Scientists Seminar 2, New York City, 30 April 1975
Dr Shainberg: A couple of points: one is, would you please not smoke. There are several people in the room who find it disturbing. And this begins our second meeting; we have two hours; I hope we can go on from where we were yesterday with that kind of focus. We were moving more closely into the subject of thought and its action and the way it works, but I hope we can also get the feeling or begin to realise we’re not talking about anything that is not us. This is the actual action of ourselves that we’ve… working with; we’re not… it’s not yesterday, it’s not tomorrow, it’s today that we’re talking about, our own actions. So it’s open now for… Who would like to begin?
Questioner: I was wondering if we could go a little bit into the question that we started to talk about at the end of the session yesterday — actually, it was at the beginning too, but… — the… is it… can thinking decide when thinking is relevant? I think that may be something that would be useful.
Krishnamurti: I’m afraid I’ve not understood…
DS: Can thinking decide when thinking is relevant?
K: Sir, what is relevancy? When we talk about relevant and irrelevant, not relevant, what do we mean by that word? If I may be a little bit semantic, *reality* means that which you think about — it comes from the Latin word, (inaudible) — that which you think about is real. Therefore, whatever you think about is relevant; whatever we think about is real. I think about that, that’s real. And has truth a reality according to a definition of thinking? I don’t know if I’m making myself clear. Is truth to be thought about? If it is thought about, then it becomes a reality. If truth is not to be thought about, then it has no reality, in the sense, thought has created it. I don’t know if I… Does that explain your question, sir?
Q: In other words, thinking can’t discover truth.
K: Ah… One must go into this whole problem again. What place has knowledge? What place has knowledge, reality and truth? Those are the three… What is knowledge? It is an accumulation of a great many experiences stored up in the brain as memory. I can never say, ‘I know my wife,’ because the moment I know my wife it is a knowledge of my wife, and therefore it’s a remembrance; it is the past. I don’t know if I’m making… That is knowledge: linguistically, technologically, economically and all that. Then reality is what we said, comes from the Latin word… (inaudible), which means that which you think about is real. And truth is something that you cannot think about. So those are the three realities… ah, the three actualities.
Q: How do all those work together?
K: Can they work together? Let’s investigate it, sir; let’s explore it. Can they work together? I lie — that’s a reality. Right? The quality of mind that does not lie, what’s the relationship of those two? I don’t know if I’m…
Q: Truth and false?
K: Ah, no, truth has nothing to do with…
Q: With the reality.
K: …real…
(Pause)
So… we were talking yesterday, when we ended, about action — if I remember rightly. Is there an action which is not based on knowledge, which is not an act thought about, which is an action which is truth? I don’t know if I’m making my… Therefore we have to go into the question: all our action is based on a concept, an idea, an ideology. And our action is the approximation to that idea, ideology, reality, projected by thought. Therefore, all action is non-action in the present. I don’t know if I’m… Is this… am I off the track?
Q: No.
DS: Maybe we could say something about what is the nature of this action that is based on thought.
K: We are coming to that, sir; I’m coming… we are exploring it. That is, I act according to a memory, knowledge, concept, ideal, *what should be*. *What should be*, the ideal, the concept, is in the future, and I act according to that. And when there is a contradiction between the ideal and the act, there is a conflict. Shall I go on?
Q: Yes.
K: And conflict implies violence, conflict implies the action of will, which is resistance. And is there an action which is not conceptual, ideological, a projection by thought: ‘I should be,’ and act according to that? Is there an action which is not based on conclusions? The Hindus — if I may go into it (laughs) — use the word *karma*. I don’t know if you have heard that word; the root meaning of that word is to do. To do; not, ‘I will do,’ or, ‘I have done.’ I don’t know… All right, sir?
So is there an action which is not — please, let… may I go…? — which is not based on time? All action, if it is an ideological action, it must be time… time is involved. And from that you see the whole belief in reincarnation — I don’t if you know… You know the…? The ancient Egyptians believed in it, and all of Asia, practically, believes in it. That is an action which is based on time. ‘I will progress till I reach the supreme, therefore I must have time to incarnate, I must have time in which I can put away all the ugly things that I have accumulated.’ So all action, as we know it, is… has the time-binding quality. Now, is there an action which is not? Because the word *act* means act now, not according to knowledge, reality or an ideal, conceptual. I don’t know if you’re interested in all this.
DS: Oh, I think it’s very pertinent, because the question is: can you ever communicate with an action that is not…?
K: I think we can. We can only communicate action which is not time-binding when we put away the time-binding qualities in action. After all, all analysis is time-binding. May I…? I hope I’m not saying anything wrong.
DS: Please.
K: And therefore, all analysis is a form of paralysing action. And is there an action which is not analytical, which is perceptual action? Not perceive, draw a conclusion, act according to that conclusion.
Q: Could you make… is it possible to make it a little clearer what you really mean by *action*? Because the Zen Buddhists, for instance, talk about that in relationship to physical action. In other words, that physical action must occur without that gap of…
K: No sir; I mean, physical action implies: I am here and I’m going there.
Q: Well, it may imply a movement… Yes, it implies a movement.
K: Yes, time means movement.
Q: Yes.
K: So I am here and I’ve got to go to the hotel, that’s time. I do not know Latin; learn Latin: that requires time. I do not know how to run a computer, that needs time. All that is physical action; learning a method — that implies time.
Q: So action without time would also be action without care?
K: Without care?
Q: Without nervous care, without personal care, wouldn’t it? Without worry.
K: That’s… May I…? Don’t think me rude, sir, but that’s rather trivial, isn’t it? When you’re concerned with an enormous problem, why worry about it? Why worry with personal worries? Personal worries don’t exist when I’m concerned… when the world is burning, I don’t say, ‘My God, how am I going to get my next meal?’ or, ‘Have I a right relationship with my wife?’ or this or that.
Q: That’s what I mean — it is trivial.
K: It is trivial, in relation to what is happening around me.
Q: But I find it hard to get to the stage where what is trivial doesn’t affect me. But I agree that it is trivial.
K: Sir, that involves a problem, which is: can the mind see the whole? The whole being healthy… the word means healthy, sane, and also it means holy — h-o-l-y — the totality, the whole. Can the mind see the whole?
Q: The whole is the same as the truth?
K: Ah, leave… Don’t let’s bring in the truth yet; I mean… (laughs)
(Laughter)
Q: Oh. I just wanted to ask… because you refer to the truth, I wanted to understand — you mean that there is a truth outside of the human mind?
