May I talk first, for about half an hour or so, then will you be good enough to discuss, or ask questions. Will that be all right? Yes? No? I don't know whether you are shaking your head as yes or no. Shall we talk seriously? Why human beings throughout the world after a million years of long duration called evolution are still so primitive. They are violent, envious, always ready to kill somebody, either in the name of God or peace or for their own country or king and so on. Why have human beings remained after this many, many millennia so extraordinarily barbarous, so very dependent on some outward help, asking help from another, for a good leader politically, or religiously and so on. I wonder if one realises what human beings have become. And there is the genetic engineering, if you have heard about it, which is to try to transform human beings genetically, called engineering. And also the computer is taking over all the things, almost all the things that human beings can do, except perhaps look at the stars or see the light on the river, or the beauty of sunlight on a leaf, probably the computers can't do all that. And technologically we have advanced extraordinarily, limitless, but psychologically, inwardly, we are still very primitive, barbarous, ready to hurt each other, so self-centred, self-concerned and so on. Surely this must be a very serious question, if you are at all asking yourself this question. That is, why human beings, you, and millions and millions of people in the world, have remained so extraordinarily narrow-minded, petty, superstitious and ready to hurt others in their own self-interest

These are all facts and is it possible for human beings, for you and for the speaker, for all of us as human beings to change radically, not according to a pattern or a system or some philosophical concept, but actually change radically, no longer be primitive, barbarous, petty, self-interest. That self-interest expresses itself in so many crude and very, very subtle ways, which most of us know if we are aware. And one asks, I am asking for you whether it is possible for human beings to change. Or must they suffer much more, go through all kinds of anxiety, fears, depressions, loneliness, sorrow, forcing them circumstantially, economically, socially, forcing them to change? Do you understand my question? Is it inevitable that we must go through this terrible process of great anxiety, uncertainty, confusion, misery, occasional spurts of joy and pleasure and then bear the burden of enormous sorrow? Is there - not a way, but to see all this which is actually happening around us, to see all this and use our own energy, our own clarity, however little it is, to transform radically, psychologically ourselves. This is a question that has been tormenting most human beings, who are serious people, not just those who merely accept and live traditionally and rather a narrow-minded way of life. This has been a very, very serious question from the most ancient time to the present day, man is asking, seeing tremendous over-population, especially in this country, impending wars, national, religious divisions. And man after these many, many millions of years, as scientists say man as Homo-sapiens has existed between forty and fifty thousand years, is it possible for us to change?

The word 'change' implies time: I am this, but I will be that. That is generally the understanding of that word 'change', transform, bring about an ending to something like envy or violence. This country has talked a great deal about non-violence, but probably this country too, because they have talked so much about it, they are very violent people. So is ending violence - not becoming non-violent, which is non-exisistant - but ending violence will that take time? Do you understand my question? I am violent and will I gradually become or end all the complex content of violence. Violence is not merely physical violence, violence is also a form of imitation, conformity, comparison. I won't go into all that, you can think it out for yourself more deeply

Does ending take time? That's the question. Do you understand? Suppose I am violent - please look at yourself and consider, not merely listening to a lot of words but actually seeing yourself as violent human beings - can that violence end? Will that ending take time? Do you understand my question? I am talking to you. Will you take time to end violence? So you have to enquire, if you are serious, what is the nature of time? Not only by the clock on the wall but also time as the past, the present and the future. That is the whole movement of time, a series of incidents, a series of movements, a series of continuation of a particular quality. All that implies time. May I go on with it? Are you interested in this? If you are not it's up to you

