This is the last talk here, for this year at least. We have been talking about, this last week, the necessity to bring about a transformation in the very process of our thinking, and a transformation in the very psyche itself. It has become necessary, as one observes what is happening in the world, outside of us, and inside the skin as it were, that we live in a rather chaotic world, a world that is slowly disintegrating, a world where there is so much violence, brutality, where morality has become immorality, where the collective has almost destroyed the wholeness of man. There is the pollution, over-population and the destruction of the earth, the bomb and all the rest of it that is going on in the world. The intellectual energy, with its tradition, has not been able to solve any of these problems, neither the wars, nor the economic condition, nor the social injustice, the over-population, the division between man and man. The intellectual philosophy, the brains of the very, very clever people, have in no way solved our human daily problem. Nor the tradition of religions, with their divisions, with their beliefs, dogmas, rituals, all the structure of thought in its despair and hope, fear and pleasure has built a religious structure and made god in the image of man. None of these things have resolved any of our problems. On the contrary they are increasing, multiplying. And we have spent a great deal of energy in the solution of these problems: intellectual energy, emotional energy, physical energy. And this energy, with its contradictions, with its conflicts, with its varying purposeful destructive activity has not in any way resolved any of our psychological human problems. I think this is a fact, which nobody can deny.

And if any of us who are serious, and I hope we are serious and this is not a weekend entertainment for you. If we are at all serious, concerned with the transformation of the human mind and heart, we must be concerned, we must be totally dedicated to the resolution of our problems, because the content of our consciousness is the content of the world, though there is a modification and so on, but the consciousness of each one of us is the consciousness of the rest of the world. And if there is a radical change in that consciousness, that consciousness will affect the rest of the world. That is an obvious fact.

So we are concerned, if we are not at all playing with things, with the transformation of the mind, with the content of our consciousness, and to find out if there is a different kind of energy which will, if we can tap that energy, resolve our problems. That is the question which we are going to investigate together this morning. When we use the word 'investigate' we mean that we share this problem together. It is your problem and we have to go into it, we have to find out, each one of us, not according to somebody else, not according to some authority, or some psychologist, or philosopher, find out for ourselves if there is a different kind of energy which might resolve our human problems. The traditional energy, the intellectual energy, which man has expanded throughout the centuries has in no way dissolved our problems. Right? That is clear.

Now we are enquiring into the possibility if there is, or if there is not, a different kind of energy which is non-contradictory in itself, which is not based on the activity of thought with its divisive energy, an energy which is not dependent on environment, on education, on cultural influence. I hope I am making myself clear. Please do give a little attention to this. We are asking if there is a different activity, a different movement, which is not dependent on self-centred activity, the activity and the energy that the self, the 'me', with all its contradiction, creates, is there an energy which is not dependent on environmental conditioning? Is there an energy which has no cause, because cause implies time? And that is what we are going to enquire into.

That is, the energy that man has expanded, intellectual, emotional, traditional energy and the self-centred energy, has not in any way solved our human problems, which are: suffering, fear and all the pain that is involved in the pursuit of pleasure, and all the confusion created by thought in its fragmentary activity. We are asking if there is an energy totally different. That is, we have only used a very small area of the brain and that small area is controlled and shaped by thought; and thought intellectually, emotionally, physically has created a contradictory energy - the 'me' and the you, we and they, what we are and what we should be, the ideal, the perfect prototype and 'what is'. I hope you are following all this. You should, those of you who have heard the last few talks here, should be able, I hope, to follow this together. And I think it is very important to understand that we are working together, that the speaker is not telling you what to do, because the speaker has no authority. Authority has been, in spiritual matters, very destructive because authority implies conformity, fear, obedience, following, acceptance. And when we are investigating together, the implication in that is there is no sense of following, no sense of agreeing or denying, but merely observing, enquiring. Together we are doing this. Therefore when we are together, you and I disappear. When we are doing any work together, the work is important, not you or I. And we are working together to find out if there is a totally different kind of energy, which is not based on a cause that divides the action of the present from the past.

