The relationship of experience and thought
Intelligence is the capacity to see the truth that thought is limited
2nd Public Discussion, Ojai, California
April 07, 1977
Krishnamurti: Perhaps there are some new people who have come this morning. So, we are having a dialogue. The word 'dialogue' means putting into words one's thought. And as two friendly people talking over together with their problems, perhaps we could this morning discuss or have a dialogue, conversation, in that spirit, that we are together examining, exploring, investigating our problems. This is not a group therapy. Group therapy implies exposing one's own dirty laundry to another, and I don't think that's worth it. Whereas if we could examine deeply our problems, perhaps we could resolve them this morning and not carry them over year after year till we die. So what shall we talk over together?
Questioner: Krishnaji, I would like to ask you: will thought and experiencing always remain, or appear to be as opposites, or is there an understanding which can bridge this gap together?
K: Yes, sir.
Q: I’d like to if we could talk about violence and cruelty in human beings, and what is the relationship between that, and violence and cruelty in the animal kingdom, and where does that relationship end in terms of inheritance?
K: I don't quite follow your question, sir.
Q: I am asking what is the is there a relationship between cruelty in human beings, violence in human beings and violence in animals, and where does that relationship end between the violence?
K: The first question was: is thought and experience, are they different, and can they be brought together; and the other question is, what is the relationship between human beings and animals, who are both of them violent. Any other?
Q: Yes. I was wondering, we ended our conversation last Tuesday on a particular point, and that you mentioned that after forty five minutes of our discussions that if, say between two loved ones, if one did not understand after that period of time there would be no relationship or love between the loved ones that existed. I just wondered if you would somewhat go over that. I personally I don’t agree with that, in the sense that, say, in your descriptions of a certain particular point in time, as you have talked about the observer and the thing to be observed being one. When you describe a particular point, maybe your discussions are at that particular level, if I may use word ‘level’, whereas, say, the audience here, and trying to understand your philosophies and so forth – it may not necessarily be a philosophy
K: I think I understand your question, sir.
Q: And one other thing – just an observation – it seems to me that during the course of people asking questions and so forth, the question is somewhat irrelevant to what is going on in your discussion. You seem to get at a certain point frustrated, and I just wondered, you know, in your talks about infinite patience, in your books and so forth, there seems to be a paradox or a contradiction there. That’s just an observation. In a sense that people here said they didn’t really understand a lot of what we said on Tuesday, and they were asking questions. Those questions are asked out of misunderstanding and so it may not be to the point for you to tell them maybe they really don’t understand. You know, you just seem to get frustrated.
K: Sir, I don't quite follow your questions which you have asked. I don't quite...
Q: I just wondered... (inaudible)
K: Why I'm frustrated? (Laughter)
Q: Why you are frustrated by the questions that are asked
K: All right, sir. Why are you frustrated by the questions asked by the audience. What else are the questions, sir?
Q: If one really cares about another, what does that imply?
K: If one cares for another, what does that imply.
Q: Could we talk about relationship?
K: Could we talk about relationship.
Q: Krishnaji, just to repeat what I asked, it was thought and experiencing.
K: Thought and experiencing, I understand, sir.
Q: Could you explain how we can have a relationship without fear and jealousy?
K: Can we have relationship with another without jealousies, fears and anxieties, and all the miseries that come in relationship.
Q: Why do we get hurt?
Q: Is there something to be learnt from the experience of having been in a place before, because I have experienced dj vu, when you feel as if you have been through a particular action before, even though now in the present it is all new experience, you feel as if you have been there before. Is there something to be learned from that?
K: Is there something to be learnt from
Q: dj vu.
Q: From the feeling of having been here before.
K: Learnt from having been here before, the feeling of it.
Q: Sir, could we talk over the question of the ‘me’?
K: Could we talk over the question of 'me'. That is enough.
First of all, to answer that question, I am afraid I don't feel frustrated. Perhaps you think I should, but I am not frustrated. So let us drop that question. Should we discuss relationship, what is the significance of relationship, the depth of relationship - should we discuss that or shall we go into this question of thought, what is the relationship of thought to experiencing, and what is experiencing without thought. Should we go into that?
K: Oh. You want to go into the question of experiencing and the relation to thought. Relationship of experiencing and thought. All right. Do you want to go into it very deeply?