K: No, no, no; not outside, inside, (laughs) up and down; but we said knowledge, that which thought thinks about is reality, and is truth something that thought can think about?
(Pause)
Q: Your question still gets back to: what is the action that is being whole?
K: That’s what… we have to go into that. What is action that is whole? Is it analytical? And if it is analytical, who is the analyser? Is the analyser different from the analysed? So that’s your problem.
Q: Well, if it’s whole, then it’s clearly not analytic and it’s clearly without movement. Right?
K: No, no. So… — no, no — therefore we must put away all analysis. To say that in front of you… (laughs). Forgive me.
(Laughter)
Q: (Inaudible).
DS: I think you even said more, though; the question of: is there any communication with an action that is analysing?
K: I want to go… Sir, no; is it analysing when I see, actually, analysis is a form of inaction? I can analyse, analyse, analyse myself endlessly — or you analyse me endlessly — and at the end of it I’m paralysed; I don’t know what action is.
(Pause)
To answer that question: ‘What is the action of the whole?’ we must discard that which is not whole; not verbally or… discard, finished. Because in analysis, there is implied the analyser and the analysed; and each analysis must be complete, otherwise you carry over [to the] next analysis the knowledge of what you have analysed before. I don’t know if I’m… and therefore, each analysis is incomplete. Am I saying something utterly against all your grain and all your…? And also, analysis implies time. Analysis also implies either an adjustment to a society which is corrupt, or an ideological concept of a society. So in that whole process, inaction; I’m paralysed from all action.
Q: Krishnamurti, shouldn’t I have an idea of a different society seeing that society is absolutely corrupt?
K: No sir. Idea; again sir, you see…? What do you mean by an *idea*? I see what is happening in Vietnam — or has happened — what should I have an idea about? The brutality, the cruelty, the appalling things that have happened in the last twenty years. It’s a fact. Why should I have an idea?
(Pause)
And each… at the end of each war, they say, ‘Oh, this war, forget this war; don’t look back; wait till the next war.’ (Laughs) You know? You know all this. So we are trying to find out what is the action which is whole. Analysis is not. Do you agree…? I mean, do you see the truth of this, sir, not intellectual agreement, the truth of the fact?
Q: How does analysis — as you’re referring to it — differ from inquiry, as we’re doing it?
K: No; are we analysing or observing as we go along? Observing, not analysing.
Q: Observing…
Q: Is observing…?
Q: …inquiring…
Q: Is observing as we go along a whole action?
K: No, wait, wait — observing. Now, how do you observe? How do you observe this war? As an American, as a communist, as a Vietnamese? How do you observe this? This continuous phenomenon of war.
(Pause)
Please, answer my question, sir. Do you observe it as an American?
Q: No, we observe it as a human being.
K: You observe it as a human being? Not as an American, not as a socialist, communist, capitalist and so on — you observe this thing.
Q: Yes.
K: Now, is that thing different from you, who is the observer? So you are that thing. You have created that. So you are responsible for it. Sorry to… (inaudible).
Q: Yes.
K: So as long as I remain a Hindu, a Muslim, a communist (laughs), a socialist, capitalist or an American and so on, I must create war; because war is the expression of ultimate conflict. So where there is division, there must be conflict; in my observation, in my analysis, in my conclusion as a Hindu and a Christian and so on.
Q: How are you using *creation*? What is creation?
K: What?
Q: Creation; you’re saying that…
K: I have bred the war — don’t let’s use the word *creation*; that leads to somewhere else — and so I am contributing to war; when I buy a stamp, I am contributing to war. Shall I not buy a stamp? When I travel, I’m contributing to war; when I buy something I pay extra tax — whether it’s in London or America (laughs) or in India — that tax goes to kill somebody. So what shall I do? Not write a letter, not travel? You know, sir, this is your… Which ultimately paralyses me from all action. So I say, ‘As long as I am Hindu, it’ll create conflict.’ The wider issue, not the little issue. As long as I have a formula, as long as I have a belief, as long as I am conditioned as a Catholic, Protestant, this, that and the other, there must be division and conflict: Arab and the Jew. So I am not a Christian, I am not a Hindu, I am not a communist, I am not… and so on. That is whole action; the negation of something which is totally false is action. I don’t know if you…
Q: The negation of action that is totally what?
K: I don’t know…
Q: You said, ‘The negation of action that is totally…’
DS: False.
K: The negation of an action… negation of division…
Q: Of division…
K: …in me and out of me — you follow, sir? If I remain an Arab, with all my conditioning of Allah or Jesus, whatever it is, and you remain as long as a Christian, there must be division, therefore conflict. So as long as there is division, there is no perception of the whole.
Q: Excuse me; (inaudible) …the division; we’re having with the form of jobs and we would have to use analysis in our jobs…
K: That’s quite a different thing, sir; we went into that yesterday, didn’t we?
Q: But how can we sometimes not use this complete action and be all the time use it, this complete action?
K: Sir, first let’s understand what is incomplete action, not what is complete action. Through negation, come to the positive. So I use… I mean, knowledge is essential in a job; knowledge is a fragment, it’s not whole. I don’t know if I’m…
Q: And I ask you that — to talk about the original experience of the whole — when a child is born, he has a feeling of the whole with the mother, and this experience of the whole is a very damaging experience, it’s a very painful experience.
K: Then it clings to the mother…
Q: Clings to the mother and the aboutism that develops becomes a way of surviving.
K: Yes sir.
Q: And we see so many of our patients caught in the feeling of aboutism; that’s the only way they can survive and preserve themselves. And how do they… how can we work with our patients to re-establish this feeling of whole?
K: Sir, that is… One has to go into the question of what is security.
Q: Security. Good.
K: Are you interested?
Q: Yes, for sure.
Q: Yes.
K: Is there psychological security at all? One needs physical security; the brain cannot function unless it is completely secure; it can function illogically, irrationally if there is no complete security for the brain. This is obvious, sir. So is there security, psychologically, for *me*? Are you…? Do you want to go into all this?
Q: Yes.
Q: Yes.