Now this enquiry implies our asking, whether there is an area in the brain which is not contaminated by thought. An area in the brain, or in the mind, which is not the product of evolution. An area of that brain which man, throughout the centuries, has created a culture, and is not touched by that culture. The enquiry into that is meditation. I hope you follow all this. You understand my question, my problem, our problem? From the ancient of times we have used only one area of the brain, and a very small area in which there has been conflict between the good and the bad - you can see that in all the paintings, in all the symbols, in all the activities of man, this conflict between the good and the bad, between 'what is' and 'what should be', between 'what is' and the ideal. That conflict, that area has produced a culture, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and all the rest of it. And by that culture our brain, that area, small area, is conditioned. Right? This is obvious. And can the mind free itself from that conditioning, from that limited area, and move into an area which is not within the area of time, within the area of direction?

You know we are talking about something very, very difficult. This requires a great deal of attention, a great deal of inward learning, which is discipline, it requires the art of learning. Learning is not merely acquiring knowledge, but learning implies a constant movement, freedom from knowledge to learn not more, learn something new. So there must be curiosity, attention, and commitment.

Can the mind within the area of culture, which is the known, can the mind free itself from the known, and enquire or move into an area that is not controlled by time, by causation, by direction? So one has to begin to find out what is time, what is direction and what is it human beings are trying to achieve in the psychological field. Is this clear? What is time, psychologically? There is time chronologically, by the watch: yesterday, today and tomorrow. That is by the watch, it's 24 hours. Psychologically, is there time at all? Time meaning movement, time is movement. Right? I wish you would go with me. And time also implies direction. Psychologically we say that, traditionally we say that 'what is' can only be changed through a gradual process, and that requires time. And the gradual process is in a definite direction. The direction established by the ideal, the prototype, the archetype. To achieve that you must have time as a movement from here to there. And in that area of time we are caught. That is, I am what I am, I must transform that into 'what should be', the ideal, and to do that I need the movement of time. Right? That is simple. And the direction is controlled, shaped by the ideal, by the formula, by the concept which thought has created. We are questioning that altogether. That is, the ideal is created by thought, the thought which says, 'I am this, and I should be that', and then the movement towards that. That is the traditional approach to the transformation of man. Religiously, in every field, this is the movement: I am this, I should be that. To bring about a change from this to that, I need time to achieve the end which thought has directed. So we live always in conflict. Because I am dissatisfied with what I am, or I justify what I am, or rationalise what I am, and conform to a pattern which thought, trying to change what I am, brings about an ideal. Right? So time is a movement in a specific direction, set by thought. Right? And therefore we live always in conflict, because the ideal is fictitious, non-real, but what is real is the fact, what I am, whatever I am. That is so, that is the fact, that is 'what is'. And our tradition says to change that, imitate, conform to the pattern set by the idea and all that. This divisive process of what I am and what I should be is the very action of thought, which in itself is divisive, fragmentary. Right? Thought itself is fragmentary. It has created the British, the French, the Communist, the Socialist, the American, the Indian and all the rest of it. Thought in itself is divisive. It has divided religions, people, human beings, you and I, and so we are always in conflict. And we are trying to solve our problems within that area of time - right? Are we working together, or am I talking to myself?

Now can the mind, which is so conditioned in this tradition, break away from it, and only deal with 'what is', and not with 'what should be'? And to do that you need energy, which we talked about sufficiently in the last few days. And that energy comes and maintains and sustains itself when there is no movement of thought away from 'what is'. Right? 'What is', is violence. Any movement away from that violence is a wastage of energy, the ideal of non-violence. Therefore when there is no wastage of energy then the mind can deal wholly with the fact of violence, and go beyond it.