K: First of all, let's find out together - and I mean together, we are both of us exploring, we are both of us trying to understand what we are talking about. We are using words which we both understand. I am not speaking in Italian or Russian, but in English. So together we are going to examine this very complex problem. First of all, what is thinking? What does one mean by the word 'thinking'? How does thinking arise? What is the significance of thinking? What is the source of all thought? All thought - both scientific, religious, the thought of every day, the business thought. So we are discussing, talking over together this question of thought. Why has thought played such extraordinary part in human life? Is thought does thought exist without the word? And is the word 'thought' - please, all these are implied in this question. So please, if you will kindly go together in this.
So first we will begin by asking: is there a thinking without word? Is there a thinking without a symbol, an image, a picture? You understand my question? Or the word is the thought. Or does thought bring the word in to action? You see, it is a very complex question this. So we are going to go into this very, very slowly and find out the whole nature and the structure - structure of thought. That's what you want, don't you?
K: At least you want to discuss that, and we will come to relationship presently. So when you when one asks you what is thinking, what is your response to that word? If you observe what is going on, that is, the speaker asks you a question: what is thinking? Your immediate reaction, if you are aware of it, is to search out in your memory the correct answer. Either the accumulated memory through books, the information that you have received by reading psychological books and so on. So, your immediate response to that question; which is, what is thinking? - your brain is tremendously active, looking, asking, searching. Right? And what do you find? May I put it this way: when one is asked a familiar question: what's your name, where do you live, and so on, the response is immediate - why?
Q: Because the process of thinking is just looking out. The thought in your memory bank
K: Yes, sir, but I have asked a question - just a minute, sir. I have asked a question, which is, I have asked you what is your name. Your response is immediate. Right? I am asking you why is it so immediate?
Q: Because you know it.
K: Don't answer, look into - first find out, sir.
Q: I am more concerned with blabbing than investigating – it’s right there.
K: No, sir. I am asking: I ask your name, and your reply very quickly - why? I ask you something, a little more complex; you take time. I ask you something, and your reply is to say, 'I don't know'. So there are these three factors: one, immediate response - what's your name, where's your house, etc., etc - and a little more complex question you take a time, a lag, an interval between the question and the answer; and if there is a question about which you have never thought or investigated, you say, 'I really don't know'. Right? That's clear. So there are these three factors. The one, familiar, quick answer because you have repeated your name a hundred thousand times, you are very familiar with it so the response is quick, there is no time-lag. There is a time-lag if I say, what is the distance between here and Timbuktu? You say, 'By Jove, let me think', and you are calculating. And you say, so much, or, 'I don't know'. Or I ask you a question: do you know if there is god. You don't answer. If you are sane, rational, not committed to any form of belief, then you say, 'I really don't know'. So there are these three things.
Now I ask the question is: what is thinking? You will not be able to reply to it quickly because you haven't thought about it. Now, I ask you the question: what is thinking - your brain is searching - right? - asking, looking, watching, where can I find that out, where is the answer to that? Isn't that what is going on? So you are looking into memory, the bank of memory, and trying to find an answer to it. Have you found it?
K: Have you found an answer for yourself, which must be rational, logical, objective, can stand up against any questioning, which can be doubted, not easily accepted? So, have you found such an answer?
K: So we are asking: what is thinking? Is not thinking the response of memory? Right, sir? Memory as knowledge, as experience, stored up in the brain, in the very cells themselves, and that knowledge, experience, memory, responds. So, the experience, knowledge, the memory, and the response of memory is thinking. Right? Right, sirs?
Q: Yes, yes.
K: No, not don't please accept because this poor chap talks about it. See it for
Q: They are all one and the same aren’t they, sir?
K: I am coming to that. I'm coming to that. That is, the experience, knowledge, memory, thinking - it is a tremendously rapid movement. Right? It's one unit, not separate banks. It is one united movement. Right? So, thinking is based on memory, which is the past. Right? So thinking can never be new. Right?
Q: There are inventions that are new.
K: Invention. No, wait a minute, sir, I won't Wait, don't go off, we will answer that question presently, but first see what is happening to you not to the person who is inventing a new thing - we will go into that. What is happening when you ask this question? Apply it to yourself, please, not to the inventor. So do we see this fact, the nature and the structure of thinking - the structure, like a building. The structure of thinking is the movement of the past as memory. So memory, thought and thinking can never be under any circumstances new. Because it is the response of memory, the past experience, stored up as knowledge, so thought is coming from the past.