So time is a factor, very important in our life. Time to get up, go to the office, or to do work, to labour and time to get up and time to go to sleep. We live by time. We began this talk at half past nine and we will end it at half past ten, or a little longer. So time is an extraordinary factor in our life, not only biologically, physically but also psychologically, inwardly. I am this, I will become that; I have not understood, but I will understand. I meditate, one meditates in order to achieve enlightenment or some fanciful imaginative concept. So time not only chronologically, sun-rise and the sun-set, the evening star and the new moon and also the concept, the feeling of psychological evolution, I am evolving, I am growing, I am understanding, I will one day achieve, fulfil, all that implies time. Right? That is, the past, all the memories, all the experiences, stored up in the brain as memory, which is the background for all of us, that time, the past, goes through the present - right? - modifies itself, goes through the present and becomes the future. Right? Is this clear? It's fairly simple, don't complicate it. The past going though the present modifying itself, slightly changing itself and the future. So all time is contained in the now. Right? Are we meeting on this point? That is, I am what I have been, I am all my memories, all my imagination, all my theories, all my fears, that's all the past and that past is me. There is no me without the past, the 'me', the self, is a bundle of memories. Right? Even though I may imagine I am God, it is still memory. And that memory goes through the present, modifies itself, changes slightly and becomes the future. That is, the future is now. Because I am still - the past is still moving. Do you understand? So the future is now. Because I am to-day dull, if I don't change that dullness to-day I'll be dull tomorrow. That's fairly simple. So tomorrow is now. I wonder if you understand this. Right, sir? Good! At least somebody has understood. So please look at it first, consider it, look at it, forgetting all your theories about the past, forgetting or putting aside all your tradition, all your superstitions and so on, look at the fact. The fact is what you are today is what you have been yesterday; all your anxieties, fears, pleasures, pains, loneliness, despairs, anxieties, sorrow, all that is your past, you are that. And you, the past, which is the memory, goes through the present, the present challenge, present incidents, and so on, that past modifies itself and goes to the future. And unless you radically change now the future, tomorrow is what you are now. That's clear, I am not going to go on about it

So, if one sees this very, very clearly, not merely verbally, or merely intellectually or verbally, then you ask yourself is it possible to change instantly. Because our brains are conditioned to the concept of gradualness. Right? Because you have planted a small tree and it will take time to grow, become the enormous tree of a hundred years or two hundred years, or five thousand years; as there is a tree, a redwood in California, it's over five thousand years old, but it began on a small scale, it took a long time to grow. We have that idea. We are conditioned, our brain is conditioned to gradualness; I will gradually become enlightened. That sounds so silly. I will gradually understand life. And also you say I will gradually learn a new language. There, time is necessary because I don't know French or German or Russian or other language, there you have to spend a great deal of time, perhaps three months or four months or even less to learn a language. Or to become a first-class master carpenter, there, you have to study the wood, the instrument, the grain and so on and so on and so on. Now the same concept, the same feeling is moved to the psychological world. I will gradually change. So our brains are conditioned to gradualness. Right? And if you accept that we gradually change, you see how false it is, because we have lived on this earth for a million years and that's a tremendous long duration of time. And during that duration we have hardly changed at all, except perhaps biologically. But psychologically gradualness has not changed us. Yes? Please, one has first to be logical, not superstitious, not accept some theory. But one has to be very sane, rational, logical, first and then you can discard logic and go much further, but one has to be logical first. And logic, reason puts aside all theories, all hypothesis

So man, having this concept of gradualness, both psychologically and physically, cannot understand or is unwilling to see change must be instant, and not in the future. Right? Now is that possible? Suppose I am violent - violence means anger, jealousy, hate, trying to become what you are not, trying to escape from yourself, all those qualities, all those movements is a form of violence. Either you can see the fact, add to it more or discard it but human beings both psychologically and physically react quickly to an insult, to a flattery and so on. So there is this violence. I am violent, suppose, and can I end that violence instantly and never let it come back again? Do you understand my question? Do you see the logic of what I have said? That is, time does not change us. To depend on time is a futile business. So we are asking, I am asking, I am violent, and to become non-violent is absolutely silly. This is what you all believe in. Look at it logically, clearly. If you are violent now, you have a concept or an ideal of non-violence. The ideal is in the future. Right? It's somewhere up there. And you say to yourself I will gradually come to that point. But before you come to that point you are always sowing the seeds of violence, perhaps less and less and less but it is still violence. I don't know if you understand all this

So I am asking myself, can this violence in me end completely, never to come back again? Are you asking this question? Will you ask that question of yourself? Cause time is not going to change you. So what will end this violence instantly? What happens to a brain, to your brain when you see the logic of this: that time does not change you under any circumstance? That is logical. Because you have been on this earth for millions and millions of years and you have not changed radically. So time has no value when you think about change. So when you realise time has no value at all, in psychological revolution, then what takes place? Have you followed this? Are you all asleep?

Questioner: I have understood violence now.

Krishnamurti: You have understood violence now. Violence to hurt another, hate another, compete with another, cruel, cruel words, cruel gestures, conformity is a form of violence, comparison, I am this but I will be like you; all those are forms of violence and you see that. Right? You are aware of the nature, and the quality, the substance of violence. And when you are aware of that - right? - in that awareness what takes place? Will you give attention, will there be attention to this fact of violence, attention, not analysis, not theoretical explanation or some hypothesis on which you base your reason, but actually see for yourself the nature of violence, the substance, the quality, the utter futility of the violence, then there is whole attention to violence. Right?

