Interview, New Delhi, 24 December 1966

Ingram Smith (IS): It has been a long time since you were in Australia, Krishnaji.

Krishnamurti (K): Yes, I don’t remember exactly when I was there. It must be over ten years, isn’t it?

IS: Yes, 1955. You were staying with Spencer English and talking in a hall in Sydney.

K: I don’t remember that, but I remember Mr English’s house on a golf course, I think it was.

IS: That’s right. I believe you used to go walking on it sometimes.

K: Yes, I used to walk a great deal on it. Yes, yes.

IS: And what have…

K: I like walking.

IS: Yes. And what have you been doing during this last, say, a year? In Europe?

K: Oh! I was in Rome. I was there for, I think, a month, and we had several group discussions there with Italians mostly, and we spoke Italian and French and English, so we could understand each other, and also I was in Paris. I was in Paris for nearly a month, and I talked there and then I went to London. No, I am sorry, it was the other way round. I was in London first and then Paris. I talked in London at Friends Hall, which holds about fifteen hundred people or so, and then I came to Paris, talked there, and then I stayed month of June, July and August in Saanen, where we have yearly gathering all from all over the world, and I believe there were thirty-two nationalities.

IS: Really?

K: From all over the world this year, even from Hungary.

IS: Oh!

K: And Romania.

IS: From behind the so-called Iron Curtain.

K: Iron Curtain. And oh, it’s quite, really quite surprising number of people that, from nationalities, number of people that turned up.

IS: And then I believe you went on to America.

K: Yes, I went to America at the end of September where I was invited to talk at the School of Social Research in New York. I was there for nearly three weeks. And then I went on to California and talked at Ojai for about again six talks for three weeks, and then I came back to Rome and rested a little bit and here I am. … I’ve got my whole …

IS: Bringing yourself up to date with this.

K: Up to date, quite right.

IS: Now there are some questions, sir, that I would like to ask you if that is okay.

K: Perfectly all right, sir.

IS: Now, I wonder, do you think it is possible for a man to flower into his uniqueness, his fullness, given the pattern of society?

K: I wonder what you mean, sir, by uniqueness of the individual? Is an individual unique at all? Or he is the result of so many contradictory social, economic, climatic, and nutritional conditioning that he is, as far as one observes, as a human being, there is hardly anything unique; he is really a second-hand human being.

IS: Yes.

K: Because we are the result of so much propaganda—the propaganda of the church, the propaganda of business, the propaganda of politics—that I should think there is hardly anything original, if there was anything as original left in him.

IS: Yes, I understand that now a little.

K: And to actually for him to flower within a limited society—and all societies are bound to be limited—how can anything flower within a very small circle of consciousness? It must explode this narrow limitation and conditioning, and perhaps out of that comes a new flowering of human being.

IS: Well now, the difficulty is that most of us feel these restrictions of society, and there is a widespread revolt, particularly among young people, against the pressures to conform to this pattern. But the revolt is conformist; it’s a mere reaction at the superficial level. Is there any kind of revolt against what one dislikes or what…

K: Sir, I think most people notice, don’t they, that there is throughout the world a certain discontent and revolt.

IS: Yes.

K: And when they do revolt, they are revolting against a pattern, the old Establishment, and so on, so on, so on, and that revolt invariably creates its own pattern—long hair and LSD and unwashed, and permissive sexual laxity and so on, so on, all this. So this revolt, as one observes historically and at present, one can see it always invariably ends up in a pattern, perhaps slightly modified, but repeating the same old thing in a different way.

IS: It is conformist again.

K: Conformist again, like, you see what has happened, like in Russia; after its fifty years or above fifty years, they have had terrific revolution. I don’t know how many millions of people have been killed for an ideal. And gradually they are coming back to the same old hierarchical principles—the high, the middle, and the low. The high want to maintain their part at any cost as the old Establishment has tried before, and the battle is on again between the high and the middle and the low, and again there is going to be the same pattern repeated. So I feel mere revolt is not a solution at all.

IS: Then wherein does the solution lie? Because in the newest nations as well as in the old established nations there is a growth of the centralized power—power to dictate, the power in the communist States, and the democracies, the totalitarian countries, in the governments of both right and left.

K: Which is centralized power.

IS: Yes.

K: Which is really, if one wants to go into it rather deeply—do you, sir? You want to go into that?

