2nd Question & Answer Meeting 13
The ending of sorrow
2nd Public Questions Brockwood Park
August 30, 1984
I am sorry the weather is breaking up.
Before we begin to enquire into the question, or questions, we should talk over together what is peace and its relationship to intelligence. You don't mind if I talk? In a world that is disintegrating with wars, and nationalism, and sectarianism, idealism and every form of division, opinion against opinion, data against data, judgement against judgement and so on, can we have peace in the world first? Or can we live peacefully? What does it mean to live together, man, woman and so on, or a group of people, not committed to any belief or sect or faith and so on, can we live together peacefully? Apparently this is one of the most difficult things in the world. Here too, there is a great deal of disturbance going on, in England, strike after strike, and all the travails of human beings. And in the search for peace one goes off to a monastery, shaving one's head, putting on some kind of garb and taking vows. This has been tried for generation upon generations, both in India and in the West and in the Far East, a group of people committed to live peacefully and to subjugate all their opinions, conforming to a certain pattern of idealism, certain dogmas, a way of monastic life and so on. One heard the other day rather an extraordinary fact, thing. There was a man who was very good at writing - literary - he was doing quite well, newspapers, magazines and all the rest of it, and he gave up all that one day and he went off to some kind of retreat, ashrama, a guru collects round himself. And there what do you think he is doing? Pulling old nails out of old wood and he is perfectly happy. You understand all this? And he is living peacefully, he says. Is that peace? To completely forget the world, what is happening in the world; forget any kind of responsibility, put aside any kind of relationship with another and disappear into a commune, into a community, or enter into a monastery - which is highly organised, with the abbot whom he must obey utterly and so on.
How does one find peace in the world, and in oneself? I am sure one has asked this question of oneself: to live completely peacefully in relationship to others, not isolate oneself, that is fairly simple and also it has its own dangers. The dangers are that you become more and more self-centred, or commit yourself to some symbol, a figure, or to some doctrinaire concept, and devote all one's energy to that, keeping that to oneself and working in a garden, or in a vineyard. Champagne and the good wines of France were produced by the monks. (Laughter) And the monks have also fought, killed people. This has been going on for centuries. And one is living in a world that is really monstrously destructive, divisive, every form of brutality and so on. Where does one find peace? Can a group of people live together peacefully? Whether they are teachers, educators, or man, woman and so on? Does one look for peace? Or does one bring about peace? You understand? Does peace lie externally, outside the skin as it were; or does one really want peace? If one sets aside all the things that desire, will, thought, have conceived what is peace, wanting peace, and committed to some form of regulation, whether it is so-called spiritual or otherwise. Lots of people have disappeared in the army because they have no responsibility there, governments look after you, like in a monastery, but you work, march, ready to kill and so on.
So can one bring about peace within oneself and is it possible, living in this world, knowing what the world is becoming more and more, both scientifically and so-called nationally, can one live, or bring, create peace? You understand my question? Can we wait a few minutes for that? (Noise of aeroplane). To live in peace implies no act of divisiveness - right? No act of separation, no sense of me first and you second, both in a queue (laughter) and at home. Is that possible at all? - not only for oneself but living with a group of people. The speaker has been for many, many years, sixty or more years (noise of plane) - the speaker has been living for over sixty years with a group of people - in India, in America, here, all over the world, part of the world rather. And there there is always contention, always dissension, opinion against opinion, why shouldn't I think this way, you think your way and so on. This process has been going on, not only now, oh, always, perhaps. And one wonders if it is at all possible to create peace. One is using the word 'create' in the ordinary sense of the word, not creation - that's another matter. Can one, in a group of people, create peace, in your house, perhaps four of you, or two of you, in a family? Can we bring peace about? Or is that impossible? Do you understand my question? Does one really want to live in peace? And if one does, what price do you pay for it? - not in coins, not in bank notes and so on, but what are you willing or desirous, or saying, as we must live in peace, and it is only in peace that one can really flower, what will you do, what will you put aside, what gesture will you make? You understand? It is very easy to superficially say, 'Yes, I am willing to live in peace. I will join your beastly little community, or your commune, or I will follow a guru and come and live in that community'. that is very easy and rather slack. Forgive that word. Rather indifferent to what is happening to the rest of the world. It is a form of exclusiveness, not one is against elite, but the exclusive way of looking at life - you understand?