Q: Cannot this thinking, this thought or this knowledge and all that, cannot that come together into a new thought, a new realisation, a culmination
K: Thought can never realise anything new, because it is the response of memory, the old. There can be the new only when thought stops.
Q: If it’s new, it’s not thought?
K: No, please, I won't Do first of all let's get this clear. See what we are doing: our whole social, moral, political, religious structure is based on this movement of thought. All our gods, all our churches, all our rituals, all our saviours, everything is based on thought. Right? But, sir, if you say, 'Yes', see the danger of what you are saying. If there is the urge to find the new, totally new, thought must totally come to an end. Which means you must abandon everything that is based on thought, which you won't.
Q: Is it possible to abandon everything?
K: Is this possible. The lady asks, is this possible, to end thought.
Q: Thought can’t end it.
Q: If you answer that question you block yourself; if you answer either way you block yourself.
K: So, without blocking oneself, let's find out. Our relationship with each other - man, woman, husband and wife, boy and girl, and so on, is not that relationship - please listen - based on thought?
Q: What is the capacity (inaudible)
K: What is the capacity of conveying thought.
K: The capacity to combine various images.
Q: That’s right. Is that not...
K: Listen carefully, sir, don't add more to it. What is the capacity - I am not trying to stop you, sir - what is the capacity that combines, that adds, that brings together various images. Right? What do you think it is, the capacity? I have got an image of the country, I have got an image of my wife, I have got an image of my - if I believe - god, I have got an image of my boss. Right? Now what is it that combines, that brings about relationship with each other? Is it not thought itself?
K: Wait a minute, sir. We will go into it differently, you will see it in a minute. We will see each other in two minutes. I am asking what is the relationship between human beings, what is that relationship based on?
K: Feeling. Is there a feeling without thought?
K: (Laughs) You are all so quick! (Laughter) If you did not recognise a feeling would there be a feeling? That is, one is jealous - that's a feeling. Right? Right? And if you did not recognise it, which is, the word 'jealousy' is stored up in memory, representing a particular feeling, and when you use that word 'jealousy' it is recognised. Otherwise it is a feeling. So thought there is no feeling without thought. Please, I don't want to go into This is a very complex thing - we will go into it presently. I am asking you, first of all, what is the relationship of human beings, what is it based on - husband, wife, boyfriend, girl, and so on - what is it based on?
Q: Can there be direct perception as well as thought in a relationship?
K: Can there be direct perception as well as thought in relationship. We are going to find out. I am asking - we are asking each other, what is our relationship based on?
Q: Pain and (inaudible)
Q: The relationship is based on thought.
K: When you say your relationship is based on thought, do you know what are the implications of that?
Q: There is no relationship.
K: No, sir, that's such Can you say that to your wife? 'There is no relationship'. (Laughs) Or to your girlfriend, 'Oh, it's all just thought'. (Laughter) Please go into it together, let's go into it. We are asking what is this relationship based on?
Q: Pain and pleasure.
K: Jesus! (Laughter)
Q: Based on love.
K: Based on love. Is it? If it is based on love then there can be no jealousy. Right? There can be no attachment. Right? There can be no possessiveness, no domination, no sense of belonging to me and belonging to another. So we won't, please, if you will forgive me, we will go into that word, and that's a very complex business, so let's begin very simply. We like to think our relationship is based on love, on goodness, kindness, affection, care, love and all the rest of it. But it is not.
Q: Based on fear?
K: That's a fact, isn't it? Let's look at the facts. So we are asking, what is it based on?
K: Is it based on fear?
Q: Mutual exploitation?
K: I don't know, sir, you are all involved in it, I am not. (Laughter)
Q: Based on your desire
Q: It is based on need.
K: We don't look. Please, sir, look at your wife, find out what your relationship is with her instead of just throwing out words - or your girlfriend. Find out, look at it!
Q: It is based on need, the way we’re raised in our society.
K: Need. Which is what? I need you - for what? Comfort, sex
Q: The laundry.
K: You don't go into this. Are you frightened to go into this?