IS: Yes, I do.

K: If one wants to go into it rather deeply, not at the political, economic, or the social level only, but much more profoundly, I think man is always seeking power, isn’t he?

IS: Yes.

K: Whether it is the power in the family or power over another or to have absolute power as Hitler or Stalin and Mussolini tried to have, and had, and they created such havoc. So power invariably—I mean to you it’s a rather hackneyed and a moral word—is evil.

IS: Yes.

K: All power. Whether one has it over one’s wife or the wife has over one’s husband, the in it, intrinsically, there is a seed of destructiveness in this power.

IS: Yes, of course.

K: Whether it is the politicians have it or the religious priests have it or the man over the wife, or the wife over the husband, I feel there is, in this search for power, man is really escaping from a deep sense of frustration and fear.

IS: Fear of what?

K: Fear of life, fear of being uncertain, fear of death, fear of non-existence, and the fear which has been instilled in him through the organized religions of belief. Whether it is Christianity or Hinduism or any other organized so-called religious movements, they have always created the sense of apprehension.

IS: Yes.

K: The sense that you have to be saved by some external power symbolized in a human being or in certain ideas, and that naturally has created in man, who is, after all, the result of centuries of development from the animal and is still the animal, this sense of fear has been inculcated, has been sustained.

IS: I understand.

K: By society, by religions, by family. So it’s there. Whether he likes it or not, it is there. And that is always expressing itself.

IS: The sense of power of myself, me, the sense of being.

K: Yes. Me and my family, my country, my leader, my religion as opposed to your religion, as opposed to your political party. So this division of the world into politic, into geographical, political, sovereign States, as religions have divided for themselves—which is another racket—so it goes on.

IS: Yes.

K: All the time this is going on throughout the world, throughout the history. High, middle, and low—all of them fighting with each other.

IS: Yes. In this fighting with each other because we continuously talk of peace…

K: Or talk of war.

IS: Or of war. We continuously gather peace conferences and …

K: Ah, that’s all nonsense. Surely nobody believes in all that. When the politician talks about peace, you don’t believe it. Nobody believes in anything anymore. Man has lost faith in everything. Not the thoughtless man; the man who has observed, read, he doesn’t believe in politicians, in religions, in anything. So when politicians and the people talk about peace, they don’t really mean it. To have peace, actually to have peace, one has to live peacefully. That means one has to live without any nationality, without any religious dogma or belief which separates man and live peacefully, which means no competition, no ambition, no sense of me first and everybody else second. And as that is prevalent and which dominates the world as thought at present, you cannot have peace. And the world is divided between these blocs of power as the Russian and the American and the European, and how can you have peace?

IS: Yes, no possibility. To change this just a little, we are always demanding more leisure, yet only when we are not working is to be entertained, be amused, in some way, some form of escape, almost any kind of distraction will do. Why is there this stimulated demand for entertainment, for distraction?

K: Again, sir, one can answer these questions either superficially or rather answer as a means of exploration. Why—you are asking, aren’t you, sir—why human beings seek different ways of being entertained?

IS: Yes.

K: You say, why?

IS: That’s right.

K: You can see religion throughout the world has become a means of a religious entertainment, if you like to use that word.

IS: Yes, ceremonies.

K: Ceremonies, masses; it’s a kind of stimulation, on one side, the stimulation through a church and the mass which is very beautiful and all the rest of that, and football. You go to the football and you get—I have seen it on television sometimes and you see the madness of all that—and people get terribly excited about it, and they go day after day betting and all that, and the cinemas, the televisions, the books, the music, the art museum, everything, it seems to me, is geared to help man to escape—to escape through amusement, through entertainment, through leisure which will be gradually controlled by the entertaining world, whether it is religious world or a religious organization or the football organization, because man doesn’t want to face his own intrinsic worth, his own essence, his own being first. Therefore he says, ‘For God’s sake, I am nothing, I am frightened of what I am, for God’s sake, help me to run away from myself.’

IS: And is prepared to pay.

K: Prepared to pay, through drink, through LSD, you know that, LSD, through churches, through football, through drink, through sex. He will do anything rather than to face his own despair, his loneliness, the utter boredom of existence, which has no meaning anymore. But it has, but to the average person it has no meaning at all. So he says, ‘Entertain me’, and there are all the people who are willing to exploit his demand.

