object, yes, yes.
K: Obviously not. Because there is no division. You try it,
do it, sir, once do it. SS: I mean,
not merely physical object but any phenomenal object such as – any object,
such as sorrow, or all those. K: Give complete attention,
if you can. Say, for instance, I tell you meditation is the meditator. WR: That is right. There is no meditator.
K: Wait, wait, wait! I say,
meditation is the meditator. Give your complete
attention to that, and see what happens. That’s a statement you hear. You don’t make
an abstraction of it into an idea but you just hear that statement. It has a quality of truth, it has a quality of great beauty, it has a sense of absoluteness
about it. Now, give your whole attention to it
and see what happens. WR: I think, Buddhist meditation,
satipatthana, is that. K: I don’t know, sir.
WR: Yes. I know satipatthana. K: I’ll accept your word for it,
but I don’t know. WR: Yes. And I think it will
not be misleading to accept my opinion
of satipatthana. K: No, no. I’m not saying it’s misleading or…
I don’t know. WR: Satipatthana is that. Real satipatthana meditation
is that. Now, if you ask people
who practise it, and there are many
meditation centres, I openly say they are misleading. K: Nonsense, of course
they are nonsense. WR: I have openly written it.
K: Yes, sir, that is nonsense. WR: Yes, because when you ask
how it happens, I said that presupposes
a method, a technique. K: No, I am asking,
can one give such attention? WR: You are asking
whether it is possible? K: Yes, is it possible, and will you give such attention – not you, sir,
I am asking the question. Which means – do we ever attend? FM: Sir, when you say,
can one attend… K: Will you attend?
Put it that way. FM: That’s it.
K: Of course. FM: That makes it… K: Not exercising will to attend.
FM: No, no, no. Quite. K: Will you… you know. FM: Spontaneously and naturally.
K: Do it! K: If that attention is not there,
truth cannot exist. WR: Rather I don’t think it is appropriate to say
truth cannot exist. Truth exists,
truth cannot be seen. K: Ah, I don’t know. You say truth exists,
but I don’t know. WR: Yes, that doesn’t mean
truth does not exist. K: Ah, I don’t know, I said.
WR: That is correct. K: I mean, Jesus said,
‘Father in heaven’. I don’t know the father.
WR: Yes, that is true. K: It may exist but I don’t know,
so I don’t accept. WR: No, not accepting. I don’t think it is correct to say, without that attention
truth does not exist. K: I said without that attention
truth cannot come into being. WR: There is no truth
coming into being. K: No, of course not. Let me put it differently.
All right. WR: That is also not correct.
That is wrong. K: Without that attention the word ‘truth’ has no meaning. WR: That will be better.
K: I’ve said that, sir. WR: That’s better. K: We have talked for an hour
and three quarters, sir. I don’t know
when your bus or train goes. WR: I think we will now stop.
K: We better stop. WR: Yes, and I think,
on behalf of everybody… K: No, no. WR: No, no, not you,
I thank all these people. K: Alright, sir.