Q: Yes. (Laughter)
K: Yes, sir!
Q: It is based on our past conditioning.
K: Gee willikins! (Laughter)
Q: Sir, it seems that I don’t really know, but it seems in my experience that there is a force involved, if there are two people they are two, they are opposite, they are male and female, or simply there are two – there is you and there is me, and this force seems to be resolving that condition. It seems to be that there are two, and there is this deep desire, this deep need, which the force is seeking to resolve, to make the two one.
K: Sir, if I may point out most respectfully - I am not really sure I point out respectfully, doesn't matter - may I point out that we are all so full of ideas, conclusions, what we want, we don't examine 'what is'. If I am married and I have a wife, or a girlfriend, what is my relationship to her? On what is it based on? Attraction, physical sensation, sex, and the movement of thought which predominates all this. No? I see you... Let's look at it, sir.
You are married, one is married, or has a girlfriend; what takes place instantly? Do look at it, please, look at it. You are married, you have a girlfriend; what takes place? Look at it. You have an image of her, haven't you? She has an image of you, hasn't she? No? Yes, sir?
K: Now, start from that. You have an image about her, and she has an image about you. How does this image come into being?
Q: It comes into being by the process of memory, which is thought.
K: So you are saying this image-building is based on memory. You said something awful yesterday, you were rude to me, you insulted me, you called me a fool; registered, memory, and the building of image. Right? No?
Q: Can a relationship be fresh every time you see the person?
K: But, sir, that is an idea, a conclusion. First begin with 'what is'.
Q: We see clearly, we see intellectually that all you are saying, that all our relationship is based on memory, ‘what should be’, we need because we think we need and there is no need other than that. We see this all verbally and it’s not in our heart, how does it get
K: Sir, in our heart, to have a relationship in our heart, which means affection, care - you follow? - all that is involved in that. Have we got that? Apparently you can't look frankly at this. One has an image about another, whether it is the wife or the president of this country or the pope - you have an image about each other. That's a fact. Based on previous memory, previous incidents, and stored up in the memory, and the memory, which is image-making - memory is image, the word. Right? That's simple. So my relationship to my wife or girlfriend is based on an image which I have which has been gathering through incidents - sex, pleasure, this pleasure, the memory of sex, all that, then there is the dependence on her - right? - the attachment, the possessiveness, all that is built up through time as memory and image. This is fact. No? No?
K: Contradict, sir, discuss, break it down. If I am wrong, I am wrong - let's find out.
Q: It’s a fact.
Q: It’s true.
K: Right. (Laughter) Then your relationship is between these two images. See the implications of it. Memory, relationship between two people - husband, wife, boy, and all that - is between these two images, which thought has built together through time. It may be one day, or one second, it is already there. When you say something nice to me, it is already in memory, or when you insult me, it is already there. So, when there is relationship between two images, is it relationship?
K: No. Right. If it is not, then what are we talking about?
Q: The minute that you say it: it can’t be love – you’ve said it, and it’s a thought and it is not love.
K: I haven't gone into that yet. I said a relationship between two images put together by thought, in which we are caught. Right? Therefore the constant battle, the struggle between man and woman, girl and boy, whatever it is, husband and wife, the constant conflict, ending up in divorce and all the rest of it. Right, sir? Facts. Now let's move from there. I face the fact. I don't deceive myself, I don't say it's love, it's romance, it is a lovely feeling - wash it all out. The fact is, it's based on this image-making. Right? Now my next question is: can this image-making stop? You understand?
Q: Can there be image-making and not be caught by it?
K: I don't understand the question.
Q: Can you have your cake and eat it too.
K: Can there be image-making and yet not be caught in it.
Q: Can the brain manufacture images without being caught in them?
K: You haven't seen the question. You haven't, sir, you haven't understood the first part of the question: what is thinking; thinking we said is memory, experience, knowledge; memory, stored up in the brain, and it's one movement, not separate movements, it's one movement which is the whole process of thinking. This thinking in relationship has built these images - me and you, we and they, communists, socialists, and all the rest of the world. So, I am asking myself, I see when there is these two images, you have about her and she has about you, I see the tremendous danger in this. You follow? Do you see the great danger in this? - in relationship, in all relationships, whether it is with the neighbour, or neighbour ten thousand miles away. Do you actually see what happens when there is these two images?