IS: For a great deal of money.

K: Of course, money is…

IS: There are two problems that are not discussed much in public. That’s because they are a little bit touchy. One of them is old age, and the other one is death. Most of us dread old age and the thought of dying. Is it possible to be free of this fear, which means the basic fear, perhaps?

K: Sir, if we can disregard the theories, the beliefs, the cunning inventions of man which has helped him to escape from the central fact of death, which is, there is the whole of the Asiatic world that believes in reincarnation, there is the whole Western world that believes in resurrection and all different forms of some kind of survival…

IS: Yes.

K: …which are all beliefs. And if one really did believe, actually believed in reincarnation, actually believed in a resurrection, it would mean you would lead a quite a different life now. Because, according to the ideas of reincarnation, the belief, that you will be, you’ll be born next life and you would pay for in next life, what you have done now or do good. So if one really believed that, what is important is how you behave now. And it is the same thing. If you are going to be revived after you die, sit next to God or whatever it is, you have to have the capacity to sit next to somebody whom you consider God.

IS: Yes.

K: So one has to examine this whole question of death and old age, and it is only possible to examine when there is not this fear of death—fear that has been cultivated through, oh, millennia. The ancient Egyptians believed living is only a means to die and so on. Each culture has its own escape. So if we can discard all that, then we can begin to investigate this question of death. Is that what you want to do, sir?

IS: Yes, that’s what I want to do.

K: You are quite sure?

IS: I’m quite sure.

K: All right. You see, I think one has to accept old age.

IS: Certainly.

K: Because one uses the organism, physical organism all the time, wrongly mostly, with great deal of strain. It’s like a perfectly, marvellously running watch or an exquisitely mechanical instrument, and it must run smoothly. And if you put sand in it, it soon wears it out, it doesn’t last more than a day. And with us, to keep the organism functioning properly, first one has to eat rightly.

IS: Yes.

K: One has to have no conflict, physically or inwardly any conflict which is like putting sand in a watch: it’ll stop. And these emotional excitements and all the rest of these are contributory factors for the declining of the mind in old age. That’s one factor.

IS: Yes.

K: The other factor is—which is much more complex—is the understanding of the fact of death. There are two things involved in it: the organism coming to an end, which is, it may last, the scientists may prolong it for another fifty years or more, but it will still come to an end.

IS: Certainly.

K: There is that factor. There is the other factor, the psychological factor, in which time is involved. I don’t know if you want to go into all this, but, we, little bit perhaps go into it. What man is really afraid of is not death as such, but leaving everything that he has known.

IS: Yes.

K: His family, his character, his work, his unfulfilled ambitions, the things that he has accumulated, all the things he has collected, which we can call in one word *known*.

IS: Yes, known.

K: The known.

IS: Yes.

K: Now, most of us don’t want to be free from the known.

IS: No, because we have acquired…

K: Yes. After all, that is what we are: the known. The known is always the past.

IS: Yes.

K: The past is always time, time which is the result of thought which is never new. Thought is never new. Thought can never be free because thought is the response of memory, and memory is accumulated experience, and so on, so on, so on.

IS: Yes.

K: Whether it’s racial and… we won’t go into all that. So there are two problems involved in it. One has to see the fact that the organism coming to an end. That’s a fact, whether you like it or I don’t like it, it is so. Then there is the fact, the psychological fact, that inwardly, inside the skin, we want to go on because that is all we know. Know—all the things that we have accumulated—the tradition, the experience, the knowledge, my house, my work, my ambitions, my frustrations, my miseries. That’s all this vast collection of conscious as well as unconscious which I have gathered, which mind has gathered, which becomes the centre, which I call the ‘me’. And that is the fact, the ending of that ‘me’ is fear. Because I say: ‘What happens if I end the ‘me’? There is nothing left.’ So we invent a future life, or a resurrection, going to heaven, sitting next to God, or whatever it is, and so we keep this. But if you brush aside, as I suggested, all that, there are these two factors: old age which is inevitable; then there is the psychological fact which is the conscious acknowledgement of what I have acquired.

IS: Yes.

K: As knowledge, as work, as the family, as the wife, as the husband, as my house, my children, my work, my position, prestige, power—you know all that, that man has created for himself—that is a psychological fact.

IS: Yes.