Now we are saying, we are asking: can the mind, your mind, which is the mind of man, because you are the collective, you are not an individual - individual means indivisible, individual means the whole, non-fragmented, non-broken up, as human beings are - can that mind uncondition itself, not through time and therefore bring about a totally different kind of energy? Are we meeting? Can your mind, which is the result of centuries of time, conditioned by propaganda of religions, by propaganda of nationalities, can that mind with its self-centred activity, uncondition itself, not in the future, but instantly? You understand this problem? The problem, not whether it is possible or not. You understand the problem? My mind, which includes the brain, the whole structure of the human entity, my mind is shaped by the culture in which it has lived in India, shaped by the culture of the west, educated here, conditioned. Can that mind, your mind, which is my mind, can that mind uncondition itself not through the process of time, because then the ideal becomes to uncondition the mind and therefore conflict? Can that mind uncondition itself without the thought of time? You understand this question? Are we moving together? Please, some of us at least.

So time is the observer, who is the past, and the observed is the present. All right? You understand? My mind is conditioned and the observer says, 'I have all these problems and I have not been able to solve them, and I will observe my conditioning, I will be aware of my conditioning and go beyond it.' This is the tradition reacting. Right? So the observer, who is the past, which means he is the essence of time, and that observer is trying to overcome, transcend and go beyond what he observes, which is his conditioning. Now is the observer, who is the past, different from the thing he observes? You understand? Right? The thing he observes is what he sees according to his conditioning - obviously. So he observes with a thought that is the outcome of time. Right? And he is trying to solve the problem through time. But one sees the observer is the observed. Right? I see you don't understand all this.

Look sir, I'll put it very simply. Is violence different from the observer who says, I am violent. Right? Is violence different from the actor who is violent? Surely they are both the same, aren't they? Right? So the observer is the observed. As long as there is a division between the observer and the observed there must be conflict. So this division comes into being when the observer assumes that he is different from the observed. Right? Get a little insight into this and you will see what is implied in it. Now I am asking myself: can my mind uncondition itself, not through gradual process of time, but without the concern of time at all, because time is a factor of conditioning? Let's move away from that a little bit.

We live a life of control. Right? All our life is control - we are educated to control ourselves: our anger, our appetites, our pleasures, everything is 'control yourself'. Control yourself in order to achieve an end. Which is, that end is created by an idea, by thought as an idea. Right? So control in order to be righteous, in order to be virtuous, in order to have freedom. Control your thought in order to meditate - you have been through all this, haven't you? Now who is the controller? Is the controller different from that which he tries to control? And is there a way of living without any control? Please this is a dangerous subject because we all want to live without control, without restraint, do whatever we like to do, which is absurd because you can never do what you want to do.

So we have to enquire into this question very, very seriously because all our life we are educated from childhood to control, to obey, to accept. And that is our tradition. Is there a way of living without any sense of control, neither desire, nor appetites - sexual or otherwise, anger, violence, no control whatsoever? Does this interest you? Which doesn't mean dissipation, which doesn't mean disorder, which in no way implies doing exactly what you want to do - the permissive society in which we live. We have to understand this, because meditation implies freedom from all control. It is only the free mind that can really enquire, not a controlled mind, not a tortured mind, not a mind that is twisted by tradition, by fear, by all the anxiety and so on and so on. I hope you are understanding all this. So we are asking: is it possible to live a life in which there is no shadow of control, which means conflict? Who is the controller? If you understand that principle once, really have an insight into that, the truth of that, then you will see for yourself that the controller is an entity created by thought in its fragmentation, an entity who is part of the fragmentation. Right? And that entity tries to control the other fragments. That entity is still a fragment. Right? So the controller who tries to control his thought, is the thought itself. Therefore the controller is the controlled, therefore there is no division.