Now are we willing to give up, put aside our own particular opinions, particular judgements, not that one must not have objections, discussions, stating what one thinks and if one sees what one thinks is not correct, yield, change. Is all that possible? Or we are all so obstinate - you understand my question? - that we never, under any circumstances yield, unless we are forced. So we come to a point, if one wants really peace in oneself and in one's family, or in one's group of people: to be highly sensitive, not only to one's own particular desires - that is fairly simple - to one's own self-centred images, but to be sensitive to nature, to other people's ideas, other people's way of looking, their difficulties, the whole process of living together, which requires an enormous sense of yielding and watching and observing, and highly - not interpretative but seeing what the other is: he may be brutal, he may be insensitive but help him to be sensitive, help him not to be... you follow? It is a constant sense of movement, not taking a stand at any time. Is that at all possible? Not only in a family, or in a group of people, like in a school - and we are very close to a school here and we are having a lot of trouble there too. So this is a great problem which not only we who are responsible here at the school at Brockwood but also responsible to ourselves and to our environment, to the way we live. Because peace requires a great deal of intelligence. You can't just say, 'I must live peacefully. I must leave the place where there is conflict.' and go somewhere else hoping to find where there is inward - where there is no conflict. Such a place doesn't exist unless one becomes completely dull, completely insensitive and doesn't care a damn what is happening - sorry, you don't mind? (laughter) - and so on.
So one has to enquire also what is intelligence. Because peace requires a tremendous intelligence. It isn't a thing you buy in the market, or in books, or repeating some chants, or some words, or pray for peace - good God! Humanity has prayed for peace from the beginning of days, and there has been no peace in the world, or in oneself. And to have that quality of peace which is unshakeable, which has no shadow of disturbance in it, requires great intelligence. So we must ask ourselves: what is that intelligence? Is that intelligence born of books? Is that intelligence the outcome of complicated, subtle thought? Or is it a projection of an ideal and conforming to that pattern? Thought with its limitation has a certain quality of intelligence, otherwise we couldn't be sitting here. You need intelligence to travel, to go to the moon. To go to the moon there must have been thousands of people co-operating together to produce that rocket that went up there. That is a form of intelligence. And a scientist, a surgeon, to operate requires great skill, requires some form of intelligence. So is all that born of knowledge, born of experience, accumulated skills with their high discipline, all the result and the product, the movement of thought? And thought being limited, as we talked about it the other days, can thought bring about peace? Which has its own limited intelligence. Right? Or is intelligence nothing whatsoever to do with the activity of thought? You are following all this? Not only verbally but see the logic of it, the reason. Thought with its limitation has created the most extraordinary things in the modern world - the rapid communication, one does not know if you have been on a battleship or a submarine, the complications of it, the extraordinary energy that has gone to build those things. And the dynamo, motors and so on. Immense energy, a great deal of thought, knowledge, has gone into all this and therefore there is that quality of limited intelligence because it is based essentially on thought, or knowledge. And is there an intelligence which is not limited? One must ask these questions if one wants peace. One must ask these essential questions. Not only peace but a way of living with great depth, with great beauty and it is only that quality of intelligence that can bring this about.
That is, can there be peace without love? Do you understand my question? Can there be peace without a sense of compassion? Can there be compassion if one belongs to a certain sect, religion, group and so on? You understand my question? If I am attached to my particular conditioning - as a Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Buddhist - I can read the books that talk about compassion as being essential. There is no end to making of books - right? Are we all together? Or am I talking? So where do I find - where does one find this intelligence, or come upon it? One cannot possibly cultivate that intelligence. You can cultivate the limited intelligence in the world of science, biology, mathematics, art and so on; that can be cultivated carefully, day after day, till you have that extraordinary skill. But is compassion, with its extraordinary intelligence, is that cultivable?
Then, as it is not, you cannot cultivate day by day love - right? So what will you do? If you want to live peacefully, deeply, without a single shadow of conflict between each other, what shall we do? Or, not do?
One has to go really very deeply into the question of desire, will and love. We have talked for half an hour. I am not answering the questions. So perhaps we can do this on Saturday and Sunday because we have a lot to talk about, not only that, intelligence, love and the whole problem of pain and sorrow and death and meditation, religion, and all that we have to talk about. So the speaker had better pick up the questions!
1st QUESTION: You spoke on Tuesday about goodness. But I am still not quite clear about whether the quality of goodness or evil is outside - is an outside agency, or forces existing in the world, or only a projection of our own thinking.