K: And he is afraid to lose that. And I say you will understand death when the mind begins to free itself from the known. Not at the end, but every day. Every day to die to *everything* that you have gathered—to all the pleasures. And that of course is much more difficult than to die to something which is unpleasant. Most of us want to die to everything that is unpleasant. But to die to the pleasant, which means to die to something which is pleasurable is to be frightened of not having anything.

IS: Yes, anything.

K: You follow that, sir?

IS: Yes.

K: Because at least I have pleasure. If you deprive me of pleasure, what have I left? So I cling to my pleasure, whether it is pleasure of smoking, sex, or being a great man or a big famous person or this or that, one clings to it. And you know also inwardly that pleasure is always fading. So behind pleasure there is always this fear.

IS: Yes, yes.

K: So to die to the past, to the known, because known is always the past. There is nothing, I can never say, ‘I know.’ Moment I say, ‘I know’, it’s already the past.

IS: Yes. Krishnaji, in relation to this, how does it come about? The thing that man has always tried to be free from is the pain, the agony. He has always tried to get rid of that; he has always tried to retain his pleasure. And the thing he’s got is misery, and the pleasure is fleeting.

K: No, because, sir, the pleasure principle is a very complex principle. I don’t know if you again want to go into it, because you see there is a great difference between joy and pleasure. Pleasure is the product of thought; joy is not. Pleasure is sustained, built up by thought. I have an experience, mind has an experience, and that experience is thought about, and if that experience has certain form of pleasure, delight, amusement, thought begins to think about it and, therefore, sustains that pleasure by thinking about it.

IS: Yes.

K: That’s what most people do when they have sex—sexual demands, sexual pleasures; mind, thought, thinks about it over and over and over again and then that pleasure must be fulfilled. And that becomes pleasure. That is a constant image in the mind. And when one says ‘Die to everything you know’, which means, what have I left? But, you see, if one has really gone into it deeply, what one has left is joy, real joy of living—seeing a beautiful tree, a beautiful face, the movement of water and the bird—living. Not living in conflict, in misery; all that is not living. Then, out of that, if one really dies to all that and death is not something that is prolonged, it comes immediately, and it is over. So if one can die to the past immediately and to do that requires a great deal of attention, a great deal of inquiry, a great deal of inward apprehension—not apprehension in the sense fear, but inward awareness. Then, out of that, there is a different kind of life altogether. Therefore there is no fear of death because you are dying every day to everything that you have gathered. So your mind becomes extraordinarily alert, fresh, young, and if I may use that word which is so laden, *innocent*. It’s only the innocent mind that can live, not this jaded mind.

IS: So we are always looking to authorities one way or another. We are used to look to philosophers and the theologians for answers to our questions and our problems, and now we look to scientists, and if we got enough money, we look to psychiatrists. But have any authorities anything for man?

K: Sir, the word *authority*, the root of that word is surely ‘the author’, ‘the one who originates’. You originate something and I, because I like what you say, I follow what you say. Then you become my authority because, psychologically, I find comfort, pleasure, security in your discovery, in your originality or in your way of thinking and feeling, living. And I like that, I feel that what you say has some importance. Then you become my authority. Then I follow you. And you like being followed. It is not just I follow you only, but you also like being followed. So there we are. You become my leader, and I become your follower. So there is not only the technological authority, which is inevitable, which is necessary, but there is, I set up a psychological authority because I don’t know, I’m lost. And you seem to be so terribly certain about everything. So I say, ‘All right, by Jove, here’s a man who seems to know something psychologically, inwardly’, and I just become your slave. That is how religions have survived. The priests have invented a saviour, God, and all the rest of it. Not that there is no God, but there is no God of any organized religion; that is just a theoretical idea. And ideas are not God anymore than ideas is love. So we’ll come to that later. So we always want to be told what to do, politically, religiously, everybody; the mother tells the child what to do. So this sense of authority, right through the world, darkens the mind. You must have observed what has taken place in this country.

IS: In India?

K: In India. The authority of tradition, the authority of family and you see the politicians say something, and everybody goes gaga over it. You follow? Gaga in the sense they get terribly excited. So to be free of authority is one of the most important things because otherwise we are slaves to propaganda. I do not know, sir, if you have read the other day, or perhaps, you… there was a report by Russian Field Marshall to the Central Committee in which he said that they were teaching, naturally, soldiers through hypnotism.