Let me put this thing differently. We live in disorder, physically, psychologically and intellectually, we live in total disorder, in confusion, if you have observed yourself - confusion being contradiction, saying one thing, doing something else, thinking something and acting in another way. We live in disorder, in confusion, and order is necessary because the more there is order the more the brain can function effectively. It is only the mind that is in disorder that cannot function properly, objectively - right? - obvious. Like a good machine if it is not functioning properly it is a useless machine. And our life is in disorder - greed, violence, contradiction and so on. Now can order come out of this disorder? Order, not according to the priest, or according to social order which is disorder, which is immoral, can order without conflict - please listen to this - without conflict, without control, not admitting time at all, seeing this disorder in which one lives and out of that, perfect order, which is virtue. You have understood? Can that be brought about? Which means can the mind observe, or be aware of this disorder? Aware, not what to do with disorder, or to transcend disorder but to be choicelessly aware of this disorder. And to be choicelessly aware of this disorder the observer must not interfere with the observation. You understand? The observer who says, this is right, this is wrong, I must choose this, I must not choose that, this should be, this should not be, this is - you follow? The observer who is the past must not interfere with the observation at all.

Do you understand the question? Can you do it? Observe your disorder without the interference, without the movement of thought, which is time, just to observe. And observation implies attention, obviously. And when you are attending totally to disorder, is there disorder? And so order becomes like the highest form of mathematics, which is complete order.

So there is a way of living without a single control, which is to observe without the movement of thought as time and merely to observe without the interference of thought. Go into it, you will see this. What creates time is the division between the observer and the observed. And you have removed this division altogether when there is total attention and awareness. Right? That is, we have said during these talks and previous talks, that unless you establish in your life, daily life, a relationship between each other, man, woman, child and all the rest of it, with the neighbour, whether he is close to you or far away from you, unless we establish a relationship in which the image of you and the image of her or him is non-existent, which we have talked about enough, so that there is a relationship, an actual relationship, not a relationship between two images. That is absolutely necessary. Then order, because order is moral, virtuous; without order you cannot possibly proceed further. Order means a brain that can function effectively, objectively, non-personally. Now having established this, which is order, now we are asking whether the brain, that area, small area which is so controlled, which is so shaped by culture, by time, whether the mind can be free of all that? Which means function in the field of knowledge effectively. Right?

Now we are asking another question, which is: can the mind, can the brain - let me put it differently. Is there a part of the brain which is not touched at all by human endeavour, by human violence, by human hope, desire and all the rest of it? Now how are you going to find this out? You understand my question? I have brought about, not I - the mind has brought about order within that area, within that small area - without that order there is no freedom to enquire. Therefore there must be complete order in there. Order means freedom, obviously, order means security so that there is no disturbance. Now the mind says, 'I know, I have lived here and I see the necessity of order, responsibility in relationship and so on', but the human problems are not solved. There must be a different kind of energy. And the mind says: is there such energy? You are following all this? This is meditation: not sitting quietly, breathing in a certain way, following a system - you understand? - which all the gurus in the world teach you how to meditate, which is all silly nonsense. But to find out if there is an area of the brain where there may be a different kind of energy, and perhaps there may be a state where - not a state - where there may be an area where time doesn't exist, therefore an immeasurable space. How is the mind to find this out, if there is such a thing?

Therefore, first there must be doubt. You understand? Doubt. Doubt is a purifying thing. But also you must know how to hold it on a leash. You understand what I am saying? You must not only doubt but also you must hold it on a leash, otherwise you will doubt everything, which would be too stupid. So doubt is necessary. Whatever you experience - doubt, because your experience is based on your experiencer. The experiencer is the experience. You understand? Therefore the search for more experience becomes silly. Doubt, and the mind must be very clear not to create illusions. You understand? I can imagine that I have got the new kind of energy. You follow? I have achieved the timeless state - which is all tummy rot! Therefore one must be very clear to have no illusion. Now illusion comes into being only when there is a desire to achieve something - psychologically we are talking about. When I desire to achieve god, whatever that god is, that god which I have created out of myself, it is an illusion. So I must understand very clearly this desire, and the drive and the energy that desire has. I desire, living in a shoddy little world, shoddy little life, a life of ugliness, brutality, I desire to have a marvellous, peaceful life; according to my desire I create the illusion that I am living in a marvellous world. And I call that an intuition also. So there must be doubt and no factor of illusion. Do you understand what we are talking about? This is very serious, this isn't a plaything. And all religions have created illusions, because religions are the product of our desire, exploited by the priests, with all their business.