You spoke of Tuesday about goodness. But I am still not quite clear about whether the quality of goodness or evil is an outside agency, or force existing in the world, or only a projection of our own thinking.
Right? The question is clear? The questioner, as we understand it, wants to know is goodness and evil something outside, nothing to do with ourselves, but putting ourselves aside does this goodness exist in the air as it were, and the evil outside? Is it totally independent of our human beings? You understand it? This is what the questioner is asking, if we understand it rightly.
There have been wars - sorry to talk about wars - there have been wars for thousands upon thousands of years. There has been killing of human beings by the million and that killing has created immense sorrow. Is that sorrow outside, separated from us? We have our own sorrow, our own pain, our own anxiety, our own sense of goodness and badness - or if you like to use the word 'evil'. Apart from that does evil and goodness exist? Exist. You understand? What do you think? As the questioner asks: is it our projection, our prejudice, our sense of the good and the bad? Or is there evil, something separate altogether from human endeavour, human existence?
This is a very serious question this. It is not just a flippant question.
People have talked about goodness for years. Aristotle, I believe, talked about it, Plato and before Aristotle, Plato there were the ancient Hindus. And before them there was somebody else talking about it, enquiring. The same thing as we are doing now. The evil that man has created, the goodness that man has pursued, the ideals and the conformity and something that exists outside of us. There are people in the world, like the terrorists, like the Imperialists, the great conquerors of the world from Ghengis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, you know all the rest of it. They wanted power, power by hoping to unify Europe. The church, the Catholic Church has hoped to unify all Europe by dogma, rituals, belief, torture and all the rest of it. Wars. And those exist still, that feeling - right? Or do you object to that? And there have been a great many people who pursued goodness, not, not people didn't know them, they were not famous people, they were people who said, 'I will live a good life.' - not the good life in the modern world with good meals and good drinks and all the rest of it, but the good life of austerity, not just putting on a loincloth, or one robe. Austerity is something entirely different. And they have pursued that and the building of that goodness, though those people have died and gone, must exist. Haven't you found when you enter a house, a strange house, the atmosphere of it, no? One can feel there have been quarrels in the house, there has been violence, there has been perpetual conflict in that house. One can feel it. So it is outside - right? Do you object to that? So there is goodness and that which is called evil or bad exists in the world apart from our own contribution to it. And one can become highly sensitive to all that and put an end to our own conflicts, divisions, holding on to opinions, and saying, 'My opinion is a fact' - you know the regular process of holding on to something and battling for it.
All this requires a very careful observation, perception of oneself, perception of one's own activities, behaviour. Either one contributes to goodness or to the so-called that which is bad.
This is rather a close question this, near the bone!
2nd QUESTION: Do your schools, here, or elsewhere, give the students an understanding of the total human problem, the immensity of human life and its possibilities?
Do your schools (underlined) (laughter) - here or elsewhere give the students an understanding of the total human problem, the immensity of human life and its possibilities?
The question has been put to the speaker, so take a rest! (laughter) First of all, the speaker helped in various countries, in India there are five schools and there are going to be other schools, and there is one school here at Brockwood, and one in California, at Ojai. They are not the speaker's schools. They are the schools where not only the speaker and others have helped to bring it about. So it cannot be called your school. I know K's name is used but it is not his personal school. And that wouldn't be correct or true. It is a school - all the schools in different parts of the world have been built or come together, with hundreds of people working for it. You understand? It is not just one person. That would be terrible, you couldn't do it. There are schools in India that have existed for over sixty years, which we helped - the speaker helped to bring it about with the help of others. One in the North near Benares, and the other in the South near Madras, and so on. And there is one here. And one in California.
Teachers, educators are like you and me. They are human, they have their own personal problems, their own difficulties, and the students come already conditioned by their parents, by their neighbours, by other children, and come to these various schools. And the teachers are also conditioned, unfortunately. And you are asking a question of the total human understanding of life, the immensity of human existence and its vast possibilities. First of all, do the parents want this? Do you understand my question? Generally the parents want their children to have some kind of degree, technological degree or humanitarian, human degrees, you know, various degrees, so that they can get a good job, settle down in life and marry, children, carry on. Generally that is what the parents want. And the children feel certain responsibility towards their parents, so they more or less, especially in the Asiatic world conform. Do you want to go into all this?