K: If there is no security psychologically, but only physiologically there must be security, my whole relationship to the world of physical existence undergoes a radical change; because I’m seeking psychological security, then I invest that security in things — I don’t know… — my house, my property, my wife, my ideas, my God, my position, etc., my knowledge and so on. So that brings up the whole question, sir: has the self, the *me*, whatever it… has that self any security? I seek security, psychologically, in my relationship to another; obviously. I find that security in the image or the picture, in the symbol, in the memory I’ve created about that person. No? When anything happens to that person, or there is disturbance in that relationship of security, I become jealous, uncertain, nervous, anxious, neurotic, angry, hateful, all the rest of the business. And then I come to you.
(Laughter)
So I’m questioning whether there is any security, psychologically, for the *me*; which means, what is the *me* to which we give such astonishing importance?
(Pause)
Is it… — may I go on? — that is, self-knowledge; I want to know about myself, and know if myself can have any security in anything: in my house, in my… etc., so the whole gamut of relationship. So I must know myself, know; now, what does it mean to know myself? Does this…? May I go on? Does this interest you?
Many: Yes.
K: Can I know myself? So I must go into the question of what is knowing. I look at myself, not in isolation, not in abstraction; I look at myself in my relationship with another. In that relationship and in the reaction in that relationship, I discover what I am; obviously. So I discover that I am frightened — mettons… I mean, suppose — then I look at that fear, which is part of me, and learn, understand about that fear: analyse it, non-analyse it, observe it, non-observe (laughs), watch it, all that. So I learn… I accumulate knowledge about fear and I say, ‘I know myself; at least one fragment of myself.’ And with that knowledge I examine the next reaction in that relationship; so I’m always looking at the next reaction from the old knowledge, from that which I have accumulated. And, at the end of it, ‘I know myself.’ I don’t know…
Q: Yes. What you’re saying is actually that what we do is reinforced when the patient comes into analysis…
K: That’s right, sir.
Q: …originally, and…
K: I didn’t like to say that.
Q: Well, I think you should say that. If the patient comes in with aboutism…
Q: What is that?
Q: Aboutism is the feeling of knowledge about, thinking about, understanding about; it’s the distance from the original traumas of life, and this is a way of self-preservation and survival. And what is being said here is that all the efforts — the analytic efforts — just reinforce this.
Q: I would disagree.
Q: Well, this is what…
Q: May I?
K: Sir… I mean…
Q: That is, as far as what we hopefully do. In the process of analysis, I think we eventually come to the negation of the divisions; we are full of analytic divisions in our knowledge and then we see that these are compartments divided: a non-whole, an unhealthy situation, and then we have to discard it. I think that’s, at least, our ideal of the process.
K: That’s length of time.
Q: Yes. But there is a moment of discarding, that may be non-time.
K: No, I want… I think, then, *discarding* means discarding now, not in the future.
Q: Right.
Q: Is developing and growing — which is an essential quality of our humanness, development and growing — isn’t time essential?
K: Is there psychological growing for *me*? Physically, I believe, we have reached… biologically, as… we can’t grow a third arm or third eye or a third leg, or… — you follow? — that’s over; but psychologically, is there a growth for *me*?
Q: Yes.
K: What is the *me*?
Q: Ah, that’s the problem. (Laughs)
K: Is it a word? Is it accumulation of tradition? Is it a conditioning?
Q: It’s for you as an organism, that came into the world as a baby.
K: Ah, that’s nothing to do with *me*, that’s an organism.
Q: Right.
(Laughter)
K: Thought identifies with the body.
Q: All right.
K: I’m sorry, I’m not…
Q: No, that’s good.
Q: The organism grows.
Q: Would you differentiate between what you call analysis and what is referred to as therapy, where in therapy there’s no effort made to reinforce the aboutness, rather than to be with the patient, just to be with the patient, to try and re-establish this whole… wholeness experience.
K: Sir, but, you are… You cure.
Q: No, we don’t cure.
K: I mean, therapy cures.
Q: Well, that’s…
K: Is it possible to prevent disease? That’s the whole point, not curing.
(Pause)
So I… what is the *me* to which we give such tremendous importance? ‘I must fulfil, I must express, I must be something, I must grow, I must progress, I must become the big politician or the big businessman or the rich man’ — you follow? — who is this *me*?
Q: May I ask you, what is the rôle of emotion or is there any room for emotion in the wholeness?
K: I mean… No, I don’t know what you call *emotion*.
Q: Not knowledge, not acting, or is… (inaudible)
K: I mean, emotion; if you have no knowledge about that emotion, is it emotion?
Q: Is there anything other than knowledge?
K: Wait, wait; madame, don’t move off… So why does one separate thinking from feeling? Don’t they all belong to the field of thinking? And is love thinking, remembering? Does one, madame….? So one must go into this question of who is this entity that has made this world into such a hideous mess? Because *me* and the *not-me*, *we* and *they*; you know, this whole game that they are playing.
Q: You would not call the question, *’*Who is?’ a form of analysis?
K: *Who is* implies at the moment. *Who is* at the moment? Who are you at the moment? Can you separate the moment from the past and from the future? Please, this is… Unless we understand this really very complex problem of who… what is this entity about which we are wrangling from morning till night, and in dreams too? The Hindus say, cleverly — they are very clever at this kind of game — they say, ‘That is the lower self.’
Q: Lower self?
K: There is a higher self and the conflict is… exists as long as this self remains separate from the supreme self. You understand? Do you understand? I wonder if I’m making…
Q: And the actual self is different from the supreme?
K: Yes. Which is God, which is the ultimate principal, whatever you like to call it. So time must go… we must have time: time to progress, time to evolve, till life after life, you perfect yourself, cleanse yourself, till you reach the ultimate. That’s a very clever process of thought.
Q: Isn’t that an action in time, then?
K: What?
Q: Isn’t that a fragmented action in time?
K: Of course, of course.
Q: But it’s towards a whole action, isn’t it…?
K: So unless I find out if this entity is a reality created by thought — you understand, sir? — therefore it’s not truth, therefore thought is a material process and therefore it has made this thing into something supreme: the *me*, which is a fragment, built… put together by thought. No?
Q: Yes.
Q: You’re challenging some of our basic assumptions of our work, which I think is what makes this so interesting here…
K: Sir, I’m not challenging, please…
Q: Well, I hear your challenge; let me just make that point to you. There are similar forces going on in the field, within our own profession, saying the same thing; I mean, the Gestalt movement is saying pretty much the same thing with a little different twist; and I think if we can try and apply what you say to our everyday work, I think the issue is whether we — with our western mentality of aboutism, as I refer to it — can overcome it and be with our patients, not in a curative, not trying to be helpers, as you say, or therapists, analysts, curers, but to re-establish this process of wholeness, whether it’s within themselves or outside of…
K: No sir, but how will you transmit that wholeness if you haven’t got it yourself?