Q: Violence that is happening now, you mean conflict, animosity.

K: Sir, conflict, animosity and all those words indicate a form of violence. We are asking can that violence end now, completely cease to have any recognition or any feeling of violence? And that can only happen if there is tremendous attention to the quality and the substance, the nature of violence. Attention. Attention is like a flame, it burns away that which is in the light of attention, in the flame of attention. You understand? I'll show it to you, sir. It's nothing mysterious about this

If I may ask, most respectfully, are you listening to what the speaker is saying, listening, not only with the hearing of the ear but also behind the words, you are paying attention to what he is saying - are you? Or you listen for a couple of seconds and then your mind goes off somewhere else, your thought goes off somewhere else. Are you actually listening? Do you listen to anything? Do you listen to your wife and husband, to your friend or you say, yes, I know all about it? Do you ever listen to anybody, pay complete attention to what another is saying? And when you pay such deep, affectionate, full of attention, then there is real communication. And then the speaker is saying to you: are you listening to what he is saying or you listen for a couple of minutes or a couple of seconds and then you are thinking about something else. I wonder what you do when you listen to somebody. Listening implies a great attention to what somebody else is saying, whether it is your wife or husband or your children; or the twittering of a bird, or to the noise on that bridge as the train goes by. Listen to it, not resist that terrible noise but listen to it. So will you listen so acutely with great attention to what the speaker is saying? Or you are translating what the speaker is saying to your own understanding in your own terms or translate what he is saying, comparing it with what some other book has said? All that indicates total inattention. Whereas you listen in the same way if you pay tremendous attention. Attention is now, it is not in the future. So if you pay great attention it's like a flame that burns away violence, completely. Don't take the word of the speaker, be sceptic, question, ask, explore. Don't accept any authority in spiritual matters, in psychological matters. Then you see for yourself that attention is an extraordinary faculty of the brain, so that that which has been carried on through millions of years is wiped away in a second

And there are other factors in life, not only violence, fear, why most human beings are afraid. And fear breeds all kinds of fantasies, all kinds of theories. And God is one of our creations of man. God is projected by human thought. I know you won't accept it but that doesn't matter

So you have to enquire very carefully, if you are willing, what is thinking, why has man created so many marvellous things through thought, like surgery, medicine, computers, the extraordinary instruments that fly in the air, the aeroplane, the dynamo, the submarine, and the quick communication, all brought about through thought. And what is thinking? I don't know if you have ever asked yourself that question. Are you? No? What's the matter with you? Have you ever enquired, if I may most respectfully ask you, have you ever thought what is thinking, not thinking about something, you may think about your wife, your husband or your pet superstitious god, but what is thinking? From the most unsophisticated, the person who doesn't know how to read, write or do any active, skilful things, he still thinks. Right? And so does a great scientist. They think and you also think. So what is that thinking? You understand my question? What to you is thinking? Because all your acts are based on thinking, all your knowledge, either of the scriptures, science or mathematics and so on, is all based on very careful, disciplined thinking. So what is thinking? Are you interested in all this?

Q: There is perception based on memory. And then you process it. And this process is called thinking.

K: So perception, and the process of perception is thinking.

Q: The process that follows perception.

K: That follows perception - right? What do you mean by perception, sir?

Q: Visualising the ideals of the outer world is perception.

K: Visualising.

Q: The ideals, objects, technique of the outer world.

K: I don't quite follow, sir what you mean. You are saying, if I understand it rightly, sir, perception, the seeing, of that tree and that perception of seeing that tree is called thinking.

Q: Yes, in taking something that exists outside, man perceives and just something is there...

K: Sir, would you say thinking is based on memory?

Q: Memory aids thinking.

K: If you had no memory, would you think?

Q: Ah!

K: If you had no memory, at all.

Q: It’s not possible.

K: Wait sir, wait sir. Oh, yes, it is possible, amnesia. Sir, I am asking sir, I am asking what is thinking? Without memory there is no thought, without knowledge there is no thought, without experience there is no thought, whether that experience is through perception, whether that experience is through an accident in a car, without experience there is no knowledge. And experience is limited, of course, so knowledge is always limited. Right? Look, sirs, this is not an argument between that gentleman and myself, but it is a fact - fact - that without experience there is no knowledge. Look at it. All the scientists in the last two hundred years, have added bit by bit by bit to their knowledge. They never claim complete knowledge, that's impossible because their knowledge is based on experiment, on hypothesis, theories, which they try to prove, if it is not they abandon it and go on adding, adding, adding. And so this additive process is called knowledge. And that which is being added to is always limited. Right? Right, sir? The more, I am adding. So knowledge whether it is in the past, or the present or the future, that knowledge is always limited. Right, sir?