IS: Oh, I didn’t read it.

K: I read it casually, just like that. I don’t read all these things generally, and I read it. I said, look, I said to myself, ‘I wonder if people understand what this means, what is implied in it?’ They are inculcating into the Russian solider not only Marx, Leninist ideology, but also how to kill and avoid being killed. So through hypnotism they are controlling the mind, which is really propaganda in a most crudest form or the most subtlest form. And we are the result of this enormous propaganda of the churches, of the religions, of the politicians, of the businessman, of the advertisements, of the televisions, of the books, and the radio, and so… And they all say, ‘We know, you don’t. We have experience, we have the data, we have the computers and you have, poor chap, you know nothing about it.’ They don’t put it so brutally, but ‘We have the means to convince you.’ And I just say, ‘All right, sir, you convince me, I’m your sheep.’

IS: Yes.

K: And the brainwashing is going on all the time both sides.

IS: … certainly.

K: The Russians behind the Iron Curtain and the West with their churches, with their organized religion. This, sir, everybody is trying to get hold of man’s mind.

IS: I call it the battle for the mind.

K: That’s right. And so the poor chap is caught. They don’t teach him how to be free, to examine, to investigate, to be intelligent, to question, to doubt. On the contrary religions have said, ‘Don’t doubt; we know.’ And so the communists said, ‘Marx, Lenin theory’, and then finished. That is the ultimate authority about everything, like Mao in China. And it becomes too immature when you go into it. So authority is really the most destructive force in the world. Whether it is exercised by those businessman or the politician or the priest because it destroys the subtleties of the mind. And the mind is extraordinarily capable of being very subtle.

IS: Very quick.

K: Very quick, and you destroy all that. Because a mind who is free from authority is a dangerous mind to society.

IS: Yes. So we cannot be free then so long as we have an idea and act out of that idea.

K: Obviously not.

IS: Where from the idea comes from an outside authority or on its own?

K: Absolutely. Because the moment you act on an idea or a formula, that formula or that idea has been created by thought, whether it is by your own thought or by the thought of another.

IS: So there can be authority inwardly as well as outwardly

K: As well as outwardly.

IS: Yes.

K: So when you follow an ideology, then that ideology is created by thought which is always old. Therefore the ideology is never new. It is something dead that you have resurrected, pulled out of your dead ashes and put it there as some ideal, as a future to be attained. It’s a dead stuff. It’s like in this country they have preached non-violence for forty years, and they are as violent as ever before. So ideologies, it seems to me, are the most absurd escape from the fact of violence. To face violence is important, not escape from it, and go beyond violence.

IS: Sir, then what do you mean by intelligence then in relation to all this? What is the intelligent approach to this?

K: Sir, that is a very difficult word to use and to really go into because…

IS: What is the intelligent approach then, sir?

K: First let’s examine the word, sir.

IS: Right.

K: The word is so misused. And you say, ‘Well, he’s a very intelligent man’ because he is capable or he talks very well or he is cunning, he uses words cunningly and he can put something across. And so you say, ‘By Jove, he is a very intelligent man.’ But he may be the most stupid man in his daily life.

IS: Yes.

K: So intelligence, really doesn’t it mean, to be really intelligent man, a man who does not act in fragments.

IS: Yes.

K: A man who is a businessman is something different in his office, and he is entirely different at home. A scientist, though he may go to the moon, invent, do the most extraordinary things computers and so on, so on, so on, he in his laboratory is very intelligent. And at home he is just like anybody else; he’s nationalistic, competitive, ambitious. So most of us live in fragments. Right? A fragmentary life. Each fragment has its own life, and therefore each fragment is in contradiction with the other. And this contradiction is the very essence of stupidity.

IS: Yes.

K: Right? And therefore we can say that intelligence is not to function in fragments. Intelligence is to function totally, function totally in business, totally as a politician, and so on. Which means you have to take the totality of man, not just as a politician. The totality of a human mind which has lived for over two million years. If one can function that way, that is the highest form of intelligence.

IS: But you are asking for enormous encompassment of…

K: Of course. Otherwise we have lived like this butchering each other for over two million years. And we are still going on butchering because we have still got the animal instinct in us, which is property rights and sexual rights. And the sexual rights we are willing to let go, but not property rights. The property right may be boss of a party, but it’s still the desire for power, position, prestige that makes man function fragmentarily, and therefore he is acting in the most stupid, destructive way.