Parents, the speaker has met them all, not - most of them - California, here - some of them don't care a damn. Whether they pass examinations or not, so long as the parents are relieved of their children. They send them off to boarding houses - you know all that - in England too. And they hardly have any relationship except - with their children, except in the summer holidays, or winter holidays. And the responsibility of the educator becomes immense. And to teach them, to help them to understand the immense - the immensity of human life, the vastness of existence, not only one's own personal existence but existence: nature, the animals, the whole universe. That requires not only a capable mind, brain and enquiring into that, and also teaching a particular subject - you understand? Because as society now is, if you are a good engineer you get a better, good job. So the students also want a good job, they don't want to become saleswomen or salesmen in a shop. So they want a good job. So their whole concentration, if one can use that world, is to getting a good degree, A level, O level and all the rest of it. And there is the pressure of society which you all have created. And there is the pressure of the parents and so on. You understand the difficulties of all this? And if you understand it very clearly and deeply, will you join us? No, careful, you can't just join because you want to join. You have to do something. You have to be a good cook, good gardener, ah yes, good teacher, good parent. You want this. Don't leave it to us. The educator needs educating, as the parents need educating, so do the students. So it is a process of living, working, co-operating, feeling together, not battling with opinions. And this requires a great deal of energy, and which parent - and there are many parents - at Brockwood School, I believe there are fifteen to nineteen nationalities - and this school is not what it should be, but it will be. We are working for it. Help us - you understand? I am not asking you for money. That is easy stuff! (laughter) But join together to create something together.
3rd QUESTION: Would you enlarge on what you mean by saying that the future is now? Is it that the seeds of the future - seeds underlined - of the future are contained in the present? Or that the future already fully exists on a different time scale?
Would you enlarge on what you mean by saying that the future is now? Is it that the seeds - underlined - of the future are contained in the present? Or that the future already fully exists on a different time scale?
We certainly vary our questions, don't we! This is a very complicated, like all human problems, question. Apart from scientific fiction and the theories which the scientists have about time as a series of movements and so on, apart from the demand that the future be comfortable, safe and happy and all the rest of it, what is time? Can we go into this together? Together. Not just I speak, the speaker says something and you agree and throw it out. This requires really very serious enquiry.
What is time? You can see time as a movement from point to point - right? To go from here to your house, to your home, there is a distance to be covered which will take time. That's obvious. And also time is the whole movement of the past - right? - in which is implied all the traditions, accumulated traditions handed down from one generation to another - their knowledge, their books, how to play the violin and so on, the whole movement of this enormous past is there, of which we are - right? We are the past. The past being memories; you are the whole movement of memory now. Right? That's a fact. So you are a bundle of memories, whether you like it or not, that is a fact. Without those memories, pleasant, unpleasant, remarkable, satisfying, fulfilling, all those memories are in the present. And without those memories you would not exist. You may exist as a vegetable - no, probably trees have their own way of responding, we won't go into that. So you are - we are, each one of us, memories. Which is, the whole process of accumulation of knowledge, responses, reactions, judgements, condemnation, acceptance, and so on, this whole process which has brought about, not only biologically, subjectively, is what we are now. We are after forty, fifty thousand years, all those centuries, that vast sense of time, is now. Because you are that. That is clear, isn't it? And that is the future if there is no break. That's simple, surely.
A very simple example: tribalism has existed from the beginning of time. I belong to that tribe. It still exists in Africa, and which exists in every country, glorified as nationalism. It is still tribalism. Right? And that tribalism is dividing people, holding on to one's beliefs and all the rest of it. So that is the whole accumulation of a group, or a tribe, or a nation, a community, is the past. Right sirs? And if you consider after fifty thousand years of human existence on this marvellous earth we are about the same - right? Psychologically, subjectively, inwardly, we are still very, very, very primitive. You may pick up a telephone and talk to the other end of the world but what you say is still rather primitive. (laughter) Either it is business, or cursing somebody, or talking to somebody and saying, 'Darling, how are you?' It is the same process that has been going on, much more difficult in past centuries, now it can be done in a second. So the past is now, is what we are, and what we are after forty thousand years - you understand? How extraordinarily time has not changed us - right? Be honest to oneself. We have made so-called progress technologically. Immense progress, incredible but inwardly we are somewhat very, very little, on the frills perhaps, at the core we are barbarous, primitive - right? Killing each other, all the rest of it.