Q: Well, that’s… yes.
Q: (Whispered) I see what he’s doing.
K: Or in dialogue with the patient, both of you see that neither is whole, therefore in that dialogue you understand the meaning and the depth of that wholeness; therefore you’ll cease to be the analyser, the authority. I don’t know if I’m…
Q: Yes, I agree. Yes.
Q: There is a process of cure going on there. That’s what you mean? There’s a cure?
K: No, no.
Q: Also…
K: Sir, in talking with you and I, I’m not whole, you are not whole. I don’t know what that word means, even, the depth of that word; I understand, *whole* — you know? — but it is a description. And I don’t understand, I don’t feel the beauty, the depth, the quality of it. You and I talk it over, have a dialogue about what is whole. And because you are really serious, not as a professional, your life is involved in this, your totality of life is involved, therefore you are deadly serious and you convey that seriousness to me, and I begin to see. If I am willing to; if I’m not then I play games with it. So is there *me* at all?
Q: There’s an illusion of *me*.
K: Ah no, no, no. *Illusion* implies, sir, something which thought has created and you say, ‘That is an illusion which thought has created,’ but thought itself has created this. And so is thought an illusion? The Hindus went at it, too. They said, ‘The world is *maya*’ — I don’t know if you’re interested in this. You know… May I go… explain a little? Western civilisation is based on measurement — isn’t it, sir? — all your technology, all your concepts, everything is measure, derived from the Greeks and so on, so on, so on. Measurement means time. The Hindus say measurement is illusion — they have a special word which is *maya*; *ma* is to measure in Sanskrit. So they said, ‘Measurement is illusion, and that illusion cannot lead to the immeasurable,’ to the whole, to… whatever that is. You understand? So the Western world said measurement is essential to survive, technology, this, that, and the whole Western civilisation is based on thought, which is measurement. And the Eastern… — India especially, because India exploded over the whole of Asia — and they said measurement is illusion, and to find the immeasurable thought must be eliminated. So they exercised thought to illuminate thought. You understand? So they are both the same. I wonder if…
DS: Well, I think we’re a little bit in the same position as psychotherapists, that we’ve been using thought to try to illuminate thought.
Q: Yes.
DS: So we’re a little bit in the same position.
K: Whole world is in the same position. (Laughs)
(Laughter)
So is there an action which is not *me* acting? The *me* is a fragment, put together by thought; because thought says, ‘In myself I am insecure; I must find security.’ I don’t know if you… So *me* is very… it builds the *me* and in that *me* it tries to find security, identifying with a nation, with a group, with a community, with a belief, with a society, with a… and so on. So is there security for *me* at all? And as long as the *me* is becoming something, in that there is no security; becoming is insecurity. I don’t know…
DS: Is the action of insecurity?
K: It is insecure. To become the president is a completely insecure position. When he is a president, he is insecure still. So to see the truth of that, that there is no security in the idea of *me*.
Q: Is there such a thing as security?
K: There is; we’ll find out.
(Pause)
So the *me* — are you willing to go so far? — so the *me* is nothing. If I am… if there is nothing as the *me*, that is complete security. In nothing, there is security. Sir, I don’t know if you…
(Pause)
Q: Do you believe or do you feel that you have to lose the *me* to find the *me*? Do you ever feel there’s any point to find the *me*?
K: There is no *me* to find.
Q: There is no *me*.
(Pause)
Q: Well, how do you exist?
K: What do you mean by *existence*?
Q: I’m sorry I asked that question.
(Laughter)
K: Food, clothes, shelter? If there is no *me*, which is not identifying itself with India, with Brahmin, with this, with that, with the other thing, what have I to…? I’ve only to have food, clothes and shelter. And I cannot have that food, clothes and shelter when I’m an American, when I am Russian, when I’m a Jew, when I’m this, that and the other, because that divides — you follow, sir? — that brings insecurity, physically. The psychological search for security in the *me* creates division, which prevents complete security for mankind. This is so obvious.
Q: We have many patients who come to us and complain that they feel that they are not… they feel that they are empty. Yesterday you said that we should try and empty out the contents of our consciousness, and yet this is exactly what, in the patient’s way, is…
K: But he wants to be something.
(Laughter)
Q: That’s right.
K: ‘I am nothing. My God, help me to be something.’
Q: That’s right.
(Laughter)
But he’s not anything.
Q: That doesn’t seem like the same kind of nothing.
K: Oh no; I mean, that’s…
Q: It seems that that kind of nothing is before finding life, in the ordinary sense; it’s less than living, it’s not yet confronting people, it’s not yet sexuality, it’s not yet being able to take care of oneself; and there is some problem there, whether one can skip all this self-concern in the middle and go directly to what you’re talking about, which is after. And I don’t know if one can skip or if one has to first do that.
Q: Yes, that’s good.
K: No, one… Can you, can one put away the conditioning as a Christian — suppose — can you put it away, completely?
Q: I can put that away easily, yes.
K: Wait, wait, wait.
Q: But not other…
K: Wait; what made you put it away? Go into it, sir, you will see it. What made you put it away?
Q: Some other part of me that I didn’t put away.
(Laughter)
Q: I wonder if the question that’s raised, to some extent… Can you put something away that you don’t know?
K: Can I know the content or the hidden recesses of my mind? That’s what you’re asking.
Q: Can you put that away, without…?
K: Yes, yes. Sorry… Can I put away the content of not only the conscious but also deeper down? I don’t know what is deeper down; I can unearth it, through dreams, through watchfulness, through… and so on, so on; I can bring it up to the surface — right? — but is it worth it?
(Laughter)
What is there hidden in me? If I am… Say, for instance, I am afraid and I’ve observed it. I’ve not run away from it; I’ve watched it, giving my whole attention to that question of fear in me. Right? I’ve given attention, not a sporadic attention. I see what fear does: in my existence, in my relationship, in everything I do. And I don’t escape, I don’t rationalise, I don’t analyse, I don’t explain it, it is there; like the microphone, it is there. I don’t know if I’m making my… And I watch it. Mind is… is not watcher and the watched; mind is that fear. Right? Therefore, when the mind is that fear, is there the unconscious? I wonder if I’m…
Q: Did you ever have a sense of a *me*? Did you ever have a sense of self, in your own life?