IS: So then, sir, could we come to: what then is living all about? What is the meaning of living?

K: Right.

IS: Is there any meaning in it at all?

K: Now just a minute, sir. Again, you see, you’re asking questions, sir, if I may, that need a great deal of serious exploration, not just superficial…

IS: Yes, sir.

K: …ten minutes’ radio conversation between two commercials.

IS: I know.

K: So you’re asking, has life any meaning at all?

IS: Right.

K: To put it bluntly.

IS: Yes.

K: The organized religions, right throughout the world, have said there is a meaning. There is a meaning which they have supplied as an idea, as an ideology, or as an act of faith.

IS: Yes.

K: They have supplied it, and as I am like a human being, like ordinary human beings, says, ‘Oh, they know better than I do.’ And they because they have had experience of this and that and the other things, so they supply the significance of life, and I accept it. And the average person accepts it. But nowadays nobody has any faith in anything.

IS: Right.

K: Any intelligent man has no faith. It’s only the old ladies, who are, you know, tradition-bound and all the rest of it. So you discard that. The significance—whether the theologians, the philosophers, the analysts—you brush all that aside.

IS: Yes.

K: And so you have no significance. So your life becomes a despair. So you begin to invent your own significance.

IS: Yes.

K: Instead of significance being put upon you, thrust upon you, you brush aside. And now you begin to invent your own significance, a meaning, a purpose. So I invent mine, and you invent yours, so we begin to come into conflict.

IS: Yes.

K: Which is the same as somebody putting significance on to me.

IS: Yes.

K: So our difficulty is, sir, isn’t it really man is afraid to live a life in which the intellectual, theological significance has no meaning anymore?

IS: Yes.

K: So he says to himself, ‘I don’t want to invent significance for myself because that is equally stupid as the other fellow.’

IS: Yes.

K: So I won’t invent—whether it is the significance of communists in Paris, in France or another latest existentialist or this or that; we brush all that aside. So how does one find out if there is a significance at all? Not my significance or their significance, but if there is significance to life at all.

IS: Yes.

K: Now, to find that out, one must face the actual facts of what one is.

IS: Yes.

K: That is, one is bored by life. The endless conflict, the unending meaningless sorrow…

IS: Yes.

K: …the physical, psychological pains, the ambitions, the competitions, the fear—one has to face all that.

IS: Yes.

K: Be aware of it. Be aware of it without any choice. Just, I mean, moment I introduce choice, the mind then is confused, and only it can choose, you follow?

IS: Yes …

K: When it is confused, it begins to choose. When there is no confusion, it doesn’t choose at all: it sees clearly. So when the mind is aware of the totality of this process which is called living, in which all the things which I just mentioned are included, to understand them, to be aware of them, not to discard, not to suppress them, not to run away from them, to face them, to really go through them. And when one can face them, then, with real attention, one goes beyond them. Then comes the question, then the mind is completely empty of all conflict, ambition, all of the past. Then, out of that, in that emptiness there is silence. Rather, to put it really, that silence *is* emptiness: the two are not separate. And in that state there is something totally new, of a different dimension altogether, nothing mysterious. But it is mysterious as long as you are caught with significance, with your own worries, with your own pains. So to say there is a significance is to assert some another significance. But if one really understands this whole process, the total process of living and comes to this extraordinary void and emptiness, and in that emptiness of silence there is something, a dimension, a quality, a life, a state, which is entirely different, and from there one can act in daily life. It is not you reach that and then live somewhere else. You understand, sir? Live an ordinary stupid life. But rather when one comes to that, then from there act. And then you will see that action is very practical, very normal, very sane and rational. Because it is a life of real honesty in which there is no contradiction, no hypocrisy, there is no sense of being important and all that immature stuff, but there is actual, you are living.

IS: And this takes no time.

K: Obviously not. Because time, sir, again as we said, there is the chronological time by the watch, which must exist if I want to catch a train or have an interview or this or that; there must be time. That chronological time must exist. But what we are talking about is the psychological time which thought has invented. And thought says, ‘No, this is too difficult, let’s go slowly at it. And let me be violent in the meantime, and eventually I’ll be non-violent.’ And which never takes place. So thought can stop and therefore violence stops. And this is an immediate act, not in relation to time at all.