So time - please listen - time has not changed us. Right? Do we see this? So evolution has not changed the psyche. On the contrary it is making it more and more strong. The psyche being the whole accumulation of memories - racial, national, tribal, religious divisions. The ancient Sumerians, the ancient Hindus - they never called them Hindus, but it doesn't matter - and the Egyptians and from those forty, fifty thousand years we are still, after evolving, we are still primitive. Time is going on. Time is a movement. So the future is what we are now - right? We will have wars, now we know how to kill millions of people at one drop, we hate each other, we compete with each other, we are angry with each other, seeking sexual fulfilment, or different forms of fulfilment. They have done this - you understand? - and we are still at it. And the future is still what we are now. So the future is now, not the seeds of it, the actuality of it. So is it possible to radically change all that? Not allowing time at all - you understand? You understand my question? Time has not changed us, evolution has not changed us, different organisations have not changed us, different religions have not changed us, suffering has not changed us. And we said time will help us to change. I am coming to that, sirs. Give me a little time! (laughter) A little time!
So we are saying, if one looks to time, that is tomorrow, to bring about a change then it is futile hope - right? That's clear. Therefore you have to enquire: what is change? Is change in terms of the future? Is change something from that which is to something else? Please go into it, don't... I am this, I will be that. I will be that means future, brought about by desire which is the essence of will, desire is the essence of will. So you say, 'I will do something later', 'I will change gradually' - right? 'I hope to become noble', 'I will get rid of my opinions' - you follow? All that implies that you are looking to time to change. So we are asking what is change in which there is no time? Do you understand, sirs? The moment I say to myself, 'I will change', you have already admitted the future. Right? 'I will become', 'I will change', 'I will flower', 'I will love' - all that admits time and time has not changed us - right? Because we have evolved for fifty thousand years and that vast space and experience has no deep effect on us at all.
So is there a totally - please understand this - totally ending of something which has been, now. You understand what I'm saying? Wait! Suppose I am greedy - you know what that means, of course everybody does - greedy, envious - perhaps envy is a better word. I am envious. I can rationalise it, say it is natural, it is cultural, it is part of commercial process of gaining and losing - production, and all that stuff. So I can say, 'I am greedy', and man has been greedy from the beginning of time - right? And time has not changed me at all. Because through greed we have created this appalling society, both commercially and through envy, which is comparison, we have destroyed each other. This is a fact. And can that envy end instantly, not 'I will, gradually' - you understand my question? Have I made the question clear? Is there an ending - ending - and not a continuity? A continuity implies time - right? Oh, come on, sirs.
So can one not allow time at all to enter into the world of change? That change means ending. Ending not knowing what will happen because what might happen is still hope, time and so on. Is it possible to end envy instantly, completely, so that it never exists any more? Yes, sir! That's why it is very important to understand the nature of time. Time is a movement, like thought. And time is necessary to learn a language, to acquire a skill, time is necessary to go to the moon, time is necessary to put a warship together, or a dynamo, or a motor. But psychologically, subjectively, if we think in terms of time and change there will be never change. See what is happening. You have had United Nations at one time - no, League of Nations, now you have United Nations, another blow up will be another kind of... another United Nations. But the same process - you understand? Reorganising the same misery in different forms.
So is it possible not to have tomorrow? To look at life, to live with that life which has no tomorrow at all.
May I go on to the next question? You see that implies enormous things. You are not really understanding this thing: time. A drum is tuned carefully, and because it is tuned, because inwardly, inside it is empty, and when you strike on it it gives the right note. And to have that inward quality of nothingness but highly sensitive, then you have something extraordinary. The speaker is not enticing you into something. He is not persuading you, rewarding. There is no reward or punishment.
4th QUESTION: Why do you not find value in prayer?
Why do you not find value in prayer? Do you find value in prayer? Would you kindly... would you. I don't know why you accuse me of not having any value in prayer. Why do we pray? You know that there are a whole group of community, or monks who are perpetually praying. One group finishes praying, another group takes it up. And we also pray when we are in difficulties. When there is a great crisis in our life we want to pray, or say, 'Somebody help there, please'. You know that joke of a man hanging onto a cliff? He says, 'Please, God, save me' and God says, 'Have faith and jump!' (laughter) And the man who is hanging on to the cliff, he says, 'Isn't there somebody above that still?' (laughter) Sorry!