K: No sir, hardly ever.
Q: No? See, we… in our way of thinking, we have a developmental model where we…
K: Oh, not… The whole of India does… the *me* is tremendously important, sir; don’t fool yourself.
Q: See, I’m thinking about your question, before, where there’s…
K: No, no… Sir, you are going away from this question, which is: in the recesses of my mind, there must be fears; there must be secret corners where fear hides. The conscious mind cannot excavate it, cannot say, ‘Well, I’ll bring it out and look at it.’ But when the mind is totally aware, attentive of fear — which we went into yesterday — it is totally aware of the content. I don’t know…
Q: See, what I’m struggling with is whether this is a pre-experience or a post-experience.
K: It is not an experience.
Q: Well, what (inaudible)
Q: But fear is the right question; if one is nothing before overcoming fear, then it’s no good, or if one is nothing because of fear.
K: Ah no. No sir, no sir. Sorry. Is the *me* fear? Of course it is. Because it wants to become, it’s conditioned to become, educated to become; success is very important; it’s very important for it to reach the sublime being, the ultimate principle, and so in that becoming there is tremendous insecurity, uncertainty, and therefore there is fear.
Q: So you are affirming what this gentleman said, that there’s inevitable process of development.
K: No, no, the process…
Q: The conditioning and all goes on with the infant child, inevitably.
K: No sir, I’m trying to say — I may be putting it clumsily and not clearly — that when the mind is totally aware of fear — not the observer observing fear, because the observer is the observed. Right? — when there is the total attention of fear, everything is open — you understand? — there is nothing concealed.
Q: You said that it can’t be done by consciousness and it can’t be done by will, that it’s — you know? — that will implies division and this isn’t what you’re talking about, so that… I don’t know; from my experience, it seems like it’s something that can’t be or can’t be done.
K: Cannot be done?
Q: Yes, I know you said that. But you’re saying that it is some kind of action, the total attention to fear…
K: That’s what I’m pointing out, madame, which is… You see, we are trying to find out action which is whole, not fragmented; business action, family action, personal action, national action, religious action and so on, which are all fragmentary. Is there an action which is whole? That’s what we are inquiring. To find that out, I must… there must be an understanding of what I am; because what I am is creating the fragments; because I want to be a great artist, I want to be the most famous man in the world, and so on, so on. So what is the *me*? Is there a *me* at all, in truth? In reality there is; reality because I paint that picture, it’s my picture. (Laughs) So the knowing of oneself reveals deeply, when you go into it, there is nothing as the *me*. This is not Hindu, they won’t accept this.
Q: Not Hindu.
Q: Not Hindu.
Q: Right.
Q: Except fear.
K: Yes sir. They accept it as an idea.
Q: Who is they?
K: The Hindus. Yesterday I said, sir, something which needs to be corrected, which is, when I talk in India, when I see all the scholars and — you know? — they come to see me, and they say, ‘What you say is Western,’ (laughs) and when I come here… But amongst them there are people who say, ‘What you’re saying is absolutely true.’ Because — just listen to it — because they have read tremendously in Sanskrit what the ancients have said, therefore they say, ‘What you are saying is comparable to that, therefore it is truth.’
(Laughter)
Q: Yes.
K: Finished.
Q: Krishnamurti, do you think that the attention — I talk very bad English.
K: *Hable Español, por favor*.
Q: (Spanish)
K: No, no, that’s enough; one question, you see…
Q: But wait a minute (laughs); I see myself that the attention appear and appear…
K: No, no, no. I understand your question, that’s why I’ve corrected it. You understood her question?
Q: No.
Q: No.
K: Is attention in time or out of time? There are moments when you are completely attentive and there are moments when you’re not. So, she asked, is attention all the time? (Spanish) I think, if I may point out — forgive me for contradicting… — I think you’re putting a wrong question. When you say is attention continuous all the time, you are including time in it — I don’t know if you… — you are still thinking in terms of time. No? Therefore it’s a wrong question; therefore it’s not attention. When there is inattention, when there is no attention, be aware of that inattention — that is attention. I don’t know if you’re…
DS: Yes, I think that applies to the question that was raised over here: is it necessary to go through anything to get anywhere?
K: Sir no; if you see something that’s true, it’s finished.
Q: Why are not complete transformation?
K: *Por que?*
Q: (Spanish)
K: Ah, *no senora*, *un moment, por favor.* No, one second. You see, you’re all putting the wrong question; you’re putting a wrong question. Look sir, let’s go into this question. If I am… To me, the truth is I am absolutely nothing; not as an idea, not as a concept; actually, to me, I am… there is no question of my becoming something.
(Pause)
It is not divine, it’s not mystical; I say, actually, if you look at yourself, go into yourself very, very deeply, there is nothing but words, memories, conditioning, ideas, conclusions; and those are words, symbols, shadows. So in truth — for me, not for you; I’m simply talking about — there is non-existence. In that nothingness, there’s complete security; because I’m nothing, it’s all right; I’m nothing — you understand? I don’t know… — not, ‘I am nothing,’ there is nothing there. Then what is action? In that nothingness, there is no fear, there is no dying.
DS: In fact there is only action.
K: That nothingness *is* action. No, you won’t understand. No, please, you can’t understand this as long as you treat it as an intellectual concept.
Q: What happens when you begin to feel? Does, as you described yourself as nothing, how do you deny the fact that there are sensations…?
K: There are reactions… Somebody puts a pin into me, I react, but I don’t hit him back.
Q: What happens when you feel hungry?
K: I eat.
(Laughter)
Q: But suppose…
K: …there is no food.
Q: But sir, suppose you’re on a trip and you find that, for one reason or another, you can’t eat.
K: I don’t eat.
(Laughter)
Q: Well, how long can you keep it up?
K: Not too long.
(Laughter)
Q: Then what happens… what is the length of time, in your experience, that you find that you have to eat?
K: No, you see, sir, I have fasted — just to play, not as something to reach or… — I’ve fasted for a number of days; the body gets weak, the mind gets slack, and if you go… fast some time, you get all kinds of visions and all kinds of things happen; purely biological. So you don’t; you say, ‘Don’t be silly, that’s enough.’ And I travel a great deal, I eat… I’m a strict vegetarian, I’ve never eaten meat in my life, I don’t smoke, drink, or all the rest of it, so I eat what I can, get on with it.
Q: How long did you fast?