Q: We have to live in the now.
K: It is not a question of living in the now, sir, that's a fact. We go away from the fact.
Q: If you were relating without images
K: So you are asking yourself, as long as these two images exist there must be conflict. Right? And the next question is, I see the danger of conflict in human relationship because when there is conflict there is no love, obviously. So we are asking: can this image-making stop?
Q: Who is going to answer the question?
K: Who is going to answer the question. Both of us together. I have put the question, which is, the image-making and the images that we have between, in relationship, and we say can that image-making stop? Not who is to stop it. Please understand this. Not who is to stop it. If you say, 'I will stop it', the 'I' is the product of thought. Right? So thought has created the images, thought says, I'll break it, because it will create another image. Right? So what will bring about an end to the image-making?
Q: Constant thoughtless yoga union.
K: Yoga? Lord love a duck! Sir, the word 'yoga' - I won't go in it, sorry. That's a distraction. When we are talking about something very, very serious, to talk about yoga has no meaning. If you want to discuss yoga we will go into it, but not when you are discussing relationship in which there is conflict. Don't you know conflict, sir, between you and your wife night and day? And can that division which thought has brought about, can that end?
Q: When thought ends.
K: No, sir. No, can that end, the image-making?
Q: We eliminate the use of memory.
Q: Being attentive to the present moment.
K: Yes, present moment, that is to live in the present. Right, sir? Now is it possible to live in the present? What does it mean?
Q: Give your attention to the present.
K: No, what does it mean, sir, to live in the present, actually not theoretically? Actually, daily, when you are in your office, in your home, when you are sleeping with somebody, live in the present - what does it mean?
Q: Not having images.
K: That's a theory!
Q: We don’t know because we don’t know.
K: You really don't know what it means to live in the present, which is to live without time. I won't go into all that. Again we are distracting. So I am asking...
Q: Is there anywhere but the present? How can we live anywhere but the present?
K: How can we live anywhere but in the present. The word 'present', the actual second, the present - sir, you see, I can tell you but it has no meaning when we are discussing this. So can the image-maker, which is thought, and the building of images end? If you
Q: If we still the mind we can end it.
K: If we still the mind we can end it. Now, that is just a supposition - 'if'. 'I wish it would rain' - it doesn't rain. Sir, please, for god's sake, stick to what we are talking - not theories, not conditional responses, which is 'if', 'when', all that. The fact is this. If you will listen, we will go together into this, but you are so full of ideas.
I see the tremendous danger, and I am using the word 'danger' in its full significance. Danger in relationship, having images about her and about him, because that brings about great conflict in life. Right? In that there is violence. Conflict means violence. In that there is no care. You might say, 'Darling, how beautiful you are, here is a ring', but conflict goes on next minute. So you have to find out whether this image-making can end - not through effort, because if you make an effort it is part of, again, conflict. Not through desire, not through a reward, say, 'If I do this, I will get that'. So, what am I to do? Put that question to yourself. What are you to do when you have got these two images, and you are living with another human intimately or not intimately, and you have got these images and therefore conflict - what are you to do?
Q: It started without images. The relationship started without image.
K: It starts without images. What has that got to do with it?
Q: We have to start every day anew.
Q: He’s reading from your book. It sounds very good.
K: That's just a theory again: start every day anew.
Q: Without image.
K: Without the image.
Q: The experience of complete, total and absolute inner silence is the experience of no image.
K: Absolute, total silence.
Q: Inner silence.
K: Inner silence. Have you got it?
Q: Yes, I have.
K: Oh, then the problem is over. You see, your people don't...
Q: Not twenty-four hours a day, but...
K: Not twenty-four hours, but occasionally. (Laughter) The rest of the time, battle.
K: Sir, please, would you kindly listen. I really want to end this. This image-making, I see the tremendous danger in it. So I ask myself, can this end? Because the danger is more important than anything else, you know, like a precipice, when you see the danger of it, you move away from it. When you see a rattler you move away from it.
Q: Is it...
K: One moment. Just listen, sir. So I see one sees the danger of it. Which is, why does thought create these images? Don't please answer it immediately.