So: then to come upon that energy, if there is such energy, if there is such an immeasurable state, thought must be absolutely quiet. Do you understand? Without control. Is that possible? Do you understand sir? Our thought is endlessly chattering, our thought is always in action. I want to find out if there is that state, all right I'll doubt, I'll have no illusion, I will live a life of order because that other state may be marvellous, therefore I must have it. It is chattering, endlessly. Can that chatter come to an end without any control, without any suppression because any form of suppression, control, distorts the full movement of a brain? Every form of distortion must come to an end, otherwise the brain ends up in a neurotic action of security. So I am asking myself and you, whether the mind can be absolutely still? That means can time have a stop, can thought come to an end but only function where it is necessary, which is in the field of the known - the technological world, how to drive a car, when I speak English or French, or whatever it is, that is the field of the known? Otherwise it has no place. But my mind is chattering. I am not this, I must be that, I must be beautiful, or why didn't I do that yesterday, oh I have this and that - you follow? - this endless chattering going on. Can the mind be completely quiet? And they say, all the gurus, all the traditionalists say it can be quiet only when you have the completest of controls, therefore follow the system to control it. That system invented by some bearded gentleman, and you accept it - or unshaven, whatever you like!

Now can the mind - please listen to this - be completely quiet? Because if it is not quiet it cannot move into any other field, it will carry its own momentum into the other - if there is the other, because I am doubting the other all the time, because I don't want to be caught in any illusion which is so easy, so cheap and so vulgar. I have this problem, nobody can answer me - you understand? I am putting this problem to you to find out, to exercise your capacity, your brain, to find out if your mind can be absolutely quiet, which means the ending of time, the ending of thought - without effort, without control, without any form of suppression. Is your mind ever quiet? Not daydreaming, not vacant, but quiet, attentive, aware. Haven't you known it? Haven't you known it happen occasionally when you are not involved in it? Because to see anything, or to hear anything the mind must be quiet, mustn't it? If you are chattering - and I hope you are not now - you are not listening to what is being said. Right? Your very interest in what is being said brings about this quietness of mind that will listen. I am interested in what you are talking about because it affects my life, my ways of living, what I do, what I think, it affects me and I want to listen to you completely, not only verbally but behind the words, not the semantic movement of thought but also behind. I want to find out exactly what you say, not interpret what you say, translate according to my pleasure and vanity what you say. So in my very intensity of listening to you to find out I have to have a quiet mind, don't I? I have not compelled the mind to be quiet; the very attention to listen to you is quietness. I wonder if you get this. And this silence of the mind is necessary. Untrained silence, because trained silence is noise, it is meaningless.

Therefore meditation is not a controlled, directed activity, but it is an activity of no thought - I wonder if you realise all this. Then you will find out for yourself if there is, or if there is not, something which is not nameable, which is not within the field of time. And without finding that out, without coming upon it, without seeing the truth of it or the falseness of it, life becomes a shallow empty thing. You may have perfect order in yourself, you may have no conflict because you have become very alert, watchful but all that becomes utterly superficial without the other.

So meditation, contemplation - not in the Christian sense or in the Asiatic sense - means thought operating only in the field of the known, and thought realising itself that it cannot move into any other field, therefore ending of thought means ending of time. Right.

Do you want to ask any questions about this?

Questioner: Is unfragmented thought insight?