K: Oh, don’t bother (laughs); I wouldn’t… (inaudible). Sir, I think something strange happens — I’m using the word *strange* in the sense of non-expectation — when you are really nothing, truly nothing.
Q: You say, ‘When you see you’re really nothing.’
K: What?
Q: You say something strange happens when you see you are really nothing, because the truth is we are. Right?
K: Ah, the truth is you are… In reality you are, not in truth.
Q: No, the truth is we are nothing, each of us…
K: Ah, that’s a concept. Somebody comes along and says, ‘You are God,’ as they do. Wait, wait; don’t… (inaudible) — that’s a concept. How do you know you are God? How do you know you’re nothing? Because somebody says so?
Q: When you said before, ‘I am absolutely nothing, that is security, and in nothingness there is no fear,’ is this consciousness something that you were born with or did this develop over a period of time? Did this take place in a maturational process?
K: Ah! No, no. It’s very difficult, sir; if you’re to enter into this, one has to go into private life; I don’t know if you are interested.
Q: Oh, that’s what we deal with all the time. (Laughs)
Q: Well, we’re interested.
Q: Yes.
K: I’m not sure… (inaudible)
(Laughter)
Q: Because the reason I asked the question, you said… I was thinking before about action being whole and I thought of pre-natal action, pre-natal action being whole.
K: Ah…!
Q: And then there is a gradual fragmentation and separation that takes place over the developmental process. Yesterday you said, ‘Evolution is not in your consciousness,’ and I’m wondering…
K: Because, sir, I see the truth: to become something, in that there is fear, in that there is insecurity, in that there is all the mess that we have created; the fact of it, not conceptualised; the fact the snake bites; I see the truth of it, therefore it’s gone.
Q: You see the reality of it.
K: *Comment*?
Q: Better, perhaps: you see the reality of it, not the truth of it, the…
K: Ah, I see it’s so; I see, sir…
Q: According to what you said previously.
K: No, I am telling you what I mean; I see the truth of it.
Q: But in your consciousness where is human development, where is human maturation?
K: Sir, I don’t know if I should go into my personal… I mean, it doesn’t…
Q: It doesn’t have to apply to you, personally, but in your consciousness is there a…?
K: A growth.
Q: Yes, human development, human maturation.
K: What do you call *human*?
Q: Well, just development and maturation; let’s leave out…
K: (Laughs) What do you mean by maturation, mature? Is maturity a matter of age?
Q: No.
Q: Biologically, yes.
K: What?
Q: When you’re talking about childhood maturity, biologically it is a matter of age.
K: Biologically, yes.
Q: A five-year old child is more mature than a one-year old child.
K: Biologically, yes. Is there a maturity psychologically?
Q: Yes.
Q: That depends on how you value learning; if you value…
K: I’m coming to that. Therefore we have to find out: what do you mean by *learning*?
Q: Accumulated experience.
K: So you call *learning* accumulation.
Q: Yes, in time.
K: Accumulation, which means time. Now, is there a learning which is not of time?
(Pause)
Come on, sir. I mean, all… We know learning only as a matter of… as accumulation; mathematics, geography, history, physics, learning to drive a car — all those need time. Right sir? Is there *me* to mature? When I see the truth — not something which I invent — the truth that in becoming there is no security, there is fear.
Q: May I ask you, is there any difference between seeing the truth and seeing the reality in terms of the sensory organs, our…
K: Yes, yes. Yes, yes.
Q: …organismic sensory equipment? Is there a different path?
K: Obviously. Thought has created that microphone — right? — that’s a reality. So is there something which thought has not created?
Q: A tree?
K: Freedom?
Q: A tree. I mean, it sounds a little like Bishop Berkeley. I mean, the… Is there a… I mean, are you saying that reality only exists in the mind?
K: No sir, I said… I pointed at the microphone: that is created by thought.
Q: But that’s created by man, but what of something like a rock or a tree?
K: Wait. No, that’s quite different, isn’t it? The tree is created by all the forces of nature and so on, but what is my relationship to nature, to the tree? Have I any relationship to the tree? Or there is a division between me and the tree? Relationship means to be related in the sense, directly, in which there is no division, no… all the rest of it. So is there a relationship with the tree which is non-fragmentary? If I have no relationship with the tree, with nature, I have no relationship with another man or woman; if I have lost my relationship with nature, I’ve lost my relationship with humanity, with man, woman, and all the rest of it.
Q: But then you limit what thought has made to constructs, to things that have been made.
K: Sir, that’s why I said at the beginning the reality is something which thought can think about and put together. The meaning of the word *reality*, from Latin… (inaudible) …comes, means…
(Pause)
Q: That is different from actuality.
K: Yes, I think partly, yes. Yes. So is there an action — we come back to what… — is there an action which is whole? Which is an action which is not *me*. Now we’re getting into it. Is there an action which has nothing whatsoever to do with the *me* that thought has created? And what is that action? So I have to find out — find out, inquire, whatever… look, observe — what man calls love, is that part of thought? Is love a remembrance?
(Pause)
Is love pleasure?
Q: (Inaudible)
K: Where there is suffering… does suffering and love go together?
Q: I think they can.
K: Now, therefore, what is suffering? I suffer because my son is dead; I suffer because I have lost my position; I suffer because I have had biological, physiological pain. Physical suffering is one thing and psychological suffering is another — they are related but one plays off on the other, mischievously — but suffering: I lost my son — doesn’t matter, I’m taking that as an example — I suffer. Why? What does it mean to suffer?
Q: (Inaudible)
K: I love my son, I’ve invested in him all my desire, all my wishes, all my… I have made him immortal. You follow? (Laughs) I’m sorry to put it that way. I depend upon him; he’s going to inherit whatever filthy money I have.
Q: Then you’re not free to love.
K: Ah no. I’m suffering because of my son’s death, which means self-pity, loss of companion, loss of this and that, the other, and that brings me suffering. What has that suffering to do with love? And I say to myself, ‘Then if suffering is not, love is.’
Q: You mean, suffering is the imprisonment in the *me*?
K: Ah, ah, no, no, no, leave the *me* alone for the moment.
Q: Okay.
K: When the suffering is not, then love is. So can the mind be free of suffering?
(Pause)
Q: The only way I can conceive of it is…
K: Ah, don’t conceive.
Q: No, or feel it, is if the *me* is nothing, then I will not suffer.
K: Ah no, sir. Wait… no. Oh no!
Q: No?