Why do we pray at all? This has been going on, praying, in the Christian world, in the Islamic world, and in a different way in the Buddhist and Hindu world, praying. To whom are you praying? To an outside agency? Outside agency being God, or the Lord. The Lord according to different countries and cultures and traditions. The Almighty of different concepts? To whom are we praying? And why do we pray? Does prayer answer our difficulties? In some cases when you are praying, not merely using certain words, chanting and so on, but praying silently without word, you understand what I am saying? - perhaps you might have an answer because your whole brain has become quiet. And in that quietness, in that stillness of the brain without the movement of thought, you find an answer. And then you say 'I must pray more and more'. Which is, you have achieved, you have gathered some experience and that experience has brought certain result and you like those results and so you keep this going! Then it becomes a habit and you have lost everything.
Why do we pray at all? We are not condemning or saying it is all right, but we are questioning the whole thing, with certain scepticism, with certain quality of brain that says give me the reason, not just emotional reactions. And one is in great difficulties. There is great crisis, pain, sorrow - insoluble. And at that moment we look to somebody to help. And the somebody is not my husband, wife, children, and my neighbour, or somebody across the street, because I know them too well, they are also in the same position as myself. And so I turn to some outside agency. Outside agency means not something that is organised by thought: God, Christ and in India it is another deity and so on. I pray on my knees because I can't solve this problem at all. I cannot resolve my sorrow, my pain, my loneliness, and so I gradually begin to depend on something externally. Either it is the doctor, psychiatrist or God. They are all the same, the moment I want to be helped. One may call saintly prayer, the other, he says, 'Well, that's mundane' - you pay ten pounds and you get, you know what happens. I don't have to go into all that. So they are both the same, all the same. So why do I do this? Because I want to be helped. I am not able to solve the problem. Or I think I am not able to solve the problem. It is very painful, devastating, it disturbs my whole life and I want someone to calm my being, to help me to overcome this. And this has been done for forty, fifty and more thousands years. It was the thunder, lightening before, then it was the worship of trees, then it is now the worship of symbols and images. Not much difference.
So I have to ask: why do I want help? Is it not possible - it may sound rather cruel, but it is not, the person who is always asking for help becomes weaker and weaker and weaker, duller. Then he becomes - he then becomes utterly dependent on something, either on drugs, or on people, or on ideals, ultimately his concept of God. Whether it is a drug or God it is still along the same lines because you want to be helped.
Now we are asking ourselves: is it possible for me to solve my own problems without a single aid from another? Which requires a great deal of stamina, energy, to go and say, 'Now this problem of envy, what is envy, it is always comparison, and a little more than comparison'. The craving, the want. And can that end without time? Then I don't have to pray. Then the person who is like that is totally free from all contamination of thought. So it requires the understanding of fear to be able to stand completely on your feet. And that is now slowly being denied. Drugs, cocaine, heroin and all that is spreading in the world. We are bored with life and we want substitutions for life. And so prayer is your own desire to achieve something which will be most gratifying. An easy way to live without any understanding. It is much more complicated than merely the statements of the speaker. You see we are all so petty, small-minded. And if we could step out of that - not tomorrow, now - then life is something that is endless, immense.
It is now ten to one. Ah, here is a good question!
5th QUESTION: When you are no longer physically with us (laughter) - tant pis! - what are those of us who understand your message, even if only intellectually, to do? Do we continue working on ourselves and forget the rest of the world? Or try to spread your teachings as we see it?
When you are no longer physically with us - why add 'physically'? (laughter)- among us what are those of us who understand your message, even if only intellectually, to do? Do we continue working on ourselves and forget the rest of the world? Or try to spread your teachings as we see it?
(laughter) Need I answer this question? (laughter)
Sir, it is your message, not mine. It is your book, not mine. If the way you live is the message, if you live in the way we are talking about, timelessly, that's - your very living is the light. That doesn't depend on anybody. K - that's one fact in life, we are all going to die. That is an absolute, irrevocable fact. And the future is now, death is now. You understand? That is, the ending is now, not in ten years time, or fifty years time. And if one lives that way your very living is the message. It is not K's message, it is yours. Then your life is spreading. The very living, the way you live, you then spread that which you are living. Not spread that which someone else has said. You understand? So very, very simple, this. Beauty is yours, not somebody else's. We had better stop now.
May I get up?