K: Go into it, sir, a little bit, before you answer. Go into it a little bit. That is, I am asking why thought, which is, my wife said something to me yesterday, nagged me, bullied me, was happy with me, gave me some comfort, etc., etc., and that has built an image. And that image, I live according to that image; and she does too. And I say to myself: why does thought do this?
K: Don't answer it yet, sir, please, give two minutes to go into it. You can only go into it if you have no ideas about it, if you don't say, 'Well, this is so, that is so', and jump to words. So you have to find out why thought does this.
Q: It seems that
K: Thought does it - I'll have to continue because you The thought does it because in the image it finds security. My wife - the image, and in that I am secure. Wait a minute, sir, just listen to it. My country. Right? Security. My group - security. The group being the image which I have created about the group, the image which I have created about the nation, the image which I have created through religious indoctrination, the image - whether the Christ, the Hindu gods, and all the mess of that business. And so thought creates these images because it finds security in it. Right? Whether that security is in neuroticism, neurotic beliefs, neurotic, or some beautiful fanciful image, it is still the same. So thought finds security, it wants security - why?
Q: It seems to me that thought wants to maintain itself.
K: Yes, go on, sir, a little further, go on, don't stop there.
Q: It starts
K: Sir, don't. You have said something. Investigate, move with it.
Q: It seems to me that thought is impermanent and therefore it seeks
K: Are you sure of what you are saying? Don't theorise about it. Don't - unless you are speaking from fact, everything else is meaningless.
Q: Thought always seeks out security, safety and certainty.
K: Which is what? To be certain, secure, all that means it demands complete inviolable security. Just a minute. Why? Why does thought demand this? My wife. You follow? I possess her, she is mine, she's etc., etc., etc. In that there is great certainty, great security. I have identified myself with her. She has fulfilled what I want. And she does the same - it's a mutual interacting exploitation. Sorry to use an ugly word but it is a fact. So, I say to myself, if thought seeks security, is there security in the image? You understand, sir? I sought security in my wife - the wife or the girl - and I have built an image about her, and in that image there is security for me. But it's an image - you understand? - it's a word, it's a memory, it's such a fragile thing, but yet I hold on to it.
Q: Sir, my thoughts are aware of the passage of time, and I’m afraid it’s going to end, so I seek permanency in the images I create.
K: You seek permanency in anything. Right? So I am asking: why does thought seek it?
K: Look into it, sir. I seek - please just listen, sir - I seek security in the traditional symbol, in the cross, I seek security in that. That cross, the whole structure, the nature and all that lies behind it, rituals, dogma, all that, I find security in that - why? And I know logically, if I am aware at all, logically, it is a product of thought. Right? And yet thought clings to it - why?
K: Is that part of our conditioning? Part of our being conditioned from childhood to believe in that symbol - Rama, Krishna, Christ, you know. Why? If thought finds security in it, and thought looks into it, and say, 'My god, there is no security, it is just an idea!' Right? Which thought has put together. So, when thought clings to an image it is the very essence of neuroticism. Right? I know it is danger and yet I cling to it. Do you see the absurdity of this, sir?
Q: We’re getting into fear then.
K: So, do you actually - no wait a minute - do you actually see the absurdity of it?
Q: Yes, I do.
K: Then it's the end.
Q: Yes, yes.
K: Then you don't create images. Wait, wait. That is, the wife calls me an idiot. Will I listen to her without forming an image? Or the old tradition, habit, conditioning, response says, 'Yes, image-making'. You follow? When she calls me an idiot, no image-making. Is that possible? Or when she flatters me, which is the same thing - the other side of the coin. Now how If you will listen I'll show it to you. Shall we go into it?
K: That is, the wife calls me an idiot because I said, did something which she didn't like, all the rest of it - calls me an idiot. Thought is conditioned, so the immediate response is an image. Right? 'I am not an idiot, I am the...' - there is an image. Now, can I listen to her - please find out, I am going to tell you something - can I listen to her without a response? You understand? Not indifference. Can I listen to her when she says, 'Darling, you are so lovely' - which is another image. Right? Can I listen to her when she calls me an idiot, when she says, 'You are marvellous' - both - you understand? - listen to it without storing it, without registering it. Do you understand my question? You understand, sir? This is very important, do get this a little bit. Which is - do you want to go into all this?