K: No. There is suffering, sir; actually, there is suffering. My son died, that’s a fact; I’ve incinerated him, buried him — it’s finished, and I loved that boy or girl; and I’ve lost… I can rationalise, I can say, ‘Well, goes back to nature and comes back…’ — you know all that stuff — or believe in reincarnation or go to a medium and say, ‘When will I meet my son?’ and — you know? — the whole business of it. But I suffer. So in looking at suffering, I see self-pity, companionship, the thing which I have said I’ve loved I’ve lost, possessiveness, investing in him all my desires, conditioning him according to my tradition and so on, so on.
Q: (Inaudible)
K: No, no, that is… Sir, no, that is a fact.
Q: Yes, I know but it means you’re then in grief, you cannot…
K: Ah, no, no… That’s a fact, that’s happening… Those Vietnamese children are being butchered.
Q: Agreed.
K: That’s a fact, and I suffer; my son is dead, whether this son or the Vietnamese son, it’s part of me, my life. So can the mind free itself from all suffering? Which doesn’t mean I become callous, I become indifferent, I become brutal, all that silly stuff. Now, how do I… can the mind be free? I say it can, only… Unless you do this, sir, it has no meaning. Not to escape from it, not go to church, not to pray, mediums and rationalise — you follow? — reincarnation, nothing; remain with that fact completely.
Q: And what? Completely.
K: Remain with that fact, that sense of suffering, without any movement of thought.
Q: But that’s the same question that was asked before, because there is a way to suffer from withdrawal or indifference or not… (inaudible) …the thing.
K: Ah, that’s merely brutalising yourself.
Q: But it’s the same developmental question, in a way; it’s like there’s a pre-lack of involvement and a constant…
K: Ah, but I am… Madame, I am involved; I love my son.
Q: Yes, it’s post…
Q: Exactly.
K: Therefore, don’t be involved?
Q: So what you’re… The non-involvement that you were talking about comes after the fact of loving the son, not before loving.
K: I say I don’t love him; I think I love him.
Q: I think I love him.
K: Because I have invested in him all my property.
Q: But you’re saying you do not suffer because of indifference…
K: No madame, I didn’t say that.
Q: He didn’t say…
K: When there is freedom from suffering, it does not… indifference, it is not callousness, it is not…
Q: Yes, but by that you’re admitting the possibility that there is a way to not be involved, that is by indifference or lack.
K: (Inaudible)
Q: I thought Krishnamurti said that you have to be fully in the suffering rather than indifferent.
K: That’s right.
Q: Exactly.
Q: Fully in it.
Q: But that’s the development…
Q: In other words, he does suffer; he says he does suffer.
Q: Yes, I understand that.
Q: Fully.
DS: But I think the point that’s being skipped here is that the suffering began or the suffering is the loss of that feeling that I was going to invest… that I had invested all of this in this image, or this son. I had invested it and then the loss of that investment is the suffering.
K: Of course.
DS: It’s got nothing to do with love.
K: Of course.
Q: But he described another kind of suffering, a genuine suffering; that’s what I heard him say.
Many: No…
DS: No, there’s no such thing.
K: No sir; would you kindly… (laughs)
Q: He said it’s a fact.
DS: There’s no such thing as genuine suffering.
Q: Suffering is a fact.
Q: I thought I… You looked like you were suffering when you talked about it.
K: Sir, I have a son, which is a fact; whether I wanted him or not, he’s there. And he dies — disease, accident, whatever it is — he dies; and I suffer, that’s a fact. No?
Q: Well, that’s what I thought. That’s a fact.
K: Wait, wait; that’s a fact, that’s an actuality. Now, in looking at suffering, I see that suffering has come into being because of my investment, my loneliness, my sense of frustration, companionship, all that, self-pity, all that. And I know that because my mind is clever enough to analyse this stupid stuff.
(Laughter)
So it says… Now, the next question is: can the mind be free from suffering? Because if there is suffering, life becomes intolerable; it’s a darkness, it is a… out of that, brutality, violence, all that takes place. Can the mind be free, totally? And to be free, it means to remain totally with that sense of suffering, without the movement of thought interfering with it. You know the word, sir, the word *suffering* in Latin has its root in passion. You understand? So out of this suffering comes passion. Not lust and all that stuff, but passion, which means compassion, which means love, everything.
Q: You’re sharing with us today a different kind of consciousness; it’s very holistic, very cosmic; we’re not — you know? — familiar, or at least I am not. In some ways, I react to it as being in our thinking of higher and lower; in some ways I see it as a higher level of consciousness; in some ways I see it as a lower level of consciousness. You don’t think in terms of higher or lower.
K: No, no.
Q: This would be my projection, in terms of developmental model and maturation; I can see the consciousness as having roots at a very early level of life and at a very highly advanced post-self, transcending the self and becoming very holistic. The question that I have today is: I like your way of consciousness, I would like to arrive there; I would like to help my patients reach your kind of consciousness. What can you recommend to me and to us here in this room — we are all practitioners, who’ve been challenged psychoanalysis…
(Laughter)
K: Sir, do you know what it means to love? Do you? Actually; no, no…
Q: I think I do.
K: Which means, in that there is no fear, no *me*, no suffering, and also the understanding of what pleasure is, enjoying the beauty; then if there is such love, you have all… you… (inaudible) …finished.
Q: I’m not finished.
K: Ah… Therefore…
Q: Therefore, we don’t love yet… (inaudible)
K: Ah no, not ‘yet’. There is no love.
Q: There’s no love, you’re saying.
K: Not ‘yet’; I mean, maybe…
Q: Well, you see, that’s where we’re in the frame of reference of time; Westerners are in that frame of reference and we’re… (inaudible)
K: Sir look, in this… America has become the standard of the world, unfortunately. And sex plays a tremendous part in this country — not that it doesn’t play a great part in India or in Japan or in Germany or in Russia; it plays, but here it’s blown up into the heavens. Why?
Q: Because there’s no love, right?
K: No, no… Don’t just…
Q: All right.
K: We are slaves intellectually — right? — we repeat what Freud said or the Buddha said or the Christ said, or some blasted priest said or something or other. Intellectually, we are second-hand — sorry, not you. And emotionally, in depth, we are all very superficial.
Q: Is this different in other countries?
K: I said, sir, it’s all there — in India, Japan, Russia, it’s all there — but here it is open — you understand, sir? — it is every… Sex has become tremendously important. Right? Hasn’t it, or am I imagining?