Q: Limited knowledge is coming up all the time.

K: That's memory. Right? So thinking not about something, thinking, very active thinking is the movement of the past as knowledge, memory, and thought. Right, sir? And all our activity is based on thought. Thinking that I must meditate every day is limited. I won't go into the whole question of meditation, we will deal with that tomorrow morning. So thinking is always limited, narrow, small, though it has done the most extraordinary things in the world, though it has done appalling things in the world, tremendous things - killing human beings in the name of God, in the name of whatever it is. And thought has created the idea of God. Sorry, do you like to hear this? All the paraphernalia of a religious guru or religious Catholic hierarchy, look at their garments, their robes, all put together by thought; all their rituals, your rituals too, put together by thought. You may perform them every morning, your puja, but it is still a very small affair. No? You will agree, some of you will agree and carry on. So, thought in relationship, relation between human beings, is most destructive. Would you accept that?

Q: Could you clarify that a bit?

K: Sir, between you and your friend, between you and your wife or husband or a child or between you and the speaker, haven't you an image about the speaker? No? Haven't you an image about your wife? Your girl friend, your boy friend or your husband or wife, haven't you got an image about her? No? If you had no image about the speaker, you wouldn't be here, would you? So in your relationship with another each one creates an image about each other and putting together those images is the movement of thought - right? So relationship is between the two images. No? Oh, for God's sake. And you call that relationship! Sexual exploitation of each other, using each other for their own comfort, for their own desire, for their own etc., etc. And when there is an image about each other, is there love? Is love desire? Is love pleasure? So you have to go into these questions very carefully. And as the speaker has said over and over again one must have this quality of doubt, not only about your own experiences, your own thoughts, your own so-called religious books but also doubt your own experiences, doubt what the speaker is saying so that you are free, independently see, look, observe, not just carry on automatically. So this always requires a great deal of attention to understand the very, very complex structure of the human being

Right. I have talked, now we will ask questions.

Q: I have an image about you because I have read books but you have an image about your audience.

K: Don't you have an image about me, sir?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: You have an image about me. And if I have an image about you, which I have naturally, what happens if I have an image about you and you have an image about me, what takes place?

Q: Nothing takes place.

K: Nothing takes place. And that's our existence. You have an image about the politician, about the guru, about those who represent law, or your wife or your girl friend, whatever it is, you have an image and the relationship is called this communication between the image to image. And that kind of image-building is destructive to relationship. That's all

Q: You were talking about the ending of violence, the ending of fear and you talked about attention as being the great flame, if you are attentive to these things then violence and fear end. And what about the positive aspects of happiness or love? Everybody wants to be happier.

K: Yes sir, do they?

Q: I believe so. But if you talk about attention as being the flame, if you are attentive to that happiness does that happiness possibly disappear?

K: What do you call happiness?

Q: The absence of fear.

K: So can there be happiness where there is conflict? If I am in conflict, as most human beings are, perpetually till they die in conflict, can there be happiness? Of course not sir, that's so obvious. Now can conflict end?

Q: If you are attentive to it.

K: No, wait a minute, sir, before you smash that word 'attention', what is conflict, why do human beings have conflict at all? About meditation, about God, about sex, about going to school - you follow? Everything has become a conflict. Right? Why? Even meditation becomes a conflict. Now I am asking why do human beings live in conflict? Why they have accepted conflict as a way of life? So, one must examine, surely, logically first, what brings conflict in a human being. Is there opposing desires? That's one cause. Wanting this and not wanting that. There is the so-called good and the bad. Right? That is the dualistic principle in man. Right? I think one thing today and the next day I abandon it and pick up another thing. So there is always this conflict exists where we have an idea, a concept, a feeling of duality? Right, sir? Why is there duality? There is sun rising and sun setting, night and day, darkness and light, tall and short, that which is intelligent, that which is not intelligent. Right? Now, you are tall or I am tall, you are short, you are a woman, I am a man. Right? All that is physically obvious and you can't change that, I can't suddenly become ten feet. That is so. But inwardly, psychologically, why do you have duality at all? I say to myself good and evil. Right? What is the relationship between good and evil? I am using the ordinary English language, which is simple words, like the good and the bad, not explore what is bad, what is good, but using those two terms, I am asking is good born out of the bad?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: So is the good relative? Wait. Good is relative. That is the good contains the bad also, relative. Is that so? Enquire, sir, don't hold on to it, enquire, is that so? Does the good contain the bad? If it does, it is not the good. Right? If evil is part of goodness, then it is not good.