K: The mechanism of the brain is to register. Right? It is registering. And it is so conditioned that it registers immediately - 'Idiot'. Or you say, 'What a marvellous person you are' - it is registered. Now, to stop registering. You understand my question? When she calls me an idiot, not to register, or when you calls me marvellous, not to register. Which doesn't mean I become indifferent, hard, callous. So I can only do that - please listen - I can only not register, that is only possible when I give my complete attention to what she says. When she calls me - please listen - when she calls me an idiot or marvellous person, when I pay complete attention, there is no registering - why? You understand my question? Do it, please, as you are sitting there, do it now. That is, you have got an image about your wife or your girlfriend, or your boyfriend - gosh, this boy and girl, I'm getting bored with this! (Laughter) We go on till we die with this question, boy, girl - you follow? - woman, man. It's so silly! I am pointing out, the image-making is the process of thought. Thought has made this image, therefore there is conflict in that. I see the tremendous danger in conflict, whether between India and Pakistan, or whether Russia - you follow? - tremendous danger because they kill each other. So I ask: can that image-making stop? It can Why does thought bring about these images? It finds security in these images - right? - security, safety, and yet thought knows how absurd it is. Therefore when thought clings to something which is irrational, it is neurotic.
So, I am saying, asking: since the mind the brain is so conditioned, it can't let go and say, 'Well, I won't - finished'. So I am saying, when the wife says, or the man, husband says, or the boy says, and the girl says, 'You are an idiot', not to register. Just see it. Don't say it is possible, it is not possible - find out. Because if you say if it is possible, then you have already gone off; or if you say it is not possible, you have blocked yourself. So, is that possible can that be done? We are going to investigate.
Why does the brain register 'idiot', the word 'idiot' and the word 'beautiful', 'marvellous', 'You are a lovely man' - why? One is an insult, one is a flattery. Because the word 'idiot' has a great deal of significance. Right? The word itself is an insulting word. I have an image about myself, and that image rejects the idea that I am an idiot. You understand? I have not only an image about my wife, my husband, my girl, or whatever it is, and also I have an image about myself. Right, sir? So when you call me an idiot, the image gets hurt. Right? So is it possible to end all image-making, about myself as well as the other? To end totally all image. Don't say no, or yes. So what is the momentum, the energy from which the image-making takes place? You understand what I am talking? No, I am not making myself clear. I will.
Let's begin. As long as there is a centre as the 'me', with my image - right? - that is the centre, that image will always get hurt, or flattered. Right? So as long as there is a centre, it is impossible not to register. Do you get it? Haven't you got an image about yourself? If you are really honest and look at yourself, haven't you got an image about yourself? That you are this, that you are rather ugly, that you are not so clever and I wish you were more beautiful, you know, not so bright, not so intelligent, not so - you have got an image about yourself. So, that image, which is the centre of your being, as long as that image is there it must register. Which means, registering means division, conflict, violence, and all the rest of it. When you see the whole structure of relationship, the whole of it, then the centre becomes unimportant. You are following all this? The centre has no value. Therefore there is no registration at all. I am the speaker is telling, for him, a fact, not just an idea. Because I have lived through this. K, this person, has lived through this - I have been insulted, hurt, brutalised, kicked about, called, 'Oh, marvellous, you are the great teacher' - everything. There is no registration because there is no centre. You understand, sir? Therefore no conflict. You've got this?
So, we began with asking: what is thought and what is experiencing? Right? In the moment of experiencing anything - it doesn't matter - sex, looking at that lovely branch, or the evening sunset, and the delight of an early morning, when there is an experiencing actually, that is the second, in that there is no thought. Then thought comes along and says, 'How marvellous that was'; it holds it. The moment it says, 'How marvellous', it has captured it, and therefore wants to repeat it. Right, sir? So, to look at that sunset, or the morning light on a leaf, the experience of it and ending it, not carry it over. All that demands tremendous attention. And attention is not possible when there is a centre which says, 'I must attend, I must get' - you follow? Right, sir? Right?
What time is it, sir?
Q: Twenty past twelve.
K: Oh. I believe we meet next Tuesday, for this dialogue we are going to talk over together about education.
Q: Sir, the lady would like me to ask: is image part of hurt. Is image and hurt the same thing?
K: The image and the hurt?
Q: Are they the same thing?
K: Of course. The moment you have an image you are going to be flattered or injured.