K: Is unfragmented thought insight. I am afraid you have put the question wrongly, haven't you? Thought itself is fragmentation. Thought itself breaks up, in itself is a factor of breaking up - the Hindu, the Muslim, the Christian, the Catholic, the Jew, the Arab, the Communist, the Socialist, and so on. Thought in itself is a movement of fragmentation. Thought cannot have insight. Insight only takes place when the mind is acting as a whole. That is, I listen to you, to the fact, to that statement that time must have a stop, thought must come to an end. I listen to you. How do I listen to you? Do I, by listening to you, draw a conclusion from what you have said? You understand? Draw a conclusion, an abstraction from what you have said and that abstraction is an idea, and I go away, after listening to that statement, and say that idea I agree or disagree with, how am I to do it - I am concerned with the idea and not with the fact of listening to you, understanding what you are saying. Right? So fragmentation takes place when I do not listen to you totally, but draw an abstraction as an idea and follow that idea, which is a fragmentation. So insight is to listen without abstraction, to listen to you wholly. In that attention I see the fact, I see the truth of what you are saying, or the falseness of what you are saying. That is insight. That is understanding.

Q: I feel that I have experienced times when time hasn’t existed but...

K: The gentleman says I've had moments, occasions when time has ceased. And now those moments are a memory and I would like to have some more of that thing which is past. Which is an abstraction from the fact that you have had an occasion when time has ended. Now it has become a memory and you pursue that memory, pursue a dead thing. Now can you - please listen to this - can you, when those occasions in which time came to an end, not carry it over the next day, end it so that your mind is again afresh to find out?

So sir, look, as we said yesterday, if you were here, is love a memory? A thing that you remember which gave pleasure, delight, sexual or otherwise? So we are asking: is love a memory? Is love a desire - a desire according to a past picture, past image and that past image, picture, symbol stimulates and you say 'I love you'? So is love a memory, a stimulation, a thing of time? Or it has nothing to do with time, stimulation or imagination. Go into it, sir, you don't You see we are all second-hand people, we want to be told.

Q: My mind, as soon as I move, it’s not quiet, I mean physically move, I can’t do anything.

K: When I am quiet, the questioner says, it is like sleep and if I move physically that quietness is gone, therefore I must remain absolutely immobile physically. You follow what you are all saying? And sleep, what is the function of sleep - if you are interested in this. If you don't go to bed too late, and drunk or whatever, taking pills and all the rest of it in order to sleep, what is the function of sleep? Have you ever gone into it? And what are dreams? And what is the necessity for dreams? You follow all these things? Do you want me to go into all that?

Audience: Yes.

K: If you are interested in this question of sleep, what is the function of sleep, and what is the function of being awake? Do you understand? The two go together: sleep and keeping awake. Now are you awake now? I know you have your eyes open, you are listening, sitting and not lying down flat or sideways, but are you awake? Partly, aren't you? No? Do enquire into it please, do go into this question. What does it mean to be awake? Does it mean keeping your eyes open, carrying on your traditional activities, following a routine whether in the household or in the office, or walking along in the woods, just to keep going, routine, conforming to a pattern, or accepting and pursuing your desires? What does it mean to keep awake?

Q: To be aware.

K: To learn? To be aware. Are you aware? Or is that an idea? To keep awake implies a mind that is not conforming. So you have to find out whether your mind is conforming, and where is conformity and non conformity. It is like where is co-operation and non-co-operation. You understand? Where do you co-operate and also to know when not to co-operate. So when the mind is conforming to a pattern, to a tradition, saying I am an Englishman, I am a German, I am this, I am that, my country, my god, my belief, that is conformity and such a mind is asleep because that is the easiest way to live, conform - no? Where there is conformity there is security, specially in a country where either Catholicism or Protestantism, or Hinduism or Buddhism or Muslim, becomes very strong, is strong, and therefore you have to conform, otherwise you might not get a job. Go into it.