Q: Would you say good is the absence of evil?

K: Good is not only the absence, it is totally divorced from the evil. It is not relative. Now, just a minute, what is the fact? I am angry, suppose I am angry, and I call that bad, why do I call anger bad? It's a reaction that comes. Right? But if I say I must not be angry, then there is a conflict, but if I understand anger, go into it, look at it, understand the nature of anger, it's a form of self-protection, a form of quick reaction and so on, if I begin, if I see that anger, the reason of anger, then the anger can end. But if I am all the time fighting not to be angry, it's a conflict. So the conflict exists only when I refuse to see 'what is' and try to become something else. Clear, sir? So, can we see only 'what is' and not imagine 'what should'? I am ugly, that's so. Or I am a very dull person. Not through comparison. You understand? You might be bright, you might be clever, beautiful and all the rest of it and through comparison I say I am dull. But if I don't compare, am I dull? I am what I am. But we are trained, educated to compare, and therefore there is conflict. I see without comparison I am what I am. From there I can move. But if I am all the time comparing, comparing I am creating perpetual conflict. So it is possible to live a life without a single conflict. That requires attention, sanity. Any more questions, sir?

Q: I am part of this ‘what is’ you are talking about, it is like these images we have of people.

K: I beg your pardon?

Q: Part of this what’s happening is the images we have of people and images of each other are formed almost immediately. We come to a new place like Rajghat and we meet people and we start to have images of them and often there’s images of dislike. Now, these images seem to be causing a great deal of conflict in oneself and in the world, as you said.

K: Yes, sir. So what is the world apart from you? Right? What is society apart from you? Is society something that is made by man? Society, you understand, English society, the social structure is put together by man, through his greed, through his envy, through his ambition, through his corruption. And that society is me, you. Society is not something separate from you. Is it? Of course not. Society is what you have made it. And unless you, who are part of society, you who have created society, unless you fundamentally through attention bring about a psychological revolution, mere tinkling with the social structure and all that will not change society. That's a different question

Any more questions, sirs?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Are you asking thought is necessary, isn't it, in certain direction and we live on thought, and our actions are based on thought. Therefore, our life, which means action, all that, is very, very limited. Now, it's not a question of ending thought, you understand? If you end thought who is to end it? The one who ends it is still past of thought. Right? So thought creates not only the image but its own image. So, if you see the truth of that - you understand? - that thought is always limited, any action based on it is limited, then you begin to enquire, enquire not state there is or there is not, you begin to enquire, is there any other instrument which is not contaminated by thought. No, be careful, don't say agreed, be very careful. You understand my question? Is there any other instrument, or if you don't like the word 'instrument', is there any other dimension, any other energy, which is not born of thought? That means you have to see not verbally but actually, feel it in your blood, in your heart that thought is always limited

Q: Is this is part of

K: Wait, I haven't finished, madam, just a minute. Then you have that silent quality of brain which begins to probe and that exploration reveals, if you have gone deeply, far into it, that there is an energy that is not contaminated by thought. That energy is love. Don't, please, this is too complex, don't agree with all this. That energy is intelligence and that intelligence acts, not thought

Q: That...

K: What, sir? I can't hear.

Q: He is saying can violence be reduced. You were saying that there is a lot of violence in the world.

K: Yes sir. Can violence be reduced? But you will still remain violent, won't you? Wouldn't it be still violence? I can reduce, sir, violence, if the politicians will allow it, and the people who are corrupt will allow it, I can live, one can live partially without violence. Right? But that's not the end of violence. Look, they are trying to bring united nations, all the nations be united. Right? Which is impossible, isn't it? How can about fifty nationalities or more be united? They have steeped themselves apart and say let's all get united. It has no meaning

Anything else, sirs?

Q: When I am angry I am not able to look at my anger but when I am able to look at it the anger is not there.