Q: (Inaudible) …the obsession is advertised…
K: Yes, everything. And I said, why? Why has man given such extraordinary importance to something very natural, as though he’s suddenly discovered this marvellous thing? Why?
(Pause)
There he is free, and nowhere else. Right sir? Therefore you deny total freedom, except that.
Q: And you don’t even have it there. (Laughs)
K: Yes. It becomes repetitive… So one has to go into the question of what is freedom, if you’re interested.
Q: Yes.
K: Is there such a thing as freedom? The communists say, ‘You are a bourgeois to think even of freedom. That’s a bourgeois concept; there is no such thing as freedom. Therefore condition the human being differently.’ You understand… (inaudible)? Reward him; before it used to be punish, now reward him. (Inaudible) That’s the new concept, new conditioning. So what is freedom? We know freedom only as from something. Isn’t it, sir? I’m in prison, actual prison, and freedom is to be out of that prison. I am angry, I would like to be free of anger — that’s freedom from something. Is freedom from something freedom? Which means that freedom which is from something has the quality of the thing from which you’re trying to be free, therefore it’s not freedom. So freedom is not the opposite. I don’t know…
Q: Can you say that again about the quality? Why freedom is not freedom.
K: Sir, the opposite has always its root in its opposite. I want to be free from greed, because it’s a damn nuisance.
(Laughter)
And I… that freedom is a reaction from the pain of greed, therefore it’s not freedom. Is there such thing as freedom *per se*, not from something? Otherwise there is no freedom.
(Pause)
Is pleasure [the] opposite of pain, [the] opposite of fear?
(Pause)
One’s mind is pursuing pleasure all the time. Right? Would you agree to that? Would you say that is so? Sorry. (Laughs)
Q: At times it pursues suffering.
K: No, pleasure.
Q: We see people who avoid pleasure.
K: Of course, sir; it’s a fact. When I suffer I want to escape from it into pleasure. So what is the place of pleasure in compassion, love, or whatever that word…? We have now identified love, compassion, all that, with pleasure: sexual — you know? — the whole business of it. So is there a freedom which is not a reaction? And it’s only in that freedom there is creation; not my painting a picture because I have technique and I am painting a non-objective painting. I don’t know… I’m sorry…
Q: Creation, you said…
K: Yes sir. What is creation? Because I write a poem, am I creative? While I beat my wife and rape her and carry on? I have no relationship with society, what is happening around me, because I’m a clever artist? Because I’m not… It’s only the man who is total, whole, that can be creative; not the chap who is fragmented.
Q: You said that freedom is being totally with the fear or whatever, so that there is no longer a *me*…
K: No, madame…
Q: …which in some sense then says that *me* is exactly a being without or a not-being totally with, so that I would then protect the *me* by…
K: There is no…
Q: …exactly by not being with, so that…
K: No madame, there is no question of *being*. If I understand the implications of becoming, and I see the truth of it, not… the truth of it, then there is no *being* at all. There is nothingness; I am nothing. There is no progress, there is no gaining, losing, all the rest of it. In that, there is completest, greatest intelligence and security. The original meaning of progress was to enter the enemy’s country fully armed.
(Laughter)
And if you have a Bible with you, so much the better.
(Pause)
Sir, can the… is there a stop to time? You understand my question, sir? Is there an ending to time at all? Of course there is chronological time, you can’t end that — I’m going tomorrow to London… you know? — but is there psychologically no time… ending to time? This is very important to find out.
Q: Don’t our dreams time somewhat closer to that feeling of no time?
K: What sir?
Q: My dreams.
K: Ah, dreams… Is there not a moment, a feeling of timelessness in dreams? (Laughs) Then what are dreams? Why should I dream? Well sir, what are dreams? You’re the experts.
Q: Well, they’re the way we experience ourselves when there’s no input from the outside world.
K: There is an input, isn’t there, all the time?
Q: Not from the outside world; well, it’s heavily modulated when we’re…
K: Yes; so is not — I’m just suggesting this — are not dreams the continuation of our daily existence, daily thoughts, daily activities, daily desires, in a… as a symbol, as a picture, as a…? It’s the continuation of the same thing, modulated, slightly altered, different in colour.
Q: Different emphases.
K: Different… different, but it is the same movement. Now, if during the day that movement is not time-binding — in the sense we are talking… — if during the day there is complete attention, not to every little… attention; if you attend to something, give full attention, therefore ending… ending of the problem, ending of an idea, ending of… and so on, so on. Then what are dreams? Then are dreams necessary?
(Pause)
Q: Well, I don’t know whether they’re necessary or not, but they happen on a fairly regular basis.
K: They take place… Because… There are two factors here, aren’t there? You are all the experts; please forgive me if I say something which is not… which is illogical or irrational or stupid. The brain needs order — right? — otherwise it cannot function efficiently. If I put order during the day — order in the sense, not conformity, not copying something, not following a blueprint, but order in the sense understand disorder, in which we live. In the understanding of that disorder, order is; which is totally different from mechanical order, the disciplined order, the habitual order. So when there is an understanding, when there is seeing how the mind is so disorderly, sees itself disorder: thinking, acting — you follow, sir? — disorder, out of that disorder comes order, non-mechanical. If that takes place during the day, are the dreams necessary? Then if dreams are not necessary, then what takes place then? No, but you don’t…
Q: Well, I don’t think it’s ever possible to reach that level of perfect order.
K: I say it can be done; I’ll show it…
Q: We’re beginning to see that it’s not the brain that needs order, it’s a part of the brain: the left brain needs order but the right brain doesn’t need order.
Q: It needs order of a different kind.
Q: It needs an order but it’s a different… it’s not the kind of order we’re talking about; it needs more of a… it’s on a different level.
K: Sir, that means, sir, I have to be aware that I live in disorder. Disorder is contradiction: say one thing, do another… (inaudible) — all that is disorder. And one part of the brain, or whatever it is, says, ‘For God’s sake, I can’t live like that,’ when it goes to sleep it tries to put order. Part of that order is the dreaming process. I don’t know… I’ve experimented it with it, a little bit and… So order is that; then there is no need for dreams, except when you eat too much or when you don’t eat proper food, then reactions, peculiar dreams or the dreams of sex and so on, all that biological dreams. But I’m talking of the dreams of disorder, which are destructive.
DS: Well, it’s one o’clock; I believe, for all of us, I can say thank you, and…
(Applause)