Is the mind awake when it is frightened, when it is suffering, when it is prejudiced, when it is crammed full of opinions? And such a mind goes to sleep: half awake during the day and almost asleep, like a heavy log. Right? So a mind that is not conforming, that has understood the full meaning of fear and has gone beyond it, and a mind that is in order, is an awakened mind, it is watching, listening, observing, aware, attentive. Right? Such a mind goes to sleep. Then what happens? Go on, sir. When during the day you are awake, following, observing all the unconscious intimations and hints, that is to be awake, isn't it? To see what your unconscious is telling you also, not only the outward activities and responses, stimuli, but also what the unconscious, the inward intimations, the inward asking, demanding, suggesting, to be awake to all that, then such a mind goes to sleep, the body goes to sleep, then what takes place?

Q: It rests.

K: Now just listen to it, listen to it, don't give me a You follow? It rests. What does it mean, rests? Have you ever done it?

Q: Yes.

K: God, sir, this demands tremendous - you follow, sir? Not to conform. I put on trousers, of course I conform. When I go to India I put on some other clothes, that is conformity. So I have to find out what is a mind that is conforming. Tradition? It may have created its own traditions, its own habits, therefore it is conforming to the past habits, all that is involved. Not just, I won't conform.

Q: How do you end all the rubbish that you are so clearly expressing?

K: Will you listen to me now? I will tell you. How do you end all the garbage, rubbish that one has collected. Just listen sir, you asked me. Is one aware of this garbage, or you are merely aware of the word, not the actual fact of the garbage. Go on sir. I hear you tell me that I have got garbage, this weight. Am I listening to the word and therefore recognising through the word the fact? Or am I aware of the fact, not of the word? You see the difference?

Q: No.

K: Oh! Sorry sir. Wait sir, I am explaining.

Q: No, it’s not information which I listen to. It is when I am moving from here to there with this person, that person. It flickers like a flame and you notice it and what can you do then? What do I do then?

K: Sir, you asked me one question sir. I have got all this collection, this garbage, what am I to do to put away all that. Right? I am showing it to you. First are you aware of the actual fact of this garbage, this collection? Wait a minute sir. Are you aware of the word? Or of the fact?

Q: Both.

K: Yes sir. So can you put away the word and watch the fact?

Q: That freaks me out.

K: What does that mean? (Laughter).

Q: It does my head in.

K: I don't understand.

Q: I retreat into words. Sorry.

K: It freaks me out. What does that mean? (Laughter)

Q: It stops me.

K: It stops you. That is new - I don't know freaks me out. (Laughter). No please, sir, please, this is important. Am I hungry because you tell me I am hungry? Or I know I am hungry? When you tell me I am hungry, it is not a fact; but the fact is when I know I am hungry, I am hungry. Surely these two are entirely different things, are they not? So am I aware of what you are telling me? Or the actual fact that I have got a lot of collection of garbage? If I am aware of the fact that I have got this collection of rubbish then I can deal with it, not with the word. But if I am living in words, I can't deal with this. So I must be very clear whether the word is stimulating the fact, or independent of the word the fact is there. Do you follow? Then I can observe the fact. Then how do I observe the fact? Is the rubbish different from me who is looking at it? I have created that rubbish, how can it be different from me? So I am rubbish. Ah, you don't admit that!

Q: Yes.

K: I am rubbish. Therefore I recognise that fact and remain with that fact without any movement of running away from it. Then I have all the energy to go beyond that rubbish. I have explained this ten different times Isn't it time? One o'clock, mon dieu!

Q: Has the speaker found by observing his own body rhythm that intelligence comes into harmony at certain times more easily than others?

K: Have you observed the intelligence of your own body? Of course! Each body has its own intelligence. That is clear. Sir, we started talking about being awake and asleep: not being awake during the day, or for a short period awake and for the rest, asleep during the day, then when we do sleep we have all kinds of intimations from the unconscious, which turns into dreams and so on and so on, so on. Or the unconscious says this is going to happen in the future, be careful - in the form of dreams. Now when the mind, when your whole attention is awake during the day, and all the intimations of the unconscious are revealed as you go along, then when you sleep there is a quietness, the mind then rests, becomes fresh, young, alive, not all the time worried with problems. You understand? So waking is as important as sleeping.