K: Are you different from anger? Are you different from your greed? Are you different from your envy and sorrow and fear? Or you are fear, you are sorrow. Right, sir? You are not different from the quality which you have. Right? Don't agree to this, sir, this is

Q: The fact is that I am anger myself and I am not able to look at it.

K: You are anger at that moment. You are envy at that moment. And so there are many, many moments you are. Right? You are your anger, you are your name, you are your bank account, if unfortunately you have a bank account, you are your family you are your society, you are your god - you are, you invented all this. So, there is no 'you' separate from the anger. It's a fact, obviously. Your reactions are what you are. You may mention 'Oh, I am all that but I am also great atman' and all that kind of stuff but that is also part of thought

Q: When I give attention to this anger, if I am angry, if I go into the substance of this anger, the nature of this anger, it’s sensation, I can say.

K: If you go into the nature of anger and pay attention to anger, not try to escape from anger, not rationalise it but be aware, intensely attentive to that anger, anger disappears, of course. It's so simple, don't complicate it

Q: What is the difference between thinking and thought?

K: What?

Q: What is the difference between thinking and thought?

K: There is no difference, both are thinking.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Slowly, please, slowly.

Q: Tell me what we are.

K: Do you first of all see what you are? Or you are just talking about what you are?

Q: Exactly, we don’t see what we are.

K: Why, why, why don't we see what we are?

Q: We see what we are and escape.

K: Yes, you escape, you escape. Don't escape. See what you are. When you comb your hair, you watch it in the mirror, don't you? And if the mirror is a good mirror if reflects what you look like exactly. Right? So can we look at ourselves as we are, as clearly, without any distortion, see exactly what we are?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: I don't at all - perhaps.

Q: That is a form of violence and you also said that is...

K: Slowly, slowly, we are not going in for a race.

Q: Sir, violence is an escape from what we are.

K: Now, wait a minute. Are you separate from violence? Are you different from violence?

Q: We are in a state of violence. We cannot be different.

K: So you are violence.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: What, what?

Q: Association.

K: Sorry, I can't understand.

Q: She is saying that the human being is not violence, but is associated with violence.

K: Who is it that is associated with violence? I don't know quite what you really are talking about, madam. Would somebody who has understood what she is saying tell me what it's about? Are you saying that violence is a form of association?

Q: What she is saying is that escape from ‘what is’ is violence, according to her.

K: Yes, I would say, yes.

Q: Escaping from ‘what is’ is violence. Escaping from seeing yourself as you are is violence. That’s what she said. She didn’t complete it as to what the question was.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Slowly, slowly. (laughter)

Q: According to...

K: Would you come here? Sit down. You can tell me. Say it loud.

Q: You said violence is escaping from what we are.

K: Yes. Tell that to the audience. Escaping from what we are is a form of violence, I have said.

Q: And then past through future, through present and future.

K: That is time.

Q: Now if we look back

K: Slowly, slowly.

Q: If we look back at our experiences of assassination

K: What?

Q: Experiences of killing, of hatred, jealousy, anger.

K: Yes.

Q: And then we say

K: What?

Q: Looking at the experiences, the past experiences of anger, jealousy, killing

K: Yes, slowly, slowly.

Q: Yes, if we try to escape from these, jealousy, anger and killing, then we develop our future. Do we not?

K: No, I didn't say that. I said, madam, I said we are the past, the past being our experiences, our intentions, our aspirations, our fears, our faith, our belief, all that is memory, is the background. That's the past. Now, slowly, slowly

Q: Now, that is past and you also said past through present, then future.

K: I said the past passing through the present or meeting the present modifies itself - you know modification? - that is slightly, and moving on through the future. So the future is the past modified

Q: Modified past.

K: Future is the modified past. That's right. And that past is in the present. Right? That's what I have said. So the past is in the present, the future is in the present, the present is the totality of time. Right? Right. Now what is the question?

Q: My question is

K: Let her finish the question, sir.

Q: My question is past when modified becomes present then...

K: No, no the past meeting the present then becomes modified. Your Indian tradition which is the past meeting the present challenge of economics, social, you know all that, modifies that tradition and goes on into the future. The future is still the present. Right? Now what is your question?

Q: It is clarified now. Because meeting with the present, this past meeting with the present becomes the future.

K: Meeting the present, modifying itself, becomes future.

Q: That’s clear.

K: Right. It's now ten to eleven. Shall we meet tomorrow, if you want to meet? If you don't want to meet it's all right, you won't disappoint me. If you want to meet tomorrow, we shall meet here

May I get up please?

0 0 vote
Article Rating
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments