Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Experimenter's Corner | moderated by John Raica

K The essential Texts


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 39 in total
Fri, 21 Dec 2012 #1
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

I will try in this new thread to paste in a few essential K texts, usually rather difficult to follow, reducing them to the bare essentials, just to see exactly what he was talking about.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Feb 2018 #2
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

A K CONVERSATION WITH JACOB NEEDLEMAN

ON INNER SPACE (an experientially friendly edited version )

Needleman: In your talks you have given a fresh meaning to the
necessity for man to become his own authority. Yet cannot this
assertion easily be turned into a form of 'humanistic' ( all purpose) psychology without reference to the transcendental dimension of human
life in the midst of a vast intelligent Cosmos? Must we not
only try to see ourselves (as we are) in this particular moment in time, but also as intelligent creatures of the Cosmos?

Krishnamurti: Are we talking about the outward endless space, or of the (inner) dimension of space in us?

Needleman: It would have to be the latter, but not totally without the former.

Krishnamurti: Is there a difference between the outer space,
which is limitless, and the (inner) space (available) in us? Or is there no (free inner) space in ourselves at all and we only know the outer space? We know the (mental) space in ourselves between the centre and a circumference -this is what we generally call (inner) space.

Needleman: Inner space, yes.

Krishnamurti: Now if there is an (all controlling) 'centre', the available inner space must always be limited - we only know this very limited space but we think we would like to have an immense space.
This (Malibu) house exists in (a physical location in) space and
the four walls of this room make its space. And the (mental ) space within me is the space which the 'centre' has created round itself.

Needleman: Yes, a centre of self-interest.

Krishnamurti: (The consciousness of most) human beings does have a
'centre' and this (identitary) centre creates a (safe mental ?) space round itself. But because of the centre, this space is limited.

Needleman: It is a defined space, yes.

Krishnamurti: So we are talking of the (self-centred inner ) space which the centre creates round itself, but also there is a 'space' , or an 'interval, between two thoughts. Now what is your question, Sir? How to expand this ( self-centred inner) space? Or how to enter a different dimension of (Time & ) Space?

Needleman: A different dimension of Reality?

Krishnamurti: First I must ( get familiar ) with the (silent interval or ) 'space' between two thoughts. What takes place in this interval?

Needleman: I must confess I really don't know because my thoughts
overlap all the time. But I know there are silent intervals and there is (a sense of inner) freedom there... for a moment.

Krishnamurti: Let's go into this a bit, shall we? (To recap :) There is (the silent) space between two thoughts. And there is (mental) space (of the known?) which the centre creates round itself, a space of (self-) isolation in which I consider myself important, with my ambitions, with my frustrations, with my personal growth, my meditation, my reaching
Nirvana.

Needleman: Yes, that is indeed ( a mental space of self-) isolation.

Krishnamurti: It 'is' isolation.And within this (safe mental) space my relation with you is through the 'images' created of that isolation .
And having created that (self-protective mental ) space there is also a space outside the barbed wire. Now is there an (inner) space
of a totally different dimension? This was your question ?

Needleman: Yes, that embraces my question.

Krishnamurti: Now, how can I find this other (dimension of mind- space) ? Is it possible to become (inwardly) free of this 'centre' (of self-interest) , so that (my consciousness) doesn't need to create space round itself, build a wall round itself, isolation, a prison - and call that 'space'? Can that 'centre' (of self-interest) cease to be? Otherwise the mind cannot go beyond its (self-imposed) limitation.

Needleman: Yes, I see what you mean...

Krishnamurti: So, what is that centre? That centre is the observer, the thinker, the experiencer, it divides the "me" and "non-me", and (proudly?) says, "That is the barbed wire (mental wall ?) I have created round myself.

Needleman: So the centre is stuck in there too ?

Krishnamurti: Yes. Therefore it separates itself from (anything beyond) its barbed wire fence ( which becomes the 'observed', while the centre is the 'observer'). So there is (this self-isolating) 'space' between the observer and the observed - right Sir?

Needleman: Yes, I can see that.

Krishnamurti: And it also tries to 'bridge over' that space. It says, "This must be changed, that must not be, I must be better than that." All that is
the (self-centred) movement (of thought) in the space between the observer and the observed. And hence there is (an open or hidden ) conflict between the 'observer' and the 'observed'.
Now can the 'observer' - who is the centre, who is the thinker, who is the knower - can that 'centre' be still?

Needleman: Why should it wish to be still?

Krishnamurti: If it is not still, (its available inner) space is always limited.

Needleman: But this centre, the observer, doesn't know that it is
limited in this way.

Krishnamurti: But you can (easily) see that when it observes, it observes through that (self-protective mental) space. When I observe those mountains there is a space (of separation?) between me
and the mountains. And when I observe myself there is space
between me and the thing I observe in myself. So there is
always this divisiive space (btw 'me' & 'non-me') .

Needleman: Changing the approach to the subject entirely, it seems to me that this 'space' you speak about is actually a (self-created) illusion.

Krishnamurti: I can only find out (what is beyond) when the mind has immense space. And when that centre is not in operation, then in that vast inner space ( Clue : which is part of any authentic meditation) there is something immeasurably sacred, which you can never find out if there is an (identification with that ) centre.

So my real (meditative) concern is whether this (self-identified ) 'centre' can be completely empty? That centre is the (psychological) content of our consciousness; there is no (self-centred) consciousness if there is no content ( the same way as) there is no house if there are no walls and no roof. The content is (generating its own) 'consciousness' but without the content, where is (the self-) consciousness? And that is the (unlimited inner ?) space.

Needleman: I can follow only a little bit of what you say. I find myself
wanting to say: well, what is the important thing here?

Krishnamurti: I'll put that question after I,have found out whether the mind can be empty of the (its self-centred) content. Then there is something else that will operate, which will function even within the field of the known. But without finding that merely to say...
Let's proceed. Space is between two thoughts, between two periods of time, because thought is (projecting its own) time. Yes?

Needleman: All right, yes.

Krishnamurti: Then there is the (circumscribed inner) space round the
centre, and the space beyond the (self-protecting) wall of the centre. The (center to boundary ?) space between the observer and
the observed is (a self-protective mental interface ) which thought has created as the image of my wife and the image which she has about me.

So my (meditation related) question is: "Can the centre be still, or can
the centre 'fade away' (or...stay put?) ? Because if it doesn't lie very
quiet, then the (time-bound ) content of consciousness is going to create (a virtual mental space) within (my self-centred) consciousness and call it the vast space. So can that centre be absorbed? Which
means, can there be no (self- identified) image because it is this self- image that separates? That (self-)image may talk about love, but the 'love' of the (self-centred) image is not love. Therefore I must find out whether the centre can be completely dissolved, or lie as a vague (personality) fragment in the distance. If there is no possibility of that, then I must accept (my well known inner ) prison and I can
decorate my prison for ever.

Needleman: But now this possibility that you are speaking
about, without searching for it consciously...

Krishnamurti: It is there!

Needleman: I am beginning to see that there is no distinction between humanism and sacred teachings. There is just truth, or non-truth.

Krishnamurti: That's all. False and true.

Needleman: So much for that.... (Laughter)

Krishnamurti: We are asking: "Can the (meditating) consciousness empty itself of its content?" First see the (hidden) beauty of it : it must empty itself without any (personal) effort.
The moment there is a (mental) effort, there is the observer who is making the effort to change the content, which is part of consciousness. I
don't know if you see that?

Needleman: I follow. This 'emptying' has to be effortless, instantaneous.

Krishnamurti: This means the emptying of consciousness of all 'personal) will "to be" or "not to be". Can the
mind, with all its content, empty itself and yet remain (an integrated & intelligent?) mind – not just float about?

(In a nutshell:) The (residual) content of my (self-centred)
consciousness is my unhappiness, my misery, my struggles, my
sorrows, the images which I have collected through life, my gods,
the frustrations, the pleasures, the fears, the agonies, the hatreds -
can all that 'past' be completely emptied? Not
only at the superficial levels but right through the so-called
'unconscious'.
So the mind must (seriously meditate &) find out how to empty
itself of all the content of itself, and yet live in this world, not
become a moron, but have a brain that functions efficiently. Now
how is this to be done? This is (the role of any authenic) meditation : to see whether the mind can empty itself and yet have a brain
that functions as a marvellous machine. Also, to sees that when there is (selfless) love there is no image; there must be an (interactive) relationship between the emptying of consciousness and the thing called Love; between the 'unknown' and the 'known', which is the content of our (self-centred) consciousness.

Needleman: I am following you. There must be this (interactive) relationship.

Krishnamurti: The two must be in harmony. The emptying and
love must be in harmony. And it may be only (selfless) love that is necessary and nothing else.

Needleman: This 'emptying' is another word for (the holistic action of) love, is that what you are saying?

Krishnamurti: I am only asking what is (this selfless) love. Is love within the field of (the self-centred) consciousness?

Needleman: No, it couldn't be.

Krishnamurti: Love within the content of consciousness is (associated with) pleasure, ambition and all that. Then what is Love? I really don't know. There is some (missing ) factor in this which I must find out. Whether the emptying of consciousness with its content is love, which is the unknown?
What is the relationship between the unknown and the known? The relationship between the 'unknown', which may be called
love, and the content of consciousness, which I 'know', (it may be
unconscious, but I can open it up and find out) - what is the
relationship between the known and the unknown? To freely move
between the known and the unknown is harmony, is intelligence,
isn't it?

Needleman: Absolutely.

Krishnamurti: So the mind must find out, how to empty its content. That is, have no (self-identifying) image, therefore no 'observer'.
Can there be no no image formation when you hurt me or give me pleasure ?

Needleman: Is it possible?

Krishnamurti: Of course it is. Isn't it possible when you insult
me to be completely watchful, attentive, so that it doesn't leave a
mark?

Needleman: I see what you mean.

Krishnamurti: When you flatter me - no mark. Then there is no
image. So the mind has done with it: which is, no
formation of image at all. If you don't form a (self-) image now, the past
images have no place (are becoming psychologically redundant) .

Needleman: Then you are free from the (psychological burden of the ) past !

Krishnamurti: See it! See it!

Needleman: Very clear.

Krishnamurti: So the mind can empty itself of images by (paying full attention and ) not forming a (self-) image now. Then there is ( an image free inner) space, not the limited space round the centre. And if one delves into this limitless inner space , goes into it much
further, then there is something Sacred, not invented by thought, which has nothing to do with any (organised) religion.

Needleman: Thank you.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 26 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 May 2018 #3
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

12 Dialogues between J. KRISHNAMURTI & DAVID BOHM on 'TRUTH & REALITY' (1975)

First Dialogue

Krishnamurti: I was thinking about this question in Ojai, about what is truth and what is reality and whether there is any relationship between the two, or whether they are separate, eternally divorced, or are they just projections of thought? And if thought didn't operate, would there be 'reality'? I thought that 'reality' comes from "res", thing, and anything that thought operates on, or fabricates, or reflects about, is 'reality'. And thought, thinking in a distorted, conditioned manner is illusion, is deception, is distortion. I left it there, because I wanted to let it come rather than my pursuing it.

David Bohm: The question of thought, reality and truth has occupied philosophers over the ages. It is a very difficult one. It seems to me that what you say is basically true, but there are a lot of points that need to be ironed out...

K : Not having read philosophers and all that, gives one a tremendous advantage, because one can start with knowing nothing and then begin to enquire. But if one begins to translate it into what the scholars and philosophers talked about, then one is getting lost...

DB : Now, one of the questions that arise is : if we say reality is thought, I would extend it to say that 'reality' is something reflected in consciousness – what would you think about ?

K: Are the contents of consciousness 'reality' ?

DB ; That's the question, yes, and I thought we can use 'thought' as equivalent for 'consciousness'- in its basic form, but it should include for the sake of completion, feeling, desire , will, reaction & so on, if we want to explore the connexion between consciousness, reality & truth.

K Would you separate consciousness with its content, reality and truth - these three things ?

DB: I would agree that truth goes beyond the other two, but this has been an old question between philosophers as to what is 'truth'...

K: Yes. And how do they answer it?

DB : In hundreds of ways ! But one of the points I'd like to bring up is: there is thought, there is consciousness, and there is the 'thing' of which we are conscious. And as you have often said, the thought is not the thing.

K: Yes...

DB: We have to get it clear, because in some sense the 'thing'may have some kind of reality independent of thought; we can't go so far as to deny all that. Or do we go as far as some philosophers, like Bishop Berkeley, who has said that 'all is mind' ?
Now , I would like to suggest a possibly useful distinction between that 'reality' which is largely created by our own thought, or by the thought of mankind, and the reality which one can regard as
existing independently of this thought. For example, would you say nature is real?

K: It is, yes.

DB: And it is not just our own thought...

K: No, obviously not.

DB: The tree, the whole earth, the stars...

K: Of course, the Cosmos. Pain is 'real'...

DB: Yes. I was thinking that illusion is real, in the sense that it is really something going on, in a person who is in a state of illusion.

K: To him it is real.

DB: But to us it is also real because his brain is in a certain
state of electrical and chemical movement, and he acts from his illusion in a 'real' way.

K: In a real way, in a distorted way.

DB: Distorted but real. Now it occurred to me that one could
say that the false is real but not true. This is the thing which might be important.

K: Say, for instance: is Christ real?

DB: Well, he is 'real' in the minds of people who believe in Him, in the sense we have been talking...

K: Who created him .

DB : Besides, there might have been a real person....

K: Jesus, even if there is some doubt about all that bussiness. Jesus was real - if one believed he existed - and thought created 'Christ' – 'Christ' is an illusion.

DB : But at the same time this illusion is real in the minds of those who believe in him.

K: You see, the Buddha as a person, was real. What he said, outside the field of thought, is 'truth' ...
So, we want to find out the distinction between truth and reality. We said anything that thought thinks about, whether unreasonably or reasonably, is a 'reality'. It may be distorted or reasoned clearly, it is still a 'reality'. That 'reality', has nothing to do with truth. Now we want to know in Sanscrit if there is such a diference ?

Dr Parchure : There is...

K What is 'reality' in Sanscrit ?

P : It is wrote out in literature as 'Maya'

K: Maya ? Maya means 'illusion' !

P : Yes, but it appears like 'truth' -therefore it's called Maya They say that the world is in a dream, but when you are in the dream you think of it as real. So they say that we live all the time in the world of Maya, taking the unreal as 'real'

DB : And what is (the sanscrit word for ) 'truth' then ?

P : Truth is 'satyam'

K And what is the relation between 'satyam' and 'maya' ?

P : 'Satyam' is described negatively : when the cloud of 'maya' disappears, that is 'satyam'

DB: Yes, but we have to say besides, that in some way reality
involves more than mere thought. There is also the question of
'actuality'. Is the 'thing' actual? Is its existence an actual fact? According to the dictionary, the 'fact' means what is actually done, what actually happens, what is actually perceived.

K: Yes, we must understand what we mean by the 'fact'. According to the dictionary 'fact' means that which is done, that which is actually happening

DB: We're also saying that reality is a 'thing' which stands independently of thought. Suppose you are walking on a dark road and you think you see something. It may be real, it may not be real. One moment you feel that it's real and the next moment that it's not real. But then you suddenly touch it and it resists your movement. From this action it's immediately clear that there is a real thing which you have contacted. But if there is no such contact you say that it's not real, that it was perhaps an illusion, or at least something mistakenly taken as 'real'.

K: We are saying that anything that thought thinks about, or reflects upon, or projects, is 'reality' , and that 'reality' has nothing to do with truth. The two are eternally separated ; you can't come from this 'reality' to Truth...
The Hindu scholars said : remove the illusion, 'Maya', then Reality is. I can remove Maya, by whatever means - but truth might not exist...therefore it's not a question of 'removing' – but of 'seeing' reality where it belongs – that's the 'art of seeing' : to place reality where it is, and not move from that in order to get to truth...You can't move from here to there and call that truth.

P:You are saying 'the art of seeing' but in what state of mind is this seeing taking place ?

K: It just 'sees' ; I see those birds on the wall paper and I know that is the product of thought. But I know it is 'real'- I don't call that illusion, anymore that I can call you hiting me 'illusion'- it is violence, it is a reality, not an 'illusion'
I'd want to discuss this point, sir,  : can I move from reality to truth ? Or there is no 'movement'- movement means time - so is there a stop to time- which is thought... ?

DB: But to come back to reality- which is a 'thing' - any 'thing' is necessarily conditioned. Any form of reality is necessarily conditioned

K: It is conditioned. Let's accept that.

DB: Because the distortion is real. This is a key point.
Thus, an 'illusion' is still a form of reality which is conditioned. The distortion is real ; for example, the man's blood may have a different constitution because he's not in a balanced state. So every 'thing' is determined by conditions ; all things are mutually interrelated in the way of mutual conditioning, which we call 'influence'. In physics that's very clear, all the planets influence each other, the atoms influence each other, and I wanted to suggest that maybe we could regard thought and consciousness as part of this whole 'chain of influence'.

K: Quite right.

DB: So that every 'thing' can influence consciousness and in turn it can work back and influence the shapes of things, as we make objects. And you could then say that this is all reality, and that thought is therefore also real.

K: Thought is real...

DB: And that there is one part of reality influencing another part of reality.

K: One part of illusion influences another part of illusion...

DB: Yes, but now we have to be careful because we can say
there is that other part of reality which is not made by man, by mankind. But that's still limited. The Cosmos, for example, as seen by us is influenced by our own experience and therefore limited. And anything that we see, we see through our own experience, through our own background. So that reality cannot possibly be totally independent of man.

K: Are you saying that man's 'reality' is the product of influence and conditioning?

DB: Yes, of a mutual interaction and reaction.

K: And all his illusions are also his product ?

DB: Yes, they are all mixed together.

K: And then, what is the difference between a sane, rational, healthy, whole man, to reality and to truth?

DB: Yes, we must consider that, but first may we look at this
question of 'truth'. I think the derivation of words is often very
useful. The root meaning of word "true" in Latin, which is "verus", means "that which is". The same as the English "was" and "were", or the German "wahr". Now in English the root meaning of the word "true" means 'honest and faithful'; you see, we can often say that a line is 'true', or a machine is 'true'. There was a story I once read about a thread that
ran so true; it was using the image of a spinning-wheel with the thread running straight. And now we can say that our thought, or our consciousness, is true to 'that which is' if it is running straight, if the man is sane and healthy. And otherwise it is false. So the falseness of consciousness is not just wrong information, but it is actually running falsely as a reality.

K: So you're saying, that as long as man is sane, healthy, whole and rational, his 'thread' is always straight ?

DB: Yes, his consciousness is on a straight thread. Therefore
his reality...

K: ...is different from the reality of a man whose thread is
crooked, who is irrational, who is neurotic.

DB: Very different. Perhaps the latter is even insane. You can
see with insane people how different it is - they sometimes cannot even see the same reality at all.

K: And for this sane, healthy, whole, holy man, what is his
relationship to truth?

DB: If you come to the meaning of the word, if you say truth is 'that which is', as well as being true to that which is, then you have to say that what people intend by the whole of reality is actually comprehended by the word 'truth' .

K: Yes. So you would say the man who is sane, whole, 'is' truth?

DB: He is 'of the truth' - like a drop of water from the ocean is 'of the ocean' -it is of the same quality...

K: The man who is sane, whole, rational, non-fragmented, and therefore 'holy' – because he is that, that 'is' truth, or he is 'a part of it' – which means, can truth be divided ?

DB : It is not a division – it is like when you say you see the whole truth...

K : That is colloquial expression , but if that man is on the straight thread, he 'is' the whole, he is not fragmented...

DB : I didn' mean to say he is fragmented...I'd like to suggest something like this : if we are to think of the Cosmos or of the 'whole of reality' , that may be something, but it is conditioned since our thinking is conditioned...

K Thought is conditioned, and therefore whatever we may think of is conditioned …

DB : That's right, and truth must be unconditioned – I mean, everybody feels that, and whatever is meant by the word 'Cosmos' is also meant by the word 'truth', but it is also the very substance of what we usually call 'reality'...

K: You see, sir, the Hindus talk abour 'samadhi' – as reaching a state where your mind 'is' That - Brahman. That is, man 'is' Truth. Not belonging to truth, but he 'is' that .

P : But you have asked the question : what is the relationship of such a man who is whole with truth ?

K: Ah ! I put a wrong question ! Such a man 'is' truth. He can't think irrationally...

DB: Well, I wouldn't say quite that, I'd say that he can make a
mistake....

K: Of course...

DB: ...but he doesn't persist in it. In other words, there is the difference between the man who has made a mistake and acknowledges it and changes it, and the the man who has made a mistake but his mind is not straight and therefore he goes on with it. But we have to come back to the question: If we say 'Nature is real', it seems to imply that truth must go beyond this man ; does truth go beyond any particular
man; does it include other men, and Nature as well?

K: It includes 'all that is'.

DB: Yes, so the truth is one. But there are many different
'things' in the field of reality. Each thing is conditioned, the whole field of reality is conditioned. The influence of every thing on everything is a fact, but the man who sees the truth of that fact - he comprehends reality

K: Yes, he comprehends reality. He may say something that is mistaken, but sees the mistake and changes it, doesn't pursue it, while an irrational man doesn't know it's a mistake – even if it is a mistake , but he insists on pursuing that

DB The meaning of the word comprehend is to 'hold it all together'.

K: He comprehends reality! He doesn't separate reality. I 'see 'it !

DB : And reality has 'things' in itself which are conditioned, so he comprehends the conditions...

K: And as he comprehends the conditioning, he is free of conditioning !

DB : Yes, but also I think it's important to understand the question of objective reality...

K: Yes...

DB : Because this has been one of the most discussed points all through the ages...There's this notion that the world consists of an objective reality – 'objective' means that it stands independently in total, and that we are part of it ...

K: I understand, we are part of reality...

DB : Then we say that the mind knows the truth about the objective reality and therefore we know the truth, the whole truth...

K: (laughs) That's right...

DB : ... and therefore it will be up to us to get more knowledge about the objective reality – this being the spirit behind all scientific approach Now, someone holding that view might criticise you for making reality dependent of us, which doesn't really make sense...

K: I do not hold to anything !

DB : Right, but suppose such a man comes by, then what do you say ?

K: As I don't hold to anything, I only see that thought being conditioned, whatever it thinks about is conditioned and therefore it's a 'reality' That's all we say. And truth is independent, not influenced by all this.

DB : That means that Truth is absolute ?

K: Absolute, that's right !

DB : And in the other sense, there's no absolute knowledge of reality...

K : That's right...you can learn more & more & more . That's all I know.

DB : So we could say that this notion of 'absolute reality' doesn't stand up because all we know is reality - as it is for us.

K: Yes, would you say that knowledge is a reality, but knowledge is not 'truth' ?

DB : Yes, some scientists would say that chemicals are deposited in the brain as memory, or it may happen another way, but it seems clear that knowledge is actually a part of reality.

K: Yes, now I have a question : suppose I am a scholar, I am full of knowledg, how am I to comprehend truth,  in the sense of holding it all together?

DB : I don't think you can comprehend truth...

K: Say, I have studied all my life, I've devoted all my life to knowledge, which is a reality...

DB: Yes, and it is also about a bigger reality...

K: ...and suppose you come along and say, "Truth is somewhere else, it's not that". My instinct is : I accept you, because you show it to me, and so I say, "Please help me to move from here to that".

DB: Yes... ?

K: Because once I get to that, I comprehend it. If I live here, then my comprehension is always fragmented.

DB: Yes.

K: Therefore my knowledge tells me, "This is reality but it is not truth". And you come along and say, "No, it is not". And I ask: please tell me how to move from here to 'that'.

DB: Well, we've just said we can't move...

K: I'm putting it briefly. What am I to do?

DB: I think I have to see the falseness of this whole structure...

K: Would you say the content of my consciousness is knowledge? So, how am I to empty that consciousness and yet retain the knowledge which is not twisted - otherwise I can't function – and reach a state, or whatever it is, which will 'comprehend' reality. I don't know if I'm making myself clear...

DB: Yes....but there is a point implied here, knowledge includes time and knowledge is itself time, therefore if I am in knowledge - I'm 'moving' from one form of knowledge to another...

K: You see, the Hindus have 'booked it out' cleverly : they say : Yes, strip that part and you'll get it !
Supose I have walked all the way with knowledge – that has been my field. And you come & tell me : knowledge is always a movement in time, conditioned, knowledge is always within the area of time and thought. And I realise that and I say to myself : I must find truth, which will then 'comprehend' knowledge. I realise that this is a fragment, and as long as I live in a fragment I cannot comprehend anything, I cannot hold anything I realise it, as I realise that the window is not the door ! Am I right?

DB : You see, you have just used the word 'realise' which means 'to bring it to reality' -implying there is something you do in the field of reality , which will prevent the 'thread' from not running true...but there's nothing you can do about truth...

K : Yes, you can't do anything about truth...

DB : But is there something that can be done about reality ?

K: Yes !

DB Now, the way I would see it is this : reality is not 'running true' maybe something is right or something is wrong, but it's not all wrong... Now, I come to this notion of 'reflexion'- that is, consciousness is a 'reflexion' ..

P : Of what ?

DB : That's the question ! If we said that it is a reflexion of reality, people would say that we turn around the circle...I'd want to propose another kind of 'reflexion' : if you take a mirror, the light comes from the object and gets into your eye -that's an external reflexion , but the ancient people had the idea that light came from the eye. And in fact, for the bat the sound comes from the bat, so he 'sees the world' as a reflexion of his energy.. So, I'd want to suggest that we 'experience' reality - we act and the reflexion of our action gets rise to an 'image' which is consciousness.

K: Yes, but what I want to suggest to further it along is : my human consciousness 'is' its content, which is knowledge; it's a messy conglomeration of irrational knowledge and some which is correct. Can that consciousness comprehend, or bring into itself, truth?

DB: No, it can't.

K: Therefore, can this consciousness go to that truth? It can't either. Then what?

DB: There can be a perception of the 'falseness' in this
consciousness. This consciousness is 'false', in the sense that it does not run true. Because of the confused content it does not 'run true'.

K: Yes, it's contradictory.

DB: It muddles things up.

K: Not, 'muddles things up '; it 'is' a muddle.

DB: It is a muddle, yes, in the way it moves. Now then, one of
the main points is that when this consciousness reflects
on itself, the reflection has this character: it's as if there were a mirror and consciousness were looking at itself through a mirror and the mirror is reflecting consciousness as if it were not just consciousness but an independent reality.

K: Yes.

DB: Now therefore, the action which consciousness takes is
wrong, because it tries to improve its apparently independent
reality, whereas in fact this is just a muddle.
I would like to put it this way: the whole of consciousness is somehow connected up to a deeper energy. And as long as consciousness is connected in that way, it maintains its state of wrong action.

K: Yes...

DB: So on seeing that, this consciousness is reflecting itself
wrongly as being independent of thought, what is needed is somehow to disconnect the energy of that consciousness. The whole of consciousness has to be disconnected, as it were, so it would lie there without energy.

K: You're saying : don't feed it ! My consciousness is a muddle, it is confused, contradictory, and all the rest of it. But its very contradiction, its very 'muddle' gives its own energy.

DB: Well, I would say that the energy is not actually coming
from consciousness, but that as long as the energy is coming, consciousness keeps the muddle going.

K: From where does it come?

DB: We'd have to say that perhaps it comes from something
deeper... ?

K: If it comes from something deeper, then we enter into the
whole field of 'gods' and 'outside agencies' and so on.

DB: No, I wouldn't say the energy comes from an outside
agency. I would prefer to say it comes from 'me', in some sense.

K: Actually, the 'content' is creating its own energy. Look, I'm in a state of contradiction and that very contradiction gives me vitality. I have got opposing desires. When I have opposing desires I have energy, I fight. Therefore that very desire is creating the energy - not God, or something profounder - it is still desire. This is the trick that so many played. They say there is an outside agency, a deeper energy - but then one is back in the old field. But I realize the energy of
contradiction, the energy of desire, of will, of pursuit, of pleasure, all that which is the content of my consciousness - which 'is' consciousness - is creating its own energy. Reality is like this; reality is creating its own energy. I may say, "I derive my energy from deep down", but it's still reality.

DB: Yes, suppose we accept that, but the point is that seeing
the truth of this...

K: ...that's what I want to get at. Is this energy different from the energy of truth?

DB: Let's try to put it like this: reality may have many levels of energy...

K: Yes...

DB: ...and a certain part of the energy has gone off the straight line. Let's say that the brain feeds energy to all the thought processes. Now, if somehow the brain didn't feed energy to the thought process that is confused, then the whole thing might straighten out.

K: That's it. If this energy runs along the straight thread it is a
reality without contradiction. It's an energy which is endless
because it has no friction. Now is that energy different from the energy of truth?

DB: Yes. They are different, but as we once discussed there
must be a deeper common source.

K: I'm not sure on this question - you are suggesting that they both spring out of the same root ?

DB: That's what I suggest. But for the moment, there is the
energy of truth which can comprehend reality and...

K: ...the other way it cannot.

DB: No, it cannot; but there appears to be some connection in the sense that when truth comprehends reality, reality goes straight. So there appears to be a connection, at least 'one way'.

K: ( laughs) That's right, a 'one-way' connection - truth loves this, this doesn't love truth. Now, what is the energy of truth ?

P : How can a person who's living in the limitations of reality , how is he to get from this to that ?

K : He can't ! To realise that he can't is truth ! To realise that I am ( inwardly ) blind, that 'is' the truth - to realise that from knowledge & all that, I canot come to That ! To see , to feel it, to realise it...

P : So you negate that ?

K : Not 'negate'...

DB : Because in a negation you may preserve that . The negation is independent, but the reality is still there...

K: You see, sir, that's where 'meditation' comes in. Generally,
meditation is from 'here' to 'there', with practice and all the rest of it. To move from 'this' to 'that'...

DB: Move from one reality to another...

K: That's right. But meditation is actually seeing 'what is'. …

(We'll better stop, don't you think ?)

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 18 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 May 2018 #4
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

2-nd 'Truth & Reality' Dialogue

K: Sir, if 'truth' is someting different from 'reality', then what place has one's action in daily life in relation to truth and reality ? Can we talk about that ?

DB : Yes...

K: One would like, or one has to act in truth and we said that the action of reality is entirely different. Now, what is the action of truth ? Is that action unrelated to the past , unrelated to an ideal and therefore out of time ? And is there ever an action out of time or our actions are always involved in time ?

DB : Can you say that truth acts in (the field of) reality ? We were saying last time that although reality has no effect on truth, truth has some effect on reality...

K: Yes, that's right, but one would like to find out : if one lives in truth – not the 'truth of reality', but that Truth which is unrelated to reality – this reality being what we said last time, a process of thought thinking about something, or reflected upon, or distorted -which is illusion- and so on... So, what is action in Truth ? If it is not related to reality, if it is not an action of time, then what is this action ? Is there such action ? Can my mind dissociate itself from the past and the idea of 'I shall be' or 'I must be' – a projection of my own desires and so on, is there an action which is totally separated from all that ? Am I putting the question rightly ?

DB : Perhaps we're going very fast ?

K : This is too fast perhaps...

DB : It is hard to say...I think that ordinarily the action is related to the 'fact'...

K : Yes, 'fact' is as we said that is being made, or that which is being done now...

DB : But there is also another meaning : that which is actually perceived, or which is established by perception or by experience...

K: Which is (happening) 'now.' That is, the seeing 'is' the doing. Perceiving 'is' the acting - in the present ! And is the 'present' a continuous movement of the past, through the present to the future, or is the 'present' a thing that is whole, that's complete, that is sane, healthy, holy  ? I think this is rather important to find out. For the man who wants to live in truth , this is his first demand.
So, what is action in relation to 'truth' ? I know the action in relation to 'reality' – which is based on memory, which is based on environment, circumstances, adaptation, or an action 'I will do something in the future'...

DB : Which means, is there a separation between 'truth' and action , or is it that 'truth' acts ?

K: Is 'truth' action, or 'truth' acts unrelated to time ?

DB : Yes, unrelated to time, but it is 'action' itself.

K: As we said, perceiving 'is' the doing.

DB : Yes, I mean, (the perception of ) 'truth' is what establishes the fact.

K: And the 'fact', as you said too, is not only what is being done, or what is being made, but the 'actuality' of the moment.

DB : Yes, the actual act of perception which establishes the 'fact'.

K: Yes, that's right ; so is perception a movement of time, a thing that comes from the past, to the present, to the future, or is perception unrelated ?

DB : Yes... 

K: So we are saying, sir, that perception is action, and action is truth. And that truth is the perception of the 'actual', the 'what is', the moment of it .

DB : There is a peculiar history of that, because some people have said that you have an interval of time between the (perception of) truth and seeing how it works – but (inwardly) that's wrong...

K: That's wrong. The moment you have a (time-) gap in it...

DB : So the truth 'is' action itself.

K: Can a human being let truth operate ?

DB : You're saying that the operation of Truth in (the field of) 'reality' is intelligence, right ?

K: Yes, must be, of course...

DB ; Because in some sense, intelligence is the action of Truth.

K: The action of truth, but it's not cultivable …

DB : We discussed 'intelligence' before and it seems that we were discussing 'truth'. So, it seems very difficult to make these words clear...

K: Yes...what is the root meaning of the word 'truth' ?

DB : We discussed this last time, but I'll repeat : in English the root meaning of truth is 'honest and faithful' , and the latin root word 'verus' means 'that which is'...

K: Yes, 'that which is'...

DB : Both of these meanings are relevant in saying that reality must be 'honest and faithful' You see, the word 'truth' in English doesn't have quite the same meaning as in Latin- it may have it, but it also has other shades of meaning...

K: Verus - 'that which is' ! Sir, what I'm trying to get at is : can a human being live only in the present- in the sense that we are talking about- which is, live with 'what is' all the time and not with 'what should be' or 'what has been' ?

DB : Yes... but I think that the principal question is whether we can also be clear on 'that which is not', but which appears to be 'that which is'...

K: Quite...Therefore we should go back to what is 'perception'. If I can perceive clearly what is 'reality' and all the illusions and the sanity of 'reality' -the reasonableness of reality and the unreasonableness of reality, the illusion and the actual - if I see that clearly, then can there be a perception of 'what is' , which we say it's 'truth', and that very perception 'is' action, in which there's no operation of thought ? Is that what we are trying to say ?

DB : Yes, but when you say perception of 'what is', that implies a separation again...

K: Perception ! There is no 'observer' and the 'observed'...

DB : Yes, but it's very hard in our common language to avoid this because as I said, the perception of the fact is 'what is', right ? So, we have to get clear what we mean by this word...

K: Are we saying, sir, that 'what is' has its own action ? That's it, it 'is' its own action !

DB : Yes, but we have to be careful since the language seems to bring its own separation...

K: Of course !

DB : Since the last time I've looked up over this question of 'reality' and one important point about 'reality' is this notion of 'substance' - because we tend to think that things have a real substance – the meaning of 'substance' is that it 'stands under' – the very meaning of the world is 'the permanent reality which underlies the appearence of the world' ; this is part of the of idea of 'reality' - the essence, and 'substance' is some sort of essence- the permanent reality which underlies all the appearances...

K: Appearances, quite...

DB : And I think that's part of the notion of 'reality'. You see, part of the problem is this : we think of 'reality' not merely as 'things', or appearances, but as some 'substance' which underlies the appearances , or is 'what is'. In other words, our thought implicitly tells us that reality is 'what is' and that 'truth' is about reality. You see ?

K: I don't get it...

DB : You see, we tend to think that 'what is' is reality and that 'truth' is only to know correctly about that reality...

K: I understand it, sir .

DB : Now, what we're proposing here is to turn it around – saying that truth is 'what is' and reality as a whole is nothing but appearances...that's what is being proposed as I see it – a kind of appearance which may be a true appearance or correct appearance or it maybe wrong, illusion, but there is a tremendous habit to say that reality is 'what is', you see ?

K: Right...You see, the Doctor (P) and I were looking yesterday in a Sanscrit dictionary : 'maya' is not only 'measure' but also 'illusion' …

DB : Yes, but you see, we can take it to mean that the reality that we see is illusion – but I don't like the word 'illusion'....

K: Neither do I...

DB :...because the word 'illusion' implies that there is another reality...

K: Yes, quite...

DB : Perhaps that 'Atman' or Brahman might be that 'reality'...but what it's being said here is that reality – no matter in what form- is not illusion but an appearance- which may be a true appearance , as it were, or it may be false...

K: Quite...

DB : ... and this 'appearance' has its function, it's necessary, but man has always searched for that which underlies the appearances – which are always changing, you can't trust them.

K: Sir, that motor car is a reality...

DB : Yes, but we have to say that its reality it's not a only an appearance, but it's also a 'fact' because it is actually functioning, or because we perceive it. A motor car is a reality, but it is also an actual fact as well, not merely a reality...

K: Yes sir, that car is a 'fact' – it is there !

DB : Or 'reality' might be something very abstract – an idea. You see, when walking a road on a dark night, some shade might be 'real' to you but...

K: ...it's an illusion. Quite...

DB : It is not a 'fact'. So I'm saying that there's an unconscious thought process – a sort of a deeper unconscious which is just that movement by which we invest everything we see with the shapes of thought and this seems to be part of reality.

K: It 'is' part of reality ! So we said : is the 'fact' and also a 'non-fact' a reality ? We said that 'reality' is a projection of thought – what we think about, what is reflected upon and anything that thought creates, or makes, is a reality - either as a distortion or an actuality. And we were trying to find out what's the relation between truth and reality – is there any connexion  between the two ? That's one point.
And the other is : is there an action which is different from the action of reality and the action of truth ? Not 'action' and 'truth ' - but Truth 'acting' ! Whereas if there is a division in (the field of) reality between the 'observer' and the 'observed'...

DB : Yes...the 'observer' is one reality, observing another reality...

K: Ah, we are getting at it !

DB : But (the perception of ) Truth is indivisible...

K: Indivisible ! So, is there an action in one's life which is indivisible ? Because if the mind cannot find that indivisible action, it must be always in time, in conflict, in sorrow and all the rest of it...

DB : You see, one could think of 'reality' as a field which contains all the 'things' that might be there and also contains thought – as thought is also real ; all these things interact with each other by reaction and reflexion, so my thought is really not different from all the interrelations...

K: If thought has created them, they are all interrelated !

DB : Now, nature is real, but it seems to be implying something beyond that...

K: That tree 'is' – that is its truth, but I can distort it...

DB : That's the point I was trying to get at : if we say that the tree is 'that which is', is truth, then we are coming to a point of view to say that reality is not a substance – but here we are saying that truth is 'substance'. That is the role of the substance in what we were previously assigning that which underlies, or which 'stands under' and maybe the word 'understand' is related to that...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : You see, we are seeking in some way a 'substance' – something that 'stands under' the appearances, and we seek it in (the field of) reality. This has been an old habit of thought , looking for a permanent Reality that we hope to understand...But it may be safe to say that the whole of reality is not a 'substance' – it doesn't have an independent existence – it is a 'field', and what 'stands under' this reality is Truth. Would that make sense to you ?

K: That would lead us to a great danger : are you saying that under the substance is the truth ?

DB : Not really...We were saying that truth is action...

K: Yes, let's stick to this : truth is action, perception is action, seeing is action...

DB : When you said the tree 'is' truth, it means that the tree is action... ?

K : The seeing 'is' the action...

DB : The seeing of the tree, but this may be a problem of language because one tends to think that the seeing is the tree, while you say that the seeing of the tree is the action...

K: Sir, seeing this tree 'is' the action !

DB : Yes, the seeing is the action, but the tree has any action in itself ?

K: Obviously, it's growing, or dying...

DB : That's the point I am trying to get – when we talk about ''the seeing is the action'', but what about the rest of the action ? That's where the notion of 'substance' comes in...

K: Ah... substance...

DB : So seeing the tree is action – that's very clear, but then I begin to think that the tree has its own action...

K: Of course, which I don't see.

DB : So we should consider that.

K: Why should I consider it?

DB : To understand - for example you think the tree is growing...

K: Then that becomes a process of thought : how to feed it, how to help it to grow better...

DB : Yes, but we tend to get into this situation to say that only what we see at this moment...

K: Ah, I see it, yes...

DB : Now I'd like to do justice to this other situation that we don't see.

K Would you say that seeing 'is' action ?

DB : Yes, there's no doubt about that.

K: Seeing that tree is action, but the tree has its own activity...

DB : And other people have their own action even if I don't see them.

K: That tree has its own activity, and thought can come along and help it to grow properly.

DB : Yes...

K: Why should there be a division between seeing and that tree's growing ?

DB : But the problem so far is where do we put it ? I'm not saying that it should be.

K: Sir, we said earlier that seeing, acting is intelligence, right ?

DB : That's what I proposed : intelligence is truth acting in reality,

K : But Truth 'is' intelligence ! Because the seeing 'is' the acting and that action is whole. And therefore it is intelligence ; any action that is whole must be intelligence.

DB : But then, why do you use two words for that ?

K: Because I don't want to get stuck with one word. That's all.
Would it be right if I said : seeing is the doing and therefore it is intelligence and that intelligence is the essence of Truth ? That intelligence operates in all the fields.

DB : All right, it operates in all the fields, but when you say 'intelligence is the essence of truth', that is not clear...

K: I speak of 'truth' in the sense of seeing is the doing ; seeing 'what is' is action ; that action operates through intelligence.

DB : But now you've made a distinction, you see ?

K: I know...

DB : It's not very clear...

K: Sir, this is what I want to find out : is it possible to live entirely in Truth ? That is, one is functioning only with 'what is' ?

DB : We could look at that...

K: He is not bringing into operation his memories, his rememberances, his personal reactions, but the 'fact' acts.

DB : Yes, but the 'fact' also includes the action of memory to reality ; that is, the reaction of memory being also an actuality...

K: Yes, of course it is !

DB : Therefore we can see memory as an actuality, and that is still acting in truth, no ? Because you know, we must be able to act in Truth even when we are using memory like when engaging in some relation with the tree, to make it grow...

K: Sir, would you say – if one was living in Truth and therefore living with that capacity of intelligence , and therefore living with that intelligence operates in the field of reality...

DB : Somehow, from beyond it...

K: It's beyond it because it's an outside reality.

DB : That's right, as Intelligence is the action of truth, but somehow it cannot act without memory.

K: Yes, that's all we're saying.

DB : Suppose we are saying that the field of reality is a 'field', and as we were discussing life as should be straight, sane...

K: Holistic...

DB : … but we don't know what this 'field' should be. Now, doesn't the tree have its own action when we're not looking at it ?

K: Of course, its growth is going on...

DB : So, we have to say that's part of the field of reality...

K: Yes.

DB : And we affect this field of reality as we are operating...

K: Quite, sir. You live in Truth and your actions in (thr field of) reality are guided by intelligence and I observe you as an 'observer' and the 'observed' – two different entities- I observe you and I want to find out how to live in the same way – which means, you have no contradictions, you are living always with 'what is'. How am I to come to that ? Because I see an enormous possibility in what you are, I see that is the real creative way of living and whatever you do, whatever you say, whatever you write, has got that quality -not that I'm greedy or envious of you, but I say: what a marvelous thing it is to have that capacity !
Now, how am I, who always thought in duality – the 'observer' and the 'observed' and all that bussiness - how am I to come to That ? Because if it is something 'unique' to you, then I'm not interested...

DB : Yes, It can't be 'unique' or it won't be true !

K: That's just it ! So how am to get that thing ? I want to live the way you do ! I can't imitate you, you're not my example, but there must be the same perfume in me as you have it. You follow me, sir ? I'm beginning to understand from your discussion very clearly the feel of reality and truth- which is the seeing of 'what is'- and the operation of that intelligence in this area of reality : because it is intelligent, it will never distort this reality , it will never go off into any distorting activity. You see that very clearly – understand it perhaps verbally, intellectually and I feel a little emotionally attracted to it - how am I to come to that ?

DB : Maybe by seeing that Truth is indivisible ?

K: Truth is indivisible, but I am divided, I'm broken up, you follow ? I'm living in ( the field of) reality only !

DB : I have to see the 'falseness' of that as truth arises …

K: Ah ! Then you give me hope and then I'm lost – you follow ? I haven't got the ground to stand on. I know thought can deal with reality, because I am conditioned, I know all that ; either I do it badly, or excellently, rising above all. But I haven't got this 'other' thing. I only know 'reality' ; I have observed 'reality' being distorted, I have observed the energy of reality - operating rationally and irationally – I'm quite familiar with that...

Dr P : But observing is doing...

K: Ah, no ! I don't know that. He tells me that in the verbal communication, but the 'fact' of it !

DB : But when you say that reality is distorted, to see that requires (the perception of?) truth, you see ?

K: That's what I want to get at !

DB : If there's no (perception of) truth, then I don't see it !

K: I want to get at that ; is this the beginning of the quality of truth ? Seeing in the field of reality the distorting factors.

DB : Yes, seeing the things that are false...

K: False, neurotic, all the rest of it – is that the seeing of the 'Other' ?

DB : It has to be, because if it's only reality seeing reality, it has no ( deeper) meaning.

K: No meaning, quite... One wants to find out, having operated in the field of reality all my life, and seeing the distortions in that field, the seeing of the distortions is truth ! Seeing the 'fact'...

DB : It has to be truth.

Dr P : But the man living in reality sees this only verbally .. .

K: No ! I live in 'reality' – reality being all the things thought has put together, all the activity of thought thinking about something or reflecting upon ; thought distorting, thought rational, straight thread -I've lived in that field and here comes the Doctor, and says : Look, Truth is that which 'is'. And he says, when you 'see' the distortion, that is the truth, that is action. In the field of reality seeing the 'fact', that is truth. In the field of reality seeing that the 'observer' is the 'observed', that is truth ! That's it.

DB : But we made a jump between seeing the distortion and seeing that the 'observer' and the 'observed' are one. Ordinarily I would say that I've seen that the (perception of) reality is distorted, but at that moment I don't see that the observer and the observed is one... It appears to be a jump, right ?

K: Right, I 'jumped', yes. .. Sir, how do I see the distortion ? Is the 'seeing' of the distortion a rational, thoughtful, reasoned process or is it...

DB : It is without time.

K: That's right !

DB : Later we may express it rationally...

K: Right, the 'seeing' is out of time.

DB : Now we should go slowly, because sometimes the seeing comes in flash, but at other times the 'seeing' comes so gradually that you don't know when it comes...You see, both of these are just different ways of experiencing what is out of time.

K: Can it come come gradually ?

DB : No, but it seems to, when you think it over...

K: Ah, that's it !

DB : Sometimes you think : when did I understand something, because I don't know exactly when. So, being out of time we don't try to put it in a flash or...

K: Just a minute, sir, I want to see this : the seeing 'is' the doing – so there is no gradual way...

DB : No, there is no gradual way, but I think that when you say 'It's in a flash' or it comes gradually you bring it in time...

K: That's right !

DB : We can't say it's either...

K: Sir, would you put it like this : the seeing 'is' the doing, but you want to find reasons or to explain it ?

DB : Yes, you're slipping back into the notions of reality, like explaining any information about reality. So, when you're seeing the distortion, the action comes in, but I think here another problem comes in : in an unusual situation  someone sees the distortion, but he's still not free of it ; and therefore time and all this has come in...

K: Then, he's not 'seeing' !

DB : Yes...

K: If I am not free of my distortion, I havent't 'seen' it !

DB : Yes... And one way to look at it is that one hasn't seen the whole of it ?

K: Yes, of course, put it this way...The 'seeing' sir, is the whole !

DB : I think this point has to be worked out very carefully, because what generally happens is that one sees – but not the whole - and someone might ask you what to do in that situation. I saw the distortion, but it came back. How can I see the whole ?

K: 'You' cannot see the whole !

DB : Then how shall I see it, so that it won't come back ? You see, this is one of the ...

K: (laughs) Sir, I think the 'catch' is  : is 'seeing and doing' a thought process ? And the thought process comes in only in explaining and all the rest of it.
The seeing is doing which means seeing the whole...And if the mind sees the whole, the distortion can never come back.

DB ; Yes, but I have to see the whole field of reality because that's where the distortion is ...

K: Yes.

DB : You see, perhaps I've seen the distortion in certain cases –like in my own branch. In certain cases I see that I distort, but that's not seeing the whole field of reality. So then I start to think that I distort in this way or in that way...so then I have to see the whole field of reality that's what it looks like...

K: I think you do, sir, when your seeing 'is' the doing, you must see the whole !

DB : Yes, but what I mean is 'seeing the essence' of this whole field, not only the details...

K: Can one see what the act of intelligence be in the field of reality ?

DB : I don't quite understand it...

K: Can one tell another, verbally, what that intelligence will do in the field of reality ? Or state beforehand what it will do ?
What I'm trying to find out is : I see this (perception of ) truth operating in the field of reality. Now what will that Intelligence do under these circumstances ? Can one ask this question, or is it a distorted question ?

DB : It is somewhat distorted...

K: Isn't it ?

DB : Because it presupposes that intelligence is one reality, and the other is another reality

K: So that's what we are doing all the time : Tell me what that intelligence will do in the field of reality and I will follow that ! You have that intelligence and I ask you, pray to you to tell me how that intelligence operates in this ?

DB : I don't think it is correct to say that someone 'has' that Intelligence. Perhaps we can say that that Intelligence acts through that man. Would that be more fair, rather than say that he has this intelligence ?

K: Yes, quite …

DB : But it seems to me that there is not really a distinction between this man and the other man...

K: Right !

DB : That could be the key...

K: Sir, what place has Love in (the perception of) Truth ?

DB : It's hard to say what does this question means... ?

K: The question means this : what we generally call 'love'- is it always in the field of reality ?

DB: I don't think it is limited to the field of reality...

K: But we have reduced it to that ! So what is the relation between Love and Truth ? Is Truth, Love ? 'Love' - that word again - what it means ?

DB : It's not very clear in the dictionary, but aside from pleasure & all that...

K : That is all 'reality'.

DB :... the nearest thing I could get was...

K; Compassion ?

DB : Compassion, but most of the meaning goes back to 'pleasure'.

K: Pleasure...All right, is pleasure in the field of reality ?

DB : Well, it seems it is.

K: It is ! Then, that pleasure has no relation to truth.

DB : What we could say about 'enjoyment' ?

K: Is enjoyment pleasure ?

DB : It depends on how we use this word – if we want to establish a distinction, we could say it is not...

K: There's enjoyment in seeing the tree . Not that I am enjoying the tree, but the seeing of that tree is a joy ! The seeing, therefore the seeing 'is' the doing and the 'doing' is joy.

DB : Yes...

K: Right ? Then what place has Compassion in the field of reality ? We said, Compassion is Love, Truth...

DB : Yes, we could say that Compassion is all in the action of Truth.

K: All in the action of truth...right .

DB : You see, if we say Love is in the action of Truth, the action of Truth includes at its very least, benevolence, compassion...

K: It is all one : seeing, doing, compassion - it's all one, not 'seeing', then 'doing', then 'compasion'. Seeing, as we said, and the doing is the whole ; and when there is that 'seeing of the whole', there is Compassion...

DB : Yes, but I think we have to see the absolute necessity of this, because Truth is whole, and the lack of compassion arises from this sense of division, when one feels divided from the other people or from the world ; so if there is no division...

K: That is Compassion ! Sir, these are all-one.

DB : Which means that if there is a particular or 'personal' feature of reality, then that implies division...

K: Or, would you say, seeing, doing, truth -all that is Love- let's call all that 'Love'. I may love you, but in that love, because I feel compassionate you don't become a 'particular' thing.

DB : Let's try to make this clear, because there is a tremendous tendency to make it particular...

K: When 'I' separate 'you', in that separation Love cannot exist.

DB : Yes, but what do you mean by being without separation ?

K: When the thought process operates in me, when there is that sense of duality, in that sense is there love, is there compassion ?

DB : No, because we said, that's a sense of separation...

K: We said no...Then, when there is a perception of the whole -which is ( the action of) Love- I love you, but also I have the same feeling for the other...

DB : What meaning do we give to different people or to different things in this (perception of) 'wholeness' ?

K: 'I love you', doesn't mean I exclude the others. I live with you, I cook for you, or you're my wife or whatever it is, but the others are not excluded...

DB : I understand that now, but it seems there's some truth to distinguishing some people, even if we don't exclude, you see ? There may be a distinction with no exclusion, right ?

K: Yes.

DB : So, I'm trying to get at something, because...

K: Because this is one of the problems, sir, we have made love into an exclusive process - ''you're mine, I'm yours'', with all the dependency and all that bussiness : when I 'see' this dependency, I see the whole structure of that dependency as a whole and therefore the seeing 'is' the doing, it's finished !

DB : Are 'you' and 'I' realities - is that what you mean ?

K: Of course !

DB : And I may have love for you or for something – in other words it seems that Love is an action of Truth in ( the field of) reality...

K: Yes, that's what we said. But when I see that I depend on you, which I call 'love', and I see the whole nature of dependency, then it's finished ! Therefore I no longer depend- which doesn't mean callousness & all that...And the 'seeing' of that is Compassion. Therefore I love you, though I don't depend on you. Are we getting to something ?

DB : That is saying that 'seeing' is necessary for compassion, or 'is' compassion ...

K: It 'is' compassion, of course ! But as long as I depend on you, the 'other' thing is not.

DB : Yes ; when I depend on you there is something false...

K: Of course...So, what is a man who lives in (the field of) reality and observes the rational and the irrational in that field, seeing the irrational is the truth. Because he sees the whole of the irrationality of that field ; and because he 'sees' it, the seeing is the doing, therefore that is the Truth. So he 'lives in truth' in the field of reality, right ?

DB : You see, I think the basic thing that's false when one person depends on another, that means seeing the field of reality as something more than it is, giving it overwhelming importance and therefore everything is distorted...

K: So, in a school or in an educational bussiness, or a man who is trying to communicate, how does he communicate Truth to the student ? Because the student lives only in... Or to the world , how do you communicate this to a bussiness man or to a priest ? To him, living in (the field of) reality he has created an image of God, or of whatever it is, and that is distortion ! He won't see that …

DB : Isn't it possible to communicate the fact of distortion ?

K: Yes, you can, but...

DB : ...there is a resistance ?

K: There is such tremendous conditioning ! That's what's happened with most of the students …

DB : Yes, or with anybody...

K: With anybody...How do you 'break down' this resistance ? Through compassion ?

DB : Well, I think it is necessary, but it's not enough...

K: You are compassionate and I am terribly conditioned...How do you help me break this thing ?

DB : I think that what is needed is not just compassion, but an energy...

K: That's what I mean, the 'passion' ! Which means one has the tremendous energy which is born of passion, compassion, and all the rest of it. Does that energy create a new consciousness in the other ? Or are we adding to consciousness a new content ?

DB : No, I shouldn't think so. If you add a new content wouldn't it be the same thing ?

K: Same thing, that's right ! I have listened to the Buddha, I've listened to Jesus, I've listened to all kinds of things, and you come along and add some more to it. Because you are energetic, you got full of this thing, I absorb that and add another 'content' to my consciousness ! And you said : Don't do it ! But I have already done it, because that's my habit, my conditioning, that I add, add, add...carry on burden after burden. How do I receive you ? How do I 'listen' to you ? How are you doing this thing ? Because you have this problem in your university...How are you to convey something to them, to a student who is -you know how they are  -this sense of truth ? And you are burning with it, you are full of it ! It must be a problem to you , like …beating your head against a wall ! Fortunately I don't have this problem because ... I don't care (laughing)

DB : You're not what... ?

K: I don't care – if they don't listen, then they're not listening and that is all.

DB : (also laughs) But that's more or less what I do too - to some extent. There may be a few who are ready to listen...

K: Or, can you bring a new quality to the consciousness ?
Look sir, Lenin, the priests in the name of Jesus, the (ancient) Hindus they have affected the human consciousness, hmm ?

DB : But not in this fundamental way...

K: Not in this fundamental way, no, but they have affected it – because of their police, they have monitored and tortured people...they have influenced it . Here, are you influencing them, adding another chapter to their consciousness ?

DB : There's a danger of that...

K: Or are you saying : ''Look, get out of all that ! There's no 'seeing' without freedom.'' Right, sir ?

DB : Yes...

K: So, freedom is the essence of 'seeing' - freedom from prejudice and all the rest of it. Therefore, a mind that is free can 'see'. That is 'seeing' and this seeing 'is' the doing.

DB : But that raises the question that the lack of freedom is the instrument of reality...

K: Quite. A communist says : there is no such thing as freedom...

DB : Well, Karl Marx has said there is that, but they will achieve freedom in the field of reality- they would eventually come at freedom. I mean, these are the communists who have really understood...

K: Of course, they have said : change man's environment...

DB : Yes , change the reality and man is free ; but of course, a man that is not (inwardly) free cannot change reality !

K: Of course ! So you see, that's the danger...

DB : But we have to step out of the whole thing, you see ?

K: Yes, that's it ! We have to 'step out' of the whole thing. And that needs energy.

DB : Yes...

K: As I live in the field of reality, which has its own energy, that energy will not free me.

DB : No...

K: But the 'seeing' of the distortion in the field of reality will give that energy.

DB : Yes , I think the 'seeing' of the inevitable distortion...

K: No, no...the seeing of the distortion 'is' ( generating its own) energy.

DB : But the seeing of the distortion cannot be avoided in that field of reality.

K: Are you saying that in the field of reality distortion is inevitable ?

DB : You see, many people would agree with you, would say, ''Yes, in the back of my mind there is a hope to do something to stop it...''

K: Yes, quite, and the very desire to stop it is (becoming) another distortion !

DB : I have to see that there is no way out in that field.

K: No, wait a minute ! In that field of reality there are distortions – the seeing of the distortions - 'seeing' the whole of distortions – the 'seeing' brings that energy – of course, it must !

DB : But even the feeling that there is no energy is a distortion...

K: Of course. We said in the field of reality, reality has its own energy – a kind of energy...

DB : Yes, and I think this energy includes desire...

K : Includes desire, includes...

DB : ...all other forms of energy - will...

K: And also the energy of distortion. Now, to 'see' that distortion, the mind must be free !

DB : Yes...

K : It must look at it, it must 'put it ouside' as it were and look at it.

DB : We can look at it like this : the whole field of reality is permeated with distortion, and you're saying that in some way we can look at this whole field of reality – in some sense to put a 'distance' – is this what you're saying ?

K: Yes...

DB : Although we have to be very clear, because we're also saying there is no division !

K: (laughing) Yes, the observer 'is' the observed and all that !

DB : There seems to be a contradiction there...Would you rather say, a kind of a (free) 'space', or something 'empty' ?

K: Yes, sir, empty !

DB : Between this reality and...

K: This reality is 'empty'

DB : Yes... ?

K: Right ...This reality is nothing !

DB : Yes, there was a point you just mentioned : if we said that it was nothing because the word 'nothing' also means no-thing

K: No thing, right...

DB: You see, reality is to be 'something', so when we say 'no-thingness' it doesn't mean unreal - it is neither in, or out there - it is out of that field...

K: Out of that field, yes...

DB : And ultimately reality is nothing – 'no-thing' - but now we're saying that there has to be some kind of ( free inner) space, some 'emptiness' from which the 'thing' can be seen – because as we said 'seeing' is truth, which is no-thing...and seeing can only take place in nothingness, which is energy .

K: That's right, sir. When the mind is empty, when the mind is nothing -''not-a-thing''- in that there is perception.

DB : Yes, and energy...Now, the mind is nothing and reality is nothing, although ultimately reality is a 'thing' …

K: ( laughs) Yes...

DB : Which means that in this (state of inner) 'nothingness' there is a certain form, but a form which is nothing

K: Yes sir, but that presuposes that ( inwardly) there is nothing...

DB ; Which is only an 'image' …

K: That's right !

DB : I mean it's an image too, because otherwise you turn that 'image' into a thing... But the mind in some way 'steps back', I mean it is not connected with this 'reality' in order to see. And you say this is 'space'... ?

K : There must be space between...there must be space...

DB : Reality is in the space. But when you say 'space' there is also 'distance' so there must be a way in which they are connected...

K: Sir, isn't there (free inner) 'space' when the observer 'is' the observed ?

DB : Yes, but we have to get it right, because it sounds wrong...

K: I got it : we are not using the word 'space' as a division, as dividing factor. I mean, when I see something, that candle, there's space – a verbal space, but the 'seeing' has no dividing space …

DB : Yes but before you said...

K: Ah, before I said : when people say 'I see' there's a division.

DB : Yes but you have also said you should have some 'space' in order to perceive reality. So we should say that there are two kinds of 'space' : one is dividing and the other is not...

K: That's right...one is dividing, the other is not.

DB : So, we can say that the second is including – this ( free inner) 'space' includes everything.

K: Yes ! In the 'seeing and doing' there is no division. Where there is division there is the so called 'space of time', distance and all the rest of it. This space of no division is 'in space' …

DB : Well, everything is 'in space' – Space includes everything. We all know that this (free inner) space is not a division – you can amost call it 'the ground of everything'..

K : Yes.

DB : Now, we want to underline the 'substance'...

K The 'space' ( mental distance ? ) I create when I dislike you , or like you, is different from the freedom of this (inner) space …

DB : You mean, from the space of this room ?

K: Yes...

DB : You see, the room is part of an 'all-one' space - it goes into the outer space and every object is in that space, so, in some sense we are all united, we are 'all-one'.

K: Without (this free inner) space I couldn't exist.... I wonder if we're talking of the same thing...

DB : Well, are we discussing the 'space of the mind' as well ?

K: Yes, the 'space in the mind' , that's where...

DB : So, there's the 'visual space' which everyone can sense, and there is a 'space in the mind'... ?

K : Space in the mind.

DB : Can we say that 'reality' is in the space in the mind ? Within...

K: I can artificially create it...

DB : Yes... but I mean, we can see the whole reality is within space, now is this 'whole' of reality within the 'space of the mind '?

K: Let's get this clear ! Sir, when seeing 'is' acting, in that there's no space as division.

DB : Yes...

K: I think that's clear; therefore that 'space' is the freedom of 'no-thingness'. We said that.

DB : Yes...So this ( staye of inner) 'no-thingness' is the same as freedom … ?

K: That's all what we're saying ; therefore truth is 'no-thingness '; not-a-thing !

DB : Right...

K: The action of ''no-thingness'', which is intelligence, in the field of reality – that intelligence being free operates in the field of reality without distortion. That's one factor. And in one's mind, if there is no space, but crowded with problems, with images, with rememberances, with knowledge & all that, such a mind is not free, and therefore no 'seeing & acting'. In the mind that is so crowded there is no space.

DB : Yes, so when there is no 'space', the mind is controlled by all these 'things'...

K: Yes, controlled by environment, distortions etc. So for a mind that is empty, 'no-thing', the seeing 'is' the doing and the doing is truth & intelligence and so on... This 'space' is not created by thought, therefore it is not limited.

DB : Yes, but this can see the 'thing' in the field of reality and therefore it can act in relation to that 'thing', right ?

K: Yes...

DB : In some sense, a 'thing' can be absorbed into that 'space' since the space is related to the thing ...

K: Are you saying, sir, that reality exists in this 'space of the Mind '?

DB : That's what I'm saying. The fact is, there's no 'reality' in this space …

K: That's right, there is no 'reality' .

DB : ... but there is some 'essence' that can contact the 'thing' ; you see, the 'thing' is thought, what we think about- this part is understood...

K: Are we saying, sir : when there is 'space' in the mind, what place has thought in that emptiness, or what place has reality in that 'emptiness' ?

DB : Yes...

K: Has thought any place in that 'spaceness' ?

DB : ... which ends the distortion...in some way, this 'space' seems to contact the skills of thought …

K: A-ha ! To make much simpler for myself- what place has thought in that ( free inner) space ?

DB : It may have no place...

K: Let's put it this way : what is the relationship between that space and thought? If thought created that 'space' then it has a relationship, but thought has not created that 'space' !

DB : We were saying last time, that truth can act in the field of reality...

K That's right.

DB : Therefore this 'space' can act in the field of reality, or in thought, although it's not the other way...

K: Yes, one way...

DB : And that act is primarily to 'straighten up' thought, so that it can move on its own, no ?

K: That's right...So what is the relationship of that (free inner) 'space' to thought ?

DB : Well, to the 'content' of thought it has none, but we can consider that sometimes thought is also with 'that which is'...You see, when we say thought is not working right...

K: Are you saying, sir, that when thought is operating straight, rational, sane, healthy, holy, 'That' has a relationship to this ?

DB : Yes, that's what I am saying – they are in alignement.

K: That's right.

DB : Somehow they are moving in parallel, but this 'space' can also act within thought so as to make it parallel.

K: Yes, we said that ! It's a 'one way' relationship...

DB : Yes, but I'm trying to make a distinction : if we take the content of thought, which is consciousness, that has no action on... what I'm trying to say is that the distortion of thought goes beyond the workings of this content. You see, what is the action of Truth within thought ? That is really the question...

K: Yes.

DB : I mean, in general we can say that it can straighten it up or remove its distortions...

K: Sir, the seeing 'is' the doing- let's stick to that- the seeing of distortion 'is' the ending of distortion...

DB : Yes...

K: The ending of that distortion 'is' because there is the energy of 'seeing'...

DB : Yes, which acts somewhat within thought – on thought... ?

K: I see a distortion outside of me or inside me, and to perceive that there must be freedom, freedom implies energy and therefore the 'seeing' pushes it away, 'clears' it .
Now, if there is a rational, sane thinking – what is the relationship of that to the 'space' in the Mind ?

DB : Well, that only arises when this 'space' has cleared up thought, and then thought moves in parallel to truth...

K: Is it 'parallel' or is there harmony between them ?

DB : Harmony with 'that which is' …

K : Can we put it this way, sir ? Thought is measurement- which is time – so thought is a movement in the field of time. And we say, Truth is not related to that...

DB : As we said, it is a 'one way' relationship...

K: One way...

DB : That is, truth does not depend on thought, but thought may be acted upon by truth...

K: Yes, truth can act upon thought, that's understood, it's clear. Then, they're all in the same 'space' within the mind. Therefore there is no division as 'thought' and 'truth'.

DB : Yes, the division was the result of distortions ; therefore thought is also in truth, or it moves...

K: Just a minute, sir, I am not quite sure of this... Thought, as we said, is of time, thought 'is' time, measure & all the rest of this...

DB : Yes...

K: And we said, truth is not that ; then what is the relationship of thought to Truth ? When that question is put, thought is looking to truth and therefore it has no relationship !
But when Truth looks at thought, it has a relation – in the sense of functioning in the field of time...

DB : Yes, and that's the same as the field of reality...

K: Yes, I function in the field of reality. Now, is there a movement 'in parallel' or there is no division at all ? There is no division when Truth is looking.

DB : Yes...So when Truth is looking, thought has to reflect truth within itself...

K: Yes, that's right.

DB : Because I think that's where the trouble arise – thought is trying to reflect truth in itself and call that an 'independent reality'...

K: That's right, when thought reflects upon 'truth' then there is a division.

DB : Yes, I mean thought intrinsically divides itself into 'truth' and...

K: Yes, it divides itself !

DB : But that's only because thought is only reflecting...

K: Quite, but when Truth regards ( the field of) reality, there is no division. Because we said, when Truth operates in the field of reality, it shall operate with intelligence.

DB : Yes, reality is necessarily a field for truth not to operate – that's what I'm driving at. The difficulty arises when we start with thought and thought begins to reflect on 'truth' and it produces a notion of 'reality' and of the 'truth' about that reality …

K: And therefore it is all divided...

DB : It is divided, and gives reality the significance of 'that which is' -and this is where it goes wrong - when reality is given the significance of 'that which is'. But reality is actually an action or a function of intelligence, therefore it's all part of a 'One', you see ?

K: Yes, sir, when intelligence operates in the field of reality it is 'one'.

DB : And therefore reality is merely a field, it is not 'that which is' with an independent substance.

K: Yes, sir, that's something we have discovered !

DB : Yes...And this is to say that the field of reality is in this 'space'

K: Wait a minute...That means thought is in this space ?

DB : That is when I start from thought. Then I think this is a substance which is by itself , then there is another one and they are saparate by a 'space' ...But if I look at it another way and I say ; there is a 'truth' , or a 'space', and reality is merely a function of that action ; it is not an independent substance, it is not 'that which is', you see ?

K: Are we saying sir  that when Truth operates in the field of reality, in that there is no division ? So you are telling me, 'Don't be concerned with Truth – as you don't know what this means , be concerned with the field of reality and its distortions'. You say to me : ''be free of distortions''. And to be free of distortions, just observe the distortions. That 'observance' means freedom ! And therefore that freedom and that 'observance' will give you the energy to push away the distortions. And the 'seeing' of the distortion is the Truth.

DB : Yes...

K: So the Truth is not something separated from 'seeing' and the 'doing' – they are all 'all-one'. And this is the intelligence which operates in the field of reality without distortions
Then, as I have freed myself of these distortions, Truth is the 'seeing and the doing' as the operation of intelligence in the field of reality. That's all I know, actually !
So, if I have in my consciousness a great many distorting factors - do I have to take them out with a single observation or do I have to take them one by one ?

DB : You can't take them one by one...

K: You can't, therefore 'seeing' is the whole. Therefore, when you see the whole, therefore that is the Truth. But to 'see' that, my mind must have 'space' .

DB : Could you say that the mind is not occupied with itself ?

K: Of course, (such) occupation means corruption !

DB : You see, the word 'emptiness' means not occupied …

K : Not occupied. So it's not occupied, it's 'empty' – because it has no problems. And therefore the emptying of the mind of its 'content' is Meditation .

DB : One more thing : it occured to me that the thing that comes closest to the essence of this 'distortion' is the feeling that 'reality' is all there is - and taking it for 'all which is' …

K: Just a minute sir : if the mind puts away all distortions, what is the necessity of thought – except as a 'function' ?

DB : The rational function ?

K: Function, that's all !

DB : Many people might feel that thought is a rational function, but they can't make it so...

K: I'm just asking, sir : if there is no control of thought , then thought is free of all distortions...

DB : Then Truth is operating...

K: That's it ! Therefore thought itself is a distorting factor - if Truth is not operating.

DB : Quite right ! When Truth is not operating then thought is moving in all sorts of ways- just like the wind and the waves- the wind comes up and the waves move in this way and that way...And whaterver happens will just make thought go around and distort

K: Of course ! Would you say : thought in itself is divisive, is creating distortions ?

DB : But you see, there are two ways to look at it : without Truth, is thought creating distortions, or thought, whatever happens, is creating distortions...I don't think you want to say that...

K: No, the other one : thought without that quality of 'seeing' is a distorting factor

DB : Yes, I was trying to look at it this way : that thought contains two factors : to 'react' or to 'reflect' – and it is this immediate 'reactive' factor which makes it seem so 'real' -it reacts so fast that you don't realise it's thought. Now, the difficulty arises when you loose track of the 'reflexion', you see ?

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And if a reflexion has occurred and thought looses track of it, then the 'reflected' thing will be taken as 'real'...

K: As 'real', right ! We must be very clear here - that the word 'maya' doesn't mean 'illusion'...

DB : I think that it was probably a mistranslation into English, as the root meaning of word 'maya' is to measure.

K: To measure...

DB : And measurement by itself is a function, which as we said, it can be rational or...
( I think it's five thirty! )

K: Oh, my God ( laughing) that's a 'reality' ! Shall we do this every Saturday ?

DB : Yes, it's fine .

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 18 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 07 May 2018 #5
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

THIRD 'TRUTH & REALITY' DIALOGUE

K: What do we start off ?

DB : We could either start with the question of thought which is not verbal or we could go into a question I have been considering since last week: What is the relationship between necessity and freedom ? Does that seem interesting ?

K: Thought which is non-verbal... ?

DB : Well, it is generally clear that thought is dominated by the word, by the order of the words - one word gives rise to an image, and the image gives rise to another word...

K: ...or to all the verbal associations.

DB : Yes, so thought is not just the word, it is dominated by the word.

K : Is there a thinking at all without the word ?

DB : That's the question...Now, I have the feeling that there is some kind of thinking without the word...

K: What is that ?

DB : Well, it's hard to explain - but it's a thinking which does not follow the order in which the word gives rise to associations and associations to word...

K: I'm not at all sure that there is any kind of thinking - as we know it - without the word, symbol and image. And if there is such a thinking is it a thinking according to the process of knowlege, a reaction to knowledge, a continuation of knowledge – and so, it is still a verbal rememberance, a rememberance of incidents, symbols, words and images ? If there is no verbal thinking at all , then what is 'thinking' ? Is there a thinking at all ?

DB : It depends on what you mean... ?

K: All right, by 'thinking' we mean the response of memory, of our conditioning, of verbal associations...

DB : Well, in that case, you define 'thinking' as the word already...And if you define it that way I think it is impossible...

K: But that is thinking, isn't it ?

DB : Well, I think a part of our question is how we assign the use of words, which is the clearest way in which we are trying to use words in an appropriate or fitting way. For example if you say 'reality is not truth', that is a different way of using words that identifies 'reality' and 'truth'...

K: Yes...

DB : Now the only justification for changing the use of words is to make the communication more clear.

K: That is description...

DB : Description, but still it has some advantages to use one description instead of another .

K: Quite, quite...like when I'm describing a house, ...

DB : Right...Now when you're saying 'reality is not truth' you are defining 'reality' in a certain way - which you think will communicate (your insight ) more clearly.

K: Yes, quite...

DB : Now when you use the word 'thinking' , are you proposing to define thinking as the 'response of memory' -in which case there will be no question about a 'non-verbal' thought, you see ?

K: That's what I want to get at ! How would you define then, or explain, what is 'thinking' ?

DB : Well, I might explain it as if there'll be some kind of 'imagination' and not merely the association of the word.
Ordinarily, this 'imagination' is stimulated by the word...

K: Yes... word, symbol and so on...

DB : Now, I think when somebody has a new insight, that may appear as imagination...

K: Is 'insight' imagination ?

DB : Not in itself, but the first step in realising the insight may be through imagination...

K: You are saying that the insight is imagination...?

DB : No, but through 'imagination' one begin to realise the insight, to carry it out.

K: I question that !

DB : Maybe this 'imagination' is a kind of display of the meaning of whatever is in your mind...Ordinarily we talk about 'images' but it may be something more general. Now let us try to relate this to 'thought' : the mind works not only explicitly, but implicitly – 'implicit' means 'folded up'. Now the 'implicit' doesn't follow in the simple order, you see ? Because there can be a tremendous range of implications, and they are not simply 'things' brought together by words. You follow me ?

K: Yes, sir...

DB : Now, therefore the 'imagination' works to reveal its implications...

K: Is insight brought about through imagination, through verbal symbols ?

DB : Well, it's not that it's brought about that way, but it may be displayed that way...

K: Ah ! Insight may express itself through words, through 'imagination', but is insight different from the word, from the 'image' ?

DB : The insight is different from the image, but at the same time, when the image expresses the insight, it may be different from the image...

K: I have an insight into this fact that 'reality' is a process of thinking, that 'reality' is something that you think upon -as we agreed the other day- I have an insight into that and 'truth' is something totally different from that. Insight – that is, having a glimpse into something that is 'true' – both real and true .

DB : Yes, now the question arises when you want to communicate the insight, if you want the insight to work more broadly...

K: I understand, but is the quality of insight a verbal process ?

DB : No, that is not a verbal process, but I was saying something else. Let me give you an example : at a certain time I had a student in the field of technology who had some problems with mathematics. Now, one way to work it out is going through many (logical) steps ; and I had an insight that if you can 'rotate' this thing in a certain direction, then it would be obvious.

K: Obvious, right...

DB : Now that was expressed through imagination, you see ?

K: That insight, how does it come about ?

DB : I was about to say that the insight does not come about through thought... but at the same time there is the thought which may express that...

K: I understand that...

DB : And we can call that 'non-verbal' thought ; I mean it was a thought that was not arising with the word.

K: You have an insight, and that insight expresses through words, through images, through symbols – that is clear, but is the insight a movement of thought ?

DB : No, but I want to make a distinction between that movement of thought whose order is primarily from that insight, from another movement of thought which comes from mechanical...And I would call that 'non-verbal' thought, in the sense that...

K: Which one would you call 'non-verbal' ?

DB : The one that comes from the insight - when it is expressing insight...

K: Ah...when insight expresses itself, that expression is non-verbal – is that it ?

DB : No, that expression may be verbal and imaginative later- like for example your insight about reality and truth which you have to express through words...

K Words, yes...

DB : Now I would propose that the use of words is different from somebody who just simply...

K: A-ha, I understand it ! Yes...

DB : I want to distinguish two ways of using words and images when using thought...

K: Quite...Is insight separate from thought and separate from action ?

DB : What do you mean by 'separate' ?

K: I have an insight into something - that insight expresses itself verbally and there is 'action' ; is that action different from the action of thought ?

DB : From the action which is produced by thought alone ?

K: Yes.

DB : That was the point I was trying to get at : there is one kind of process – which is thought working on its own, in which the word produces the associated image and the image produces the next word...and altogether they produce action – that is one process...

K: Yes, that is : the action from insight is different from the action from thought .

DB : Yes, it is different from the action produced by thought alone. So, there's one kind of process - which is thought working on its own - in which the word produces the image and the image produces the next word and altogether they produce an action – that is one process.

K: That is, 'thought action' is very different from 'insight action'

DB : Yes, all right...

K: Then what is the relationship between the action of insight and the action of the process of thought ? Is there a relationship ?

DB : Well, not if the process of thought is working alone...

K: So you are saying : insight - verbal expression-action and insight, non-verbal expression-action ? Two forms of insight.

DB : There's an insight which expresses itself non-verbally and that leads to action , and the insight which expresses itself verbally and action - is that what you're saying ?

K: Yes, that's what I am saying. Insight-action, in that there is no division, no separation, there's no time interval between insight and action. The other is : insight - verbal expression -and acting ….

DB : Well, the verbal expression might be itself action. So we could say that one form of insight imediately expresses itself in words...

K: I'm trying to break it up : I had an insight into the (fact that) any form of organisation does not lead to truth – I had an insight to dissolve the 'Order of the Star' – it was an action taken immediately...

DB : Yes, but in that action you used words...

K: Of course ! But the action born of insight is something totally different from the action born of thought.

DB : Yes, I will agree with that, but my feeling is that from the action born of insight may arise words, may arise other things, but there is no great distinction between one and another...

K: I am not sure...

DB : Let's take the insight about 'reality' and 'truth' – and there it became necessarily to put it in words - which I don't think was fundamentally different from any other action. In other words, that was the appropriate action at that moment...

K: I think there is a fundamental difference that I'm trying to get at ! Isn't there an action which is non-verbal, non-reasoned out - an action which is not in the field of thought ? I don't know if I'm making myself clear ? Let's go back a little bit : what is 'action' ? Action is something that is taking place now, being made now and acting now. Is this action different from that action which is part of time, part of thought, part of a process ?

DB : We have to distinguish something here- if you want an action to enter into the field of reality, to produce a real effect, then you must enter in that field...

K: Of course...

DB : And therefore you want to communicate the action to other people. Now we're proposing : is there an action which does not enter into this field of reality ?

K: For the moment I am not concerned to communicate it with others. We are concerned to find out if there is an action which is not a process of thought, an action which is 'of truth' - if I can put it that way - an insight which acts instantly. I want to question that .

DB : Perhaps one action that acts instantly is to see the
falseness... ?

K: Yes. It's difficult to take examples. I have an insight into the fact that people believe in God - I'm taking that as an example. People 'believe' that...

DB: What is the nature of your insight, then?

K: The insight into the fact that 'God' is their projection.

DB: Yes, and therefore false.

K: I have an insight and if I had a belief in 'God' it drops
instantly. So it is not a process of thought, it is a process of insight into truth.

DB: Or into falseness...

K: Or into falseness, and that action is complete, it's over and
done with. That action is whole, there is no regret, there is no personal advantage, there is no emotion. It is an action that is complete. Whereas the action brought about by thought, into the investigation and the analysis whether there is a God, or no God, is always incomplete.

DB: I understand that. Then there is another action in
which you do use words, where you try to realize the insight
Let's say, you talk to people. Is that action complete or
incomplete? Say, you have discovered about 'God'. Other people are still calling this a 'fact', and therefore...

K: But the man speaks from an insight.

DB: He speaks from an insight, but at the same time he starts a process of time.

K: Yes, to convey something...

DB: To change things. Let's now consider that just to get it
clear. It's starting from an insight, but it's conveying truth.

K: Yes, but it's always starting from an insight.

DB: And in doing that you may have to organise...

K: ...reasonable thinking and so on, of course. And the action of a reasoned thought is different from the action of insight.

DB: Now what is the difference when insight is conveyed
through reasoned thought? To come back again to your insight
about 'God': you have to convey it to other people, you must put it into a reasonable form.

K: Yes...

DB: And therefore isn't there still some of the quality of the
insight, as you convey it? You must find a reasonable way to
convey it. Therefore in doing that, some of the truth of the insight is still being communicated in this form. And in some sense that is thought.

K: But when conveying to another that insight verbally,
his action will be incomplete unless he has this insight.

DB: That's right. So whatever you convey will give someone an insight.

K: Can you give an insight?

DB: Not really, but whatever you convey must somehow start
something which perhaps cannot be further described.

K: Yes. That can only happen when you yourself have dropped
the belief in 'God'.

DB: But there is no guarantee that it will happen... ?

K: No, of course not.

DB: That depends on the other person, whether he is ready to listen.

K: So we come to this point: is there a thinking which is non-verbal?

DB: I would say there is a kind of thinking that communicates insight. The insight is non-verbal, but the thinking itself is not 'non-verbal'. There is the kind of thinking which is dominated by the word and there is another kind of thinking whose order is determined, not by the word, but by the order of insight.

K: Is the insight the product of thought?

DB: No, but insight works through thought. I wanted to say that the thought through which insight is working has a different order from the other kind of thought. I want to distinguish those two. You once gave an example of a drum vibrating from the emptiness within. I took it to mean that the the skin was like the action of thought. Right?

K: Right.... Sir, how does insight take place? Because it is not the product of thought, not the process of organized
thought and all the rest of it, then how does this insight come into being?

DB: It's not clear what you mean by the question...

K: How do I have an insight that 'God' is a projection of our own desires, images and so on? And I see the falseness of it or the truth of it; how does it take place?

DB: I don't see how you could expect to describe it...

K: I have a feeling inside that thought cannot possibly enter into an area where insight, truth is ; it operates anywhere
else. That area of truth , can operate through thought. But thought cannot enter into that area.

DB: That seems clear. We say that thought is the response of
memory. Then we could say that this cannot be unconditioned and free...

K: No, it cannot. Then what is 'non-verbal' thinking ?

DB : I just said : the expression of thought is that part which expresses a non-verbal insight, and which is of a different order. Now, if you say 'non-verbal' thinking, it is not clear what you mean, since the word 'thinking' implies an activity by thought alone, while this is not working in the area of thought alone, you see? So if you are using the term 'non-verbal' thought, that means something which is not coming from thought alone but from something beyond that...

K: I would like to go into this question, if I may: how does this
insight take place? If it is not the process of thought, then what is the quality of the mind, or the quality of observation, in which thought doesn't enter? And because it doesn't enter, you have an insight. We said, insight is complete. It is not fragmented as thought is. So thought cannot bring about an insight.

DB: No, but thought may communicate the insight. Or it may
communicate some of the data which lead you to an insight. For example, people told you about religion and so on, but eventually the insight depends on something which is not thought.

K: Insight is not dependent on thought, right ? Then how does this insight come? Is it a cessation of thought?

DB: It could be considered as a cessation...

K: Thought itself realizes that it cannot enter into a certain area. That is, the thinker 'is' the thought, the 'observer', the 'experiencer' and all the rest of it; and thought itself realizes that it can only function within a certain area.

DB: Doesn't that itself require insight? Before thought realizes that, there must be an insight.

K: That's just it. Does thought realize that there must be insight?

DB: I don't know, but I'm saying there would have to be
insight into the nature of thought before thought would realize
anything. Because thought by itself cannot realize anything of this kind.

K: Yes.

DB: But in some way, we said 'truth' can operate in thought, in reality...

K: Truth can operate in the field of reality. Now, how does one's mind see the truth? Is it a process?

DB: You're asking whether there is a process of 'seeing'. There is no process, that would be time.

K: That's right.

DB: Let's consider a certain point, that there is an insight about the nature of thought, or that the observer 'is' the observed and so on.

K: That's clear...

DB: Now, in some sense thought must accept that insight,
carry it, respond to it.

K: Or the insight is so vital, so energetic, so full of vitality, that
it forces thought to operate.

DB: All right, then there is the 'necessity' to operate.

K: Yes, necessity.

DB: But you see, generally speaking it doesn't have that
vitality. So, in some indirect way, thought has rejected the insight, at least it appears to be so.

K: Most people have an insight, but habit is so strong they reject it..

DB: I'm trying to get to the bottom of it, to see if we can break through that rejection.

K: Break through the rejection, break through the habit, the
conditioning, which prevents the insight. Though one may have an insight, the conditioning is so strong that you reject the insight. This is what happens...

DB: I looked up the word "habit" and it says, " a settled
disposition of the mind", which seems very good. The mind is
disposed in a certain fixed way which resists change. Now we get caught in the same question: how are we going to break that "very settled disposition"?

K: I don't think 'you' can break it, I don't think thought can break it.

DB: We are asking for that intense insight which necessarily
dissolves it.

K: May I go just a little bit over it ? One has an insight into 'truth' and 'reality'. One's mind is disposed in a certain way, it has formed habits in the world of reality - it lives there.

DB: It's very rigid...

K: Now suppose you come along and point out the rigidity of it. I catch a glimpse of what you're saying - which is 'non-thinking' - I see it in a glimpse. But this conditioning is so strong I reject it.

DB: I don't do it purposely, it just 'happens'.

K: It has 'happened' because you helped to create that 'happening'. Is that glimpse, first of all, strong enough to dissolve this? If it is not strong, then it goes on. Can this conditioning dissolve? You see, that's it : I must have an insight into the conditioning, otherwise I can't dissolve it.

DB: Maybe we could look at it like this: this conditioning is a
reality, a very solid reality, which is fundamentally what we 'think about'...

K: Yes.

DB: As we said in the previous dialogue, it's 'actual'. Ordinary reality is not only what I think about, but it fits actuality to some extent - the actual fact. That's the proof of its reality. Now, at first sight it seems that this conditioning is just as solid as any reality, if not more so...

K: Much more so, quite... Is that conditioning dissolved, does it come to an end through thinking?

DB: It won't, because thinking is 'what it is'.

K: So thinking won't. Then what will?

DB: We're back again. We can see that it's only truth, insight...

K: I see I'm conditioned and I separate myself from the conditioning, I am different from the conditioning. And you come along and say "No, it isn't like that, the observer 'is' the observed". If I can see, or have an insight, that the observer 'is' the observed, then the conditioning begins to dissolve.

DB: Yes, because then it's not solid.

K: There is no conflict and all the rest takes place...

DB : You see, 'reality' is what I think about and now I am thinking about this conditioning. And now I can say that the thinker 'is' the thought – in other words, the thought about the conditioning 'is' the thinking process. And therefore thought is projecting its conditioning as it were some reality which is solid, but in fact it is thought..

K: What takes place, sir, in the mind that has been disposed in the habit of thinking that the 'observer' is different from the 'observed' - what takes place when I realise, or see, or have an insight that the observer 'is' the observed ? What takes place when you tell me to have an insight into 'the observer is the observed' ? What takes place when I 'see' that ?

DB : I mean, I see that the conditioning is nothing...

K: No, the perception of that is the 'ending' of the conditioning.

DB : Yes, because I see that the conditioning is not solid...

K: I can explain that later, but the truth is that when there is the realisation that the observer 'is' the observed, in the realization of that, which is truth, the conditioning disappears. How does it disappear? What is necessary for the crumbling of that structure?

DB: The insight into the falseness of it ?

K: I can have an insight into something that is false and yet
I go on that way, accept the false and live in the false.

DB: Yes...

K: Now, I want to bring this into action in my life. I have accepted reality as 'truth', I live in that - my gods, my habits, everything - I live in that. You come along and say "Look, truth is different from reality" and you explain it to me. How will I put away that tremendous weight, or break that tremendous conditioning? I need energy to break that conditioning. Does the energy come when I see that the observer 'is'
the observed ? I see the importance, the rationally, that
the conditioning must break down, I see the necessity of it ; I see how it operates, the division, the conflict and all the rest of it involved. Now when I realize that the observer 'is' the observed, there's a totally different kind of energy comes into being. That's all I want to get at.

DB: Yes, it's not the energy of 'reality' then. I see it better when I say, the thinker 'is' the thought... It's actually the same thing.

K: Yes, the thinker 'is' the thought. Now, is that energy different from the energy of conditioning and the activity of the conditioning and reality? Is that energy the perception of truth? - and therefore it has quite a different quality of energy.

DB: It seems to have the quality of this empty space, of not being bound by the conditioning.

K: Yes. Now I want to make it practical to myself. I see this
whole thing that you have described to me. I have got a fairly good mind, I can argue, explain it, all the rest of it, but this quality of energy doesn't come. And you want me to have this quality, out of your compassion, out of your understanding, out of your perception of truth. You say, "Please, 'see' that !". And I can't see it, because I'm always living in the realm of reality. You are living in the realm of truth and there is no relationship between you and me. I accept your word, I see the reason for it, I see the logic of it, I see the actuality of it, but I can't break it down... How will you 'help' me - I'm using that word hesitantly - to break this down? It's your job, because you see the truth and I don't. You say, "For God's sake, see this !". How will you help me? Through words? Then we enter into the realm with which I am quite familiar....
This is actually going on, you understand? So what is one to do? What will you do with me, who refuses to se something which is just there? And you point out that as long as we live in this world of reality, there is going to be murder, death - everything that goes on there. There is no answer in that realm for any of our problems. How will you convey this to me? Hold my hand ? I want to find out, I'm very keen, I want to get out of this. It is our problem, sir : you come here and talk to these children but the weight of their conditioning, of their desires of their 'youthfullness'...you follow ?

DB : Yes...

K: And you say, for God's sake... !

DB: It's only possible to communicate the intensity of this. We already discussed all the other factors that are communicated.

K: You see, what you say has no system, no method, because they are all part of the conditioning. You say something totally new, unexpected, to which I haven't even given a single moment of thought. You come along with a basketful and I do not know how to receive you. You are concerned ! So, how will you operate then ? Sir, this has been really a problem; to the prophets, to every...

DB: It seems nobody has really succeeded in it...

K: Nobody has. It's part of an education that keeps us constantly in the 'realm of reality'.

DB: Yes...everyone is expecting a 'path' marked out in the field of reality.

K: You talk from a kind of energy which is totally different from the energy of reality. And you say that energy will wipe all this out, but it will use this reality. But... it's all words to me, because society, education, economics, my parents, everything is here in reality. All the scientists are
working here, all the professors, all the economists, everybody is here. And you say "Look !", and I refuse to look.

DB: It's not even a refusal , it's something more unconscious perhaps...

K: Of course...

DB : I can't say that there is a solution, but I would try to present it with more effectiveness, you see ?

K: You can present it with greater effectiveness, with greater energy, with greater feeling, but something doesn't take place !

DB : I understand that...

K: You know, this is part of the Hindu tradition, that those who are 'free' in the big sense of that word, never 'go beyond', never 'disappear'... you've heard of Maitreya...

DB : ...and of the great Masters...

K: It's in the Hindu tradition. And in the Tibetan tradition – I've been told about it by those who seem to know, who studied it – that there is a Maitreya who said : I will not leave this world of suffering till I help mankind to get out of it !

DB : Yes, like the Buddha...

K : Like the Buddha ! And the tradition says that Maitreya is constantly 'observing' to help people – that is his only concern ! Not to become more this, or more that, but to drop everything ! To go beyond the (limitation of) 'reality'. And...you can wait till Doomsday, nobody's going to do it !

DB : What does the tradition say about how this is going to happen ?

K: Life after life, after life...

DB : Which is a matter of time. They may not have the answer !

K: (laughing ) You follow ...? So when we are discussing this, is there a 'thinking' which is not in the realm of reality?

DB : We were saying that perhaps we should use the word 'thinking' which is in the realm of reality...

K: What word would you use ?

DB : Perhaps we could use the word 'thought' in the sense
of the response of the drum to the emptiness within.

K: A-ha ! That's a good simile. Because it is empty, it is vibrating.

DB: The material thing is vibrating to the emptiness...

K: The material thing is vibrating. Wait, is truth 'no-thingness' ?

DB: Yes, because reality is 'something', perhaps 'everything'. Truth is 'no thing'. That is what the word "nothing" deeply means. So truth is "no-thingness".

K: Yes, truth is no-'thing'.

DB: Because if it's not 'reality' it must be nothing - no 'thing'.

K: And therefore empty. Empty being... how did you once
describe it?

DB: 'Leisure' is the word - leisure means basically "empty".
The English root of 'empty' means 'at leisure, unoccupied'.

K: So you are saying to me, "Your mind must be unoccupied".
There must not be in it a 'thing' which is put together by thought.

DB: Yes, that's clear...

K: So it must be empty, there mustn't be a thing in it which has been put together by reality, by thought - no 'thing'. 'Nothing' means that...

DB: It's clear that 'everything' is what we think about, therefore we have to say the mind must not think about anything.

K: That's right. That means thought cannot think about emptiness.

DB: That would make it into a 'thing'...

K: That's just it. You see, the Hindu tradition says you can come to it.

DB: Yes... anything you come to must be by a path which is marked out in the field of 'reality'.

K: Yes... Now, I have an insight into that, I see it. I see my mind must be unoccupied, must have no 'inhabitants', must be an 'empty house'. What is the action of that 'emptiness' in my life? - because I must live here; I don't know why, but I must live here. I want to find out if this action is different from the other action ?

DB : It must be …

K: It has to be ! How am I to empty my mind of its content ? The content of my consciousness is 'reality'...

DB : Yes the consciousness 'is' reality. Not merely the consciousness of reality ...

K: Consciousness 'is' reality ! And how is that content to be emptied so that it is not a 'reality'. How is this to be done ?

DB : We have often gone into this question 'How?' There is something wrong with the question...

K: Of course ! Because 'how' means reality & all the rest of it... Do a miracle !

DB : That's all we need, you see ...?

K: How can you bring about a 'miracle' to the man who lives with this 'content' ? What I am trying to find out is : Is there any action which will dissolve this content ?
You see, consciousness is not 'of reality', consciousness 'is' reality.

DB : Let's try to make it more clear : consciousness  is ordinarily felt to 'reflect' reality – it 'is' reality, but we should make this more clear, because in some way consciousness reflects what is 'actual' – for example we have the reality of the table in our minds and we can also see it.

K: Right...

DB : So consciousness is a peculiar mixture of 'reality' and an 'actuality' that I can see...

K: Yes, I accept that, I see that...

DB : ...and what we need instead is 'truth' and 'actuality'. The 'emptiness' works in 'actuality' from truth – the act of emptiness is an actuality too.

K: Is an actuality, yes...

DB : So there are two kinds of 'actualities' …

K: I'm saying : when an unoccupied mind lives in the field of reality...

DB : Well, it acts in reality ...

K: Acts in reality, lives in reality – but its actions must be different – it is a 'one way' relationship as we said the other day...

DB : We'll have to clear this up, because you are continuously gaining information from this field of reality...

K: Yes, of course...

DB : ...but it's not affecting you deeply.

K: It is not affecting that 'emptiness', yes...

DB : It is not affected in depth, it merely carries that information, while conditioning or the 'influence' is affecting it deeply. When the ordinary consciousness is influenced by reality ...

K: We said consciousness 'is' reality...

DB : It is reality, but it is also all the influences. Let's put it that way : the conditioning is the 'field of influences' ; so the information may influence this, but it doesn't influence the 'emptiness'...

K: That's right .

DB : But as you were saying, it doesn't leave no mark on the 'emptiness'...

K: You see, sir, one is seeking complete security- that's all one wants- and one is seeking security in ( the field of) reality and therefore one rejects any other security...

DB : Yes, because I think there is a convinction that reality is all there is and that's the only place you can find it

K: Yes. And you come along and say : Look, in 'nothingness' there is complete security .

DB : Yes, now let's discuss that, because at first sight it seems very implausible - not only because 'nothingness' is nothing, but also...

K: Just a minute, sir ! I say to you : in 'nothingness' there is complete security and stability. You 'listen' and you get an insight into it – because you are attentive, there is this conversation going on between us, and you say, 'By Jove, that is so !' But the mind which is occupied says : 'What the dickens is this ?'

DB : Well, actually it will be more like this : on one side, it sounds reasonable, but on the other side you have to take care of your real material needs !

K: Of course !

DB: There arises a conflict, because what you are proposing
appears to be reasonable, but it doesn't seem to take care of your material needs. Without having taken care of these needs you're not secure.

K: Therefore they call the world of reality "maya".

DB: Why is that? How do you make the connection?

K: Because they say, to live in emptiness is necessary and if you live there you consider the world as 'maya'.

DB: You could say all that stuff is illusion, but then you would
find you were in real danger...

K: Of course.

DB: So you seem to be calling for a confidence that
'no-thingness' will take care of you, physically and in every way. In other words, 'from nothingness', you say, there is security.

K: No, in 'nothingness' there is security.

DB: And this security must include physical security... ?

K: No, I say : 'psychological' security...

DB: Yes, but then, the question almost immediately arises...

K: ... how am I to be secure in the world of reality?

DB: Yes, because one could say: I accept that it will remove
my 'psychological' problems, but I still have to be physically secure as well in the world of reality.

K: There is no psychological security in the field of reality, but only complete security in 'nothingness'. Then, if that is so to me, my whole activity in the world of reality is entirely different.

DB: I see that, but the question will always be raised: is it different enough to...

K: Oh yes, it would be totally different, because I'm not
'nationalistic', I'm not "English", I am nothing. Therefore our whole world is different. I don't divide...

DB: Let's bring back your example of one who 'understands'
and who wants to communicate to the other. Somehow what doesn't communicate is the 'assurance' that it will take care of all that...

K: It won't take care of all that. I have to work here !

DB: Well, according to what you said, there is a certain
implication that in 'nothingness' we will be completely secure in every way.

K: That is so, absolutely !

DB: Yes, but we have to ask: what about the physical
security?

K: Physical security in the field of reality? At present there is no security. I am fighting all my life, battling economically, socially, religiously...
If I am inwardly, psychologically, completely secure, then my
activity in the world of reality is born of complete intelligence.
This doesn't exist now, because that intelligence is the perception of the whole and so on. As long as I'm "English" or "something", I cannot have security. I must work to get rid of that.

DB: I can see that as you'd become more intelligent, you'd become more secure - of course. But when you say "complete security" there is always the question: is it 'complete'?

K: Oh, it is complete - 'psychologically'.

DB: But not necessarily 'physically' ?

K: That feeling of complete security inwardly, makes me...

DB: It makes you do the right thing ?

K: The right thing in the world of reality.

DB: Yes, I see that. You can be as secure as you can possibly
be if you are completely intelligent, but you cannot guarantee that nothing is going to happen to you.

K: No, of course not. My mind is rooted, or established, in
'no-thingness', and it operates in the field of reality with intelligence. That intelligence says, "There you cannot have security unless you do these things".

DB: You have to do everything right...

K: Everything right according to that intelligence, which is of
truth, of 'no-thingness'.

DB: And yet, if something does happen to you, nevertheless
you still are secure.

K: Of course - if my house burns down....But you see, we are
seeking security here, in the world of reality.

DB: Yes, I understand that.

K: Therefore there is no security...

DB: But as long as one feels that the world of reality is all there is, you have to seek it there.

K: Yes.

DB: One can see that in the world of reality there is in fact no security. Everything depends on other things which are unknown, and so on. That's why there is this intense fear...

K: You mentioned fear. In (the state of inner) 'nothingness' there is complete security, therefore no fear. And that sense of no fear has a totally different kind of activity in the world of reality. I have no fear - I work. I won't be rich or poor - I work. I work, not as an Englishman, a German, an Arab - all the rest of that nonsense - I work there intelligently. Therefore I am creating security in the world of reality. You follow?

DB: Yes, you're making it as secure as it can possibly be. The
more clear and intelligent you are, the more secure it is.

K: Because inwardly I'm secure, I create security outwardly.

DB: On the other hand, if I feel that inwardly I depend on the
world of reality, then I become disorganised inwardly.

K: Of course.

DB: Everybody here does feel that he depends inwardly on the world of reality....

K: So the next thing is: you tell me this and I don't see it. I don't see the extraordinary beauty, the feeling, the depth of what you are saying about complete inward security.

DB : I would say that this notion is present in many people, but they have so many bad experiences that it gets lost, you see ? Implicitly there is a feeling that if you are 'nothing' inwardly, then nothing can harm you. I've seen many people express this thing when I was younger, but then so many things happen and gradually it gets...

K: I'm not sure, sir...

DB : I'm not sure people understand that, but I'd say there is a sort of idea...

K: Ah, an 'idea'...

DB : There's a notion of that...

K : Therefore I say, "Look, how are you going to give the beauty of that to me ? …

(Five to ten ?.... we'd better stop here...)

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 18 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 May 2018 #6
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

4-TH TRUTH & REALITY DIALOGUE

DB : During the scientist conference -which incidently was very successful...

K: Did they really like it ?

DB : Yes. I talked with several of them in England and they liked it very much, and I think several questions came about related to what we're talking about and
I would say that we'll have to go into the question of 'beauty', 'goodness' and 'love', but I thought that probably it would be best to start with 'desire', because probably that's the factor at the root of this confusion - because it imitates those three.

K: Why has desire become such an important thing in life ?

DB : Well, perhaps we could discuss a little around it first ; I looked up at the word, and it went back to a French word which meant 'missing'.

K: Something missing... ?

DB : Yes, and obviously its basic meaning is 'yearning', 'craving' and I think, 'hankering'. So, of course, the associated words are 'belief' and 'hope', you see...
'hope' for example is 'the confident expectation that desire will be realised' and I think 'belief' is also connected with it – the word 'belief' has within it the word love – 'lief', love in the sense of desire, which we discussed, and you believe what you desire to believe, and therefore it starts a 'falseness' because you accept it as true just because of desire. So the whole story of belief, of hope and of despair and desire...So the question is what do we 'long for' ?

K: What is the meaning of that word 'to long for' ?

DB : Well, that may be very ambiguous, because it may perhaps mean something genuine or it may mean something false...

K: Quite...does one 'long for' something actual or abstract ?

DB : Well, in general one longs for something abstract ; it might be that it is a real possibility...

K: I might long for that car...

DB : Yes, but one can long to end this state of society – I mean, try to make it a little different...

K: Yes...

DB : Long for the ending of this ugly society...

K: Is thought separate from desire ?

DB : That's the question we have to go into, because in general I would say that thought and desire are the same.

K: So would I...

DB : But for example,  you often talk about desire arising in perception, contact and sensation...

K : Yes...

DB : But it seems to me that usually we are caught in the desire for what is imagined...

K: Ah... ! So it is part of thought...

DB : Part of thought, but you are using it for describing something else – not part of thought, but part of perception...

K: No. I see that car...

DB : That's a perception.

K: Not only perception : I see the colour, the shape of the car, the 'ugliness' of the car and I don't want it...That is a sensation.

DB : A sensation, yes ; now is sensation the root of desire – is this what you're implying ?

K: Yes, that's what I'm trying to get at...

DB : But sensation is also part of perception.

K : You can't separate them, but which is first, sensation or perception ?

DB : I've looked into that too and I feel it's perception.

K: Perception. If I didn't see that car I couldn't...

DB : You cannot have a sense of something if you haven't seen it...

K: So the eye plays a tremendous part in perception.

DB : Sound perception, taste perception, visual & touch perception...

K: All the senses ; and then how does desire arise from perception ?

DB : It seems to me that thought and imagination come in, although you seem to say it's more direct than that...

K: Does imagination come into it ?

DB : Well, in the form that desire usually takes – most of our desires we have by now are for 'imagined' things, although what you say may have been the beginning . For instance in the example I gave about a different state of society, there are many people who try very hard, but that 'new state of society' is imagined...

K: Let's see now that desire : a group of us want to change the structure of society...

DB : ...into something better, like Karl Marx. 

K: Karl Marx...the desire born out of the perception of this state of society which actually 'is'.

DB : Which is very ugly !

K: Yes.

DB : As the sensation is unpleasant. ..

K: And seeing that, I imagine a better state. Isn't that part of desire ?

DB : It is an intense desire for an imagined state...

K: Or, is it perception ?

DB : Perception ? How is that ?

K: I perceive the rottenness and the corruption, or the 'malaise' of this society : I 'see' it ! That perception drives me, not my desire to change society. My perception says : this is ugly ! And that very perception is the 'action' of the movement to change it . I don't know if I'm making it clear ?

DB : Yes, but in that perception there is the longing to change it .

K : Is there a longing ?

DB : You see, this is what desire is implying...I mean if you go back to the root meaning of that word, it means 'something is missing' – there's a longing for something that's missing...

K: Or, sir, I 'perceive' and as we said, that very perception 'is' action. The perception of the society as it is - it is 'ugly' - let's use that word for the moment, and that very perception demands action !

DB : Yes, but now, we can't act immediately...

K: No, but the perception will formulate what action can take place.

DB : And that comes by 'thinking' about it …

K: Yes, of course !

DB : The perception formulates a demand 'for' or 'against' – through sensation

K: Yes ; so is perception part of desire ?

DB : Well, I should say not in the beginning ; but it is as soon as it reaches the sense of 'ugliness' or of 'beauty'. If you 'see' the actual state of society without the sense of 'ugliness' or 'beauty'...

K: No,perception is action. The ugliness of society is 'perceived' and that 'perception' – I wouldn' use the word 'ugly' because than we'll have to go into conflict & so on. Perception is the root of action, and that action meets the time and all the rest of it. But where does desire come into this ? I don't see it...

DB : Well, but it does seem to come in, doesn't it ?

K: As far as I am concerned, it doesn't...

DB : Why do you say that ? I mean, what do you say to those people who want to change society ?

K: I would say : is it your pereption that's acting, or your prejudice 'against' ?

DB : But that's still a desire, isn't it ?

K: That's a desire. Is perception part of desire ?

DB : I don't think it is...But you have frequently said that perception contacted sensation and sensation gives rise to desire...

K: Yes that is quite right but once there is perception, where does desire come in in carrying out that perception ?

DB : Well, in principle, if you could immediately carry it out, there would be no need for desire...

K: Yes, of course ; that's one thing... But I can't carry it out immediately.

DB : Yes, and then something is missing : it should be this way what I see but...I can't carry it out imediately.

Dr Parchure : Sir, desire is ultimately a motive power...

K: I don't accept that desire is ultimately the motive of perception ! You 'perceive' society is rotten. Let's put it this way : the 'actuality' is perceived. In that perception of actuality...where does desire come in ?

DB : But we'll have to find out why it comes in...

K: That's it !

DB : If I perceive something very simple – like an apple and I'd like to eat it, then I just eat it and there's no problem of desire. On the other hand, if I can't get the apple, there may come the problem of desire – I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but suppose I see something that I can't get immediately, or if I don't know how to get it...

K: Yes... ?

DB : And then desire may arise, although it doesn't have to...

K: May arise, because I want that apple. So that's one thing ; but I perceive the 'actuality' of society ; and I ask : where does desire come in ?

DB : If you do act, desire doesn't come in, but you may feel that you don't know how to act...

K: I may not know how to act, therefore I will consult, talk...

DB : But then you might become discouraged, you see ?

K: Ah ! My perception is so clear – it cannot be discouraged...

DB : That may be so, but I am describing what it generally happens : I perceive the falseness & rottenness of society and I consider how to change it, I talk to people and after a while I begin to see that it doesn't change that easily...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And at some stage I may begin to feel that it may be not possible at all. But even then, there may come a longing to change it, nevertheless...

K: No. If I see that it's not possible to change, then it's finished !

DB : It is finished, yes, but then why is it that people don't accept that ? You see, I'm just describing the general experience : on seeing that it's not possible there is still the longing for that change...

K: Yes, the longing for that which is not possible...

DB : That is the sort of desire that always gets frustrated and it creates all these problems...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : Now on the other hand, I cannot just accept that society will go on falsely forever...

K: Of course ! But I still don't see the connection between desire and perception !

DB : Well, there may not be any...but then, why does it seem to be one ?

K: Is it perception that is driving them, or they have never 'perceived' and only desire is driving them ?

DB : Well, that may well be that their perception was born of desire – or what they think it's 'perception' - but then the question is : where does desire originate ?

K: Oh, that is a different matter...

DB : I mean, this is something mysterious : why there should desire be there ?

K: No, I see that car, I'd like to own it – I associate that car with pleasure …

DB : But couldn't it be possible that at some stage the perception fails to be caught in that...You see, if you want to own the car, then there is no problem, unless it becomes an intense longing which is the desire which is driving you. But you also could say : I'd like to own that car, but if it's not possible, then I won't.

K: Ah, I see ...Then there is no problem !

DB : No problem, but you see, that's what is usually meant by 'desire' : longing for what you cannot get – and if you cannot get it, you still long for it...

K: Aha ! I don't function that way !

DB : Yes, but we still have to understand this function since it seems to be a general function...

K: That is the general function, I agree.

DB : First of all, it is not clear why it should be there – not clear to me, anyway...

K: Which is, desire ?

DB : Desire, yes...I mean, rationally there is no reason for it, but as far as one can see, it's still there and it's very powerful all over the world...

K: Is desire based on sensation ?

DB : That's what we're exploring – I think that it's not entirely based on sensation...

K: Sensation, imagination...An imagined pleasure one is going to get...

DB : Yes, I think it's based on imagination – not necessarily of pleasure, but also of beauty, of what is 'good' ...You see, almost all the things that are missing is 'imagined' ; and this gives a tremendous energy- you see, people generally desire what is beautiful...And in fact, take things like gold or precious stones, which have very little value in themselves, but people are attached to it because of the eternal beauty of it- and therefore they are ready to do anything for it...

K: It is the same as the desire for power, or for anything... How does it arise ? Is that it ?

DB : Yes, how does it arise and what is the meaning of it ?

K: How does it arise ? I see you driving a big car – you are the politician in a big position- and I like that, I want that...

DB : Yes but it's not clear why I drive myself go to that length ?

K: It gives me a tremendous pleasure...

DB : Yes, but then, why do I want the pleasure - unless, there would have been a tremendous confusion of values

K: Or...'pleasure' is the only thing I know ; I live such a superficial life, this is the only thing I know...

DB : But I know a lot of other things...

K: I live such a superficial life – my education is superficial and pleasure is superficial...And so, I long for that !

DB : But if one may feel it is not superficial, then it must be something worth striving for. I mean, it must at least appear not to be superficial, or else it's not worth longing for...

K: Of course, if I recognise pleasure to be superficial, I would not long for it.

DB : Yes, but somehow there is the feeling that pleasure is something is something else, something very significant, very deep...

K: Is pleasure 'deep' ?

DB : No, although it may look that way...

K: Of course that it may look, but is it actually ?

DB : It isn't, but you see, why does it look that way ?

K: Why am I deceived by thinking that pleasure is very deep ?

DB : Yes … ?

K: What do you think ?

Dr P : The more lasting element in pleasure is demanding for its own continuity in the sensation of....

K: Sir, is pleasure one of the factors in 'covering up' my emptiness ?

DB ; Well, it may be, but I think that pleasure helps create the impression of a full, harmonious life...

K: Ah, I see, is pleasure associated with beauty ?

DB : I think it is : in general people expect that pleasure will give them 'beautiful' experiences...

K: I understand that ; I see something very beautiful – where does the pleasure arise in that ? I'd like to own it, I like to possess it....

DB : I like to have it forever – I'd like that experience to be repeated somehow -not necessarily to own it but to look at it forever …

K: Yes...to be there. Why do I do this ?

DB : Because of the fear that I'd be inwardly poorer without it ?

K: Is it because within myself I am not 'beautiful' ?

DB : That may be part of it...This sense of not having contact with beauty in myself and therefore wanting something...

K: So, is beauty 'out there' - and therefore 'I want it' ?

DB : Yes, even in the dictionary it says that 'beauty' is not only in the quality of the thing but also it is in oneself – they are the same thing : the quality of the 'thing' and the quality of sensation – and in some sense there is no division of the 'observer' and the 'observed'...I mean this idea is recognised in the dictionary – that it belongs both to the 'observer' and to the 'observed' ...

K: Yes...

DB : But the way I look at this is : suppose I have no contact with – and seeing this I create 'beauty' in me...And then when the thing is gone, then I'm back in the previous state and I begin to long for that experience again...

K: Yes... So, what is the problem, sir ?

DB : Well, I think the question really is to understand this process of desire – because without understanding it, the confusion of thought will never end... I mean we can be on one side of desire or on the other side – like when we've been discussing – sometimes desire may be on the side of the 'feeling' and at other times on the side of 'truth & actuality' ...and once this confusion arises, then it drives the whole mind into 'falseness'

K: Would you say that desire is in the field of 'reality ?

DB : Yes, it is in the field of reality, but sometimes it seems to divide itself. In other words, once desire is in the 'feeling' , once this confusion arises, then it drives the whole mind into falseness.

K : Can I desire 'truth' ?

DB : You see, it is accepted in the general structure of the laguage that you can desire beauty, or the 'goodness of truth' – now, I understand you're questioning that ?

K: Yes, I'm questioning that...Is beauty in the realm of reality ?

DB : ...or is the Good in the realm of reality ? I should say that most people regard them as synonimous...In Latin they have the same root : 'bene' and 'beatus' - which also means 'blessed' …

K: As we said : '' Beauty, Truth & Goodness'' : is that in the field of reality, created by thought and something I long to get at ?

DB : If it were in the field of thought, then I would reasonably long to have it – but I don't know exactly where to look for it because I'm separated from it.

K: And is that 'Good, Beauty and Love' in the field of reality ?

DB : No, that is something we discussed – it goes along with Creation...

K: Now, desire is in the field of reality...

DB : It is a movement in the field of reality but it's a movement which can project something outside the field of reality – which it creates an almost impossible since what is projected by such desire can never be satisfied...

K: That which is projected is part of reality...But one does not recognise that !

DB : That's right, but the same time, there is also the feeling that this is not all because even if you have achieved it, there's always the feeling that this is not all that I wanted …

K: But when it says this, it is still there !

DB : I know, this is a contradiction – the field of reality gets broken in two : the part that you have and the part that you haven't got..

K: But it's still in the field of reality.

DB : Yes...

K: So, is the 'good' in the field of reality ?

DB : No, I think it's clear it's not...

K: Obviously not ! Therefore longing for 'beauty', as it is in the field of reality, is a movement of thought- projecting 'beauty' and longing for it.

DB: Yes, or at least remembering beauty as it is perceived and longing to continue it, or for a new one...

K: So could we say: what is the 'beauty' which is not in the field of reality ? What is the 'goodness' which is not in the field of reality ?

Dr P : Wouldn't you say that there is goodness in the field of reality ?

K Of course there is, but we are talking about the Goodness which is not induced by thought...I can induce myself to be good, I can cultivate, practice goodness , but that is not the 'Goodness' of Truth !

DB : Goodness can act in the field of reality, but I'm a little puzzled by 'beauty' – which is rather mysterious in some way...if you say there's an object in the field of reality like a tree that is beautiful ? But that is not Beauty- as Beauty is the essence which is not in the field of reality …

K: I would say Beauty is not in the field of reality.

DB : Yes, but now the tree is in the field of reality...

K: The tree 'is' ; it 'is' !

DB : Right, but this point needs clarification because in the ordinary use of language, we say 'the tree is real'...

K: Quite, quite …

DB : So a lumberman would treat it as 'reality' …

K: I think that what 'is' is beautiful.

DB : Yes, but then we seem come into a difficulty of language : the tree is that which 'is' but..it is not 'real' ?

K: You are saying : we accept the tree as being part of reality, but that which 'is' we say is truth ; and I, looking at the tree bring it in the field of reality by thinking about it...

DB : And also acting about it as a 'real' thing...

K: Of course, like the carpenter... Let me get this clear : we said Goodness is not in the field of reality...

DB : It may act there, but its essence is not in the field of reality .

K: Its essence is not in the field of reality. Good works, good behaviour, good taste, good food, good thoughts - all that is in the field of reality. But Goodness, the essence of it, is not in the field of reality. This wallpaper, created by thought is quite beautiful – the colours, the birds, the whole pattern of movement on the wallpaper is beautiful ; it is created by thought and therefore it is in the world of reality...

DB : Yes, and many ideas may be beautiful...

K: Of course, many ideas and all the rest of it...So, where does desire...

DB : But we haven't finished with Beauty...We said that the tree is beautiful...

K: That which 'is' is beautiful.

DB : And we said that the wall paper is also 'beautiful' …

K: That's quite different, I see it...

DB : So how do we get it clear ? You see, even that which is created by thought is also 'what is' . Now which is it ? Is it just matter of language ?

K: Ah, I see...Go slowly. That which is created by thought - like the car or the wallpaper...

DB : ...and which may be beautiful...

K: There is a difference between what is created by thought – which may be 'good' and 'beautiful' – like good ideas, good food, good clothes , and we say, because that 'goodness' created by thought is in the field of reality. Now what's the difference between - the movement of birds and the movement of the tree ? Both 'are' part of the world of reality and both are 'destructible' as is the tree...Both are 'beautiful' as is that tree in the field and we're saying : it 'is'.

DB : Now, are we discussing their 'actuality'?

K: That's also actual...

DB : So, is that what you mean by the word 'is' ?

K: Yes, both are 'actual'...

DB : Yes and therefore both have their own 'activity' …

K: Both are 'actuality'. And we say : Beauty is not in the field of reality.

DB : Yes, but is it in the field of 'actuality' ?

K: Beauty is 'actual' but we're saying : Beauty - its 'essence' - is not in the field of reality.

DB : Though it may act in the field of reality ?

K: Yes, it may act...Now, what is the difference, sir, between these two 'actualities' – one of which is in the field of reality and the other which is not in that field ? Is there an 'actuality' in the field of truth ?

DB : We were saying that truth 'acts'  , but we were raising the question whether there is an 'actuality' in the essence ?

K: Both are 'actualities'...

DB : Yes, but they are of a different order of actuality, or two different kinds of actuality ? You see, the wallpaper was created by the thought of mankind, although it has some kind of 'actuality' - the actual paper of which it was made...

K: Yes, but that wallpaper and the tree are the same...
Therefore why do we say : truth is not in the field of reality ?

DB : Well , I think this goes back to the way we use the words- we said that 'real' means to be a 'thing' – what we think about - while 'truth' is unconditioned - it is 'nothing'

K: Yes, 'no – thing'...

DB : As Beauty is 'no-thing', Goodness is 'no-thing'...

K: That's right !

DB : But they are 'actual'  - that is what we're implying, right ?

K: Let's go slowly into this...If it is 'no-thing' , is there an 'actuality' ?

DB : You see, that's the question...In the conference with the scientists you've mentioned some sort of energy which was self-sustainable, non-contradictory, a self sustaining energy which is of a 'cosmic' sort...

K: Yes...

DB : And of which we could say it's the energy of 'that which is' ; is this what you mean to say ?

K: That's why we have to go into this carefully !

DB : Yes...You have mentioned that several times, but also in Physics there is this idea that there is energy in the 'emptiness ' of Space …

K: Yes, I agree, and which is orderly !

DB : Orderly, I agree, in perfect order …

K: Sir, reality is 'things'...

DB : The totality of all things...

K: And truth is 'no-thing'. Now, the 'things' of reality create their own energy...

DB : A limited kind of energy?

K: Yes, and the 'not-a-thing' is unlimited...

DB : And you're implying that that 'unlimited' energy is self-sustaining and therefore it does not depend on anything ?

K: Yes, it is independent ; this depends, the other doesn't !

DB : Yes, the 'thing' ultimately depends on That...

K: That's right, that why I said that we may get caught in that trap ( of assuming ) that 'God is in us', that this supreme intelligent energy is present in man...

DB : But man depends on it...

K: Because one doesn't depend on it, does it mean that one becomes 'evil' ?

DB : Let's try to put it differently : it is all related to whether the energy of thought is one 'thing', or there is a (deeper) 'energy' which has been used wrongly... ?

K: Yes, we have talked about this.

DB : Yes, but we never quite settled it...

K: Yes, we have never 'worked it out'...

DB : I think it is similar to asking: Is there only one energy which makes both the 'emptiness' and the 'things' or are there two energies ?

K: We are just discussing  whether there is only one energy which is misused in the field of reality and the same energy is 'no-thingness' … ( long silence...)
No-thingness being (the energy of ) death ! Right, sir ?

DB : Right.... ?

K: I'm just hesitating to put it forward : I think 'That' energy born of 'no-thingness', 'is' different for the other...

DB : Yes, but there is no interaction ?

K: I think there is a 'one-way' connexion, that is, from 'no-thingness' to 'thing' but not from the 'thing' to 'no thingness'. Now I want to go into this very carefully : is the energy of 'no-thingness' different from the energy of the 'thing' ? For the moment I see that it is 'different' – in the sense of being 'dissimilar'

DB : Yes, that is one meaning of 'dissimilar' but that still allows for a one-way relationship.

K: Or are both the same, in the field of reality and therefore misused and all the rest of it...The 'other' (energy) , it is endless.

DB : Well, let's try to put it this way : there is one energy which includes the 'finite', rather than saying that they are two : The 'infinite' (energy) includes the finite, but it does not exclude the other ; that is one proposal...

K Yes, that is one proposal, and the other 'proposal' is that there is no relationship from the 'thing' to the...

DB : Yes, but that is the same as the first proposal : the infinite includes the finite, but not the other way around.

K: I see it for being different : 'no-thingness' is (the energy of?) 'death' - which means 'total ending', right, sir ? In the word of 'reality' thought has never an ending -right, sir ? Thought creates its own energy, hmm ? Or are both the same ; one degenerates – the 'source of water' is polluted in the field of reality, but it's the same 'water' as the energy of truth ?

DB : A-ha !

K: Is that it ? You misuse it and somebody else doesn't misuse it ! That's one view of it, or is the energy of that 'source of no-thingness' totally different- dissimilar ?
Let's put it this way ; from the 'field of reality' can there be a movement to Truth ?

DB : No...

K: Why ?

DB : Because the field of reality is conditioned, as being made of 'things'...

K: So, as truth has no connection to the field of reality, then it has no connexion to the field of reality …

DB : But, there is still a 'one-way' connexion... ?

K: A 'one-way' connexion, yes ...but not an interacting relationship.

DB : Not a 'mutual' connexion...Perhaps you could say that 'truth' acts in the world of reality through 'death' – like in 'ending' the false ?

K: Yes, so we go back to the same thing : thought can be 'ended' ? One can see that...so is that 'ending of thought' the same the 'not-a- thing' ? No, sir...I think the two energies are totaly different.

DB : What... ?

K: The energy of 'no-thing'(ness) is totally different from the other.

DB : But then, you haven't explained why there can be the relationship in which the energy of 'no-thingness' can act in the field of reality.. ?

K: It can operate because it 'is ' everything !

DB : What do you mean by 'being everything' ?

K; Because in 'no-thingness' ….one must be very careful here...! We're saying 'no-thingness' means 'ending' -that is, 'not a thing' ! In the world of reality 'ending' means the modified continuation of thought. 'This' has no continuity, 'that' has continuity...

DB...in the word of 'reality' .

K: 'This' has a movement in time, 'that' has no movement in time. Are they the same movement ?

DB : The small movement is contained in the larger.

K: That's it !

DB : In the conference with scientists you used the analogy of a small area inside a big Space ; maybe we can look at 'time' that way ?

K: Let us put it this way, sir : In the field of reality 'love' has a very definite meaning - jealousy and all that...

DB : But Love can act in the field of reality in a 'clear' way, you see ?

K: Love can act in the field of reality, but the 'love' in the field of reality is not Love.

DB : That's desire.

K: So the Love (originating ) in 'no-thingness', can act in the world of reality. But 'this' can never be polluted in the field of reality. Therefore it is something 'entirely original' !

DB : Hmm...

K: Sir, can it be expressed the other way around ? We say 'death' is ending ; and that which has a movement in the sense it has no 'ending' and we said this 'inward' death is the ending of everything  - of every 'thing' ! There is no relationship between the two ! I would like to think that I can use the 'world of truth' in the field of 'reality'

DB : All we've we've been saying so far is that 'truth' acts in the field of reality...

K: Is that so ? Can it ? Can the 'not-a- thing' – which has no movement ...How can 'not-a- thing' act in reality ? Reality is a 'thing'...

DB : You see, there is another view that in the world of reality the 'thing' only appears to be solid...

K: Sir, would you put it this way : a mind that is not living in the 'world of measure' - can that mind operate in the world of measure ?

DB :  But what does operate then ?

K: Only measure !

DB : In the world of 'measure'... ? Now, suppose I make a measure and then I see it's 'false '

K: Then I can correct it !

DB : Yes, but before I can do that, I have to 'see' that as false … Now, isn't that the operation of truth ?

K: Ah, no ; because I can measure the table and then I see that it doesn't fit in the room...

DB : But how do I see that if the mind were operating clearly I could see , but if it becomes confused ...I may not see it....

K: If I measure it properly I would get it right. But it is still in the world of measurement !

DB : So, ( thought's) measurement operates only in the field of the measurable... But it's important that thought should be clear and free of confusion or falseness.
Now, what is the difference between the mind in which thought is 'false' and the mind in which thought is not false ?

K: Can't the 'falseness' be seen in the world of reality ?

DB : Rather, it is the truth about it that can be seen...The truth of the world of reality is ...its 'falseness'.

K: Yes, yes...Sir, can we say it this way- the world of 'reality' is measurement, and that 'measurement' may be false or correct... Now in 'no-thingness' – there is no measurement! Now, what is the relationship between the two ? This has measurement, that is not measurement...

DB : Yes, but what is it that sees that the measurement is 'false' ? You see, if it is false, it brings contradictions – now, what is it that 'sees' the contradiction ?

K: Pain !

DB : Yes, but it doesn't always work...You see, thought's measurement has no criteria within itself which can guarantee its correctness...There's something 'beyond' that is needed !

K: Quite...But if my 'measurement' is incorrect, there is a disturbance...

DB : Yes, but then I might suppress the awareness of that disturbance...

K: Yes, but it is still in that area !

DB : But what is it that perceives that disturbance ?

K: I perceive that I am disturbed !

DB : Yes, but many people don't perceive that …

K: Because they are insensitive ; they are not aware, they are not conscious...   But the pain of that contradiction is still there !

DB : Yes, but then, why are they not 'conscious' of it ?

K: Because of my education...I can give you ten different reasons...

Dr P : It may be that (the inner state of ) 'emptiness' has no attachment...

K: Let's stick to this : there is no measurement in nothingness ; there is measurement in the field of reality...false or correct. And Dr Bohm says : who is the entity that perceives the falseness ? It is the same mind which has 'measured' !

DB : Yes, but then there is no meaning to it because this may be false at the next step...

K: Of course..

DB : But then there seems to be some meaning to it because...

K: Because it's suitable, convenient, etc, but it is still...

DB : But in that field there is no way to guarantee pure corectness...

K: Agreed.

DB : Now we can see that in some people there may be more ability or less ability...Now it seems to me that there has to be some 'perception' beyond that field...

K: You can only say there is another perception when there is that ( state of inner) 'nothingness' ! Now is this 'nothingness' a verbal structure or the 'world of truth' ? If it is a verbal structure, a theory, hypothesis and all that sort of things...then it is still in the world of reality...
Here there is no 'entrance' for thought...Therefore it is nothing ! And we were saying : is there a relationship between the two ? That is the central point we're trying to find out.... Now, there is no relationship between this & that but I make a endeavour, struggle to reach that I may imagine that I have a relationship to that – which is 'desire'. And why am I doing this ? Because I want something that is permanent, that can never be hurt...So I project - as an idea, as an imagination or as a hope- that there is 'that'. When I project from this to that, whatever the projection is, it is unreal, imaginary - a fantasy ! Now if there is actually that (inner) 'nothingness' , what is the connexion between the two ? In dying to (thought's) 'reality' , only then there is 'nothingness' ! Which means, 'dying' to all the 'things' thought has created . Which means dying to all the things of measurement, to the movement of time...
I know nothing about this ( inner) 'nothingness' ! I can't even imagine it – I simply don't know what it is ! I am not even concerned with it...but I'm only concerned with 'this' (field of reality) as I live in it...And here I am always caught between the 'false' measurement and the 'correct' measurement. Or pursuing the one and rejecting the other, but it is still here.
And do I see this 'totally' - that desire has no end, hope has no end, struggle has no end if I live here... I shut my eyes to all your inventions, etc ; my central desire is to 'see' all this !

DB : Yes, but 'if' is still a desire,  it's still 'if this...' !

K My hope, my longing for this...But , I'm still exercising thought, therefore I'm still caught in the trap of that. So you tell me to end this (desire driven) thinking- I can end it ! But is that 'ending' different from this ?

DB : What do you mean, what is the difference ?

K: I can 'end' it by persuasion, by 'practice'...

DB : But that is not 'ending' it...

K : Of course, but I can 'feel' that I have ended it ! Therefore you'd still be there. Is there an 'ending' here without a motive ?

DB : It seems that you've brought in 'nothingness' implicitly by saying : no motive...

K: Yes...so if I see this 'thing' completely, there is an 'ending'...Then, that 'is' this ! Then it's no-thing !
I think there was a wrong question from my part ''Is there a relationship between the two ?'' I won't even ask it because I only know 'this' ! And all my energy is limited to this corrupted, distorted, pathological ... And there is this man who says there is an ( infinite energy of ) 'nothingness'...He just says it , he doesn't relate 'this' and 'that'. He said : There is 'no-thingness'. How do you 'catch him' ? He doesn't even say ''In this 'no-thingness' everything is '' - becauses he sees the 'danger' (of self-delusion) . I won't give him nothing...
And the man says '' What is the use of that ?'' It is not marketable, it doesn't relieve my pain, my 'agony' ...Keep it to yourself ! But for someone living (stuck ) in the field of reality, this statement means something. I will keep to this !

DB : So, basically you are saying that we got to approach something like this with a feeling that we've got something wrong – because whatever you're saying about this is still in the field of reality...

K: Right, sir . The energy of 'nothingness' is quite different from the energy of this, but he says don't bother about it, just look at this and get out of it ! Don't try to bring in the Cosmos into the limited …

DB : But you did bring it in the discussion with the scientists …

K: I brought it in because I wanted them to know that 'something' existed beyond this blasted little stuff …
You come along and say: Look, there is a state of 'nothingness'. You say that, and it is tremendously true to you – it means 'dying', 'not a thing' in his mind. And I have a feeling – because he has said it so passionately - that it is 'true' - because his very presence, his very saying has that (quality) … But if I would want to 'pull him' into this, he says : Go to hell ! You can't do it ! Or, otherwise we get caught in the ancient trap : 'God is here'...
Does this answer your original question , sir ? That Beauty, Goodness, Truth – the purity of it - are all in here ?...I think that's right .

DB : I think one has an expectation that a man who lives in 'nothingness' would not produce and act which is 'evil'

K: You see, that's a wrong question...

DB : Yes, but we have to look into this question since it is present in our cultural tradition all over the world- that a man who acts from 'nothingness' or from 'God'...would not do evil things...

K: Sir, there is in the Hindu and the Jewish world, the 'Nameless'...but I live here and name Him all the time. And He doesn't even recognise the name ! I think that's true, so my only concern is to create order here . Do I see the totality of this ? And if I see it, I'm out !
That's right sir, that holds truth - I'll stick to it ! Therefore there is no relationship between the two...
Sir, a man who experiences 'death'... I won't use the word 'experience' ! A man who 'dies' – not under anesthesia or because he's ill- but he's here and he's 'ending'. The 'love' that exists in reality is one thing ; that same word cannot be applied here - you can call it Compassion or something else ? But it's not the same content of that word...

DB : You were describing 'love' as the movement in relationship , but if you're not using the same word...it's not clear...

K: Sir, 'nothingness' is something entirely different – therefore my relationship here is a 'movement' in time, in change, in breaking down one 'image' and introduce another image and so on & on...That is, when there is no more division between the 'perceiver' and the 'perceived', when they are 'one', then you can ask. Do that first and then you can answer !

DB : That's right …

K: Dr Bohm has climbed the Everest – he can describe the beauty of all that , but...I'm still in the valley and I long to have that vision of what he has seen. My desire is to access That or for the description ? In the actual climbing there is no desire, but in achieving the descriptions of what he has seen, there is 'desire' . Right, sir ? I think that holds it...We are caught in 'description' , not in the actual climbing...
Should we we go on ?

DB : I think it's five thirty – an hour and a half...

K: So, we'd better go and shake hands - in the world of 'reality' ! (laughing...)

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 18 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 May 2018 #7
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

 5-TH 'TRUTH & REALITY' DIALOGUE

DB : When we discussed last time there were a few points and consequences which I think they are interesting . Briefly it is this : over the years we have seen that thought moves in inevitable contradictions -from one to another...

K: Yes...

DB : And then we said, let's try to kep thought in its place – where it is technically efficient in the field of reality, but then one discovers that thought cannot stay in its place...

K: It cannot...

DB : Because the moment it defines a place, it is already gone beyond that place – it is in a state of permanent contradictions. Until now the general tendency was to say : yes, there are certain things that are wrong with thought, but let us see if we can straighten them out – and the ultimate straightening out was to keep it in its place, but it won't stay in its place ; therefore it occurred to me the idea that perhaps thought cannot be 'straightened out'. Perhaps by its very nature...

K: (laughs) ...it's 'crooked' !

DB : Now if that's the case, it seems to me that we need some other energy, some other movement that will carry out our practical functions. There might be another movement which will carry out the same functions but without becoming crooked...

K: Yes, I see that.

DB : And that would seem to me a good point to start.

K: Are we saying sir, that thought being in itself contradictory, when it tries to put order in that contradiction it creates further disorder and that thought can never have its right place ?

DB : Yes, even if we were to start out fresh, it would come to the same thing.

K: Yes...And we're asking : is there an energy which will carry out these functions without becoming 'crooked' ?

DB : Yes, because unless we can find that we must turn to thought …

K: Quite. How does one investigate it, or how does one discover – after realising the intrinsic nature of thought - what is the new instrument which will discover that energy ?

DB : Yes, we started looking at that last time and we discovered there is a very serious trap, because thought is always projecting itself into anything...

K: Yes. So we are asking whether thought can ever be an instrument that can discover something which is not 'crooked' ?

DB : There is one more point we might discuss: you have often talked about the 'negative thinking' which is really the discovery of contradictions within one's thought …

K: Yes...

DB : And I've been studied this : people have known this as 'dialectic' – according to the dictionary 'the art of discussion through questions and answers'

K: I know, but it also means offering opinions …

DB : Not exactly ; it starts with accepting something which people thinks 'reasonable' – which may be an opinion and to move from there to discover thought's inevitable contradiction. Now there are two ways to look at this : one is to simply 'drop it'...

K: Isn't there in contradiction a synthesis ?

DB : That depends...one of the exponents of dialectic I've studied is Hegel, who has carried it quite far. He says that at a certain stage thought reveals its contradiction, then it 'suspends' itself and one sees the emptiness of the forms of contradiction ; but then he goes on to a new idea which will resolve the contradiction...

K: A-ha. 

DB : And then it moves on & on. Now in order to stop it moving on & on, he introduces the concept of the 'absolute idea'...which he didn't notice that it could be another idea...

K: (laughing) These clever people get caught in their own web...

DB : Yes...and if we pursue that, we can see that there's no much point in pursuing the contradiction on & on and we see that thought is inherently creating contradictions and we come to the point which you raised – that thought should find its right place which again, it can't . So we've carried the dialectic further than Hegel did and this inevitably leads to the point that thought might end itself.

K: End itself, quite !

DB : I was told by Narayan that Buddha was a great master of dialectic and perhaps he did use it that way, but in general it has not been used that way...

K: I don't know Buddhism very well – I don't know it at all – except the superficial mutterings of Buddhist priests and so on. I was told that a Buddhist scholar – Nagarjuna- went much further saying that in ending thought there is 'nothingness'.
So, we've come to the point where thought being contradictory, through 'dialectics' thought can resolve it, hoping that by a certain point thought can see its 'absurdity'...

DB : Yes...

K: But when thought conceives a new pattern...it is still thought !

DB : Still thought, yes...

K: So, we've reached that point, and we see that the movement of thought must always be contradictory, self-centred and so on...Can that (process of) thought end and a new 'energy' operate in the field of reality and not bring about contradictions in the field of reality ? That's it , we got it !

DB : Yes...one more point that can be added is that intelectually we can see the contradictions and on the side of 'feeling' we can see them through (the hectic movement of) desire. It comes to the same thing...

K: Exactly ! If you talk about thought it is useless to talk about desire ! Right ? Or should we go into desire ?

DB : If we can say a few things about it, that may help...

K: Sir, when you used the word 'desire' you used it in the sense of feeling or demand, and also in the meaning of this word, 'longing' .

DB : Longing, yes...

K Clinging to, seeking the ultimate pleasure in different forms – the highest, the lowest and so on & on...Surely, all that is in the field of thought ! Desire is one of the arms of thought !

DB : Yes, it starts producing feelings...

K: Would there be that 'feeling' if thought didn't enter into that area ?

DB : Now that's the question : in our general culture it is accepted that there would be one...

K: I know...

DB : But on the other hand if we were not identified with thought as a second kind of feeling, it's hard to say what it would be …

K: Yes, quite...I desire this house – in that desire is included the longing for what thought has created...and I want the 'image' of what thought has created as pleasurable...and wanting that pleasure. I don't think there is a difference between desire & thought !

DB : Yes, and the contradiction in desire comes in the same way – just as there is an inherent contradiction in thought, there is an inherent contradiction in desire.

K: Yes...inherent ! But just a minute : when I am young, I desire a woman, I desire a house – I change the objects of desire, but desire remains !

DB : Desire remains, but its objects are always contradictory...You see, it won't stay with an object – if you get the object it will move to another one...just the same as thought would not stay there but move from one thing to another..

K: That's it ! That's clear...

Dr P : Now this continuous movement of thought is a continuous 'projection' and the person doesn't come to know of this movement so there is a continuous 'chasing' there...and his life is between the projection and himself...

K: Quite.

Dr P : This is a process of conditioning that starts from feeling, to the 'image' formation...

K: What do you mean by 'conditioning' ?

Dr P  : If you have a young child he has no 'thinking' process stated but a 'feeling' process...

K : I wonder if that is not 'thinking' - so it is a 'dangerous' thing to say that the child has no thought but only feeling …

DB : Yes...Some psychologists have sudied that and they say that the young child has a 'non-verbal' form of thinking - a 'motor thought' , like an animal...And through his 'images' and through his 'motor activity'
the child is still 'thinking' in terms of pleasure & all that...

K: Non-verbal...

Dr P : But it seem the child doesn't think in terms of the 'I'

K: I cling to this toy and another child comes and takes it I hold it  : That is the origin of the 'I'.

DB : Or the child clinging to his mother ; when the mother goes away...

K: Of course ! What problem is that... ! So sir, we said : desire in its very nature is contradictory, though the objects may change ; but in its essence desire is contradictory, as thought is contradictory. Now we're saying ; is there an energy wich operates in the field of reality without becoming crooked ?
You see, when I have discussed in India with all the pundits & others, they have said : this 'energy' is divine – I'm using their words - and therefore it can never operate in the field of reality – but if it does, it can never go contradictory – they 'invent', they presuppose, or they imagine an energy which is unconditioned – which is Brahman, or Soul, or God.
Now, if we can 'erase' from our mind that process of invention or 'imagining' - and one must if one would really find out, then what have we ? We have only the process of 'thought & desire' – which in its essence is 'crooked' in operation and we know nothing else. Right sir ?

DB : Yes...

K: I think that would be the 'sane' position. I'd like to start that way, otherwise this 'crooked' nature of thought and its desire which constantly changes its longing...And I 'am' my consciousness in which all movement is thought & desire. Right sir ?

DB : Yes...

K: That consciousness – because it is all the time in movement - has never found an energy which is not contradictory, an energy which is not produced by desire & thought. So, what shall I do ?
Then my problem is : can 'thought' see its own movement and the futility of its own movement ?  Futility in the sense of being contradictory, conflicting...

DB : Yes, 'seeing the totality' of it. We'd have to see it 'totally' !

K: Totally, that's what I mean ! Of course …Can thought see the totality of its movement in consciousness- see it as a whole ?

DB : Well, there is a difficulty here, which perhaps makes it look impossible : when we ordinarily look at something, that very thought separate itself from what we look at ; so when you say ''I am that thing that thought thinks about'', this thought is not sustained...

K: Let's move from there : my consciousness is myself ; there is no separation between myself and the content of my consciousness, which is 'me'...

DB : Yes...

K: That I see. Is this 'seeing' withing the content of the consciousness or outside ? When I say ''I see the contradictory nature of thought '', is that 'seeing' an intellectual perception, a verbal comprehension, or is it an actual perception ? Or I imagine that I see desire ? Is 'seeing' a movement of thought ? If it is, then I don't 'see' - there is no 'seeing'. Then, when does the mind say 'I see' ?

DB : Only when the movement of thought stops ?

K: That's it ! And what made it stop ? How has that come about ?

DB : Seeing the contradiction or the absurdity...

K: But does thought 'see' it ?

DB : No, it's the attention to what thought is doing …

K: There is attention to the actuality – the 'actual' is being seen.

DB : Yes...

K: The 'actual' which is the creation of thought – desire, the movement of  thought – that's the actual. And 'who' is it that 'sees' it- how does it happen ?

DB : Well, there's nobody that 'sees' it...

K: That's what I want to get at...

Dr P : I think 'attention' is the thing that sees !

K: I don't want to go back ! I don't operate that way, I want to start anew ! I've got a problem : somebody tells me that thought is everlastingly moving from pattern to pattern, in contradictory patterns, contradictory desires – and when thought does that, there is no solution to ending sorrow, confusion , conflict & all that. And I listen to him because he's telling me something that is very serious: I respect what he's saying and I say : Give me a moment and I will see it ! What do I 'see' ? The verbal pattern, the verbal description – and therefore I've got the 'colour' of the painting of his description, or  is it an intellectual grasp of what he's saying, or it has nothing to do with all that, but only perception ? I'm just asking : how does that perception happen ? I 'listen' to him, I respect what he's saying : to me it seems logical, sane and actual – and then at the moment I see the whole of it ! Not the fragments put together, but the 'whole' movement of desire, thought, contradiction, the whole movement from pattern to pattern, the excuses & so on - I see it completely as a whole ; and my action of 'seeing as a whole' is totally different from thought's action...How does it happen ?

DB : Well, it is not clear what you mean by 'how' ?

K: I'm sorry, I shouldn't say 'how' !

DB : Let me just say something : when I looked at it and saw that thought cannot be made straight, I couldn't describe it, but at that moment I was no longer interested to 'make it staight'. I thought that was the direct action of 'seeing'.

K: Are you saying : does thought see itself in its movement in contradiction ? Is that what you're saying ?

DB : I'm saying that when there is 'seeing' the whole movement no longer continues...

K: Does thought 'see itself' ?

DB : No, no...It seems to me that there is a bigger movement...

K: That may be imagined by thought, or it is what scientists say , but I don't know anything about it....All that I know is this : that in 'listening' with attention & respect I see this ; I understand the whole of it ! You don't have to talk anymore about it - I see the whole of it ! What brought this about ? If you say 'attention' – this attention implies that there is no center - center as thought which has created the 'me' and the 'not-me', and therefore I receive eveything he says without twisting it !

DB : But isn't there a thought without the 'centre ? In other words, can there be thought before the centre ? The weakness of thought is that it separates itself from what it thinks about – the imaginary 'other' which it calls the 'object', but which is still thought...

K: Yes, I see all that...

DB : Now, does that take place before the creation of the 'center', or the 'center' is something else ?

K: I don't quite follow this...

DB : You see, if I say the essential function of thought is to 'reflect' – to create an 'image'...

K: Which becomes the 'centre'...

DB : Yes, let's get this straight...You said : the image becomes the 'centre' – this is not quite clear to me ...Let's say I'm thinking of a tree - that which I'm thinking about becomes separate from 'me'. Therefore it seems that I have created two 'images' – one is the 'tree' and the other is 'me'...

K: That's right ; the 'me' is the image that thought has created …

DB : And the 'tree' also ...but it seems that thought presents these two as separate ... Now it would seem from what you're saying that thought cannot exist without a 'centre' ?

K: Yes, that's right...

DB : But if 'something' could awaken, then we wouldn't have the 'centre'...

K: That's right ! Pupul raised this question ; Is the seeing
within the field of consciousness ? That means 'seeing' must have space, and is there in our consciousness a 'space' which is not touched by thought ? And therefore from that ( free inner) 'space' arises the total comprehension ?

DB : Yes...but is it part of consciousness ?

K: That's it ! If it is part of the content of consciousness which has been conditioned, in that case, where from where does that perception come ?

DB : When that 'free inner space' is part of consciousness ?

K: Yes...I see that this 'space' is still within the space of consciousness, still within the field desire - still within the 'field of reality' that thought has created...Is there a 'seeing' , a 'perception of the whole' outside of it ? And if there is an 'outside seeing' – if I can use that word -
then thought with its movement between 'centre' & perifery, comes to an end....'Seeing' is the ending of thought...Would you say that ?

DB : Yes...

K: Perception is not the movement of thought...

DB : Yes, that is, when you perceive a contradiction thought stops...

K: You 'see the truth' outside the field of consciousness. Truth is not within the consciousness- if it was in the field of reality, then it will be a contradiction...
If it is not in that field, then it is 'truth' . Then you see it ; and because you see it, thought's action in the field of 'reality' is never 'crooked' Right ?

DB : Yes, but it raises a question here : Is it possible that you 'see' it and yet...you fall back in it ?

K: Into the 'field of reality' ? Never...if you 'see' it !

DB : I mean, just once is enough?

K: Absolutely !

DB : Hmm. .. ?

K: If I 'see', if there is a perception of that ; how can I get back into something which is not 'true' ?

DB : But then, how do you come to make mistakes ?

K: Let's look at it ! For the moment I am just exploring : all action is in the field of reality. And we're saying that truth's action in the field of reality is never contradictory. And you say : there can be mistakes made by 'truth', right ?

DB : I don't know who is doing them...there might be mistakes which I wish to understand.

K Right...As there is a perception of truth, that perception operates in the field of reality. Would it be a 'mistake' when you take the wrong direction of the road ? The wrong road ?

DB : Well, it depends on how you use the language...or you simply by lack of information you chose one way of the road...

K: This lacking information – the way you look at it ; you say I'm making a mistake . So, truth operating in the field of reality & not having sufficient information can take the 'wrong' direction...

DB : Yes ...

K : And you, looking at him from 'out there' say : ''He's mistaken, therefore he's never seeen 'truth'''

DB : That is one way of looking at it ...but you can also say : What is the sign of a man who has not seen truth ? I mean, not merely that he makes mistakes ...?

K: That's very simple to see that he lives a very contradictory life.

DB : As he lives in self-contradiction, you should be able to distinguish from a mistake and having the wrong information...

K: Yes, that's it : wrong information ! Now what am I to do ? There is a perception of truth and I have to act in the field of reality - do you make a mistake – mistake being that which is not truthful  ?

DB : So, we'll have to be very clear about what is 'truth' …

K: Exactly...Truth being something that thought cannot perceive, realise or express it. Reality can't. The 'logic' that thought spins out becomes illogical.

DB : I'd like to put it this way : there is an 'actuality' which is independent on though  and an 'actuality' which is being created by thought – like that microphone - and also there is a feeling behind these images. Now thought loses track that it has created those images and then it recognises again as something that it has not created. And that mistake can't be corrected – because thought lacks the information. Now we could say that truth makes no such 'mistakes'.

K: Once you have seen something dangerous, it's finished ! But thought can create a danger by creating an 'image' which is unreal and hold on to that image -
which becomes a danger...

DB : Yes, because thought has lost track of the fact that it has made it...

K: That's right...So, we are saying 'Truth cannot make a mistake'...

DB : And if it makes mistakes it's because of wrong information – it is like a computer - if you give it wrong information...

K: That's it ! You see that 'organised' religion has no truth in it. You 'see' it totally ! You can't go back & organise their religious stuff : it's finished ! And your action will be totally 'logical' – never contradictory , right ?

DB : Yes...Now several people asked me that most human beings are not capable of such perfection...

K: It is not 'perfection' !

DB : In one sense it is not, but in anther sense it is....

K: I don't see it as 'perfection' !

DB : I realise that...

K: I see it as a man who is sensitive, attentive and 'sees' the danger - and therefore doesn't touch it !

DB : Well, I've talked with a few of the scientists – and especially with one of them - I think he's got some idea of what you mean, but he's rather dubious that he is ready to drop all his attachments...

K: Why ?

Db : I don't know...

K: Why should it be inhuman to see truth?

DB : You're right, there is no reason, it's merely a tradition...

K: That's it ! The thickness of the 'wall' that thought has created...

DB : I mean, it has been a tradition to be 'modest' – it's only human to err...

K: There's no question of modesty about it ! But I think that one has to have a great sense of humility to see truth  ! And I think the expression of this is still humility...

DB : Yes, I understand that...

K: Let's go back to the question of Pupul : Is there a 'space' in consciousness – which is not created by thought ? Is there any part of one's consciousness which thought has not touched ?

DB : I should think it's impossible, because thought is a 'structure' and every part of thought touches any other part...

K: All fragments in consciousness are related...

DB : And the connexions are quite amazing - for instance you can see that a certain word is not part of our language – and that's connected immediately to the whole of your memory …

K: Right, take the word 'oak treee ' – it doesn't exist in sanscrit...

DB : I mean, anybody can tell immediately that a word doesn't exist in the language....

K: Right, all words are inter-related ...So all the fragments of one's consciousness are inter-related...and so there is no space, no corner, no hidden spot where thought hasn't touched...

DB : Or has the potentiality of touching ?

K: Yes, as we said, all thoughts are related, all fragments are related...

DB : And this the cause of one of the main contradictions of thought – to treat them as 'unrelated' .

K: Yes...So, that being so, what brings about the 'act' of perception ?

DB : You frequently ask this kind of questions for which the answers are not clear...

K: I think the answer is clear when thought comes to an end...

DB : Yes that's what you said before . But then one asks : what brings it to an end ?

K: My first question is : does thought see the futility of all its movement and 'stops' ?

DB : Well I shouldn't think that thought has that 'power'. Or, it might see the 'futility' in a fragmentary way...

K: So you're saying that thought cannot see itself in its totality . So, how does this happen ? You say it is 'attention' ? Not quite....

DB : I shouldn't think that thought has that power...

K ; There must be a sense of (inner) 'no-thingness'...

DB : But what is 'attention' ?

K: Attention is the summation of all energy. But that's not quite enough. So it is happening when the mind that has gone through all this comes to an absolute 'no-thingness'  - not a 'thing' in it - and that is more than the summation of all one's energy – a 'super' energy !

DB : So we're saying that attention is the summation of all the human energy - which would be 'wrong' to call 'cosmic', but there is an energy beyond that.

K: There's a danger of self - delusion in this because I can imagine that... So the mind has seen through all that...

DB : Now, I would like to ask you a question : you were like this all your life ?

K: I'm afraid so...

DB : But that brings up another question - which is what we're doing now - you're communicating it. Now, for some odd reason – you were this way and the rest of us are not...

K : I wouldn't like to sound conceited...

DB : But the combination of all tendencies and environment – generally makes one 'conditioned'...

K: Wait...one human being going through these conditions is being conditioned , and another human being is not being conditioned...

DB : It's not clear why is there a difference ?

K: Now that becomes tremendous...

DB : Too difficult ?

K: Not difficult but we'll have to go into something entirely different...Let's keep it simple ; there are two human beings – one is being conditioned and the other one isn't. How does it happen that the other doesn't get conditioned ? Is it a lack of good health at the beginning ? He was ill and therefore he didn't listen to the (conditioning) influences, or they didn't penetrate because the mind wasn't healthy ?

DB : Hmm... ?

K: The body wasn't healthy, therefore it didn't receive anything...

DB : And by the time it could receive, it was stronger ?

K: Yes...and therefore (the conditioning influence) never entered it...

DB : It didn't took hold. Now there is this stage in the young children's development where they go through a stage of tremendous opening, but then it closes down.

K: There are several theories about this : One theory is that this (person) has had previous lives and the other theory - but....let's put it down the other way : Would you say there is Goodness in the world, and there is also 'evil' in the world ?

DB : Well, that point has not been very clear...Perhaps we could discusses it, because I'm not clear...

K: I mean, there are these two - the 'evil' and the Good.

DB : Yes but there is a certain feeling that the 'evil' doesn't have the same reality as the Good...The 'evil' is based on falseness …

K: So there are these two 'forces' and the asiatics believe that the Good is with those who are advancing spiritually . Can that Goodness penetrate into a person who isn't selfish ? See, I have talked with those people who knew him as a child – he had a sense of 'vague', moronic. And when he got in the west...It didn't penetrate either. So, what brings this about : there must be a 'natural awareness' and sensitivity - and no choice...

DB : Would you say that 'choice' is the real root of the movement of thought ?

K: Yes...From there 'attention' – there is affection, care and a sense of deep communication. And this is still not enough : the love that exists in attention is different from the 'love' of reality. I love you, therefore I receive you profoundly...Therefore our communication is not verbal...And that is still not enough...

DB : It is in the depths of the human individual...

K: We can go through all this, but it is not enough.
Therefore can this consciousness be completely empty ? Which means, there is no-thing inside it ?

DB : But that still includes an awareness of the environment ?

K: Yes, of course ! Is that possible? Then there is this (quality) which didn't exist in awareness, nor in concentration... Attention has in itself this quality of Love.

DB : Yes...

K: And that is not enough still - can this consciousness be totally empty ? And therefore, a consciousness which is totally different ?

DB : Then why would you call it 'consciousness' ?

K: That's just it ! We said that consciousness – as we knowing it now - 'is' its content : the movement, wide or narrow of thought. In 'no-thingness' there is no 'movement' at all – but it has its own movement which can operate in the field of reality...

DB : We'll have to clarify what is this other 'movement '?

K: The 'movement' which we know now is 'time'... Can we use 'emptiness' in the sense where a cup is empty ?

DB : That will imply that it can take content...

K: No, it's not that....Therefore let's begin again from
'nothingness' - it  has a movement which is not the movement of thought, which is, not a movement of time.

DB : It occurs to me about 'time', that when thought reaches a contradiction, then it jumps to another thought and that 'jump' is time.

K: Right !

DB : It seems to me that the very essence of psychological time is contradiction...

K: Contradiction, I see that... Sir, we are asking : is there an energy which is not contradictory, which is not jumping from a pattern to another pattern ; a 'movement' which is not related to that energy of time ?

DB : Yes...Let's get another point clear : 'that' energy reveals itself in the world of time. Is that right ?

K: Could you repeat ?

DB : This is a view which I heard : that energy does not exist in time, but it manifests in time, or reveals itself...

K: A-ha.. ! Which is the same thing I'm saying only put differently...

DB : Yes... I mean, several different people have said that – some of the ancient Indians in America...

K: Yes, yes ! And in India too they say that it manifests itself in the field of reality …

DB : Is that view acceptable to you ?

K: Let's look at it ! Are we saying that the human being who pursues truth can function in the field of reality and therefore his perceptions are never distorted. 

DB : Yes, but other people watching him would call him a 'manifestation'...

K: Yes, the 'avatar' - a sanscrit word...Now, would that be right ? Would that be true ? That is, you as a human being perceive truth and you manifest that truth in the field of reality. Therefore that manifestation is the operation of an Intelligence which can never be distorted...
May I put a question : why should Truth operate in the field of reality ?

DB : Well, that question was in the back of my mind...

K: (laughing) I caught you ! Why should it operate in the field of reality ?

DB : Let's just put it that generally people accept it – perhaps it doesn't …

K: That's it! Why should we it take for granted that it will operate ?

DB : We take it for granted because we hope that we will have something from it – to keep us 'straight'
(both are laughing )

K: Have a string of 'hope' ….Now I'm getting it at last : we have accepted as part of our tradition, as part of our hope & desire that the man who perceives truth can and does operate in the field of reality. And you & I come along and say : why should he ?

DB : Well, perhaps he shouldn't...

K: He shouldn't ! I think this will be more true – the actuality rather than the desire which creates the actuality ….

DB : Yes, so perhaps we'll have to change it : this man operates in 'actuality'. Would you accept that ?

K: Of course ! But there is a danger in that : ( in assuming) that in man there is the Highest Principle and that it operates... I question that !
So we were asking : why should Truth enter in the field of reality at all ? Why should the Highest Principle manifest itself in the field of reality ?
We want it to operate...so we cling to that idea.

DB : Yes because we want some deeper sense of order...

K : But if we do not cling to it, how is one who lives in the world of reality, to bring order into it ?

DB : But then, are you living in the field of reality ?

K: I suppose a human being living in this mess, sees it and says : How do I bring in order ?

DB : Well it almost follows from what you say that it cannot be done !

K: That's just it ! In the world of reality thought cannot bring order there …

DB : No, because thought itself is disorder...

K: So people say : get away from that – join a monastery or join a 'community of the equal' …

DB : Well, the whole thing is relative because it seems to me that ( thought's ) 'reality' is real but it is false...

K: Quite, quite …

DB : And therefore, as we said, truth cannot operate in the false...

K: Yes, but you follow, sir ? I am 'false' ! Because 'psychologically' thought has created this 'false' (self-centred entity) ...

DB : Yes...

K: And how can Truth operate in the 'false' ?

DB : Well, it doesn't...

K: Obviously it cannot ! But yet, in the field of thought can there be order ? Because that's what we need : I need that...

DB : We can have some relative order...

K: So you're saying this order is relative ?

DB : Yes...

K: But there is an order of truth which is 'supreme order'...

DB : But we said that couldn't be found in the field of reality...

K: Yes...

DB : I mean, we could bring a 'relative' order into the field of reality...

K: Ah, but that is not good enough ! That's what the politicians are doing... Therefore the human beings introduced the element of 'divine order' and pray to receive the grace of that divine order... which will put more than a 'relative' order in my life... And that is not good enough, it's illogical  ! Even verbally this is inacceptable. But I want order here, in the world of reality, because order means safety, security, protection...I must have that !

DB : Hmm...

K: And thought cannot produce that . But if I don't invent 'God' or a 'Source of (Intelligent) Energy' which will help man to have that – I don't accept that ! But I need absolute order here ! Why can't one have it without invoking or looking for 'truth' ?

DB : Well, let's go into that, because what determines ( the sense of) 'reality' is thought …And thought is contradictory so....what is going to make it 'non-contradictory' ? I don't see how you can bring about what you're aiming at... Now, let's try to look at this  : we see that the whole world is almost completely in disorder... People tried to bring in some order in countless ways, but as long as the world is ruled by thought, the disorder will continue...

K: I accept that, because you have explained everything rationally, thought itself says ''I will be orderly'' : I know how I jump from pattern to pattern, but I will be very watchful ! And that 'self-recollected watchfullnes' will have order without introducing 'outside agencies'...

DB : So, your view is that it can be done ?

Dr P : Is it some other form of awareness ?

K: No, sir : thought says 'I have created this whole mess'... And it realises 'I can't do anything about it'. Therefore it abstains to continue in that way : therefore I will be intelligent ! Can that take place ?

DB : Well, we'll have to look at this. What is it in thought that will allow this to take place ? Somehow it implies that thought is somehow 'non-mechanical' ?

K: (Laughs..) I know, I know....

Dr P : I think thought has in itself some elements which are not mechanical !

K: What ? Thought is not 'mechanical' ?

Dr P : There are some parts of it which are not 'dead mechanical'...So, it can produce some order in itself without appealing to 'truth'...

K: So, you are saying that thought has some parts of it which are 'healthy'  and we're saying 'There's no healthy thought' !

Dr P : You are using the terms 'reality' and 'thought' Now in the field of reality there are some 'springs'...

K: In the field of reality, suffering says ''No more !''

Dr P : That's right …

K: Let's look at it : the suffering which is brought about by thought , that feeling of intense suffering says 'No more !' But the 'No more' is the action of thought ! So...you're still in the field of contradiction... So if you said all human beings must be fed - without creating a tyrany obviously that's order …

DB : Yes, but that is only a hope !

K: ( Laughs) That's it !

DB : I mean, this has been achieved at certain times …

K: But not without imposing a central authority ! The incas they had a marvelous system but the authority was there … I don't want that kind of 'order' - my orderly intelligence says : We've been there ! Therefore you introduce the order of truth – which may or may not be there. You say truth can come in the field of reality and someone else says : truth has nothing to do with the field of reality....therefore...I'm stuck with it. So I say ...to hell with truth ! If it cannot operate & bring order here... then what's the point of it ?
So now we deny the starting point of investigation whether 'truth' has or not some relationship with the field of reality...

DB : I think that we explored that statement & seen its contradictions and therefore 'dropped' it..

Dr P : Do you say that in the field of reality there are not sufficient 'springs' to bring this ?

K: Maybe ! I don't know ... it may be that in the field of reality thought itself sees that it cannot act anymore ?

DB : But this implies that thought has the possibility of not being entirely mechanical ?

K: I don't accept this statement that the process of thought is not mechanical .

DB : Then how is this mechanism going to 'see' this ?

K: Is the 'computer' seeing the mistakes it's making ?

DB : No, but then you can make a computer that will take all these mistakes into account …

K: Similarly, can thought see that it has made a mistake ?

DB : It can, but we have to introduce some new elements like awareness...

K: There's no solution for 'absolute' oder in the field of reality...

DB : Now, if thought assumes it is the only 'energy', then it must come to this position : I abstain from operating …

K: Or something else must take place...

DB : What is it ?

K: I see the that thought is bringing its own disorder... Seeing the 'danger' of it ! So, when there is the perception of the 'real' danger, thought doesn't act !
The perception of the danger is a shock to thought !

DB : Hmm… ?

K: So thought 'holds' – and in that 'holding' of thought is order.

DB : Right...

K: Let's put it this way : we go to Gstaad to see all these marvelous mountains …

DB : Yeah...

K: And your thought is 'gone away'... The beauty of it drives away all the movement of thought... And therefore it is the same when thought sees the tremendous danger...

DB : That's with the aid of attention & awareness, but thought 'sees' it ?

K: Thought sees it. Like when I see a car rushing towards me, I jump away This 'jumping away' is order.

DB: Yes, but you see, the perception of danger may not be maintained...

K: Or one may not see the danger at all ! When thought does not see the danger of 'nationalism' - most of us are neurotic - I mean, when you had ten wars and you still repeating it - it is a neurotic movement !

DB : Yes, but that's part of the problem that thought dulls perception...or prevents perception from operating...

K: Or.... is it because I'm conditioned ?

DB : I'm conditioned to do just that...

K: Now, you come along and educate me to see the danger of all this …And as you 'educate' me, I see the danger and I will do it ! So, why should Truth enter into the field of reality ?

DB : But then, what does Truth do – what is its action ?

K: What is its function, what does it 'do', what is its value -not in the sense of merchandised or 'employable ? You see, Truth is supreme intelligence – as we said. And we're asking, can that Intelligence (of Truth) operate in the field of reality ? If it does, then it can bring about absolute order. And we're saying Truth is not something to be achieved or gained or perceived through education, through culture – through the medium of thought...Right, sir ?

DB : Yes, but when you say Truth does not operate in the field of reality, it becomes ambiguous...

K: Truth cannot enter in the field of reality...

DB : I don't know if this will help : we said that 'understand' means 'to stand under'.....So when we say that we 'understand' something – I'm using a metaphor - truth is 'standing under' thought – it is 'the substance' of reality...

K: Truth is 'under reality'… ?

DB : I don't know where truth is, but in the act of understanding, the action is 'under' reality, rather than being in the field of reality.

K: Reality is a manifestation of thought, and truth 'stands under' the actuality of thought... What time is it ?

DB : It's six o'clock.

K: Oh my ! We're getting somewhere ! Sir, what has Goodness to do with 'evil' ?

DB : Nothing ?

K: Right ! So why should we want Goodness to operate on 'evil' – modify it, change it ?

DB : Would it be right to say that Goodness dissolves 'evil' ?

K: It is the same thing - operates, dissolves...Has Goodness a relationship to 'evil' ? Then it can do something. But if it has no relationship, then it can't do anything !

DB : But then we can ask the question ; what will bring 'evil' to an end ?

K: I don't believe it can come to an end...Evil being created by man...

DB : By his thought ?

K: By his thought & all the rest of it...So, you come back to the same question : when thought comes to an end !

DB : Yeah...

Dr P : Has Goodness an impact on thought ?

K: Ahh ... we said that : Goodness has no relationship with thought ! Goodness has no relationship to evil . If it has a relation then it is an 'opposite' and all opposites are related to each other !
So 'evil' will go on till one sees the (intrinsical) contradiction of thought ...To show man that thought can never solve his problems. Right sir ?

DB : Yes. Or you could put it like this : as long as thought is going on, there is no possibility to solve his problems...

K: As long as thought – which is time - goes on, 'evil' will go on, misery will go on...It is a tremendous revelation to me when you state that. To me thought was tremendously important  and when I hear a statement like that …

DB : Right, because one may say : What will I do without that ?

K: Exactly ! It is a tremendous revelation : I listen and I live in that revelation and there is no action...

DB : And that's the movement which is beyond attention ?

K: Beyond attention...Because I've paid attention to him, I have listened to him, he has shown me and I'm full of this extraordinary statement. I don't know how I will operate, I don't know how I will live, but I've 'seen' this thing ! And it will operate, it will do something – but I don't have to do anything . Because before I was accustomed to 'do' something – and he says : Don't ! - Yes, sir, quite right ! To hurt another is 'evil' – I'm taking it as an example - in the deep sense of that word to hurt someone 'psychologically' is evil ! And I receive it without any resistance - resistance is thought – It has entered into my 'womb', into my mind, into my whole being and it operates !

DB : Hmm...

K: It functions, it moves it has its own movement ...truth has its own vitality !

DB : Yes....

K: It's a wrong question for me to ask :'' What place has Truth in the world of reality ?''

DB : The point is that we had to put it first and see that it's wrong, not merely to deny the question ...

K: I think it's enough...Can we get up ?

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 18 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 May 2018 #8
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

6-TH K- DB DIALOGUE ON 'Truth & Reality'

DB : One question that's worth discussing is what we started discussing last week : that 'truth' does not make direct contact with 'reality' – perhaps we should discuss that...

K: If this 'reality' is the activity of thought , with the cessation of thought, will 'truth' become apparent  ? I don't quite think so...First of all can thought be stopped or can it naturally cease ? And we're asking- if that can take place, can truth exist ?

DB : Would truth be 'actual' then ?

K: For the moment, I don't think it happens that way ; let's examine & go into it. Thought is so cunning- it can mesmerise itself, hypnotise itself and think it is very quiet....That's one point. And there are various systems into Zen, or the Hindu forms to quieten thought, control is still not ending thought, as one thought superimposes on the other. Then, can thought ever be silent – if it's not through 'meditation' – in the accepted sense, or if it has not induced itself, very subtly, to be silent, or if there is anything that can silence the mind, then is truth actual ? No... I think something else should take place. What do you say ?

DB : Well, we have made a distinction between a thought which is inherently 'twisted' and the ability to make a mistake which is due to wrong information and correct it...So perhaps we could clarify the difference between thought making a simple mistake and the kind of confusion that thought gets into... Let's say that one is doing something foolish and he may not know exactly why he's done it. Perhaps eventually he sees it...

K: Something out of ignorance...

DB : Not necessarily ignorance but simply unawareness.
Then one wonders where is the source of this unawareness ; there are two kinds of unawareness - one is simply failing to be aware - and the other one which is due to thought which has a systematic tendency to supress awareness. The 'ignorance' of thought is not merely lack of knowledge but it is 'ignoring' - it 'ignores' certain things in order to be more comfortable, to have more pleasure or not to disturb the equilibrium of its operation- because if it does, then everything will go to pieces...

K: Yes...

DB : Now that kind of 'positive ignorance' is thought positively ignoring. And there is the 'negative' form of ignorance, due to the lack of information. But then, it's sometimes hard to distinguish whether someone has done something foolish due to lack of information or due to the lack of some deeper & subtler information...

K: Are we trying to find out whether truth can make a mistake ?

DB : In a way, yes. In other words is there something more than the mere lack of information ? We said last time that giving the computer wrong information it will produce wrong answers – and now if we take a little further this analogy with the computer : can it give wrong answers for different reasons ?

K: Right...So what is it we're asking, sir ?

DB : Well, it seems that 'truth' cannot become involved with any kind of deceptions....

K: Yes, 'truth' cannot deceive itself, obviously !

DB : Now, is it possible – for instance in your case- that thought can go on for a certain time and then you see something and it will end ? Or is it happening 'instantly' ?

K: Sir, I think we have to consider when does 'truth' manifest itself...

DB : Last time you said it didn't , you see ?

K: What ?

DB : Last time I think we said that 'truth' does not manifest in reality …

K: No....let's get this clear ! We are saying there is reality and truth. We know the activities of thought in the field of reality and we are saying they have no connexion with truth.
And then we say : How does truth appear ? Is truth an abstraction ?

DB : It better not be ! Then it would be still thought...

K: So, it is not a term of thought calling itself 'truth'. It must be out of time, it must have no continuity. So it must have no relation to the 'past' or to the 'future'...

DB : Which implies, as we said last time, it has no relationship to thought. That seems fairly clear . Now if you
say there's an action of truth which is always clear....

K: Which is total...

DB : ...which is always right, etc. But this is not necessarily continuous, though...

K: Ha ! Cannot be !

DB : Of course not, but it may happen from moment to moment, right ?

K: Yes.

DB : But in between, there is a lack of complete attention? You see, I'm trying to get it clear...

K: Yes, I understand. Hmm...  we'll have to go into this...

DB : And there would be one more point : they say that sometimes thought is not present when truth operates...but nevertheless, at some stage you were saying that thought is entirely twisted...and here I have the question if we can ever do without it, or whether we can do or not do without thought. Or is there another function which will do the function of thought without 'twisting'. And there is the possibility that thought works twisting and truth comes in a flash …

K: Could we approach it this way : what is 'action' ?
We know the activities of thought : changing patterns, each pattern creating its own disorder, mischief, pain, and moving all this within the sama area. So, what is the action that is not in that field ? It must be without a motive, it must be without conformity, without imitation, folowing a pattern and so on. So, it must be totally free from memory.

DB : Well, that's the action of truth.

K: Yes, I'll stick to that.

DB : But still, there is the action of memory...

K: The action of truth is free from all memory.

DB : But it may use memory ? Or perhaps it doesn't ?

K: If it acts instantly, it has no memory...

DB : In other words, memory is another activity, of a different order...

K: Wait a minute, I see something : perceiving without the 'perceiver'- which is memory - and the action of this perception is instantaneous, and therefore it is 'truth'. In that case, memory is not necessary.

DB : Not at that moment...

K: Not at that moment. When is memory necessary ? To carry out that perception ?

DB : Well, it could be ; memory may be necessary in all these activities, for example moving around..

K:Yes, yes...

DB : Now, I'm not sure that the perception is carried out...

K: Ah, no... if it's not carried out, then it's not truth !

DB : It has to be, but is it carried out in the field of reality ?

K: Wait a minute, there is 'perception' - which is to see things as they are, to see what is actual – without the interpretation of the 'perceiver' with its background and all that...

DB : So, it is seeing the 'actuality' and that actuality may include thought...

K: Yes, but for the moment we are considering what is the action of truth and what is its relationship with memory in carrying out the action. We say, (the perception of) 'truth' is from moment to moment and the action of truth is from moment to moment and that action is totally unrelated to memory. Finished !

DB : Now we can consider the action of memory...

K: That's quite different...

DB : Now, that action of memory is necessary in order to find your way around, in order to do the right job, etc. But that action of memory, insofar as thought is concerned, may become twisted, confused...

K: I don't think it can get twisted if there is total integrity.

DB : But that again brings up the relationship between 'truth' and 'reality'...

K: If there is complete integrity in thought itself....

DB : But that is almost the same as talking about truth in thought...

K: Ah, no, no...

DB : Then what is the relationship between integrity and truth ?

K: What is integrity ?

DB : It really means 'oneness', not divided, not fragmented, not contradiction...it's 'integral'

K: All right, sir, one can be totally integrated, living a life of non-fragmentation - is that man living a life of truth ?

DB : Well, I don't see how it can be truth without being integrity – unless he's deceiving himself...

K: What I'm trying to say is : can thought ever be totally integral ?

DB : That's the question I'm raising because you seemed to imply a minute ago that it could...

K: Can't it, sir ? Can't thought see its own fragmentation ?...

DB : Perhaps it could, but then, why does it desintegrate ?

K: Because it is not aware of its fragmentary character.
When it becomes aware of its fragmentary character, is that truth ?

DB : Well, that is the truth of the nature of thought...

K: Right...But that is not 'truth', is it ?

DB : There's the distinction between the 'truth of something' and 'truth', you see ?

K: Ah, I see ! The truth of the nature of thought- I can see my thought being fragmentary and thought then realises the 'actuality' of its movement. Is that 'truth' ?

DB : No, but...

K: It is seeing the truth in the false.

DB : Yeah...

K: But that truth is not 'the' truth !

DB : Well, 'truth' itself is beyond what we could describe...

K: Yes.

DB : But we're still in this area which isn't clear- in which apparently truth has a relationship with thought , in the sense of seeing the truth in the false, and that seems to establish a relationship again...

K: I see the truth in the false and also I see that this truth is not the Truth...

DB : But now, I am not very clear what the distinction is...

K: I'm trying to make it verbally clear...I see my thoughts are 'crooked'- that is the 'seeing' that thought is crooked.

DB : But that is the 'truth'...

K: Ah no ...! It was seeing the truth in the false. There, there is a division – the 'false' and the 'truth' .

DB : Yeah...

K: In Truth there is no division !

DB : You see, it has been suggested by some people that we should not use the words 'truth' and 'false' as opposites , but rather use 'correct' and 'incorrect' . So you could say that the 'correctness' of thought is 'incorrectness'...

K: Thought sees its 'incorrectness'...correctly ! (laughter)

DB : Yeah...

K: And the 'seeing correctly' of the incorrectness of thought , you're saying is 'truth ' ? Truth has nothing to do...

DB : Yes...I'm ready to drop that now, because there's a difference in language. But I wanted to clear up one more thing : when you say 'thought sees', I'd like to put it like this way : thought has some sort of 'conscious awareness' -some kind of 'awareness' that goes with thought...

K: Yes, like a good businessman, quite.

DB : That conscious awareness which sees the properties of thought. So, in this case, it's not an inconsistency to say that thought 'sees something' . Thought is consciously aware of the incorrectness of its mode of operation.

K: Right, that's simple enough...Then what's the question ?

DB : Then there's no question, because you say that Truth is something entirely different.

K: Entirely different !

DB : The word 'truth' has been used in so many different senses...

K: ... correct and incorrect. Then what is the problem ?

DB : I'll bring a few more points if you don't mind :
I've been reading Mary Lutyens book about you and I find it quite interesting...

K: Oh, Lord ! Rajagopal asked Allan Watts and someone else if they would help him to write a biography, and knowing that it will be one sided, so I asked Mary.
Shiva Rao from India has collected through many years all the events that took place – and he was going to do it, but his eyesight failed. And then I asked him : could I ask Mary and he said 'Delighted !' And that's how it happened.

DB : I think it's a very well written book. Now, this book discusses some 'process' you went through in this transformation – which always raises the question of the difference between the state of truth and the ordinary state – and which will help us if we got it really clear. It's never clear whether this transformation is sudden or gradual – or whether it took place at all ?

K: I think sir, that several points are involved there : we talked about it the last time : a mind that's unconditioned- it may be so before it was unhealthy at the beginning – weak, couldn't retain, couldn't be impressed upon...

DB: Yes, that was the theory we considered...

K: The theory of reincarnation and Goodness - personified or not as Maitreya - if you accept that and so on.
Then there is this whole idea which exists in the East- and serious people -not sharlatans have been through it. The Hindu tradition has called it the 'serpent fire'

DB : 'Kundalini' - it was refered in the book...

K: If they put that in the book I must take it out ! (laughs)
And that 'kundalini' can be awakened and a different kind of energy comes into being. This is the second point.
And I'm beginning to question whether there was any transformation at all... Sir, I can tell you one thing : in that book, when the brother dies - actually I have no memory of that - either he could have gone into cinicism, bitterness, unbelief and threw the whole thing out- which he didn't do, or he could have taken comfort in reincarnation, in meeting the brother 'elsewhere' – which he didn't do either.
So what actually took place ? If we could actually penetrate that, then we could understand that 'transformation' never took place.

DB : Yeah...And I think what's interesting is that finally he made the step to 'Truth is a pathless land' … In other words, you were saying more or less the same things you are saying now...

K: That's right.

DB : I was struck by the similarity, almost identity...

K: I didn't know that...

DB ; You were not discussing 'reality' then, but 'truth' was the same...

K: I think then that if neither reincarnation, nor the disappearing into worldliness – this being not (a question of) money at all since that hasn't interesting him – but just disappearing into some kind of idiocy, all those did not take place... I think what probably happened was 'facing the truth of death'.

DB : Do you feel that was a crucial step then ?

K: I don't think it was a crucial step -though others have said that it was crucial...

DB : Yeah, and in the book it doesn't appear as what you could call a 'crucial step'...

K: No, but facing the truth of death...

DB : But now we'll have to come back to this : would you say the 'truth' or the 'correctness' ?

K: Facing the actuality of death freed him from the 'reality' of thought. Could we put this differently? Can the mind be completely detached ? From its body....Wait a minute, I must go slowly! Is there a state where the mind is free from all attachment ? Attachment is 'incorrect'...

DB : Yeah...

K: And thought can see the 'incorrectness' of attachment.

DB : Yeah, let's say it can be aware of this...

K: Thought can be consciously aware of all the implications of attachment, and thought can say : I won't touch it anymore

DB : Yes, but now let's try to go slowly into this as you like to refer to that young man...let's say that he was attached to the Theosophical beliefs …

K: I question it !

DB : Well, was there any attachment at all ? At least it appears to be - for example, there were letters where he was saying he accepts it all...

K: Because he was just repeating...There was no conditioning but a 'dependful' state in which he was repeating things which were told to him. I think that would be accurate.

DB : The other point is this 'process' as Mary Lutyens called it, which took many years off and on, and in which there was so much suffering and it's not clear what was happening there, you see ? I mean, did it had any part in the transformation or not ?

K: I don't think so.

DB ; Yes, but just for the sake of not making it discouraging for the peeople who might say : then how we can ever do it !

K: There are two answers to that : you know the Theosophical conception -whether you believe it or not, that's not the point- that there is a Maitreya – who is the essence of Goodness and that Goodness has to manifest in the world when the world is in a state of collapse, in a state of 'evil', in a state of destroying itself- that's what the tradition says. But... what are we talking about?

DB : We're trying to get clear whether this young man was really attached and conditioned. Aside from the letters and the relationships which you say were superficial, wasn't there some deeper kind of suffering ?

K: No, no attachment...

DB : But you have any idea of what was involved there ?
You see, as I've been reading this , during some of the phenomenon were intense pain in the head or in the neck or spine, there appears to be moments where he calls for his mother...

K: I think that's merely a physical reaction when there is intense pain...

DB : But do you have any idea of what the whole trouble was about, or is it something you know anything about ?

K: I'm afraid I don't know anything about it... But must everybody go through this ?

DB : Well, most people wouldn't have the time for it ! (laughter)

K: Columbus discovered America ; must everybody become 'Columbus' to discover America ?

DB : No...all right, so this was the fortuitous way in which this came about, for reasons that are peculiar to your own situation...

K: You see, if you have gone into this whole process of kundalini, the whole idea there – as far as I have been told by others and some who have been through it- is a way of releasing energy through various 'centers' in the body, and those 'centers' have been dormant or not fully in operation...

DB : Yes...

K: And when this energy is in movement, it passes through these 'centers' there is such amount of trouble, pain, disturbance...

DB : But that is not necessary for the transformation you described... ?

K: No, definitely not !

DB : But in that sense, it was something of a side issue ?

K: No, I wouldn't put it this way....

DB : Then, how was it connected in this way ?

K: I haven't thought about this....let's go into it ! That young man, mentally not up to his age...

DB : He had suffered malaria, which is very disturbing...

K: Malaria, a great deal of it...so there was a little 'dullness' and into that dull mind nothing could enter – therefore we said that was one of the reasons he was unconditioned.

DB : Yes...not deeply ?

K: Not deeply conditioned. The other point is why
had he go through all this suffering ? Has it any relation to transformation ?

DB : Yes... ?

K: I say it hasn't... I must go slowly...If I admit that is part of transformation, then every human being has to go through it, which is nonsense ! I think it releases a quality of energy...

DB : The suffering ?

K: Yes, the physical pain of that kind brings about a certain quality of energy .

DB : Yes, but that would imply that those who don't go through it may not have it !

K: No, no...I think I've got it, let's go slowly through this...
Sir, you're a scientist ; you discover something, you see something totally 'new' – and you state that thing, verbally and actually. And another scientist picks it up from there and goes on...

DB : Yes...

K: Here, this man saw 'truth', he discovered something new and that 'new' thing enters into human consciousness...

DB : Would you say it's totally 'new' - I mean, it had never been
seen before ?

K: I don't know...

DB : But for him, at least, it was totally new ?

K: Of course ! Somebody else might have said it, but what he saw was something 'new' .

DB : So perhaps that particular thing has never been discovered before ?

K: Yes. So that discovery of something new, once stated, another can carry on and discover something more.

DB : Yes, but what was the role of suffering in this discovery ? Was it to release the energy ?

K: Probably...

DB: But others may release this energy in different ways...

K: Now, wait a minute, this 'energy' is not the energy of thought !

DB : Can't it be called 'kundalini' ?

K: I am rather shy of that word- a lot of superstition is associated with it, a lot of sharlatans have been playing with it – doing lots of practices to awaken kundalini- I think it is absurd !

DB : But in the case of the young man it seemed it had a place...

K: Yes, that's what I am coming to : the release of that energy is something that must come out of suffering - I am just exploring sir...

DB ; Yes, but is that in general, or for this particular case ?

K: I think, in general.

DB: In general it comes from suffering ?

K: Yes...

DB : But now are you implying there may be some other form of suffering ?

K: That's it ! We're slowly getting it... If, in the world of reality I don't escape from suffering through various means & so on, that very suffering brings about great energy. I think this is so ! Here, in this case, there was not the suffering of attachment, it was not the suffering of losing somebody, it was not the physical suffering - he was pretty healthy in these days. So there was no actual psychological suffering except when the brother died- and then he looked at it and finished with it. But the 'energy' of another kind - if we can go into it a little bit – is different .

DB : Yes, but it doesn't necessarily being awakened in the same way as in this young man – going through the spine and so on ?

K: That's what I'm actually trying to convey : I think that 'energy' is completely different.

DB : From what ?

K: From this kind of energy, from the ordinary kind. And we say, must everybody go through all this in order to get that energy ? I say, no.

DB : But you're implying that everybody must go through some kind of suffering...

K: No, no ! Everybody does suffer !

DB : But if he doesn't escape from this suffering...

K: Then he has got it !

DB : He has got the energy...

K: ...of that kind .

DB : Now, does it matter whether the suffering is the suffering of attachment, or of another kind ?

K: No, that doesn't matter...Suffering of attachment, suffering of losing a wife, physical suffering, psychological suffering – there are many varieties of suffering and if you don't escape from it, there is the release of a certain kind of energy...

DB : But it wouldn't necessarily involve the spine …

K: No, no, obviously not...

DB : So, kundalini may be a very special idea- I mean, a very limited approach...

K: Wait a minute... limited in what way ?

DB : Well, when somebody is purposefully trying to awaken kundalini, he obviously has in mind the spine in a certain order and all that...

K: I don't think it can be done purposefully ! That's what they are trying to do now through methods – thought is purposefully trying to do it !

DB : Wouldn't it be better to say that there is an energy not escaping suffering which doesn't necessarily show itself in various sensations in the spine... ?

K: That's right. A man who faces suffering, he has a quality in him. He's got that kind of physical drive, physical passion – not 'sexual' passion, but 'psychological' passion.

DB : Yes, now, that energy of course is not the whole...

K: No, that's not the whole...

DB : And we need this quality of energy to see 'truth'.
With the ordinary sort energy we cannot actually have 'truth'

K: No. We say 'truth' is unrelated to 'reality'...

DB : 'Reality' is the ordinary energy ?

K: That's right ! Like an ambtious man has got tremendous energy and his energy operates in (the field of) reality as correct and incorrect.

DB : Yeah...now let's say this man comes at a certain point where he sees the 'incorrectness' of the whole operation of thought ; but before anything more happens he needs a higher ( level of) energy....Before perception can work, it would seem he needs the kind of energy we're talking about...

K: A-ha ! Yes, yes...

DB : Now, it almost seems from what you say that nobody is going to be transformed...In other words the issue of transformation seems irrelevant...

K: No...

DB : Then we have to say why, because in the case of that young man you seem to say that there was no transformation. Right ?

K: But sir, there must be a transformation, a radical or basic change in the field of reality.

DB : And what will become of the field of reality, then ?

K: Then there will be order in that field...

DB : So, transformation will bring order in the field of reality . It will still be thought, but not twisted...

K: Yes, that's right, sir, it will be correct thought - logical, sane healthy and all the rest of it. But that has nothing to do with truth. Now, sir, I think there are the energy of truth and the energy of reality - two different things, unrelated to each other.

DB : Now, could we say that truth works in actuality, and in some sense, reality is also actuality...

K: Yes, that's right...

DB : Could we say that reality is a function within 'actuality' - of a rather limited kind...

K: What are we trying to get at ?

DB : You see, if we want to get really clear what 'reality' means, I think it helps to say that 'actuality' is a function within reality – a function which includes thought and consciousness...

K: In actuality ?

DB : In the actions which are taking place... That is, as you said, the energy of an ambitious man is all in the field of reality which is part of 'actuality' …

K: Yes, of what is actually going on . That's clear : reality is the movement of actuality.

DB : It's part of the movement, because there is a much bigger movement in 'actuality'.

K: Yes, that's right...

DB : And one of our biggest mistakes is to take 'reality' as the whole of 'actuality'. Now we say 'truth' also acts or operates in 'actuality'...

K: Yes...

DB : And it seems to me – I'll just propose it - is that 'truth' has no direct connexion to 'realit'y , but in some sense through 'actuality' ...Insofar as it acts in 'actuality', there may be a connexion. Reality is part of what is actually going on- and that includes consciousness and all that...

K: I'm sorry, I'm not following...

DB : You see, 'reality' is a certain a part of what is going on- that part which we can think about …

K: Yes...

DB : But it is also an actuality because we take action on what we think about. That 'actuality' spreads out like a wave making objects or interacting with the environment …

K: The tree is 'actual'...

DB : And in addition there may be other aspects of the 'actuality' of the tree of which we may not think about.
In general 'actuality' goes beyond what we think about.

K: I understand, but when it goes beyond reality is that truth ?

DB : We don't know that, but at least it seems that 'truth' acts in that total action. Or...doesn't it act at all ?

K: Sir, wait a minute, that young man saw that 'truth' is a pathless land and no organisation could lead to it. So, he dissolved the organisation - that's the action of truth. He talked with various people, naturally, but the perception and the realisation that ''truth is a pathless land'' dissolved it. Right ?

DB : Yes ; I see that : now let's look at it for a little while : that perception wasn't involving time and that was action. And from then on, he was taking actions talking to the people and finding a way to carry out what that meant. In other words, it took some time to dissolve the organisation...

K: That was simple enough – give back the land...

DB : But it took some time to carry it out- so it seems that in some way 'reality' was affected by 'truth'... ?

K: A-ha ! No sir, he saw 'Truth is pathless land'. And as a whole organisation was formed around him and as he saw it he said 'Out !' But because he was funded by the organisation...

DB : But does thought become consciously aware of the implications of truth ? It's not very clear what happened to the young man : he's seen that and his actions have changed – so his thought has changed, because at one point he was thinking : I'm working together with these people and later he was thinking of dissolving the organisation …

K: No, not 'thinking' !

DB : But he has taken the steps in thought necessary for this.

K: Yes, but he 'saw' that truth is pathless and no organisation can lead man to it...That is finished.

DB : But to implement that …

K: The implementation of that took time.

DB : Yes but I'm trying to understand how thought becomes aware that it has to implement this...

K: Ah...if you see something which is true, then you get rid of your things quickly - finished !

DB : Yes, but you still have to think how to do it...

K: No !

DB : But you did - you thought how not to hurt people...

K: Yes, but that's all irrelevant !

DB : It may be irrelevant to the main point, but in order to understand what we're trying to do now, it may be relevant.

K: You're asking ; How did thought capture or become aware of that truth ?

DB : Yes, what were the implications ?

K: He saw it, acted and for him that was over. But he was funded by an organisation, by all the implications of it...Dr Besant were beated up....

DB : He didn't want to hurt her, but that was part of her way of thinking...

K: Yes, he didn't want to hurt her, so he told her before, but he was funded by an organisation. I understand the question very well, but what is the difficulty ?

DB : Because previously you said that thought doesn't act at all in the field of reality – but in some way, consciousness becomes aware of the implications of truth...

K: Yes...I must go slowly in this ; he saw and acted – he's finished ! 'Finished' means completely ending -no regrets, it has no meaning anymore ...But he was funded by all this.
How did truth give its intimations to thought ?
Was there an intimation ?

DB : Maybe not, but then what did happen ?

K: Logically, thought saw this ; thought saw correctly the action which he took...

DB : But what action did thought see ?

K: What happened !

DB : So, the perception of truth was active and thought can be aware of that action ?

K: That's right

DB ; Truth takes a direct action in 'actuality' and that action now comes to consciousness through awareness.

K: That's right ! And sees the correctness of it.

DB : And then it goes on thinking what to do to implement it
All right, so it's becoming more clear...

K: That's actually what took place, because he put it in words.

DB : Yes, the action was to put it in words, but first there was an action before thought became aware and put into words...

K: Truth put it into words...

DB : So truth can act directly, without words...

K: Careful ! The description is not the described, the word is not the thing...You used the word to describe that …

DB : Yes, but who used it ? Was it truth or was it thought ?

K: He saw...

DB : He saw, but how did the words came out of that ?

K: He 'saw', and the seeing is the acting ;

DB : Yes and the action was that the whole structure was dead...But ''truth is a pathless land'' is words...

K: The description.

DB : All right so the whole thing was dead, then came a perception that 'truth is a pathless land' ?

K: That was an (insightful) perception but we are merely describing it, and...how did that come to the word ?
We said : the word is not the thing , the description is not the described ; so if I tell you : Look at that tree - you actually 'look' – the word is not the tree, so you 'see' the tree.

DB : I see the tree, then I become aware of the tree -thought becomes consciously aware of what is described by the words. So, we have a perception that acts immediately and also contains something 'universal'- like in the perception that truth is a pathless land...

K: Therefore, you are saying : 'truth' is universal, global...

DB : So seeing that 'truth is a pathless land' is action and the conscious awareness enables thought to pick that up...

K: Truth has nothing whatsoever to do with thought.

DB : Yes, but thought can be aware of the action of truth …

K: Yes, yes...

DB : All right, so we're coming at something... Now it just occurred to me to ask a question about 'awareness'. We have discussed the conscious awareness ; now is there any awareness that is not conscious ?

K: Yes, there is another 'awareness ' that's not in the field of reality.

DB : All right, so we are distinguishing 'conscious awareness' from 'awareness' in general which is universal ?

K: Yes.

DB : In fact awareness would be hard to distinguish from attention ; I mean, these are very hard to define...

K: I know, I know...Sir, would you put it this way : the 'center' – which is really the 'observer'- can be aware of itself, be conscious of itself and operate within that field ; that 'awareness', that consciousness is limited, is enclosed. But there is a 'consciousness', an 'awareness', some other state which is not this ?

DB : Yeah, and this 'other' state includes awareness and attention. Hmm ?

K: No....I must go slowly... That boy must go back ; pathless land - he sees it non-verbally – that is the truth that acts and it's finished ! As far as 'truth' is concerned, it's over. Then the 'wave' takes on the words and describes it and the description is not that. Now, in the field of reality, there is this conscious awareness -which is limited- with its attention, with its awareness...So that perception of truth is limited...

DB : Yes, but would you say that it contains any awareness ? We said last time that it is 'nothingness' …

K: Nothingness. Perception is over !

DB : Which is beyond this attention & awareness, although we said they are non-verbal...So, could we say they are still part of the physiological process, although they are beyond thought ? So thought is just part of the whole physiological processand there is attention & awareness beyond that, but truth is beyond all that ?

K: Beyond all that ! You see, it is said 'the awakening of kundalini' …

DB : But wouldn't 'kundalini' be part of the physiological process ?

K: According to them there's an 'energy' that is not physical.

DB : Yes, it is awakened in the physical …

K: No, no, we must go very carefully : it goes through various centers...

DB : But these are physical centers ?

K: Physical centers, like the solar plexus is the main center, and there is a center in the thorax, a center in the back of the head and a center in the middle of the forehead and ultimately it goes through the top of the head.

DB : Yeah...

K: They say that when it goes through the top of the head, that energy is entirely different - it's not physical anymore !

DB : Now, what do you feel about that explanation ?

K: I wouldn't say what I feel, I would say : the energy of truth is entirely different from the energy of reality.

DB : Yeah...But the 'kundalini' might not be the energy of truth ?

K: No, no...let's be very careful ! We said that the energy in the field of reality is both physiological and psychological. And we said 'truth' is global – not personal and all the rest of it-

DB : Couldn't we cansider 'kundalini as a side effect of truth ? I mean, if you consider 'truth', kundalini must be something more limited...

K: Of course, of course !

DB:... that cannot be the same as truth, but it might be a combination of physiological and psychological energy, which you say that for the young man were helpful ?

K: Yes. I think that's right : truth is global and this is limited.

DB : Yes...

K: And nobody need go through all that bussiness to see this !
Columbus discovered America , that's a good example.

DB : Now, if we take the energy of truth, which is universal – not personal...

K: I must take it easy...because I've 'never' talked about this ! And my body becomes a little tense...May I get up for a few minutes ?

DB : Of course. I may stretch my legs...

( pause)

K: You see, sir, there's something much more than all this...

DB : Yes... ?

K: Would you accept the word 'mystery' ?

DB : Yes...

K: There's 'something' of which you cannot talk about – which doesn't mean that it doesn't exist ... I think 'truth' is that !

DB : Hmm...

K: Every religion has talked about that 'mystery'...Judaism said the 'Nameless', the Hindus have called it 'Brahman'...and the Christians haven't got very deeply into that matter and called it 'God'...But there is something tremendously mysterious. And we are trying to articulate it in words...

DB : Well, not really – I think we're trying just to clear up some of the difficulties people may have when reading this...

K: If they'll read this book they'll go through a lot of difficulties !

DB : And I feel that anything we've done here clears up or touches this 'mystery', so that we can communicate it...

K: But if you as as scientist accepts that there is something 'mysterious'...

DB : Yes, but I should say that our reason can only go so far...

K: When you touch that mystery, things are totally different...
( Sorry, my body is shaking with it! Let's calm down...) Thought can never touch 'that' ; then what is it that is aware of that ? Why do you say there is a mystery ?

DB : That's hard to explain, but partly it's because I can see that the whole thing can be never be explained by thought – in other words...

K: ...thought cannot touch it !

DB : Yeah...

K Then what is it that says 'there is a mystery' ? You're following sir ? You see, the Christians say there is a mystery which you cannot go beyond ; which you cannot touch – the 'saints' have said this. I'm not sure they've touched that mystery because they were 'Christians', they were worshippers of certain forms...

DB : I mean, you may say there is a 'mystery' because you don't want to penetrated deeper...

K: Yes sir, that's right.

DB : I think that, to a certain extent, the 'ego' makes a parody of this mystery in order to protect itself . Now, in the way the ego tries to present itself as the 'ultimate myster y' and therefore if it's identifying itself with the Christian teachings, it wil make them 'mysterious' too, you see ? So the way I look at it, is that thought has perhaps a hint of that mystery and then it tries to capture it for itself by imitation …

K: Quite, quite . Now would you a scientist - 'logically trained' to use your words - would you admit that there is such thing as a 'mystery' ?

DB : Yes, thought can probe and extend itself in so many ways, but there is always a 'horizon'...

K: I'm beginning again : the core of that boy's existence was not conditioned, though at the peripheral levels it was...

DB : Yeah...

K: But basically he was not.

DB : Can we go slowly here, as that raises the question of others who are 'conditioned' ; could we understand a little what that means ?

K: 'Conditioned' means greed, envy...

DB : Yeah, so it's not clear what the difference is...

K: I think there is a difference. You see, if you read that ( ML) book - one of Dr Besant suffering or mysery was  when she said to me : - I don't know if it's put in the book- ''You're not interested in anything – not in women, in what I'm doing – you're only interested in clothes and cars and what's going to happen ?'' You follow sir, it was a tremendous problem to her because she invested everything in that boy ! But the ordinary conditioning goes very deep. Right ?

DB : Yes, but it's not clear why it ges so deep ?

K: His education, his environment, his parents, his society – everything makes the 'ordinary' conditioning...

DB : So somehow....

K: ... this didn't happen to that boy.

DB : Could I put it that way : it is a conditioning for self-deception, for falsification : if someone is conditioned to deceive himself in order to sit better in society - that is the thing we have in mind ?

K: Yes, all right...

DB : That's a really deep conditioning …

K: Deep conditioning !

DB : Deeper than anything else …

K: Yes...Deceiving himself in order to fit in society - that 's the deep conditioning we see for the moment – this didn't take in that young man, so there was never some self-deception .

DB : Yeah, neither was the false information which he accepted from that...

K: Yes, so there was never a conscious effort to see through this...

DB : You skipped a few steps in this : that a person conditioned in self-deception may feel compelled to seek truth in order to compensate for this ?

K: A human being who is involved in self-deception – which is a deep conditioning in this case . Why didn't it take place ?

DB : Because he wasn't absorbing it – the boy was somehow dulled by the environment...

K: By ill health...that's one of the reasons....So there was never a moment when he was overtaken by self-deception. And so he saw directly through that 'pathless land'. Right ?

DB : Yes...

K: He stated it in words – and words are not the 'thing' – so the word being thought , thought had been operating  as a function, but that perception is gone, finished ! So, 'truth' is timeless – from moment to moment – it has no continuity.

DB : Yes...

K: Then, suffering in the field of reality has a meaning in the sense that if he doesn't escape , if he faces that suffering and therefore doesn't deceive himself then there's a diffent kind of energy.

DB : Yes, let's come to why this young man would have suffering even if he didn't deceive himself ? My understanding is that only someone who deceives himself would suffer...

K: He suffered physically...

DB : For having been ill...

K: So all this suffering would be a 'physical' suffering. Hmm ? Then what's the question ?

DB : I'm trying to find what was at the origin of this suffering?And therefore the energy was released becaused he stayed with the physical suffering and didn't escape ?

K: That's right. But... that's only a part of it! So...what's next ?
You see, sir , to me all this is so simple. Because if you see truth and act, everything becomes logical !

DB : But it raises the question : What is it that 'sees' ? If thought becoming consciously aware of its 'incorrectnes' , then it will behave differently.

K: Yes...

DB : But what is it that 'sees' ?

K: Wait a minute sir, he sees 'truth is a pathless land' and comes to tell you what he has seen - the expression of thought & words. But what he has 'seen' is not the 'word' …

DB : Yes it is a perception – but there may be a 'resistance' to this perception in thought. Let's say that most people who heard this either didn't understand it, or rejected it...

K: Ah, of course ; because in him, in that chap, there was no resistance.

DB : Yes, but now we have to consider those who have this resistance...

K: They will reject it.

DB ; Yes, but now it seems that the whole world has 'resistance' …

K: So, they reject it !

DB : Yes but the question is : is there a way to go beyond this resistance ?

K: If I resist (seeing the truth of) what you are saying, then what can you do to me ? You say to me, 'truth is a pathless land' and I am attached to my Guru...

DB : You are attached to what is false …

K; To what is false, yes, but what you have said, which is truth, has entered my consciousness...

DB : Yes...

K: It is a 'seed' that is operating in me ! And that 'seed' is going to do something !

DB : It 'may' do something...

K: No !

DB : But I mean, everybody who is listening to this is going to do something ?

K: It 'must' ! Like Lenin said something and it affected the world.

DB : Yes but the effect was not exactly...

K: Of course, because he treated human beings as insects and so on... Now if the 'seed of truth' is planted in me, it must operate ! It must grow, it must function, it has a life of its own.

DB: Well, many millions of people may have read or heard
what you say. It may seem that a large number of them haven't understood. Do you feel that they are all going eventually to 'see' it?

K: No, but it's going on, they are worried about it, they ask,
"What does he mean by this?" The 'seed' is functioning, it's
growing, it isn't dead. You can say something false and that also operates too .

DB: Yes, but now we have a struggle between those two and
we cannot foresee the outcome of this struggle; we can't be sure of its the outcome.

K: You plant in me the seed that, "Truth is a pathless land".
And he comes along and says "There is a way to truth, follow me". One is false, one is true. They are both embedded in my consciousness. So there is a struggle going on. Causing more confusion, more suffering, more misery and a great deal of suffering, if I am sensitive enough. If I don't escape from that suffering what takes place?

DB: If you don't escape, then it's clear what will take place.
Then you will have the energy to see what is true.

K: That's right.

DB: But now let's take the people who do escape, who seem to be a large number.

K: They are out, quite right, millions are out. But still, the struggle is going on.

DB: Yes, but it is creating confusion.

K: That is what they are all doing.

DB: Yes, but we don't know the outcome of that.

K: Oh yes, we do; dictatorship, deterioration...

DB: I know, it gets worse. But now we want to get it clear. In
a few people who face the suffering, the energy comes to perceive the truth. And in a large number, who escape from suffering, things get worse.

K: And they rule the world...

DB: Now what is the way out of that?

K: They said there is no answer to that, get away from it.

DB: That also won't do.

K: They say : you can't solve this problem, go away into the
mountains, or join a monastery, become a monk - but that doesn't solve anything. All one can do is to go on shouting.

DB: Yes, then we have to say we don't know the outcome of
the 'shouting'.

K: If you 'shout' in order to get an outcome, it is not the right
kind of 'shouting'.

DB: Yes, that is the situation.

K: So, you just talk, you point out. If nobody wants to pay attention it's their business, you go on. Now I want to go further. You see, there is a 'mystery'; thought cannot touch it... What is the point of it?

DB: Of the 'mystery'? I think you could see it like this: that if
you look into the field of thought and reason and so on, you finally see it has no clear foundation. Therefore you see that "What Is" must be beyond that. "What Is" is the mystery.

K: Yes.

DB: I mean, you cannot live in this field of reality and
thought, because of all we said.

K: No, of course not. But I don't mind, I have no fears.

DB: You don't mind because you have psychological security.
Even if something happens to you, it does not deeply affect you.

K: I live in the field of reality, that is my life. There I am
consciously aware, and I struggle and keep going in that field. And I can never touch the other. I cannot say, "I can touch it; there is no "I" to touch it when you really touch it. You say to me, "There is a mystery which passes all understanding". Because I am caught in this, I would like to get 'that'. You say there is a mystery, because to you it is an 'actuality', not an invention, not a superstition, not a self-deception. It is 'truth' to you. And what you say makes a tremendous impression on me, because of your integrity. You point it out to me and I would like to get it. Somehow I must get it. What is your responsibility to me? You understand the position? You say : words cannot touch it, thought cannot touch it, no action can touch it, only the action of truth; perhaps it will give you a feeling of that. And because I am a miserable human being, I would like to get some of that. But you say, "Truth is a pathless land, don't follow anybody" - and I am left... I realize, I am consciously aware of the limitation of thought, of
all the confusion, misery, and all the rest of it. Somehow I can't get out of it. Is your compassion going to help me? You are compassionate, because part of that extraordinary 'mystery' is compassion. Will your compassion help me? - obviously not. So what am I to do? I have a consuming desire for that, and you say, "Don't have any desire, you can't have That, it isn't your personal property". All you say to me is: put order in the field of reality.

DB: Yes, and not escape suffering.

K: If you actually put order into the field of reality then
something will take place. And also you say to me, it must be done instantly. Is that mystery something everybody knows? - knows in the sense that there is something mysterious. Not the desire that creates 'mysteries', but that there is something mysterious in life apart from my suffering, apart from my death, from my jealousy, my anxiety.
Apart from all that, there is a feeling that there is a great mystery in life. Is that it? - that there is a mystery which each one knows?

DB: I should think that in some sense everybody knows it.
Probably one is born with that sense and it gradually gets dimmed through the conditioning.

K: And has he got the vitality, or the intensity, to put away all
that? You see, that means "God is always within you" - that is the 'danger' of (assuming) it.

DB: Not exactly, but there is some sort of intimation of this. I
think probably children have it more strongly when they are young.

K: Do you think that modern children have that?

DB: I don't know about them, probably less. You see, living in
a modern city must have a bad effect, and there are many other causes. One is the lack of contact with nature; I think any contact with nature gives that sense of mystery.

K: Yes.

DB: If you look at the sky at night, for example.

K: But you see the scientists are explaining the stars.... Cousteau explains the ocean; everything is being explained away .

DB: Yes, the feeling has been created that in principle we
could know everything.

K: So knowledge is becoming the curse. You see, perception
has nothing to do with knowledge. Truth and knowledge don't go together; knowledge cannot contain the immensity of this mystery.

DB: Yes, I think if we start with a little child, he may place the mystery in some part that he doesn't know. He could put it at the bottom of the ocean, or somewhere else outside, far away from where he is, and then he learns that people have been everywhere. Therefore the whole thing is made to appear non-existent.

K: Yes. Everything becomes so superficial...

DB: That's the danger of our modern age, that it gives the
appearance that we know more or less everything. At least that we have a general idea of the scheme, if not of the details.

K: The other night (on TV) I was listening to Bronowski, "The Ascent of Man". He explains everything.

DB: The original impulse was to penetrate into this mystery, that was the impulse of science. And somehow it has gone astray. It gives the appearance of explaining it.

K: May I ask : do you, as a trained scientist get the feeling of this mystery ?

DB: I think so, yes. But I've always had some of that, you see.

K: But in talking now, do you get more intensity of it?
Not because I feel intense, that's a totally different thing, that then becomes influence and all that. But in talking about that 'something', we open a door.

DB: Yes. I think that my particular conditioning has a great
deal in it to resist this notion of mystery, although I think that
science is now going in a wrong direction.

K: But even the scientists admit that there is a mystery.

DB: Yes, to some extent. The general view is that it could be
eventually cleared up.

K: Cleared up in the sense of explained away.

DB: My own feeling is that every particular scientific
explanation will be a certain part of this field of reality, and
therefore will not clear away the mystery.

K: No, but it clears it away because I listen to you explaining
everything, and then I say, "There is nothing".

DB: That is the main point of distinguishing between truth and reality, because we could say, in the field of reality we may explain more and more broadly without limit.

K: That is what the present day Communists are doing.

DB: Not only the Communists...

K: Of course not, I'm taking that as an example.

DB: I think you could say, anything in the field of reality can
be explained, we can penetrate more deeply and broadly, there is limitless progress possible. But the 'essence' is not explained.

K: No, but I am asking a different question, I'm asking you, in
talking like this, do you have an intimation of that mystery ? Being a scientist, a serious person, perhaps you had an intimation long ago. In talking now, do you feel it's no longer an intimation, but a 'truth'?

DB: Yes, it is a truth.

K: So it's no longer an intimation?

DB: I think it's been a truth for some time now. Because it's
implied in what we have been doing here.

K: Yes. You see there is something interesting: the truth of that mystery makes the mind completely empty, doesn't it ? It's completely silent. Or because it is silent, the truth of that mystery 'is'. I don't know if I'm conveying anything. When the mind is completely silent, not in use, not meditated upon, and because it has put order in reality it is free from that confusion, there is a certain silence, but it is not the real silence - the mind is just moving away from confusion.
Realizing that is not silence, not moving away from that realization but staying with it, means negating that ( relative silence ) which order has produced.

DB: You say, first you produce order. Why is it necessary to
produce the order first and then negate it?

K: To negate is silence.

DB: Which is of that order. This is why it has to take place in that sequence.

K: Realizing that is not true silence I negate the false
silence, for the moment. So in the negation of that silence I don't want any other silence. There is no movement for greater silence. Then this total silence opens the door to That. That is, when the mind, with all the confusion, is (as) 'nothing' – not-a-thing – then perhaps there is the Other. So, you're coming to Silence, we'd better stop now....

DB : Yes...

K: Could we continue by taking one actuality after the other ?  ? Suffering, death, fear and penetrate that as deeply as we can ? Would that be worthwhile ?

DB : It's worth the try...

K: You and I only, or with anybody else ?

DB : It's easier just you and I …

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 18 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 May 2018 #9
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

7-TH K-DB DIALOGUE ON 'TRUTH & REALITY'

K: Where shall we start out ?

DB : Do you have some suggestions  ?

K: Where did we leave off ?

DB : Well, last time we began by discussing the action of truth and then you broke off for short and raised the question of 'mystery'...

K: Oh, yes...

DB : I told you yesterday about a quotation from Einstein : ''The most beautiful experience that we could have is the experience of mystery'' That's how he put it...

K: Right... All the religions – not the orthodox saints or the priests- they all said there is something mysterious -something so vast that the human mind can't grasp...

DB : And as I was saying last time, this quotation of Einstein shows this is behind the deepest part of the scientific research...I just remember that when I was in Berkley, California they were setting up a huge magnet to study the nucleus of the atom – in other words, they were probing something very mysterious, and a friend of mine came along and said : Every piece of iron of that magnet must eventually turned into a battleship...( laughter) Which it did, as it became part of the Manhattan Project for the atomic bomb...

K: I wonder if there is anything mysterious -I'm just exploring, I don't say there is or there isn't... First of all, as a thing 'desirable', it is very inviting...

DB : I looked up at the word 'mystery', and it means basically hidden or secret – so, some of the religions have some 'mysteries' at their center...

K: Yes, the Greeks had it, the Egyptians had it, and of course, the Hindus...

DB : Now the dictionary also says that 'mystery' is something beyond human understanding – which is not exactly the same. The first one was secret, but perhaps you could be initiated into the mystery- there was some understanding involved, but the Christians said : you can never understand it...

K: Understand it in the sense of 'experiencing ' it ?

DB : Well, to be comprehended rationally...

K: If one sets about to experience That, or to come into That...

DB : I think that they used to say ' to participate in it'...

K: Participate in it. What is the nature of the mind that can 'participate' into something that is totally... mysterious ?

DB : And what is the nature of this 'participation' ?

K: Yes, that's just it. You see, you were talking the other day, having read that Biography...I think we missed a point there...

DB : What was the point ?

K: The explanations which we gave, the reincarnation, the illness & all that ...I think that doesn't cover the ground totally...Because I've always felt there was 'something' so vast that all their mysteries, & initiations, had nothing to do with it. See, it can be either be so romantically idiotic, or it is something that ' is' there .... I don't know how to convey all this... Sir, how does science investigate this question of mystery  ?

DB : Well, I think that most scientists deny it...You see, it begins with some interest in something mysterious, with the hope of probing into the mystery, but gradually this slides over into another attitude in which people explain something and they begin gradually to replace the mystery by the structure they have explained, implying that that is all there is. All the scientists are always saying that a tremendous amount is unknown , but they generally imply that the unknown...

K: ... can be 'known' ?

DB : It can be known and set into the same kind of framework. But in the begining- I remember talking with Einstein and with other scientists that in the beginning there was something 'mysterious' . I mean, that was part of the energy that was behind our work...

K: Right....If, as a scientist, you want to 'participate in it', how would you set about it ?

DB : You see, the ordinary way of going about it, - one way is to is to set up equipment which can probe the mystery- a telescope or a microscope... I know, I'm just explaining – like this tremendous magnet, the idea was that with very high energy particles one can probe the mysterious structure beneath...

K: I can see that...

DB : Of course there is also the theoretical probe – with the theoretical insight or the imagination, speculation....But it seems that essentially those are the instruments science has used. Now, it's not clear to me how Einstein thought of it, because on one hand he was looking for a total explanation- but it seems to me there's a contradiction here - that science is committed to a 'total explanation' and at the same time , if there is an explanation, there's no mystery.

K: Right, what is explained is not mystery...

DB : And if Einstein says that ''the most beautiful experience is the mystery'', if it is explained, it seems to me that all beauty will vanish, you see ? Perhaps he didn't believe that it can be explained...

K: Suppose you 'have participated' in that mystery and you want to tell me about it, or you want to help me, or guide me or 'push me' towards it : what would you do ? Would you say : settling all these things are necessary first ?

DB : Well, what are they ?

K: I don't want to use 'preparatory things' , but like a very sensitive body -not emotional, not sentimental, not mental, not neurotic, but 'sensitive', in the sense of having a quick insight and a quick comprehension – not a tremedous lot of explanations, but a 'quick grasp' of something which is true. Would you say that would be necessary ?

DB : Well that would be necessary, but obviously it would be necessary for anything...

K: No... but that means a very sensitive neurological system and a 'psychological' clarity.

DB : Right...

K: Now, how does one have 'psychological' clarity? If we grant that these two are essential -a quick mind, a quick insight, a perception that is correct ; and suppose I haven't got it, then is there a method, a system, a practice, a way of washing out, purging all that ? Or there is no way at all ? Or, only the act of totally listening to what you say ?
For instance, when you say there is a mystery, to you it is the truth, the actuality, it 'is' . And if I haven't got the 'ears' to listen to you, I'll never capture it and I won't participate in it...And my longing is to participate in it , because intellectually I see how important it is.

DB : But the longing is of no use...

K: Longing is of no use, but I perceive it, I 'see' with all my being how important it is to 'participate' in that mysterious thing which will give an enormous sense of beauty and all that. I see all this , but any effort I make will spoil it -any desire, any action, any volition is still within the field of reality. So, how am I to 'participate' into something which is so 'actual' ? What would you as a scientist say to him ?

DB : Well, my science has not really confronted that...

K: I know...after all sir, they are looking at 'saucers', but that's not mysterious...

DB : Well, they hope it is. It has been called a 'mysterious universe'...

K: Would you call that 'mysterious' ?

DB : Well, not as long as it's still part of the same structure of reality...

K: Reality, that's right.

DB : But when you say there is a 'mystery', we have truth and we have reality which don't mix, although reality can become aware of the action of truth...

K: Yes, reality can bring about order into itself...

DB : ...so that it responds to the action of truth.

K: It might.

DB : Now something that occurred to me is that this cannot be the last word- they cannot be entirely separated, you see ? In other words that you could divide existence into two...

K: Reality and truth...Why not ?

DB : Well, I don't know why not, but simply, this division...

K: Ah ! Is there a division ?

DB : Well, that's the question, but the way we put it it sounds like there is...

K: I know, but I'd like to question and find out whether division exists at all ?

DB : Yes, but in the beginning you insisted that they are 'separate' …

K: I know, but we are usually seeing them as two separate things...

DB : And what does the word 'separate' means ?

K: Divided.

DB : Can we say one is not related to another ?

K: We said that...

DB : Yes, which implies division and separation...and at a certain level that appears to be the case...

K: Let's accept that for the moment.

DB : Once before, in a discussion on 'Intelligence' we raised the question whether there cannot be a Source that underlies both, you see ?

K: Yes, yes, quite...

DB : And in that Source there's no separation as 'truth' and 'reality'...

K: It's a common bed(rock) ...

DB : A common ground or however you'd like to call that...

K: For the moment we're not talking about that...

DB : Now, one could say that possibly this Source is a mystery...because if you once begin to characterise it, it either becomes 'truth' or 'reality'.
And another point where I was going wrong is that 'reality', although it is fragmented and incomplete, has a tendency to become complete, which in some ways is good, because it helps us to organise reality in a more orderly way...
But then, in the attempt of thought to cover the whole...it goes wrong...

K: Of course...

DB : But thought is always trying to cover the whole – always trying to say 'this is the whole'- and in that way it is establishing a 'conclusion', a 'closure'...and that of course, becomes false... We were saying the other time that thought must acknowledge its own fragmentary nature, its limited nature, and at the same time it has the impulse to expand – and that's quite good as long as thought is not trying to 'capture' the whole...

K: Quite, quite...I understand all that …

DB : Now it occurred to me that thought, in trying to capture the whole, is a barrier in trying to seeing this mystery...

K: Would you say, if thought is aware of its own limitations – not expand, not trying to include the whole – sees its limitation and therefore moves beyond that limitation ?

DB : Yes, and we were also saying the other time that thought doesn't stay within its limitations ordinarily ; if it finds its limitation then it tends to be out of it already...

K: We are saying thought is aware, attentive, totally aware of its limitation...

DB : Let's put it this way, thought is aware that there is something beyond the limited …

K: Ah, I would question it...

DB : Thought knows that it is limited, but it is already implied that...

K: No, I can't make it ; this room is full...

DB : In the very structure of the word 'limit' it is implied something beyond that...

K: Thought is aware that it is fragmented, broken, limited ; it cannot move beyond its frontiers.

DB : Yes, thought cannot capture the whole...

K: Let's put it this way, yes. And it stays there, it doesn't try to 'capture' the whole or say 'I am the whole'...

DB : Yes, but then there are so many subtle ways in which thought is trying to capture it, not only by concepts, but also by feelings...and we have to watch them all...

K: I watch them all - feeling, desire, thought...and I won't move from there , because the moment I move it is still the same thing…

DB : Yes, I wonder why thought is trying to capture the whole ?

K: Because it is aware of its own limited capacity as a 'fragmented' thing...

DB : Yes, but why does it want to go beyond that ?

K: Because of pain, suffering, or wanting greater experiences.

DB : But that's no explanation, because the suffering may be due to the desire to go beyond...My own feeling is that suffering comes when thought is trying to 'capture' the whole...

K: A-ha ! I see what you're saying.

DB : Because that being impossible...

K...therefore it suffers ? No, I wouldn't put it that way....

DB : Why ?

K: Because suffering is produced by thought – not because it wants to capture something and therefore it suffers.

DB : Yeah...But that's one cause of suffering -if thought tries to achieve something which it cannot achieve.

K: But If thought cannot achieve why should it suffer ? If I can't become the Queen of England, then that's the end of it...
Is it possible for the thought that is operating in me – to say ''I am totally limited, fragmented, broken up and any movement I make is still in the same area ''? Is that not possible ?

DB : Yes, well.... we'll have to be very clear...

K: 'I' am confined in this prison with its ache and I cannot get out...all that I include.

DB : But also, perhaps thought has seen that 'wholeness' is good and has got into the habit of trying to 'achieve wholeness'...In other words, thought has seen it's not wholeness and it is looking for wholeness...

K: That too, when I use the word 'limited', I include all that...

DB : And we can see why thought is in fact limited - because it is limited to 'reaction' and 'reflexion' – and it cannot reflect on the 'mystery', it can only reflect on reality …

K: That's right ! Reflect what is going on in reality...

DB : Yes, it can reflect and define and determine and measure...

K: And if thought realises this, there is no movement within that field...

DB : Yes, well, but still it may be, because a lot of lifetime unconscious movements...

K: All right, let's go into that ! My unconscious desire for the whole - I watch it ! That's why I said I'm very sensitive to everything that is going on in me...conscious as well as unconscious.

DB : Now, being sensitive of the 'unconscious' – let's discuss that a little- because if you're totally unconscious you couldn't be sensitive to it. So we must be clear that it's 'relatively unconscious'. In other words, the 'unconscious' may be only dimly aware of those movements...

K: Dimly aware.

DB : But not absolutely, totally unaware...

K: No, no...dimly aware.

DB : And therefore by being sensitive to all the hints and implications...

K:...to dreams, to everything. To me the 'unconscious' is not really important...

DB : I don't think it is important, except that it may do things that may make a bigger fact...

K: My mind is very aware of all this – aware of the intimations of the unconscious of the hints, the hidden motives, which if one is alert, one can very easy find out...

DB : All the various senses of pleasure and pain...

K: All that...

DB : But I think the 'unconscious' has the tendency to make the mind dull, to make itself less sensitive to all these things...

K: Quite, quite ! The 'unconscious' tries to make the 'conscious' (mind) not so active.

DB : It tries to anesthetise, to tranquilise it...

K: That's right ; therefore when I see all that, I'm fully aware of the whole movement – the hidden motives, the desires, will & all that. That is, thought totally realises its own boundaries, that it cannot go beyond it.
You see, that's what the 'orthodox' meditation people do - trying to control thought - they don't realise the controller 'is' the controlled- they're trying to control thought so that it has no movement.

DB : Yes, we've discussed that, but that implies some movement in the field of reality to control thought which may usually involve concentration, contemplation...

K: But it's still a 'movement' of thought...

DB : Now, they have the assumption that there are certain movements of thought which will bring quietness...

K: From what I've understood, they say that thought must be controlled...

DB : I'm not even sure all of them say this some, like Maharishi, say it must be 'quiet'  - he doesn't call it 'control' – by concentrating on a word, and then drop the word and so on...

K: But it's still the movement of thought !

DB : Yes, but I think his assumption is that there is a certain movement of thought that can make thought silent and then the 'mystery' might participate. I'm not saying I accept this...

K: From what I've heard – not from Maharishi & his disciples - it is that sound has a peculiar effect on the brain. And those 'sounds' are given only to people who have lived with the master for a number of years, and the master has studied them - seen their character, their tendency & all the rest of it. Then, they give a certain mantra....

DB : Yes, who would be suited to that person...

K: To that person and to nobody else !

DB : Yes... now assuming they do that, that 'sound' is still thought...

K: Yes.

DB : ... because it's defined in some way.

K: No, there's something much deeper. At first you repeat it aloud, then you repeat it silently...

DB : Yes...

K: Then, you listen to the sound only.

DB : Hmm...And they believe that would be beyond thought ?

K: Yes...

DB : And you say it's not beyond ?

K: It's not beyond....

DB : Because the sound is produced from memory...

K: Yes. It's all part of the structure of thought – which is, a desire to achieve tranquility.

DB : Yes, so in the whole process is implicit the desire to achieve – it would be there even if it's 'dimly aware' …

K: Yes.

DB : And that desire would produce a distortion, a self-deception...

K: An illusion. So, being aware of that, any desire of 'achievement' must always produce an illusion. Thought then says 'there is no movement'.

DB : Yes, but when it says that, there is already a 'movement'

K: No....I mean, it realises, it knows, or it is aware that it 'is' so ! That is the truth, right ? The moment thought has said 'I cannot move' , that's the fact !

DB : Yes...that sounds a little troublesome, because you seem to be saying that thought has the truth...

K: No, no ! The moment it stops 'moving', then that 'is' so !

DB : Truth 'is', right ?

K: Yes. It isn't that thought has created Truth. Thought comes to an end – as a movement beyond its limits...I wonder if I'm making it clear...

DB : When thought comes to an end... ?

K: Not as a means of achieving something, not by volition, by desire for tranquility, or for experiencing peace...None of that !

DB : That is, when thought is 'consciously aware' of its own limitation  it comes to an end when there's no need for it.

K: Yes. That's all I am saying.

DB : And that is truth, or would you say that truth 'is' ?

K: Yes... Then truth 'is', meditation 'is'. Can I put it the other way ? Can the mind, which is consciousness with its thought and all that we have discussed - can that 'empty' itself ?

DB : Now, what does that mean 'empty itself' ?

K: Empty itself of the 'things' that thought has created.

DB : What are these 'things' ?

K: Like achievement, desire, will, attachment...

DB : ...the 'center' ?

K: The 'center'...

DB : ...and 'time' ?

K: That's it ! Can there be an 'emptying' of all that?

DB : But when you say 'emptying', what you mean by that ?

K: I mean by 'emptying', seeing the 'reality' of thought - thought which is fragmented, broken up and whatever it does it is still limiting & so on...That's my consciousness – that is the 'field of reality' and thought is always active there.

DB : Yes, but I think that the traditional thought is always seeking to go beyond the field of reality...We pick up this tradition from the society. Now, do you say that your thought is entirely without a 'center' ?

K: Yes...'center' being desire, achievement...

DB : But there is also the sensation of the 'center'...

K: … a sensation as 'being' in the solar plexus or in the heart ? No 'center', that is definite !

DB : I can see that the concept of the 'center' produces a reaction, produces a feeling – in other words the feeling of the 'center' is produced by the concept of the center, so it has no independent reality...

K: Quite...

DB : And it seems that this 'center' is one of the basic causes of illusion, because once the 'center' is established, the next thought atributes itself to the 'center', therefore it becomes the 'truth'. In other words, thought then seems to have gotten itself beyond reality, into Truth...

K: If I see very clearly the 'world of reality' which thought has created...

DB : ...which includes the 'center', the concept...

K: Of course, and the concept feeding the 'center' and the 'center' feeding the concept...all that is the movement of thought.

DB : Just a matter of clarifying something : when I see something which is called 'objective reality'- is it correct to say that it is independent of thought ? For instance, the microphone, although made by thought is an objective reality. Now there is another 'reality' which is created and sustained by thought – the 'center'.

K: The 'center', that's right ! The 'center is created by thought...

DB : And sustained by thought. And it doesn't have the same kind of reality as the mountain...

K: Of course...

DB : So, part of the confusion comes from our inability to make a clear distinction between that which is sustained independently of thought and that which is 'thought-sustained'. And it occurred to me that when something happens, thought thinks something and the root of thought is not perceived, and suddenly the content appears as having a certain reality, which is then taken by the next thought as an existing independently...And we lose track of that, you see ?
Now I was going to say that if I didn't loose track of this, I would see that the whole of thought is one and there will be no illusion, no ?

K: That's right.

DB : So, as I've been watching all this for a while, I saw that I have a natural tendency of 'loosing track' and later it is built up systematically by the thought which goes beyond reality - the thought of the 'center'...

K: I think from what you said just now, that thought has created this...

DB : Yes, but it's still existing...

K: ...independent of thought. And the 'center' is created by thought...

DB ...but it doesn't exist independent of thought...

K: It is sustained by thought all the time. So, those are two factors.

DB : That's right. Now, I've asked myself how one could confuse one with the other and the answer is that thought -when it creates the 'center' - is not aware of itself creating the 'center' and suddenly the 'center' is there as is this microphone...

K: That's it...And takes that as 'reality' !

DB : It takes that as independent reality. And after that it begins to atribute pleasure and pain to the 'center' and in the hope to maintain the pleasure it does not want to give up the 'reality' of the center. Because to give up the 'reality' of the center you would loose the possibility of pleasure from thought...

K: Quite. Let's get it clear : thought has created this...

DB : Yes, but I would like to make it complete : it measures and defines and determines, you see ? For example, it might determine the mountain, although it hasn't created the mountain ; it determines the mountain as an objective reality -which was there without thought ; the next step is that thought has made the microphone – which is put there with thought, but it still exists independently, then the third step is : thought has created a 'center' which does not exist independently of thought at all, but thought thinks that it does exist...

K: ...independently, and sustains that 'independence' through pleasure & so on...

DB : And then this becomes a trap, because the same mechanism that was thought to attribute reality to the 'center'- which then it seems to be something genuine and real, as if it were some objective reality, independent of thought. But then, once thought has attributed pleasure to the 'center', it cannot avoid to attribute pain to the 'center' and that creates suffering …

K: Quite, that's simple enough. So we got the picture clear. Now, one is totally aware of this - and therefore no movement as 'time and measure' outside this. Because thought, as we said, cannot comprehend or apprehend the whole, and it is not a verbal acceptance, but an 'actuality' – thought sees as objectively as that.

DB : Yes, I understand, but I think there is still a slight residue, almost a physical movement which thought seems still to go on  ..

K: I don't quite understand...

DB : Well, I can't explain, but there are still waves...

K: A-ha ! No sir, that's what I want to get at : when there is the realisation, or the comprehension, that thought is a movement in time & measure, how thought creates the center and sustains the center – thought created this as something objective, independent of thought...

DB : Yes, and thought recognises the objective independence of the mountain...

K: I am 'aware' of all that ! And thought has no movement 'beyond' – in which is included consciousness, the semi-conscious, dimly conscious – everything. Because you know, we have talked a little bit of this yesterday : thought is movement in time, action is without time...

DB : Yes, but that may be the point that remains to be looked at...

K: I don't want to bring it in yet, but when one is only living in 'acting' and not in the movement of time...

DB : And yet, the movement of 'time' is going on. You see, this is the point which we ought to discuss and try to make it very clear, because many years ago in chalet Tanegg we reached this point in our discussion – we were discussing the 'center' and being free of the 'center' and then came to the question of the 'timeless'. Now, one of the things that were puzzling me at that time came to the question of 'time'. The thing that puzzled me at the time was that as I'm talking to you in time, you say you're not in time. Probably then there was a feeling that everything exists in time ; you see, this is something which is in every tradition and is very deeply ingrained...

K: Yes, everything is in time...

DB : Now, suppose that one can reach the stage to see that the 'center' is nothing but a creation of thought ; but then there seems to be a movement – which almost seems to be an universal movement – the feeling that all over there's is a movement in which you exist. And that's probably communicated to us in a very subtle way by tradition – it's handed down...

K: Wait a minute ! I have no tradition …

DB : But supposing you have ?

K: I'll come to that lately....I have no tradition  - I'm not a sclave to society – psychologically - I have no burden of the thousand yesterdays – so there is no conscious or unconscious movement.

DB : I think tradition is the source of all this movement.

K: That's it !

DB : And the tradition – how it's handed down – I've looked up in the dictionary – that it's not only handed down verbally, but also by example, and that's much more difficult.... The point is that when the child sees the parents, or the other children behaving in a certain way - which implies a certain way of thinking – the child begins to think that way...

K: Quite, quite, quite...

DB :...and it seems that he's picking it up as it were an independent reality, because it's not his thought, it's somebody else's thought – he doesn't see that all thought is one - it doesn't matter whose thought it is...But you see, when you learn from tradition somebody is guided by thought, but he's implying that it's not thought but it's the way things have always been necessarily & objectively so...

K: I don't know if you've seen that (in Italian) tradition has the same root as 'betrayal' …

DB : Yes, I was thinking that we need two words - there was something you were saying the other day- that you discovered something like Columbus did, and that other people might learn and not start from the same experience - so in some sense you are also passing something over , but not in the same way...

K: Not in the same way...

DB : In science it's the same way : you shouldn't hand it over traditionally, but rather, from somebody else's discovery you move on - although unfortunately, this has also become a tradition...

K: You see sir, here there is no 'moving on' !

DB : Yes, but that's implied in what you said the other day : you are like Columbus - you discovered that ''Truth is a pathless land'' and you went through all sorts of painful experiences, which you say are not necessary for other people to live. Now let's say that somebody else can learn from your discovery, then the question is : what happens ? So, now you're saying ''no moving on''... ?

K: There's no movement beyond that.

DB : Yes, all right...Let's try to make it clear ; in science – as it has been practised- if there is a discovery and it's done right, then one learns and discovers something else...And that makes a series of discoveries which make a kind of progress...

K: Progress and knowledge, accumulate all sorts of knowledge & all the rest of it...

DB : Now let's try to make it clear : how you propose to do it differently ?

K: Here when you say 'truth is a pathless land' , it is final, it is so !

DB : Yes, all right , but you still said that when somebody may learn from your discovery , he can make his own discovery...

K; Someone says : 'Truth is a pathless land' , it is so ! There is nothing more to be said. There's no movement of somebody else coming over & saying 'Yes !'

DB : We'll have to make it clear : Let's say that in science someone makes a discovery ; say, Einstein made a discovery; now somebody else may learn from that discovery -it doesn't mean that he'll repeat, but having learned from Einstein he may now discover something deeper...

K: Deeper, quite...

DB : Now is there any similarity ?

K: No !

DB : No similarity... Let's try to make it clear : there seems to be an intrinsic difference between science and what you're talking about, because I can't imagine science except by one discovery leading to another, otherwise it would be pointless...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : So, here is not the case of one discovery leading to another – I learn that Truth is a 'pathless land' because of what you said...

K: It 'is' so !

DB Right, it is so , and that (perception) acts ?

K: Right...

DB : But now, you say there is a 'mystery' and we're not going to discover deeper into the mystery ?

K: No. When thought has no movement beyond its limitations, beyond its 'reality'...

DB ; When you say there is 'no movement' – this requires some clarification... You say that you have no tradition, but I come from tradition …

K: Let's move on, that doesn't matter.

DB : Now, let's say that over many, many years with my parents and friends and so on, I was communicated 'non-verbally' and by example, that I live in time, that time is the essence - in everything time is the most important and your life depends on time and time is flying and so on...

K: ...'time is money'...

DB : And you have only a limited time to live, so make good use of it...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : So everybody has communicated in millions of ways how important 'time' is from very early. And that communication was picked up as it were an objective reality, not what somebody told me as an idea, and therefore I experience it as an objective reality...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : It's the same as the 'center' which is experienced as an independent reality and theredore it is 'time'- because of that tradition...

K; Quite, quite...

DB : Now, that experience of the 'center' may not be so permanently strong, there is a sense of some movement going on all over - especially in the body- in other words, there is a 'stream of movement' in which I exist....Now, it seems to me that being free of that is much more than being free of the 'center'...

K: I see what you're leading at.

DB : Because I think this was the point, many years ago, when we had a discussion here in Gstaad, and now I think we've reached the bottom of that...

K: A-ha ! Sir, forgive me if I talk about myself - I've never thought about time. Time has not entered into my being. I know there is time, I know that if I order something it would take 5 or 10 days...But the 'psychological' factor of time has never played any part ; that is, there was never been a question of 'becoming' something...

DB : Well, it's not maybe a question of 'becoming', but time comes under different forms, And I feel that through time one loses track of the oneness of thought. When you say 'All thought is one, and it's all limited', I understand that, but the 'actuality' of that gets lost...

K: Quite, quite ...

DB : And I can see at least one reason – it gets lost through time. Let's say that at one moment I am aware of what is taking place, the next moment comes along and suddenly it's another moment that is different – and therefore the connexion between what was done a moment before and what is done now is lost, you see ? Have I made it clear ?

K: Not quite...

DB : Let's try to make it clear : I think 'time' introduces fragmentation, because 'time' is one moment, and then another & another...Let's say that what is happening in thought now is one process and what has happened before is continuous and made us what we are now - in the whole of thought...

K; Yes, yes...

DB : Let's say that I have a sense of the 'center' now, but that was due to a concept I had a moment ago, and it takes a moment for the concept to produce a wave...

K: And also the 'ending' of it !

DB : Yes, but there's a sudden feeling that the connexion between the 'center' which exists now and the concept which I had a moment ago is lost, you see ? Lost to awareness, anyway...

K: I haven't got your meaning yet...

DB : Well, it's almost like saying : I understand certain things about thought, and there is a sudden feeling that this is a different moment - when it is not really different, you see ?

K: A-ha...

DB : For example if something surges up very fast and is very intense, there is an implicit thought- anything beyond a certain speed and a intensity is 'reality' and not thought.

K: So, what are you trying to say ?

DB : I'm only trying to say that this question of 'time' is more than just 'becoming' – it includes this sense of becoming something better & so on – but for me it also has a tendency to loose track of the connexion. If I could see that all thought is one, I would not loose track of the connexion. You see, I've understood what you said that 'all thought is limited' but at one moment my brain looses track of that and says : ''OK, all thought is limited'', but this isn't thought - you see ?

K: Yes, quite...

DB : And therefore this is allowed to go on in a limited way...

K: I see, or I perceive that all thought is one. Therefore it is not 'my' thought or 'your' thought...

DB : Yes, but it has all sort of means by which thought is trying to present itself as 'non-thought'...

K: I know, that's delusion and all the rest of it...

DB : Yes, and I think 'time' is involved in all that.

K: Sir, wouldn't you say that if you perceived not verbally, if you really had an insight into thought – everything else in relation to thought is explained ? That is, desire, will, the unconnected moments of thought...

DB : ...suffering and also pleasure and fear. I'll have to see the whole thing, but my point is that all my sense of time -which includes the separation of moments of time-
and when I say 'now' this is also a moment of thought and therefore thought introduces a separation which is false, because the moment before has flowed continuously into this moment...

K: So, the word separates...

DB : ...the sensation separates...

K: There are intervals between thoughts which separates...

DB : ...and also changes in thought that separate...

K: All that is (part of) the movement of thought.

DB : Yes... But the point I was trying to make was that the movement of thought is very deceptive and has many aspects of which one has to be aware...

K: Of course, of course...

DB : Now, one of the things that arises is that when one is trying to do something, or when you're in relation with somebody, thought rises to such intensity that it will mistake itself for a reality that is independent of thought...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And therefore it loses track at that moments. You see, everything you say was understood, more or less, but at a certain stage thought loses track of what thought is.

K: Quite...I understand this...

DB : And one has somehow to keep the awareness of the connexion...

K: I'm not sure, sir, that all these things arise when you are really experiencing an insight into thought as 'movement in time'.

DB : Yes, I am sure that is so, but I'm trying to say...

K: An insight into the whole of that - what is implied ? Do we really 'see' the whole movement of thought as a 'movement' - have an insight into it and then describe all the details of it ? With me - I don't know if I am odd or peculiar - I 'see' and then explain ; not the explanation and then 'see'.

DB : Hmm...

K: Sir, are we saying there is always time, there is no ending to time ; it is a constant steady moving...

DB : That's the way it appears...

K: ...in which we live ; which expresses itself as yesterday, today & tomorrow, which expresses itself as the 'center' and acting from the center and the intervals between thoughts and the thought changing from yesterday's thought...

DB : ... as gradual change ?

K: All that is the movement of time - attachment, detachment, all that is the movement of time. Now, can thought see that and stop ? Can 'time', in the sense of (thought) movement, stop ? Time must have a stop...
You see, if there is no ending for thought there is no radical revolution. Right ? Then we just go on changing patterns and all the rest of it. That is, you see the truth that (the thought created ) 'time' must have a stop. Like with 'truth is a pathless land', you see the truth that thought must have a stop. You are trying to convey to me, verbally, the movement of thought, 'center' and all that. And I listen to all your explanation and yet my mind is groping after the stoping of that 'time'...

DB : Hmm...

K: Because the fact that 'time must have a stop' is an extraordinary thing and I'm grasping after that. Unconsciously I want it. I realise I am becoming totally conscious of the whole content of my consciousness.

DB : Yes, let's try to put it like this : one can see the necessity of this - that 'time' must have a stop. Once again we come back to dealing with the 'unconscious', because I see there are layers and they move in time...

K: A tremendous block !

DB : You see, in our whole tradition there are instincts in that direction and you are implying there are not...

K: For me they never were a major factor...

DB : Hmm....yes.

K: I'm not saying this with any...

DB : Yes... you also said that any explanations of you being ill and all we gave before were inadequate, so what else would you ask ?

K: You see, all those explanations did actually reveal something about that which was 'strange' - in the sense of mysterious...

DB : You mean, from the beginning ?

K: From the beginning...There are thousands of boys frail, vague and then gat conditioned and drop off, millions of them : this boy, why it didn't happen to him ? You follow, sir ?

DB : Yes...

K: I can give you half a dozen explanations, but I say, all those explanations are satisfying at a certain level but it is not a complete explanation. There is something totally mysterious and totally 'sacred' in this - if I can use that word without too much sentimentality or religiosity - that was taking place in him.

DB : Even before he was discovered by (CWL ) ?

K: I think the 'seed' of it was already operating, because when I saw that picture of the two brothers - the taller one holding the hand of the other one – I felt that there was something uncontaminated, something extraordinay that was happening to him already... I don't want to create a 'mystery' about all this – I have horror of it - but the explanations of what took place, I don't think they give a clue to it...

DB : Then could we say there were 'favorable' conditions to this thing, but they do not... ?

K: They were not favorable !

DB : They were not 'favorable', but the fact of being ill allowed him not to be affected by the conditioning...So you could say that a little later the mind was not so impressionable to be affected by it. But you say, that's not enough...

K: That's not enough ; there are millions of boys like that...

DB : But on the other hand, that tendency might have been fully favorable. So you can't just say this is particularly good compared with that...

K: No, but I feel... Look, there's something more simple : millions of boys go through this illness - malaria, recover, being conditioned and go off - in the sense that they become ordinary, become 'normal' or whatever you'd like to call it. Here was a boy who had that illness, who had malaria – quinine, doctor & all the rest of it, so mentally he was retarded, therefore he was unconditioned.

DB : Yes...until he was less impressionable. But I mean, beyond a certain age the conditioning doesn't hold ; for instance, children who don't learn a language until the age of seven may find it later more difficult to learn ; they are very easily conditioned up to a certain age...

K: That's right.

DB : And beyond that age they are not so easily conditioned ; therefore if a boy can escape conditioning in the first number of years...

K: Till fourteen, fifteen...

DB : ...then beyond that point his brain is resistent to conditioning - it doesn't take it...

K: Doesn't take it - not 'resist' !

DB : ...doesn't take the conditioning, whereas at an early age impressions are made much more easily and they hold...

K: Let's take that.

DB : I mean, that's just one explanation, but as you say that might be slightly favorable...Now, can you say anymore ?

K: (Laughs) Can we talk simply, frankly ?

DB : Yes...We'd better record it, unless you don't want to... ?

K: He felt that he was 'protected'.

DB: I see...by what ?

K : Just a minute ; he felt always 'protected'.

DB : But I think many children feel protected...

K: Non, no, much later - I'm told.

DB : How old ?

K: Oh, till age twenty, thirty...

DB : And would that feeling continue ?

K: Yes.

DB : But I mean, what sort of protection ?

K: ( silent pause)...'protected' in the sense you protect a tree to grow straight -against the wind and...

DB : Hmm...But why does (it protect) this one person... ?

K: I don't know, but I wouldn't enquire into it...

DB : You think it's better not to ?

K: Yes ; I've gone into this very much with people like Lady Emily who's known me and others in India who know me and with Mrs Zimbalist & others - and for a certain number of years. When it comes to a certain point I feel I can't enquire. It sounds too damn silly to say there's something the mind, thought cannot penetrate. But the thing is there !

DB : Would you then say that somewhere within this 'mystery' there is a 'higher order' which involves all that ?

K: Yes !

DB : Which would imply the destiny of 'that' which is coming to mankind ?

K: Yes...

DB : And you don't feel it is wise to enquire ?

K: No...

DB : But of course – I mean, I'm not questioning it - but say, many people may have that feeling and they can be wrong...

K: Oh, I've gone into that ; many people can have it, of course... You see, sir, take that boy – ill, discovered, trained - in the sense to be clean - in those days in India at that time -not having a mother- the boys were trained to wash properly, all that - not 'psychologically' trained – because they said he is the 'vehicle of the Lord', therefore you can't interfere - psychologically. You follow, sir ? Now, he never went through all the things he talks about...

DB : What do you mean ?

K: Jealousy, never attached to property, money & all that. Never, never thought of a position , a status, a hyerarchical outlook...except when I get into Mrs Simmons' Land Rover, I can look down and that is it, I have no feeling of looking up or looking down. Now, how does it all happen, without cultivating, or wanting it ?

DB : Yes, well, this idea has been common that there is such a destiny ; in fact the theosophists believed that this whole thing didn't happen by accident, but there is a hidden order, a mysterious order...

K: They would say there is the whole hyerarchical principle and the 'highest principle' is the Lord Maitreya, etc etc...

DB : Let's say we discard the idea that some 'Principle' is ruling, but having discarded that you're nevertheless proposing that there is a ( higher) 'order' and things didn't happen by accident to this boy...

K: Yes, I'm trying to imply that, to be truthful (laughing) Truthful... !

DB : Yes, and in some sense this 'order' is a mystery...

K: Yes. I think not a 'mystery' in the sense of a great (occult) mystery...

DB : Not 'secret' or anything ?

K: Not 'secret'...

DB : But something which you cannot penetrate – in other words, you couldn't find the ultimate explanation of it... ?

K: Yes.

DB : But I mean, even if you could, it would only lead to another mystery, I suppose

K: I can't. Let me put it a little more simply : neither I want to, nor can I.

DB : But you see, this raises another question : if you don't want to, would that be enough to show that you couldn't ? So it doesn't prove it can't be done – it only proves that you can't do it...

K: It proves that I can't do it and I don't want to...

DB ; But this may be the other way around : is it that you can't because you don't want to, or you don't want to because you can't ?

K: I think I can, but I don't want to...

DB : I see, that's it...And your feeling is you can't explain that ?

K: No. I think it is something 'mysterious' in the sense we are talking, which you cannot penetrate by thought.

DB : Yes, but does that mean it cannot be penetrated in some other way ?

K: Maybe...but I don't think so.

DB : Probably not ...

K: After all, the Catholic church says there is a 'mystery' and you cannot understand it and various religions have put it in different ways. But here we've come to a point : here is a man who sees all that and it's like picking up a flower, looking at the flower and tear it into pieces...and there is no flower at the end of it.

DB : I see... so you're saying that 'thing' of what we're talking about is not capable of analysis...

K: That's it !

DB : It is a 'whole' which is not analysable...But are you also implying that thought can only analyse ?

K: Of course !

DB : Yes...so if you don't analyse, all you can do is to 'participate' in it...

K: And also there is the enormous danger of deceiving oneself.

DB : Yes, because so many people had this idea...

K: I've been through all that !

DB : I mean, you could argue that the fact that so many people had thought this way doesn't necessarily prove it is wrong ; it may be that people get a glimpse of it and then they go astray because desire gets hold of it and...

K; No ! If they go astray I question whether they 'see' it.

DB : I didn't say they 'see' (the whole of) it- but that they can get a glimpse of it...

K: I don't think they can 'get a glimpse' of it ! They 'think' they have a glimpse .

DB : Let's put it this way : that thought is not satisfied with the 'known' and therefore projects the 'mysterious'.

K: That's it !

DB : And at the same time if some people have perhaps seen it, that becomes part of tradition and so on...

K: You see, sir, that's why, in a way, I'm glad that Mary (Lutyens) has written that book, because while one is living, one can correct it - you know, answer these questions, that he wasn't neurotic, that he wasn't mentally disturbed ot drugged- you know all that kind of things...But the fact remains that there is 'something' which cannot be explained.

DB : Yes, let's try to put it this way : these explanations involve some kind of analysis and this will escape analysis, or else, it will be destroyed by analysis...

K: It cannot be 'destroyed' ! Analysis can't touch it !

DB : It can't be touched by analysis...So the 'flower' is destroyed, but all that is possible is to 'participate'...

K: That's all I was going to say. If you have this thing, this mystery, I will 'participate' when I listen to you completely. You follow ? When you say, for instance : 'Truth is a pathless land' - it 'is' so for me ! Therefore no guru, no... the whole thing goes. The moment I 'hear' it, it's finished !

(Long silence...) What time is it ?

DB : About five o'clock...

K: I have never gone into these things as deeply as we have done... I have never told you that incident : I was staying in Bombay and I don't speak any Indian language. There's a knock on the door and there are three sannyasi who asked if they can come in, and Mrs Jayakar brought them into the room - I was in my room- and she brought in the three sannyasi who want to meet you. One was a very old man, he had lived eleven years by himself in the Himalayas and he was making a pilgrimage going south to the various temples. And he was so...I held his hand and he began to cry – because probably nobody held his hand. And we sat around and he said in Hindi to her : 'We were passing by, and we felt that there was a great man here and we wanted to meet him'. Whether he had been told or whether it was a fact, I don't know....I'm skeptical about this kind of things... So we spoke to the various people in the room telling them the truth about themselves. Then he said : ''May I wash my hands, please ?'' So they brought him a basin and a jug of cold water from the ice box and towel and he washes his hands. Then after cleaning his hands the same water he washed himself he poured it into his hands and passed it to the others – that's the Hindu tradition that when a sannyasi offers his blessings, he does it that way - who touched it with the tongue and it went all around. And then he said again, may I wash my hands and again he passed it around and I tasted it because I was the last. The first time it was tasting like water, but the second time it tasted sweet. I said, is he playing a trick on us ? I haven't seen anything. And he left - but before he said to Sunanda : ''You're not married, you have no children. You want children ? If you do, take this''. And he gave her something, a nut. And he left. And after he left I asked the others : ''Did you taste that water , because it tastes like coconut water, or some sweet water ?'' And the others said 'yes' and I said, ''this poor old man he couldn't have put in it some saccharine or sugar...'' You understand, sir ? How did it happen ? Probably he was unaware of it himself ! There are strange things in the world, sir …

DB : Yeah...

K: When I used to live in the theosophical society compound, because I was one of the 'heads' there , there were several of us in the room and a man comes, a sannyasi, a so called 'religious' man comes along and talks to us of all kind of things and we were all sitting like this, and he suddenly levitates, flows across and sits over there. There were no strings, no ropes...

DB : Well, there are a lot of people talking of strange things... I think that our understanding of nature is limited anyway. But I think there are two kinds of 'mysterious' things : I mean, that ( levitation) thing may be a mysterious thing but it might be...

K: I don't think it is 'mysterious'...

DB : ...something unknown to us now, but it might be understandable later.

K: They explain thay by leading a certain kind of life, discipline...

DB : But I meant that it violates certain laws of nature - in that the laws of nature could be different. But that could still not be mysterious...

K: That's what I mean, that's not 'mysterious'.

DB ; Although it's strange...

K: That's why I want to differentiate the 'mystery' from the 'strange' … I have also seen a man sitting in the middle of a rose bed there (in India) and he asked for a newspaper , he said 'put it down at your feet' – he was sitting right across- and he said 'watch it, I'm not going to mesmerise you because you're a religious man, but watch it ' And you saw the paper smaller and smaller and disappear...

DB : Hmm...

K: I don't see the point of it...

DB : I mean, that's something strange, but which might be explained...

K: They explain it...

DB : But I meant there are different kinds of explanations...

K: I'm only saying this to show that 'strangeness' is not the Other...

DB : You're saying that what happened to this boy was not of that nature ?

K; Yes, that's all ! I don't know what happened, but it's not of that nature.

DB : Is it your feeling that whatever happened there was behind it some destiny or order which was aimed at the transformation of man ? Hmm ?

K: Probably...we'd better stop...

DB : Right...

K: I go for a walk now...

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 18 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 May 2018 #10
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

8-th K-DB dialogue on TRUTH & REALITY

DB : I had a letter from David Shainberg, and he raised one major question : " If thought is inherently fragmented and yet thought has to be consciously aware of its own fragmentation, then could we ask whether the thought which is aware of its own fragmentation, is also fragmented?"

K: Shall we start with that ?

DB : Yes...

K: Why do we accept it that thought is 'fragmented' ? Why do we say that thought is 'broken up', or has the faculty of 'breaking up' ?

DB : I think that we'll have to go deeply into the nature of thought...

K: What is the real, basic reason for thought to be fragmented ? Why is thought limited, broken up ?

DB: Yes, now I've been considering for some time the nature of thought and one point about thought is that it is beginning as a reaction and becoming a reflection. Now on the basis of memory thought creates an 'imitation' of certain actual things that happen independently of thought. For example it may imitate in your imagination the appearence of a feeling, or a sound, or something else. Now, it is not possible in a reflection to captures the whole of what is reflected, so there is always an abstraction...

K. Yes, there is always an 'abstraction', I see that, but you haven't answered my question : why is it fragmented ?

DB: Any abstraction is bound to be a fragment, you see ?

K: You're saying : thought reflects memory...

DB : Yeah...It reflects the content of memory...

K: And therefore, as it reflects, it's an abstraction...

DB : It doesn't reflect all...

K: ...and therefore it's fragmentary.

DB : Yes, it selects some things to reflect , and other things are not reflected...

K: Would you put the question this way : “Can thought see the whole?”

DB: Well, ''Does thought 'see' ?'', that's another question that David Shainberg raised : does thought actually 'see' anything ? We discussed the other time in Brockwood that thought can be 'consciously aware' of something, let's say there is an awareness which involves perception, but everything we’re aware of may go on into memory, is that right?

K: Yes.

DB : Now, when that memory responds we have thought...

K: Right...

DB: So, as I see it, this 'conscious awareness' is awareness recorded in memory and then reflected, right ?

K: Right...So memory is fragmented therefore its reflexion as thought is fragmented.

DB: The whole experience, for example, is not contained in memory - the essence of it may be left out...

K: Left out...I understand, now let's dig deeply into it : why is thought 'fragmented '?

DB: Partly because it's an abstraction as you’ve just said. I think there is another reason : in some sense thought is not fully aware of its own operation. Perhaps we can begin this way : the brain has no 'sense organs' to tell itself that it's thinking.

K: Quite...

DB: You see, if you move your hand there is a sense organ that tells you that it is moving. If you move your head, the image moves but it is corrected so that the world
doesn’t spin unless something is wrong with your balance. On the other hand, there are no such sense organs in the brain. You see, if you do an operation on the brain, once you pass through the skull there is no sensation- people may be conscious while they are operated, but it does not disturb them. And now, let's say thought is recorded, it's held in memory, in the cells of the brain, and the cells of the brain react to produce some image, an 'imitation'. And while they first react, there is no sensation that they are reacting, but a little later you may sense the result of the reaction.

K: Yes, I understand that...

DB: But then, when thought becomes conscious of that result it may not realise that it has produced that result. And therefore it will atribute to that result an independent existence.

K: So, thought is a reflection of memory, that's one point. The brain has no feeling apart for the sensory organs of the body, and therefore the brain stores up memory, and memory is partial, and therefore thought is partial.

DB: Yes, and also thought is not fully aware of itself.

K: Now, is all that the 'complete' answer?

DB: Well, I don’t know...

K: I don’t know, we’re investigating .

DB: But to finish what I was saying, there is an inherent fragmentation here, because thought not being aware of itself, and then suddenly becoming aware of its result further down the line, it attributes that to something which is independent, and also it 'fragments' itself because one part of thought has produced this result and another part of thought comes along and says ''this is something else''.

K: It's like this, quite...

DB: And therefore, thought has broken up into two parts which are contradicting each other.

K: Yes, but I think there is something more, isn't there ? Why is thought fragmented? You can see what thought has done, all that it has reflected upon, what it has thought about,
what it has put together - are all fragments.

DB: But that's from experience - if we reflect upon our personal experience we see the fragmentary nature of the activity of thought.

K: Yes. ...Is there any deeper reason for why is thought fragmented? I was thinking about the other day walking, why is it fragmented? What is the nature of thought ?
What is thought? Not words, symbols, reflexions of memory, but what is actually the substance of thought? Is it a material process, a chemical process...?

DB: Well, I would say, yes...

K: All right, if it is a material process, why should it be fragmented? Is perception a fragmentary process?

DB: No, perception is not...

K: Not... why ?

DB : Why should it be fragmentary ?

K: If perception is the activity of thought, then perception cannot see the whole.

DB: No....I think thought contains some kind of imitation of perception which we call 'reflection'...

K: Yes, so thought 'imagines' that it perceives .

DB: It contains, yes...

K: It contains, or it supposes that it sees .

DB: It produces a certain result which it supposes it sees.

K: But yet, why is it broken up? I understand all these, but there must be a deeper thing, isn’t there? Is thought seeking a result?

DB: Well, it may be seeking a result...

K: An 'end' to be achieved, to be gained, something in which it can fulfil itself and feel satisfied...And why has civilisation, mankind, given such terrific importance to thought?

DB: When you talked yesterday, you pointed out the issue of security. I mean, the security that thought gives in many senses - not only in the sense of psychological security, but also of material security.

K: Yes... but thought in itself is not secure

DB: Well, thought cannot be secure – it is a reflection..

K: Therefore as it cannot be secure in itself, and seeks security outside.

DB: But, why does it seek security, you see?

K: Oh, because in itself it is fragmentary.

DB: Yes but it is not well explained why something which is fragmentary should seek security ; we'll have to go more slowly...

K: Go slowly, yes. Why does thought seek security? Because thought is constantly changing. Constantly moving.

DB: Well, nature is moving too.

K: Ah , but nature is different...

DB: I know, but we have to see the difference – why nature doesn’t seek security as far as we can tell.

K: Nature doesn’t, but why does thought seek security? Is it in itself uncertain, insecure, in itself is in constant movement ?

DB: But that doesn’t explain why it's not satisfied to just be that...

K: Why ? Because it sees its own perishable nature.

DB: But why should it want to be imperishable ?

K: Because that which is imperishable gives it security.

DB: So if thought were content just to say 'I’m impermanent', then it would be like nature. It would say : well, I’m here today, and tomorrow I'll be something different, right ?

K: Ah, but it is not satisfied with that.

DB: Well why not?

K: Is it because there is an   'attachment'?

DB: But then, what is this 'attachment' ? I mean, why should thought 'attach' itself to anything? Why shouldn’t it say ''well I’m just thought'' I’m just a reflection...

K: But your're giving to thought a considerable intelligence if you say ''I’m like nature I just come & go, in a constant flux'' you follow ?

DB: So, now you're saying thought is mechanical and that's why it's doing this, but then we have to see why the mechanical process should necessarily seek security? I mean, a machinery doesn’t seek anything in particular, you see, we can set up the machinery and it just goes on , you see.

K: Of course, as long as there is energy, it goes on working.

DB: And then it breaks down and that's the end of it.

K: Quite... so, why does thought seek security?

DB: Why should any mechanism want to be secure?

K: But does thought realise that it is 'mechanical' ?

DB: No, but you see, then comes the point that thought has made a mistake, you see, something incorrect in its content, which is, thought does not know it is mechanical ; thought even thinks that it is not mechanical...

K: Now wait a minute, let's come back : do I think I’m mechanical?

DB: I think that in general thought does not think it's mechanical, but the other thing is : does it definitely think it is not mechanical, that it is beyond the mechanism, in other words does it think it is 'intelligent' ?

K: Sir, a mechanical thing doesn’t get hurt . It just functions.
It may stop working, but that doesn’t mean it is hurt.

DB: No...

K: Whereas thought gets hurt.

DB: And thought has the factor of pleasure, pain and all the rest of it.

K: It gets hurt, lets stick to one thing. It gets hurt. Why does it get hurt? Because of the 'image' and all the rest of it. It has created the (self-) 'image' and in continuity it is seeking security, isn’t it ?

DB: Yes, but it's not clear why it ever began to seek that kind of security, you see ? If it began as a mechanism, there was no reason.

K: Ah, but it never realised that it was mechanical.

DB: Yes, all right, but a mechanism doesn’t know that it is mechanical either, you see ? I mean, like a tape recorder just functions mechanically, you see, it 'doesn’t want to be hurt'...

K: Rather interesting... Why does thought not realise that it is mechanical?

DB: Yes... ?

K: Why does it suppose that it's something different from a machine?

DB: It may in some sense suppose it has intelligence, and feeling and that it is a living thing, rather than 'mechanical'.

K: Mechanical, I think that's the root of it isn’t it ? It 'thinks' it is a living thing and therefore it attributes to itself, the quality of 'non-mechanical' existence.

DB: Now , if you can imagine that a computer has been programmed, with the information that it was 'living'....

K: Yes, it would say that 'I’m living'.

DB: And then it might try to react, respond accordingly, but why thought doesn’t do that ?

K: Thought is clever, giving itself qualities, which it basically has not.

DB : To some extent you did not consider David’s question ; you were just saying that thought somehow can realises it's mechanical, which would imply that it had some intelligence, you see ?

K: Now let's see, does thought realise that it is mechanical, or perception sees that it is mechanical?

DB: All right, but then that would seem to be a change from what you said the other day.

K: I’m just investigating.

DB: I understand, if we say there is perception which sees the mechanical fragmentary nature of thought, I could say that any machine is in some sense fragmentary, its not alive... It's made of parts that are put together and so on, now, if there is a perception that thought is mechanical, then that means that intelligence is in the perception.

K: Are we saying, sir, let's get this clear, that thought has in itself the quality of intelligence, perception, and therefore it perceives itself mechanical ?

DB: Yes, that would seem strange...

K: Or, there is ( an insightful) perception and that perception says thought is mechanical.

DB: Yes, and we can call that 'truth', isn't it ?

K: Yes, there are two things involved, aren’t there ? Either thought in itself has the sense of perception, a sense of intelligence and therefore realises it is mechanical, or there is a perception, which is 'truth'. And that perception says 'thought is mechanical'.

DB: Yes.... Now, the first idea seems to be a contradiction.

K: Yes, but does this answer why thought is fragmentary?

DB: Well, if thought is mechanical, then it would have to be fragmentary.

K: Can thought realise that it is mechanical?

DB: Well, that's the question. But it's not clear, you see. The other time you were saying there would be a conscious awareness of the nature of thought and thought would then come to realise it.

K: I want to go back to something: the 'things' that contains consciousness, are put together there by thought. All the content of that consciousness is the product of thought, in fact, consciousness 'is' thought.

DB; Yes, it is the whole process.

K: Does thought 'see' all this, or there is a pure perception without thought, which then says says : thought is mechanical.

DB : But then, how does thought know what to do ? We were discussing also the other day that when there is a perception of truth...

K: ...action takes place.

DB: Action takes place, and thought becomes aware of that action.

K: Yes, that's right, that's right. Lets get at it.

DB: But in becoming aware of that action, is thought still mechanical ?

K: No, thought then is not mechanical.

DB; You’d have to say then that thought changes its nature ?

K: Its nature, yes.

DB: Well, that's the point we have to get hold of : to say thought does not have a fixed nature, is that the point?

K: Yes, sir.

DB: Because much of this discussion tends to imply that the word 'thought' has a fixed nature, but now, thought can change ?

K: Yes, thought does change.

DB: But I mean, can it change fundamentally ?

K: Let's get at it. I’m beginning to see something. We both begin to see something. We say that total perception is truth, and that perception operates in the field of reality, and therefore...

DB: Well, we didn’t say that the perception of truth operates directly in the field ofreality, we said the other day, it operates in 'actuality'.

K: Wait a minute, there is perception which is truth, and that can only act in that which is 'actual'...

DB: Yes...

K: 'Actual' being care, isn’t it? The action in the field of reality, isn’t it ? Look sir, put it the other way : I see something, I perceive something totally, which is not the act of thought....

DB: Yes, that is a direct act.

K: Yes, that is direct perception, then that 'perception' acts.

DB: Acts directly ?

K: Directly.

DB: Without thought ?

K: That's what I want to find out...

DB: Well, it begins without thought, and that perception acts directly ; as we said, the perception of danger acts immediately without thought. But then, thought may become aware of the act..

K: Thought then becomes aware of the act and translates it into words...

DB: And into further structures.

K: Right, we're getting at it slowly, that is , there is a total perception which is truth, that perception acts in the field of reality ; that action is not the product of thought..
But because it is an acton of the whole, thought has undergone a change.

DB: All right, now we have it : if there is an action in the whole, thought is part of the whole, thought is contained within the whole, and therefore it is changed, is that what you're saying ?

K: No, no... I must go back : when it 'sees the whole' that's the truth....

DB: So, thought's whole action is different ?

K: Because that perception is not fragmented.

DB: No, no... it's one whole,

K: One whole, yes, and it acts. That action is not put together by thought ; so then, what is the relationship of thought to that action?

DB: Well, there are several points, you see, one thing is to say that thought is a material process, based in the brain cells. Now, the action of perception will somehow act on the brain cells won’t it?

K: That's the point, it does...

DB: Therefore thought must be different ?

K: Different, quite right ! When there is a total perception and action, it must affect the brain cells.

DB: Right, and in affecting the brain cells it may change the nature of thought ?

K: It is a shock, do you follow ? It's something totally 'new' to the brain.

DB: Yes... And therefore that perception as being total, penetrates the physical structure of the brain ?

K: Let's be simple about it : if you see that division, fragmentation is a tremendous danger, doesn’t it affect your whole way of thinking?

DB: Yes, but I think that brings us to the next question, that thought has developed a way of preventing this 'affect' from taking place.

K: That's it. That’s what I’m wanting to get at : thought resists.

DB: But you see, a machine would not resist....

K: No, because it's habit. It remains in that groove, and perception comes along and shakes that.

DB: Yes, and then thought tries to stabilise itself - it holds to a fixed point.

K: To greed, or to whatever it is.

DB: If we look at it this way, that thought hasn’t got a fixed nature, it may be mechanical, or it may be intelligent and…

K: No, I wouldn’t give that word 'intelligence' to thought - for the moment.

DB: But we were saying before, that thought may not have a fixed nature and needn’t be mechanical...

K: But thought is mechanical, it functions in grooves, it lives in habits, memories...

DB : Yes...

K: And a total perception does affect this whole structure…..

DB: Yes that's right, but after, as a result of this perception, thought is different, right ?

K: Yes, thought is different because...

DB: ... the perception has penetrated the physical structure of thought and made it different ?

K: That's right.

DB: Now, you don’t want to say it's 'intelligent' but let us say that if thought were just a machine, it would not cause trouble, but for some odd reason thought its trying to do
more than behave like a machine.

K: Yes, thought is trying to do more than a machine.

DB : And now, if we could look at it again, if there’s perception and awareness and this may be recorded in thought, there are two things : one is, if perception affects the physical structure of the brain, and this affect is somehow recorded in the content of memory and the memory takes...

K: That's right, memory takes charge...

DB: Yes, it holds it, and any such recording is a kind of 'imitation' ; you see, every recording machine is a kind of imitation, it's not mainly that thought is mechanical, but it contains a 'process of imitation', to record information
like a tape recorder records some sort of 'imitation' like the structure of sound in a magnetic form, which again is recreated as sound which is imitating the original sound.
You see, thought has the capacity to imitate whatever happens, because of this 'recording', right ?

K: Yes, that's right... Just a minute sir, I want to go back a little bit. You perceive totally something - like this total perception of greed, let's take this for the moment, and because of that total perception, your activity is 'non-mechanical' - the 'mechanical' being the pursuing of greed as thought.

DB: But isn’t there another part of thought which is mechanical, which is 'necessary', like for example, the practical information contained by thought ?

K: I’m just coming to that, wait a minute. You perceive the nature and the structure of greed and because you perceive it, there is the 'ending' of it.

DB: Hmm...

K: What place has thought then?

DB: Well, it still has a mechanical place.

K: But you're not greedy anymore. That reaction, that 'momentum', that mechanical habit is over. Then, what place has thought?

DB: Well, thought has some place – like if you want to find your way ?

K: I use it when I need a coat, I get it, but there's no greed involved.

DB: So, if thought has not identified itself with greed, you have a thought which is rational.

K: I don’t quite follow...

DB: Well, you see, greed is a form of irrational thought.

K: Yes, greed is irrational.

DB: But now there’s rational thinking, for example if you want to figure out something, you know....

K: But when you perceived the totally of greed, something has also happened to 'you'.

DB: Yes... are you saying there is no more thought?

K: But thought is not necessary.

B: Well, then how do you find your way? How do you use memory?

K: I’m no longer greedy...

DB: Right...

K: I’ve no need for thought in the field of perception and therefore thought doesn’t enter into it at all.

DB: Not into perception, but it still has its place apparently. For example if you want to know the way from here to wherever you want to go…

K: I’m talking of 'greed' : it has no place in greed. Where there is a total perception thought has no place.

DB: In the perception ?

K: Not only in that perception, but thought doesn’t exist any more with regard to that. You perceive that all belief is irrational , there is a perception of this total structure of
belief, and it's out. Belief has no place in your thought, in your brain, so why do you want thought there?

DB: I’ll not say I want it, but I say there is a tendency that thought may interfere...

K: No, it won't ! If I perceive the total nature of belief, then it's over. Then where does thought come into that which thought has created? I wonder if I am conveying something to you. Look sir, if I perceive totally the nature of belief, with fear & all the rest of it involved, because there is total perception, 'belief' as such doesn’t exist in my thought, in my brain, nothing ! So, where does thought come into it ?

DB: Well, not at that part....

K: It's finished ! So thought has no place when there’s a total perception. Same thing with greed, same thing with fear, while thought operates only when there’s a necessity for food, clothes &shelter. What do you say to that?

DB: Yes, that may be right... But let's look at what we started with , which was to understand why thought has done what it has done. In other words, when there is a total perception then there's no place for thought. You just 'see'. But when we come to practical affairs you could say that we don’t have a 'total perception' - we depend on information which has been accumulated and so on, and therefore we need thought.

K: There, yes. I need it to build a house, I need to…

DB: So, you depend on the accumulated information, you see, you cannot directly 'perceive' how to build a house, right ? But for 'psychological' matters...

K: That's it. Psychologically, when there is a total perception, thought doesn’t enter into the psychological process.

DB: Yes, it has no place in the psychological domain . Now, I’d like to come back to the other question raised by David Shainberg, which is: “Why has thought gone wrong, why has it done all these things, why has it pushed itself where it has no place”?

K: Could we say that thought creates illusions?

DB: Why would it want to do this ? But even more deeply, what makes it happen, you see?

K: Because thought has taken the place of (direct) perception.

DB: Why should thought assume that it 'sees the whole', or even that it 'sees' anything?

K: Does it happen, sir, that when there is a total perception, that perception having no thought and all that, such a mind uses thought only where necessary and otherwise it is empty ?

DB: I wonder if we could put it differently : such a mind when it uses thought, it realises that this is thought, it never supposes it is not thought, is that right?

K: Yes, that's right, that it is thought and nothing else...

DB: But I think the danger is that there is a mind which does not realise that this is thought ; suppose someone has an experience of joy and enjoyment, but slightly later there comes thought which 'imitates' it by remembering it, and then, it's a very subtle imitation, and therefore it treats it as the same , you see what I mean ? Therefore it begins to get caught in is own pleasure which it mistakes it for joy and enjoyment.

K: Quite.

DB: Now after a while, it becomes a habit and when the pleasure is not there there's a reaction of fear and so on, and all this psychological trouble starts. So at some stage , there is this mechanical process which thought does not acknowledge, not knowing that it is mechanical...

K: Yes, would you say also, that man never realised until recently, that thought is a physical and chemical process and therefore it assumed a tremendous importance?

DB: Well, in general that is certainly true, it's only recently that science has shown the physical & chemical properties of thought. Now, suppose we go back to the past, would you say, that nobody, or perhaps some people understood this, but in general most people did not ?

K: Did not. All the 'saints' functioned on thought....

B: Well, what about Buddha?

K: Again according to the tradition, there’s the 'eightfold noble path', there’s 'right thinking'...

DB: Ah, but he may have meant thinking mechanically…

K: That's it, you can’t take anybody in the past.

DB: Why, because we can’t be sure...?

K: Can't be sure of what they meant.

DB: That was interpreted and so on and we can’t ask him what he meant...

K: (Laughing)… Is that the reason, because thought said I’m the only important thing.

DB: Yes, but how did it come to say that, you see?

K: Because there was no perception.

DB: No, but why wasn’t it there?

K: Man didn’t realise, or thought wasn’t told, that it was just a physio-chemical process.

DB: Well, thought does not know it's a material process therefore thought mistook itself for the actual intelligence. But suppose when there's enjoyment, but thought creates from memory an imitation of all that...

K: But it didn’t think it was imitating !

DB: No, that's what I’m trying to say, it didn’t know it was imitating.

K: That's just it.

DB: Perhaps it was too subtle for thought to realise that it was just an imitation.

K: That's it... And also because thought from the beginning said I’m the only 'god'.

DB: I wonder if that came a little later, you see ? At first thought mistook itself for joy and intelligence , goodness and so on..

K: Yes, yes...

DB: Then it realised its impermanence and then it took the idea that there is a 'Self' which is always there, which produces thought, and truth, and perception and so on, you see ? You can give as an example : enjoying the sunset and there may be a small 'accompaniment' of thought, you know, which is harmless in itself.

K: Yes, it flutters around, quite...

DB: Flutters around, but now, as it builds up by habit, by repetition , it gets stronger, and it becomes comparable in intensity to the original experience , and then thought does
not see this as an imitation and it treats it as genuine.

K: Are we saying that man has never been told or realised, that thought is just a physio chemical process ?

B: That is not enough, because science has been saying long ago that thought is physical and mechanical, but that in itself hasn’t changed anything.

K: No, but if you 'perceive' that ?

B: Yes... but it was not enough for science to know that thought is a just a mechanical process...

K: That's right, it's only recently... so the conditioning and the habit has been to consider thought as the primary thing in life.

DB: Yes, even when it was called 'non-thought' it was still thought, you see ? There was some indication that thought created 'imitations' of the primary thing in life and then it said that it is the primary thing.

K: That's right, yes...

DB: So, thought never knew that it was just a mechanical process and therefore never had any reason to suspect that what it created was not the primary thing in life, because even if it could see itself creating it, it would not know there was anything wrong with it.

K: Quite, quite. So what are we saying now? Thought never realised it was limited. Thought never realised that which it created was a chemical & physical thing. Is that what we are saying?

DB: Part of it, yes.

K: And we are saying also that where there is a total perception, a change in thought takes place.

DB: And what happens to thought then ?

K: Thought being mechnical, it can operate only mechanically. Thought doesn’t interfere, there is no 'psychological' entity which thought can use.

DB: Let's try to clear this up a little bit. Let's say there is a new invention - which we discussed before, and something new comes into thought, into the field of reality, but we say that might be a perception. And because of that perception thought is functioning differently, it remains mechanical but different.

K: Yes, that's exactly what we are saying.

DB: Yes, therefore the creativity is not in thought itself but in the perception.

K: Let's get it clear, thought has created the 'me' and this 'me' has become independent of thought, apparently.

DB: Apparently ...

K: And the 'me' being still part of thought, it is the 'psychological' structure, while perception can only take place when there is no 'me'.

B: Well, we could try to go into that to make it more clear. You see the 'me', this imaginary structure, we know it's 'real', as the 'me' involves some sort of 'centre' doesn’t it ?
This 'centre' is a very old form of thought, it's one of the most fundamental forms, it probably goes to the behaviour of the animals, most probably.

K: Yes sir, the family centre and so on...

DB: Yes, also the geometric centre, when people use the centre with the rays emanating out, it's a very powerful symbol, you see, the sun with its rays, it had a tremendous effect. So the concept of a 'centre' has a tremendous affect on thought, you see...

K: Yes sir...

DB: And this 'centre' has the meaning of totality, you see, one point touches everything. In other words the 'centre' is a symbol of the contact with the whole, you see, and I think
that's how the self 'is considered in thought. It perceives , the self is perceiving everything. The self is determining everything...

K: So there is a 'centre', and is this centre independent of thought?

DB: Well, the centre 'is' thought, it is a basic structure in thought, we think in terms of 'centre', you see ? In physics for example each atom is a 'centre'.

K: That's why thought is fragmented.

B: Because we think through the 'centre' ?

K: We think through the 'centre'. Ah, we're getting at it !

DB: Well let's get it more clear : you see , one of the basic theories of physics is to think that the world is made of atoms, each atom is a 'centre', a force which connects to
all the other atoms, and of course the opposite view is that there is a continuous field and no centre, those are the two views studied and are pursued in two different forms. Now, if you 'think through the centre', there is going to be fragmentation. You'll say the atomic view is fragmentary ?

K: Must be ! You see , what we're getting at is that the basic reason of fragmentation is that we function from a 'centre' .

DB: Yes, we must think in terms of 'centre' because that may be useful : the sun is at the centre to the solar system. But psychologically we also function from a centre. You see, physically we are forced to function from a centre, because the body is the centre of our field of sensory perception. But psychologically we form an imitation of that, we have the thought at the centre which is probably what Jung called an 'archetype', it may be millions of years old, going back to the animals.

K: Yes, to the animals, quite....

DB : Now, that form is useful physically, but then it was extended psychologically, right ?

K: That's right, that's why thought is fragmentary.

DB: Well, is there a thought which does not function from the centre?

K: It has to... Because thought is from a centre of memory.

DB: Well, let's explore why does thought have to be from a centre, you see, why couldn’t there be a memory without a centre ?

K: How can there be, just 'memory' like a computer?

DB: It's not clear to me why there cannot be memory just as information. You see, its not clear to me why thought had to form a 'centre', and why psychologically it gave this 'centre' such importance?

K: Because thought never acknowledged to itself that it is mechanical.

DB: Thought was unable to acknowledge that it's mechanical and now, why does that call for a 'centre'?

K: But thought has created the 'centre'...

DB: Yes, but the 'centre' was there just for practical purposes anyway, but thought used that idea, 'psychologically' for itself....now, why was it doing that?

K: For a very simple reason : thought said : I can't be mechanical, I must be something much more.

DB: How does the centre make it 'more' then?

K: Because that gives itself a sense of permanency, as the 'me' ...

DB: Well, we should make that more clear : why this centre gives a sense of permanency ?

K: Why? Thought has created this microphone, that is apparently permanent, relatively, and 'in here' thought created the 'me' as a permanent entity.

DB: Yes, but why did it pick up the 'centre' to be permanent?

K: Perhaps it picked it up because the sun is the centre of the universe, and the 'centre' joins everything.

DB: Yes, it joins everything and gives a sense of unity.

K: Unity, the family and so on, but that 'centre' becomes totally unnecessary when there is 'complete' perception.

DB: But it is necessary, when there is no 'complete perception'...

K: That's what's happening. It is not 'necessary', but that's what's happening in the world...

DB: So, not being able to realise it is mechanical, thought began to create its own products and seeing their instability, knowing their impermanence, it tried to establish something permanent and it found the 'centre' useful for trying to do that, because this 'centre' made a connection with everything.

K: Yes, that's right...

DB: In other words, you see, if it is a 'form' around which everything can be put together, and if everything is 'falling apart' - if left to itself, thought falls apart - but then it establishes a stable 'centre' which holds it all together ?

K: That' s right, 'my' family, 'my' house, 'my' country...

DB: And that's 'permanent', so you say, I have a permanent centre, in other words, thought has hit on the idea of a permanent centre to hold everything together and in fact
that's what we do all the time to organise, to have a centre around which everything can be organised.

K: That's right, like a company executive...

DB: That's what we do all the time, to have a permanent centre to hold it all together...

K: So when you perceive something totally, the 'centre' is non- existent and doesn't that perception includes everything?

DB: Right, let's go slowly here...

K: Isn’t that the central thing that holds, that connects everything?

DB: I see it differently : that the act of perception unites everything. And thought is imitating that by a 'centre' that unites everything.

K: That's right...

DB: And thought attributes the perception to this 'centre'

K: That's right, to the 'observer' and so on..

DB: And also the 'thinker' attributes its own origin to that centre and attributes truth to itself.

K: That's right. Is there, sir, a perception of greed, of fear, or a total perception which includes everything ? So it isn’t just a perception of greed, perception of belief, but the perception of all these things.

DB: Let's say there’s a perception of 'that which is', right ?
And right now there is the question which we might clear up, because we said truth is 'that which is', right?

K: Yes...there is only perception, not the 'perceiver'.

DB: There is no 'perceiver', but only the perception of 'that which is', isn’t it?

K: Yes, and the 'perceiver' is the centre.

DB: Yes, thought attributes to the 'centre' the quality of being a 'perceiver', as well as a 'thinker' or as an 'actor'. So, I think that it might be helpful to see that one of the functions of thought is to refer, or to attribute - and thought can attribute anything to any thing...

K: Yes, quite right.

DB: Therefore when thought has 'invented' the centre, then it may attribute various qualities to that 'centre', such as thinking, feeling , pain or pleasure, therefore it becomes 'alive'. Could we say that suffering arises there, when pain is attributed to the centre?

K: Of course, as long as there is a 'centre', there must be suffering...

DB: Because when there no 'centre' the pain is merely in thought.

K: Merely physical...

DB : Either physical or in memory ...But if the memory of pain is attributed to the 'centre' then it becomes something big.

K: So, we are 'seeing' something : if there is a total perception, thought has no place in that perception.

DB : And yet, that perception 'acts' and thought might be its action. That's what we were saying the other day...

K: Yes...let's get this clear. When there is a total perception, in that there is no thought and that perception 'is' action.

DB: Yes, and that will change the quality of thought, by changing the brain cells.

K: And so on.... we've been through all that. Thought has only a mechanical function.

DB: By 'mechanical' you mean more or less, 'not intelligent' ? In the dictionary it's given more or less the opposite thing. So, thought is not creative, it's not intelligent ?

K: No. It is purely mechanical. So, if it is merely mechanical, then it can operate mechanically in everything, without any 'psychological' centre.

DB: Yes... Well then, it would be like this computer that...

K: Yes, like the computer, but if the computer is to hold all this as 'your bucket' ... and later on we said it's not 'your bucket', it has no emotional...

DB: Well, it's merely contradictory information...

K: Merely contradictory information ; similarly here. So we are giving tremendous importance to thought.

DB: Well, thought is giving importance to itself...

K: Thought is giving to itself tremendous importance ; and when perception takes place, thought becomes mechanical.

DB: Well, when thought acknowledges it is mechanical...

K: When it acknowledges it is mechanical, then there is no problem.

DB: Yes, this was one point ; and the other was to understand fully how thought went along the wrong track.

K: Yes sir, I can see how it's gone on the wrong track : the 'centre'.

DB: Well, I think in the beginning thought mistook itself for something living and creative, and then it established the centre in order to make that permanent....

K: Yes.

DB: Right, and then that gave it tremendous importance, you see, the combination of the two.

K: The combination of… ?

DB: One, that thought mistook itself for something intelligent and higher...

K: That's right...

DB: ...and its own imitations, for enjoyment, for intelligence, love and so on, and then seeing this was impermanent, it naturally wanted to make it permanent, and therefore it found the 'centre' as the way to try to do it , because the 'centre' was actually the practical way of trying to organise things permanently.

K: Quite right sir, so now we have answered why thought is fragmentary.

DB: Yes, but let's make it more clear, why is it fragmentary? I mean it's gone wrong, you have to finish it, I mean, why is it ? I mean to spell it out...

K: Because thought created the centre as a permanency and that centre forms as a unit to put everything together.

DB: Everything in the whole world is held together by the centre, because if somebody feels the 'centre' goes , he feels the the whole world is going to break...

K: Going to pieces, that's right.

DB: Now, so the 'centre' is the same as the whole world, right ?

K: That's right, so thought is fragmentary.

DB: Well, thought is fragmentary , but it's not quite clear why it's fragmentary ?

K: Because it has separated itself from the thing it has created.

DB: Yes, now that's the point, let's now make that very clear that thought has attributed to itself a centre which is
separate from itself, whereas in fact it 'is' the centre, it has created the centre and it is the centre.

K: It 'is' the centre.

DB: Yes, that's right, but it thinks of itself, attributes to itself, that centre, the property of thought, 'I' am real and so on, and that is a fragmentation.

K: That's the basic thing.

DB: And from there follows the necessity for the rest of the fragmentation of life, because in order to maintain that those two are different, thought must then break up everything to
fit that, do you see ?

K: Of course.

DB: It only introduces confusion, you see, either it separates things that are not separate, or it puts together things that are different in order to maintain that fiction that the 'centre'
is separate from thought everything else has to be cut to fit that.

K: ... cut to fit that centre.

DB: Yes, you see, for example, if somebody attributes to the 'centre' of being from a certain nation, he must then distinguish another nation, not belonging to the centre, he
fragments something that's 'one', in order to hold the centre together.

K: Quite right sir, that is very clear now.

DB: And therefore the entire world is fragmented, indefinitely shattered into fragments.

K: I want to get to something else too. Is perception from time to time, from moment to moment ?

DB: From moment to moment ?

K: No...I perceive the nature of belief, its finished, there’s a
total perception of fear, that's finished, and there is total perception of greed, that's finished, is that perception one after the other, or is there a total 'perception of the whole' ?

DB: Well, let's go into that slowly, you see, if there’s total perception of the whole thing, then what would there be left to do ? See, this raises the second question that David
Shainberg brought in. He says: you put it in the last discussion at Brockwood, that it was like Columbus discovering America, that someone else doesn’t have to discover it. But then what does one do that is creative, that is corresponding to what you did, you see?

K: Now, just a minute , just wait a minute, first let me answer this question. “Is perception whole”?

DB: A 'whole', there's only one perception.

K: ….therefore it's cleared the field.

DB: The entire field is cleared. Then what does he do ?

K: Wait, wait, let's see that is so, he hasn’t got to go through greed, belief, fear, pleasure,the whole things cleared the deck.

DB: Well you're saying man may perceive the whole nature of thought, is that what you are saying, or is it beyond that?

K: Beyond, a little more... Let's take that perception which sees the nature of thought, and because it perceives the nature of thought, it sees all this, all the fragments.

DB: All the fragments are in there.

K: All the fragments.

DB: And that brings up the question I wanted to ask for some time, You see, in the Indian book, Tradition and Revolution, you mention towards the end of it, the notion of
'essence' – the perception distills the essence- do you remember that?

K: No, I don’t remember, sorry, it doesn’t matter...

DB: In some way there is a notion that there is a total perception being intelligence, and out of that came the 'essence', distilled like the flower.

K: Yes, yes...

DB: Is that 'essence' anything like this 'whole'?

K: That's what that is, of course. Now wait a minute, I want to get this clear. Would you say there's is no perception of fear, greed, envy, belief but a total perception, of everything that thought has put together, and of the 'centre'?

DB: Well, there a phrase that people sometimes use, ''to perceive the essence and totality'', does that seem appropriate ?

K: Hmm… I’m hesitating on the word 'essence'...

DB: Well, let's say you 'perceive the totality' ?

K: Leave the word 'essence' for the moment. There is no partial perception of greed, envy and all that, there is a 'total' perception of all the things that thought has put together, and made itself separate, the 'centre'.

DB: Well now, we have to talk about this 'total perception', we have to make it more clear, now, because 'total' may mean 'all these things', or it may mean something else... ?

K: To me is means something else.

DB: Well, let's make that more clear.

K: Would a 'total' perception mean seeing thought attributing to itself certain qualities, thought creating the centre and giving to that centre certain attributes, and all the things from the 'centre' – the 'psychological' centre.

DB: Well, that's the whole structure...

K: The whole structure.

DB: Yes, that is part of total perception, seeing the whole structure.

K: The whole of that.

DB: The entire structure, that's what we call the 'essence', the basic structure.

K: Yes, all right, if you call that 'essence', I say I agree.

DB: Yes, that structure which is universal, would you agree that it's not just this thought or that thought or this problem or that problem or …

K: It is universal, quite. Now wait a minute, is such a perception possible? You said that is 'perception' - nothing else - because you tell me ''I see that, I feel that, I see
the truth of what you're saying, it is the truth, not mine or yours, it is the truth''.

B: Yes, now if you say it's the truth, it is 'that which is'...

K: That which is, the actual.

DB: Yes, well it's both... I’m trying to get it a little more clear, when we say there is 'truth' and there is 'actuality', the way we ordinarily use the word 'actual', is really the right way we use the word 'individual', it would seem to me that the (perception of) 'actuality' is individual, you see, undivided.

K: Ah yes, quite, 'individual' is undivided, quite...

DB: Actuality is undivided, but there is one moment of actuality and there may be another moment of actuality and so on, but now, when we 'see the essence', we see the
totality, or the universal. So, what is necessary is seeing the universal, right, then that includes all that, right ?

K: All that, that's right...

DB: So that the truth goes beyond that 'individual' actual fact because it 'sees the total', it sees what is universal and the totality of the nature of thought.

K: The totality of the nature of thought, that's it.

DB: Right, so that every individual example of thought is in there.

K: That's right ; and when that is seen, thought is then seen as merely mechanical.

DB: Then thought acknowledges that it is mechanical ?

K: No, no thought doesn’t have to acknowledge it... It 'is' mechanical !

DB: Thought has changed, so it is mechanical and thought no longer attributes to itself, thought ceases to attribute to itself the 'non-mechanical'.

K: Yes, that's right. I think that's what actually took place...

DB: When ?

K: Probably from the beginning of this boy ….

DB: Yes... ?

K: It was there...

DB: It was implicit ?

K: Implicit, or whatever you’d like to say...

DB: Well all right, perhaps it was implicit in everybody when he’s born but …then it gets the position it takes ?

K: I question whether it was implicit with everybody...

DB: Well , now lets get this clear ; that's what we were discussing the other day here ; so we could take the two views and consider them both : one view is, that it's implicit in everybody, and then the conditioning takes hold in most people, then it's lost, right ?

K: That's a very dangerous view !

DB: Why is it dangerous ?

K: Dangerous, because then you 'assume' there is something in you, which is unconditioned. It is an assumption to say that somebody was born like that, from the very beginning...

DB: All right, so to assume there is in the child something unconditioned, that may be false ?

K: I think that is false...

DB: You are suggesting that the child is born with some conditioning, perhaps hereditary... ?

K: ...the genes and the hereditary, and the society, it's already there.

DB: And then it gets added to ?

K: Added to, encrusted, and it 'thickens'.

DB: All right, so that's one view and you feel it is wrong ?

K: I wouldn’t accept it, because, that's a theory !

DB: Now, the other view is that in this boy there was some destiny, some hidden mysterious order ?

K: Something much more, much more than the theosophists explanation of reincarnation, than the Maitreya, and the Brahmanical tradition of mustn’t kill, mustn’t do harm, karma...

DB: Yes... ?

K: I think it's much more, something else...

DB: Yes, you say there was something else, now of course this idea has also occurred to people in the past ; you see, there are people who felt that some mysterious force was working in them, and they may have been fooling themselves, right ?

K: Absolutely...

DB: Yes, like, if you take Alexander the Great, he thought he was a 'god' and many people felt his energy so much, that they were ready to do anything with him...

K: But his energy was spent in conquering !

DB: That's right, in conquering, it was obviously false...

K: False, obviously, Napoleon felt that.

DB: Yes, Napoleon felt it, perhaps Hitler felt it, you know...

K: Exactly, Mussolini and Stalin...

DB: Yes, and first I wanted to put it, just to try to make it clear, that that feeling may liberate tremendous energy either falsely or not.

K: Yes.

DB: Now it therefore has a danger in it, you see, which we must recognise, right ?

K: That's right, that's right...

DB: Yes, but nevertheless you cannot discard that because this energy may still be necessary inspite of the ( potential) danger in it. In other words if we recognise that there is danger in this notion, it doesn’t prove that the notion is false....

K: Oh no, no , of course not. It may be misused, quite...

DB: But suppose now that we look at it from the other side, when you say that something mysterious happened, you know, which cannot be explained, which is beyond the 'order' we can include in thought...

K: Beyond all explanation...

DB: So, it may be that thought cannot grasp...

K: Thought did not create a 'centre'...

DB: Yes, it did not create a centre but let us say thought is ordinarily conditioned to create a 'centre', over the ages...

K: Yes, perfectly...

DB: A person may be born according to you with the tendency to create the 'centre' ?

K: Yes...

DB: But now, in this case thought did not create the centre, is that what you say?

K: Yes, that's right.

DB: And you cannot say 'why' it did not - beyond this mysterious action ?

K: No, I wouldn’t know...

DB: So, in some sense you say the boy was protected, it's what you said last time...

K: Protected, guarded, they did everything to guard him, first of all...

DB: Yes, there was a combination of circumstances which helped, which were conducive to that...

K: Conducive, but it doesn’t explain …

DB: Now, there are several points that we could go on from there. You see, one point is to say : it occurred to me during the week, let's say, if man is to transfer away from this conditioned instance and if he is born conditioned then there is no way out of it, if that's all there is to it, in other words, from this conditioned mind there can be no way out. Therefore the only way out is for somebody to come into existence who is not conditioned...

K: Yes, proceed...

DB: Therefore if there is such a person, we could say does not have any 'personal' significance, that it's just part of the universal order.

K: Yes, that's right.

DB: And if I can give you an example in physics, that is order to crystallise something - let's say something that is in a saturated solution - it may be cooled far beyond the point
of crystallisation unless there is a small 'nucleus', around which it can crystallise, otherwise it may remain uncrystallised, indefinitely.

K: Yes...

DB: And that 'particular nucleus' has no special significance other than, it was the place around which crystallisation took place.

K: Quite, absolutely !

DB: So you could say that perhaps mankind has reached a stage where it is ready, or has been ready for a change, right?

K: Yes, that's what they say...

DB: Many people have said that. Then this would be necessary, you see, it cannot change from the conditioned state...

K: There must be a catalyst, somebody, a nucleus...

DB: A nucleus, which is unconditioned.

K: A nucleus, which is unconditioned...

DB: That's the idea that occurred to me anyway...

K: Yes quite, quite...

DB: I mean whether its true or not we'll have to discuss. Now another question arose, a number of people began to ask it which is : until recently, you have not been talking in these terms, you see, but rather emphasising 'awareness' of the conditioning and so on, now it seems you are saying something more and different ; could you say why is it this time ?

K: Oh, I wouldn’t know, sir...

DB: I mean, why didn’t you discuss this point before ? This is what I’m getting at...

K: Ah... ( laughing) 'No lo so'..... Sir, I am just going back, if there is total perception of the nature of thought and all its activities, and therefore the total perception of the content of consciousness that used to be the 'centre'...

DB: Well, I think that the 'centre' is the form around which all these things are placed. You see ?

K: Yes...

DB: They are attributed to the 'centre'

K: Yes, attributed to the 'centre'... Now, when the centre is not, in a total perception – and total perception can only exist when the 'centre' is not, then consciousness must be totally different.

DB: All right, now what would you say about its nature then?

K: What would be its nature... ? See sir, the 'centre' as you pointed out, is the factor of unification...

DB: What's attempted...The way people have always tried to unite...

K: ...but it has never succeeded ; when the 'centre' is not, which is a perception of the totality of thought, consciousness must be something quite different.

DB: But you see, the word 'consciousness' would ordinarily involve the idea of thought, that is it still thought...

K: There’s no thought, can’t be !

DB: Then why do you call it 'consciousness' ?

K: I said it must be 'something totally different'. The consciousness which we have is with the 'centre' with all the content, with all the thought, with all that movement, and when there is a total perception of that, that is not !

DB: The 'centre' is not, and the whole order is different ?

K: Different.

DB: Yes, and there is something I was going to ask  about what you were mentioning many times about : that it might involve the brain cells working in a different way?

K: I don’t know, but I think it works differently...

DB: Yes.

K: Sir, may we discuss what is compassion? Is the 'centre' capable of compassion?

DB: Well, I’d say the centre is not capable of anything real...

K: No, but can the centre attribute it to itself and 'be compassionate'?

DB: It certainly can do that, yes...

K: It can ... ( Laughs) Yes, but if there is no attribution at all, then what is compassion? Is total perception compassion?

DB: Well, is has to be, include the feeling for all...

K: I should think one of the qualities of total perception is compassion.

DB: Hmm... If the centre can only have feelings, which are attributed to it, so it would have compassion for what ever it identified with...

K: Of course....I love you and I don’t love others...or, I love others but I don’t love you ( both laughing ) ..

DB: Anyway, it would have no understanding and therefore it would have no meaning.

K: Very interesting this... Ah, we have got somewhere ! How would you convey all this to somebody in this (Saanen) camp? He’s sentimental, romantic, wanting illusions, myths, fanciful imaginations, has problems of sex , of fear, this, and you're
telling him something, and he won’t even 'listen'. Here we’ve got leisure, we want to go into it, we want to find out, because we're totally objective of oneself…. I think that's where compassion operates.

DB: That's why it's necessary...

K: That's right...

DB: Now considering what we were saying yesterday about the 'stream of human thought' and whatever is wrong there - it is universal, it belongs to everybody, right?

K: Yes.

DB: So, you may see something going wrong and thought attributes it to somebody else, but whenever something is going wrong, its going wrong in thought.

K: Yes, that's right...

DB: And therefore it's in everybody, right ?

K: Yes.

DB: But there is no such thing as 'my' thought, 'your' thought, it's thought, and it cannot stop ; you see, the minute you are thinking, even if there is not by an 'extra sensory' communication of thought, just by ordinary communication. The structure of your thought is communicated to me, and if it's the wrong structure, then I’m in the wrong structure, of thought...

K: Yes, of course !

DB: Then my brain, my thought attributes the wrong structure to you...

K: To me, right !

DB: To 'you', another centre.

K: Quite !

DB: This centre is all right, or we’ll try to make it all right, and the other centre is wrong, there can be no compassion, then I’m hostile...

K: Quite.

DB: I must fight the other 'centre'... This centre is resisting the other centre, the 'good' is in this centre, and the 'bad' is in the other centre and therefore there can be no compassion.

K: Yes sir...

DB: But you see, if it is an 'all one ' thought process, one stream, then one cannot attribute this to a particular person and therefore, it seems you understand the nature of that thought and that is compassion...

K: Exactly. Quite right...

DB: Because you must see anyone thinking that way must be suffering. (Silent pause)

K: Yes sir.... We were going to talk, or discuss rather, about the mystery? What is the mysterious ? You see sir, all religions, have made the cathedrals dark, the temples are dark implying that God is mysterious, that there is something so mysterious that you cannot understand, and there have been secret societies, special initiations, you know all that which you went through in order to come upon the 'mysterious'. All that is not mysterious.

DB: Well, that is just imitation.

K: Imitation which thought, etc,etc. If there was no invention of the 'mysteriousness' created by thought, is there a mystery?

DB: Well, one sense of the mystery is that it cannot be explained, or grasped by thought, then…

K: Yes, and also the myths...

DB: Well, myths are an attempt to grasp it by thought, by poetic thought...

K: And apparently man has lived with those myths...

DB: Yes ; again it's the same point we were discussing before that thought is attributing to itself, something 'mysterious'...

K: Mysterious …

DB: Not really 'like' but the ultimate mystery, it produces something which is then says its not thought but, the ultimate mystery.

K: Quite...

DB: And so in some way people have said that myths were poetic means by which people grasped something true but at the same time, if you use this once as a metaphor, then it would be helpful but when you repeat it then it become a (verbal routine ) but would it remain true in saying : 'that which is' cannot be grasped in thought ?

K: That's right, anything but the mystery of it !

DB: Yes...

K: We must discuss that some other time.

DB: Well perhaps there isn’t time now, it's a quarter past five ...

K: We’d better stop : we can go on this friday....

DB : It doesn't bother you as you have another discussion in the morning ?

K: The   discussions don't tire me so much as 'sustained talk'... Maybe leave it open ?

DB : Right, but we have to be leaving sunday or monday, you see ? So we should set a...

K: All right, you fix your day !

DB : No, I wouldn't want to put any strain on you. The public discussions will end on sunday...

K: I can do it on sunday afternoon at 3 : 30. Bene !

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 18 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Aug 2018 #11
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

9-th K-DB Dialogue on 'Truth & Reality'

DB : Perhaps I should go on with what we were discussing the other time and clarify some of these points. We were discusssing the action of truth and if I could sum up: in one discussions we were discussing whether the thought process – if it is 'straight & healthy' - may become aware of the action of truth and move in harmony with that ; and on the other hand, the thought process, when it is distorted and conditioned may not do that...

K : Yes, that's right...

DB : … but truth connects physically in the brain cells to bring it back ....

K: Sir, would that be accurate ?

DB : I don't know ; you see, we're trying to go into it...

K: I think that would be accurate !

DB : I know you think so...

K: I 'feel' that way !

DB : Yes, but we should discuss it a little while...

K: Yes, I think that too...

DB : Because it's a quite important point and is quite contradictory to the traditional scientific knowledge...

K: Nowadays, after reading that article on parapsychology...

DB : Perhaps not after reading psychology, because the scientific knowledge is changing too ; but anyway, we could say the brain is material and I think we're saying that matter 'exists' - it has an 'actuality' apart from thought, but we don't 'know' it ; you see, all we know is only some of it. In other words, the complete depths of matter are unknown to us and perhaps they'll never be known – you see, perhaps we can only know more & more. Now, as the brain is constituted of matter, we can never folow the depths from which thought arises, right ? But thought has become conditioned through the ages, part from heredity and part from tradition & culture...

K: ...tradition, culture, environment...

DB : ...environment & so on. And it has been conditioned to self-deception, to falsifying from the start. And this is in the material structure of the brain. And I would like to add a point : one can say that this conditioning constitutes a subtle kind of brain damage...

K: That's right...

DB : And I'd like to go on with that. You see, if we take a piece of delicate electronic equipment – such as an amplifier or a computer - if that is overloaded there is distortion and if you keep overloading it, you may break down the parts, and therefore it will distort more. So we could say that the kind of conditioning we're talking about – the conditioning which gives the greatest importance to thought and to the 'center' - overloads & gradually damages the brain in a way that is perhaps too subtle to be detected by the scientific instruments – except when it's gone very far...

K: Ah, yes...

DB : ...but still it's there, you see ?

K: Yes... Are you saying, sir, that when the brain is 'overloaded' – by environment, by economic conditions, socially...

DB : And by fear & sorrow...

K: ...sorrow and all the things that are going on in human beings, it does damage the brain cells ?

DB : Yes...

K: I think that is so - that can be accepted...

DB : Yes, there is a physical & chemical damage to the brain cells and those damaged brain cells produce a thought that is really distorted ; therefore, as thought tries to correct that damage, because it is distorted it must make it worse.

K: Right, it makes it worse. Now from there, can there be a total perception which heals completely  ?

DB : Yes, that heals the brain cells. Now, one point is that the brain doesn't recognise this brain damage primarily, but atributes it to something else – for exmple it may atribute it to feeling uneasy as to some external circumstances...

K: It blames...

DB : ...it on anything else ; and I think that this kind of brain damage occurs in tradition, you see ? It occured to me tradition is a form of brain damage...

K: Quite, quite...I agree.

DB : ...because any tradition – good or bad- what it does is gets people to accept a certain structure of reality, very subtly, without realising thay are doing it by imitation or by example, or just by statements – so very subtly the child builds up an approach in which the brain atributes the things from the tradition to a 'reality' that is there independent of this tradition...

K: Certainly...

DB :... and gives it a tremendous importance.

K: Yes, you can see this in the oldest cultures, like in India, this distortion & damage due to tradition.

DB : I think that's in every culture ; I was just reading about the people who originally lived in Australia, the aborigenes, and they have a very different tradition, which they call 'dream time' , while in that dreaming there is also another time, which is also before being born or after dying...

K: I see...

DB : ...and they have a tradition of getting in the 'dream time' by means of a series of initiations and rituals at a certain age of adolescence ; and in that 'dream time' they can function very differently, like they can go into the desert and live there under conditions intolerable to ordinary people. So you see, it has a tremendous effect this tradition. It has real effects of all sorts, which may be valuable in some way, but at the same time it conditions the brain to a certain view of reality which is fixed. They say – I read somewhere- that people who don't share this 'dream time' are unreal – you see ?

K: Quite, quite...(both laugh)

DB : Now the same thing happens in our culture – and that is the point I want to come to : we'll have to discuss culture at great lenght- now in our culture we get a conditioning which may be different, but it is basically similar in structure : what is to be real and necessary and right ; what you have to make of your life, what is the kind of person you should be, and so on, what's the right thing to do. And all this is picked up in tiny little indications that don't seem to be thought, but seem to be the perception of reality...

K: Quite...

DB : ...and therefore the brain is beginning to treat thought as some reality which is independent of thought and therefore it is becoming fragmented, so that a person may look at it and say 'that's reality, I've got to keep my feet on the ground', but this 'ground' is created by tradition, by thought...

K: ...by thought, quite !

DB : But you see, that's not 'ground' – it has nothing under it at all !

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And is sustained by this brain damage ; that is, it is nourished, sustained by this damaged brain which is unable to get out of this circle. But still, I think we have to go into culture, because culture also has valuable...

K: ...certain values...

DB : ...which cannot be discarded ; and one of the dangers that can arrive is an uncritical look at what you say : that somebody wants to discard culture because that is not clear...

K: Sir, what does that word 'culture' mean ? To cultivate...

DB : It's based on to cultivate, and also 'cult'...

K: That is, to grow...

DB : Yes, the basic meaning of 'cultivate' is 'to cause to grow'...

K: Yes, that's what it is...

DB : So, therefore we've got to be clear about the meaning of creation ; you see, there is a tendency to consider culture as 'creation'...And yet we cannot just discard culture and drop it.

K: No, you're quite right, I understand...

DB :...but there is some confusion around it.

K: So, what do we mean by 'culture' ? That which grows, that which is capable of growth...

DB : ...and which is passed on. You see, 'that which grows' is passed on from a generation to another. And the word 'nature' is the same root - in Greek the word is 'physis', which means to grow ; so these are very deep concepts which were very general...

K: And the evolution from the savage living in a cave to the modern man, is called 'growth'...

DB : Yes, but the savage himself has his own growth...

K: ...his own culture...

DB : And we impose our culture upon him and he breaks down...And some anthropologists say his culture is as valid as ours and so on...

K: Yes, yes...What benefit has culture ?

DB : That's what we have to look into...

K: That's why I asked : what benefit has culture ?

DB : Well, let's look at several aspects of culture – science, art, music, literature, technology...At the very least every culture has a certain technology with which it approaches reality – certain methods have been developped to grow things, or to approach reality...

K: Has thought created culture ? Of course it has …

DB : It has, yes. And some culture might be necessary for man to survive...

K: Yes...I wonder if it is necessary.

DB : Perhaps it isn't, but it appears to be.

K: It appears to be...Let's question it !

DB : Yes, but I wanted to go a little bit further ; you see, we take science as part of our culture, art is part of our culture, like music...You have often said that you enjoy listening to good music – and that is part of our culture ...

K: Yes, sir...But I think there's a danger of depending of it, or of using it as a means to 'go beyond' or achieve, or penetrate into something else.

DB : Let's try to make that clear, because let's take the example of music- Mozart or Beethoven, would you say that there was necessary some insight, or something beyond the mechanism of thought to create that ?

K: Yes, sir, I thought about it too...Now wait a minute ; suppose you're a musician...

DB : Well, let's say a composer, a person who creates new music.

K: A composer, and all the composition – putting all the notes of music is the work of thought, isn't it ?

DB : Yes, anybody can do that...

K: That's what I meant- so that is the result of thought. And does he listen to that music before he puts it down ?

DB : Well , I don't know what kind of imagination he's got... Beethoven was deaf, but I think he could imagine some of the music he wrote...

K: But he must have 'heard' it !

DB : He heard it when he was not deaf, but he also made new music when he was deaf – he never heard it...

K: So, you're saying the hearing is not necessary ?

DB : Perhaps in the beginning it was, but …

K: In the beginning he heard it. And when he became deaf, he no longer 'heard' it ? Therefore, how did he capture it ?

DB : I don't know... it went through some kind of inner perception, which we usually call 'imagination'...

K: Wait a minute, sir...

DB : He may have heard it inwardly...

K: Wait a minute, let's go slowly...When you are speaking now, do you 'think it out' first and then speak ?

DB : No, you don't.

K: No. Why ?

DB : It's clear that there is a formation of the meaning first. In other words, whatever I mean to say comes first...

K: How does that happen ?

DB : Well, I don't know if we could say exactly how...

K: I mean, when I get on the platform, fortunately or unfortunately, I talk , I don't 'think' – if I thought it out, it would all go wrong...I've done that before – write it down enormous notes and then make a resumé of it and then I would read it when they're put down...

DB : But sometimes it's valuable to make very rough notes...

K: No, wait a minute, and Dr Besant said to me  : 'Why do you bother with it ? Just say what you want to say...' First time I got really dithering about it and then gradually...Is there actually a 'thinking' when one speaks ?

DB : No... as a rule, the speech comes before thought...

K: The speech comes first...A-ha ! Let's see that, but the speech, the words...

DB : There is some scientific evidence of that, as a matter of fact. People have watched what kind of mistakes they made : most mistakes are made when the whole paragraph or sentence is formulated at once...

K: Say for instance, Dr Besant was a great orator ; she said she used to 'see' the phrases in front of her.

DB : Well, that's one way, but...

K: Now, I'm questioning whether the speech comes before thought. I use English to tell you something – the use of English is memory...

DB : Oh, yes, yes...

K: And I use that memory in talk...

DB : You see, it's the same as learning to walk – to a certain extent that learning becomes part of you ; so in the same way, the speech becomes part of you...

K: So, you're saying that speech comes before thought ?

DB : Well, there is some evidence that it may...or else thought itself may be different from what we know – it may have a different structure from what is generally attributed to it...

K: So, we are talking about culture ; culture is growth – from childhood to manhood & so on. The expression of one's feeling must be through thought – putting down the words, notes & everything- and when you deliver a lecture you write it out or you express it as you go along...

DB : Yeah...

K: That means it must have been stored up inside.

DB : Well, not necessarily...That particular order in which it appears may be the result of a perception which you have at that moment...

K: Yes, that's what I want to get at.

DB : I mean, some of the material must have been stored up, but the way it comes out depends on perception.

K: Perception of what ?

DB : That's what we want to find out...

K: If I may be a little personal, when I talk, I 'think' by talking from emptiness. I have talked for so many years – it comes now through long practice, we can see that – that the thing flows out. But if I think about previously, it doesn't flow out.

DB : But you may think a little, for example : at a time you have told me about thinking about something this morning...

K: Yes, an idea happens – something you 'see' ; but if I think about it previously and store it, then it goes somehow & messes up. But I 'see' something, then let it flow out as I talk. So, is there not a state when thought is not in operation where perception is going on ? That's where action takes place. Now, what is perception there ? Would you call it 'perception' ? I don't know, it's not 'insight' ...

DB : Insight is perception. When you understand something, you 'perceive' the meaning?

K: Sir, is it possible to say something without the operation of thought - except the usage of words ? Ah... I can't get at it...

DB : Wouldn't it be possible that the movement of words might be just another movement ? You see, when you perceive an object and you start to move toward or away from it, it needn't involve thought except the storing up of information about the object, but it needn't fundamentally to think about it...

K: No.

DB : Could we say that when we talk the vocal chords respond in a similar way as it might perceive the object ?

K: But it must be much more than that...

DB : Yes, it's more than that, but the action...

K: Either you 'see' the words and you read them...

DB : I don't do that...

K: You don't do that... Or, when you have talked so long, as I have talked so long, it becomes a habit...

DB : It becomes a skill ; there's a certain skill in it. The whole thing takes place without conscious direction.

K: Yes, but that doesn't answer it...

DB : Yes...Is there something relevant if we come to the 'unconscious' mind as well, since a part of this process seems to be 'unconscious' ? I mean, it may be just that 'unconscious' mind which must be only dimly lit or suppressed ? Because sometimes that is regarded as more than this – you said one time that you're 'sticking with the unconscious'...

K: Yes...

DB : ...which is a different kind of 'unconscious' ? And I just remind you something that perhaps you already know, that people studying the brain have found that the two sides : the left and the right- primarly one side is merely 'verbal' – I think it's the right hand side- and the other side is primarily 'non-verbal' - and they call that 'unconscious' ...When they are properly 'cut' , one side doesn't know what the other side is doing and one person might say in words that he doesn't know anything about this, while the other side might see something & respond to it, which is 'movement' – but if you ask him he would say that he doesn't know anything about it...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And so they have said that part of the brain is perhaps 'unconscious' while the other side - the verbal side - is 'conscious'. But then, obviously there is a deeper part of the brain, the 'base' , which is common to both ; that's the part where the 'feelings' are, and that's the center of attention and the center of emotion and so on, which probably connects both sides...

K: Right...

DB : Now, would you say that perhaps there is an 'unconscious' mind which is not really forgot or repressed and which works when you talk ?

K: I can't quite... Look : you make notes and you read – that's one way- and if you have done that for a number of years, you get a certain skill – that's one skill ; then, the skill in talking...but we said that is not the answer...What takes place ?

DB : You see, whatever you say does not purely come from the 'verbal' part of the brain...from the trivial ; now whatever may come, must come from the deeper part, of which you are not conscious...For instance, there was this case when the brain was cut and they say that the perception of music is in the other side – which is the opposite of the word or the perception of visual things & so on...and there seems to be a function of the brain which is non-verbal, and that may be still a 'thought' of some kind, which is much less defined, a non-verbal thinking, that can be conditioned and memory may be still in it...Now, what we are doing is to make a connexion of these two, so that the words can also express the 'non-verbal' .

K: Sir, is there in the brain- a part untouched by culture, by anything ?

DB : Well, that is a question which science at present cannot consider and which is beyond what anybody could do, because we don't know what that would mean from the material point of view... In other words, in the present material structure of the brain there is no way in which we could tell – the present way of looking at it is too crude, you see ?

K: If I say something about it, would you 'listen' - not discard it, throw it out ?

DB : Yes...

K: We said consciousness 'is' (its) content and if that content can be 'emptied' - in the sense of no longer conditioned- is there a part of the brain which nothing has touched – nothing has made an imprint on it ?

DB : You're talking of a particular part of the brain ?

K: Not only of a particular part of the brain, but of a particular part of the consciousness which is not this consciousness...

DB : Another consciousness ?

K: Another consciousness.

DB : Which may be another function or in another part of the brain ?

K: No... let's look at it : my brain is conditioned - tradition, culture, heredity...

DB : Would that mean it's damaged ?

K: Damaged, and it has healed itself completely...

DB : So, you're saying that it was damaged but it has 'healed' itself ?

K: I'm taking my brain ; healed itself, and is now 'unconditioned'.

DB : Yes, but the question is : how can it heal itself ?

K: Healed itself through having an insight, a perception which is not a perception of the damaged brain …

DB : I understand ; so, you're saying that the brain is not damaged through & through, that it 's not totally damaged, but there's still a function that is not damaged, right ?

K: That's right. And, is there a consciousness which is totally different from this consciousness - which functions or operates when I am a great composer – and has that perception ?

DB : You see, let's discuss that 'composer' – for instance Beethoven has that perception although he is deaf - his brain is damaged , and also he's disturbed mentally...

K: Disturbed mentally, poor chap …

DB ; Yes, and we say that there is a part of his brain that could work anyway, despite that damage...

K: Despite that damage...If he was really damaged he couldn't have been a musician !

DB : Not damaged deeply. So you're saying that in general this damage – even if cultural- is not that deep ? It may appear 'deep' but in fact it isn't ?

K: Yes, I think it is not too deep. Would you say that ?

DB : Yes, I mean it works only at a certain level...

K: Of course, if my brain is damaged in tradition, I can 'step out' of it ! The brain says : rubbish !

DB : Yes...then the damage is only in certain functions of the brain which are based on memory ?

K: Yes...and you can put it aside.

DB : So, it is not in a really deep function of the brain ?

K: No.

DB : But it may appear or present itself as 'deep' ?

K: That's right !

DB : It attributes it to itself as 'deep' …

K: If I am a Catholic and you talk with me & show all the... it's finished, I'm out !

DB : Well, in principle I think it's right, a person may see this, but then, a part of the damage attributes to itself the property of being very deep and and beyond thought, therefore it escapes this 'insight', you see ?

K: Quite... right, right !

DB : You see, it doesn't mean that the damage is deep, but the damaged part attributes to itself a great 'depth'...

K: Yes, quite.

DB : So afterwards, a person who is a 'Catholic' you might explain it to him and he might see it at that moment, but...

K: Ah, wait a minute ! You say I am attached - for instance, I'm attached to my wife or to something and because I respect you and I listen, I am fairly sensitive to what you are saying, then it's finished ! It's over - I'm never attached anymore !

DB : Well, it doesn't commonly happen that way, you see...

K: Why ?

DB : Well, that's what we want to find out...Supposing one reason is that this conditioning attributes to itself some significance which is very deep and not merely your memory and thought. You see, suppose I am a Catholic, and I have grown up in the Catholic tradition, I've been exposed to it non-verbally & subtly, it has left a mark and when I become a little bit frightened it all seems so real, you see ? And therefore I 'forget' what you said …

K: Of course, of course...But that's too easy...

DB : But this is what actually happens...

K: But I think there's something deeper than that ; let's go into it a little bit. If I 'listen' to you – because you are serious, you have detached yourself and you show it to me, and you say : Look, listen ! And because I respect you, because I listen to you, because I'm attentive, what you say has a tremendous meaning and it is 'true' – the truth of it, not the rationalisation of it, but the truth of what you're saying acts.

DB : Yes, even if there is a tremendous conditioning in this tradition to resist that truth...

K: Ah, I'm not resisting it ! Because, first of all, I want transformation - that's a basic necessity for me, as a human being...

DB : Yes, but then there is another basic necessity of security, you see ?

K: You show it to me that through this transformation there is a tremendous security ; you point out to me that if I transform myself totally, then you will be eternally safe, secure & all the rest of it, because you have 'seen' it, because you have got it. And when you say that to me it's a shock- I 'see' it ! But if I haven't transformed, if I am 'crooked', a phoney, then whatever I say...

DB : Right... But then how do you account for the fact that you've been talking for so many years and it has had so little ...

K: I think that basically, people won't 'listen'...

DB : Yes, but then it comes to 'why not?'

K: Why not ? Because I don't see they're interested. Why should they be interested ?

DB : Well, because life is such a mess...

K: Ah, but they have those 'little harbours' where they are sheltering themselves...

DB : Yes, but that's an illusion.

K: You say it's an illusion, but to them it's not !

DB : I know, but why does the brain resist seeing this illusion ? You see, very often people would get shocked when shown that something is wrong, but then...

K: ...they go back.

DB: They go back ; so we still have to go into this tendency to go back, because whatever the 'shock' may be, the brain will go back, even if, let's say, we listen to the person who 'sees' and there is a shock, but then the brain will go back later...

K : You are asking : why does it go back ?

DB : Yes...

K: Oh, that's because of habit, these tremendous years of tradition & all that...Habit !

DB : Yes, but then that's still in the same...

K: Same circle ?

DB : Within the same circle. You see, the only answer which is adequate is the one which will stop it. As I see it, an explanation which doesn't end this thing is not a full explanation...

K: I said 'habit' , but that doesn't get anywhere...

DB : No...

K: So what brings about to the damaged brain a total...

DB : ...not going back ?

K: To not going back. Hmm...A man sees that the organisation of any 'spiritual movement' is useless and he drops it instantly – never goes back to it, never cultivates it, never organises it – now what has taken place in that man ? He perceives the truth of it, hmm ?

DB : Yes, but let me say something : you said this man was not deeply conditioned in the first place. But we'll have to consider another man who was deeply conditioned in the first place. You see, the man who was not deeply conditioned in the first place has seen the truth & dropped it – so for him that was fairly easy because he was not deeply conditioned...

K: Yes. But the other man is conditioned...

DB : Yes, much stronger...

K: ...much stronger and he may temporarily 'see' it and then goes back to it...

DB : Perhaps unconsciously he 'slips back' ?

K: Can that man be 'shocked' ? I'm not talking about electric shocks...

DB : They don't really change much...

K: ...they don't change much. Can you 'shock' me psychologically ?

DB : Well, at other times you said 'shock' is no use...

K: I know, I'm just asking...I can 'shock' you but you may go back...

DB : It will only work for a while...

K: I know...Now, what is this thing that makes me 'see & end it' and not go back ? You see sir, because we have not been able to do this we say ''it's only for the few''...

DB : Yes...Perhaps we can put it that way : the brain has been damaged too much... ?

K: Too much.. I don't quite agree with that – it's too easy !( both laugh) What is it ? You 'see' something and it's finished ; I don't 'see' it, but you point it out and then for a few months or days, I 'see' it...And then suddenly it disappears and I'm back...

DB : I think that it's better to say that it 'slips out'...

K: Slips out...

DB : Slipping into the old habit...

K: Old habit...Now, what is the thing that makes it... Sir, is 'attention' a conscious process ?

DB : Well, apparently we can say it's not...

K: Yes...

DB : That may be the 'unconscious' that we talked about ?

K: If it is not 'conscious' or 'unconscious' – that is, not a process of time, not a process of thought, which is conscious or unconscious - is there another kind of attention which 'acts' and it's over ? I'm just trying to find out...

DB : Would you say, as we said the other time, that it's something beyond attention that 'acts' ?

K: Yes, that's what we're trying to get at...If you explain me rationally, logically my attachment, I listen to it, but it's still in the field of thought. And within the field of that (self-centred) thinking, whatever thought does cannot produce a radical transformation. Right ?

DB : Yes...

K: Now, you have explained to me rationally, and you say, ''That is not enough ; you won't change if you remain there you'll go back to it'' And you point out to me, you say : 'Don't think ! Don't rationalise, just listen to me !' Don't control, don't resist, just 'listen' ! In that 'listening' you're not appealing to the normal rational process ; you are appealing to something that is beyond thought, beyond my usual consciousness. You're appealing to something much deeper in me ; you are 'touching' something - which has nothing to do with the movement of thought. Would that be right ? You are appealing to me at a level of which I am not conscious. You are appealing to me at a level which may be called 'compassion', which is not at the level of thought. If you appeal to me at that level, I can't go back to thought, to my habits – I can't go back ! Is that possible ?
Sir, is Love the factor of profound change ?

DB : Hmm... ?

K: Not all the movements of thought and all the explanations, all the 'pros' and... ?

DB : What you said previously, it is 'truth' ?

K: Truth.

DB : But is there a distinction ?

K: No, of course not...It's the whole thing. Truth is love and compassion, everything. I just want to see if that is so. Can you, out of your compassion, out of your love , touch something in me that transforms me ? Because to you that is the truth ; you see truth and you live in the feeling of all that...And from 'that' you speak. And you say, well, my friend, you've tried to do it for fifty years and you haven't done it...And to that the ordinary answer is : the brains are too damaged ; therefore there are very few brains that are not damaged and perhaps you can affect them...That's all. But that is not the complete answer...Therefore we go back to the old thing : ''it's only for a few''...

DB : Well, one view of this is that these 'few' will spread it, but you are not accepting that...

K: That's (going) back into culture, back into time, back in the whole 'bussiness' of tradition...And again you are damaged... This is what actually takes place.

DB : Are you saying that if we are using culture to bring order to the mind, then this will damage the brain ?

K: Yes.

DB : But then for what can we use culture ? Can we use it technically, or you can 'enjoy' it - you said that you are 'enjoying the music'... ?

K: No sir, just a minute...What shall we do ? You speak out of the depths of that ' immense something'. And I listen to you and you affect me at that level, but it's only a temporal affair...And then I go back to my own 'damage'. You 'heal' me - not completely but partially,and the old damage takes over, or can you 'heal me' – you can't 'heal me' but you are talking to me at such depth that your very listening is the whole thing.
Why doesn't it happen ? You tell me very clearly 'Don't be attached' And you explain it to me, and your explanation is out of that compassion, out of the perception of truth and I 'see' it, I have an insight into it, but I loose that insight...

DB : Yes, you see, I think that maybe there is some clue in the nature of the brain damage - what it does as soon as there is this perception – the whole thing depends of a correct perception, right ?

K; Yes...

DB : Now, this brain damage can produce what appears to be a perception, but the difficulty is that it comes in slowly and 'unconsciously' …

K: But you are appealing to something much greater and I respond to it for a few days or for a few months and is gone...Or I say : ''Please remind me of it...'' ''Let me read books & keep on memorising all that''...You follow ? And I loose it ! Is it sir, that my brain is not only 'damaged' , but refuses to see anything 'new', because whatever you say might lead me to such 'danger' ?

DB : Well, the brain attributes 'danger' to seeing something ; it appears to perceive 'danger' – in other words, something happens which projects danger into that situation – that is thought, but it comes back as something 'seen' …

K: So, you talk about fear, you talk about pleasure, you talk about 'suffering' … And you say, ''for God's sake, please listen to this out of your heart !' And I listen to you, but...I go back !

DB : You see, you are continuing within your 'culture', which brings it back . You see, in any relation within the cultural frame of 'reality' that thought is already there...

K: Quite, quite... everything is already there. I wonder how this operates.. ? Are you appealing to me, talking to my 'conscious' consciousness ? In that consciousness there is no answer. Are you talking to me at that level ? Or are you talking to me not only at that level, but you also talk to me at a much deeper level ? And it may be that I am not used to that level ?

DB : Yes, that could be...

K: I think, sir, that it is more like it. I have always gone to the well with a little bucket and you say : ''Look, that little bucket won't do anything - it will quench your thirst only momentarily !'' So, you're not talking to me at the level which I'm used to ; you are talking to me at a deeper level which I'm not used to. And I get used to it while you're talking to me. But the moment you stop talking to me...it's gone !

DB : It's already in time – either at that moment or later...

K: Is it, sir, that the brain wants to reduce everything into 'habit' ? What you say I see it at a deep level, but I have reduced that into a habit and therefore I lose it...And you tell me that at that deep level there is no time, there is no habit and you can't capture it by your brain – your brain will make it into a habit, into a tradition, into another damage. So you said : Don't do that !

DB : In the beginning thought seems to accompany everything that happens - making an imitation of accompanying everything that happens, which later builds up and that habit becomes the same as the original...

K: Right... but you tell me : 'See the whole structure of thought, be tremendously aware of it !'

DB : And it seems to be part of our tradition that there should be some thought, in other words, don't let thought stop...

K: Yes, yes !

DB : ...and in fact every tradition does demand that thought doesn't stop.

K: Yes, of course, quite ! The tradition is that.

DB : I was thinking that when children are brought up into tradition you can see that when they follow it, they say 'Yes, that's right, you're good & so on' and when they don't follow it, ' You shouldn't do this, it's bad' – so that the child begins to feel very secure in tradition - he feels he's a good boy...

K: ...good boy !

DB : ...and when he's not following it he's a 'bad boy' ... Therefore there may be a habit in going on with the tradition – either with the momentary one, or with the old one ; and also thought becomes disturbed of moving out of the tradition – the security of belonging to a community which decides what is real is much deeper than any personal gaining...

K: Of course, of course...

DB : Because the community gives a meaning to what is true and right and good and when you're in it, you feel it's all settled & safe and therefore getting out of it might mean 'chaos' , you see ? And I think it's not generally realised how significant is to be out of tradition – people may say 'I'm free of tradition, I'm not a Catholic anymore !'

K : ( laughing ) Quite...

DB : Or whatever... but tradition goes back to that feeling of belonging to a family and being 'approved of' because you are not only doing what you're supposed to do, but 'believing' what you're supposed to , or in believing what is 'real'...You see, this 'tradition' includes the belief that we have a 'correct consensus' as to what is real – in other words, that we don't create our 'reality'...

K: Yes, quite, I understand all that...

DB : ...but in fact we do, you see ? Now, all of that (psychological damage) goes against what we were to talk at the deep levels...

K: Yes, it goes against all that !

DB : ...and that works in very subtle ways and when you start working you got to reach all of that...

K: Sir, just a minute  - you, the speaker, are talking to me from that depth and I don't even talk about it, I have an insight into it, I feel it, I know it... Can you - not 'help' me - but can I sustain it ?

DB : You see, there is no man's tradition of 'mystery', of man's tradition of 'rationality' ; in other words, man's old tradition was one of mystery, but then came the modern tradition of 'rationality' and no...

K: ...no mystery...

DB : But to be free of all tradition...

K: Yes, sir, that's what you are asking me ! You say, 'look at every form of tradition'...

DB : But at first sight you say that you can't do it, because you feel that your culture gives you the chance to look at these things...

K: ...it also gives you the safety, the security, a place in your community...

DB : And also an order of the mind & so on...Now the point is that all this is causing the damage & distorsion into the brain, you see ? I think that's the firmest point I could see...

K: Yes, you've explained to me all that as clear verbally, intellectually -in every way you've made it perfectly clear to me, hmm ? Fear is involved, pleasure is involved, security is involved, tradition , if I leave it...

DB : Yes ; all this distortion is making me believe in whatever would make me feel better...

K: Yes, all that....And you say : I'm not talking to that level because if I talk to that, you'll merely go all around in circles...You are not talking to me at that level at all. You're talking to me at that level which is not this...

DB : And you say there is a function, or a part of the brain, that is not conditioned to this ?

K: I don't know, but there is a 'depth' which is not touched by the 'traditional brain', by the 'damaged' brain, by the brain which is conditioned & all the rest of it...A depth, a dimension which is not touched by thought. All that you've said about tradition – everything is a process of thought and that process of 'time' has not touched this...
You talk to me, and if there is an action of that, the brain cannot be damaged again.

DB : Hmm...

K: It may be that your talking to me at that level 'heals' the brain completely.

DB : You were saying last time that there is a 'direct action' on the matter of my brain.

K : …of my brain...I think there is something in it...

DB : Now, is this the only way ? You see, this seems to depend on someone who is not conditioned...

K: If you are 'healthy', you can talk to me.

DB : Yes, but I mean, if there are only conditioned people, they will never find a way out …

K: Absolutely no ; how could a damaged brain... ?

DB : You see, it goes against the modern tradition – even in what you say - that we must observe and discover and find the way out. Now, if it's a brain that is not damaged, it could do that, but if it is damaged , then it cannot do it …

K: Ah, that's it ! You realise that you cannot do it ! Therefore you stop.

DB : You stop, but it needs one that is not damaged to communicate this...

K: Yes, yes....but wait...I realise by your talk that whatever action a damaged brain would do, whatever it does, will still be in that area...

DB : Yeah...But there is the tendency in this damaged brain to come to conclusions and present them as 'facts'...

K: Therefore I realise all the tricks that the 'damaged' brain does.

DB : Yes, and one of the 'tricks' is to say that nothing can be done...

K: Yes! Quite, quite...

DB : ...or else, I'll keep on working at it...

K: I don't know if you saw it last night, a young man seeing these talks...thousands of people...

DB : I mean, it's the same attempt of the brain to heal itself, but in a false way...

K: ...in a false way, yes – to escape, to say it can't do anything socially, scientifically or artistically – you can go and listen to this rot all around the world... Can the 'damaged' brain – of course, if it's completely damaged it can't do anything...

DB : You see, there is also the feeling that if the brain has been physically damaged you can't do anything, but we don't know, right ?

K: We don't know...but if it's completely damaged, you can't do anything...But we are talking of a fairly 'not too damaged' brain...

DB : But even then, we cannot know whether the 'damage' can be healed or not...

K: Yes... But wait a minute- you talk, you explain all this and you say : whatever the 'damaged' brain – which is the result of tradition & all the rest of it- whatever it does will produce further damage. So because you pointed out that, I realise that. Hmm ?

DB : Yeah...

K: That is the first necessity – and I realise it. Then after I realised it, you talk to me at a depth which thought has not touched. You see, you planted a seed – because I know all that's wrong...So my question, sir, is : why do I , after being talked at that depth, why should I go back to the old thing ? So, my question is : will I ever go back if you have pointed out that depth, I have an insight into that depth, I perceive that depth, can I ever go back to the other ? Will not your 'seeing' act as a tremendous shock, or a tremendous jolt ?

DB : Well, there is this point which we have been discussing, that the brain can get used to any shock or jolt ?

K: Yes, I know, therefore you have to be very, very clear of the structure of thought & all that. Absolutely clear ! Otherwise the depth becomes the habit !

DB : Yeah...

K: In your pointing out to me the whole activity of thought – because I'm very seriously concerned- thought does stop. And the 'feeling of the depth' can never become a habit. Because when 'depth' is becoming a habit, the 'depth' becomes tradition & all the rest of it- fear of losing it & all that. Now, is that 'depth' within consciousness ?

DB : You said before that there is another kind of 'consciousness'...

K: That's it ! It is not in that consciousness. That's what I want to get at.

DB : Perhaps we could say it's neither in the left side of the brain, nor in the right ?

K : I don't know about the 'right' or 'left', but it's not in the area of thought.

DB : Hmm...

K: Thought cannot 'capture' it !

DB : Now, if you say this is another consciousness, is it still another function of the brain ? Something that it's going on in the brain ?

K: Now, if you said 'brain' in the sense that it is a product of time...

DB : Well, I don't know if it's a product of time, or not you see ?

K: ...a product of evolution, the product of great...

DB : You see, we still haven't made some of these points clear ... If we said nature is continuously growing then wouldn't you say there is a creation in nature as well ?

K: Yes...

DB : Now, would you say nature is the product of time ?

K: It is and it's not...

DB : That's what I'm saying... Because the brain is also part of the 'natural' things...

K: A-ha ! Yes, yes...Or is it cultivated carefully... ?

DB : But I mean, if we take the natural evolution of all sort of things & animals, that seems to happen in time, no ?

K: Yes...

DB : One animal is born, it dies, and the next one and the next one ? So you have growth...

K: Generation after generation of instinct, growth...

DB : But there is also 'change', there is a mutation and another growth occurs & so on... Now, wouldn't you say that's also a kind of creation ? I mean, by creation we mean what causes to grow...

K: Yes, creation in the sense of 'cultivate' & growth...Then what are you trying to say ?

DB ; That the brain has also grown as a result of in such a process...You see, we have to get clear about this 'time', because there were the various mutations in monkeys & other animals and there apeared creatures with bigger & bigger brains producing finally the modern man. Now, all this has taken time, you see...

K: Yes, it seems to have taken time...

DB : I don't know if you would agree on that - you seem to say that it has and it hasn't...

K: I'm just asking myself, because it has, in one sense...

DB : Yeah...

K: The brain is not only the product of culture in time, but is there also a part of the brain, or outside of that, which is not of time ?

DB : Well, that's the thing we want to come to, because you see, there is a structure of the brain that has evolved in time...

K: ...in time, I grant it.

DB : And that structure may go beyond thought, you see ? For example it may involve attention, awareness...

K: A-ha ! I see what you're trying to say. You're saying the brain evolves in time, and in that time there is an awareness, attention...

DB : ...beyond thought.

K: But it is still in that area of time.

DB : Yes, as all sort of species have appeared in nature ; so in some sense it seems like some sort of 'creation' does exists in nature, which appears to involve time...

K: Yes.

DB : Although perhaps a very long time...

K: Yes, I understand this. Now, is attention...

DB : At least, the brain which can give attention to, it took time to evolve, right ?

K: Aha...

DB : That is, the brain which is able to have attention. You see, let's take a much smaller brain, of a smaller animal ; now its attention is somewhat less than it's possible to man. Would you agree ?

K: Of course...

DB : Now, the difference between these two - it took time to evolve...

K: Yes.

DB : So, the capacity for attention depended on time.

K: Yes, yes...But is there an attention that is not of time ?

DB : Now, is there, you see  ? The attention itself may not be dependent on time...

K: Yes, attention itself is not of time.

DB : ...but the ability of the brain to have attention is dependent on time...

K: Yes, the capacity, but the attention itself is not of time.

DB : But it may be taking place in the brain, not outside of it ...

K: That's right ! Attention itself is out of time, but the capacity to have attention involves time...

DB : ...it involves growth, culture...

K: Yes...

DB : And also you have also said that as the brain grows older, it gets more mature – so its capacity, in some way, improves – so, in some way, time is involved in producing the capacity...

K: Capacity means time...

DB : Yeah...But now, something might happen within that capacity which is not of time...

K: Yes, that's right : attention in itself is not time. But the capacity to have attention may involve time...

DB : It depends on growth – the young child may have a different capacity...

K: Right... so, we are saying : growth is time, time is necessary, but attention is not, right ?

DB : Yes, truth is not in time...And that compassion or truth may operate on the material structure of the brain – its time behaviour is changed physically ...

K: Yes...

DB : So, something new is introduced into time...

K: Yes, that's right.

DB : But I mean, while we are at it, we should get more clear on creation, because 'creation' means 'to cause to growth'...Now you say, perception is creation? - is that right ?

K: Perception is a 'cause to growth' ? No...

DB : No, but I'm trying to get it clear - you say that creativity is perception...

K: Yes...

DB : But we have to be clear about it ; because the ordinary meaning of the word 'creation' is 'to cause to growth' – you see, nature is 'created' because it causes new species to grow & so on...

K: Yes...

DB : Now, in what sense is man 'creative' ? Let's say Beethoven had an 'insight' which gave rise to a new music , so in that sense, it causes a new music to grow...

K: Right...

DB : But I want to be more clear about Creation...

K: But sir, the 'depth' which produced that music, that 'depth' is not of time...

DB : No, but perhaps we could say : that the nature of what produced that depth is not about time . The mechanical exploration of nature is limited it doesn't cover everything...

K: Agreed...

DB : So the creation of new forms in nature must also be beyond time...

K: Yes, may be...

DB : May be, we don't know, but...

K: But in the human mind one can see for oneself that Compassion is out of time, Truth is out of time...

DB : Yes...

K: And the depth from which comes that Compassion is out of time.

DB : Yes...

K: And therefore it's not 'cultivable'.

DB : No, it cannot be 'made to grow'...so we say that the 'origin of creativity' does not grow – is that what you're saying ?

K; That's right.

DB : But this 'creativity' may cause something to grow in the field of time...

K: Yes, that's quite right.

DB : Because that's what we have in mind that a new perception should cause the growth of a new society, of a 'new' man...

K: Of a 'new' man, quite...

DB : But creativity itself, in essence, doesn't grow, right ?

K: In essence, no...

DB : It is not 'created' …

K: (laughing) Yes, it is not 'created' ! That's right...But out of 'that which is not created', there can be a 'new man' , a new society.

DB : Yes, I mean, this creates a 'new' brain that is not damaged...

K: Sir, to go back to the point : Why do I 'lose it' ? I have an insight into that profound thing and it's lost after a few days or a few months...Or it is not lost at all, but it comes empty because all my tradition says : Hold on to it ! Hmm ?

DB : Yeah...

K: ...make into a habit & all the rest of it...How subtle all this is !  

DB : Yes and that's why it's made into another tradition...

K: That's right, sir... 'Die' to all things that thought has built as 'creation'. ( silent pause...)
You speak from that 'depth' and I listen to you, and you explain all the movements of thought as 'time' – and that I understand very easily- and you say 'time' must have a stop, otherwise there is no depth. So I hunger after that & all the rubbish ; but if I see the truth of what you say - not the 'rationalisation' of what you say, but the truth of what you say – the 'truth' being the 'total perception' of what you say. I can only do that - against all the pressures of tradition, everything that says 'Don't do this !'...

DB : Or which also says 'Do it' but absorb it into the ...

K: 'Do it, in order to get something else !' - so I'm back...
What you tell me, I have to understand the subtlety, the depth of that reality - that thought is...etc... But you see, I won't 'listen' to you when you go to such extreme...- you follow ?

DB : Yes, it's hard to listen if you propose the banning of all tradition, all culture, of everything...

K: Exactly !

DB : And the brain may say 'All right' but it still rejects it...

K: Or ...'' For God's sake, stop it !''...Yes, sir...

DB : You see, the Chinese are reputed to have said 'All the barbars that came in, all become Chinese '…

K: (laughing ) Yes...That's what the Hindus did with the Moguls...

DB : All the new things become tradition, you see ? I think that's the most subtle feature – that the tradition absorbs the 'non-tradition'...

K: But you see, sir, I have to 'listen' to you or 'read you', or 'be entirely with you' on this. But... I can't because my wife is angry or...you follow ? Everything is against this ! I have no leisure...

DB : And also to communicate with people who use the traditional frame...which takes over...

K: It struck me this morning when I read that article on 'parapsychology'...

DB : Yes, I have read it the other day...

K: That's a new game they are going to go into...

DB : Yes, but it has already been absorbed into the 'new tradition'...

K: 'New tradition' – I was thinking of that this morning !
You know, sir, at Brockwood, how can you tell those students all this, and they will absorb the truth of what you're saying ? I'm probably a teacher there and I see the absolute truth of what you're saying and I want to tell them about it. I want them to be 'non-traditional' in the real sense... They come there conditioned, 'damaged' and the teachers are 'damaged' - so...what can you do ? The whole society is against this ! Everything is against this !

DB : You see, the student, or the child lives in a society of his own, which has its tradition which determines its own 'reality' and perhaps it's like the Australian student for whom what you're saying was 'unreal' …

K: ( Laughing ) Yes...the tradition of reality, quite right !

DB: To him the 'real thing' is what he's doing with his friends and how they're getting together, their relationships and what he is going to do afterwards in society, so probably this must have seemed 'unreal' to him when he came first...It doesn't fit 'reality' …

K: Of course, but that's my job - to see that they understand this ! Everything is against it ! Sex, pleasure money... everything !

DB : All those things which people think are really important in 'real life' and so on... You see, it may seem to someone who first listens to all this, that it's some sort of abstraction, that is very distant from reality...

K: Of course...

DB : Unless.... he feels really unhappy with this 'reality'.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 18 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Aug 2018 #12
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

10-th K-DB Dialogue on 'Truth & Reality'

DB : It occured to me that one thing that we should try to do is to wind up this discussion up by answering those questions that are outstanding – you know, those questions that would raise in the reader's mind. I have looked into some of these questions and at the very end I could prepare a summary and perhaps you would comment on it.

K: Good...

DB : Now, one of the points we discussed in several of our discussions was something that you call the 'process'

K: Ah, ah...

DB : Now, I would like to clear up a few points about it, which have arisen in talking with several people. I think you made it clear that each person has his own suffering and he must stay with that until the end, then everybody it will be different - is that what you mean to say ? In other words, it was not necessary for other people to go through, but in saying that arose a few other points which have to be made clear. Let me bring them up one by one ; the first point was : you made the analogy of Columbus discovering America, saying that it was not necessary to repeat that discovery, now you can buy an airplane ticket and go to America. Now, I feel this analogy may be a little misleading because it suggests that everything has been made very easy...

K: (laughing) Yes...

DB : Now, what would you say ?

K: No, I wouldn't say anything like that...The analogy is rather misleading, you see...But how should we begin this thing properly  ?

DB : Let me bring up two more questions along the line of what you've been saying : in one of the discussions, comparing with the discovery of America - you said that others can carry on your discovery to discover something more. That's what you said. But in a later dialogue you seemed to deny that – you brought up the analogy with Newton & Einstein – Newton made a discovery and the fact that Einstein made another discovery, it doesn't mean that he built it just by denying a great deal of what Newton said, but still he went further...

K: Yes, sir...

DB :...now, in some way, you seem to deny that approach in this field...

K: I think that's right, sir, I deny that.

DB : Yes...although in another dialogue you seem to confirm that , because you said that others can carry on this - so in some way it becomes complex...

K: Yes, let's go into this... First of all, sir, I really don't know -basically- what's happening...

DB : In what sense ?

K: About this 'process' – that was your first question...

DB : Yes...

K: First of all, whether it's imaginative, an induced state, a traditional acceptance of something which has been said, or ill health, or something that is natural ? So these are the points...
I've gone into this question of whether it's imaginative - very carefully because I don't like personally to imagine anything about myself, or about anybody - I have no visual imaginative powers...

DB : Well, I'm not so sure, since some of your descriptions...

K: I see it and write it – that's quite different from 'imaginative' in the sense – let me explain it - that I don't like to 'imagine' about myself...

DB : But would you ever 'imagine' something else ? In other words, would you use imagination to help you to figure something out – for example suppose you work in science, you might find it useful to imagine a certain state of affairs...

K: Might be, but I am not scientist...

DB : Yes, but I meant : would you ever do such a thing ?

K: To imagine ?

DB : Not imagine something about yourself – even say, to arrange the furniture in your room...

K: You were there when we discussed this afternoon the furniture in the dining room ?

DB : Yes...

K: It wasn't imaginative ; it was all so crowded. You were there this afternoon when I was discussing it with Mrs Simmons...

DB : But isn't that a form of 'imagination' ?

K: Is that imagination ?

DB : It is , because you imagine the parallel state of affairs …

K: No, I was describing to her the way I see it so that there is more room... That's not 'imagination'.

DB : Well, it's a very difficult point , because many people would call it 'imagination'...

K: I would't call it 'imagination' ; I said : look, wouldn't it be more confortable to put that chair there or here ?

DB : Yes, but wouldn't you 'imagine' how it would look like in doing that ?

K: Ah, no, no...

DB : You wouldn't ?

K: No, I can't do that.

DB : I see...

K: So I 've gone into this question whether I imagined the whole thing, an illusion which I have perpetuated to give me importance, to give me the feeling of something abnormal – not oly in the religious sense - because I've had that all life. I went into this and I don't think it's 'imagination'. I don't think it is a traditional acceptance of this whole question of kundalini & all that. And I don't think it is ill health, because I'm very aware when it happens...

DB : Let me comment on that, because some people said it may be a form of ill health, because some people with ill health report similar happenings...

K: No... On the contrary, with me it begins only when I am completely rested...

DB : Hmm...

K: When all the environment is right - when there is quietness and my body is completely at rest...I would really like to discuss this with you and say, Shainberg...

DB : Well, Shainberg has said that some of his pacients he observes have to go through something similar to what you described in being cured... You see, perhaps not exactly ....And other persons have said that some of the things you described might have been 'symptoms' which disturb people...You see, Shainberg works with mentally disturbed people...

K: I may be 'mentally disturbed'... ?

DB : I'm not saying that, but we should make it clear what the difference is...

K: Yes, quite, quite...

DB : Now, when I was asked about this difference I said that perhaps there may be some similarity but the 'mentally disturbed' people do not come up with a perception of truth...

K:Yes, quite...

DB : So that the difference is more important than the similarity...

K: (laughing) Quite ! So they end up in a hospital but I don't !

DB : Right...they may have an occasional flash of insight, but the whole of it is very confused, you see...

K: Yes, I understand that...

DB : So I'll say that there must be a fundamental difference...

K: I think there is a great deal of difference between mentally sick people and this person ! Not 'difference', but it is a totally different thing...

DB : That's what I meant - a fundamental difference - although there are some superficial similarities or physical...

K: You see, the other day, after the gathering and everything has quietened down – the whole house was quiet and I went to bed...and it began, very acute...

DB : It still goes on as before ?

K: Yes... Very acute and the next morning it gradually disappeared. Because this could only happen when the body is perfectly relaxed, when it's in very good health and the environment is 'right' – in the sense of 'quiet', not disturbed – it must have a certain sense of beauty and all the rest of it...
So I've gone into these questions – whether I 'imagined' it or it is a traditional acceptance & all that or whether it is a form of mental illness or a disease...

DB : Or at least, a disturbance...

K: Yes...I don't think it is.

DB : Hmm...

K: And if you ask me what is it actually ? I can't tell...

Db : But do you feel it would be proper or likely that other people would have this...or that they will have to have it ?

K: People have come to me and said  we had exactly the same thing as yours... And I said, what do you mean? They said 'How kundalini is being awakened - we are doing this practice & that practice' and I said : it is not the same...

DB : Well, let's take another case - like David Shainberg says that the word 'kundalini' is not important...

K: The word is unimportant.

DB : ...but that it is possible that some of his pacients in the process in which they are being healed, may be going through something a bit similar …

K: I wouldn't know ; say for instance a man came to see me in Gstaad who said he has had similar experiences. And I watched him very carefully and he was a rather coarse man, rather dull, and with a tremendous self-importance . I told him I'm very doubtful and when he left he said : Is that all ? Let me put it this way : I think this thing  can happen only when there is no 'self' (involved) in the matter...

DB : But you have no idea why there should be such acute pain ?

K: I couldn't tell...There are various theories about it, but I wouldn't indulge in those theories – I really don't know...

DB : Yes, I mean, the only thing I could think of is that there is some sort of intensity of energy that strains the nerves at a certain point...

K: That may be it !

DB : ...and if you are ready to stay with that pain then it would go on, but if you resist it...

K: I have never avoided it...

DB : I understand that, but the general condition is to avoid the pain and if you could have avoidedd it , then perhaps the whole perception would never happen...

K: That's right...I wouldn't do anything to hinder it...

DB : ...or invite it. But let's say it may turn out be an inevitable by-product of a very intense perception.

K: May be an inevitable by-product or... you want to know all that ?

DB : Since this is eventually intended for publication, it should be make it clear, so that people do not have questions in the back of their mind...

K : Or, this is what happens I wake up in the middle of the night very often, meditating- it's a peculiar form of meditation because it is totally uninvited - how shall I put it, un(pre)meditated – I couldn't have imagined that such a thing 'existed'...

DB : You say you wake up in that state of meditation - is that right ?

K: Yes...and that comes before or after this pain.

DB : Yes, and would you think that this state may be in your sleep as well  ?

K: Oh yes, most definitely !

DB : So this state is in your sleep and you wake up – I think you mentioned that somewhere...

K: Yesterday morning it happened ; I never talk about this ....

DB : And that state does not imply anything near a loss of consciousness or anything like that ?

K: A little bit.

DB : A little bit...the ordinary kind of consciousness is somewhat reduced, is that what you're saying ?

K: It is not 'unconscious'...

DB : No, but in some way it is not quite the ordinary state of consciousness ?

K: No, it is not...

DB ; Maybe in some way it is giving too much attention to the ordinary things of reality – that's what I mean...

K: I don't quite understand...

DB : Perhaps I'm putting it wrongly, but is it something that somebody could think of as a total 'loss of consciousness' ?

K: I have lost consciousness – I was unconscious at least for three weeks...

DB : When was that ?

K: In Ojai, in the beginning...

DB : But after that, you didn't?

K: If given the right environment and no work, talks, and writing letters, perhaps it might happen again...

DB : Yes...in other words, being involved in the world of reality helps holding you in what we call 'consciousness', right ?

K : That's right !

DB : Therefore by not being totally involved in the world of reality , you might 'drift away' from it... ?

K: Drift away, right...I used to go for long walks in Ojai and I would go on and when I deliberately made an effort to turn back and go home , I was completely lost...And it happen here several times...I go for a walk and I have to be very careful …

DB : So, you loose track with the ordinary reality...

K: I have to be very careful and say 'I must go back home'...

DB : You see, we have to make it very clear, because some people whose minds may be disturbed would do the same thing, but here there may be a difference...

K: It is quite different !

DB : It's quite different, because as I said before, a disturbed mind may not produce anything interesting...But still the point I want to make is that when a person is seriously disturbed he might find the ordinary reality broken up...

K: Broken up...

DB ; While going into this might also 'break it up' in a very different way...

K: Quite...

DB : And you may have to face something that ordinary people might think of as a 'break down' of the mind, but it's really not...That was the point I was trying to get at, really...But it might be that people approaching this might have gotten a little bit frightened, thinking that their mind is breaking down , you see ?

K: I have no fear !

DB : No, but it could very readily induce fear...

K: ...after all these years I'm pretty sane, physically normal, I've got plenty of energy & so on... I think it is something out of the order of being 'abnormal'...

DB : Yes, but I think that when we were discusing 'reality' we said that our consciousness of reality is essentially based on thought and if we 'stir it up' we're bound to have that sort of thing, even if it's just stirred up psychologically by a violent reaction, but it may be necessary to 'stir it up' in an orderly way...

K: Yes …

DB : Now, before we get outside of our present 'motor consciousness'...

K: You see, also - if I allow myself, I can read people's thoughts -which I don't like to do, because it's like reading a private letter - and I can very easily become 'clairvoyant' and I've done a great deal of healing, so it's all involved in all that - which is not 'abnormal' state.

DB : I don't want to say it's something abnormal, but it's not an ordinary state people are used to. But it's not 'ordinary' ; it may be neither 'normal' or 'abnormal'...

K: Right, if we accept the word 'ordinary'...

DB : ... in the sense of the everyday consciousness – something people are used to...

K: But also, I don't like to say it is 'abnormal'...

DB : No, it might be that anybody who got free of conditioning might get into that area ...

K: Might be, that's right.

DB : Let's come back then to this question of suffering. I wanted to suggest that what do we mean by suffering...

K: You see, sir, I won't call it 'suffering'...

DB : No, but that's just the point that I wanted to make here. You see, there is a total intensity of a pervasing pain that penetrates the consciousness and 'stills' it and I ask : what is the relationship of this physical suffering to passion ? If we stay still with this energy and passion, then this may lead to the 'emptiness'. Now, I have one more question : let's say that there is an intense pain which fills your consciousness. Now that may come for someone who is suffering, because he sees that his world is broken up. Would you say that the pain which comes with seeing the world has no meaning can be in the beginning of the perception of truth  and this perception of 'truth' acts as pain ? I mean, you suggested this thing by saying you 'are' the world , I mean the perception of truth may be something painful in certain cases...And otherwise I would like to know why this 'total' suffering takes place, you see ?

K: Wait a minute, sir. There is a physical pain, that is, I can get hurt in an accident - physical pain...

DB : Also, there might be a very intense physical pain under some conditions...

K: ...which are not the result of an accident, not due to a physical incident or...

DB : Let's say we come to the point when somebody who was close to you dies. And the person seeing this might feel some intense pain, right ?

K: That's a different pain.

DB : What kind is that ?

K: Suppose my brother dies ; that's quite a different kind of 'psychological' suffering. Then this pain which happens...

DB : I understand that, but what I was suggested when this pain happens, it fills your consciousness, and insofar as you don't avoid it...

K: I don't avoid it, I don't invite it...

DB : Yes now, insofar as you don't do anything about it, the mind is in order, because it has to stay with that tremendous pain - this is what is meant by 'not escaping the fact' - is that right ?

K: Yes.

DB : So the mind which stays with that pain has a tremendous energy...

K: Yes, that's right !

DB : And therefore it may go very deep...

K: Yes.

DB : Whereas if it began to escape...

K: Of course, then it is gone.

DB : I think we understand this situation. Now let's consider the other one, when somebody dies. The way I look at it is that the same person perceives the fact of death and of the loss – and for the moment there is a very intense pain, right ?

K: Yes.

DB : In general he doesn't have to stay with that pain, but this first pain we can call it 'the action of truth', you see  ?

K: A-ha !

DB : And in that, there is some similarity...

K: Yes, I understand ...Facing 'death' without escape and therefore remaining with that total suffering brings a totally different kind of energy which is 'passion'...

DB : Yes...

K: That I understand. About this uninvited pain in the head, I really can't tell...I didn't go into it, then we'd go into guesswork...

DB : I understand that. But the thing that really interests me is : why there is such a total involvement of the consciousness ? You see, with suffering people are 'totally involved', much more than with pleasure or...

K: Yes, much more ! And when that happens, they 'escape'...

DB : Yes. But I wanted to ask the first question : why it is so total ?

K: Ah, that I think is because it 'paralyses' your whole nervous system...

DB : Yes, but why does it do that ?

K: Ah, why it does ? I think I know : it is like receiving a great shock...

DB : Yes, but the shock has to do with something of a total significance to you...

K: Yes, it is of a total significance ; you loose somebody whom you love, you loose somebody on whom you depended, the whole involvement with that person...

DB : Yes, so you have an intense shock. Could we compare this intense shock with this intense pain ?

K: I don't think so....definitely the two are totally different...

DB : All right, so it's good to clear that up....But anyway, in the case of ordinary suffering there is this intense shock and the person begins to 'escape' by thinking of more pleasant ideas, so he has to keep on 'running away'. Now, if he doesn't run away, then this will give him energy...

K: Yes.

DB : But still, there seems to be some similarity : this pain is also giving him energy ; or do you think otherwise ?

K: This pain, if you don't escape from it, gives you great energy...

DB : Which pain ?.

K: Of loosing... of the death of someone. There is compassion & all the rest of it. I understand that ; now you're talking about the other that gives you great energy. It only happens when you have physical energy...

DB : What is it ? I didn't understand...

K: When the body is rested, it has its own energy, its own vitality, its own health, then only it happens....

DB : Hmm... ?

K: And in that 'happening' it's not a further energy.

DB : I see, it's part of the same energy ?

K: Yes.

DB : So we can't regard that as a form of suffering...

K: That's right, it's certainly not 'suffering' .

DB : All right, so if anything, it might be a by-product of that intense energy you suggested. But now, let's go into this question of suffering ; you said that when your brother died you had intense suffering.

K: That's right, that was about fifty years ago when he (Nitya) died - the man who was in the cabin with me when the telegram came – Dr Besant told him to remain with me, and not leave me - so he described to me what happened – otherwise I don't remember. But he did say one thing : that when it happened, at the end of it, he said he (K) never asked any help from anybody...He just remained with death, with that pain or suffering, with that total 'fact'. And I think that's probably one of the things that played probably an important part. So I think that the 'suffering' which the human beings generally go through – when they are faced with that total fact, they seems to be incapable to remain with it – they escape, they avoid it, they do all sort of things

DB : Yes, and that's really part of a deep conditioning …

K: Yes, that's a part of a deep conditioning.

DB : Now, that brings us to this point that we have to be very clear about this depth of conditioning, because you said that for various reasons you were not deeply conditioned... 

K: No.

DB : And we said this deep conditioning might be the result of self-deception, of running away from sorrow which is also a form of self-deception. Now the question is that you had some conditioning, including the conditioning including this 'sorrow' at the death of your brother, right ?

K: Yes, surely...

DB : But you say that was not deeper?

K: You see, if I am very fond of you, that's not 'conditioning'...

DB : No, but I meant that the 'feeling' of sorrow which comes...

K: Wait a minute, sir : if I'm very fond of you – in which there is no form of dependency or attachment – that's not conditioning - when that 'physical' entity ends, there is a shock...

DB : Yes...but why is there a shock ? Let's get it very clear.

K: Because he was part of me, part of my existence...

DB : All right...

K: That is not 'conditioning' ...And when that ends there is a tremendous feeling of ...not loss, but a sense of total aloneness - let me put it that way, of total isolation – which is not conditioning.

DB : Hmm...So, if there is any sorrow after that...

K: Ah, that's it !

DB : Then that would be a conditioning  ?

K: That's it ; a rememberance & the whole bussiness.

DB : Yes, and would you say there was absolutely none ?

K: No, I would not say absolutely, because when I 'came back' I felt that he wasn't there but very quickly the whole thing was over.

DB : So, let's say there was some 'conditioning' but...

K: ...not deep.

DB : But ordinarily it is so deep that the person 'escapes' it for years...

K: Yes, because when that happens you could have become very bitter, hmm ? You could have become 'accepting' reincarnation, or accepting all kinds of things... But he didn't become any of those things ; he didn't accept anything...

DB : Hmm...²

K: On the contrary he didn't accept the whole system of their belief.

DB : Yes, so now we have this boy or this young man who was not deeply conditioned – and you said before that all the explanations about it are inadequate...

K: I don't think they are adequate.

DB : ...and that fundamentally it's a 'mystery' - you said it might be a hidden destiny that allowed this boy not to be conditioned …

K: Yes.

DB : Which would be the beginning of...

K: Sir, like Mozart, Beethoven or Einstein...

DB : Yes...

K: And it was 'there', you know... ? Or it might be in yourself...

DB : Yes...So, let's clear one more point then : just for the sake of the record, I think you once said that all these stories of the Masters you didn't take it like some kind of fairy tale, but that it could have some core of mystery...

K: Sir, I think there is a 'simple' explanation : he was a young boy rather vague, moronic, uncertain, not totally ' all there' – he was told, so he repeated it !

DB : Yes, like a child being told a fairy story... ?

K: Yes...

DB ; But sometimes even in a 'fairy story' there is some part of the story which is right - like the 'morale', right ?

K: (laughing) Yes ! I think - to go in the question of Masters - you know the whole theosophical idea...

DB : Yes...

K: Not really 'theosophical' – it is really a westernised Hindu & Tibetan tradition. They made it so 'materialistic' : they lived in such & such a house, you know...all that kind of idiotic …
But I think there is something like – I've never talked about it...may we go into it ?

DB : Oh, yes...

K: Would you accept that there is an 'evil' (in quotes) that exists in the air, in the atmosphere... ?

DB : All right, I understand that, if you say it exists in the environment, in society...

K: That's why I'm very careful... All right, let's put it this way : this constant killing, this constant violence, the brutality is part of our environment...

DB ; Well, that's a view you could take – I mean, it's not commonly accepted, but one might say that, because of the subtle properties of matter, unknow to us...

K: Yes, put it that way... 

DB ; ...this could be somewhat 'recorded' in the environment...

K: Yes, recorded in the environment, as 'goodness' can be recorded in the environment...

DB : Yes, and would you say that's more than a speculation ?

K: Yes, I think it's more than a speculation...

DB : Why do you think this ?

K: I don't know if you have noticed, if you're going into an ancient temple – I have been into several of them- I've tested this out : you go there during the day there are pilgrims, the worship & all the noise, garlands, incense, cockroaches & all that, there's a atmosphere ; and if you go there when there is nobody, there is a totally different atmosphere, a sense of 'danger', a sense of - I don't know if we could call it 'evil' - I'll put it in quotes - a sense of 'threat' …

DB : Hmm... ?

K: This has happened very often to me when I go into woods by myself...

DB : Going into woods... ? Why should the woods have that sense ? Is it because what people have done ( to nature ) ?

K: It my be ; there is that feeling of 'We don't want you here !'

DB : Hmm...

K: And after a few days of going there that feeling is dissipating. It may be some superstition, but I've tested this out very often... Now, there is that 'evil' in the air, in the atmosphere …

DB : Yes...People wrote of this metaphorically in literature as a 'sense of darkness foreboding the atmosphere'...

K: Yes, yes ! Foreboding...

DB : But usually we take it as that's the way it struck him …

K: Now, if that thing is constantly added to, it becomes something 'real' !

DB : Hmm...That's providing that there is in matter some way of recording...

K: Yes.

DB : Would you say also that maybe what we call 'spirit phenomena' – somebody who lived in a house for a long time , his vibrations would be recorded in the house  and then somebody else would pick them out ?

K: Yes. So there must be in this house the recording of violence, brutality & selfishness, and in another house the recording of goodness... hmm ? And the (TS) people who come described both things 'physically' !

DB : I mean, these are part of our 'physical' environment, right ?

K: Yes, and they reduce it to all kinds of things...

DB : And how is that related to the Masters ?

K: That's what I'm saying : they reduced them to that... Goodness was represented by the Masters.

DB : I see...And 'evil' ?

K: And 'evil' by all those who are basically selfish...You must have come across in an Indian village – in the old days I've seen it when I was there- they take clay, mold it in the shape of man, and they put pins into it  and then affect that human being ; you must have heard of that...

DB : Yes, I have heard of that...

K: Like the voo-doo - there are all kinds of it - this is one of the superstitions- it may be real or not real...

DB : Yes, but I think that part of the story of the Masters is that at some stage, some 'person' comes who is going to be the World Teacher, right ? And I wonder if you couldn't say that in the whole story of the Masters there was a great deal which is fanciful, but possibly some core which is right, but became very distorted over the years ?

K: I agree...

DB : And possibly it gets more distorted with time, and people change it and eventually it comes out very confused, but the core, which might be right – we have discussed this in Saanen- is that somebody appears which is not pre-conditioned for reasons which are difficult to probe and which becomes the nucleus or the core of a world transformation...

K: Of course...That is the Indian tradition : that there is a manifestation of that Goodness & all that, which happens very rarely.

DB : What do you feel about that tradition ?

K: What do I feel about that tradition... ? I don't know what that tradition implies, but I feel there is such a thing happening...

DB : So that may come either from the Masters or from that (gathering of ) Goodness by good acts of the past ?

K: No, no...

DB : But it may come from some 'Source' that is totally unknowable... ?

K: Unknown – I think so, that's what I feel...

DB : That is beyond what we can fathom... ?

K: You see, because I tried to go into it myself, by talking with you or with others, especially in India where I go for about fifty or sixty years - I can't get to the root of it...

DB : Hmm...

K: ...so I don't even try to penetrate it.

DB : I think that the only thing I tried to do here is to clear up some impressions that people have about it. And the other point is  : let us say that when this comes to one individual who is not deeply conditioned, for reasons which we cannot probe, he could communicate to others the truth … ?

K: The truth, right...

DB : This truth operates and now...the next point is your analogy with the discovery of America – it is not as easy as one can take it...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : Now, let's go into it more carefully, because one can get the impression that there's nothing much left to do ...

K: (laughing ) You know, you can't run analogies to death !

DB : No, you said it in one of the discussions here...But the point is : is there something creative in that for each individual to discover ?

K: You see, when you use the word 'each individual' or person...

DB : All right, so in other words we put the question wrongly when we say ' one individual to whom it happened', so then it may happen to another...

K: Yes, that's wrong...

DB : Well, as it is not correct...Now, let's try to see if we can put it another way : 'truth' does not belong to an individual, right ?

K: Ah, it does not !

DB : But in a communication that may be acting ; is that right ?

K: Yes, yes...If you have 'seen' it, you can communicate it to me verbally or non-verbally... But I have to work at it, I can't say ' I've got it !' …

DB : Yes, that's what you have to get hold, because the second person may think that there are two people : one who has seen the truth and who may communicate it, so the other person has got to 'listen' to the very end, you see ?

K: Yes, quite...

DB : So then he has to work it out...

K: He's got to 'live it' !

DB : Live it, right...

K: Otherwise, it's just once...

DB : Right...so he's got to perceive in his own life all that is implied, right ?

K: Yes sir, that's right.

DB : Now, you see, I'm trying to ask another question  David Shainberg raised...

K: Just a minute, before we go to Shainberg...You perceive and I don't ; so, I have to listen to you...

DB : Yes...

K: ...read or listen, it doesn't matter – and when I listen to you I have the feeling that this is the absolute truth, is something 'real' – more than 'real' – it is so clear, obvious and so penetrating – I feel that. But then, what happens generally is that I want to 'work that out' in my life...

DB : Yes...

K: What I've heard you say, I want to 'work it out'...

DB : Yes... ?

K: ...and I think that's wrong : I hear what you're saying and I see that what you say is 'true' and I have to work it out in my life, not...

DB : Yes, that's right...But it seems like a verbal contradiction because you said before that one has to work at it...

K: I know... I hear you and what you say is truth ; but it becomes truth to me only when I have 'washed away' all my selfishness, when I put that away. It is not that I accept or that 'I become' your truth...

DB : Yes...so let's get it right : my own 'self-centred' structure has to wash away...

K: That's right !

DB : So, in some way the 'truth' won't do that, won't it ? You see, ''what do I have to do ?'' -that is the question...

K: A–ha...I understand...Oh yes, I see what you mean : I 'hear' you and that truth is so penetrating and as I'm a 'serious' man, that truth washes away all my selfishness...That's one point.

DB : Yes...

K: I hear you and I see what you're saying is 'true'...but I am still selfish, hmm ? Will the hearing of you, seeing the truth of what you, said help me to wask away my selfishness ? Or does truth reveal my 'selfishness' ?

DB : Right...and if it reveals my selfishness, then what ?

K: Then, if I stay with that, then it's washed away, right ?

DB : Yes, so then all that each person has to 'stay with it' ?

K: Stay with – not with the word , not with the (verbal) description, not with the person, but stay with that penetrating truth.

DB : So then it's the same as remaining with sorrow ?

K: Exactly, that's what I said, it's the same thing !

DB : But then we come to the next question : why he doesn't, you see ?

K: Ah, that's very simple why he doesn't : it's too much ! The world is too much for him ; his wife nags him, he's got his appetites...you follow ?

DB : Hmm...

K: He sees it for the moment and can't remain with it !

DB : Yes, but if there are these two people : one sees the truth and the other is 'listening' and you say the responsability of the person who listens is to stay with this, then the person who sees the truth, it is his responsability to communicate it inspite of the 'resistance' …

K: Of course, yes !

DB...so that he can't accept that the other person 'runs away' from it ….

K: ( laughing) Right...If one stays with suffering as we talked , this brings a certain passion if one stays with the perception of truth...

DB : But even staying with that suffering it's the same because the truth shows that the entire structure is 'false'...

K: Ah... ! If truth shows me that the entire structure is false, does it bring suffering ?

DB : Not in the beginning, but if I 'escape' …

K: If I see completely that what you say is true, I have no suffering : it is so !

DB : I understand that, but let's try to develop it in another step : it may happen that I see it as something quite far and there is a movement of 'escape' right ?

K: Yes, there is a movement of escape...

DB : Now that movement will bring about some suffering …

K: Of course...

DB ; ...and that 'movement' will be like a thorn...

K: Truth will be like a poison ; like a thorn, yes...

DB : In combination with the 'escape' some suffering comes about, right ?

K: That's right. I see what you have said is true, but my selfishness is much too vibrant, much too alive...and that perception is imbedded in my consciousness...

DB : Yes...

K: And that's 'poking a pin' all the time...

B; Yes and the other consciousness is resisting and that produces suffering …

K: Yes.

DB : So if that is the case, to stay with that suffering is what is needed, right ?

K: Of course !

DB :... but you see, our whole tradition is that we should not stay with suffering, but we should find a way out of it...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : ...and seek 'happiness'. Shainberg's question also emphasised the importance of suffering but with some important differences ; I don't quite understand the Christian doctrine regarding suffering - it seems they regard it as as necessary too, but not exactly as...

K: What exactly is the Christian view of suffering  ?

DB : Well, the only thing I could understand is that Jesus Christ saved mankind through his suffering...

K: How can somebody 'save me' from my suffering ?

DB : Let me put it the way : I think it means  He was free of suffering, & faced all this pain without running away from it and in a certain way – some people say ''you must live in the imitation of Christ''- but I've talked to many people who said that Christ has suffered in order to save them...

K: Save them from what ?

DB : I don't know...to save them from sin, or from whatever it is, from the state of man which we were discussing – you know, from this wrong state of evil...

K: Which is, you see the truth and you 'are' that ; you convey it to me, and if I can remain with that without any movement...

DB ; Yes, I see it is very different from the Christian doctrine.

K: Yes, so do I...

DB : There are some superficial similarities as both are emphasisising the importance of suffering but some...

K: Hasn't the Christian idea of 'sin' got into it ?

DB : Well, it's not clear what is meant by 'sin' in the Christian doctrine – they may say that sin is the cause of this suffering...

K: Yes...

DB...but it's not clear what they exactly mean by 'sin' – they may say probably that the original sin was Adam's 'eating the apple' ...

K: ...of knowledge ? So, first you invent 'sin' and then you say 'someone must free you from that sin'...

DB : Well, you could also say that the 'sin' was going away from the correct action and therefore man suffers and finding no way out of that suffering, Christ came to 'redeem' him. And only when Christ came there was a 'way out' of suffering ; that's what I understand by what's said- I can't say that I understand it deeply but I think one can see there are some important points of difference and they are very basic because what you're saying implies 'staying with suffering'...

K: Yes, that's it !

DB : But you see, the similarity I was trying to get at is : you are saying that you are not in a special role because you're a special individual- but you came first to communicate a few points, and one of the points you communicate is 'staying with suffering'. Now, they say that Christ also came at a certain point in time and he was able to communicate in his nature. Now, this is the similarity, but the difference is that we don't know in fact what he was trying to communicate or even whether he actually lived, but at least from what's written -which may have been different- it was not made very clear the need or the importance of 'staying with the suffering' ; while the idea that got across is that 'by going through suffering' you improve...

K: (laughing) Right...that you 'improve' !

DB : There may be some of the early people saw this but it was lost...I don't know... Anyway, I think that makes a few points clear ; it is something for each people to do, it is not just a question of 'sitting and listening' what you're being told...

K; No, but would you say that if I listen to you as a human being listening to another human being who has seen truth, if I listen so completely, the 'miracle' takes place in me...

DB : Yes, that's the point : if the listening were total, there's no need for anything ; it would be exactly like for the first person : it would be a miracle like for the first one  - it 'happens'...

K: That's right !

DB : It's part of the same thing, because if it didn't happen for what the first one did, it wouldn't happen for the second one...Now, on the other hand, because there is 'resistance' and selfishness & so on, then comes the suffering and then comes the need to 'stay with it', do you see ?

K: Yes, quite, quite...The need to stay with it or 'escape' from it and keep on with this endless suffering ...Would the Christian doctrine say this endless suffering is put an end by believing in Christ as the Son of God who 'is' truth ?

DB : Well, I can't speak for the Christian doctrine, but my impression is that they say that if you believe in Christ, you will be 'saved' – which means more of less that. Now, on the other hand I've talked with some people who say well, that is only the 'official' doctrine, and there are other Christian saints & mystics who didn't think that the 'belief in Christ' was the important point...

K: No, no !

DB : Therefore you can't actually define this thing very well - there are different versions of it...

K: Which is, sir, if one lived in some village, far away from all the Christian bussiness, he would have the same problem - must he believe … ?

DB ; Yes...but the only point about Christ is to say that Christ communicated the truth – some people look at it that way – for all we know...

K: Yes, for all we know, quite...

DB : ...and therefore , perhaps, that would have been all right, you see ?

K: If the priest didn't come into it, quite...

DB : The only weak point is that all the information we have about Christ comes from other people, over the ages and we don't know how accurate it is ; and therefore that makes the whole thing a little doubtful.
I have another point then : we don't think that this - whatever it is that we are talking about - is an 'individual' creative act … ?

K: No, no, no.. !

DB : And this point is important …

K: Absolutely. It is totally impersonal, totally non-national, it has nothing to do with the human being...

DB : But it does put us in this position : the person who 'sees' it and the other who doesn't...Now, we have the person who doesn't 'see' , but has the feeling that there is some truth in it , and he can't begin with 'faith' but with 'truth' - he must see it for himself...Let's say the person who doesn't 'see' has to 'listen' and live the whole thing – to listen completely - he should not begin with belief or faith ...

K: Oh, that destroys it...

DB : In other words, he can say : here's something that looks very interesting and may be the truth, it sounds right...

K: ...and let me 'listen'...

DB :.. and 'see' if it's the truth - and if it's not the truth, I must drop it... and if it is the truth, then I must 'stay with it', is that right ?

K: Of course.

DB : So it is not a question of faith or belief at all...

K: Yes sir, that's right …

DB : I think this more or less clears the subject, as far as I can remember. Now, I have another point : we once discussed 'intelligence' and obviously it is in some connexion with truth and with wisdom...I think that somebody told me once that ''wisdom is the daughter of truth and intelligence is the daughter of wisdom''...

K; Yes, yes...

DB : So it might be good if we could discuss that a while...

K: What time is it ?

DB : A quarter to five – perhaps we might discuss this another time ?

K: Yes, let's do that next saturday...

DB : Right...

K: You see, sir, the other day I've received a letter from a man who's been practising 'transcendental meditation' ; he came to the talk and he wrote that thing  : ''You know nothing of transcendental meditation - you deny it, but I have experienced what it does''... And that' s the case with what's happening all over the world - not only TM, but various forms of 'going out of the body' – that is, you practice certain states, till you can 'slip out' of the body and carry messages 'astrally' from one person to another, & all that kind of stuff...You see, what we are trying to say is : 'truth' is not an experience …

DB : Yes, it is 'that which is'...

K; You see, that I think is really quite important in this matter...

DB : I think it is very clear that truth is not an 'experience' – we should discuss some time what is an 'experience'- I don't know if we have time now- truth is an 'action' – an action which in some sense is more real than reality...

K: Yes... ! I think someone has said 'Anybody who is not with us is a reactionary'. I feel that anybody who is not with truth, is a reactionary (explosive laughter)

DB : I mean, truth is something which does not belong to an individual – it is not 'particular' – and it acts - you see, we don't have such a good word for it  but I would like to say it is 'global' and universal...

K: Yes, universal.

DB : ...and of the 'essence' - I think you put it somewhere that ''perception is the essence of the world'' …

K: Yes, that 's right, sir...

DB : And it's both perception and action – in a way it is both that which perceives and that which is perceived... I think we should discuss truth & wisdom - I think that for myself wisdom is quite important …

K: Very important, quite. What does 'wisdom' mean ?

DB : I think the main meaning in the dictionary is ''the capacity for sound judgement''... and I would add to that 'clear perception' and the third point I would add is the 'ability of thought to know its own nature, and to take it into account'... In other words, that the 'judgement' – which is one's thinking, is 'sound ' only when the judgement has found its own...

K: ...limitation, quite, quite...

DB : You see, we need some ( sound) 'judgement' in every phase of life, but within that limited area where judgement applies.

K: Did I ever told you about a man I met once met in India – he was a judge – and one morning he woke up and said '' I'm passing jugement on people - sending them to jail, punishing them for doing this or that thing- but I really don't know what truth is...Otherwise, if I don't know what truth is, how can I judge ?'' So he called his family and said : I'm finished with all this, I'm going into the woods, disappear and find out what truth is...And he'd been away for twenty five years – this is a fact, it all happened to him – and somebody brought him to a talk about 'meditation'- and next morning he came to see me & said 'You're perfectly right, I have been for twenty five years mesmerising myself into a state, thinking that it will reveal truth''... You know, for a man to acknowledge after twenty five years that he was deceiving himself …

DB : Yes...

K: ...and therefore he said ''I must wipe away from my mind every idea of what truth is''... You follow ?

DB : Hmm...

K: And I have never seen him again... Finished, right?

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 18 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Nov 2018 #13
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

11-th K-DB Dialogue on 'Truth & Reality'

K: What shall we talk about ?

DB : Last time, at the end, I suggested to discuss these three: truth, wisdom & intelligence and possibly their relation to 'experience'...

K: That's right... Did you ever hear of Kayserling ?

DB : Is it an economist or... ?

K: No, no, no...He was a philosopher from Germany. He started a 'school of wisdom'...

DB : Oh... ?

K: In Darmstadt or some place like that...And also in India there was a 'school of wisdom' and they asked me once to talk there and I said I wouldn't go because you can't teach wisdom...there 'wisdom' was to study lots of books...

DB : Well, that's one of the ideas- to accumulate the ''wisdom of the ages''...

K: That's it. Where does that word come from ?

DB : Well, I looked in the dictionary and 'wisdom' has the same root as 'wit', and has the same root as 'seeing' – like the latin 'vide'...

K: Ah...but has it any root with 'veda', the sanscrit word ?

DB : Yes, and 'wit' has the same root word...

K: 'Wit'...oh yes...

DB : ...witness probably, and...'wisdom'. There are some others but I forgot them...

K: First of all, how does one approach it ? Can 'wisdom' be learned ?

DB : Well, it is a difficult question- it can't be learned in the usual way, but the question is : is there any way of 'imparting' wisdom, or of conveying it ? But one of the definitions that's stuck into my mind was 'the capacity for sound judgement' …

K: Oh... capacity for 'sound judgement'... ?

DB : That's one of the phases of it, in this area where thought can properly function and thought be capable of 'sound judgements'...But I made a mistake regarding the roots of the word wisdom : it comes from the aryan word 'wid' meaning to see, or to know...

K: Ahh... ! Arya...

DB : The same root as 'vide' in latin , or 'idea' in greek...and for 'wisdom' the dictionary says 'the quality of being wise' – that's not of much help... ( laughter), sound judgement, sagacity- and then the second meaning, archaic, is learning knowledge & science, the wisdom of the ancient – you see, there is the meaning of accumulating wisdom, but that's not what we mean …

K: Is it a confusion between knowledge and wisdom ?

DB : Well, there has been such a confusion during the ages, but clearly from the meaning of the word it means not so much knowledge, but the act of 'seeing' or 'knowing'...

K: That's the 'act of seeing'...

DB : The 'act of seeing' – that's the basic root, but it also came to me as the capacity to make sound judgement, which depends on perception...

K: Yes...

DB : In other words, a judgement which is not made from thought...

K: ...but from accumulated knowledge ?

DB : No, but from perception ; You see... ?

K: A-ha !

DB : In other words a 'sound judgement' is the expression in thought of a perception...

K: Yes...

DB : 'Judgement' means originally 'to divide' – the german word ' urtail' originally means division – you make a distinction or discrimination – so a 'sound judgement' is a perception, not according to knowledge or tradition...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : You see, the traditional judgement is to divide between 'good' and 'evil', 'right' and 'wrong', 'true' and 'false', or it means simply to divide, in a 'technical' way, between cause and effect, between relationship and non-relationship ; you see, for example you made a division saying that 'truth and reality are not related' – which is a judgement...

K: Ah, I see...

DB : The form of thought is a judgement, but if that's just based on knowledge you have no meaning...

K: Quite, quite...

DB...but if that 'judgement' expresses or communicates the perception...

K: And also 'discerning' – to discern between 'essential' knowledge, and 'non-essential', 'truth' and 'false' and so on...

DB : That's right, that's a 'perception'...

K: Is perception 'dualistic' ?

DB : No, but the way of expressing it is 'dualistic'.

K: Ah, that's it !

DB : You see, this is a point which is hard to explain : our language inevitably divides...

K: Language divides, yes...

DB : And it wants to express something which is whole, the 'judgement' is dividing, but it is nevertheless one. This is the way I had it in mind : our thought has to give an intelligible account of the perception at work...

K: ...of perception, quite...

DB : And part of the 'intelligible account' is in the form of judgements . But as you were saying, ''the description is not the described'', the account is not what is accounted for...

K: Right...So, is wisdom the perception that discernment exists when there is duality ? Would that be wisdom ?

DB : Yes, but why is there 'duality', you see ?

K: When there is discernment.

DB : Yes but there is a certain area where 'discernment' is called for, which is, in that area where thought belongs...

K: Yes, in the area where thought belongs...and to see where thought belongs is 'wisdom'.

DB : Yes...that's the key to wisdom, really...

K: Yes !

DB : ...if thought can see, or it is aware of where it belongs, then it will make 'sound judgements'...

K: Yes, 'sound judgements', but that's not wisdom. If thought knows its place and functions within its own limits, then that is the operation of thought...

DB : Yes, that's not wisdom, but we have to make it clear, because that is generally one of the signs of wisdom...You see, it's not necessarily the essence of wisdom, because that may be the outward form of an act of a man who is wise, hm ?

K: Quite...So would you say that 'wisdom' is the perception of the limitation of thought and its operation in that limited area ?

DB : Yes, that's the essence of wisdom – to perceive the limitation of thought - therefore the act of such a man will take the form of a 'sound judgement' , you see ?

K: A-ha ! Quite, quite... You see, about 'discernmnt' – you must have heard of Shankara, the Indian philosopher ; I believe he lays a tremendous emphasis on this 'capacity to discern'...

DB : Yes, the dictionary says this is the capacity to make a jugement 'sound'...

K: It can be a very logical, sane, clear thinking that can make a sound judgement...

DB : Yes, but if thought goes outside of its proper area, you won't have that...

K: No, of course not, but very few realise the limitation of thought...

DB : Yes, that's the point, but if you merely put it in outward terms, it's misleading. You see, the 'sound judgement' is merely the outward manifestation of wisdom, and if you emphasise that then it's already wrong...

K: That's right, quite...

DB : Because then you're treating it as if it were the essence...

K: Quite...

DB : ...but the essence is the perception which allows one to see that thought is limited, and also the readiness of thought to 'move' with that perception – the way I put it is : 'to give a correct account of its limits' and to take that account into account in 'moving'. This is something I was observing : let's say there is a perception, then thought may give an account of that perception, but that is not the perception...

K: No...

DB : But still thought has to give the account...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : In some sense you can compare thought to the 'witness' of what is observed ; and if the 'witness' gives a correct account of what is observed, that's good, but if he puts it in terms of its own thought as part of the account, then it's wrong, you see ? The difficulty is that this 'witness' is always putting forth its own conclusions, its own ideas as if they were actual perceptions...

K: It is distorting...

DB : ...distorting, because it is putting them not by saying 'this is my conclusion' but by saying ; 'this is what I see'...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : Now, that's not 'wisdom', you see ?

K: And what's the difference then between 'wisdom' and 'intelligence' ?

DB : That's what we wanted to come to, you see, these are very different words and one wonders if there is not some different shade of meaning between these terms. You see, there are three words- 'wisdom', 'intelligence' and 'truth'... Now, we have discussed 'intelligence' once before and at that time I think we have treated it as containing 'wisdom' and 'truth' – you see, using one word to cover the whole...

K: ...and now we have separated it – truth, wisdom & intelligence...

DB : Yeah...Now, you see, truth is first, and from truth may flow wisdom and from wisdom intelligence – is that it ?

K: Sir, would a man who perceives truth be foolish ?

DB : No. You see , 'foolishness' is the opposite of 'wisdom', and there would be no point that truth would not lead a man into 'following', right ?

K: No. If one sees what is true, he acts according to that...

DB ; Yes...

K: And that action, would it be a wise action ?

DB : It would inevitably be a wise action...

K: Yes, and therefore not foolish, and therefore an 'intelligent' action...

DB : Yes. But we want to see why you use two words 'wise' & 'intelligence' – either one of the words is 'superfluous', or there is a different 'shade of meaning' we have to explore, right?

K: Quite, quite...

DB : Now we say there is a difference between 'truth' and 'wisdom' : we said truth is 'that which is', right ?

K: Yes...

DB :...now 'wisdom' seems something more limited – as being primarily the perception of the limitations of thought, right ?

K: Yes...

DB : ...so that thought is not doing anything 'foolish' - I mean, if thought doesn't know its limitation, then it does all sorts of foolish things, right ? So the perception of 'that which is' seems to me, goes far beyond the perception of the limits of thought...

K: Why have we then divided 'truth', 'wisdom' and 'intelligence' ?

DB : Well, we don't know ; it may be part of tradition, of our culture, but there may be some reason behind that...I think we have to look at it...

K: Look at it, quite...

DB : Now, it seems to me that 'wisdom' has emphasised the true perception of of the limits of thought. Now what is 'intelligence' ?

K: The dictionary meaning of the word - according to the dictionary- is ' to read between' …

DB : But it also has many other meanings – 'legere' means also to pay attention, it could be the same as 'reading' , it also means to 'gather' or to 'collect' and also it means 'to choose', you see ?

K: A-ha ! You see, we come back to  : is 'intelligence'  the capacity to choose?

DB : Now, the point is to see what is this 'capacity to choose' – unless somebody would say, it's either arbitrary or he might choose intelligently...

K: But 'choice' ...?

DB : Choice itself, you see, in practical things you would choose one thing over another with the help of intelligence ; now, what kind of choice do you have in mind ?

K: Is there in (direct) perception a choice ?

DB :Oh, that's the question - or in awareness, or in attention ?

K: In awareness, in perception, in attention, is there any choice ?

DB : You see, that's the same as to say there is no discrimination, right ? That is, you could not choose as long as there is no discrimination to choose from...I mean, if there is no discrimination there is no place for choice to operate, right ?

K: That's right, there's no choice...

DB : The other question is why this word 'legere' has such a wide range of meanings ? It seems to be some deep confusion when people confuse between 'attention' and 'choice'...In other words, the same word can mean 'to pay attention' and it can also mean 'choose' - I don't know how that came about ?

K: If there is attention, would there be choice ?

DB : No, there wouldn't be ; but many people may think that it would...in our tradition there may be a wide spread belief that attention would contain choice ?

K: I know... Attention, awareness, perception – in that there is no choice at all – you just 'perceive '! And 'act' accordingly !

DB : I know, but if somebody thought that we actually perceive the discriminations, then you can think that awareness contains choice...you see, I'm trying to say : what mistake allowed people to come to this belief that there is 'choice' in awareness ?

K: Is it the outcome of the feeling, or the idea that because there is choice, there is freedom ?

DB : That's a part of it, perhaps , but say, the idea of choosing between 'good' and 'evil' is one of the favourite choices...

K: Yes, take choosing between 'good' and 'evil'...

DB : ...yes, but you wouldn't be able to choose between good & evil unless you could discriminate 'good' & 'evil' – right ? That is, you could probably be able to discriminate good and evil...

K: No, but to a man who perceives, there is no choice...

DB : No choice, but he also 'discriminates' in that perception... ?

K: No ! And therefore he acts acording to that perception …

DB : Yes, but that perception contains the 'whole' as I see it...and the implications of the necessary action are all undivided, right ?

K: Yes...

DB : And therefore it is not necessary to say 'this side is evil and this side is good, so I go to this side'...

K: The 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'...right !

DB : So, you see, there is some confusion in our tradition about the nature of perception...

K: Perception implies a choiceless action...

DB : Yes...

K: Not a 'discriminating' action or a 'choosing' action – just 'perception' !

DB : Yes, and also the description may make it look like a choice...

K: The description, yes...

DB : A person may see the whole of 'good and evil' and take the right action, but when describing it, it took the 'good action' and the 'evil action' – and that's only a description, you see ?

K: Description...and the description is not the described and all the rest of it...

DB : So the point is that in the description we only use the dualistic language in order to communicate something that is not dualistic...

K: So, let's begin ; to 'see' is to act, and in that action there is no choice...and that perception 'is' truth...

DB : The perception that there is no choice.

K: And that is the truth ; now in translating that into words, does it imply that it is dualistic ?

DB : No, it doesn't – the words are dualistic in form, but the actuality is not dualistic. You see, the mere perception that 'that is true' – there is a dualism in the way you use the words, because it would imply that that is not false or wrong & so on...You see, I'm trying to say that there is some background in language which has dualism built into it...

K: Of course...

DB : But nevertheless, knowing that this is the case, it is possible to communicate free of dualism  ?

K: Quite, quite...Can one communicate 'love' without the implication of jealousy, anger, hate ?

DB : Yes, as long as we realise that the words are only a description ; that it's part of the language that 'love' is not 'hate', but perhaps one can see that one has nothing to do with the other...

K: Is wisdom the negation of its opposite ?

DB : The opposite of wisdom  is folly, you see...

K: Folly...

DB : But you see, wisdom is of course the denial of folly, but that denial doesn't need opposition...

K: Quite...

DB : But in that denial we have to be very careful, because to actually deny means that the other is not there at all...

K: At all, quite...

DB : Not that it opposes it.

K: Is intelligence different from perception ?

DB : Well, it can't be really different from perception...

K: Why has man divided truth, wisdom, intelligence, perception , 'good & evil' and all the rest of it ? Why ? How has this division come about ?

DB : Well, are we really clear that there is no use for this division at all ? You see, 'intelligence' might have many different shades of meaning...

K Would a man who perceives truth have this division in himself ?

DB : There would be no point to it...

K: ...no point to it. So, who has divided it ?

DB : Well, it's clear that thought has divided it...Thought appears to divide – we have different words and in some sense that they mean something different...

K: Thought has divided it, or we have been educated to do it ?

DB : Yes, but through thought. Thought has been conditioned to divide - to use different words and to give different meanings & so on...and even to give 'intelligence' the meaning of some sort of skill in thought …

K: ( laughing) Skill in tought... ! Quite...

DB : People have to talk about 'artificial intelligence'...you see, when they talk about computers that will be 'artificial intelligence'...I was talking to a man who works with computers and he finally saw that it would be 'artificial thought', not 'artificial intelligence' …

K: Right... Then what are we trying to do ? We are trying to find out what is the relationship between wisdom and truth , between intelligence and wisdom and all that...

DB : Now, if we could explore whether there is any meaning of intelligence that we haven't looked at ? Or do we say it's all contained in truth ?

K: Yes, I was just beginning to question that...

DB : What ?

K: Whether in the word 'truth', all these are not included... We said the other day that there is 'reality' and 'truth'. Reality is all that thought has created, all that which chooses, which discriminates and functions within that field...We said all that is 'reality'...

DB : I would try to put that it's not only what thought has done, but there is also an 'actuality' which thought can only describe ; you see, the tree can be described as part of a 'reality' where thought discriminates...

K: Yes...

DB : And the tree exists independently of thought, but thought 'knows' the tree and that form...

K: Yes, thought 'knows' the tree, but the tree is not thought...

DB : Yes, the tree is not thought - it is an 'actuality'...but still, reality is not only what man has produced or what he 'knows', but all the 'unknown' reality which he could know – like what's going on on Mars, which still would be known to thought.

K: Yes, yes...

DB : So everything that could be known for thought, is 'reality'..

K: We went through all this...

DB : Yes, that may just cover everything.

K: Yes, that's right...Can a thoughtful man be a wise man ?

DB : What do you mean by 'thoughtful' ?

K: Thoughtful in the sense of (someone) who sees the world is degenerating, who sees that various form of 'revolution' are taking place, and through thought says : 'I must find an answer' and relies on thought to find that out...

DB : Now, you see, aside from all the criticism you can make about the lack of perception the major point here is that thought is moving outside its proper area...

K: But he says 'I only know thought and I know nothing else'...And since thought has created this awful confusion relies on thought to find an answer...

DB : Yes, that's one of the points : that wisdom is to understand that thought cannot possibly find an answer to that which itself produces – when thought produces contradictions it cannot find an answer...

K: So a 'thoughtful' man is not a wise man...

DB : Well, if he depends on thought, he is not wise.

K Of course ! A thoughtful man is not a wise man. Nor is he an intelligent man...

DB : No...

K: We are condemning a 'thoughtful' man ( laughing) !

DB : Well, if that's what you mean by 'thoughtful'... but very often 'thoughtful' also means 'wise'. The words can be used differently, you see ?

K: I know, but a 'thoughtful' man is not a wise man !

DB : Not in the sense in which we defined it...

K: Would you take a 'thoughtful' man - even if you wouldn't define it - as a wise man  ?

DB : Not if he depends on thought, you see ? But sometimes by the word 'thoughtful' you mean something different : the person who is not 'thoughtful' usualy is not observing his thought...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : You see, there is a great degree of ambiguity in the common language and words are used in different sense, but one can see that if a man depends exclusively on thought, then he cannot be 'wise'...

K: Let's limit it to that, yes...the man who depends entirely on thought is not a wise man.

DB : Yes...

K: Then, what is the wisdom which is not a movement of thought ? Is it a living thing or is it an accumulated experience ?

DB ; Well, it's clear that it is a living thing, but since you brought in the word 'experience' we must discuss it, because that is another one of this ambiguous words...Now, the word 'experience' has many meanings, but one of the meanings is 'to put to the test' and another meaning is 'to go through it' . But it seems to me that there are two aspects of 'experience' : if you are working in a practical domain you need some experience to get the work done ; now we're saying that 'experience' is thought- basically- and there was one one interesting definition of 'experience', given by some philosopher - Immanuel Kant. He said that ''experience is a combination of sensation and thought'' – which seems good to me, and this 'thought' is of the basic category of 'discrimination' ; in other words, you not only have 'sensations' but there is an immediate thought about what is seen, in which there is a 'discrimination' or a 'categorising' -like 'cause and effect' , good and bad', 'pleasant & not pleasant' and therefore you could say that is experience. In some sense, 'experience' is the contact with reality – I mean, proper experience in practical affairs – is what is generally meant by 'experience'.

K: Can you 'experience' truth ?

DB : No, but you can experience 'reality'...

K: Ah, quite, quite !

DB : That's what I wanted to say : 'reality' is what can be experienced and the 'sense of reality' is important in experience. You see, you have a sensation, or a contact with reality gives the feeling of 'reality' – this is real, I am real and all this thing is 'real'... Now, on the other hand, if you try to 'experience' truth or love or beauty, then it has no meaning ; so, the 'experience' goes wrong when thought tries to go out of its place...

K: Out of its limits...

DB : You see, you could say you 'experience' pain or pleasure, or experience desire - 'experiencing' desire would be a case of thought goes out of its limits , hmm ?

K: Quite... To see the whole of that- the operation of thought, the limitation of thought -sensation and thought accummulating knowledge about the future & so on, and seeing the inter-relationship between intelligence, wisdom and truth – seeing all that would you call that 'wisdom' ?

DB : I don't know if you could call that 'wisdom' or you can call it 'truth', but to me the notion of 'intelligence' gets across something more detailed, in the sense of meeting the individual situation. In other words, we could say that 'truth' meeting the actual individual situation is intelligence- I don't know whether that makes sense... ?

K: A-ha...

DB : In other words, truth is universal or global and it is all-one, but it occured to me that when it meets the actual situation, we call that 'intelligence' . In other words, intelligence is what keeps everything in order...

K: ...in order, quite...

DB : It's not really different from truth, but it is calling attention to a different action, to a different way of looking...

K: Seeing the whole is wisdom, is truth...

DB : Seeing the whole is truth...and I think that the action of the man who is seeing the whole, or of the 'wise' – as I'd like to put it- the very root of 'wise' is based on seeing – that's the original meaning in the dictionary : 'wise' means 'seeing'- the same root as 'vide' – and intelligence is also 'seeing' - I think it is merely giving different names to the actions of truth, emphasising what they are dealing with. Intelligence it seems to me is dealing with the actual case, from the 'seeing' and not from memory or from knowledge...

K: That's right...

DB: People might think that 'wisdom' consists in accumulating a great deal of knowledge, and it gets so much knowledge that it could deal with every possible situation. But that's wrong...

K: The other day on TV Lord Clark was talking about Egypt and he shown pictures of Sacchara, Luxor & the Valley of the Kings – where civilisation began...

DB : Yes...as far as we know...

K: I know, this may be much older... Is civilisation the product of thought ?

DB : It seems to me that it is...

K: And then, culture is also part of thought...

DB : Yes, the root is 'to cultivate', 'to make something grow'...

K: So, our civilisation is based on thought...

DB ; Yes, that seems obvious...I mean, also Bronowski was making that very clear in the TV series ''The ascent of man''...

K: Oh...

DB : I mean, in saying that the 'ascent of man' is the ascent of his knowledge...

K: So, knowledge is in the field of reality...

DB : Yes...

K: Now you see, we're getting at it... And we are operating in it or not...

DB : Yes...in using experience to acquire knowledge..

K: Then has knowledge any relationship to truth ?.

DB : Now, at first sight it might have, but actually...

K: ...actually not.

DB : You see, to say that it has no relation is a very 'hard' thing to put it – this comes to a question we were considering some time ago, ''where did thought go wrong ?'' and we suggested thought did not know its limitation – when thought first appeared in man, it did not know it was limited, you see ? It tried to behave in the 'unlimited'...and before realising it was limited it had already created so much chaos...Now it's very hard for thought to discover that it's limited – not only because of all this chaos, but also because there is an inherent difficulty in language, in thought to express its limitation – there is a paradox there : if you are trying to say that 'thought is limited' – thought first of all establishes its limits – all limits come from thought : you see, the very word 'determined' has in it 'to terminate' , or to limit – so if we say 'thought itself is limited', that becomes difficult to say it's not paradoxical because thought not only makes limits but it also transcends every limit it makes..

K: Yes, yes ! It draws a line and goes beyond the line !

DB : That's right. It's the character of thought to set a limit an then to 'transcend' the limit. So, if one said 'I am limited' ; it will instantly try to transcend the limit ; then perhaps it hasn't done the right thing ! Therefore there is another way to put it : by saying that the whole process of setting up the limits and then 'transcending' it – which is thought – doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on truth.

K: Obviously.

DB : It doesn't matter that it's limited or unlimited but thought has nothing to do with this...

K: Right ; thought has no relationship to truth.

DB : Yes, it has no relevance to truth, no bearing to truth or anything ; therefore it cannot even state that 'truth is unlimited' or anything like that...

K: No, no...

DB : And therefore when thought sees that, it's obvious that the right action for thought is to 'not attempt' any of those questions where it has no bearing, you see ?

K: Yes. You see, sir, I was looking at those TV pictures of Sacchara where they show those extraordinary ancient buildings - three thousand years old – it was (all) put together by thought...

DB : Yes...

K: Thought became an instrument of perception.

DB : Why do you say 'an instrument of perception' ?

K: I'm just enquiring... The architect who (conceived) them he had the 'imagination' to see what those buildings should look like ...

DB : Yes... that brings us back to what we discussed last week on 'imagination' - you said you don't 'imagine' anything...

K: Yes... I don't personally...

DB : Now let's take an architect – he has plans and he has to 'visualise' what this looks like – what would you say about that ? Suppose you want to make a building from your drawings, you'll have to 'visualise' ..

K: Yes. But I can't do it...I can only do it if I see an architect drawing a plan - then I can say 'this is not right' – but I can't draw it like this...I can only correct what is wrong.

DB : Why is that ?

K: I have no visual capacities to see something 'solid'.

DB : You mean, no imagination ?

K: No imagination...

DB : Is this any peculiarity of yourself ?

K: May be a peculiarity...

DB : Or does it mean something more, in the sense that there is something wrong with 'imagination' or... ?

K: I don't think 'imagination' plays a part in meditation, in truth, in perception...

DB : I understand that...I mean, I agree with all that – but I'll say imagination may have a limited part to play – let's say in visualising some buildings like these...

K: Yes, of course, and in painting...

DB : But one thing that occured to me is that 'imagination' also contains the 'imaginary' of the person who is looking but he's imaginary – like in a dream, the 'dreamer' is not there...So the imaginary is 'imagined'...

K: Ah, talking of dreams, has it happened to you that when you're dreaming there is an interpretation of that dream going on ?

DB : That is another kind of dream - one kind of dream is when you are identified with the 'dreamer' – with the one who dreams, or with some character in the dream...

K: We won't go into dreams now...

DB : Yeah...But there might be another kind of dream in which you're not identified...

K: Yes...

DB : But could that be some kind of 'imagination' when you're not identified – you used it when you compared this to Columbus discovering America, there is an 'image' there...

K: Yes...

DB : Now, there was no 'image maker' , but the 'image' was merely a visual expression of a certain perception...Somebody might call this a kind of 'imagination'...

K: No, that's a statement.

DB : It's a statement, but there is an image in there – the image of Columbus on his boat going ...

K: I didn't imagine that.

DB : Yes, all right, but to some extent it communicates that...

K: But I mean, that's a fact – Columbus did discover America – if previously it had not been discovered by vikings...but apparently Columbus discovered it – that's a fact !

DB : Yes, it's a fact, but I think it's a matter of language – there is a kind of imagination which is 'fancy' or fantasy...

K: Fantasy, yes...

DB : And in this it may appear as a thing which is being looked at and which is taken as one is actually looking at it – and that's an 'illusion' . But a person might have an image – like this thing, Columbus discovering America is a metaphor...

K: Yes.

DB : ...and there are many other metaphors which take the form of images – I can't remember them now, but I think that you used others ; that use of imagery is like the use of language...

K: I understand... So in the field of reality there is imagination, there is the artist, the musician...

DB : ...and they may use the images in a constructive way rather than as a pure fantasy...

K: ...yes, and so on. Now, can a musician, or an artist see truth ?

DB : Not as a 'musician' anyway...As a human being he might see truth, but there is no reason art would make a person more perceptive to truth than...

K: That's it !

DB : Although among artists there is a wide spread belief that it could...

K: I know...

DB : ...that culture could put things in order. In other words that by means of a good culture the mind is brought to a certain order which will be helpful.

K: Which means, throught time, order.

DB : Yes, that's really it. And I think it's a wide spread belief, you see ?

K: Yes, of course ; through evolution there is 'order'...

DB : Yes, or through cultivation, or...

K: Yes, which means - through time, order...

DB : Yes... even the Egyptians who thought more timelessly - they believed that through cultivation of the mind they would bring a certain order - I mean, it's obvious that they did try it...So, I think this is a case where thought has gone beyond its proper limits, you see...

K: Yes....

DB : ...when thought tries to put the brain in order - as it were- or to put the mind in order...and therefore trying to do what it could never do...

K: Of course...But you see, the whole of the political field and the economic bussiness is trying to bring about order in the field of reality...

DB : Yes...

K: ... and they can never do it !

DB : No. So it would be important to see why not...

K: Oh, that's simple...

DB : ...because they are all too limited... ?

K: It's not global...

DB : ... it doesn't go into the deep source of the human actions.

K: Yes, quite...So ( laughing) we are 'eliminating' altogether the artist, the musician, the archaeologist, the politician, the economist...

DB : Yes, none of these can bring about order...science also cannot bring order in the field of reality, because whatever knowledge it gains, it depends on the human beings, of what is done with it...

K: Yes...So only those who perceive 'truth' can bring about order...right ? Did you read about the 'revolutionaries' in America?

DB : You mentioned it to me...

K: All of them are saying the present structure of society is destructive ; it is not giving man the opportunity to be free, to be happy & so on...And all these 'revolutionaries' want to upset what they call the 'capitalism' and bring about a 'world state', or a state in America where all the big corporations are not in power.

DB : Yes...

K: All that is in the field of thought...

DB : Yeah...

K: ...and they have a tremendous appeal...

DB : Is that what the article said  ?

K: No, no ; I'm saying it. They have a tremendous appeal ; because of what is taking place in India - putting the cap on everything to bring order...So, the revolutionaries want to bring order, the Communists want to bring order ...everybody is trying to bring order in the field of reality...

DB : Yes...

K: And we are saying that's impossible.

DB : Yes, and that might discourage lots of people...

K: I know...but I mean : it's a 'fact' !

DB : It's a fact, yes...

K: Would this 'revolutionary' accept this as a 'fact' ?

DB : Not as he is now...I mean this 'revolutionary' doesn't see this fact...

K: Yes, but then what relationship has the one who perceives truth has to the revolutionary who says ' We must change the world' ?

DB : Well, it's again the same point : that truth has no relation to this 'reality', you see ? So, the only possibility would be to find a way to communicate...

K: Yes ; therefore this man says : 'you have no place in this, you are irrelevant'..

DB : Yes, the revolutionary says 'you are irrelevant' unless you find a way to communicate with him.

K : Ah, but you can't communicate with him because he's enclosed himself totally within the field of 'reality' !

DB : Yes, there's not much one can do...

K: ...anymore than he can do with Brezhnev...I mean, he won't even tolerate you ! So, what place has the man who perceives truth in this world of 'reality' ?

DB : Well, it's clear that his perception of truth has no place in this 'world of reality'...

K: I'm not sure...

DB : Well, let's see what place he would have, other than communicating to break through this 'field of reality' ?

K: If the man in the world of reality is a real 'revolutionary' – I don't mean the 'blood-bath revolutionary' – but the man who has the strong feeling that this corrupt society must be changed - could the man who has perceived truth talk to him ?

DB : Yes, that's what I meant, that all he can do is to 'communicate' truth with him - if this 'revolutionary' is not completely engulfed in the field of reality, but he's still able to 'listen' because he sincerely wants a better society and therefore if the other man can put the thing rightly, in the right way...

K: Can this revolutionary ever see truth ? Or must he realise the limitations of thought ?

DB : That's what I mean - this must be 'communicated'...If this man is able to listen to something, then he may be able to 'listen' the fact of the limitation of thought, if it's put in a way that gets to him …

K: Yes, I understand that...

DB : ...although he may start to resist it very quickly, but that means that the other fellow has to be very fast and very succint & so on...

K: So, to put this clearly, we are saying  in the world of reality there is 'choice' – every thing is in the field of reality- and the man who perceives truth can only operate or function upon reality...

DB : Well, what we said is that he can't actually...

K: ...in the sense it can 'communicate'.

DB : Yes...so he doesn't 'communicate' with reality...

K: Ah, no, no...He cannot communicate 'truth', but he can 'communicate' to this man who is in the field of reality – he can say : Look, see the limits of that !

DB : Yes, so he can communicate by showing the inconsitencies, showing the limits & so on...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : So, within the field of reality – if the man is not totally engulfed, there is certain area where he can accept it...

K: Sir, why is it that all the leaders of the world are dominating this world of reality ?

DB : Well, because nobody has any idea in that world of what to do...You see, I think we made it clear that nothing can be done and probably deep down there is a sense that nothing can be done - so we leave it to somebody else to do it – I mean, if we knew what to do it we might try to do it, but the other fellow seems to know what to do, perhaps we can go along with him...You know, that's the sort of thinking that might go on...

K: One of the revolutionaries says : order your own life...

DB : Yes, but then we're back in the same story – what is going to order it ; you see ? In my view it's important to communicate this in different ways and to see if this thing will come across...My own feeling is that the communication itself has to be very orderly, both verbally and non-verbally...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : But the order of the communication itself is part of the communication...

K: If there is a perception of the truth, the truth will bring order in words...

DB : Yes, that's it, and that brings us to a point that we were discussing before – it would bring order in words and also a non-verbal action. And that order itself would be seen by that man - not only the content of what you say, but the whole order of it would be seen, and that 'seeing' already will be beyond the field of reality ...

K: Quite...

DB : We were discussing 'words' a few days ago and one question that arose was that it's not clear how words are formed : you can't see yourself making the words and suddenly start saying them. Without any visible account, you can't account for what comes about...

K: No...

DB : And one of the questions that occurred to me is that I could see two ways of forming words : one would be from memory, from habits - all stored up phrases would just come out from the record and be combined in various ways...

K: Isn't the English language very confusing ?

DB : Well, not when you get to know it, I suppose...

K: Like the word 'see' – seeing with the eyes, seeing with the mind, seeing with the intellect, seeing with feeling, 'seeing'...and when you use the word 'see' all these are implied...

DB : Yes ; but I think that most languages...

K: Is it so in Sanscrit ?

DB : I don't know Sanscrit, but most of languages like Italian or French, probably do much the same...

K: But I believe in Sanscrit there are different words for them...

DB : Well, as you know, Sanscrit was a language specifically constructed for philosophical and religious purpose...

K: The word 'Sanscrit' means ''that which has been made perfect''...

DB : But it is so that in our common language – I think the word 'prakriti' means common language - it is the same as our language here, has always some confusion...And we had the same trouble here in trying to see what words like 'intelligence', 'wisdom' , and 'truth' & so on...But I don't think that language is our main trouble ; I mean, a confused language is probably the product of a confused mind, but...

K: Yes, quite ; the language is not the main problem...

DB : But I am interested in the way the language forms and the other idea of how the words are forming is what you once discussed of the drum vibrating from the emptiness within : so the words can form directly from the 'emptiness' .

K: Yes, yes !

DB : So, you're not 'thinking' the words and in that case you're saying that truth can act directly on the physical structure of the brain in some way...

K: Yes, that's right !

DB : Now, one thing that occured to me is that if you say that, then you must say that at its depths matter is non-mechanical, you see ? It may be 'mechanical' in a certain way, but...

K: Matter is not mechanical...

DB : Because 'truth' could not act on that matter if it would be just mechanical...

K: Quite.

DB : So you'll have to say that the 'mechanical' aspects of matter are circumscribed to a certain area of matter which thought can handle - and thought is also material...

K: I think there is a part of the old Tibetan and Indian tradition that matter is living...

DB : Yes, and that's also implied in what you're saying...

K: Yes.

DB : Because if 'truth' can operate in matter, then matter must be intelligent somehow in the way we're living - intelligible …

K: That's what I was saying - that he who perceives 'truth' can operate on the consciousness, or on the mind or brain of the man who is caught in the world of reality.

DB : Yes, that's a very interesting point, and we have to see this very clearly : first of all, truth operates on his own brain...

K: Yes, of course...

DB : ...clearing away the confusion ; sometimes it occurred to me the idea of a fog which could be cleared away either by the sun or by the wind or a storm – in other words, rather than trying to arrange everything with thought, it's all cleared away, so all the questions arising in the fog are irrelevant...

K: Would you say, sir, from that 'arising', that when you remain totally with suffering that's the 'storm' ?

DB : Yes, that's the storm that clears away the 'fog'...And it's like a real, material storm ?

K: Yes...

DB : ...not 'real', but actual or genuine. But I think that we should look a little bit at this notion that matter is fundamentally non-mechanical...

K: Not mechanical, quite...

DB : But it has a 'mechanical' area...

K: Yes.

DB : Which is also what thought can handle. So we could say that is a right area for thought to operate– which is also mechanical, and thought itself is 'mechanical' which can bring order in other mechanical areas but it cannot bring order into itself...

K: And thought is trying to go beyond it...

DB : Yes, it tries to transcend its limits. Because when thought tries to transcend them it does not know that there are some areas it cannot go into, and therefore thought tries those limits too, you see ? Either it tries to understand the 'truth' or 'spirit' or 'love', or it tries to take over the brain matter and keep it in order, but it cannot reach these depths...

K: So, we are saying that the mind is not 'mechanical' ?

DB : Yes and also that matter is not mechanical, although it has a 'mechanical' part or side...

K: Yes, that's it. Therefore, 'truth' can touch the non-mechanical part in the matter of the brain.

DB : Therefore we are saying that 'truth' operating in one brain can clear that brain and then, being communicated, it may clear another brain...

K: Quite, quite !

DB : Now, when that brain is clear, it can operate in order...

K: Quite...

DB : Then you could say the brain is both 'material' and 'non-material'... ?

K: That's right.

DB : The 'mechanical' side will operate in order only if truth keeps it clear, in other words, some 'non-mechanical' thing is needed to keep the 'mechanical' clear...

K: Yes...

DB : Otherwise it will be pushed from the past in that 'mist' or 'fog' …

K: Are you saying that in man, or in matter, there is intelligence ?

DB : I'm trying to proceed from where we started – that 'truth' operates in the brain- if it does, then it follows that there must be something like 'intelligence' in matter – at least, something 'non-mechanical', you see, which... ?

K: Then we'll have to be awfully careful because we are saying that 'God is in you'...That's what I want to avoid...

DB : We don't say that, but we got to be careful because thought is here trying to transcend its proper limits...

K: Right...( laughing ) We'll catch Him that way !

DB : We are not saying that 'God is anywhere' , but we are questioning whether matter is mechanical or not and all we could say is that matter can respond to intelligence -as it were. Whether there is intelligence or not we don't know  - one view is that in some sense it might be- but I think we can say that we got to the point where matter is not mechanical, and it is capable of responding to intelligence. Whether it actually has this intelligence or not, we don't know, but it has a property that I would call 'intelligentibility' which may have some relation with intelligence - the possibility of being acted upon by intelligence...

K: Why has religion been associated with Truth ?

DB : Well, in a way it is natural, if you think of the deeper meaning of the word 'religion' : apparently the best meaning this dictionary gives is 'to gather together' or to 'pay attention to the whole ', or something like that...

K: ...or like being 'diligent' & so on...

DB : If 'religion' was originally 'gathering the whole' …

K: Yes...

DB : ...then 'truth' is that too , you see ?

K: Yes. That's what I want to make clear. That's right.

DB ; But then, when religion became corrupted by being defined as 'reality', then it went wrong...

K: Quite...

DB : If one reads the Bible – the old Testament – the hebrews were constantly falling into 'idolatry' by making God 'real', you see ? Making 'images' which were turning Truth into 'reality' …

K: Like last night ( on TV ) there was a Roman-Catholic priest talking about devil he said : ''I actually believe that there is devil'' ...who now has been having a marvelous time ! (both laugh)...

DB : It seems only 'natural' - if you believe that God is real, he must believe that devil must also be real...

K: Sir, we are saying something which is terribly revolutionary, right ?

DB : In what sense ?

K: Revolutionary in the sense we are denying 'evolution' in the field of thought's reality -

DB : We are denying that 'evolution' has anything to do with 'that which is' – it may happen in the field of reality. I think that we can put it carefully that in the field of reality you may observe evolution taking place, like an animal becoming bigger and so on. But that is only in the field of reality, not even at the depths of matter, much less at the depths of mind.

K: Yes. We are now saying that whatever is in the field of reality - a conclusion, or thought moving beyond its limit and creating another reality, is still within the field of reality – all of that we say, is unrelated to truth.

DB : Yes...

K: And 'truth' is something that is only perceived when the mind acts as a whole.

DB : Yes...but in addition you're saying that truth acts about this 'wholeness' by dissolving in the brain the 'mist of reality', the confusion, or whatever we may want to call it...

K: That's right.. The other day we were talking at lunch about the 'emptiness' having great energy, hmm ?

DB : Yes...

K: You were saying 'space'...

DB : Yes, I was saying that the empty 'space' - this is a calculation that was made – that according to modern Physics, the 'empty space' is full of a tremendous energy which is inaccessible ; people don't take it very seriously, but if you actually do the calculation there is an unlimited energy in each part of space.

K: You see, the other night – you know, I have a peculiar kind of meditation : I wake up meditating- the other night I woke up with this feeling of a tremendous energy in 'emptiness' …

DB : Yes... ?

K: This whole brain was completely 'empty' and therefore there was an extraordinary quality of energy... And when you said at lunch time that according to scientists & according to you, in the empty space there is a tremendous energy...

DB : Unlimited...

K: Unlimited, I felt the same thing. So, mustn't be emptiness - which is 'no-thingness'- for the perception of Truth ?

DB : Yes, but the point about this energy is that the perception of truth 'is' the action of this energy...

K: Yes, that's it !

DB : You see - you may find this interesting- the way modern Physics treats the atoms and the particles of matter is to say they are created out of 'empty space' and dissolve into empty space and a particle is a manifestation of that 'energy of the whole', a form which is transient...do you see what I mean ?

K: Yes, I understand.

DB : And you could say that thought is perhaps a similar 'form' of matter as we know it - the mechanical side of matter – but Physics disregards the energy itself and pays most attention to matter and tries to ignore the rest of the energy ; but that's what thought does, it only pays attention.

K: From this arises the question : how is a man to empty his mind ? How is a human being who sees the world of reality and knows its limitation- how can that man perceive this immense thing ? They have tried in the religious field – as little as I know about it- they have tried every method to get to this...

DB : Yes, one can see te problem with 'methods' – that every method is part of the conscious content of thought...

K: ...of thought, quite.

DB : ...therefore in using a method you're not 'doing it' !

K: But that has become - not only the fashion, but that seems to have been right from the beginning : ''Do something to get That''...

DB : Yes, that again is thought not seeing and trying to transcend its limits. In other words 'That' is something in which thought cannot be...

K: Then, how can one communicate or awaken this extraordinary energy of 'emptiness' which is Truth and all the rest ? If you as a professor & scientist who has gone into the question of space, time , matter, energy and if you perceived that truth, how would you communicate to me, both verbally & non-verbally  ? Through verbal communication I will never get it, because the description is not the described & all the rest... If it is my serious concern to understant that 'emptiness' , how would you 'help' me to come to that extraordinary 'emptiness' ?
This has been one of the problems of a man who 'sees' it and wants to tell somebody about it...

DB : Yes, somehow I see the problem as...

K: In telling it, 'that' is destroyed.

DB : It is destroyed because thought takes it over …

K: And the priests get into it, and then the whole thing is gone !

DB : The point is to communicate it to thought, so that thought doesn't move outside its field.

K: But I only know thought !

DB : We know that, but it's not entirely so- if we consider this 'revolutionary' we said that there is still something in him more which …

K: But there are very few really profound 'revolutionaries' – most of the 'revolutionaries' are only concerned with changing the environment... And therefore they say : a Guru is necessary – you follow ?

DB : Yes, but I mean, it's of no use...

K: Of course not...He is supposed to help me to realise that – which is impossible. So everything has been made so corrupt, so impossible...
So you who have access to that 'emptiness' and you want to show it to me, what do you do with me ?

(... long silence...)

DB : You see, I think maybe we're going a little too fast, in the sense that there is a great deal of things we haven't yet gone into, that may be getting in the way...

K: I have jumped to that, sorry...

DB : You see, the point is that there is a tremendous movement of thought involved in self-deception and thought does not handle the whole of what it produces...you see, it produces a lot of movement and it tries to stop only a little bit of it...

K: (laughing) Quite !

DB : It is incapable of getting to its own root and stopping it all...

K: And that's why they said : Control it !

DB : Yes, but that has no meaning because...

K: That's right...

DB : Then there is the question of 'time' : in other words, we see that chronological time has been invented by thought and that it is useful and correct and gives us insight into matter, and then it has been extended to 'psychological' time...

K: That's right, that 'psychologically' we evolve .

DB : 'Evolve' to become better...Now, in the beginning thought did not invent time – it did not know that time is limited – it only started to extend it chronologically and just using it 'psychologically' as well because it didn't know any reason not to....

K: Sir, could I say something  which may be totally irrelevant : in that 'emptiness' there is no time...

DB : There's no time there, but you see, time appears when a 'center' is produced with the memory of the past and the expectation of the future- and the attempt to make the future better & so on. Now, there is the belief – due to our whole tradition and background and experience, that 'time' is a solid & genuine reality. In other words, it appears to be so in matter and it appears to be so 'psychologically'...

K: Yes, for the small plant to become for tree …

DB : Yes...and it seems that 'psychologically' we must also exist in time. Now, the point in trying to communicate this is that there is no 'fact' of psychological time – it is entirely 'imagination'...

K: ... imagination is the work of thought.

DB : The work of thought : the person 'imagines' this whole stretch of time and this 'imagination' produces a real result in the brain, which it takes as a proof that the thing is there...So this thing has no real ground beyond thought, it is an imprint in memory. Now, the thing is that this 'time' is not actually observed – it is only 'imagined' and we imagine that we observe time ...you see, that's what I was trying to say by '' an imaginary 'observer' imagining that he observes time'' . So, if it didn't imagine that it observes time, then we would see it for what it really is only thought. You see, in the imagination that we are observing - that's where some of the confusion arises...

K: Yes, quite right...

DB  You see, if thought is going on, if you realise it's thought then you evaluate it and see if it is at its place or not and then there's no problem ; but if you think that it's perception, then you take it as truth...The same thing happens in 'experience' - when you experience the 'reality' of psychological time, because the sensations which are supposed to be connected with 'time' are imagined to be real and independent of thought, you see ? So apparently you're looking at time, experiencing the reality of 'time' and apparently have knowledge of the correctness of time , and so on...Now, you see, none of this is a 'fact' …

K: None of this is a 'fact', that's right. There is no 'tomorrow'...

DB : ....'psychologically'. There is no 'next moment'...

K: No 'next moment', that's right...

DB : ... and there is no past 'psychologically' – it is all memory – what is 'present' now is memory and an expectation in thought...

K: Yes... and all reactions from that is only mechanical.

DB ; And memory is also mechanical, because it's in the brain ...the only difficulty is that memory is given an importance of something transcendent - it's your own existence- so the reaction from this is enormous, if you see what I mean...

K: You see, all that is in the world of 'reality' and there is no relationship between this and 'truth'. To abandon all this can only take place throught suffering – is that it ?

DB : Well, that can be only a way – I can't see this as the only possibility - in staying with suffering...

K: That's what I mean.

DB : But this whole process creates suffering...

K: Yes, this whole process creates suffering.

DB : And must do so. Now if you 'escape' this suffering, you are not actually perceiving the process . So you see, you have to stay with suffering because suffering does...

K: You have to stay with 'reality'...

DB : You have to stay with reality, and reality is very unpleasant when you stay with it...

K: You have to stay with reality ; you are staying with the limitation of thought and not move from that...

DB : But suppose you find that you are nevertheless moving ? Then what ?

K: Then still it is thought moving. The perception of all that is 'truth'.

DB : Yes...

K: But people can't perceive that... Therefore the word is not the thing and so, there is no understanding...

DB : Well , I think there is a certain understanding, but the trouble is something like this - many people are listening to this and understand up to a certain point, but the difficulty is that the whole of thought produces a movement which is beyond what thought can be conscious of
and therefore this 'understanding' is applied to a partial consequence of thought. In other words there is a typical experience that most people have when they are listening to you: they say : 'All this is very clear, but... it doesn't quite work', you see ?

K: Quite...

DB : I think there are quite a few people who want it – up to a point...

K: Up to a point...

DB : Then the question is : if you find that you are going only up to a point...

K: ...it isn't good enough...

DB :...it is not good enough, but the reason is probably that one is escaping suffering ; you see, if they go a little further they might come to this 'suffering' …

K; Thought is so extraordinarily subtle ...it 'thinks' it is still, it 'thinks' that it knows its limitation, but it is always putting out a tentacle, waiting, waiting, waiting...

DB : Yes, it's ready to transcend itself...I wonder if you could not look at 'desire' - that there is a desire in thought to do all this ?

K: Yes, of course ! Desire being sensation and thought.

DB : Yes, sensation and thought, along with an 'instruction' to carry out what it wants to achieve. You see, if you get a pleasant sensation, then thought says ''That's a very pleasant sensation'' and sets an 'instruction' to get hold of it and if it's unpleasant, then get rid of it....
But of course, desire has this sense of longing and craving or yearning- something which is very powerful and overrides any other understanding...

K: The other day at the talk, a man came up to me and said : 'If I have no desire, I can 't have sex !'

DB : Yeah...

K: You follow what is related ? Desire, sensation, thought and...sex.

DB : Yes...  sensation, thought and achieving the satisfaction of the desire...
K: Of course....But is it posible – I'm putting a most absurd question- not to have any desire at all ?

DB : That's what we're coming to : what is desire and why do we have to have it ? You see, I was trying to find out what is the 'real' object of desire – because it is often very hard to know because it changes...

K: It is desire, sensation, thought – it is still in that 'field of reality' .

DB : Yes, and it seems to me that what desire is trying is to achieve basically better a state of consciousness. And that is inherently meaningless...

K; Yes, in the field of reality.

DB ; ...in the field of reality, because it is trying to do something where thought has no place. Thought 'thinks' that it can improve into a better state of consciousness by some activity  - that goes back to the ancient times when thought didn't know its limits - so one of the things thought thinks it can do, is to make an improved state of consciousness...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : Possibly because it has the feeling that consciousness is the essence of our existence. You see, we are taking 'reality' as the essence of our existence, or as the essence of our consciousness ; and then thought is trying naturally to 'improve' it - you see ?

K: Quite...naturally.

DB : ...and now it experiences a 'desire' – I mean, an intense sensation, a wish or a longing to carry out that 'improvement', which it can never do...

K: Consciousness is in the field of reality.

DB : Yes, that's what we are trying to say, but tradition says that it's not, you see...

K! Right...And truth is not 'consciousness'.

DB : No, truth is not consciousness ; this consciousness is not the essence of our existence, or of our 'being', right ? But if anything, 'truth' is.

K: Yes... Would you say that the 'self' is the essence of consciousness ?

DB ; Well, that's a question. Certainly our consciousness as it is now...

K: I'm taking it as it is now, not as something glorious or anything - as it is now.

DB : Well, the very word 'self' – I've looked it up and one of its meanings is 'quintessence', you see ?

K: Quintessence... ?

DB : Like the essence of all essences...

K: Right, it's the 'essence' of consciousness .

DB : Yeah...

K: And 'truth' is the essence of 'non - consciousness'.

DB : Or the essence of 'that which is' … ?

K: Yes...

DB : But then, why would you say 'non-consciousness' ?

K: The 'self' is the essence of consciousness, as we know it ...

DB : Yes, 'as we know it', but one of the other times, we have also discussed another kind of consciousness that might not be conditioned, right ?

K: Yes, but can that other consciousness ever be conscious of itself ?

DB : The other kind ?

K: Yes.

DB : Oh, I see...

K: if it is, it cannot come to Truth.

DB : Why is that ? Because in being conscious of itself , first of all it must be dividing itself, right ?

K: Right, you got it !

DB : Yeah...now we said there is another kind of consciousness which is without thinking it is unconditioned ? In some of your writings you imply there is another kind of thought or 'something like thought'...

K: Like thought...but it is not thought...Keep to this for the moment ; the 'self' is the essence of consciousness – this 'consciousness' is in the field of reality...

DB : Yes, it's an activity of the brain...

K: And is an activity of the brain which has been conditioned.

DB : Yes...

K: With memory and all the rest of it...And we said : that consciousness can never come upon Truth.

DB : No ; first of all, no 'real' structure can give Truth, you see ?

K: Of course. So, this is 'nothingness' ...

DB : ... 'nothingness' is Truth.. ?

K: Nothingness is Truth. Not-a-thing !

DB : Yeah...

K: And in that ( empty inner) space there is a tremendous energy, there is peace and is not identified with any consciousness...

DB ; Not even with a 'higher' consciousness... ? You see, we discussed this kind of 'unconditioned' consciousness and I wonder if we can make this thing clear ; first of all we could say that we have thought which is a conditioned activity of the brain and which is only a very small part of the operation of the brain...

K: Yes, yes.

DB : Then we have the whole operation of the brain, which includes attention and awareness and we can say this other consciousness is there ?

K: Would you call that 'consciousness' ?

DB : Well, you did it at one stage... ?

K: I know, that's why I want to make it clear...

DB : Well, I don't quite get it, but I can see this much : thought, which is only a small operation of the brain, and when it gets out of its sphere it tends to be 'everything'...

K: Sir, did you not say the other day at lunch that in 'space' there is tremendous energy ?

DB : Yeah....

K: That energy is not 'conscious' of itself.

DB : Let's say 'it does not know itself'...

K: That's it...

DB : But that energy 'perceives'...

K: It is not the perception of the 'self' .

DB : Yes ; let's get that clear, because as I said, this energy may perceive and that perception is action , and this perception can take its own action into account – you see, it is not confused by that, but it doesn't do that by seeing itself acting.

K: It is not self-conscious !

DB : It is not self-conscious but it is conscious of action – including its own action, right ?

K: Yes. I don't want to use the word 'consciousness' here...

DB : No, no...The 'self-consciousness' -as I see it- involves the notion that consciousness has an 'essence' – and that may be a false notion. In other words, when this consciousness discovers that it is rather 'changeable' , the whole of thought reacts seeing these changes by saying 'there must be some essence beneath it' ; you see, that's a very basic form of thought ; so when we see how changeable this consciousness is, we say : there must be an 'essence' which produces this con

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 18 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Dec 2018 #14
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

(continuing dialogue 11) consciousness and which is permanent. But then, that may be entirely false, you see ? In other words this 'essence' will be called the Self.
Now what you have said is that consciousness is only its content , and therefore it is not some movement taking place in the essence, and therefore it is only memory acting – there is no other essence behind it acting, which makes it rather trivial thing

K: What is the nature of this energy behind 'nothingness' or 'emptiness' ? Has it any (self-) consciousness – as we know it ?

DB : Well, let's try to put it : consciousness 'as we know it' may begin by becoming conscious of a certain content – like a book or this microphone, and later it begins to think about itself and begins to think about its 'essence' ; now, if this consciousness did not attempt to think of its own 'essence', then would it be another kind of consciousness... ?

K: Yes, put it that way, but I don't like to use the word 'consciousness' because it implies 'self-consciousness'...

DB : Yes, it generally does, but if there is no 'content'...

K: ...if there is no 'content' there is no consciousness 'as we know it'.

DB : But why do you put in the phrase 'as we know it' ? You see, that's puzzling because it implies that there is another kind of consciousness...

K: When the content is not, there is no consciousness...

DB : Yes...I mean, that is very clear  - when we 'think' about something beyond consciousness is it is still consciousness...You see, when we think about the 'content' of this microphone, that content can bring us in contact with the 'actuality' of the microphone, but when we think about the essence of consciousness there is no 'actuality' behind it – there is only 'content'...

K: Yes...and when you empty that content...

DB : So, now it's becoming clear : you 'empty' that content...because when you put it the first time it sounds crazy, because one may say 'I must have a 'content' to get on with life' – you see ? Now, besides the 'practical' content -like the 'scientifical' or technical content, we say : there is a content of the 'self' , an 'essence' which includes the 'psychological time' – since we think that the essence exists in 'psychological' time...

K: Yes...

DB : Now we say consciousness may have a content, but no essence ?

K: ( laughing) Quite !

DB : There is nothing but appearence, you see ? It is nothing but 'moving memories'...I mean, with instructions to act & so on...

K: There is 'nothingness'.

DB : Yeah...

K: In that 'no-thingness', everything is contained.

DB : Yes...Now we should go into that a little – in what sense is everything contained ?

K: Is 'reality' contained in that ?

DB : That's the question...Let's try to put it : you say 'truth' acts in matter, right ?

K: Yes...

DB : So matter is 'contained' in it .

K: That's right. Keep to that !

DB : And thought is nothing but a form...

K: ...of matter.

DB : It's an empty form of matter – a very, very unsubstantial form of matter which may be useful in certain domains...

K: You see, in this there is no division.

DB : Yes, this becomes very clear and it possibly it will tie up with with some scientifical ideas. We say that in truth and emptiness is energy and this contains all matter – but of course, this energy may go beyond matter, as we know it...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : Now, in matter is the brain, and in the brain is a form, a very unsubstantial form called 'thought'...

K: Thought, quite...

DB : ...which is also matter. All that is the truth...

K: Yes...In this 'no-thingness', everything 'is' .

DB : Yes.

K: But that is a difficult statement...

DB : I think we can understand that and we can say thought operates as something 'real' in the brain...

K: You see, thought thinks it is 'independent'...

DB : Yes, the self-deception, or the illusion, is that thought thinks it exists independently of matter ; and that thought again does not know its relationship with matter – that was one of its weak points, so it begins to think it is independent and eventually it could think it is the essence of everything.
Perhaps the young child when it first begins to think, he may think that he creates everything by thinking, because all the forms of everything appear in consciusness through thought...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And later he learns that he doesn't create everything, but he doesn't learn it properly...He sort of denies that idea in some part, but he does not deny the whole of it...

K: You see, I've been told by the Indian pundits – Indian scholars- that they have said this...

DB : Said what ?

K:  When there is 'no-thingness' everything 'is' ; which is, to put it in vulgar terms- 'In God, everything is'. You see, in itself that statement is wrong...

DB : Yes, let's try to see exactly what is wrong with it : I think that the trouble with that statement is that thought is trying to transcend its limits which is a form of consciousness– in other words we form a picture – this is also a problem in which philosophy gets into – which is to give an explanation for everything...

K: Of course...

DB : Which is still only thought, and once you take that as an explanation, then the thing is wrong, because then you're saying : the essence is this which I'm thinking about...

K: Quite, quite...

( What time is it?)

DB : Twenty past five...

K: Oh, oh oh... !

DB : Perhaps we should finish it at this stage and there's one more...

K: We'll conclude it...

DB : Perhaps next time I'll try to make a summary of what we were doing

K: Not a 'summary', but we'll perceive & go on...

DB : Perhaps just going over the basic ideas and then go on, right ?

K: Yes...You see, when one says 'In nothingness everything is', that's a wrong statement.

DB : Yes, and how would you put it then ?

K: I don't put it ! ( both laugh)

DB : Well, it's the same as wih the 'judgement' – the judgement divides what is actually undivided – the perception is undivided, but the 'judgement' expresses it as divided, you see ? The judgement always puts a division...

K: Of course...You see , the man listening to that 'In nothingness everything is' says 'In me is God, I am God' and he's lost it.

DB : Yes, because he is thinking...

K: I think in the Judaic religion it is said ' Just don't name It !'

DB : Yes, but that doesn't help either...( both laugh...)

K: Of course not, imagination went rampant...

DB : I think there is a point here to see the limits of philosophy ; you see, every thought is limited and even that thought is limited – and therefore if we take that description or as an indication of something...

K: Of course...That's why it is very important to see that thought can not transcend itself. That is the basic thing.

DB : You see, thought has this tremendous impetus to 'transcend' itself...

K: Of course, that's the root of it !

DB : ...and thought is trying to reach for...

K: ...reach for heaven. Quite....We'll go on the next time.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 18 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 #15
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

12-th K-DB Dialogue on 'Truth & Reality'

K: You said you would sum up the whole thing... ?

DB : Well, I don't know if we should do that exactly, but I could try it a little bit...

K: Would you do that ?

DB : I will start up something : I'd say the essential point about what we were discussing is that thought tends to move out of its own area, which is in some way limited, but you can't express its limits precisely. But roughly, thought should not try to get into the area which is called 'spiritual', or 'truth', or 'beauty', or 'love', or the attempt to control the equilibrium of the brain, of the nervous system...

K: Yes...

DB : And it would be difficult of course to define it exactly beyond that...And we said by one stage that perhaps the trouble began when man began to have increased this capacity to think, thought did not know that it was limited in this way and therefore it tried to think beyond its 'proper' limits - for example, to try to control the brain in order to make it always 'happy', or you know, to...

K: Do you think they didn't know, or they wanted to find something more than thought ?

DB : Well, it was both, but thought did not know it could not find something more than thought...But it also thought that it could control the state of the brain, you see ?

K: Yes...

DB : In other words the brain could get disturbed at times, in various ways...

K: But they have also have said - haven't they, sir ? - that 'meditation' is a form of silence which comes when thought is completely under control.

DB : Yes, that came later, but what I had in mind was that man evolving, at some stage the brain must have become much larger ; say it was the monkey & the chimpanzee, and at some stage, maybe a hundred thousands years ago, man appeared and he had a new brain, but it didn't know how to use it and he still does not know how to use it...

K: Quite, quite...I understand...

DB : And that's probably where the trouble began. And what we are discussing now is probably how the brain should operate...

K: Yes, quite...

DB : Now, this question of 'meditation' seems to come much later, when man tried to deal with all this...And he came up with the idea of trying to control the brain, or to control the mind, but thought didn't know an important point : that it was a material process.

K: Quite...

DB : Only recently we came to know that fairly reliably... Some people may have suspected that a long time ago, but there was not firm knowledge. And therefore thought could think there was a 'spiritual' thing which contained truth...for example, if we're going into the question of 'good' and 'evil', thought could think that it could try be good and avoid evil, and there is the story – now, everybody knew that the (human) brain or mind was in disorder - but they explained it by saying that Adam disobeyed God and had eaten the fruit of knowledge - the knowledge of 'good' and 'evil' in particular - and therefore he was driven out of Paradise and therefore you could say that was the 'sin' - as it was some spiritual sin of chosing 'evil' instead of 'good' - and that explanation would tend to misled people because then the priest would say : 'your problem is that you chose 'evil' instead of 'good'...and you can't do it of course ...

K: You see, sir, as far as I understand- I'm not a Hindu scholar or anything of that kind - but they said thought can control matter...

DB : And that would put it as a 'spiritual principle' beyond matter...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : Now, we were discussing the other day that thought is...

K: ...matter.

DB : ...not only matter, but a ( 'wave) form' on the matter of the brain, you see ?

K: Yes, yes...

DB :... and matter itself is a ('wave ) form' in the emptiness which has infinite energy. Therefore we could say thought is an extremely tenuous thing, because matter itself is existing on the emptiness and thought is a very tenuous form within matter and therefore it would be hopeless to think that thought could completely control matter, you see ?

K: Yes...

DB : It might control it in some ways – and now we know scientifically that we can control matter in certain ways – like producing atomic energy – but thought can not control the matter of the brain - that was the point I wanted to get across. In other words, thought may be able to control airplanes and space ships and atomic power plants, but it cannot control the brain matter - it may think it can, and first of all, it will not be able to control directly by trying to use its 'will-power' . You see, thought may think that by will power it can control the brain...but it can't.

K: I wonder if some of the traditional 'orthodox' hindus would accept that ?

DB : I don't know, you see, but I would want to finish this point then we can discuss it. The other point is that in the scientific side, some scientists are studying the structure of the brain and they might imagine that by their scientific study we can bring the brain to order. But I think that is also hopeless, because you could say that fundamentally the trouble is that brain seeks self-deception instead of correct thought...Now, if you say  that some electrical wave pattern in the brain represents a thought pattern that you could measure, then how could you find within that pattern the difference between truth and falseness ? There would be no hope scientifically in making that distinction. Therefore, all the avenues by which thought might hope to control the brain matter are impossible...

K: Quite, quite, I understand...

DB : I just wanted to finish that point, but now, of course, the Christians and the Hebrews probably didn't even imagine that thought was material, as they had a problem with the 'original sin', that is, why man chose the wrong thing...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : But now, if you come to the Hindus, there is another view – I don't know it exactly...

K: I'm afraid I couldn't say that I know a lot about the Hindus, except that before Buddha – I was told this and I may be totally mistaken – there was a system of philosophy which denied everything, even thought...

DB : Yes... ?

K: And so, there was 'nothingness'...

DB : In that sense, you would agree with them, wouldn't you ?

K; Yes, yes...a little bit...

DB : Up to some extent...But of course there must be some difference between what you say and what they said... ?

K: I'm afraid I don't know fully what they said, but I was told that Buddha followed that system of going beyond all thought and 'nothingness' – it's called 'sankhya philosophy' or something similar – I have forgotten the exact name of it...
So, what we are saying, sir, is this : that the brain in itself produces 'incorrect thought' …

DB : Yes, the brain produces incorrect thought and perhaps the trouble is that thought began by not knowing its own behaviour, its own nature...And if thought could 'see' its own nature, and give a proper account of its own nature, perhaps it could think correctly .

K: Yes, yes...

DB : That's the proposal, you see ? But since it has not began by seeing its own nature, it began to go off the correct action and became more & more confused and tangled up...

K: Yes. So the brain itself cannot 'see' the correct action...

DB : Well, let's say that it has not yet been able to see it.

K: Yes, or see what is the 'illusion', or that it can deceive itself ?

DB : Yes...the brain engages in self-deception, in order to try to make itself feel better – that's basically what happens, you see ? The brain somehow moves and creates a disturbance in the way it is operating and wants to 'feel better' and it does not know how, and finally it ends up in self-deception...

K: Quite.

DB : ...and that of course creates more disturbance and it gets worse .

K: And can this deception come to an end ?

DB : That's really the question, you see...I don't know if any of us can say much about how the ancient Hindus arrived at this – perhaps there were some people among the ancient Hindus who actually understood this, but the whole thing is so poorly documented that we can never say. And even with regard to Christ, one can't never say exactly what he said and so on...

K: I know...

DB : But we also said that at the present time we have at least one point in our favour- that there is a very clear knowledge that thought is a material process – we said this sometime in the past...

K: Yes...

DB : Which is something very firm which would remove the speculation that thought might be all sorts of things...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : Now, that's one point...

K: You see, according to what Buddha had taught is 'right thinking' …

DB : Yes...but that's somewhat ambiguous, because it could mean just a prescription for the 'right' way to think – now everybody says : We want 'right thinking' people - what they mean is they want 'people who think like us'...

K:(laughing)...like ourselves ! Quite...

DB : But Buddha probably didn't mean exactly that, is that it ?

K: I shouldn't think so – it was much too alive, much too...So this is the question we are asking : can the brain free itself from all self-delusion ?

DB : Yes...and also from self-centredness, selfishness...All that is involved...

K: All that...

DB : You see, I am still sumarising in a way, by presenting the situation...So in going on from there, we said that thought , trying to bring the brain in order - and also trying to reach the Highest Principle - it began to hold the brain in order by organising a 'center' just as it organises the centre of the 'family' or of the tribe in order, so thought is trying to bring the brain in order, you see , perhaps that came even before the order of a family...Perhaps even an animal has that to some extent. Now, one of the points that occured to me in considering that maybe there is a 'functional center' which comes in operation in order to do something and then it retires...

K: It can be 'dormant'...

DB : ...dormant. You see, a 'functional center' which operates only from time to time, as needed...

K: And what happens when it is dormant ?

DB : I don't know what happens, but let's first consider what went wrong when thought tried to organise a 'center' to control itself : first of all, it forms the 'image' of an 'center' inside – which might be felt in the solar plexus or in the head or somewhere and also the sense of some broad expanse outside. That is, one gets the impression that there is some sort of a 'periphery' and a 'center' – and the two are in some way related - what happens in one, happens in the other...

K: Quite...

DB : Now, is it our being which has both an outside and an inside ?... There is the 'mental' being and we have our 'physical being' – a mental being and a physical being - the body and the visual perception which sees the body. And we know that what happens in the 'visual' perception happens in the body- they are actually the same, though we describe them as different...And there was a kind of extension of that, to form a 'mental body' and a 'mental' eye but that got tied up with this temporary center. In other words, this little 'game' now producing the image of the 'center' , was tied up with the actual 'functional center'...

K: In our relationship we create a 'center'.

DB : An artificial, an 'imaginary' center...

K: A 'center' which is imaginary – made of 'images' – which is necessary to live happily together .

DB : Which we 'think' it's necessary...But in addition there is another 'center' – a functional center which works and retires. And this 'imaginary' center would call up the 'functional' center in order to do what the 'image' says it should be done...And therefore the 'image center' obtains an apparent ...

K: ...reality.

DB : An 'effectiveness', as if it were a real being, by taking control of the functional center...I don't know if that makes sense – that's the way it appeared to me ; because if it were just an 'image', we would soon discover that it was really quite weak or empty...

K: Sir, would you say – as all life is relationship - that thought creates the (self-) 'image' for convenience...

DB : In the beginning for convenience of function...

K:... and that creates the 'center'...

DB : That calls up the center of activity.

K: ...of activity, yes...

DB : Yes...so there is the 'image' of the center which calls up the 'center of activity', which then becomes 'centre'.

K: So there is the 'image' in relationship and the 'image' which calls upon other series of images to function.

DB : It may even call for the an actual brain center to function - in other words, there are in the brain some mechanical centers and it may call for one of those, you see ?

K: Yes...

DB : Now, let's say that this 'image' may be useful functionally or technically ; say, if you have to go from one place to another – then I form an 'image' of myself being here and the image of the place being there, then that 'image' helps to direct my function and my activity of going there but then this gets extended to the 'image' which tries to control the whole state of mind, or which tries to control the human relationships …

K: Yes, I understand... But sir, if there was no self-deception, would there be any need for an image at all  - except in the pattern action ?

DB : Yes, but there is an image even in the pattern of the functional action insofar as it's 'conscious' – if you can think about...

K: Why should there be a (self-) 'image' in action ?

DB : Maybe there should, or there shouldn't, but let's say first why it seems it should : say, it's a very simple action – like that of a man who wants to make a tool or who wants to take a journey : so he 'imagines' the tool he wants to make, or he 'imagines' the journey that he wants to make and then he makes his preparations and carries it out ; now, let's say that to make this journey he might make a series of preparations and so on...

K: I know it, unfortunately...

DB : (laughs) Now, he may form in his mind the image of that journey as a series of 'pictures' of what it's like...

K: No, no...

DB : Maybe he is wrong, but this is what he probably does ; I'm not saying it's right , I'm just exploring...

K: Quite, quite...exploring...

DB : Therefore he begins to function that way by thinking of the image of what he's going to do and carrying out according to that image...

K: Would you call it 'image' or the necessity of doing something, of preparing...I'm leaving the day after tomorrow (and) I have to pack and get all the things together & so on... There is no 'image' forming at all. These things have to be done...

DB : Yes, but when the time comes to decide what has to be done...let's see – to go back to the primitive man – he has to take a long journey through strange places and he thinks of where he's going and what he may need and so on...Now, some images may appear there - I expect such & such a countryside, I need such & such clothing & so on...

K: Why do you call it 'image making' ?

DB : Well, merely because even a photograph is an 'image' – you refer to a photograph of the place you are going to , and that will help your preparation, right ?

K: Just wait a minute...I would like to see – I'm going to California...

DB : Well, you know it already and other people know it...But suppose you've never been to California...

K: Then some other people will tell me : you need to take this & this...

DB : But suppose nobody knows exactly – if you are an explorer for example, you'll try to prepare for the exploration...

K: Yes, yes.

DB : And you don't know exactly what to expect, but people might imagine what is the nature of the country and what you may encounter so that you can prepare accordingly. Or also you may have a photograph of that country, which will give you some idea of what to expect, right ?

K: I see that the word 'image'...

DB...the word 'image' has a general meaning based on the same limitation ; then I said there are different kind of 'images' – there are photographic images as in television and so on...

K: I see...

DB : Now, some of them may have a factual content and some images do not, you see ?

K: Yes, the 'images' that have a factual content we can leave those aside .

DB : That's right ; however we are using 'technical images' quite frequently – which have a factual content and the mind begins to 'extend' these images - the 'image making' faculty- into other areas where there is no factual content …

K: Yes, quite...so we come back to the question – if we can leave the 'factual' images with their content & so on – that's very simple & clear...

DB : Yes... but the image of the 'self' seems to have 'factual' content , but we're saying that it has not... ?

K: It has none !

DB : Yes, but if you ask people, they'll say it has, you see ?

K: Of course...

DB : So, we'll have to understand how this confusion and self-deception came about...

K: A-ha …

DB : You see, it was one of the basic things where mankind got caught - to form these 'images' which have no factual content but which are very important and once that was formed...

K: Why does that 'self' (image) become important ?

DB : Yes, that's our question ; I think the beginning was to form the 'center' which tried to take control of the whole process – and an 'image' was basic in forming this center …

K: Or, would you say the 'center' was formed because everything being in flux, everything being in movement... ?

DB : Now let's go slowly here ; you see, this movement implies uncertainty – the question is why is thought unwilling to stay with uncertainty ? Why doesn't it accept the 'fact' of uncertainty ? See, it's already a distortion, deception.

K: There begins the deception.

DB : Yes... But why does it get caught in the deception ? You see, there may be thought which is functional, which is correct and so on …

K: That's simple...

DB : Now, if the thought is functioning correctly, then if there is the fact that there is uncertainty, then it would just say : Life is uncertain – it doesn't try to pretend or make an image that there is 'certainty'.

K: One can't live in uncertainty !

DB : But let's go slowly, because you see,  first of all, my knowledge is uncertain...

K: Yes, that's right...

DB : And I say : exactly, I can't live in uncertainty - but now, there's some confusion there, you see ? Because you are also saying : ''You have to live in uncertainty'' in some way...

K: Of course !

DB : But why did thought come to this 'false' conclusion ? You see, if it was functioning correctly it would have said 'life is uncertain'.

K: Wouldn't you say that in that there is a great fear ?

DB : I understand that, but where would this fear arise ? See, if thought is functioning correctly it would not produce fear.

K: But it is not functioning correctly !

DB : Then this was already off, because it was already functioning in a different area, you see ? In other words, thought began not knowing its limits, so it was already trying to do things which it has no place to do  - it was trying to provide security...

K: See, it entered in an incorrect direction when desire, sensation & thought became prominent...

DB ; Yes, that's just the point I was coming to...

K: Sorry !

DB : But that's good. The point is that thought is moving into a 'wrong' area in trying to provide a security which it cannot provide. The question is : what is the motive power behind this incorrect action ? And I think the point was that there arose this question of desire. Let's try to put it that thought moving in a correct area may set a goal and you will try to achieve it ; but thought can project another goal – to achieve a better state of mind, to 'feel better'...

K:...to feel better, right.

DB : ...if I feel bad, it would be natural that I should feel better, and what can I do to feel better ? And of course, if you're ill, you go to a doctor & so on, but if you feel bad psychologically, with sorrow & so on, it's not so clear...So, when thought said ''I want to feel better'', it anticipated some kind of feeling & tried to achieve it - that being a 'desire', right ?

K: That's right, a desire...

DB : Now, it seems to me that desire is the basic source of self-deception...

K: Yes, of course, obviously...

DB : And it is very clear, because thought cannot do anything to the brain matter to feel better, but of course, it can do something to disturb it... Now, when it tries to make the brain 'feel better', all it can do is to look for thoughts that can make it feel better …

K: Quite...

DB : So, thoughts which are incorrect are accepted as 'correct' and you begin to go into distortion and self-deception, because it makes the brain feel better...

K: Right...That is, if 'desire' is sensation & thought, then that very desire is a distorting factor.

DB : Yes, because that sensation coupled with thought is giving the brain the desire for a better sensation, and it distorts thought in trying to make it better - inevitably, you see ? And then, of course, nothing can satisfy fully that desire - because of its contradictory nature- so it changes from one to another 'route' and eventually several different desires are already there... I have observed one thing : that when another desire comes in, thought does not know how to stop the first desire...

K: But sir, isn't all desire the same, but the 'objects' of desire change ?

DB : Yes, there is a superficial change of object, but the basic process is one and the same - it is confused, contradictory & self-deceptive... Now, desire includes 'belief' and 'hope' – belief means accepting something as correct because you desire it to be so - for otherwise you have no proof, you see ? And 'hope' is just simply the belief that what you desire is going to be realised...So, all three are one and the same : I think that 'belief' is even more deceptive than plain desire...

K: So, can desire be totally understood and therefore there's no more distortion taking place ?

DB : That is the point we have to get to, because desire is so self-deceptive that it deceive itself about its own existence – you may desire to believe that there is no problem & so on...

K: Yes...but haven't all religions – I don't know about Christianity, but certainly the Hindus said : Control your desires, because that is the very root of self-deception ?

DB : Yes, I understand that all religions have implied or said ' Control desire' because they have understood very correctly that desire is destructive - but desire cannot be 'controlled' , because when you try to control desire there will merely be one desire against another...

K: And because it cannot be 'controlled' they said : identify yourself with something greater …

DB : Yes, but that's still desire...

K: Of course !

DB : And that may become a form of self-deception : I believe that I am something greater because I feel better …

K: Right. Then the problem arises : can desire -which cannot be controlled – because the 'controller' is part of desire …

DB : Yes, that's a key point and perhaps it should be brought up - that as you try to control the desire, that desire in itself is not an 'object' but a 'movement', sending a set of instructions to the brain in order to get something and the one who sends the instructions is himself controlled by the instructions...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And therefore there's no separation between the 'controller' and the 'controlled'. It's not the same as some external object which can be separated from the brain, but desire is the very movement...

K: And, as desire breeds illusion, can the mind or the brain relegate desire to the 'functional' activity ?

DB : Well, it's not clear that it can, as desire itself is deceptive, it is not clear if we can keep desire at its place...

K: I think it can. Let's go into it.

DB : You see, I thought that one point could be added : desire may often be confused with passion, and they are obviously quite different ; one of the ways by which desire maintains itself is to create self-deception by saying it is 'passion'...

K: You've heard last night on television that the Conservative Party was 'passionate' …

DB : (both laugh) Now let's look into the 'functional' area – would you say there is a place for desire there ?

K: I doubt it...

DB : But you seemed to imply it was so before...

K: I know, but I just brought it out because I question it altogether...I think that if one can understand the whole movement of 'desire' and see whether it can be 'dissipated' , then in the 'functional center' there is no desire.

DB : You see, that would make more sense to say that the 'functional centre' would operate without desire and does what it has to do...

K: Yes, I had to go to California the other day, now it's finished...

DB : Because I think that if desire enters anywere it's going to produce self-deception that would spread everywhere...

K: So the question is whether desire can be totally dissolved so that there is no possible deception at any level -at the 'functional' center and at the 'psychological' and all the rest of it...

DB : Yes...

K: Otherwise, one lives in a 'fool's paradise' - because your belief in Heaven or Hell is totally unreal...

DB : Yes, I mean the point is : we can't go on with desire, and if we do, our society will be destroyed...

K: Quite, as the world is....So can desire have no place in action ?

DB : Or no place anywhere ?

K: No place...We admit that, but how can this desire be dissolved ? What is the action, what is the process, what is the insight, or the intelligence that will dissolve this desire ? Can the brain 'see' the nature of desire or the 'truth of desire' and therefore...

DB : What you really mean is seeing the actual fact of desire ?

K: Yes...I have watched it several times – I like fast cars : their shape & the whole bussiness of it...There is the sensation, thought, and the desire arising. Can there be only sensation, thought and... no desire ?

DB : That's the question...You see, it's 'rational' to say that we sense something and we think from that and see what to do, but desire arises when that thought includes the thought of the 'self' – it's something that the 'self' needs or is missing...

K: Like the sense of power, sensation & all the rest of it...

DB : But when that sense of power extends to be the essence of your consciousness, then it creates some sort of overwhelming power - which we call 'longing' or 'yearning' or 'craving' or 'hankering' & so on. In other words...

K: The root of all that is desire !

DB : That is one thing, given different names, but I think the root of this is a certain mistake of thought which is (operating) in the wrong area : trying to think of the essence of your consciousness, or trying to think that it can do something in that area...

K: Yes, yes ...but we said the other day that the content of consciousness 'is' consciousness...

DB : Yes , but then, one mistake is that thought tends to think is it is not ; in other words, thought tends to think that consciousness is the manifestation of a 'being', or of an 'entity' who is deeper and who is not only thinking correctly - more or less - but who is also 'seeing' – its thinking is often described as 'perception' – and who is also 'experiencing' - I think that's important – because that gives the sense of reality – that this 'being' is the 'experiencer' who is experiencing the sensations...

K: Quite...

DB : And all that makes this thing very real - a 'reality' independent of thought...You see, if all that would not be present, the sensations would not be regarded by thought as all that important...You see, thought is trying to produce a different set of sensations in order to make you feel better…

K: Better sensations... more & more sensations...

DB : That's right, more & better , that's what is worse !

K: (laughing) Yes...

DB : Now, that's an inherently crazy activity, you see, because the only point of sensations is to give you 'factual' informations ; if thought tries to make them 'better' , then it could no longer give you information, you see ? And the whole thing anyway is self- contradictory because that very attempt cannot be kept under control and so on...

K: So, I'll come back to the point : the 'content' of one's consciousness is the product of desire - apart from the 'functional' knowledge , the rest of it, is the movement and the accumulation of sensations and desire.

DB : It is like some sort of imprints which contain the records of all that and the instructions to produce them again and their memory becomes stronger and stronger...

K: Can that movement of desire come to an end ? Should it come to an end ?

DB : Well, it seems from what we said that it should... ?

K: But all the religions of the world they say this, yet the become monks in order to identify with...

DB : You see, that's the self-deceptive nature of desire. One thing that the brain begins to say when it sees this destructive nature is : I'd rather not have desire, and it begins to desire a state of 'non-desire' ...

K: Yes, that's it - to desire a state of 'non-desire'...

DB : ...therefore the whole thing is silly because desire has such a self-deceptive nature that I can desire 'not to be conscious that I have desire' – because it's the content of my consciousness- that I ( should) have no desire...

K: So, our question is : can desire which brings illusion, self-deception and all the objective complications  of changing desires - can the root of desire be dissipated ? I think it is only then that you see what is 'truth' …

DB : I mean, that is very clear to me, that as long as there is desire, nothing can be done...

K: ...nothing can be done, that's right. You see, sir, this is very difficult, because most people think that desire is necessary to live - that's part of our tradition... As this boy said to me after the talk : ''I like sex, but without desire, how can I have sex ?''...So, our conditioning is so strong that desire is part of our 'necessity to live'...

DB : Yes, otherwise you might just become a 'vegetable'...

K: ...a 'vegetable' . Now, let's see : is it possible to eliminate all desire ?

DB : You see, just to finish the other point - if we can distinguish 'desire' and 'passion' – because without desire there is place for real passion, so there is no 'being a vegetable', but rather this has far more energy - because desire wastes a tremendous energy just because of its contradictions ; it is always moving in many directions and it's wasting energy...

K: That's right. I was talking once to a monk and he said : I have totally rid myself of all wordly desires ...

DB : Hmm, but what other thing he got left ?

K: ...and therefore I've taken to calling mysef a different name, put on a robe, I have only one meal a day so the worldly desire is completely out of my system ; but I do desire to reach God. He said, ''You cannot take that away from me because it's my life ! That is the very root of my essence''.

DB : Yes, that's what I was saying before, that thought is going into the wrong sphere and tries to guarantee its essence in some way, by 'thinking' ...You see, desire is the attempt of thought to make its essence 'right'...

K: When I desire, I 'am'. You follow ?

DB : I think that's clear, rather than what Descartes was saying : 'I think therefore I am', it's 'I desire, therefore I am'... desire is thought, of course, but I don't think Decartes had that 'kind of thought' in mind...( both laugh)

K: You see, when you deny desire, 'I' am not !

Db : Yes...I was thinking of a remark you made once in some talk, that '' Desire is the bedrock of the ego''...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : You see, it seems very solid, something which is not that easy to break up...

K: Yes. Now how is this desire, which is the (bed)rock on which all our civilisation, all our 'individual' aspirations & all our culture are based, how can that be dissolved ; without 'control' – because the controller 'is' the controlled, without any 'effort' - because 'effort' implies desire, without any 'goal' – which also implies desire, without any 'ideal' ? The very question that the 'self' is based on the bedrock of desire and therefore self-deception, suffering  & the whole thing that follows, would you say that if there is no desire, there is 'nothing' ?

DB : Yes...

K: ...and therefore that 'no-thingness' is a frightening thing ?

DB : Well, I would try to put it slightly diffently : desire is already implicitly fear...

K: Yes, of course !

DB : ...because desire is the sense that ''I need something for my essence'' and if it's not there then it would be very frightening ...

K: That's right !

DB : The very essence of desire is fear, it is sorrow, and it is violence – because if I don't get what I want, I become violent, you see ?

K: Yes, sir....How am I to 'dynamite' ( laughing), 'explode' this tremendous rock which society, tradition, everything sustains it, boosts it, makes this 'bedrock' more solid ?
When one sees that desire implies conflict, desire implies duality, desire is in itself 'fragmentation' …

DB : Yes... ?

K: When one 'sees' that factually, is there desire ?

DB : Well, what you say is correct, but the difficulty is in 'seeing' this because it is such a fast & violent process. I think that desire has been built up by tradition to such an extent that it pervades every movement of consciousness...

K: I know... the desire to reach, the desire to be good...

DB : ... the desire for the 'highest' , the desire for this & for that. The desire for security is probably a major one...

K: Would you say that knowing that there is no security, the desire is for something else... ?

DB : Well, the desire for security works entirely in a field of fancy imagination...

K: Yes...

DB : ...and that gives the apparent perception of the thing desired, or of the thing which we have to reach... Without imagination I don't think there would be desire...

K: The other day on TV, the host was saying ''This is my blood and flesh, eat of it !'' That's pure imagination !

DB : Yes, it's fancy...

K: ...fancy and yet millions accept it !

DB : Yes, because that's 'belief' - whatever suits your fancy, or makes you feel good , you 'believe' it ; and every different persons, has a different belief ...

K: So, realising all this, examining and exploring all this, can we narrow it down and ask whether it is at all possible to live without desire ?

DB : Well, I'll say it's absolutely necessary...

K: It is, but now we come to the point where we both see it is essential that we exist without desire , and it's in the very structure of my brain cells that desires to live, that desires to be happy, that desires to get rid of fear & all the rest of it- how can that brain, which is conditioned by the desire to 'uncondition' itself?
Do we ever ask this question ? And if we ask it, will it not be another form of desire to get rid of it ?

DB : Well, there is the danger of falling into that trap...

K: Of course ! But do we have to go through all this process ?

DB : Well, I mean, all of those things will not get us anywhere...

K: What prevents one from having an insight, a real insight, that is, 'seeing the truth' of desire and therefore 'end' it ? Is it that we have never asked this question ? Or, we dared to ask this question - if it is possible to live totally without desire ? I think it is a marvelous question that needs a tremendous intelligence – because if I desire a pair of shoes and I need it I won't call it 'desire' – or I may need a dozen pairs of shoes for various reasons & so on, but 'need' and 'desire' can they be kept separate ?

DB : Well, if it's a genuine need...

K: I'm talking of genuine need …

DB : Desire is a fancy need in itself …

K: But there comes the 'pride' of posessions, vanity...

DB : That again it is an 'imagination'...

K: Of course ! So, can 'need' and 'desire' be kept separate ?

DB : I think they can...

K: They can, but that requires intelligence – that intelligence that 'sees' that desire has no place... Would you say the essence of intelligence is to be without desire ?

DB : Yes, we could say this is the essential requirement for intelligence...I wouldn't say it is the essence of the whole, but the essential requirement for intelligence is non-desire...

K: So, a man caught up in desire - however cruel, however subtle, however noble - is unintelligent !

DB : Yes, not basically 'intelligent'...

K: Of course ! Now, can my needs or one's needs be absolutely correct ? Never desire touching them ?

DB : That would mean no thought for yourself ?

K: Of course...So consciousness becomes something totally different.

DB : Well, let's go into that a little bit : when there is no thought of the 'self' or desire...The thought of the 'self' is desire, or at least a sustaining force...

K: Yes. And therefore, what is the nature of a consciousness that is not put together by desire ?

DB : But there is still an action of knowledge...

K: But that's 'function' – we'll keep that – it's understood we've locked it up...

DB : Now you're asking for an action beyond that?

K: Yes, of course...

DB : Could you say it's the whole function of the brain ?

K: Sir, what is the 'function' of the brain if there is no desire ? What happens to the brain if it has no desire ?

DB : Hmm... ?

K: Does it receive a shock with this question ? Is it something startling ?

DB : Well, not exactly 'startling' ; but surprising certainly …

K: Surprising, startling, therefore it is facing something totally new....

DB : Yes...

K: 'New' in the sense that if has not put this question ever - others may have put it to ourselves....

DB : Like Buddha... ?

K: So, what happens to the 'movement' of the brain when there is no desire at all ? So, we're asking something which may be incorrect, or something 'illusory', because unless we understand the function and leave it totally, this question may be terribly disturbing to the brain...

DB : You mean, the brain can't handle it ?

K: Yes, it is too immense !

DB : Well, the brain tends to leave it go, if it can't really deal with it...

K: You see, you were saying the other day at lunch – if I may repeat it again – that in space there is a tremendous energy...

DB : Yes.

K: Now we said : desire wastes energy...

DB : Yes, that's correct...

K: Now, when the brain has no desire...

DB : Then it will have all that energy ?

K: That's right !

DB : Yes, I've observed that if you keep on watching desire carefully, you'll find that the energy goes up...

K: That's what I'm trying to get at  !

DB : … there is a major waste of energy in desire.

K: But you see, this is the 'danger' – the energy is going up - therefore control desire and make it an 'industry'...

DB : Yes, to 'keep it up'...

K: Keep it up and gain twenty millions of dollars of it...I don't know if you saw it the other day in the Herald Tribune : Transcendental Meditation is a twenty million dollars industry...You follow ? This is what would happen...

DB : Hmm …and what does the 'industry' produce ?

K: (laughing ) ... more cars ! It's very interesting this...

DB : Now, I think that it's useful to observe that this does happen, but definitely not to pursue it...

K: Now, wait a minute, sir : If I function 'rightly' – that means a life that is really orderly- righteous, virtuous, unselfish and all that, then only I can put this question legitimately... Otherwise I'll use that watching of desire – the arising of that energy – and use it for mischievous purposes. The army will accept this marvelous...and the politicians will play havoc with it ...Therefore I think it's essential that you must have that really religious, virtuous life – otherwise you can't come to the 'Other' . Would you say that ?

DB : Yes...

K: Then we can ask : what happens to the brain that has no desire whatsoever. Which means no self-deception, no striving, no 'achievement', no 'going or coming'...nothing ! Totally 'no desire'. Therefore, if it has no desire, there's no 'content'...

DB : ...except the functional.

K: Therefore it's 'empty' and as you said the other day, it has a tremendous energy. Then, what's the point of all this ?

DB : We can't define a 'point'...

K: No, I'm just asking : what is the point of my having no desire ?

DB : Because then I'm free of self-deception... ?

K: All right, I'm free of self-deception and then, what ?

DB : Well, I think that's not the end of the matter...

K: That's just it !

DB : Freedom from self-deception is the essence of a revolution in consciousness...

K: Revolution in consciousness...Would an actual revolutionary in here...

DB : In...where ?

K: In the (world of) 'function'...

DB : Yeah... ?

K: ...accept this kind of 'revolution' wich brings tremendous energy to operate here ?

DB : Well, ordinary most revolutionaries would not, because they won't accept they are caught in self-deception. On the contrary, they feel they 'know' what has to be done...

K: Of course, you've heard them...So, sir, at the end of it, what is the point of all this ? Say, one has come to this point – no 'desire' whatsoever...

DB : And a tremendous energy... ?

K: Not 'tremendous' energy'- it's something incredibly 'wild'- without limitations, without frontiers...it is 'infinite' – if I can use that word without being limited by that word, hmm ? If you have 'that' then... what's the point of it ?

DB : All right...it has no place in the present order of things...I mean, except possibly to help to transform it...

K: Suppose you and I come to this – not as Dr Bohm and K – but two people have come to it. Then, what is their relationship to the 'world of reality', the world of function, the world of relationship and so on... ?

DB : That is really the 'world of self-deception' by desire...

K: What is their relationship ?

DB : You see, if you define all that as being the 'world' then there is no relationship except to communicate, to get through that, you see?

K: To come to this - as we have spent hours of this – not just casually, you were ready and I worked at it, & so on, to come to this we have to 'live right' and what is the point of it ? That's what I want to get at : who will 'listen' ?

DB : Well, I think there are different people - some are dis-inclined to listen and some are not, you now ?

K: No, but that means going into oneself at great depth, and watching everything like...

DB : Yes, I can see that most people won't want to do that - they may say they haven't the time...

K: Therefore they say to me :  ''That's only for the 'elite', so get the hell out of here !''

DB : Yes, but they haven't answered the question of 'what you do against self-deception ?'

K: They say, ''that's man's nature, it must go on''...

DB : Yes, but what will he do with the 'self-deception', you see ?

K: It begins with ''this is, and that is deception and it will gradually improve''...

DB : Yes, but they won't admit that it's deception... You see, if somebody once admits it is deception I think they cannot go on with this... You see, at least this is the way I see it, that if we can make so clear this point - that it is deception and the person can get out of it...

K I was talking once to a Catholic in a train in India and he said  to me: 'Oh, you are a Hindu...' I said ''I am sorry I am not a Hindu''. He said ''All they have got is a set of beliefs - in Krishna, in Rama, etc - a whole set of superstitious nonsense & all that''. I said : ''What about yourself, sir, your belief in Christ ?'' And he said ''Ah, that is real ! ''…. You follow ?
That's what I want to get at : If two people have got this mind, this sense of a brain that has no sense of desire – what a marvelous thing that is, hmm ?

DB : Yes...

K: Then, what can they do ? What is the point of it ? It's like living in a desert !

DB : You see, I think we discussed something relevant to this before- when you compared the young man Krishnamurti to some sort of 'nucleus' which would help to transform the consciousness of mankind...

K: …the consciousness of mankind, quite right !

DB : Any person who is without desire is that 'nucleus'... Isn't that right ?

K: That's what I want to get at : I think it does affect consciousness here...

DB : Yes, because let's say, if there is one and he does affect it, then two will have more effect...

K: Of course...

DB : But consciousness is 'all-one' – you see ? The idea that it's all separated is wrong – it is flowing like a stream, and every person has some mixture of this consciousness...I think we once used the notion if 'ideosyncrasy' - Which I looked up and it means 'private mixture'...

K: 'Private mixture'...(laughing) yes, that's good !

DB : And everybody has his own 'private mixture' of the general consciousness – he draws everything out of this general consciousness. So, there is no such thing as an 'ego', which is 'individual', you see ? Every 'individual' is a private mixture of the ingredients of the general consciousness.

K: ( laughing) Quite...

DB : Now, that means that consciousness is continuously flowing in a stream, into and out of each individual and if there is 'truth' – truth as I said is 'truth in action' - that flows into the other person...

K: Yes...So the point is that it affects the total consciousness of man.

DB : Yes...first only potentially and later actually, you see ?

K: Yes...It affects man.

DB : It affects mankind, right  ?

K: Mankind, yes...

DB : And obviously, if that man would be entirely isolated, it wouldn't actually affect other people, but once he is in contact, that potential effect becomes actual.

K: A man who is here, in the world of reality, listens to you who say : As long as there is desire  there is deception and therefore there is no solution to society or to the individual. And that is only possible when there is no desire whatsoever. Then there is a total revolution and that will affect the consciousness of man.

DB : Yes...

K: Now he is (living) here, in the world of reality, and he listens to you, he says : All right, I accept the logic of it, the reason of it, the explanation of it – I 'see' it. Now, how am I to move from the 'world of reality' to this ?

DB : Yes.. ?

K: So, he says : by systems & all the traps that desire has created...

DB : So, you'll have to go into that and point out that any systems...

K: But they haven't time, you follow ?

DB : They havent't time...

K: They want everything quick & with appeal...

DB : But it seems to me that the whole thing can be presented in such a way that it is becoming transparent that any system is all self deception...

K: But for this man in the 'field of reality', everything is against him ! His education , his upbringing, his family – everything is against him !

DB : But couldn't we say that no man is entirely in the field of reality ? You see, there is probably some mixture again... In other words, he has some...

K: But that would lead to another illusion – ''Yes, I've got this thing !'' …

DB : No, not to say that, but the way it seems to me, is that somebody may get a moment of perception , but then as thought comes in, it begins to tangle it up...

K: That means that even the moment of perception...

DB : ...is wrong ?

K: ..may be wrong ? For that moment of perception there must be leisure, he must have a time to listen , a time to read ...

DB : You see, you are presenting an 'impossible' problem...

K: This is what's happening …

DB : I know it's the 'fact', but we seem to reach an impasse...

K: I mean, a man would give all his life to climb mount Everest...He'll go to hell to come there...

DB : Yes, but then it's the same story, because 'mount Everest' is in the field of desire ...

K: Of course, but I think that the man who is without desire affects the total consciousness of human beings.

DB : But is there any possibility that this effect will bring about the total 'revolution' ? You can't say, eh... ?

K: Of course in a school like here at Brockwood or others, this is the basic thing the students are fighting - ''It's all very well, I agree, but how am I to earn my livelihood ? How am I to have any relationship if I consider that ?''

DB : Yes, and if I'm free of desire, then what will I do ?

K: So, they say, take it little by little -you follow, sir ? Don't 'swallow' the whole thing, take a little bit of it...Then they're lost by the time they've taken all the 'little bits' …

DB : Yes, well that can't be done because...

K : That can't be done, but the priests and the gurus supply the 'little bits'... We never put this question really, what an extraordinary thing it is for the brain to be without ( free of?) 'desire' …

DB : Have you put it ?

K: I've never put it, but it is there.

DB : Implicitly... ?

K: I see that I have no desire, literally ! I am not deceiving myself, I'm not trying to pretend this – I have horror for all that... So, putting that very question has opened something which was probably there. So the passion of desire and the passion of 'non-desire' are two different things...

DB : Yes...Could you say that the passion of desire is some twisting up of the brain's energy and the 'other' energy is entirely different ?

K: Yes.

DB : Is not the brain's energy of truth ?

K: Yes, you see, here intelligence has been the tool of desire.

DB : Well, how can intelligence... ?

K: We'll call it 'intelligence'...

DB : Can we call it the 'brain function' ?

K: Yes. There we say 'he's an intelligent man', he works 'intelligently', etc...So, desire is identified with intelligence in activity here, but when there is no desire at all, that intelligence can function here.

DB : Yes, we discussed this the other time that for example when one is speaking, this intelligence may function and directly produces the words, rather than having them come from desire...

K: Yes. Sir, if I may ask, not being 'personal', when you heard that statement ''Can the brain be totally without desire'', what effect had that question ?

DB : Well, I can't remember ; I think the question was there implicitly but it sort of 'opens up' the brain...I mean, to make it 'explicit' ...

K: Yes, that's what I was trying to find out...

DB : ...because in some way, I think you're right to say that our tradition is such that it would be very unlikely to put this question even if you have felt it implicitly...

K: Yes...

DB : ...but it's unlikely to put it explicitly.

K: See, they have always said : 'control desire' ...

DB : I think that in the modern age it says 'don't even control it ' !

K : Of course, the 'modern age'... You see, sir, I think this has to do with the 'process'...

DB : Your 'process', the one we were discussing the other time  ?

K: Yes...Because I was watching in the last few days - as I woke up very early and been very quiet - the intensity of the movement of desire is going on changing the whole nature inside...

DB : The nature of what ?

K: Of the brain. I mean, all this sounds ridiculous...

DB : I wouldn't say it sound ridiculous ; you're saying desire originates from (brain's ) conditioning and this conditioning leaves some imprint in the brain cells. Could you say that this 'movement' is changing the imprint, or... ?

K: No, it's something entirely different, much more...

DB : Much more than this... ?

K: Much more...

DB : In other words, it's doing something into the deeper layers of the brain, not just in the memory ?

K: Yes...

DB : So, you feel that, but you can't prove it... ?

K: No...this can't be 'proved' …

DB : What ?

K: ...what happens to a brain without desire …

DB : Yes...I've been reading what you call ''the Scaravelli manuscript'' ( the Notebook) about what happened with this 'process' over six or seven months while you were travelling around the world...

K: I think this is what it is, sir : you can take purgatives to cleanse the body, or various herbs & so on to purify the body, the organism. Now is there a 'movement', an 'action' that keeps the brain completely pure or uncontaminated... ?

DB ; And this has to do with the 'process' ?

K: With the process and with 'this'.

DB ; What is 'this' ?

K: The brain without desire...We're entering into something...You see, if there is no desire, then what is the function of the brain other than this?

DB : Except the ordinary function... ? Would you say there is another function ?

K: Why should it 'function' ?

DB : Let's say it doesn't function...then what happens ? Let me bring up another point : in this 'Scaravelli manuscript' you are refering quite often to this 'otherness' saying that it left an imprint on the brain. Why do you call it 'other' – is it 'other' to thought or 'other than' the odinary reality ?

K: Yes, 'other than'...

DB : But this doesn't imply there is a separation..... ?

K: No... I had to use ( common) words...Sir, when you 'hear' a statement of that kind : 'brain without desire' , does the brain undergo a revolution, a transformation  - like 'compassion' -which is a mystery- and that very word 'compassion' is a word that has got a tremendous vitality...

DB : Yes...

K: When you hear words like that, doesn't that affect your whole organism & so on ?

DB : Well, it may have, but you see, I think we use these words so frequently that they cease to affect us...

K: I know...And I think that's why it is remaining  such a 'mystery...

DB : Why ?

K: The word 'Compassion' …

DB : Why is it such a 'mystery' ?

K: It is a mystery because it is so changing, and it's never the same...

DB : Yes... ?

K: It's really timeless...And therefore it is an extraordinary 'mystery'...

What time is it ?

DB : It's five minutes to five...

K: Why aren't children – at least some of them – supposed to see 'facts' ?

DB : I didn't know about that...

K: I was told that...

DB : Maybe there are some, but in general they have a great deal of 'fantasy'...

K: Of course, all that it's encouraged...

When do you go back ? Tomorrow ?

DB : In the afternoon.

K: I must return your dictionary...it's there. Better stop, don't you think ?

DB : Yes...(silent pause)

K: Two or three people have heard these tapes and said they are greately moved and they want some copies of them, or do you want lots of people to share it ?

DB : We can discuss this when we meet in California... But when you raised this question of the 'mind without desire' I think that it begins to open up this whole thing...

K: To put in words a thing like that, I think it does something ...

DB : You see, at first it may seem like an insignificant change, but it actually is very significant...

The END

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 18 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Apr 2019 #16
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

1ST ( 'reader-friendly' edited) K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM 'THE ENDING OF TIME'( 1980)

JK: I would like to ask if ( the collective consciousness of ) humanity has not taken a 'wrong turn' by (ignoring the psychological 'facts' & indulging a mentality of self-centred ? ) becoming

DB: Well, outwardly it's obvious : instead of being constructive and discovering new techniques and materials (some of our ancestors?) found it easier to plunder their neighbours and take slaves....

K: Yes, yes, this ( whole self-centred mentality based on ?) conflict has been the root of all this.

DB: If we could put ourselves in the place of these (vastly ignorant?) people who lived a long time ago, how would you see that conflict? Could it be their contradictory activities of desire ?

K: Isn't it due to thought's avoidance of directly) facing the actual 'facts' ( of life ) dealing with them & changing them (ASAP?), but rather moving to accumulating more and more (stuff?)

DB: What would you say was the main fact that people couldn't stay with?

K: The Christians said, the 'original sin'. And long before that, the Hindus have this (compensating) idea of Karma. What is the origin of all this?

DB: Well whatever the 'facts' that people couldn't stay with, thought always tried to imagine 'something better'.

K: Yes, something better. Becoming more 'good' ( & hopefully 'less bad'?)

DB: Yes... I should think it is natural for thought to project this goal of becoming better that it is intrinsic in the structure of thought ?

K: Is it that the principle of 'becoming better' in the physical world , moved to the inner world – in trying to become better ?

DB: Well if it is good to become better outwardly then why shouldn't I become better inwardly.

K: Isn't (thought's self-projected continuity in ) 'time' the factor?

DB: Well, I can't see that 'time' by itself is the only factor. We have to say that time applied outwardly causes no difficulty, but we have to see why is time so destructive inwardly.

K: Because I am trying to become something (other than I am) and in that ( psychological becoming) is involved conflict, a constant battle between 'what is' and the desire of becoming 'what should be'. And inwardly it builds up an ( all controlling?) egotistic centre.

DB: So, when we are doing it inwardly, we are trying to force ourselves to become something that we are not - and that is involving an endless fight.

K: That is an (ongoing psychological) fact. Is it one's brain got so accustomed ( with this mentality of) conflict that one rejects any other form of living?

DB: Well that must have come later. After a while , people come to the conclusion that this (inner) conflict is inevitable and necessary...

K: But what is the origin of conflict?

DB: I think we touched on it by saying we are ( both enjoying 'being' something pleasurable & rewarding ) and also trying to become something better - therefore we want two different things at the same time. Would that seem right?

K: I am trying to find out the ( dualistic) origin of all this misery, confusion, conflict, struggle - is it thought's divisive mentality of 'I' and 'not I'?

DB: Well, that might be getting closer – this separation between 'I' and 'not I'.

K: Yes, that's it. 'I' and 'you', 'I am better than you ' and so on...

DB: I think that was a mistake made a long time ago, or as you call it a 'wrong turn', that again having introduced separation between various things outwardly we then kept on doing it inwardly . Not out of ill will but simply because of 'not knowing better'. What do you feel?

K: I am inclined to observe that the origin is the ego, the 'me', the 'I'. If there is no ego there is no problem, there is no conflict, there is no 'time' - in the sense of becoming or not becoming, being or not being.

DB: But what was that made us make the ego in the first place ?

K: Is it that the brain itself has become narrowed down because it couldn't contain all this enormous (Intelligent mind-) energy - and therefore gradually narrowed it down to 'me', to the 'I'.

DB: I don't quite follow this point...But outwardly we needed a certain sense of identity to function, to know where you belong...and I think that (some of ) this ( intelligent) 'energy' that you are talking about also entered into it.

K: Sir, could we say that the human brain is not born yesterday , it is very, very old?

DB: Old - in what sense?

K: In the sense it has evolved.

DB: Evolved, yes, from the animal, and the animal has evolved and this whole evolution is somehow contained in the brain.

K: I want to question ( the psychological validity of this?) evolution...

DB: But before you question it, we have to consider that there is evidence of man developing through a series of stages - you can't question that, can you?

K: No, of course not, of course not.
DB: I mean physically it is clear that evolution has occurred in some way and the human brain has got larger and more complex. But you may question whether 'mentally' the concept of evolution has any meaning.

K: You see sir, I want to avoid ( using) 'time' psychologically, you understand?
To me that is the 'enemy' - the origin of man's misery?

DB: Well this use of 'time' certainly. Man had to use (the measurement of) 'time' for a certain purpose and inwardly he misused it.

K: Is that the cause of mankind's (psychological) confusion - introducing time as a means of becoming more perfect, more evolved, more and more loving? You follow what I mean?

DB: I understand, but certainly if we didn't do that the whole structure (of thought) would collapse. But whether there is not some other cause still, I don't know.

K: Not talking 'personally', but to me the idea of 'tomorrow' doesn't exist psychologically. Now if this 'psychological' time doesn't exist then there is no conflict, there is no ( selfish thinking in terms of) 'I' - which is the origin of conflict. Do you understand sir what I am trying to get at? Outwardly we have actually evolved, and 'psychologically' we have also moved outwardly.

DB: Yes, we have focused our life on the outward. Is that what you are saying?

K: Yes. We have extended our capacities outwardly. And inwardly ( our inner life has become ) the same movement as outwardly.

DB: Yes, whatever we do outwardly we do inwardly...

K: Now if there is no inward movement as time, moving, becoming more and more, then what takes place?

DB: Yes. Well then if we say this whole movement of time ceases ?

K: ( The 'psychological' dimension of ) 'time' ends. Now, if this 'movement' ceases then what takes place? Could we put it this way: we have never touched any other 'movement' (other dimension of consciousness?) than the outer movement.

DB: yes, we put most of our energy into the outward movements.

K: Outward, and psychologically is also (oriented) outwardly.

DB: Well, it is the 'reflection' of the outward movement.

K: We (like to ) think it is inward but it is actually outward – right?

DB: Yes...

K: Now if this ( time-binding inner) movement ends, as it must, then is there a really inward 'movement' not in terms of time?

DB: You want to say: is there another 'kind of movement'?

K: Yes.

DB: Which still 'moves' but not in terms of time ?

K: That's right.

DB: We'll have to go into that. Could you go further ?

K: You see, that word 'movement' generally means ( involves?) time.

DB: Well it actually means moving from one place to another . But anyway, we have the notion of something which is not static. So, by denying 'time' you don't want to return to something static, which still (frozen in) time.

K: Let's say for instance that one's brain has been accustomed for centuries to go North. And it suddenly realizes that 'going North' is ( engendering ) everlasting conflict. As it realizes this, it moves East. In that ( changing the direction of ) 'movement' the brain itself is changing. Right?

DB: Well, something changes, yes.

K: The quality of the brain changes.

DB: All right ; I can see it will wake up to a different movement.

K: Yes, different - then conflict ceases. Because it is not moving in any direction.

DB: All right. So that is the key point - the 'direction' of movement...

K: Could one say when ( in a 'meditator-free' meditation ?) one really comes to that state, that is the source of all energy?

DB: Yes, as you go deeper, more inwardly.

K: This is the real 'inwardness', not the outward movement becoming the inner movement but when there is no 'outer and inner' movement.
Would that ( uncover?) the (inward?) source of all energy?

DB: Well, perhaps we could say that.

K: May I talk about this 'meditation' a little bit?

DB: Yes.

K: First of all, is there a meditation which is not premeditated? Which is not the ego trying to become something - negatively or positively.

DB: Now, could we suggest somewhat what ( an authentic) meditation should be ? Is it an observation of the mind observing?

K: I am using the word 'meditation' in the sense in which there is not a particle of endeavour, a particle of any sense of trying to become, consciously trying to reach a certain level, and so on.

DB: The mind is silently abiding with itself ?

K: That is what I want to get at. But I don't meditate in the normal sense of the word. What happens with me is : I wake up meditating. And I woke up one night, in the middle of the night, and I hesitate to say this because it sounds extravagant : the (inward ?) source of all energy had been reached. And literally there was no division at all only this sense of tremendous source of energy. I don't know if I am conveying it.

DB: So the brain was in direct contact with this source of energy?
K: Yes. Now, coming down to earth, as I have been talking for sixty years, I'd like another people to reach this - because it is pure energy from the very beginning of time. This leads to a complete sense of (inner) peace, Love and any problem that arises is immediately solved.

DB: Well is this situation sustained or is it for that period?

K: It is sustained, obviously, it is not sporadic, intermittent and all that. Now how are you to 'open the door', how are you to help me to realise ( that spirituality-wise?) I have been going in the wrong direction, there is only a 'non-movement', and if that takes place everything will be correct ?

DB: Well it is hard to know beforehand if everything is going to be correct. But (awakening that?) movement would certainly make a big (qualitative) difference

K: Sir, let's go back to what we began with. That is, has mankind taken a wrong turn, psychologically and if that turn can be completely reversed, can the human brain realize (that inwardly) there is no such thing as time?

DB: Yes, I think you are implying that the mind is not originating in the (time-bound) brain. The brain is perhaps an instrument of the mind?

K: ...of the ( intelligent?) mind. And this 'mind' is not existing in time.

DB: It does not evolve with the brain ?

K: Sounds odd, doesn't it?

DB: It would sound odd to modern persons but in the past people used to accept this idea quite easily.

K: The mind not being of time, and the brain being of time - is that the origin of (man's deepest existential) conflict?

DB: That may be an important point.

K: You understand sir what that means? The Hindus say the Highest Principle is in (the consciousness of) man, which is the Mind. And the brain is of time. I am putting it, they may not put it that way. So is that the origin of conflict?

DB: Well, the human brain has evolved for many millenia, so it has ( the order of) time within it...

K: Yes, as it has evolved, time is part of it.

DB: (Thinking in terms of) time has become part of its very structure.

K: Yes...

DB: And that was necessary (for mankind to survive) . Now, as the mind operates without time, the brain does not seem able to operate in the same way ?

K: Can the brain itself see that it is caught in time and as long as it is moving in that direction ( its condition of inner & outer) conflict is endless?

DB: Now does the brain 'see' this ? Wouldn't you say the brain is not totally caught in time it can awaken to another ( depth of inward) 'movement' ?

K: That means, is there a part of the brain which is not of time ?

DB: Not 'caught in time'....

K: Can one say the brain is not being conditioned by time completely, so there is a part of the brain...

DB: Well, not 'a part' but rather that the brain functions dominated by time, but this doesn't necessarily mean that it couldn't shift. The general tendency is for time to dominate the brain.

K: Yes. That is, can the brain ( although generally) dominated by time not be subservient to it?

DB: That's right. In that moment it comes out of time. And it is dominated by time only when you give it time ; you see, any process of thinking which takes time is dominated by it, but anything 'fast' enough is not dominated.

K: Yes, that's right. When the brain can see that in this process there is no end to conflict, can it see this? What is the factor that will make the brain see the way it has gone is not only 'not correct', but totally mischievous?

DB: What do you mean by 'realize'?
K: Realize in the sense, that path which it has been going on will always be the path of conflict.

DB: Yes, well I think this that the brain is resisting such an (unpractical?) realization.

K: Of course, of course. Because it is used to that, for centuries. How will you make the brain realize this fact? If you could do it, it ( our educational job) is finished.

DB: You see, one has to deny the very notion of 'time' in the sense of looking forward to the future, and all the past.

K: That's just it sir ! Time is (mankind's invisible?) enemy. Meet it and go beyond it.

DB: Or rather to deny that that is an independent existence ? I think we have the impression that 'time' exists independently of us- that we are in the stream of time and therefore it would seem absurd for us to deny it because 'that is what we are', you see ?

K: Yes, quite, quite. So it means really moving away from everything that man has put together as a means of (reaching?) timelessness.

DB: Yes, we can say that none of the methods that man uses outwardly are going to do it since every method implies time.

K: Of course, it is so simple & clear ! How will you, Mr 'X' convey this to a man who is caught in time and will resist it saying there is no other way, and so on, how will you convey this to him?

DB: I think you are not likely to convey it at all to somebody you just pick up off the street.

K: So, then what are we doing? As that cannot be conveyed through words, then what is a man to do?

DB: I think that both the word and beyond the word, is part of the communication conveyance.

K: Would you say sir (that for starters?) to resolve a ( psychologically motivated ) problem immediately as it arises ?

DB: You can get the sense of the immediate from time, from thought because thought gives the sense of 'now'.

K: Not allow time. Suppose I have a psychological problem: can the mind (be aware of?) it & resolve it immediately? To face it and end it ?

DB: Well, with a psychological problem, that is the only way to do it, otherwise we would be caught in the very source of the problem.

K: Of course... Would that activity end the 'psychological time' we are talking about ?

DB: If only we could bring this immediate action to bear on the very source of the problem, which is the 'self'...

K: Sir, one is greedy, or envious, to end it immediately - greed, attachment, and so on, there are a dozen ( 'ego'-related?) things. What I am trying to convey is: will that not give a 'clue' to the ending of time?

DB: Yes, because the 'ending of time' is immediate – right?

K: Immediate, of course. Would that point out the 'wrong turn' that ( the collective consciousness of) mankind has taken?

DB: Yes, to bring in 'time and thought' to mediate 'psychologically'.

K: Would that 'open the door' to this sense of time having no place inwardly? Which means sir, that thought has no ( proper) place except outwardly.

DB: If you are going to say thought is a process which is involved in time, not everybody is used to that idea...

K: Wouldn't you say thought is ( constantly generating) this process of (psychological) time? Because thought is based on (brain's past) experience, knowledge, memory and response, which is the whole (movement ) of time.

DB: Yes, although as we have often discussed a (holistically friendly ) kind of thinking would be a response to intelligence. But thought - as we have generally known it - is based on the notion of time, time is first.

K: Yes but to me, thought itself 'is' time.

DB: Thought itself 'creates' time, right ?

K: Does it mean when there is no time there is no thought?

DB: Well, not that kind of thought.. Could we say there is a kind of thinking which has been dominated by time - which we have lived in and there may be another kind of thinking which is not dominated by time - you could still use ( your practical thinking) to do things.

K: Of course sir, that is so...

DB: So, we have to be careful not to say that thought is 'necessarily' dominated by time...

K: No. If I have to go from here to there, to my house, that needs time, thinking, all the rest of it. I am not talking of that kind of time.

DB: So let's make it clear that you are talking of the thinking which is aimed at the order of the mind ?

K: Yes, yes.

DB: And we will say that this ( psychologically motivated) thinking clearly 'is' time.

K: Yes. Would you say knowledge 'is' (also involved in ) time?

DB: Yes, in so far as it has been known and may project itself into the future and so on.
K: Of course : through time mankind has acquired knowledge - science, mathematics, whatever it is, philosophy - so the whole movement of knowledge is involved in time. See what that means ?

DB: I think you're saying that man has taken a wrong turn and got caught in this kind of knowledge, which is dominated by time because it is a 'psychological' knowledge.

K: Yes. So he lives in time.

DB: He lives in time because he has attempted to produce knowledge of the nature of the mind. Now you're saying that there is no knowledge of the 'mind', would you put it that way?

K: The moment you use the word 'knowledge', it implies time.

DB: Yes, but you were saying the 'mind' is not of time.

K: So, when you end 'time' - in the sense we are talking about- there is no (residual) knowledge as (personal) experience.

DB: We have to see what the word 'experience' means.

K: Experience, memory...

DB: Well let's get it clear. You see there is a kind of (practical) experience you get in your job, which becomes skill and perception.

K: Of course, that is quite different sir.

DB: So, here we are saying there is no point in having an 'experience' of the mind, a 'psychological' experience.

K: Yes, let's put it that way : one's (accumulated) psychological experience is in time.

DB: Yes, and it has no point because you cannot say, 'As I become skilled in my job, I will become skilled in my mind'.

K: Right.

DB: In a certain way you do become skilled in thinking but not become skilled fundamentally.

K: Yes. So you understand, sir, where this is leading to? Suppose the brain realize that knowledge is time, the brain realizes it, and sees the importance of time in a certain direction, and no value of time at all in another direction. Right?

DB: Yes, but I would put it that the 'value of time' is limited to a certain direction or area and beyond that it has no value.

K: Yes. So what is the mind or the brain without (its psychological) knowledge?

DB: It is left without psychological knowledge to organize itself ?

K: Is then the brain disorder? Certainly (hopefully?) not.

DB: No. But I think people might feel, being faced with this (psychological challenge) , that there would be disorder.

K: Of course.

DB: So, what you are saying is that the notion of 'controlling yourself' psychologically has no ( holistic?) meaning.

K: So, the knowledge of the 'me' is (projecting its own continuity in) time

DB: Yes, the totality of this (psycho) knowledge, is 'me', is time.

K: So then what is one's existence without this?

DB: Yes... ?

K: There is no time, there is no knowledge in the 'psychological' sense, no sense of 'me', then what is there? To come to that point most people would say, 'What a horror this is !'

DB: Well... it seems there would be nothing.

K: Nothing.

DB: It is either frightening or it is all right...

K: But if ( meditation-wise?) one has come to that point what is there? Would you say because there is nothing, it (the mind) is everything?

DB: Yes, I know that. That is true, it has all. So far as a 'thing' is limited, this ( knowledge-free inner state) is 'not a thing' because there are no limits. I mean, at least it has everything in potential.

K: So, if (the mind is (as?) 'nothing' and so ( it contains) 'everything', this everything is energy.

DB: Yes. The ground of everything is energy.

K: Of course. And what is the Source of this thing? Or is there no source at all of this energy?

DB: Energy just 'is'. Energy is 'what is'. There is no need for a source.

K: We must be very careful because here the ancient Hindus have this idea too, that 'Brahman is everything'. But ( brought in the field of time?) that becomes an idea, a principle and then carried out and all that. But the fact of it is, if there is 'nothing' therefore there is 'everything' and all that is (a highly Intelligent?) Cosmic energy. But what started this energy?

DB: But we are not talking of time.

K: I know, but the Christians would say, 'God is the source of all energy.'

DB: Yes...

K: And his Son came to help the world, & all that....

DB: Well some ( mystic) Christians have this idea of what they call the Godhead, which is the very source of God too.

K: And also the Hindus have this and the Jewish world also have this. Are we going against all that?

DB: It sounds similar in some ways....

K: And yet ( experientially-wise?) not similar. We must be awfully careful.

DB: Many things like this have been said over the ages. It is a familiar notion, yes.

K: Then is one just living in 'emptiness'?

DB: Well that is not clear...

K: There is nothing and everything is energy. What is this?

DB: Well the body is a form within this field of energy.

K: So this (physical) is not different from energy? But the 'thing' that is inside says, 'I am different from that'.

DB: You must make this point clearer...

K: The 'I' says, 'I am totally different from all this (cosmic energy) .

DB: The 'I' encloses itself and says, 'I am different, I am eternal.'

K: Why has it done this?

DB: Because it began with this notion of separation.

K: Why has the separation arisen ? Is it because outwardly I identify with a house and so on and that has moved inwardly?

DB: Yes. And the second point was that once we established a notion of something inward then it became necessary to protect that.

K: To protect that and all the rest of it.

DB: And therefore that built up the self's sense of separation. The inward (entity) was obviously the most precious thing and it would have to be protected with all your energy.

K: Does it then mean there is only the living organism living, which is a part of energy? There is no 'K' at all, except the name and form, otherwise nothing ? And therefore everything and therefore all is energy ?

DB: Yes, the form has no independent existence.

K: So there is only this, the outward shape ?

DB: There is the outward form in the (mind's field of) energy.

K: Is this the end of the journey?

DB: No, I should think not.
K: Has mankind journeyed through millennia to come to this: that I am nothing and therefore I am everything and all is energy?

DB: Well it might be the new beginning ?

K: That is all I am saying : the ending of all this, the 'ending of time' (as we will call it briefly) , in that there is a new beginning. And what is that? Because this seems so utterly futile for a moment.

DB: If you stop there...But I think that really is clearing the ground of all the debris, of all the confusion.

K: Yes. So the ending (of time) is (creating ) a new beginning. What is that?

DB: I think that we said there could be a 'movement' which had no time.

K: That is why I want to make it clear.

DB: Yes : it is not a question of being static but in some sense that ( compassionate & intelligent) 'movement' has not the order of time. I think we would have to say that now.

K: Yes. So we will use the word 'beginning' and deprive it of time.

DB: Yes, because ending and beginning are no special time. In fact they can be any time or no time.

K: No time.

DB: That's right, no time.

K: What is then 'happening'? Not to 'me', not to 'my brain'. But what is going on then ? Is that Creation?

DB: Yes, something like that....
K: Not the 'art of creating', writing...

DB: Well we can discuss what we mean by creation.

K: We will do it tomorrow.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 20 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Apr 2020 #17
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

TWO

K: As we said yesterday, when one comes to the point where ( thought's self-projected continuity in ?) 'time' ends, is there a beginning of something totally new which is not enmeshed in time. When the ('psychological process of ) time' the 'I' or the 'ego', completely comes to an end, what is there that begins ? Could we say that, out of the ashes of time, there is a new ( creative ?) growth? And...what is that ?

DB: Well we were saying yesterday that essentially it is the possibility of Creation.

K: Yes, we said Creation. Something new is taking place (inwardly) . I believe the Buddha is supposed to have (called it?) 'Nirvana' ?

DB: The Christian mystics have had something similar...

K: Similar yes. But you see the ( certified ?) Christian mystics are rooted in the whole belief in Jesus, in the Church. They have never gone beyond it.

DB: As far as we know, anyway.

K: Now we have said that the ( psychological) attachment to ( a particular system of) belief, is out, finished. That is all part of the (self-becoming skills of the?) 'I'. So, when there is that absolute cleansing of the mind of its ( 'psychological' ) accumulations of time, which is the essence of the 'me', what takes place?

DB: We have to then be very careful at this point, as we are liable to fall into the ( wishful thinking ?) 'hope' of ending conflict.

K: The moment I introduce the word 'hope' there is a ( subliminal background of ) desire, and therefore it is ( still part of the self-becoming process of ?) time. So, is my mind still seeking, or groping after something intangible that it can capture and hold?

DB: Essentially it seems that you are 'cleaning up' even the movement of desire in its subtle forms.

K: So that too has to be ( wisely?) put away. Then there is only an (universally open?) 'mind'. Right?

DB: Yes, we left this question somewhat unsettled...

K: But we also said all the Universe 'is' Mind.

DB: An 'universal' Mind ?

K: Universal mind.

DB: You see, we'll have to make it more clear because you are saying that nature is the creation of universal mind, but nevertheless nature has its own reality...

K: That is all understood.

DB: But then it ( sounds?) almost as if Nature is the ( manifested ?) thought of this Universal Mind.

K: It is part of it. So, if the 'particular' ( ego-centric?) mind has come to an end, then there is only the Mind, the Universal Mind. What is the next step? We said yesterday, there is a new beginning...

DB: So, what is this 'something new'?

K: Is there something which the mind cannot capture?

DB: Which 'mind', the particular or the universal?

K: The particular has ended.

DB: You are saying the Universal Mind cannot capture it either?

K: That is what I am finding out.

DB: Are you saying there is a Reality beyond the Universal Mind?

K: We said there is the ending (of the self-centred mind?) , then the Cosmic, the universal mind, and behind is there something more?

DB: You mean a (Creative ?) 'Energy' beyond the universal mind?

K: I would say 'yes' because the universal mind is part of that Energy.

DB: That is understandable (logically) . Are you saying that this Energy is not only 'alive', but also intelligent?

K: Wait a minute... If that Energy is intelligent, why has it allowed man to move away in the wrong direction?

DB: I think it was inevitable in the nature of thought. You see if thought is going to develop, that possibility must exist.

K: Is this the 'original freedom' for man? To choose (between right & wrong) ?

DB: Thought has the ( free will?) capacity to make this mistake.

K: But if that Intelligence was operating, why did it allow this mistake?

DB: Are you suggesting that there is an universal order, a law ?

K: All right sir. The Universe functions in Order.

DB: Yes, and it maybe a part of this order of the universe that this particular mechanism can go wrong.

K: Yes. In the universal order there is disorder, where man is concerned.

DB: It is not a disorder at the level of the universe.

K: No, at a much lower level. But why has man lived from the beginning in this disorder?

DB: Because he is still ignorant, he still hasn't seen the point (of the universally integrated order?)

K: But if he is part of the whole and in one tiny corner man has lived in disorder. And this enormous Intelligence has not (intervened?) ...

DB: Yes, well you could say that the possibility of creation is also the possibility of disorder. I mean this (Creative universal) Intelligence would not have turned him into a machine that would be incapable of disorder.

K: So is there something beyond the cosmic order, ( beyond the Universal?) Mind?

DB: You are bringing in the whole ( Creative Intelligence of the?) Universe as well as ( the consciousness of ) mankind. What is the source of this (holistic?) perception?

K: To put it very simply: ( the mentality of ) division has come to an end. Right? The division created by ( the psychological residues of ) time, created by thought, created by this ( culturally standardising?) 'education' and so on, because it has ended, the 'Other' is obvious.

DB: You mean without the division then the Other is there to be perceived ?

K: Not to be perceived, it is (present?) there .

DB: But then... how do you come to be aware that it is there?

K: I don't think 'you' become aware of it.

DB: Then what leads you to say it?

K: Would you say 'it' is. ( Rather than) I perceive it, or, it is perceived.

DB: You could almost say that' It' is saying it.

K: Yes. I am glad you put it like that! So...here are we now?

DB: Well we said that the (Creative Mind of?) Universe is 'alive', as it were, it is ( All-One ) Mind and we are part of it.

K: We can only say we are part of it when there is no 'I'. I would like to push it a little further, which is: is there 'something' beyond all this?

DB: Beyond the energy, you mean?

K: Yes. We said that this ( state of inward) no-thingness is ( containing in it ) everything and so it is an undiluted pure uncorrupted energy - right. Is there something beyond that?

DB: Could we say this 'something beyond' is, as it were, the Ground of the whole. You are saying that this all emerges from an inward Ground?

K: Tentatively: there is something ( Sacred?) in us that is operating, there is something in us much greater beyond that. But...how can we talk about it?

DB: Firstly, what leads you to say this?

K: Simply the fact that there is. We have been fairly logical all along, reasonable and fairly sane. Can we keep that same kind of watchfulness in which there is no illusion for 'that which is beyond emptiness' be communicated. You follow what I mean?

DB: Yes. Well we could come back to your question before: why hasn't it come down?

K: Why hasn't it come down? Has man been ever free from the 'I'?

DB: No, well not generally speaking, no.

K: No. And 'it' demands that the 'I' ends. Can 'that' thing ever be put into words?

DB: Well, once something can be properly perceived then after a while the words come to communicate it.

K: Yes, but can that be perceived (by the physical senses?) and therefore communicable?

DB: This thing beyond, would you say also it is alive?

K: Living, yes. Oh yes.

DB: And 'intelligent' ?

K: I don't want to use these words - living, intelligence, love, compassion, it is all too limited.
Sir, you and I have come up to a certain point and we are saying there is something still more behind all that. But is it something that the mind can capture?

DB: Yes. Are you saying it is not?
K: I don't think it is possible for the mind to look at it even. Sir, as a scientist, you have examined the atom and when you have examined all that, don't you feel there is something much more beyond all that?

DB: You can always feel there is more beyond that but it doesn't tell you what it is.

K: You know there is something much more, but... can your mind 'enter' ( into it experientially?) ? Sir, what is beyond emptiness? Is it silence?
Or is silence part of emptiness?

DB: Yes, I should say that.

K: I should say that too. If it is not silence, could we say it is something absolute?

DB: Well, 'absolute' means something totally independent, that doesn't depend on anything.

K: Yes, sir. You are getting somewhere near it. Would you say everything has a cause but 'That' has no cause at all?

DB: You see this notion is already an old one. This notion has been developed by Aristotle, that this (something) 'absolute' is the cause of itself.

K: Probably it can never be put into words.

DB: I think we have a long history of danger with the 'absolute'. People have put it in words and it has become very oppressive.

K: You see being ignorant of what other people have said - Aristotle and the Buddha and so on - it has an advantage in the sense that the mind is not 'coloured' by other people's ideas, it is not caught in other people's statements.

DB: So, there is something beyond emptiness and silence.

K: Sir, emptiness and silence and ( The Universe's Intelligent) Energy is immense, it is really immeasurable. But there is something 'greater' ...

DB: Well, there is always room for something beyond.

K: There is nothing beyond (That?)

DB: Yes, well this point is not clear...

K: I feel That is the beginning and the ending of everything. Sir, even in ordinary parlance, the ending and the beginning are the same.

DB: : You mean in the sense that you can use the 'beginning' of everything as the 'ending' of everything ?

K: Yes. Wouldn't say that?

DB: Yes, if we take the Ground from which it comes it must be the ( same) Ground to which it falls.

K: That's right. That is the Ground upon which everything exists, space...

DB:... energy ?

K:... energy, emptiness, silence, all that is ' emerging & returning ' on that 'Ground'...?

DB: This Ground has no cause ?

K: No cause, of course. That is the beginning and the ending (of 'All That Is'?)

DB: It is becoming ( a little?) more clear.

K: That's right. Would you say further that there is no beginning and no ending?

DB: Yes. It comes from the Ground, goes to the Ground, but it does not begin or end, right.

K: Yes, there is no beginning and no ending. The implications are enormous. Is death the complete ending of everything?

DB: We began with 'emptiness' is the ending of things, isn't it?

K: Yes, yes. Is that the death of everything the mind has cultivated ? That 'emptiness ' is not the product of the particular mind.

DB: Yes, it is (a quality of?) the universal mind.

K: So, that ( state of inner ) emptiness can only exist when there is 'death' ( ending?) of the particular (mind)

DB: Yes, the 'particular' goes....but then you are saying that in this Ground (of Being) that death goes further?

K: Oh yes, oh yes...

DB: So you are saying the 'ending' or the 'death' of the particular (mind) is ( resulting in a state of inward ) emptiness, which is the universal (Mind) . Now are you going to say that the Universal (Mind) also 'dies'?

K: Yes sir, that is what I am trying to say.

DB: ( Returning ?) into the Ground.

K: Does it convey anything?

DB: So, if the particular and the universal Mind 'die' then that is death, yes?

K: Yes sir. After all, everything in the Universe is ( being born & is eventually ) exploding, dying.

DB: ( So, to recap:) First the 'particular' mind 'dies' into the emptiness and then comes the universal Mind …

K: And that 'dies' too.

DB: ( Returning?) into the ground, right?

K: Yes, sir.

DB: So you could say that this Ground ( of Creation?) is neither born not dies.

K: That's right. Everything is (being born & ) dying, except That. So That has no beginning and no ending.

DB: Yes... but what would it mean to have the ending of the universal Mind ?

K: Why should it have a meaning if it is happening? But...what has That (Ground of All Being) to do with ( the present condition of?) mankind- which is going through a terrible time and all the rest of it, what has that got to do with man?

DB: Well let's call it that man feels he must have some contact with the ultimate Ground in his life otherwise his existence has ( deeper) meaning.

K: But it hasn't. That Ground hasn't any relationship with a man who is doing everything contrary to the Ground.

DB: Yes, that is why life has no ( sacred?) meaning for ( the ordinary) man.

K: So I am asking, as an ordinary man: All this ( holistic?) dialogue sounds excellent, but what has that got to do with me? How will you help me to get over my ( self-centred?) 'ugliness'?

DB: Well, ( one can start ) from showing how the suffering of mankind originates from the 'wrong turning' and that leads inevitably...

K: But ( one may ask?) ''put me on the right path''. And to that you say, please don't ( make efforts to ?) become ( inwardly) anything ( other than what you are ?) .

DB: Right. What is the problem then?

K: He won't even ( stop to?) 'listen' to you.

DB: So, it is necessary for the one who 'sees' this, to find out what is the barrier to listening.

K: Obviously you can see what is the 'barrier'.

DB: What is the barrier?

K: 'I' ( & my self-centred mentality?)

DB: Yes but I meant more deeply …

K: More deeply, all your ( ego-centric ?) thoughts, your deep attachments and all that ( psychological stuff?) is in your way. If you can't leave all this you will have no relationship with That. But he doesn't want to leave all that.

DB: Yes, what he wants is the result of the way he is thinking.

K: What he wants is some comfortable, easy ( & enjoyable ) way of living without any ( psychological) troubles, but....he can't have ( even) that.

DB: Well, only by 'dropping' all this.

K: There must be some ( interactive?) relationship of the Ground with ordinary man otherwise what is the meaning of living?

DB: Well even going back, the ancient religions have said similar things that God is the ( ultimate ) Ground and they say 'seek God', you know.

K: Ah no, this ( Ground of Being) isn't 'God'.

DB: (The traditional image of?) 'God' was perhaps an attempt to put this notion a bit too 'personally' ?

K: Yes. To give them hope, give them faith, make life a little more comfortable to live.

DB: Well are you asking at this point: how is this (new paradigm?) to be conveyed to the ordinary man? Is that your question?

K: Yes more or less. And also it is important that he should 'listen' to this.
I feel, sir, that if one pursues this ( all the way?) we will (could eventually?) have a marvellously ordered world.

DB: Yes. And what will we do in this world?

K: Live (free of the psychological burden of time?) And then if you had no (inner) conflicts, (&) no 'I', there is 'something else' operating.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Apr 2020 #18
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

THREE

Krishnamurti: What shall we talk about?

B: Is this Ground (of Creation?) as different to ( the fate of?) mankind, as the physical universe appears to be? In the past people were more religious and felt that the Ground of our existence is in something beyond matter - in God, or whatever they wished to call it. And that gave a sense of deep meaning to their whole of our existence, which meanwhile has gone away. That is one of the difficulties of modern life, the sense that it doesn't mean anything.

K: So how does one find out if there is something more than the mere physical (spects of human life?) ? How would one set about it?

B: The first point which perhaps we could clear up is : would this Ground possibly ( care about us?) ? Because if this Ground is indifferent to human beings then it would be the same as scientists' ground in matter. And you see the material universe appears to be totally indifferent to mankind. It its immense vastness it pays no attention, it may produce earthquakes and catastrophes, it does not care whether man survives or does not survive - if you want to put it that way. Now I think that ( many people in the past?) felt that God was a ( Creative) Ground who was not indifferent to mankind. And that is what gave them possibly...

K:... tremendous energy, quite.

B: So, the quastion would be: would this Ground be indifferent to mankind?

K: How would you find out what is the relationship of this Ground to man and man's relationship to It?

B: Yes, that is the question. Does it have any ( existential) significance to man?

K: Suppose one says 'It has', how would one discover, or find out, or touch it, if the Ground exists at all - in scientific terms as well as the 'feeling' of it, the non verbal communication of it?

B: Something that we can actually touch ?

K: Not touch, but ( rather) 'sense' ? Now, this ( inward sensing?) has certain ( very basic?) demands: absolute ( mental) silence, absolute ( inner) 'emptiness', which means no sense of 'egotism' in any form. Are we willing to say, 'Look, complete eradication of the self' (-centredness?) ?

B: In some sense one is 'willing', but this willingness is not subject to your conscious effort or determination.

K: Willingness in the sense of (wanting to) go through that ( inward ?) door' . What are the facets or the qualities or the nature of the 'self'? Attachment , fear, ( selfishness?) - the whole business of it. I ( like to?) think that if ten people 'do it' any scientist will accept it.

B: I see. So, we have to have the thing done together publicly so that it becomes a real 'fact'.

K: A real fact in the sense that people accept ( the feasibility of?) it. Not based on illusion, (wishful thinking ?) and all the rest of that.

B: Yes, well a 'fact' is ( something) that is actually being done.

K: Now, who will do this sir? X' says ' There is ( such an inward?) Ground, and if you do these things It will be there.'

B: Yes, except that some of the things that you say may not entirely in the beginning make sense to the person you talk with. You see ?

K: Yes, quite, because he isn't even willing to ( quiet down inwardly & ) listen.

B: Yes, but also his whole ( cultural) background is against it. You see this (cultural) background gives you the notion of what makes sense and what doesn't. For example, one of ( thought's objectionable?) steps is not to bring in time...

K: Ah, that's much more difficult.

B: Yes but that is fairly crucial.

K: I wouldn't begin with ( the ending of psychological) time, I would begin at the ( ideal?) 'schoolboy level' . Look, 'do these things'.

B: Well let's go over them.

K: Observe that you have a ( compact set of self-protective 'images' and/or ?) 'beliefs', to which you cling ( subliminally?) as it gives you a (comfort zone ?) of ( personal ) security and so on and so on. And that ( mental screen of) 'beliefs' is an illusion, it has no ( objective) reality.

B: But many scientists actually have 'beliefs'. One will believe that this theory is right, and the other believes in that one.

K: (Anyways?) I would start at a 'schoolboy level' ( 'ground zero' level of verbal understanding ???) by saying, ''Look, don't accept ( other people's?) theories, conclusions, don't cling to your prejudices and so on and so on.' That is the starting point.

B: Perhaps we had better say ''Don't 'hold on' to your theories'' , because if you say ''you have no theories'', most people would immediately doubt that.

K: I have no (psychological) theories. Why should I have theories ?

Q: You see, as a scientist I would also say I don't have ( personal beliefs or?) theories. But I don't see that the ( conceptual model on ?) which I construct my scientific theories is also 'theoretical'. I would call it 'fact'.

K: So we have to (take a brief detour & ) discuss what are 'facts'? I would say that the 'fact', is that which is actually happening. Would you agree to that?

B: Yes. But I think that the scientists would say that 'what is happening' is understood through ( working hypotheses & ) theories. You see in science you do not understand what is happening except with the aid of instruments and theories.

K: (Are you talking of?) what is happening 'out there', or of what is happening 'in here' ?

B: All right, but let's go slowly. First, of what is happening out there. The instruments and theories are needed to (understand) the 'fact' about what is out there...

K: ( Inwardly speaking ?) if the ( ongoing) 'fact' is conflict, why should I have a theory about it?

B: I wasn't discussing that. I was discussing the facts about matter, you see, which the scientist is concerned with. He cannot establish that fact without a certain theory (or working hypothesis?) .

K: Perhaps. I wouldn't know (about) that....

B: You see, because the theory organizes the ( perception of the ) fact for him. Without that it would really fall into...

K: I understand that you may have theories about that.

B: Yes. About gravitation, atoms - all those things depend on theories in order to produce the right facts.

K: So you start with a theory ?

B: A mixture of theory and fact. It is always a combination of theory and fact.
Now you may say that ( in the psychological) area there isn't any such combination...

K: That's it. Psychologically I have no theory about myself, about the universe, about my relationship with another. I have no theory. Why should I have? The only ( holistically observable?) fact is that mankind suffers, is confused, in conflict. That is a fact. Why should I have a theory about it?

B: You must go slowly if you are intending to bring in the scientists. The scientists might say yes, psychology is the science with which we try to look inwardly, to investigate the mind. And they say biased people have had theories such as Freud, and Jung and other people - I don't know all of them. But ( for their general benefit?) we have to make it clear why it has no point to make these theories.

K: Because ( sticking to a personal) theory prevents the observation of what is actually taking place.

B: Yes, but ( in the ) outside world it seemed the theory was helping that observation. Why the difference here?

K: Yes. What is the ( dictionary?) meaning of the word, 'theory' ?

B: Theory means a way of looking. And the theory helps you to look at the outside matter.

K: A way of observing. (Why can't) you observe ( directly) what is going on (inwardly?) ?

B: When we look at matter outwardly, to a certain extent we fix the observing.

K: ( Implicitly assuming that?) the 'observer' is different.

B: Not only different but their relationship is fixed, relatively at least, for some time.

K: Yes, that's right. We can move (on?) now.
B: This appears to be necessary ( in order ) to study ( the facts related to ) matter. Matter does not change so fast and it can be separated to some extent, and we can then make it a fairly constant way of looking at changes but not immediately, it can be held constant for a while. And... we call that a 'theory'.

K: As you said, the actual meaning of the word 'theory' , is a way of observing.

B: In Greek it has the same root as 'theatre'...

K: Yes, that's right. It is a way of looking. Now ( inwardly) where do we start? With the 'ordinary way of looking' depending on ( the cultural background of ) each person - the housewife, the husband, the bussiness man ... ?

B: Well the same problem arose in the development of science. We began with what was called 'common sense', the common way of looking. Then scientists discovered that this was inadequate.

K: That is what I am coming to. The common way of looking is full of prejudice.

B: Yes, it is arbitrary, it depends on your (psychological) background.

K: Yes, all that. So ( inwardly-wise?) can one be free of this ( falsely knowledgeable?) background, of my prejudices?

B: Yes.

K: I think one can (do it) .

B: You could say that when it comes to looking inwardly, the danger is that the theory ( you are using or constructing) might be a prejudice.

K: That is what I am saying. That ( it could?) become a prejudice.

B: That would become a prejudice ( especially if we have not yet observed anything directly ) to found it on.

K: So the common ( holistically observable?) fact is that man suffers. Right? That is a ( very?) common factor.

B: I wonder whether scientists would accept that as the most fundamental factor of human consciousness .

K: All right. Conflict?

B: Well they have also argued about it.

K: Take anything : attachment, pleasure, fear...

B: Some people might object saying we should find something more 'positive'.

K: Like what?

B: For example some ( scientifically minded?) people might have said that 'rationality' is a common factor.

K: No, no, no. I won't call 'rationality' a common factor. If they were ('holistically?) rational' they wouldn't be fighting each other.

B: Let's say in the past somebody like Aristotle might have said rationality is the common factor of man. Now your ( conter-) argument is that most men( & women?) are not (100%) 'rational'.

K: No, they are not.

B: Though they might be (very rational occasionally), they are not (at 100%) .

K: That's it.

B: So you are saying that it is not a (100% true ) fact ?

K: That's right.

Q: I think that ( many holistically friendly scientists ?) would say that the common factor for mankind is that they are all striving for ( their personal ?) happiness.

K: No. I won't accept that many human beings are striving for happiness.

Q: That is what I am also saying. But that is the kind of 'common theory' which people believe to be a 'fact'.

K: They are all seeking some kind of ( personal?) gratification ? Would you agree to this 'fact' ?

B: Yes that is ( a very realistic?) one. But the reason I brought up 'rationality' was that the very existence of science is based on the notion that rationality is common to all mankind.

K: I know, but that is why I didn't want you to bring that in : each person is seeking (to fulfil?) his own ( self-centred centric) 'individuality'.

B: But you see, the very possibility of doing science depends on people feeling that the finding of truth is beyond (one's) personal satisfaction because even if your theory is wrong you must accept that it is wrong though it is not gratifying. That is, it can become very disappointing for people but ( finally ) they accept it, and say, 'Well, that is wrong'.

K: What Dr Bohm brought up was that all scientists take for granted human beings are rational.

B: They may agree that they are not very rational in private life, but they say that at least they are capable of being rational when they do scientific work. Otherwise it would be impossible to begin.

K: So outwardly in dealing with matter they are all rational ?

B: At least they try to be and they are to some extent.

K: They try to be. ( But they could ) become irrational in their relationship with other human beings.

B: Yes. They cannot maintain it.

K: So that is a common (psychological) factor - that my ( inner) life has been totally contradictory and so on, which is, 'irrational'. Now can I as a ( holistically friendly?) human being change that?

B: Yes. Let's see if we could proceed from the scientific approach : Why is everybody ( inwardly) 'irrational'?

K: Because we have been conditioned ( to think ?) this way. Our education, our religion, our everything. I think the wrong turn was taken when ( the self-centred ?) thinking became all important.

B: Yes, but what made it 'all important'? Is it because thought became the equivalent of truth ? You see, people took thought to give what is always true – as knowledge is always generalizing - so this gave thought this supreme importance.

K: You are asking, aren't you - why has man given thought such importance?

B: I think he has slipped into it because he did not see what he was doing. You see, in the beginning he did not see the danger.

K: I think that ( man's self-centred thinking?) is fairly easy (to explain holistically ?) . The things that I know are more important than the things I don't know – (from which the subliminal identification with?) the things thought has created, the 'images', all the rest of it.

B: Yes. It slipped into irrationality to say 'All that I know is all that is important.' But why should man have made that mistake?

K: Would you say that that ( man's honest?) mistake is made because he clings to the ( things which were?) 'known' and objects to anything 'unknown'?

Q: But the step before that, isn't that thought has built up the idea that 'I' exist?

K: Ah, that comes a little later...
Anyway, ( back to man's a relationship with the Ground of Being ?) the religious (holistically minded ? ) man, Mr 'X', says you can find it by becoming terribly rational in your life. He says, 'I don't accept I am ( 100%) rational' - the religious man starts. 'I am (...%) irrational, I contradict myself' and so on and so on. So I will have to clear up that first- either step by step ( tackling one irrational aspect at a time?) Or I can do the whole thing at one blow. Right? I accept I am irrational.

B: Well yes. There is a difficulty: if you accept you are irrational, you stop because then...how are you going to begin. Right?

K: If I accept that I am (inwardly?) irrational - completely, I am (ASAP becoming?) rational!

B: Well you will have to make that more clear. You could say that man has been deluding himself into believing that he is already rational and if you don't accept this ( self-) delusion then rationality will be (potentially?) there.

K: The fact is I am (inwardly fragmented & ) 'irrational'. And to find the Ground I must become terribly rational in my ( inner) life. That's all I start with. And irrationality has been brought about by thought creating the idea of 'me' being separate from everybody else. So can I find ( experientially?) the (root) cause of my irrationality and wipe it out? If I can't do that ( for homework?) I cannot reach the Ground which is the most ( holistically?) rational.
So (in a nutshell) Mr 'X' says 'First become rational in your (psychological) life'. Begin (in) here rather than ( out) there. This ( holistic endeavour?) must be done without effort, without desire, without will, without any sense of persuasion, otherwise you are back in the old game.

B: So now you have to make it clear how this really can be done – to look at the source of the whole irrationality.

K: I am showing it to you. I say first recognize, see, observe, be aware that 'you' ( the ego-centric thinker?) are ( holistically speaking ?) totally irrational. First watch it (non-dualistically?) .

B: Shouldn't there be sufficient rationality ( in order ) to understand what you are talking about.

K: Yes, of course.

B: So, I would rather put it that you are ( temporarily) dominated by your irrationality, even though there is enough rationality to discuss the question.

K: A few of us begin to talk because we are willing to listen to each other, we are willing to say 'I'll set aside any conclusion I have', and so on, we are willing to listen to each other.

B: That is part of rationality.

K: Because we are serious enough to find out if the Ground exists. Right? That gives us the 'rationality' to listen to each other.

B: Well listening is essential for rationality.

K: Of course. Are we saying the same thing? Because as the scientist through the investigation of matter hopes to reach the Ground, we, 'X', 'Y', 'Z', say let us become ( inwardly) rational in our life. Which means you and I and 'X', 'Y', 'Z' are willing to listen to each other. That's all. The very 'listening' is the beginning of ( holistic?) rationality. And as a few of us can apparently throw off some part of irrationality and become somewhat rational, 'X', 'Y', 'Z', and those rational people say, 'Now, let's start.' Right? Let us start to find out why man lives this way, both the scientists and me, because he is a man, he is not just a scientist. Now what is the dominant factor in his life, the common, dominant factor in all human beings' lives, apart from 'X', 'Y', 'Z' who are rational, including them, what is the dominant current in his life? Obviously ( the self-centred process of) thought.

B: Well, then we'll have to say what is ( wrong with this kind of?) thought.

K: I think that is fairly simple.

B: Well, what is it?

K: Thought brings about irrationality.

B: Yes, but what do you mean by 'thinking' ?

K: Thinking is the 'movement' ( the pro-active activity ? ) of 'memory' - thememory of our past experiences & knowledge stored up in the brain.

Q: You see Krishnaji at this moment we are also thinking partly but nevertheless it seems that this kind of thinking is not just ( the mechanistic response of?) memory.

K: Oh yes, it is memory, sorry.

B: Is rational thinking only ( the response of) memory?

K: Now wait a minute, careful! If we are completely rational there is total ( holistic clarity of ?) insight. That insight uses thought and then it is rational.

B: Then thought is not only memory?

K: No, no.

B: Since it is being used by ( the holistic intelligence of?) insight.

K: Insight uses thought.

B: Yes, but whatever this ( insightful ?) thinking does is not just due to memory now. ( In a nutshell ) I see it this way : ordinarily thought runs runs like a ( time?) machine on its own, it is not rational.

K: Quite right.

B: But when thought is ( becoming) the instrument of insight then, it would be a difference between...

K: Agreed, agreed. Then thought is not memory.

B: Memory is used, but it is not based on memory.

K: That's right. Then what? 'X', 'Y', 'Z', who are fairly rational, to have (the inner clarity of) insight? Which is total rationality.

B: I should call it the rationality of ( holistic?) perception.

K: Yes, rationality of perception.

B: Then thought becomes the instrument of that, so it has the same order.

K: Now how am I to have that insight? That is the next question, isn't it? What am I to do, or not do, to have this instant insight, immediate (flash of?) insight, which is not of time, which has no cause - right - which is not based on reward or punishment, it is free of all that. Now, how is it possible to have that Insight? Yes it is possible to have that insight if your mind is free from 'time'.

B: Now, let us say we don't know where we are.

K: I know where I am. We will go into it.

Q: Is time the same movement as this ( memory recycled?) thought which we described first?

K: Yes, (inwardly speaking ) time 'is' thought.

B: Yes, well, let's go slowly again on that : (the process of) thinking takes ( a chronologically measurable) time but in addition it projects a kind of imaginary time...

K:... which is the future

B: So, this (psychological) time which is 'imagined', is ( the mental display of) of a real process of thinking. It is taking time physically, to think, but we also have the 'time' we can imagine ( subjectively as ) the whole past and future.

K: Yes, which are facts.

B: But we feel it to be the ground (or the time-line of our existence?) since we feel that 'I' exist in time. Without time there could be no ( temporal?) me.
I must exist in time. Eternally being something or becoming something else.

K: Becoming and being are in the field of time. Now can the mind, which has evolved through time...

Q: What do you mean by 'mind' then?

K: Mind - the brain, my senses, my feeling, all that is the mind.

B: The particular mind, you mean?

K: Particular mind, of course, I am not talking of the mind which is (universal) - I am talking of 'X', 'Y', 'Z',s' mind. The particular mind that has evolved through time.

B: Well even its particularity depends on time.

K: Now we are asking: can that mind be free of time to have an insight which is totally rational ? Now 'X' says how am I to be free of time? I am talking about the 'time' as (my psychological ) becoming. Can my brain investigating to find out if the ground exists, can my brain, can I, can my whole mind be free of time? That is, can my brain not function as it has always in time as thought? Which means can thought come to an end?

B: Well, could you make that ( experiential point?) more clear. We could see the first part of the question ; can my brain not be dominated by the function of thought. And then if you say thought comes to an end...

K: No, can 'time' as ( the continuity thread of self-centred?) thought come to a stop?

B: The psychological ( continuity of thought in ) time comes to a stop.
But we will still have the rational ( continuity of) thought ?

K: Of course. That is understood. We have said that. We are leaving that.

B: We are discussing (thought's projected continuity?) of one's conscious experience (in terms of) becoming and being.

K: Oh, yes, the ( psychologically active ?) memory of one's ( personal) experiences, hurts, attachments, the whole of it. Now can that (continuance?) come to an end? Of course it can. Now this is the point: it can come to an end when the very perception asks, what is hurt or damaged psychologically, the perception of it is the ending of it. Not carrying it over, which is time. The very ending of it is the ending of ( the psychological continuity in) time. I think that is clear. Or... not clear?

B: I think there are some ( missing) steps in that. You say that ( the memory of one's past?) hurt 'is' time - but the immediate experience of it is that the hurt exists on its own.

K: I know, of course, of course. We can go into that : In the process of (self-) becoming, which is time, I have created a (disposale identitary) 'image' about myself and this image is actually 'me'. But ( for obscure psychological reasons?) we have separated the 'me' from ( that ) image which is irrational.

B: Right...

K: So in realizing that the image 'is' me, I have become somewhat rational.

B: Well that ( holistic explanation?) will not be clear because if a person is hurt he actually feels the image 'is' me.

K: All right. But the moment you try to operate on it (upgrade?) you separate yourself.

B: So, that's the point. The first feeling is the image is me, and the second feeling is 'I' draw back from ( my hurt) image in order to operate on it.

K: Which is irrationality.

B: Because that brings in time because I say it will take time to do that.

K: Quite right. So by seeing that I become rational and the ( insightful) action is to be free of it immediately.

B: Yes, well let's go into that. The first thing is that there has been a hurt. That is the 'image' ( which has been) but at first I don't separate it. I feel totally identified with it.

K: I am that.

B: I am that. But then I draw back and say that there must be a ( higher part of) me who can do something.

K: Yes, that can operate on it.

B: Right. Now that takes time.

K: That 'is' time.

B: That is time. Now if I don't do that, you're saying that the hurt cannot exist ?

K: That's right.

B: But it is not very obvious in our daily experience itself that this is so.

K: Let's go slowly into it. ( Suppose that?) I am ( feeling personally insulted or ) 'hurt'. That is a 'fact'. Then there is coming a (subliminal mental) separation ( from this painful 'fact' ) saying 'I will do something about it'.

B: The 'me' who will do something is ( assuming to be) different. And he thinks about what he should do ( in order to avoid similar incidents?) .

K: The 'me' is different because it is always pursuing ( his personal agenda of being & ?) becoming (forever better) , says, 'I must wipe (away) that hurt. or I will be vengeful ' - and all the rest of it. So this movement of ( self-) separation is ( creating its own psychological ? ) time.

B: Yes, we can see that by now, but there is something here that is not obvious (in terms of common experience) : the person is thinking the hurt exists independently of me and I must do something about it. But you are saying that there is no such separation.

K: My ( inward) rationality discovers there is no such separation.

B: There is no ( actual) separation but the ( mental) illusion that there is a separation helps to maintain the hurt.

K: That's right. Because the illusion is 'I am ( working at ) becoming (psychologically better ) '.

B: Yes. I am (now feeling) hurt but ( hopefully?) I will become 'non hurt'. Now that very ( thread of?) thought maintains the hurt.

Q: But isn't there a feeling of ( self-) separation present at the moment I say, 'I am hurt'?

K: That is ( an aspect of our psychological?) irrationality.

Q: That is irrational already?

K: Already.

B: Well it ( might be?) , but the first thing that happens ( when you get insulted or hurt ?) is a kind of ( psychological) shock, a pain or whatever which you 'identify' (or associate?) with that shock and then you try to explain it (to yourself) that immediately implies the separation to do something.

K: Of course. If I am not ( feeling ?) hurt I don't know anything about separation or not separation. But I am ( becoming inwardly?) 'irrational' as long as I maintain ( the memory of) that hurt and (try to) do something about ( compensating?) it, which is to become (ASAP free of its pain ? ) . Then (the psychological) irrationality comes in.

B: Now if you don't maintain it, what happens? Suppose you say, 'OK, I won't go on with this becoming (hurt-free?) .'

K: Ah, that is quite a different matter. Which means I am no longer observing it using ( the mentality of) time as a ( guideline for its inward ) observation.

B: You could say that is not 'your' ( personal) way of looking anymore .

K: Yes. So, ( the inward thinking in terms of becoming better in ?) time is the common factor of man. And we are pointing out ( that inwardly speaking) 'time' is an illusion.

B: The 'psychological' time ?

K: Of course, that is understood.

B: And you are saying that when we no longer approach it through ( the known mentality of?) time then the ( psychological memory of that ?) hurt does not continue?

K: Does not continue, it ends. We were talking about (having a total inward ) insight. This insight is not the product of ( our thinking in terms of) time. So this insight, being free of time, acts upon memory, acts upon thought which is (ASAP getting inwardly ? ) rational. That is, insight makes thought rational. ( Or...the inner clarity of?) insight being free of time, it has no (need to use ?) thought - it acts. Before ( the inward) action was based on thought, now when there is insight there is only ( holistically integrated ?) 'action' . Because insight is rational therefore action is rational. Action becomes irrational when it is acting from (the self-centred ?) thought.
So ( in a nutshell?) insight doesn't use thought.

B: Well, you have to make it more clear because in a certain (practical) area it has to use thought. You see if for example you want to construct something you would use the thought which is available as to how to do it.

K: But that is not ( a total?) insight.

B: Yes, but even so you may have some 'insight' in that area.

K: Partial. As we said the other day when we were discussing that the ( average self-centred minded ?) scientists, painters, architects, doctors, (and/or?) artists, they ( may) have 'partial' insight (in their own areas of competency ?) . ( But here?) we are talking of ( holistically minded?) 'X', 'Y', 'Z', who are seeking the Ground (of Creation ?) , who are becoming (inwardly?) rational and that (total?) insight is action. And because that insight is ( universally?) rational, its action is rational.
Forgive me I am not making myself into an 'example', I am talking in all humility. When the young man ( K) in 1929 dissolved the (TS) Order (of the Star of the East) there was no ( premeditated?) thought. He had an insight (into its falsehood & ?) dissolved it (at once?) . Why do we need thought (for solving psychological issues) ?

B: But then you ( and/or others ?) used some ( practical) thinking in dissolving the Order. Like : when to do it & how to do it.

K: That is merely forother people's convenience, but the (insightful) decision 'acts'.

B: The primary ( stage of the young K's ?) action did not require thought, only ( dealing with the practical consequences ?) which follows.

K: It is like moving a cushion from here to there.

B: Yes, I understand that the primary source of action does not involve thought. But it sort of 'filters through' into...

K: It is like a 'wave'.

Q: Does not all ( young K's ) thinking undergo a transformation in this process? Before it was...

K: Yes, of course, of course. Because insight is without time therefore the brain itself has undergone a change.

B: Yes, now could we talk about what you mean by this ( change?) ?

K: Does it mean, sir, that every human response must be viewed, or must enter into (the inner clarity of?) insight? Suppose that I am 'jealous'. Is there a (total?) insight which will cover the whole field of jealousy, so ( ASAP?) end all that is involved in jealousy ? You follow? The ( holistically-wise?) 'irrational' people would say : (go into it carefully ?) step by step, get rid of jealousy, get rid of attachment, get rid of anger, get rid of this, that and the other. Which is a constant process of ( negative 'self ) becoming'. But the ( inward flash of?) insight, which is totally rational, 'wipes' all that away. Right?

B: Right...

K: Is that a fact? Fact in the sense that Mr 'X', 'Y', 'Z', will never again be jealous, never.

B: We'll have to discuss that ( more rationally?) because it is not clear how you could 'guarantee' that.

K: Oh yes, I will guarantee it!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Apr 2020 #19
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

FOUR

J Krishnamurti: I would like to ask a question: If one is really concerned with ( the actual condition of ?) humanity, with all the things that are going on, what would be the right action that would move him out of the present direction ? Isn't this question valid ?

B: Well unless we can see ( what is the nature of ?) this action it won't have much significance. ( Could we start by examining ) what is holding people in their present direction ?

K: Is it this tremendously (developped) sense of ego-centric attitude and action, which won't yield to anything? It appears to change, it appears to yield, it appears sometimes to say yes, but ( at ) the centre it remains the same. Perhaps this may not be in the line of our dialogues for the last two or three days, but I thought we might start with that.

B: Well have you some notion of what is 'holding' people? Or of something that would really change them?

K: This has been the question of 'serious' human beings: what is it that is blocking (man's spiritual evolution?) ? Shall we approach it from the outer to the inner and discover from the outer activities, the inner? And then discover that the outer is the inner, the same movement, and then go beyond it to see what is ( blocking man inwardly?) ? Am making myself clear?

B: When you say ( starting from the ) 'outward', what do you mean? Do you mean the present social conditions?

K: The social conditioning, the religious conditioning, ( a culturally standardising?) education, poverty, riches, climate, food, ( what is going on in ) the 'outer' (world) and which may condition the mind in a certain ( materialistic) direction ; but as one examines it a little more the psychological conditioning is also from the outer, somewhat.

B: Well it is true that the way a person thinks is going to be affected by his whole set of relationships. But that doesn't explain why it is so rigid, why does it hold? If it were merely the outward conditioning one would expect it to be more easily changed. For example you could put some other outward condition.

K: They have tried all that.

B: They have tried it, the whole belief of Communism was that with a new society there would be a new man.

K: New society, new man, yes. But there have been none!

B: Well I think that there is something fundamentally in the inward nature of our consciousness which resists change. As you said, the human mind is not ( entirely?) rational.

K: Yes, we said ( that inwardly?) man is ( holistically speaking?) 'irrational'

B: This is perhaps part of the block. If you were completely rational then we would of necessity come to this ( Creative) Ground ( Being?) . Would that be fair?

K: Will I, as a ( holistically minded?) human being, move away from this destructive, self-centred activity? If he will move away through reward then that is just another - with it goes punishment. So discard that. Then what will a human being renounce to it completely?

B: I think it becomes clear that our whole (self-centred ) activity has no (spiritual ) meaning, but the actual perception of this fact is rejected by the (thought addicted?) mind, you see the ( sub-conscious ) mind is resisting it.

K: The mind is resisting to moving away from this ( steady state of inner) conflict.

B: Yes. It is moving away from the fact that this ( ongoing mentality of competition & ) conflict has no ( true ) meaning.

K: They don't see that.

B: Not only that but the mind is set up purposely to avoid seeing ( what is wrong with ) it.

K: You mean to say, sir, that the mind having lived so long in conflict refuses to move away from it?

B: It refuses to give it up, right. Although it is not clear why the mind does not wish to see the full meaninglessness of ( its ongoing state of ) conflict. The ( un-conscious?) mind is continually 'covering it up'.

K: ( Most) philosophers and religious people have emphasized the sense of inner striving - control, make effort. Is that one of the causes why human beings refuse to let go of their way of life?

B: Well they ( were sincerely?) hoping that by fighting or struggling they will achieve a better result. Not to give up what we have ( already acquired?) but to improve it by struggle.

K: You can see man has lived for two million years, what has he achieved (inwardly speaking?) ? More wars, more destruction.

B: What I am trying to say is that there is a tendency to 'resist' seeing this, but to continually go back to the hope that this (inner) struggle will finally produce something better.

K: I am not quite sure if we have cleared this point: that the intellectuals of the world have emphasized this, this factor of struggle.

B: Well I don't know if all of them have did this . Many of them have I suppose

K: Most of them.

B: Karl Marx ?

K: Yes Marx and even Bronowsky who says through acquiring more and more knowledge, more and more struggle. Is it that they have had such extraordinary influence on our minds?

B: Well I think people would do that even without any encouragement from intellectuals. You see this struggle ( to survive?) has been emphasized everywhere.

K: Everywhere. Why?

B: Well in the beginning people thought it would be necessary, they had to struggle against ( an often unfriendly?) nature just in order to live.

K: So ( this survivalistic ) struggling against nature has been transferred to the other? Is it that our minds are (both genetically & culturally?) conditioned, or shaped to function in this pattern?

B: Well that is certainly true but it doesn't explain why it is so extraordinarily hard to change this ( archaic mentality)

K: Because I am used to it. I am in a prison, but I got used to living in it.

B: Yes, but I think that there is a tremendous resistance to moving away from that. I think that ( inwardly) there is something more to this problem. You see, you may expose the irrationality of it but people are not fully aware of ( the psychological dangers of living within) this whole pattern of ( self-centred?) thought. Even after having had it exposed at a certain level it still continues at levels that people are not aware of.

K: Yes, but what would make them aware?

B: Well that is what we have to find (educationally?) . It might be mere habit, or it might be the result of many past conclusions, now operating (subliminally) without people knowing it. There are so many different things that keep people in this pattern, so that even if you might convince somebody that this ( ego-centric) pattern makes no sense, when it comes to the actual affairs of life he has a thousand different ways of proceeding which imply that pattern.

K: Quite. Then what?

B: Well, I think that a person would have to be extremely interested in this to break all that down.

K: Then what will bring a human being to be extremely interested? You see they have offered ( Nirvana or?) Heaven as a reward if you do this. Various religions have done this, but that becomes too childish.

B: Well the (expectation of a reward ) is part of the same pattern. You see people would follow this self-enclosed pattern except when some great thing comes up - in a real emergency, they ( may spontaneously) drop the self-enclosed pattern. Ordinarily the rule is that I follow the (safe time-line of my ) self-enclosed ( mental) pattern except when something really big comes up.

K: A crisis.

B: Or when a big reward is (foreseen?) Something 'special' is needed to get out of it, and then you fall back in when that 'special' thing is passed.

K: Now why?

B: Well that is a ( wide spread collective) pattern of thinking. You see, if everybody were able to work together and suddenly you were able to produce harmony, then everybody would say fine, I would give up my self (interest) , but in the absence of that... I had better hold on to what I have.

K: Hold on to what is 'known'.

Q: But then, you can explain him all this

K: You can explain. As we said there are a dozen explanations, very rational. At the end of it I fall back to this ( safe mental space of the 'known'?)

Q: Well you only fall back to that if you have not really understood it.

K: But...have you 'understood' it when you say that? Why haven't you said 'finished'? You can give me a thousand explanations and I say '' Yes, very but...have 'you' done it ?''

Q: I don't even understand the question. Have I done, what ?

K: Have you 'move away' from this ( egocentric centred mental?) pattern, or 'break through' it ?

Q: No, I give you more than the intellectual explanation. If I observe something to be correct, then the explanation of the observation is more then just an (academic?) 'explanation'.

K: Yes, but I can't observe this clearly.

Q: Well, what is ( your?) problem.

K: So help me to see ( the inward truth of?) it clearly.

Q: For that there must be an interest.

K: I haven't got ( such ) an interest. I am ( getting?) interested ( of an alternative solution?) when there is a tremendous crisis such as a ( major personal crisis or a?) war, I can forget about my self (-interest?) , but the moment the crisis goes away I am back to my ( ego-centric?) pattern. That is happening all the time. So, what will make me relinquish this ( ages old mental) pattern, or 'break through' it?

Q: Isn't it that one must see its falseness ?

K: Show me how to break the pattern. You understand my question?

Q: Well (only when ) you are ( really) interested.

K: All right. So what will make me as a human being inwardly so alert, so aware, so intense that I will 'break through' this thing?

Q: Sir you state the question in ( rethorical?) terms of an 'action', 'breaking through', 'relinquishing'. Isn't it rather, a matter of 'seeing' (what is actually wrong with?) ?

K: Yes help me to 'see', because ( the pattern of living safely within the known) is so deeply engrained in me & is (subliminally?) holding back. Right? I want proof, I want to be convinced. Right?

Q: I may be 'convinced' ( of your rational arguments?) but I don't 'see' (their inward truth?) .

B: Well, I may feel that this is my human nature and that I must fulfil my needs no matter how 'irrational' they are.

K: That is what I am saying.

B: So my rationality eventually cannot prevail because first I must take care of my own needs and only then I can try to be 'rational'.

K: What are my needs then?

B: Some of the needs are real and some are imaginary, but...

K: Yes, that's it. The illusory ( psychological) needs sway the other needs.

B: Then, you have to see that this is an illusion. But if it seems real then I can say, what can I do, because if I am really ( living) here I need all this, and it is foolish to talk of being ( psychologically?) rational if 'I' am going to vanish, break down or something. ( In other words?) you ( K) are telling me that there is another state of being where 'I' am not there. Right? But when I am there this doesn't make any ( rational?) sense!

K: Yes, quite. (How would you educationally ?) help me to get there ?

Q: Well are you willing to really explore into this question?

K: I am willing on one condition : to be sure to find something at the end of it. See how the human mind works ? I will climb the highest mountain if I can get something out of it.

Q: Can the mind see that this ( subliminal expression of self-interest?) is the problem?

B: It sees the problem 'abstractly'.

K: That is it. Now why do I see it 'abstractly'?

B: Well, first of all because it is a lot ( safer &) easier. It is the ( intellectual) function of thought to make 'abstractions' outwardly, then we carry them inwardly.

K: Yes. But isn't there 'something else' that we are missing in this altogether?
Can't we leave that area completely and look at the problem differently ?

Q: The 'problem' being... ?

K: Why do I always live ( safely installed?) in this centre of 'me' ?
If I will discard all ( other people's rational) explanations means I stand completely alone. Does that lead anywhere?

B: Possibly, yes. It seems to me that basically you are saying, leave all this (second-hand) knowledge of mankind behind. Right?

K: That is what I am saying. Leave all that ( fake?) knowledge, discard all that.
Q: But ( even then) you are still left with the same mind.

K: Ah! It is not the same ( quality of?) mind. When I discard all this my mind has changed.

Q: You can't just 'discard' the basic set-up (of the human mind) . I mean this is a (living) organism.

K: Now wait a minute. My ( psycho-somatic) organism has been shaped by the knowledge of ( millenia of self-centred?) experience. Right?

Q: To some extent...

K: Yes. And I have been walking on that path for millennia. But now I say, perhaps I may have to look at this problem totally differently. Which is : not to walk along that path at all. ( Which comes down to?) discarding all ( the dualistic inner ?) knowledge that I have acquired.

B: In the psychological area ?

K: Psychologically, of course.

B: At the core, at the source, knowledge is irrelevant.

K: Yes sir.

B: But ( moving outwardly) it becomes relevant.

K: Of course. That is understood.

Q: But I have one question. The human mind at the very beginning of its evolution didn't have any such knowledge.

K: I don't accept that. The moment it comes into being it is already formed in that. It is already caught in knowledge.

B: Well I think it is implicit in the structure of thought. First of all to have knowledge about the outward, and then to come inward without understanding that it was going to be caught in it. If it is developed enough to think about the outward world , then it would ( naturally?) extend that knowledge outward to the inward into the area of psychological becoming.

K: And at the end of (millenia of accumulating psychological knowledge ?) I say perhaps this is a wrong way of looking at it. So now I have come to a point when I discard all that ( kind of) knowledge. Because it hasn't lead me anywhere - in the sense that I am not free of my ego-centricism.
So when I ( finally?) put those aside, because I see the same pattern being repeated - different colours, different phrases, different pictures, different images - I discard all that totally. ( Metaphorically speaking ?) instead of 'going North', as I have been going for millennia, I have stopped and am 'going East', which means my mind has (qualitatively?) changed .

Q: Has the ( pscho-) structure of the 'me' gone?

K: Obviously.

B: When you said it, that the whole thing cannot work, well I think that is an insight.

K: ( Only if?) I see that it cannot work. Finished with this constant self-(centred) becoming through acquiring more experience, knowledge, patterns, finished. Now, ( supposing that one) has got this ( total) insight and broken away the ( ego-centric mental) pattern. Can he help another human being to come to that ? What will make me absorb so completely what you have said, so that it is in my blood, in my brain, in my way, everything, so that I see this (the inward truth of this) thing ?
What will you 'do' in exercising the passion of this immense insight ? And that passion must, like a river with a great volume of water flowing over the banks, in the same way that passion must move.
Now, I am a human being, ordinary, fairly intelligent,well read & 'experienced' - won't I listen to him?

Q: I think you do listen.

K: Do you listen so completely ( to the inward truth of it ?) that there is no ( mental) resistance ?

K: Oh yes, you can see it, very clearly you can see it.

K: Then you say: 'How am I to see?' - it is the old pattern. Just see! 'X' refuses to enter that pattern.

Q: The pattern of explanation?

K: Knowledge, all that. He says come over, don't go back.

B: You see, ( it is easy for you to say?) ''leave all the knowledge behind'', but ( one's psychological) knowledge takes many subtle forms which you may not ( be aware of or?) 'see'. Right?

K: Of course. You ( Mr X) are full of this ( inner clarity of ? ) 'insight' and you have discarded all knowledge because of that. And I (Mr A?) keep on paddling over the pool of knowledge. And you ( Mr X) say, leave it. The moment you enter into 'explanations' we are back into the ( knowing?) game. You see ( rational?) explanations have been the 'boat' on which to cross to the other shore. But the ( X) man on the other shore says : there is no ( such) boat. ( Just do it:) Cross! Now he is asking me something impossible. Right?

B: If it doesn't happen right away then it is impossible.

K: He is asking me something 'impossible' for me to do. I ( the holistically minded Mr 'A') am meeting (the enlightened Mr ? ) 'X' who is immovable - he absolutely refuses to enter into the game of words. So, what am I, who have played (intellectual ) games with words, what am I to do when I have met something immovable ? Is that the problem, that human beings have never met something irrevocable, something absolutely immovable ? So, either I say, well I can't do anything about it & walk away, or it is something that I ( feel deeply that it) must be investigated. Which is it?

Q: I want to investigate.

K: I am movable, as a human being, but 'X' is immovable. The contact with it does something, it must. It is not something 'occult' , but it is something ( holistically?) simple, isn't it?

Q: Sir, it functions like a ( spiritual) magnet, which is why everyone is ( gathered) in this room. But it doesn't 'break' something.

K: No, because you haven't let go the ( self-centred mental) pattern. It is not 'X's' fault. Mr Moody, ( when you ) meet 'X', what happens?

Q: As you said, there's an effort to understand ( what he's talking about?)

K: Ah, there you are, lost (in thought's becoming in time?) . You are back into the old pattern .

B: Well can't you say that if 'X' communicates the absolute necessity of not going on with the old pattern because you see it absolutely cannot work.
And that ( inner realisation ) is immovable - is that what you mean?

K: Yes sir. I am movable: 'X' is immovable.

B: Well, in fact, what is (at work ) behind 'X' is immovable. Wouldn't you say that ?

K: There is a ( potential?) danger in this too because many people have said when you go to the guru he 'gives' and if you are inwarly silent you will ' receive'.

B: Could we say that when one sees that this whole process of time and knowledge won't work, then it stops – which leaves one more sensitive (inwardly?) ?

K: Yes sir. The mind has become 'sharp'. I think psychological knowledge has made us ( inwardly unperceptive & ) dull.

B: Yes, it has kept the brain ( busy by?) moving in an unnecessary way. You could say in some sense that knowledge needn't make you dull, I suppose, but if it starts from the clarity of where we don't have this knowledge at the core...

K: Yes sir. You remember we said too in our discussion, the Ground ( of one's inner being?) is not in knowledge.

B: Well, I think that the main point, which we could communicate here is to see that ( inwardly wise ?) knowledge in all its forms, subtle and obvious, cannot solve the psychological problem, it can only make it worse. But then there is another ( intelligent psychical ?) 'energy' which is involved.

K: I think we had better stop, don't you?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Apr 2020 #20
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

FIVE

K: Could we approach this question (of contacting the Ground of Being ?) from the ( experiential?) point of view: Is it a philosophic concept? Or something that is 'absolute' in the sense that there is nothing beyond it?

B: How can you tell that there is nothing beyond it?

K: I want to see whether we can have an insight into 'that' ( by starting) from a concept. Because after all, the whole ( culture of the ) Western world, and perhaps also the Eastern world, is based on concepts. So, do we approach it from that point of view, or as an (authentic) 'philosophic' investigation - 'philosophic' in the sense love of wisdom, love of truth, love of investigation, the process of the mind.

B: Well, ( academically wise ? ) philosophy is taught through concepts ; but whether all the philosophers really wanted to base everything on concepts is another question.

K: I didn't say 'all', sir.

B: Most of them ?

K: Most of them!

B: And certainly it is very hard to teach it except through (highly intellectual?) concepts.

K: So, do we ( attempt to?) investigate the Ground ( of Creation?) from a mind that is disciplined in knowledge?

B: Well, fundamentally we can say that the Ground is 'unknown'. Therefore we can't begin with knowledge. Many years ago we had (such a philosophical?) discussion in London and you suggested to start with the unknown ( free from the thought's anchorages in the 'known'?)

K: Yes, yes. Say for instance ( that Mr) 'X' says there is such a Ground. And when we ask ''what is the Ground ?'', prove it, show it, is it with a mind that is seeking (to accumulate deeper & wider knowledge ?) , or ( with a mind) that has this passion for truth, the love of truth?

B: I think that in the (average ?) mind there is the demand for certainty which says 'show it to me ' , I want to be sure. So therefore there is no (actual possibility of experiential ) enquiry, no?

K: How can my mind which has evolved through knowledge, which has been highly disciplined in knowledge, even touch That which is not knowledge, that is not put together by thought ?

B: Yes, as soon as you say, 'prove it', you want to turn it into ( standardised) knowledge.

K: That's it.

B: An absolutely certain knowledge is what you want, so that there can be no doubt. And yet, on the other side (of the spectrum?) there is also the danger of self-deception and delusion.

K: Of course. We have been through all that (very slippery terrain?) very carefully and we said the Ground cannot be 'touched' (experientially?) as long as there is any form of illusion, which is the projection of desire, pleasure, fear and all that.

B: I merely meant to say that the person who says 'prove it' ( scientifically?) , is also trying to protect ( the purity of?) it against those illusions. But it is a vain hope.

K: So how do I, as (a holistically minded Mr ) 'X', perceive 'That' ( Nameless?) thing? . Is it a (metaphysical) idea to be investigated? Or is it something that cannot be investigated?

B: Right...

K: Because my (highly knowledgeably?) mind is trained to function (prioritarily) in the ( fail-safe ?) area (of the known ?) . And you come along and tell me that this Ground is not an idea, it is not something that can be imagined or perceived by thought.

B: Or 'understood' by ( the mechanical process of?) thought ?

K: Yes. Then what am I to do?

B: You are even adding more ( experiential difficulties ? ) by saying that it cannot be experienced, it cannot be perceived, or understood through thought.

K: Yes.... So I have only this mind that has been conditioned by knowledge. How am I, as a (holistically minded Mr ) 'X', to move away from all that (widely spread mentality ) and 'feel' this thing, touch it, or comprehend it?
You ( Mr K?) tell me that the words will not convey that. You tell me ''you must have a mind that is free from all knowledge, except ( the practical) technological (aspects) ''. You are asking me an 'impossible' thing, aren't you? And even if I say, ''I will make an (intelligent?) effort'', then that also is born out of the self-centred desire. So, (Then, what am I to do?) is a very serious question that (some holistically minded ?) people may ask.

B: At least implicitly. They may not say it.

K: Yes. So you ( who metaphorically speaking are?) on the other bank of the (River of Time?) - as it were - tell me that there is no ( available?) 'boat' to cross and that you can't swim across. In fact you can't do anything. (In other words ) you are you are asking the particular mind to eschew all knowledge. Has this been said before ?

B: The Christians tell you to give your faith to God, or to give ( yourself) over to Jesus and let him...

K: Yes, they have said 'only' through Jesus.

B: Well he is ( supposed to be ) the mediator between us and God.

K: Yes. But for instance, ( in the Hindu spiritual tradition) Vedanta means the end of ( the Vedas' knowledge ) - The ending of knowledge.

B: It could ( also) mean that I suppose. I don't know Sanskrit that well.
Veda by itself means ( sacred?) knowledge.

K: And (Vedanta) means the end of that. When you talk to an Eastern mind - I am talking of the minds who have studied ( & meditated on this subject?) they acknowledge that in one's (spiritual) life that a time must come when knowledge must end. Vedanta is the whole way of looking. They would immediately understand that the mind must be free of ( all its psychological ?) knowledge. But it ( has become?) only a conceptual, a theoretical understanding. But as a ( highly knowledgeable?) Westerner, it means absolutely nothing to me.

B: Well, in the beginning there was also Western tradition which is similar but not as common. Like in the Middle Ages there was a book written called 'The Cloud of Unknowing', which is on that line, but that is not the main line of Western thought.

K: So how shall I approach ( knowledge-free ?) the coming upon this Ground (of All That Is?) which ( potentially could ?) give an immense significance to (one's inner?) life.

B: Yes, well people have used that (transcendental?) notion of 'God' to give significance to life.

K: That ( could be?) merely an idea.

B: Yes but the idea contains something similar to the Eastern concept that God is beyond knowing. Most people accept it that way.

K: Yes. But you tell me this ( Ground of All Creation?) is not created by thought. So you cannot under any circumstances come upon it through any form of manipulation of thought.

B: Yes, I understand what you are saying. But I am trying to say that there is this ( potential) danger, of self-delusion, in the sense that western (religiously minded ?) people would say, 'Yes, that is quite true, it is through a 'direct experience of Jesus' ( or through?) the Grace of God'. Something beyond thought, you see.

K: As a fairly thoughtful man, I reject all that.

B: Yes, why do you reject it?

K: First of all, because it has become common (parlance) in the sense that everybody says that. And also there may be in it a great ( potential) sense of illusion created by desire, hope, fear.

B: Yes. Some people do seem to find this meaningful, it may be an illusion but...

K: But if they had never heard of ( who was ) Jesus, they wouldn't (recognise this experience as related to?) Jesus.

B: That seems to be the weak point that the particular form of Jesus must be due to their having heard that idea before …

K: Of course, when you are daily pounded with, ''Jesus is your Saviour'' - I mean, naturally.

B: I mean it would be interesting if someone who had never heard of Jesus would have this experience. That would be some sort of proof that there was more to it.

Q: But wouldn't you agree that there are some more serious people in most religions who would say that God, or the 'absolute', or the Ground is something that cannot be experienced through thinking, and even go so far as to say it cannot be experienced at all ?

K: Oh yes, 'X' says it cannot be experienced.

Q: I think the essence of some religions would say that too.

K: All right, I don't know. Here is a person who says there is such a thing. And if I listen to him, and not only does he convey it by his ( very charismatic?) presence, he conveys it also through the (spoken) word. ( And he tells me, be careful, the word is not the (real) thing !) . But he uses the words to convey something which I vaguely capture, that there is this something so immense that my ( understanding through ) thought cannot capture it.
And I say, how is my brain to free itself from all that?

Q: Could it free itself by understanding its own limitation?

K: Understanding what?

Q: That thought itself could understand that whatever it is doing it is bound by some natural ( mechanistic?) limitation.

K: So you are telling me, thought is limited. Show it to me. I can see the beauty of the earth, I see the beauty of a building, of a person, of nature, I see all that; but when you say '(my) thought is ( intrinsically) limited' I don't feel ( the inward truth of) it. It is just a lot of words.

Q: Are saying that thought sees it only intellectually ?

K: Intellectually I understand it. But I have no feeling for it. You understand? There is no perfume ( of Truth?) in it.
How will you aid me to have this ( holistic ?) feeling that thought is such a small affair, so that ( the actual truth of?) it is in my blood - you understand? When once it is in my blood I have got it - you don't have to 'explain' it (verbally) .

Q: But isn't there the possibility to look directly at what (my particular) mind can do ?

K: That is all I have : thinking, feeling, hating, loving - you know all that. The activity of the mind. I know that very well, you don't have to tell me.

Q: I would say you don't 'know' it (in real time?) , you only (assume?) that you know it.

K: How do I as a (holistically minded?) human being have this extraordinary feeling ( of seeing the whole truth?) about it?

Q: What does this 'feeling' spring from?

K: I want to have this passion that will 'explode me out' of this little enclosure, the ( pro-active psychological ?) wall which 'is' myself. And I have lived with this thing for millions of years. And I have lived trying to get out of it by studying, by (meditating?) , but I am still ( subliminally?) anchored there. You talk ( very poetically ?) about the Ground because you see something that is breathtaking, so alive, so extraordinary and I am (still) anchored in here. You, who have 'seen' the Ground must do something that will explode, break up this thing completely.

Q: I must do something, or you must do something?

K: Help me! Not by prayer and all that nonsense. You understand what I am trying to say? I have fasted, I have meditated, I have given up, I have taken a vow of this and that, I have done all those things. Because I have had a million years of ( earth bound?) life. And at the end of the million years I am still where I was, at the beginning - which is a great ( awakening ?) discovery for me. You understand? I thought I had moved from the beginning, at the beginning by going through all this, but I suddenly discover I am back at the same point where I started; I have more experience, I have seen the world, I have painted, I have played music, I have danced. But have come back to the original starting point.

Q: Which is 'me' ( my self-centred consciousness ?) ?

K: Yes, 'me'. Now, what is the human mind's relationship to the Ground? If it could establish a relationship with That, my mind has become (an integrated part of?) That.

Q: But that requires a (major ) insight.

K: I am just asking - is there an (interacting) relationship between That and the human mind? In asking that question I am also aware of the ( psychological) dangers of such a question.

B: Yes, that you may create a delusion of the same kind that we have already gone through.

Q: Are you suggesting that this (interacting) relationship cannot be made by you, but it must come from That ?

K: So, if the human mind has no relationship to It, and that there is only a one way passage, from That to me...

B: Well that's like the Grace of God then...

K: I am rejecting the (traditional) explanation - the Grace of God.

B: So, you are not ( asserting ) that the relationship (with the Ground) is one way, nor are you saying it is not one way.

K: May be, I don't know.

B: You are not asserting anything.

K: I am not asserting anything. All that I 'want' is this ( self-identified) 'centre' to be blasted. You understand? For the 'centre' not to exist. Because I see that ( living inwardly tethered to this) centre is the cause of all the mischief, all the neurotic conclusions, all the illusions, all the endeavour, all the effort, all the misery, everything is from that core. After a million years, I haven't been able to get rid of it, it hasn't gone. So is there a relationship at all? What is the relationship between Goodness and badness ? There is no relationship.

B: It depends upon what you mean by 'relationship'....

K: Contact, touch, communication, being in the same room.

B: Coming from the same root ?

K: Yes, same root. Between 'that ( inward spirit of Goodness?) which is whole' , and 'the ( self-isolated consciousness) which is not whole' is there an (interacting?) relationship between these two? Obviously not.

B: Yes, well if you are saying that in some sense the 'centre' is an illusion - an illusion cannot be related to that which is true because the content of the illusion has no relation to what is true.

K: You see that is a great (inward?) discovery : this petty little thing wants to have a relationship with that ( creative?) Immensity. It cannot.

Q: But I don't see that this centre is not 'actual'. And when you say (metaphorically that?) ''this centre (of self-interest?) must explode'' that is becoming part of my (psychological?) difficulty.

K: Wait. You can call it an illusion, a fixation ( a self-focussing?) - or whatever you like. It is there. And this ( ego-centric?) mind wants to have that relationship with That . And That says, 'Sorry, you can't have relationship with me.' That's all! I have a million years of ( survival oriented ?) experience and it has given me a certain ( mental ?) capacity. And I realize at the end of it all there is no relationship between me and Truth. Right? And that's ( spiritually wise ?) a tremendous shock to me because all my millions of years of experience says go after that, seek it, search for it, pray for it, sacrifice. I have done all that. And suddenly (Mr) 'X' says, 'you' cannot have relationship with That . So what has happened to the ( self-centred?) mind that has lived this way, done everything that man has done in search for that, and That says, one morning, 'You have no ( interacting?) relationship with me'. Isn't it a (psychological) shock to discover that your brain, and your mind, your knowledge is valueless? All your self-examinations, all the things (& stuff?) that one has gathered through centuries, absolutely worthless ( spiritually-wise?) . Is this ( lack of relationship with the Ground of one's Being?) seen as an idea? Or as an actuality - in the sense that I suddenly realize the futility of all that I have done ( spiritually-wise) .
So ( for meditation homework?) I must be very careful to see that it is not (conveniently translated into?) a concept, but receive the full blow of it!
( To recap:) It has given me a tremendous shock to discover the ( inward) truth that all the churches, all the prayers, all the books have absolutely no ( deeper spiritual?) meaning - except ( in helping to) build a better ( & more humane?) society and so on .

B: If we could manage to bring this point to order then it would have a great meaning to build a 'good' society.

K: From there I can start creating a ( truly humane?) society.

Q: You see, Krishnaji, what I don't understand is that there are many people who in their life have never pursued what you call the Ground.

K: The are not interested.

Q: Well, I an not so sure. How would you approach such a person?

K: I am not interested in approaching any ( individual?) person. All the good works I have done, the Ground says are valueless. But if I can drop all that, my mind is (becoming one with?) the Ground. From there I can create a new ( kind of education & a new?) society.

( Silent pause ...)

K: So sir, to come back to earth: why has man done this?

B: Done what?

K: Accumulated ( tons of psychological?) knowledge. Apart from the ( objective ) necessity of ( practical) knowledge in certain areas (of human existence?) , why has this burden of knowledge continued for so long?

B: Because in one sense man has been trying to produce a 'solid ground' ( for his temporal existence?) through knowledge. ( Living within the field of) knowledge, he has tried to create a 'ground'.

K: Which means that the 'saints', the 'philosophers', have educated me (to function proficiently in the field of) knowledge and through knowledge to find the Ground ?

Q: You see , during all these periods where mankind was caught in the craziest superstitions, mankind's (rational?) knowledge was able to do away with that...to some extent.

K: ( But also, my inward addiction to ?) knowledge has only crippled me from seeing Truth. Sorry, but I'll stick to that. It hasn't cleared me of my illusions. Knowledge ( inwardly wise?) may be illusory itself.

Q: That may be but it has cleared up some illusions.

K: I want to clear up all the ( psychological) illusions that I hold - not some. I have got rid of my illusion about (the virtues of) nationalism; I have got rid of my illusion about about Christ, about this, about that. At the end of it I realize my ( self-centred) mind ( itself) is (an) illusion. You see to me, who has lived for a thousands years (safely installed within the field of knowledge?) , to find it is absolutely worthless, it is something enormous...

B: Now, when you say (metaphorically that?) you have lived for a thousand years or a million years, does that means in a sense that all the ( past) experience of mankind is...

K:... is me.

B:... is (subliminally enfolded in?) me. Do you actually feel that?

K: I do.

B: And how do you 'feel' it?

K: It is not sympathy, or empathy, or a thing that I have desired ( to achieve?) ; 'I am all ( the consciousness of?) humanity' is an absolute, irrevocable fact to me.

B: Yes, well perhaps if we could 'share that feeling'. You see that seems to be one of the ( experiential) steps that is missing, because you have repeated this ( holistic statement?) quite often as an important part of the whole thing.

K: Which means sir, that when you ( selflessly?) love somebody there is no (self-conscious?) 'me' , it is (selfless?) Love. In the same way, when I say ''I am humanity'', it is part of me.

B: Well let's say it is a ( totally responsible?) feeling that I have gone through all this ( Long March Forward of Human Consciousness?) during all those millions of years.

K: ( Countless generations of ?) human beings have been through all that.

B: So, if others have gone through it then ( holistically speaking) I also have gone through it ?

K: Of course. But one is not ( always?) aware of it.

B: No, we separate.

K: But if we admit that our brains are not 'my particular brain' but the human brain that has evolved through millennia. ..

B: Well let me say why this ( holistic perception?) doesn't communicate so easily: everybody feels that the content of his brain is in some way 'individual', that he hasn't gone through all that. Let's say that somebody else, thousands of years ago went through science or philosophy. Now how does that affect me? That is what is not clear.

K: Because I am caught in this self-centred narrow little cell, which refuses to look (see?) beyond (its own self-interest?) . But you come along and tell me, as a ( holistically minded?) scientist, as a 'religious' man, that my brain 'is' (actually) the brain of mankind.

B: Yes and all my knowledge is the knowledge of mankind. So that in some way we have all that knowledge... even if not in detail, of course.

K: So I come to that ( realisation) only when I have given up the ordinary (psychologically sticky ?) things like nationalism (& so on...)

B: Yes we have given up the divisions and then we can see that our experience is that of all mankind.

K: ( Outwardly speaking?) is so obvious sir. You go to the most primitive villager in India and he will tell you all about his problems, his problems, his wife, children, poverty. It is exactly the same thing (all over the world ) only here he is wearing different trousers, kimono, or whatever it is. For 'X' it is an indisputable ( psychological) fact, it is 'so' (true?) . And he says, all right, at the end of all this, a million years, I suddenly discover that all that I have done ( psychologically-wise?) is useless. They are ashes. You see sir that doesn't ( have to?) depress one. That is the beauty of it. I think it is like the Phoenix (Bird )

B: Rising from its own ashes ?

K: Born out of ( its own?) ashes.

B: Well in a way it is ( a genuine sense of) inward freedom to be free of all that.

K: Something totally new is born (inwardly?) .

B: And you before is that the mind is ( one with?) the ground, it is the unknown.

K: The mind? Yes. But not this (self-centred) mind. If I have been through all that and come to the ending of all that, it is a New Mind.

B: That's clear. The mind is its content, and the content is knowledge and without that (time binding) knowledge it is a new mind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Apr 2020 #21
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

SIX

Dr Bohm: In our discussing yesterday it was agreed that there must be a change but I wonder if we could discuss how does a "total insight" change the brain?

K: The brain that has been set ( to function) in the (self-centred) pattern for millennia. And you ( Mr X) tell me tell me, 'insight' changes the ( functioning of the?) brain cells.

B: You seem to imply that this ( mutational) insight is ( coming) somehow from beyond the brain ?

K: All that you have said to me is that ( a total) insight brings about a mutation in the brain. This 'insight' may be the real ( holistic) activity of the brain. But we must be very clear that it is not the result of progressive knowledge, it is not come by through any exercise of will (power) .

B: Yes. I think people can generally see that insight comes in a flash, it does not come through will. Those who have considered it at all can see that. Also that probably chemistry won't bring it about, ( by psychedelic ? ) drugs, you know.

K: I think most ( holistically minded?) people see that. So, how am I to have this insight ?

B: In some ( obscure?) ways this (whole issue of a 'psychological' mutation?) may disturb people since it is not very clear what is going to make this change in the brain, is it ( triggered by?) something more than the (physical) brain, or is it something deeper in the brain? It is not quite clear logically.

Q: Are you implying that insight is a (natural?) function of the brain which acts without reference to its ( temporal) content?

K: ...to its past (psychological) content.

B: That is a very good question, as far as I see it. Is there a function in the brain which is independent of the content, which is not conditioned by the content, but it might still be a physical function?

K: Sir, apart from the (temporal ?) consciousness with its content, is there in the human brain an activity which is not touched by this consciousness?

B: By its past content, yes.

K: All right. A part of the human brain which is not touched by (its memory) content.

B: All right then. That suggests that it may be possible for the brain to change. Either the brain is entirely controlled by its ( past memory) content, or in some way it is not so ( completely?) conditioned, it has some (extra degrees of freedom?) .

K: You see the ( potential ?) danger of admitting to myself, and so of trying to tell somebody else, that there is a part of the brain...

B: An activity ?

K:... all right, an activity of the brain which is not touched by its (temporal) content.

B: It is a 'possible' activity that has not yet been awakened ?

K: It has not been awakened. That's right.

Q: So, what is the 'danger'?

K: The ( psychological) danger is in assuming that there is ( a spark of?) God in me, that there is something beyond the ( brain's time-bound) content and therefore 'that' (newly awakened capacity ?) will operate in spite of this.

B: Those ( mind) tricks we have discussed before - the assumption of a God within and the ( subsequent) imagination of this 'God within', therefore the apparent proof - there is a danger ( of self-delusion) obviously.

K: The danger is that (enlightened people in the past ) previous to 'X' said that this ('other) thing' exists ; so, if the un-conscious mind is capturing this (possibility of self-delusion) and so it sees the danger instantly.

Q: It sees its own trap ?

K: Yes, it sees the trap which it has created. So it avoids ( falling again in?) that trap. To avoid a trap (of self-delusion?) is ( a sign of mental?) sanity. ( So, if this fine point was seen, one can ask ?) Is there an activity which is totally independent of the content? And is that activity part of the ( material ?) brain?

B: If it is a natural activity of the brain, then it could ( get awakened) somehow and that activity could change the brain, it could change.

K: But would you say it is still material?

B: Yes. There could be different levels of matter, you see.

K: That is what I am trying to get at.

B: But you see, if you think that way, there could be a deeper level of (more refined ) matter which is not conditioned by the content.

K: So it would still be matter, refined or super or whatever, it would still be ( part of the?) the content.

B: You see you have to go slowly because do you say that ( all the brain's) content is matter ?

K: Yes.

B: Inherently, but still, this point has to be cleared up because it is not obvious.

K: Let's discuss it. Thought is matter.

B: Well ( more exactly?) thought is part of the material process of the ( material) brain . Thought's (mental?) waves are not actually matter, they are just a process in matter. Is that clear what I mean? Is thought matter, or is it a process in matter?

Q: May one ask, is electricity considered 'matter'?

B: In so far as there are electron particles it is matter but it is also a (wave) movement of that, which is a process.

Q: So it is two things ?

B: Well the electrical action is like the waves but the ( material support of ) electricity consists of particles.

K: Sir, what is the question you have just asked me?

B: Is thought ( in itself ) a material substance, or is it a process in some other material substance, like the brain?

K: It is a material process in the brain.

B: Yes, scientists would generally agree with that. But if you say 'thought is was matter' they would become very puzzled.

K: Thought is a material process in the brain. That would be right. Now, can this material process ever be independent?

B: Independent of what?

K: Our question was : can that material process in the brain bring about a change in itself ? But... if that material in itself can change it would still be a material process.

B: Well thought is always going to be apparently a material process.

K: And therefore it is not ( the source of any authentic ?) insight.
.
B: You are saying that 'insight' is not a material process?

K: Go slowly : Thought is a material process in the brain and any other movements springing from that material process is still material. Now, is there another ( holistically perceptive?) activity which is not a material process?

B: Well, people have asked the same question for ages. Is there spirit beyond matter, right?

K: Is there some other ( psychical?) activity which is not related to the material process ?

B: Well if ( the) insight is dependent on the material process ( which is going on in the brain?) it would be just another material process.

K: So, it cannot depend on it. Insight is not dependent on the material process, which is thought.

B: But the other way round, he material process may may be changed by insight ?

K: Ah, wait, wait. That is not dependent on this (material process of thought)

B: Now you see, generally speaking ( the science) people would not see how something non-material could affect something material, you see.

K: Yes, quite.

B: It might be easily agreed that something non-material is not affected by matter but then how does the operation work the other way?

K: ( Within) the brain, thought is a material ( mental?) process, with its content. Now is 'insight' part of that?

B: Well it takes place independently of that, it can't be part of it. But it can still act ( bringing its holistic clarity?) within the material process, that's the crucial thing.

K: Yes, it is independent of the material process but yet it can act upon the material process.

B: Well let's discuss that a little. We generally find (in science) that if B acts on A then A can act on B. Even in human relations if I can act on you, you can act on me – right?

K: Yes. But if I don't respond to your action, I am (psychologically speaking ?) independent of it.

Q: Could one envisage may be that ( a holistic?) 'insight' is a much larger movement than the material process of the brain, and therefore that much larger movement can act on the smaller movement but the smaller movement cannot act on the larger movement.

K: Yes, we are saying the same thing.

B: If you drop a rock in the ocean, you know the ocean absorbs it with no significant...

K: Quite, but be careful. Don't enter into that ( materialistic similarity?) too quickly. This is a very important thing to discover (inwardly) . Love is independent of hate. ( In the human consciousness ?) where there is ( personal resentment or?) hate the 'other' cannot exist. Right?

B: Yes, they can't stand side by side acting on each other.

K: No, they can't. So when you scientists say A must have a relation to B, B must have a relation to A, we are contradicting that. ( In the psychological realm?) Love is...

B: Well not all scientists have said that - Aristotle talked about the 'unmoved mover' (or in plain words?) he says that God is never acted upon by matter but he acts. So that is a very old idea. Since that time ( the mainstream) science has thrown out ( the metaphysics of) Aristotle and said that is impossible.

K: If I see clearly ( inwardly ) that Love is independent of hate, ( it follows logically that ) where hate is (present) the 'other' cannot be. I want to be quite clear on this ( important psychological?) point. 'Violence' and ' being without violence' are two entirely different factors. One cannot act upon the other.

B: Well, you could say that the existence of the one is the non-existence of the other, and there is no way to act together.

K: Absolutely. I'll stick to that. So ( in a consciousness?) where there is this material ( thought) process in action, the 'Other' cannot exist.

B: What is meant by the 'Other' ? Insight ?

K: Yes.

Q: Well, then this (total psychological incompatibility?) denies what you were saying before that there is an action from insight on the material process.

K: Now steady, ( in a consciousness?) where there is violence the 'other' is not. Right? Non-violence...

B: ( Inner ) Peace ? Or ( holistic?) order, harmony, right?

K: Where there is violence, peace cannot exist. But where there is ( Inner) peace, is there violence? No, of course not.

Q: Sir you have also said many times that Intelligence can act upon thought, or that an insight can affect thought, but it doesn't work the other way round.

K: ( The holistically friendly ?) Intelligence can wipe away ( the inner darkness of?) ignorance, but (fortunately enough?) ignorance cannot touch intelligence. ( But the other way round?) can ( the Intelligence of) love wipe away ( the psychological residues of?) hate?

B: Well it doesn't seem to be possible because ( the energy of?) 'hate' seems to be an independent force.

K: Of course it is.

Q: Aren't you then saying that there is good and there is evil, and evil is a completely separate independent force on its own?

B: Well, it is independent of good.

Q: Take light and darkness, light appears and the darkness is gone.

B: Well when one is the other can't be, you see. That is all that we are saying so far.

Q: Do you mean in a single human brain?

B: In any particular brain, yes, or in a group ; whenever there is ( a thread of?) hate going on in a group (consciousness?) there is no (place for harmony &) love.

K: Sir, it just came to my mind. ( Selfless?) love has no ( material?) cause. Right? Hate has a cause. ( Similarly?) Insight has no cause, while the material ( self-centred) process of thought, has a cause. Now, that which has no cause, can it act ever upon that which has a cause?

B: Well it might. We see that the insight might act to change the (self-centred mentality ? ) that has a cause. However, it won't happen the other way round.

K: Yes, that's right. And apparently the action of ( a total inner ?) insight has an extraordinary effect on the material process.

B: Yes, it may 'wipe out' some causes ( of personal & collective resentment ?) for example.

K: As (the inner clarity of?) insight is causeless, which is not born out of (any material) cause, that insight has a definite effect on that which has cause.

B: Yes, well it doesn't follow (logically) but it is (nevertheless?) possible.

K : Yes, as long as we are clear on the word 'possible'. Love being without cause, and hate has a cause, the two cannot co-exist. But, to explore a little more is ( selfless?) Love ( the inward source of?) insight?

B: Well as far as we can see it, love is not identically the same as insight, is it?

K: Why?

B: Insight may be ( the intelligent action of) Love but you see, insight also occurs in a flash for example.

K: It is a flash of course. And that 'flash' alters the whole pattern (of thought's self-centredness?)

B: That's right.

K: But that flash (of insight ) is still using thought's patterns - in the sense, argue, reason, logic and all that.

B: Well once the 'flash of insight' has operated then the ( brain's self-centred) pattern is different and therefore it would become more rational.

K: What I am trying to say is: you can have a flash (of insight?) but you can still be 'logical'

B: The flash may make (a more holistically friendly?) logic possible because you may have been confused before the flash.

K: Ah, yes... Aristotle may have come to all this ('unmoved mover' concept ?) by logic.

B: Well he may have had some insight, we don't know.

K: We don't know but I am questioning it.

B: Well we really don't know how his mind operated because there are only a few books that survived.

K: Would you say he had insight by reading a few of his books?

B: I haven't really read Aristotle directly, very few people have because it is hard. Very few people have actually read what he directly said. Most people read what other ( smarter?) people said about Aristotle. There are a few phrases of Aristotle which are common – like the unmoved mover. And he has seen some other things which suggest that he was quite intelligent, at least.

K: What I am trying to say is that (an authentic?) Insight is not partial ever. I am talking of 'total' insight, not partial insight.

Q: Could you explain this a little bit more? What do you mean by 'not a partial insight'?

K: An artist or a scientist can have a partial insight (pertaining to their own areas of competency?) but 'X' is talking about having a 'total insight'.

Q: So by 'partial insight' you mean an insight that illuminates only a limited area, or subject, is that what you mean?

K: Yes.

Q: Then a 'total insight' would encompass what?

K: The total human activity. Right sir?

B: Well that is one point. But when we were discussing before, this total insight would illuminate the whole activity of the brain, and in that illumination it seems that the material activity of the brain will change, the brain itself begins to act differently.

K: That's right sir.

B: And you said that the source of this ( sudden?) illumination, is not in the material process, it has no ( direct material?) cause ?

K: It has no cause.

B: But it is a real ( holistically intelligent?) energy.

K: It is pure ( Mind?) energy. That's right, sir.

B: Pure energy. It is like a flashlight that has a cause but ( the light that it ) flashes on the ground is not connected with the cause of whatever is ( happening ) on the ground.

K: Yes, sir, that's quite right. Which means is there ( a directly perceptive?) action without cause?

B: Or without time, cause implies time.

K: Of course. And this 'flash' (of perceptive clarity?) has altered completely the ( time-binding?) pattern which the material process (of thought?) has set for itself .

B: Yes. We could say that the material process generally operates in a kind 'darkness' ( of ignorance) and therefore it has set itself going in a wrong path.

K: Darkness, yes. That is ( much is?) clear. The material process ( of self-centred thinking) acts in the 'darkness oof ignorance' . And this 'flash' (of total insight ?) 'enlightens' the whole field. Which means ignorance, darkness has been dispelled. I will hold to that.

B: Well, darkness and light cannot co-exist for obvious reasons, but nevertheless the very existence (Inner Presence?) of Light is to change the process of darkness.

K: Quite right. I hold to that.

B: Right. But now let's make another point clear. Here is the (sudden?) flash ( of insight) but it seems almost like its 'light' will go on ?

K: The light is there, the flash is ( not separate from?) the light.

B: We have to consider (the holistic rationality of it?) You see, at a certain moment, the flash is immediate but then as you work from there there is still light ?

K: Why do you differentiate that (sudden?) flash from light?

B: Simply because if you use the word 'flash', like a flash of lightening gives light for that moment but then the next moment you are again in darkness until the next flash of lightening.

K: It is not like that - when we put that question 'stays on and goes off', you are thinking in terms of ( a linear continuity in?) time.

B: Yes, well we have to clear this up because it is the question everybody will (eventually?) put.

K: ( In a nutshell:) The material process (of thought) is working in darkness, in time, in (the mental field of one's past ?) knowledge, ignorance, all that. When that insight takes place there is the dispelling of that (inner?) 'darkness'. So then thought, which is the material process, is no longer working in darkness, therefore that light has has ended ( the inward darkness of?) ignorance.

B: So we say this darkness is really something which is inbuilt into the content of thought.

K: The (self-centred psychological?) content 'is' (working in?) darkness.

B: That's right. Then that light has dispelled that ignorance.

K: That's right sir. Dispelled the ( time-binding?) content.

B: But still we can't say it has dispelled all the content (of our thinking?) .

K: It has dispelled the 'centre of darkness'.

B: Yes, the creator of darkness.

K: The 'self' . Right? It has dispelled the centre of darkness which is the 'self' (-centred consciousness?) .

B: Well we could say that the self (-interest?) is the central part of the content and this 'centre of darkness' is dispelled.

K: Dispelled. Yes. The centre of darkness, which has maintained the darkness, has been dispelled. I hold to that.

B: We can say now that means a physical (major qualitative?) change in the brain cells - by altering certain ( pre-) disposition of all the brain cells.

K: Of course sir, obviously. You see sir, this has an enormous ( psychological) significance - in our relationship with our society, in everything.
Now the ( bonus?) question which Mrs Lilliefelt put, is: How does this (holistic) flash (of insight?) come about? Let's begin the other way round. How does ( selfless?) 'love' come about? How does ( inner) 'peace' come about? Which is, ( the sense of inner) peace being causeless, how does this causeless thing come about when my whole life is causation? Just see first ( the inward truth that?) there is no 'how'. If you show me 'how' you are ( ASAP ? back into the ( time-bound mentality of?) darkness. Right ?

B: Right.

K: That's a tremendous thing to understand ( for extra homework?) . But I am asking a ( more holistically friendly?) question sir, which is: why is it that we have no ( inward?) insights at all, why is it that they don't start from our childhood, these (timeless) insights? You follow what I am talking about?

B: Well the ( egocentric ) way in which our life is lived...

K: Is it ( only due to) our education? Is it ( only due to the socio-economic pressures of modern ) society? I don't believe it is ( only ?) that.

B: What do you say then?

K: It is some other ( deeper) factor. If for 'X' it is quite natural , why don't we all have (free access to?) it ?

Q: Wouldn't you say that there are ( some unconscious ?) blocks which prevent the insight from acting ?

K: Of course. But I want to move away from ( psycho-analysing?) these blockages. If to 'X' it seems so natural, why isn't it natural to everybody? You follow what I am talking about?

B: That is the question.

K: That is the question I am asking. If you say ( inherited ) blockages, the ( survivalistic?) environment, genetic inheritance - I say those are all ( time-binding?) causes. Now why isn't it natural to everybody? Right sir? Why is not love natural to everybody? Am I putting the question?

B: Well, some ( holistically minded?) people might feel it is natural to everybody, but being treated in a certain way they gradually get caught in hate. Most people would say that it is natural for the young child meeting love to respond with with love, but mistreated he will respond with ( resentment or?) hate.

K: Yes, this morning I heard that. Then I asked myself why 'X' – who has been put under all these circumstances which could have produced blockages, wasn't touched by it ? Why is it not this possible for everybody?

B: Perhaps we should make it more clear why it would be 'natural' not to respond to hate with hate. As you know the young child is not able to think about all this. Some people would say it would be the animal instinct- the animal will respond with love if you treat him with love, but if you treat the animal with hate he is going to fight back and will become very vicious.

K: Yes...

B: Now some people would say that the human being in the beginning is like that animal and later he can understand. Now you are saying why don't all young children fail to respond to hate with hate?

K: That means, is it the fault of the parents?

B: Weren't you implying is that it is not entirely that, that there is something deeper.

K: Yes sir. Let's have an insight into it ! Would it be right to say that the beginning of man is not 'animal'?

B: Well that point is not clear, you see. The present theory of evolution followed the ( lineage of the?) apes developing, where they become more and more like human beings. Now when you say that the beginning of man is not animal, then it is not clear.

K: I am asking. And therefore if the beginning of man is the animal therefore we have that instinct highly cultivated and that instinct is natural.

B: Yes, that instinct is cause and effect.

K: Yes, cause and effect and it becomes natural. And someone comes along and says, 'Is it?'

B: Let's try to get this clear then, because...

K: I mean all the scientific and historical ( theories) say man began from the ape.

B: Yes, began from other animals.

K: And that as all animals respond to love by love and to hate by hate, we as human beings, respond instantly to hate by hate.

B: And vice versa, to love by love. And you could say that it would not have been very helpful for the (species') survival to respond to hate with love, but there would have been a ( natural) selection of people who responded to hate with hate.

K: So at the beginning ( of the human species?) ) there were ( some spiritually evolved ?) people who never responded to hate because they had ( selfless ?) Love, and these people had implanted this ( holistically friendly mentality ?) in the human mind also. Right? That where Love is the other (the animal inheritance?) is not. And that has also been part of our ( Consciousness?) inheritance. Right? And why haven't we as human beings cultivated this 'other' ( alternative lineage ) ?
( Simply because ) the 'other' is not cultivatable.

B: It is not 'causal' – and any ( temporal) cultivation depends on a cause.

K: On cause. So, if this is so, why have we lost that (uncultivable gift of innocence?) ?

Q: But when you ask ''why we have lost it ?'', that implies that we have had it sometime.

B: Some people might have had it.

K: Yes. Some, I said that, when 'X', 'Y', 'Z', began implanted in man's (Consciousness?) this ( quality of selfless?) love, which is causeless, which will not respond to hate. All right. That has been 'implanted'. But... we have cultivated very thought(fully?) to respond to hate by hate, violence by violence, and so on. Why haven't we moved along the other line?

B: One doesn't see any way of proceeding.

K: I am not trying to proceed. To 'X' the 'Other' seems so natural. So if that is so natural to 'X', why isn't it natural to 'Y' and so on? If he is ( considered as a psychological?) 'freak', that is a stupid ( & very convenient?) way of pushing him off. If it is 'natural' to 'X', it must also be natural to others ? You know this ancient (metaphysical) idea which is probably in existence in the Jewish religion and in the Indian religions and so on, that the 'Manifestation of the Highest' takes place (as a spiritual reminder?) , occasionally. That seems too easy an explanation (although...?) .

(So, back to square one?) have we moved in the wrong direction?

B: What do you mean by that?

K: We have taken the 'wrong (existential) turn'.

B: You mean ( the collective consciousness of?) mankind? Yes, as we have discussed before, there has been a 'wrong turning'.

K: To respond to hate by hate, violence by violence and so on.

B: And giving supreme value to ( our previously accumulated?) knowledge.

Q: Wouldn't another factor also be the ( unsuccessful?) attempt to cultivate the ideal of ( selfless?) love? It is ( supposed to be) the (true) purpose of religion.

K: Wipe it out - Is (love ) cultivatable by thought? Thought is a material process. Don't go ( back) into all that. ( Universal?) Love has no ( material) cause, it is not cultivatable, full stop. So, if it is natural to 'X' why isn't it natural to A, B & C? I think this is a ( holistically?) valid question. 'X', 'Y', 'Z', are born ( inwardly speaking?) without a cause and A, B, C are caught in cause. They walk ( happily?) along that way and why ( wouldn't also ) 'X' 'Y' 'Z'? Is it the privilege of the ( wealthy & gifted?) few?

B: Then...why is there this difference?

K: Yes sir, that is what I am asking. One ( life attitude?) is natural, the other is unnatural. Now, who is asking this question? The A, B & C people, who respond to hate by hate, are they asking the question? Or the 'X', 'Y' & 'Z people are asking the question ?

B: It appears that only 'X',' Y' & 'Z' are asking this ( perrenial existential?) question.

K: Yes...

B: But you were just saying that they are not ( fundamentally?) different.

K: Of course we are not ( fundamentally?) different. Which means what?
B: That there is only one Mind ?

K: That's it, one Mind...

B: But then, how comes that another part of this 'one Mind' says, no?

K: Of course there are all kinds of explanations - Karma, reincarnation, blah, blah, blah. But if we remove all those explanations, what am I left with, the fact that 'X', 'Y', 'Z' are ( very?) different from 'A', 'B', 'C '.

Q: They only appear to be different.

K: Oh no, they are ( psychologically-wise ?) absolutely different, not just 'appear'. That is, 'X', 'Y', 'Z' have given me that gift and I have not carried that gift. You follow what I mean? I have carried the other ( survival oriented?) gifts but not this one - why?

Q: Did you say sir that ( the 'holistic' option?) it is implanted in all of us?

K: Of course.

Q: So, in 'X', 'Y' & 'Z' ( consciousness?) it is natural, but in the others it is latent and has never come out, is that it?

K: I am asking that. If my father was responding to hate by hate, why has the son not responded along the same direction?

B: I think it is a question of ( the gift of?) insight.

K: Which means what? He (the young K ) had insight right from the beginning. You follow what I am saying. Right from ( early) childhood, which means what?

B: What?

K: I don't want to enter into this ( slippery?) field yet.

B: Perhaps you want to leave it for later ?

K: There is some ( transcendental?) factor that is missing sir. I want to capture it. Because if that was just a (lucky) exception then it is silly.

B: All right then we agree that that (holistically friendly?) 'thing' is dormant in all human beings - is that what you want to say?

K: I am not quite sure that is what I want to say.

B: But I meant that the factor is there in (the Mind matrix of?) all mankind.

K: That is a 'dangerous' ( slippery?) statement too.

B : All right. We tried looking at this and we can say that this ( holistic existential ) possibility is there in all mankind and in so far as some people have 'seen' it.

K: Which means ''God is in you''?

B: No, just that the possibility of insight is there.

K: Yes, partly. I am questioning all this ( for homework?) sir. The father responds to hate by hate, the son doesn't....

B: Yes, well that 'happens' from time to time.

K: No, consistently from the beginning – why?

B: Well it must depend on insight which shows the futility of ( living one's life with personal resentments or ?) hate.

K: Why did that (young K) chap have it?

B: Yes, why isn't ( this transpersonal quality of?) 'insight' present for everybody from the beginning?

K: Yes, that is all I am asking (rhetorically?)

B: So strong that even maltreatment cannot affect it ?

K: Nothing can affect it, that is my point. Maltreatment, beating, being put into all kinds of ( embarassing?) situations, it hasn't affected it. Why? You follow sir? We are coming to something.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Apr 2020 #22
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

SEVEN

Krishnamurti: Shall we start from where we left off?

Dr Bohm: All right. I think we were discussing that the other day and the animal instincts, it seems, may apparently be overpowering in their intensity and speed, and especially with young children. It may seem that it is only natural for them to respond with the animal instinct.

K: So that means that we are still, after a million years (of a hardly earned evolution?) we are still instinctively behaving like our ancestors?

B: Well in some ways, as the animal instincts have now become entangled with thought and it is getting in some ways worse all these instincts of hatred now become directed by thought and sustained by thought so that they are more (sophisticated?) and more dangerous.

K: And during all these many, many centuries we haven't found a ( holistically friendly?) way (of life?) that will move us away from that track.

B: Well that is one of the difficulties, surely. When people begin to get angry with each other, their anger builds up (snowballs?) and they don't seem able to do anything about it. They may try to control it but then that doesn't work.

K: 'X', as we were saying, behaves 'naturally' by not responding to (or with) the animal instincts. What place has such insight in ( the present state of ) human society?

B: Well, in the society 'as it is', it cannot be accommodated because society is organized under the assumption that pleasure and pain and fear are going to rule, except when you control it. Say, 'friendliness' is a kind of ( cultivated?) animal instinct too, people that become friendly for instinctive reasons. So I think that some people would say that we should be (more?) rational. There was a period during the 18th century, the 'age of reason', when they said man could choose to be rational & bring about harmony everywhere. But ( eventually?) it got worse, it led to the French revolution and to the terror and so on. And after that people didn't have so much faith in reason as a way of getting anywhere, coming out of it.

K: So where does that lead us? We were talking really about insight, that it actually changes the (inward?) nature of the brain itself.

B: Yes, we discussed that yesterday: by dispelling the (psychological?) 'darkness' in the brain, it allows the brain to function in a new ( holistically friendly?) way.

K: Yes. Thought has been operating in ( an inner environment of egocentric?) darkness, creating (or recycling?) its own darkness and functioning in that. And insight is like, as we said, a 'flash' (of inner clarity?) which breaks down the darkness. And then in clearing that 'darkness', does ( the human brain?) act & function, rationally?

B: Yes we went into that: it will then function rationally in a sense of (direct ) perception ( of what is going on?) rather than by ( following the artificial?) rules of reason. A freely flowing 'reason' . You see some people identify reason with certain rules of logic which would be mechanical. But ( a transpersonal) reason is a form of perception of ( the universal?) order.
K: So we are saying that 'insight' is (synonimous with direct?) perception?

B: Or the 'flash of ( spiritual ?) light' which makes perception possible ?

K: Right, that's right.

B: It is even more fundamental than perception.

K: So 'insight' is a pure perception (of the truth regarding the ongoing facts ?) and from that perception there is ( a holistic?) action, which is then sustained by rationality. Is that it?

B: I would say a 'rationality' ( brought by the ) perception of order.

K: So would you say: insight, perception and order?

B: Yes.

K: And this ( holistic?) 'order' is not mechanical.

B: Yes, there are no ( preset ) rules.

K: So (in a nutshell?) that means insight, perception, action, order. Then you came to the ( academical?) question: is ( the inward clarity brought by ?) 'insight' continuous, or is it ( coming as a sudden?) 'flash' ?

B: We went into that and said it was a wrong question.

K: Yes.

B: So, we'll have to look at it differently.

K: So, it is not a 'time binding' (inner clarity?). That means that ( the timeless action of ) 'insight' is the elimination of the 'darkness' which was ( present at ?) the very centre of the 'self', and ( ... making a long story short?) ( the 'enlightening clarity' of?) insight dispels ( the very realistic illusion of?) that very centre.

B: Yes, ( living) within 'darkness' no ( truthful) perception is possible.

K: Quite.

B: It's (like an inward?) blindness in a way....

K: Right, then ( listening to ) you saying this, and I see what you are saying has some kind of ( holistic?) reason, logic, and order.

B: Yes, it 'makes sense' as far as we can see. Right?

K: It makes sense. Then how am I to have it (functioning?) in my daily life? Is that possible? Is it possible for my mind to have this insight so that pattern of life is broken? I may have once in a while a partial insight, but the partial insight is not the whole insight so there is still (left an inner residue of ? ) 'partial darkness'.

B: If it doesn't dispel ( darkness from) the centre of the self, it is not adequate. It may dispel some darkness in a certain area but the source of the darkness, the creator, the sustainer of it is still there.

K: Yes, still there. So we have stated the general plan. Right? And I have to make ( some intelligent ? ) moves, or ( meditation-wise?) make no moves at all. ( Unfortunately, there are a few psychological drawbacks?) (a) I haven't ( gathered the necessary integrated?) energy. (b) I haven't ( got) the capacity to see it quickly. Because this ( flash of total insight?) is immediate and I haven't got that sense of 'urgent immediacy'. And ( c ) everything ( in the outer world is not really helping ?) me: my family, my wife, society, everything. And as you Mr 'X' don't help me, I am just left (on my own?) .
Is there a different approach to this problem? Is there a totally different way of approaching the whole (inward) turmoil of my life? You follow sir?

B: Yes...

K: ( To recap:) we were saying that as long as this 'centre' (of self-interest?) is creating darkness, and thought is operating in that darkness, there must be disorder, there must be everything as society now is. And to move away from that you must have ( the inward clarity of ) 'insight' which comes about when there is a sudden (spiritual?) light which abolishes not only darkness but the 'creator' of darkness.

B: Yes...

K: Now I am asking myself is there a different approach to this ( perrenial existential?) question altogether?

B: You can't produce this flash at will, but are you suggesting that there is another way?

K: We have been through that, it can't be produced through will, through sacrifice, through every form of human effort. That is out, ( hopefully?) we have finished with all that, two or three weeks ago.
So we came to a point, to 'X' this insight seemed so natural and why is it not natural to other (holistically minded people ) ?

B: Well, if you begin with the ( average?) child, it seems natural to the child to respond ( when seriously challenged ) with his 'animal instincts' which sweep him away. Darkness arises because it is so overwhelming.

K: Yes, but why did it not with (young Mr?) 'X'?

B: First of all it seems natural to most people that the animal instincts would take over, and they would say the other fellow is unnatural (an outlier?) .

K: That's it. Most human beings have been acting ( naturally?) according to this ( self-centred ) pattern, responding to hatred by hatred and so on. And there are those few (X, Y Z ) who say that is not (a holistically friendly behaviour?) . Why has this division taken place?

B: If we (take for granted that ) pleasure and pain, fear and hate, are 'natural' (responses?) , then most people would say we must battle to control them, because it will destroy us. You see they say the best we can hope for is to ( keep them under ) control with reason or with another way.

K: But that doesn't really work.

B: Now someone else ( such as Mr X) says the 'other' ( holistically friendly?) way is natural.

K: If that is natural for them, are they the privileged few , who ( got it?) by some strange chance event?

B: Yes, many people would say that...

K: No, that goes against one's grain. I wouldn't accept that.

B: Well, if that is not the case, you'll have to say why is there this difference.

K: This question has been asked ( to K) many times, over and over again in different parts of the world. Now why is there this ( big qualitative ) division?

Q: Is the division really total? ven that man who (occasionally) responds to hatred with hatred, can sees that it is ( ethically?) wrong .

K: It should be different but he is still battling ( againd it?) with ideas, with thought.

Q: That's right, but it means that it is not entirely natural. If it were entirely natural he would say, 'OK, that's just the way we live'. He wouldn't even try to get out of it. You see what I am saying?

K: Yes, I understand that. But he is trying to get out of it by the exercise of (the same self-centred?) thought which brought his inner darkness.

Q: But he doesn't understand that.

K: And we have explained to him (by using thought compatible rational arguments?)

Q: I just wanted to say that the division ( between the 'XYZ' s & 'ABC's) does not seem to be so entire. You see.

K: Oh yes sir, ( holistically-wise?) the division is entire, complete.

Q: Well why are these people not saying 'Well look here, let's live the ( good old?) way & enjoy it to the last moment'? Some do want to get out of it.

K: Now wait a minute sir. Do they want to get out of it?

Q: At least they say so.

K: Do they actually realize the ( existential) state they are in and deliberately want to get out of it?

Q: They are ambivalent about it. They want to go on getting the fruits of it but they have a sense it is wrong, that it leads to suffering for them.

B: Or else they find they can't help it. You see, when the time comes to get angry, or pleasure, they can't get away.

Q: They want to get out of it but there are ( some obscure inner ?) forces which are stronger than even their (good) will.

K: So what shall we do? Or this 'division' is false.

B: That's the point. We had better call it a ( qualitative) difference between these two. This difference is not fundamental. The other idea is to say it is an absolute difference, which is , that there is nothing in common.

K: I don't think there is anything in common (psychologically- speaking?) .

B: But if you say that the division is false, it means that fundamentally they are the same, but a ( big qualitative?) difference has developed between them. Perhaps one (majoritary part) has taken a 'wrong turning' ?

K: Let's put it that ( psychologically correct?) way, yes.

B: But the difference is not intrinsic, it is not structural, built in, like the difference between a tree and a rock.

K: Right. Then, are they starting from the same source and one has taken one direction and the other has taken another direction ? But... if the Source is the same, why haven't all of them moved in the right direction?
B: Yes, we haven't managed to answer that question ...
K: Yes, we are trying to answer that.
B: I was just saying that even if we are continually taking the wrong turn, we can understand ( the psychological nature of?) this wrong turn, then it becomes possible to change.

K: Yes sir. That is, we start from the same source. 'A' takes one turn...

B: There are two possible ways of taking your statement. One is to say the source is in (the historical) time, far back in the past, we started together and we took different paths. The other is to say the Source ( of human Consciousness?) is timeless and we are continually ( indulging in ?) taking the wrong turn, again and again. Right?

K: Yes. If we cut out (the logic of?) time, therefore (the collective consciousness of?) mankind is constantly (taking ?) the 'wrong' turn.

Q: Which means there is the constant possibility to (make the ) right turn.

K: Therefore, we are taking the wrong turn all the time ?

B: Constantly.

K: Let's put it that way. Constantly taking the wrong turn, why? But the man who is living in (the condition of psychological) darkness can move away at any time to the other. That is the point: at any time.

B: Yes...then nothing holds him, except ( the mental habit of?) taking the wrong turn constantly. You could say that the darkness (of ignorance?) is such that he doesn't even see himself taking the wrong turning.

K: Is this right sir? Suppose that you (Mr X) have that insight, and the very centre of darkness has been dispelled completely. And after listening to whatever you have said – which seems so reasonable, rational & sane, I question the division - you follow? The division is created by the centre which creates darkness. Right?

B: Yes. It is the same as the other divisions, it is created by (the self-centred?) thought.

K: Thought has created this ( inner mentality of?) division. The other ( 'X'?) man says there is no division. You who have the (noble gift of?) insight, etc., you say there is no such division. I have ( just) created it in my thoughts...

B: I am constantly creating it.

K: So, my (optional homework?) problem is to perceive the ( dualistic activity of?) thought that is creating darkness and to see that the self is the source of this darkness. Why can't I see that? Why can't I see it even logically?

B: Well it's clear logically.
K: Yes but somehow that (intellectual perception?) doesn't seem to operate. So what shall I do? For the first time I realise that (my) 'self' is creating this ( inward mentality of) darkness which is constantly breeding division. I see that very clearly.

B: Yes and the division produces the darkness anyway.

K: Back and forth. And from all that everything begins. Now ( if?) I see that very clearly, what shall I do? I don't admit the ( inward mentality of ) division ( between the 'observer' & ' that which is being observed' ) . So (Mr X) asks me : can you put away this ( inward ) sense of division?

Q: Can my mind put away ( its self-centred ) division as long as it is divided?

K: No, it can't, so what am I to do (but …) listen: he says something so extraordinarily true, which has immense significance and beauty and my whole being says 'Capture (the inward truth of) it'.
( To recap:) I realise that I am the creator of division, because living in darkness, out of that darkness (of ignorance) I create it. But ( if?) I have listened to 'X' who says 'there is no division'. And I recognize that is an extraordinary statement. So in saying that to me, who has lived in division, constant division, ( seeing the inward truth of his ?) saying has an immediate effect on me who lived constantly in ( the darkness of my self-created ?) division.

B: When you say 'there is no division', that makes ( a lot of) sense. But on the other hand it seems that the inner division (observer vs observed) continues to exists.

K: When I see something that is immovable, it must have some ( psychological) effect on me. (If inwardly sensitive?) I respond to it with a tremendous shock.

B: You see, if you were talking about something which was (exposed) in front of us and you said, 'No, it is not that way', then we would look again at it and say, 'No, it's not that way', and that would, of course, change our whole way of seeing it. Same with your (holistic ) statement 'there is no division' - we try to look and see if that is so. Right?

K: (If?) I am (inwardly) sensitive, watch ( what's going on?) very carefully and realize I am constantly living in ( the dualistic mentality of ) division, when you make that statement ( my seeing the inward truth of?) it has broken the pattern (of thought's self-centredness?) because he has said something which is so fundamentally true: there is no ( actual division between?) God and ( the mind of?) man. ( But... a self-divisive mentality ?) & the 'Other' cannot co-exist - a ( transpersonal?) statement which seems so absolutely true. That (inward truth?) enters into me therefore this act has dispelled darkness. The action of ( the inward truth of ) his statement dispels the darkness. I am not making an effort to get rid of ( my inward) darkness but you are ( bringing?) the light. Therefore, in ( a psychological condition of relative ?) 'darkness' can I listen to you? Of course I can !

B: Now, why do you say you can 'listen' in the darkness? This needs some (rational explanation ?) …

K: Oh yes, I can 'listen' in darkness. If I can't I am doomed.

B: But that is not ( a rational?) argument.

K: Of course that is no argument but that is so.

B: Well, constantly living in darkness is not worthwhile, but now you said that it is possible to 'listen' in this (inward condition of ) darkness.

K: Yes sir. Listening is not ( necessarily affected by the dualistic sense of ?) division.

Q: Right. If that were the case I could not listen to anything.

K: No, sir, you are missing the point. He says there is no division. He is the ( bearer of the?) flag to me. And he makes a ( holistic) statement: there is absolutely no division. And for me who am living in constant division (the inward truth of?) that statement has brought the constant ( time-thought?) movement to an end. Yes sir !
Otherwise if this ( psychological miracle?) doesn't take place I have nothing. I am perpetually living in darkness. But ( there's ) a voice in the wilderness and listening to that voice has an extraordinary effect in (upon that inward?) wilderness.

B: Listening ( with all one's senses?) reaches the source of the movement, whereas observation does not ?

K: Yes sir. In that wilderness a voice says ''there is water''. You follow? It is not ( a vain?) hope, so there is immediate ( awakening to?) action in me. Which is, sir, that one must realize that this constant movement in darkness is my life. Can I realize with all my ( outward life) experience, with all my ( encyclopedic?) knowledge of a million years, suddenly realize that (inwardly ) I am living in total darkness? Nobody will ( readily?) admit that. Because that means I have reached the end of all my hope (of inward self-improvement). You have cut the ( psychological?) future altogether and I am left with this enormous darkness and I am there. The realization of that is the ending of ( the psychological) becoming. I have reached that point (of 'no return'?) and 'X' tells me, naturally sir.
You see all the religions have (assumed) that this division exists.

B: Yes, but they have also said that it can be overcome (by the earnest spiritual seeker?)

K: It doesn't matter who said it but the fact is : somebody in this wilderness is saying that in ( the inward clarity of?) insight there is no division. It is not your insight or my insight, it is 'insight'. Which means sir, that in that Ground ( of Creation?) there is no division ( between) darkness & light.

B: Are you saying light and darkness are not divided?

K: Right.

B: Which means to say that there is neither.

K: Neither, that's it ! There is something else - a very different ( holistic ?) movement which is non-dualistic.

B: Non-dualistic means what? No division?

K: No division.

B: But then, what does it actually mean, a ( holistic) movement without division?

K: A ( Ground) movement that it is not time and doesn't breed division. So I want to go back to the Ground (of Creation) . So what takes place? Would you say sir, that the Ground is an endless movement?

B: What does that mean?

K: What is 'movement' sir, apart from going from here to there, apart from the psychological movement from being to becoming. We say those are all ( based on temporal) divisions. Is there an (inward) movement which in itself has no division?

B: Well, you are saying that when there is no ( inner mentality of ) division then that movement is there. Right?

K: Yes. And 'X' says that is the Ground. Would you say that it has no end, no beginning?

B: It flows without ( temporal) division ?

K: Yes. Do I understand the depth of that statement? A ( holistic) movement ( of Creation?) in which there is no division, no element of time in it at all. So that (all-inclusive?) Movement, is it surrounding ( the total consciousness of?) mankind ?

B: 'Enveloping' ?

K: Enveloping ( the whole consciousness of?) mankind . Is that 'movement' without time...

B: The ( Mind of the?) Universe ?

K: The universe, the cosmos, the whole. Isn't there a statement in the Jewish world, 'Only God can say, I am'? You see sir, can the human mind be(come an integral part?) of that Movement? Because that is timeless, therefore deathless.

B: Yes, in so far as the mind takes part in that, it is the same.

K: You understand what I am saying?

B: Yes. But what dies when the individual dies?

K: Its (death?) has no meaning even because then once I have understood there is no division...

B: So, it is not important ?

K: Oh, the ending of the ( physical) body, that's totally trivial. But capturing the ( spiritual) significance of your statement saying there is no division, has broken the spell of my darkness, and I see that there is a Movement and that's all. You have abolished totally the fear of death.

B: Yes, I understand that when the mind is partaking in that Movement then the mind 'is' that movement.

K: That's all. The mind 'is' (becoming part of) that Movement.

B: Would you say that the universe of matter is also ( part of)that movement?

K: Yes sir, I would say 'everything'.
( To re-recap:) In my ( condition of relative inward ? ) darkness I have listened to you. That's most important. And your clarity has broken my (collective karmic ?) spell (of selfisness?). ( And by the same stroke?) you have abolished the division between life and death. I don't know if you see this?

B: Yes... ?

K: One can never say then 'I am seeking immortality'. Or, 'I am becoming immortal ' - you have wiped away the whole sense of ( the egocentric) moving in darkness. I wonder if you get this?

Q: What then would be the significance of ( the modern existence of) man with all his struggle, with all his...

K: None. It is like struggling within a ( self-) locked room. That is the whole point.

B: Aren't we going to say that something more can be done besides dispelling darkness?

K: The mind of the one who has this (total) Insight, therefore dispelled darkness and therefore has understanding of that Ground, which is movement without time and so on, then that mind itself 'is' ( becoming an integral part of ) that movement.

B: Yes, going back to what we were discussing a few days ago: we said we have the emptiness, the universal mind and then the Ground is beyond all that, yes.

K: Would you say beyond all that is this Movement?

B: Yes. The ( Creation's Universal ) Movement from which - the mind emerges from the movement as a Ground and falls back to the Ground, that is what we are saying.

K: Yes, that's right. Mind emerges from this Movement.

B: And it dies back into the Movement.

K: That's right. It has it being in the Movement.

B: Yes and (the universe of ) matter also.

K: Quite. So, sir, what I want to get at is: I am a human being faced with this ending and beginning, and you abolish that.

B: Yes it is not fundamental.

K: It is not fundamental. You have removed one of the greatest fears of life which is (the fear of?) death. You see what it does to a human being when there is no death? Which means the mind doesn't age, the ordinary ( individual) mind I am talking about.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Apr 2020 #23
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

EIGHT

K: The ( holistically minded?) human being who went through this sense of inner emptiness, silence, energy, and abandoned ( his psychological attachments to ?) almost everything, comes to the point ( of touching ) the ( inward) Ground (of Being) - how does this ( total insight?) affect his daily life? What is his relationship to society, what is his action with regard to war and to a ( very materialistic?) world that is really living and struggling in ( spiritual?) darkness, what is his action?
As as we discussed the other day, it is ( an action in terms ) of 'non-movement'. What does that mean?

B: Well, you have said before that the Ground ( of Creation) is a movement without division. So, it seems ( logically ?) inconsistent to say that the action of this ( holistically minded?) person is (one of?) 'non-movement'...

K: Would you say that an ordinary, average man, educated, sophisticated, with all his unpleasant activities, is constantly in movement. Right?

B: Well a certain kind of movement.

K: I mean a ( mental ) movement in terms of ( self-centred) becoming. And for the man who come to that point, a what is his action? We said 'non-action', 'non-movement'. What does that mean?

B: Well it means not taking part in (thought's process of psychological time?)

K: Yes, that is obvious. If he doesn't take part in this process, but what part does he play ? Would you say a complete 'non-action'?

B: Well, it is not very clear why you should call it 'non-action' ; we might think of an action of another kind, which is not part of the process of becoming.

K: He still has to live here.

B: Well, in one sense, whatever you do is action, but his action is not involved in the illusory process (of the collective thought-time?) but it would be directed towards ( understanding?) what underlies this illusory process. It would be directed to (reconsidering the validity of the ? ) 'wrong turning' which is continually coming out of the ground. Right?

K: Yes, yes. You see various religions have described the man who is illuminated, who has ( spiritually) 'achieved' something or other. Especially in Hindu religious books, it is stated very clearly, how he looks, how he walks, the whole (presence?) of his being. I think that a great deal of it is (poetical) imagination, but ( after) discussing this point with some ( local pundits?) and it is not like that- somebody who described it, knew exactly what it was.

B: Well, then how should he know what is his action ? It is not clear.

K: So how does a man of that kind live in this world? It is a very interesting (academical?) question, if you go into it rather deeply. I think (that inwardly-wise) this is right : a state of 'non-movement'.

B: You see it is not clear what exactly you mean by 'non-movement'.

K: It is (feeling?) like a single tree in a field. There is no other tree but that tree, whatever the name of that tree is, it 'is' (it has a timeless presence?) there. ( In a nutshell?) you have gone ( into the time-thought process?) from the beginning to the end. And now, at the end, you are ( inwardly integrated ?) with(in) a totally different kind of movement, which is timeless. You are ( immersed in ) in That, you 'are' that. And I ( Mr B ) come to you and say, 'What is the state of your mind, that has walked on that path and ended (the psychological time?) & totally 'moved out' of darkness, what is the state of that mind?'

B: By 'non-movement' are you implying it is constant?

K: What do you mean by 'constant'?

B: Well it can have many meanings, but ( ethymologically it means) 'to stand firm', to 'stand together as a whole' , you see.

K: Is that it?

B: That is ( what suggested your) poetical picture of the tree ( standing alone ) in middle of the (empty) field.

K: Yes, that is a nice romantic and poetic image, but it may becomes rather deceptive. What is the ( inward ) quality of that mind that has started from the beginning and pursued the becoming, went through all that, the centre of darkness has been wiped away - (the inward quality of ) that mind must be entirely different. Now what does such a mind do, or not do, in the ( real?) world which is ( inwardly living?) in darkness?

B: Well, for one thing, it does not enter into the movement of that world.

K: Agreed.

B: And in that sense we say that it is 'constant', a constancy which is not merely static, but ( a holistic ?) movement which is ( time-) free.

K: What has happened to that mind? It has no ( existential?) anxiety, no fear and all the rest of it. This mind being (inwardly ) ' nothing', (not- a- thing !) , and therefore empty of ( psychologically crystalised?) knowledge, would it be always acting in the 'light of insight' ( be a 'light onto itself' ?) ?

B: Yes, well, it would be constantly 'pervaded' of the quality of insight.

K: Yes. It is acting constantly in that light, in that flash of insight. I think that is right. So what does that mean in terms of one's daily life?

B: He will ( probably?) have to find an ( intelligent?) way to stay alive.

K: Stay alive. But what will he do? He has no ( scolastic qualifications for a ) skilled profession and no coins with which he can buy.

B: Well wouldn't it be possible for this ( holistically inclined?) mind to earn enough to get what is needed to stay alive?

K: How?

B: Well if you had to take care of yourself anyway, you would need some skill to find the food which you need.

K: 'Skill' implies ( accumulating tons of practical & theoretical ?) knowledge, from that knowledge experience and gradually develop a ( marketable?) skill which gives you an opportunity to earn a livelihood, meagre or a great deal. But this ( 'X' ?) man says, there may be a different way of living and earning. We are used to that pattern - right sir? And he may say, 'Look, that may be totally wrong'.

B: It depends what you mean by 'skill' – it could also mean being very clever at getting money.

K: So this ('X') man is not money-minded, he is not storing up for the future, he hasn't any insurance, but he has to live, and when we use the word 'skill', as driving a car...

B: But then ( some?) people become very skilful at getting other people to give them money, you see!

K: That may be it! As I am doing!

Q: I wish you were more skilled at that!

K: Sufficient unto the day... But we were talking of the action a man who has been through all this and has come back to the (real) world and says, 'Here I am'. What is ( the holistic truth regarding ?) his relationship to society and what is he to do? Right sir? Has he any relationship to society?

B: Well not in a fundamental sense, although there is a superficial relationship he has to have.

K: All right. A superficial contact with the ( real?) world.... But I want to find out sir, what is he to do (in the creative sense?) ? I think that if we could find out, sir, the quality of a mind that has gone through (all this) from the beginning to the end that man's mind is entirely different, and he is in the world. You have reached ( that inward Ground of Being?) and come back, and I am an ordinary man, ( struggling for a decent?) living in this world, what is your relationship to me? Obviously ( an authentic human ?) relationship can only exist when darkness ends.

B: Yes...

K: But (for) now I look at you with eyes which are accustomed to darkness and to division. And yet you ( the 'X' person?) have to have a certain relationship with me. Is that relationship ( based on?) compassion - not translated by ( the collective consciousness of the ?) 'me' as compassion ? I cannot judge what your compassion is. Right?

B: That follows ( logically ), yes.

K: I don't know what your ( selfless?) Love is, what your (intelligent?) Compassion is because my only 'love and compassion' has been this. And so (Mr ?) 'Y' says, 'You seem so different, your way of looking at life is different. Who are you'? And what will (Mr) 'Y' do with you, (Mr ) 'X'?

B: Yes ... ?

K: I think what would happen generally is either worship him, (try to) 'kill' ( his reputation?) , or just neglect him. Right?

B: Yes.
K : But 'X's' demand is to say, 'Look, walk out of this ( inner condition of?) darkness , there is no answer in this darkness so walk out, dispel it, get rid of it, etc., etc. And 'Y' then says 'Help me, show me the way'...

B: But if ( the Intelligence of) Compassion works in 'X', then 'X' will ( hopefully ?) find a way to penetrate ( Y's inner ) darkness.

K: So, is ( Mr) 'X's job is to work on darkness?

B: Well to discover how to penetrate darkness.

K: So, in that way he is earning a living. I am talking seriously.

B: Well it is ( theoretically?) possible.

K: Probably 'X' is the Teacher. 'X' is unrelated to this field of darkness and 'X' is saying to the people ( discontented with living) in (psychological?) darkness, 'Come out'. What's wrong with that?

B: It's perfectly all right... as long as it works.

K: It seems to work (for Mr 'X') !

B: Of course if there were a lot of people like 'X', then I think there would be something revolutionary.

K: That's just it. If there were lots of people like that they would not be divided (from the total consciousness of mankind?) That is the whole point, right?

B: I think that even if ten or fifteen people were 'undivided', they would exert a force that had never been seen in our history.

K: Tremendous. That's right.

B: Because I don't think it has ever happened, that ten people were 'undivided'.

K: ( So, to wrap it up?) That is 'X's' job in life. A group of those ten 'X's' will bring a totally different kind of revolution (in the human consciousness?) . Right? Will society stand for that?

B: They will ( hopefully?) have this extreme intelligence and so they will find a ( holistically friendly?) way to do it (without) provoking society and society will not react before it is too late.

K: Quite right, quite right. You are saying something that is actually happening. So would you say then that the function of many 'X's' is to awaken ( the total consciousness of) human beings to that Intelligence which will dispel the darkness? And that is (their right) means of livelihood. Right?

B: Yes...

K: ( On paper?) that seems very simple. But I don't think it is all that simple.

B: Well it is a very difficult function, it is not at all so 'simple'...

K: The function may be complicated but that can easily be solved : 'X' says to 'Y', 'listen', and 'Y' takes time and perhaps sometime, he will wake up and move away. But I want to find out something much deeper : apart from this ( simple?) function, what is 'X' to do in life ? Is that all?

B: Well that can only be an outcome of something deeper.

K: The deeper is ( touching?) that Ground (of Creation) . But is that all that (Mr X) has to do in this world? Just to teach people to move out of darkness?

B: Well that seems to be the prime task at the moment, in the sense that if this doesn't happen the whole society will sooner or later collapse anyway. But I think that he needs to be in some sense creative, more deeply ?

K: What is that?

B: Well that is not yet clear.

K: Sir, suppose ( Mr) 'X' is you and you have ( touched ) this extraordinary movement which is not of time and you have this abounding energy and you have produced ( generated ? ) all that to 'teach' me (point the way?) to move out of darkness.

B: Yes, well that can only be a part of it. There might be some ( deeper) creative action, beyond this.

K: Yes, beyond that you (may) have ( access to?) something much more immense than that. You understand my question?

B: So then, what?

K: How is that 'immensity' operating on ( the consciousness of ) 'Y' apart from ( dispelling Y's psychological ?) darkness ?

B: Are you saying that there is some more direct action?

K: Either there is more direct action, or 'X' is doing something totally different to affect the (total) consciousness of man.

B: What could this be?

K: That immensity which you 'are' (becoming part of?) must affect, must do something.

B: Are you saying 'must' in the sense of an absolute necessity?

K: It 'must'.

B: It 'must', but still, how will it affect mankind? This would suggest some sort of 'extrasensory effect' that It spreads.

K: That is what I am trying to convey (non-verbally?) That Immensity must – must...

B:... necessarily act?

K: I wonder if you see what I am trying to get at sir. That immensity necessarily has other ( collateral ?) activities.

B: Yes, other activities at other levels ( of human consciousness?)

K: Yes, at various degrees of consciousness ? What do you say sir?

B: Well since ( any ?) Consciousness emerges from the Ground, this ( 'other'?) activity is affecting ( the consciousness of) all mankind (directly) from the Ground.

K: Yes.

B: But of course, many people will find this very difficult to understand...

K: I am not interested in many people. I want you ( Mr 'Y'?) to understand that this Immensity, is not limited to a petty little affair. It couldn't.

B: Yes, well the Ground includes physically the whole universe.

K: The whole universe, yes, and to reduce all that to...

B:... to these little (scholastic?) activities... ?

K: It sounds so silly.

B: Well, this raises a ( major existential?) question of what is the significance of mankind in the Universe, or in the Ground?

K: Yes, that's it.

B: Because these little things are very little, even the best that we have been doing has very little significance on that scale. Right?

K: Yes. I think this is just opening ( a New?) Chapter - I think that 'X' , by his very existence...

B:... is making something possible?

K: Yes. ( Like Mr?) Einstein has made something possible, which man hadn't discovered before.

B: We can see that fairly easily because that worked through the usual channels of society.

K: Yes, so, what is this ( 'X') man bringing apart from the little things? What is he bringing? Would you say, sir, that 'X' has ( free access to?) that immense intelligence, that ( holistic?) energy, and That (Otherness?) must operate at a much greater level than one can possibly conceive, which must affect the (collective?) consciousness of those who are ( unknowingly?) living in (spiritual?) 'darkness'.

B: Well possibly, but the ( science-related) question is : will this effect show in any way, you know, 'manifestly'?

K: Apparently ( as of now?) it is not doing it.

B: Yes, this can be a matter of great concern.

K: But it 'must' affect ( the total consciousness of mankind?) sir.

B: It has to ?

K: It has to.

B: Well why do you say 'it has to'?

K: Because ( the spiritual?) 'light' must affect 'darkness'.

B: Well perhaps ( Mr) 'Y' might say he is not sure, living in darkness he is not sure that there is such an effect. He might say maybe there is, but I want to see it manifest. But not seeing anything and still being in darkness, he says what shall I do?

K: How would it be shown? How would 'Y', who wants (a tangible) proof of it...

B: Well not ( exactly a physical ) 'proof' but just to be shown ( how it can happen ?) . Many people have made similar statements and some of them have obviously been wrong...
K: No. ( Mr) 'X' says : we are being very logical

B: Yes but at this (holistic ) stage, our logic will not carry us any further.
All one could say is that having seen that the thing was reasonable so far, 'Y' may have some (inward degree of?) confidence that it may go further.

K: Yes that is what I am trying to say.

B: Of course there is no (material) proof.

K: No...

B: But we can still explore it (inwardly?) .

K: That is what I am trying to do.

B: Yes.

Q: What about the 'other' activities of 'X'? You said that 'X' has a function of (holistic) teaching, but we said 'X' has other activities.

K: Must have. Necessarily must.

Q: Which are what?

K: I don't know, we are trying to find that out.

B: Well you are saying that somehow he 'makes possible' a (more direct ) activity of the Ground in the whole consciousness of mankind which would not have been possible without him.

K: Yes.

B: That is what I understand....

K: Yes, we are trying to find out what is this 'greater' (impact) that must necessarily be operating?

Q: Is it something that appears in the daily life of 'X'?

K: Yes. Daily life of 'X' is apparently doing the 'petty' little stuff - teaching, writing, book-keeping, or whatever it is. Is that all?

B: Are you saying that in the daily life 'X' does not look so different from anybody else?

K: Apparently not.

B: But there is something else going on ( through his mind & heart ?) which does not show, right?

K: That's it. When 'X' talks it may sound 'different', he may say things differently but...

B:... that is not fundamental because there are so many people who say (the same kind of?) things.

K: I know.... But the man who has 'walked' (meditatively ?) through all that right from the beginning to the end, he 'is' entirely different and when he says something, that is also ( qualitatively?) different. But such a man who has (free access to?) the whole of That Energy to call upon, and to reduce all that Energy to this petty little place seems so ridiculous.

B: Yes, well let me ask a ( more personal?) question. Why does the Ground require this ( 'X' ) man to operate on mankind? Why can't It operate directly in (the total consciousness of?) mankind to clear things up?

K: Ah, just a minute, just a minute. Are you asking why does the ground demand action? It is part of Existence, like the stars.

B: Why does it require a particular man, you see?

K: Why does the ground need this man? It doesn't need him.

B: Yes but if he is here then the Ground will use him ?

K: That is all.

B: Well couldn't the Ground could do something ( more directly?) to clear up this (psychological mess?)

K: That is why I am asking in different words. The Ground doesn't need ( this 'X') ) man but the man has touched the ground. So the ground is 'employing' him. He is part of that movement. Do you follow what I mean sir? Why should (Mr X) do anything except this?

B: Well perhaps he does nothing.

K: That very 'doing nothing' may be (allowing the Ground's) doing.

B: Well in doing nothing it makes possible the action of the ground. In doing ( inwardly) nothing which has any specified aim...

K: That's right. With no specified content which can be translated into human terms.

B: Well yes, but still he is supremely active in... doing nothing ?

K: Yes. All this sounds...

Q: Is there an action which is beyond time for that man?

K: He 'is' (inwardly the manifestation of?) that.

Q: Then we cannot ask for a result of that man.

K: No. He says I am not concerned with 'Y'. I am only concerned to talk, or do something in a petty little way, but that is a very small thing and I am not bothered about that. But there is a vast field which must affect the whole of mankind.

B: Well there is an analogy in chemistry : a catalyst makes possible a certain action without itself taking part ( in the overall reaction?) Merely by being what it is .

K: Yes, even this (psycho-catalytic action?) is a small affair.

Q: But even so, 'Y' would say it isn't happening because the ( collective consciousness of the?) world is still in a mess. So is there a truth in the world for the activity of that man?

K: 'X' says he is sorry, I am not interested in proving anything. It isn't a mathematical problem or a technical problem to be shown and proved. He says 'this is so'. I have walked ( metaphorically speaking?) from the beginning of man to the very end of man and there is a 'movement' which is timeless. The Ground (of all Creation?) which is (sustaining ?) the (physical) universe, the cosmos, everything. And this Ground doesn't need the ( 'X') man but this man has ( somehow managed to?) come upon It. And as he is still living in the (physical) world. Right? And that man says 'I write and do something or other', just out of compassion he does that. But ( beyond Mr X?) there is much greater Movement (of the Universal Creation?) which necessarily must play a part in the ( future of the ) world.

Q: Does the 'greater movement' play a part through 'X'?

K: Obviously, obviously. And if there were ten 'X's' of course its (impact) would be (still greater ?)
( To recap:) 'X' says there is 'something else' operating which cannot possibly be put into words. There is nothing which a man like 'Y' will understand. He will immediately translate it into some kind of illusory thing. But 'X' says there is. Right? Sir, it must be. Otherwise it is all so childish.

B: I think the general view which ( the science) people are developing now is that the universe has no meaning. It moves in its own way, all sorts of things happen, but none of them have any meaning.

K: It has no meaning for the man who is (time-bound ) here, but the man who is ( inwardly 'out -there') - relatively speaking - says the Cosmos is full of ( holistic) meaning - the word meaning has no meaning there.
All right sir. 'X' says, in the ( educational) occupation (with man's ego-centric ) pettiness, perhaps there will be ten people who will join the game, and that might affect the ( present order of ) society – something totally different, based on intelligence, compassion and all the rest of it.

B: Well if there were 'ten' (such people?) they might find a way to spread much more, you see. And ( if ultimately?) if the whole ( consciousness ) of mankind were to see this, are you saying then that that would be something different?

K: Oh, yes sir. It would be paradise on earth.

B: It would be like an organism of a new kind.

K: I think we had better stop there sir. You see I am not satisfied with this.

B: Well what is it?

K: I am not 'satisfied', in leaving this ( Intelligent?) Immensity to be reduced to some few words. You follow? Mr 'Y' is concerned with 'show me, prove it to me, what benefit it has - he is looking at 'X' with the eyes that are so accustomed to this pettiness. But 'X' says I won't even look at that. There is something so immense that 'X' says please do look at this, and 'Y' is always translating it into 'show it to me', 'prove it to me', 'will I have a better life' - you follow? He is concerned always with this (causal mentality?) .
'X' brings light. That's all he can do. Isn't that enough?

B: To bring the 'light' which would allow other people to be open to the immensity ?

K: Is it that we can only see a small part but that very small part extends to infinity. That means 'endless'.

B: We see a small part of what?

K: That (inward?) 'immensity' we see it only as a very small thing. But that immensity is the ( Mind of the?) whole Universe. I can't help but think that it must have some immense affect on 'Y', on society.

B: Yes. Well certainly the (actual) perception of this must have an effect but it seems that this is not ( visible ?) in the consciousness of society at the moment.

K: I know....

B: But you are saying still the effect is there?

K: Yes sir.

B: Well, do you think it is ( really?) possible that a thing like this could divert the course of mankind away from the dangerous course he is taking?

K: Yes sir, that is what I am thinking too. But to divert the course of man's destruction somebody must 'listen'. Right? Somebody - ten people must listen to that Immensity calling.

B: So the Immensity may divert the course of man, yes. The individual (mind) cannot do it.

K: Yes, the individual ( mind) cannot do it, obviously. But the (inwardly integrated?) individual, ( Mr) 'X' who has trodden this path says, 'Listen', and they don't ( seem willing to?) listen.

B: Well then is it possible to discover how to make people 'listen'?

K: No, then we are back.

B: What do you mean?

K: Don't act, 'you' ( the temporal self?) have nothing to do.

B: What does it mean 'not to do a thing'?

K: Sir, I realize that whatever I try to 'do' (inwardly) I am still living in that self-centred?) 'circle of darkness' ( aka : the 'known'?) . And ( Mr) 'X' says, 'Don't act, you have nothing to do – (but rather, for meditation homework?) just (try to sit silently & ?) wait and see what happens.

( Parting words) We must pursue this sir. It is all ( looking so) hopeless from the point of view of 'Y'...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Apr 2020 #24
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

NINE

Krishnamurti: I would like to talk over with you about what is happening presently to the human brain ? Our brain is constantly in a state of ( self-centred) occupation ( within the field of the 'known'?) : daily problems, attachments and so on, so it is constantly in a state of occupation. That may be the central factor (of its internal degeneration?) . And if it is not ( caught?) in 'occupation' can it maintain the energy that is required to break down the ( time-binding?) patterns?

B: Yes. Now the first point is that if it is not occupied ( with anything?) somebody might think that it would just 'take it easy' (turn on, tune in & drop out ?) ...

K: No, I don't mean that. But what I want to go into is : if the human brain is caught in any ( time-binding) pattern, in any routine, it must ( sooner or later?) shrink (inwardly). And will that 'unoccupied' state ( if used holistically ?) give to the brain the required energy to break ( the inner limitations of thought-time?) ?

B: Could you go into what exactly would make it shrink ?

K: That is fairly simple. It is repetition.

B: Well, of course, repetition is mechanical and doesn't really use the full capacity of the brain.

K: One has noticed that the people who have spent years and years in (practising?) meditation are the most ( inwardly?) dull people on earth. And also those lawyers and professors, there is ample evidence of all that...

B: Well, that might be, as ( even the most) rational thinking pursued in a narrow area ( of what is already known) might become part of the ( time-binding) pattern too.

K: Of course, of course...

B: But you're saying that there is some other way ?

K: Are we saying that the human brain becomes extraordinarily ( alive inwardly) and does not caught in a ( repetitive ) pattern if it lives (inwardly ) in a state of uncertainty - without becoming neurotic?

B: Without demanding ( a psychological) certainty ?

K: Yes, without demanding certainty.

B: Yes, without demanding the 'certainty of knowledge' .

K: So are we saying that knowledge also withers the brain?

B: Well when it is repetitious and becomes mechanical, yes.

K: But knowledge itself?

B: Well, I think that knowledge has a tendency to become ( repetitive & ) mechanical. That is, to get (crystallised or ) 'fixed', but we could be always learning ( new facts) , you see.

K: But learning from a centre, learning as an accumulation process.

B: You see, (in the common process of learning ?) you learn something as fixed (basic concepts or guidelines?) and then you learn more starting from there. Now, if we were to be learning without holding anything permanently fixed...

K: That is, learning and not adding. Can you do that ( in the 'psychological' field ?) ?

B: Well, I think that to a certain extent we have to drop our ( psychological attachment to ?) knowledge. Knowledge may be valid up to a point and then it ceases to be valid, it gets in the way. You could say that our modern civilization is collapsing from too much knowledge.

K: Of course.

B: We don't drop some ( redundant knowledge ) that gets in the way, you see. It is continually moving there.

K: Yes, but I want to question, if I may, the whole idea of having knowledge.

B: It is not clear what kind of knowledge it is that you are questioning.

K: I am questioning the ( self-centred human ) experience that leaves a (psychological) mark.

B: Yes, but you see, when you use the word 'knowledge' by itself it tends to include the whole.

K: We have said ( previously?) that knowledge at a certain level is essential, there you can add and take away and keep on changing, moving, there; but I am questioning whether ( the subliminal accumulation of ) 'psychological' knowledge is not in itself a central factor for the 'shrinking' of the brain.

B: What do you mean by psychological knowledge?

K: Accumulating knowledge about myself and about my relationships. and living (inwardly in the illusory safety of?) that ( field of my past ) knowledge.

B: So if you keep on accumulating knowledge about yourself or about relationships..
K:.. yes, Yes that is it. Would you say such knowledge makes the brain somewhat inactive, makes the brain shrink?

B: Brings it into a rut ?

K: Yes.

B: But one should see why, what is it about this ( psychological) knowledge that makes so much trouble?

K: In our everyday relationships, if I have a (knowledgeable?) image about him, that knowledge is obviously going to impede - it becomes a pattern.

B: Well, indeed the knowledge about myself and about him and how we are related, it makes a pattern.

K: Yes, and therefore that becomes a routine and so the brain loses ( the direct contact with the real world ?) .

B: Yes, and it occurred to me you see that ( living in this mental ) routine is even more dangerous than routine in say the area of daily work.

K: That's right.
B: And if routine in ordinary work can shrink the brain then in that area it might do some worse thing because it has a bigger effect.

K: So, can the brain, in all 'psychological(ly related'?) matters, be entirely free from this kind of knowledge? And isn't this psychological knowledge a (major) factor of the shrinkage of the brain?

B: Well, yes, it could be an important factor. If the routinely knowledge of your profession can be a factor, then this ( psychologically active?) knowledge is stronger.

K: Of course, of course. Much stronger.

B: So then you would have to say that some more subtle degeneration of the brain takes place, not merely ( the physically visible) 'shrinkage'.

K: That's right. That's what I want to get at.

B: You see, when a baby is born the brain cells have very few 'cross connections', then they gradually increase in number, then as a person approaches senility they begin to go back. So the quality of those cross connections could be wrong. The part of the brain that deals with rational thought if it is not ( properly exercised &) used does shrink, but there may be other functions that are totally unknown, that is, very little is known actually about the brain.

K: What we are trying to explain is that we are only using one part, or use only very partially the brain, and that partial activity is the ( daily routine or) 'occupation', either rational or irrational, or logical and so still using the part. And as long as the brain is 'occupied' (or just keeping itself busy?) it must be in that limited area. Wouldn't you say that?

B: Well, then what will happen when it is not ( remaing ) occupied?

K: We will go into that in a minute. ( But not before pointing out ?) that senility is the result of a mechanical (inwardly settled ?) way of living, and so the brain has no sense of freedom, no inner space...

B: Well, that is the suggestion. It is not necessarily accepted by all the (science) people who work on the brain. They have shown that the brain cells start to die around the age of thirty or forty at a steady rate but these are merely rough measurements made statistically. Now you want to propose ( the holistic idea ) that this ( slow) death of the brain cells, or the degeneration, will come from the wrong way of using the brain?

K: That's right. That is what I am trying to get at.

B: Yes, and there is a little bit of evidence in favour of this from the scientists.

K: Thank God!

B: But I think that even those brain scientists don't know very much about it.

K: Sir, you see ( most of) these (highly certified?) brain specialists are going out, examining things outside, but not taking themselves as 'guinea pigs' and going through that.
( So, if the psychological) occupation (of the brain) does ( sooner or later ) bring about a shrinkage, how is this process to stop? And when it does stop will there be a renewal? I think this (is possible)
I want now to open a new chapter (in the Universal 'Book of Holistic Education'?) : we are coming to the (main experiential) point, which is: direct perception and immediate action. So is there a ( trans-personal quality of ?) perception which is not time-binding? And so, an action which is immediate ? That is, sir, the human brain has evolved through ( a long interval of?) time, and it has set the pattern of action by (thinking in terms of?) time . As long as the brain is active that way it is still living in a pattern of time and so ( eentually ) becoming senile. Now, if we could break that pattern of ( thinking inwardly in terms of) time, then something else ( can possibly ) take place. Am I making myself clear?

B: Well, you are saying that the pattern is the 'pattern of time' and you have to 'break out' of it. Perhaps this ( fine experiential point ?) should be clarified. What other movement is possible?

K: First let's ( see the truth of the fact?) that our whole way of thinking & living is 'bound by time'.

B: Yes, well certainly any attempt to analyze yourself, to think about yourself, involves a ( certain sequential ?) process. The whole notion of an ( inwardly perceptive) instrument involves time because any instrument is a process which you plan (ahead) .

K: In time, that's just it. Now if you see this (analytical approach as being false?) , then what is the next step?

N: Are you implying that the very seeing that it is destructive is an ('intelligence) releasing' factor?

K: Yes. You see I am asking whether the brain itself, the (brain's) cells, the whole thing, can move out of ( the traditional mentality thinking in terms of of) time?

B: ( Then ) perhaps the rate of shrinkage would be greatly slowed down...

K:.. not only slow down, sir.

B:.. well, regenerate, if you wish.

K: But the brain being (inwardly) in a state of non-occupation (and providing ) the body were in excellent health, maintained right through, which is no heightened emotions, no strain on the body, no sense of deterioration in the body, the heart functioning healthily, I am sure it can last a lot more than it does now.

B: Yes, I think that is true. The brain has a tremendous affect on organizing the ( functions of the psycho-somatic) body. The pituitary gland controls the entire system of the body glands and also all the organs of the body are controlled in that way and so on. When the ( holistic quality of the ) mind deteriorates the body starts to deteriorate.

K: Of course, of course. So can that brain ( of man) which has evolved through millions of years, which has had all kinds of ( pleasant & sorrowful) experiences, can that brain be free of all its (psychologicallly addictive residues ) of time? I think it can.

B: Could we could discuss ( more in detail what it means to be 'free of time' ? You certainly don't mean that the clock stops or anything, but what does it really mean to be 'psychologically' (inwardly) free of time?

K: That there is no ( thought's self- projection of ?) tomorrow.

B: But I mean you know there is ( an objective ) tomorrow.

K: But 'psychologically'... ?

B: Can you describe this (experiential point) a little better ? What do you mean when you say, 'no tomorrow' ?

K: Let's take the other side first : what does it mean to live in time? Thinking, & living in the ( mental continuity of the?) past, and acting from the knowledge of the past, the images, the illusions, the prejudices, they are all an outcome of the past, all that is ( projected by thought's subliminal continuity in?) time. And ( when manifested outwardly) that is producing in the world chaos.

B: So you're saying that I am psychologically extending (projecting an image of?) how it is going to feel in the next hour, when I have fulfilment of desire, or whatever.

K: I am just saying the way we are living now is (confined within) in the field of ( matter & ) time. And there we have brought all kinds of ( collateral psychological ) problems (such as) suffering & all that. Right?

B: Yes, but could we make it more clear why you are saying that if you live in the field of time suffering is inevitable ?

K: ( Sooner or later?) Inevitable.

B: Why?

K: It is simple. Which is, ( thinking of one's psychological continuity in ) time has built the 'self-image' , which is sustained ( culturally conditioned?) by society, by the parents, by education, that is built after millions of years, that is the result of time. And from that (mental 'home-base' ?) I act.

B: Towards an ( projection of a more rewarding ?) future state of being. Right?

K: Yes. Which is, the 'centre' is always ( engaged in a mental process of self-) becoming.

B: Trying to become better ?

K: Better, nobler, or any other way round. So this constant endeavour to become something ( better inwardly than what you are now ?) is an (active mental) factor of the psychological time.

B: And...are you saying that ( it inevitably?) produces suffering?

K: Obviously. Because it is a divisive (factor) . It divides (separates?) 'me' - you are different from me, and if I depend on somebody (to feel inwardly complete) and that somebody is lost, or gone, I feel lonely, miserable, unhappy, grief, suffering. So we are saying that due to this factor of ( self-) division which is the very nature of the self, one must inevitably ( sooner or later?) suffer.

B: But if there were no ( self-division & no?) psychological time then maybe this entire structure would collapse and something entirely different would happen?

K: That's it ! And therefore the brain itself has 'broken out' .

B: Well, that is would be the next step : if the brain has 'broken out' of that (self-divisive?) rut, then maybe it could regenerate then. It doesn't quite follow logically, but still it could.

K: I think it does follow logically.

B: Well, it follows logically that it would stop degenerating.

K: Yes.

B: And you are adding further that it would start to regenerate.

K: Yes. You look sceptical!

N: Yes, because the whole human predicament is bound to time. Society, individuals, the whole structure.

K: I know, I know...

N: It is so forceful that anything feeble doesn't work here.

K: What do you mean by 'feeble'?

N: The ( inertial) force of this ( materialistic mentality of time) is so great that if you have to 'break through', you must have a greater energy.

K: Yes.

N: And no individual seems to be able to generate this energy to be able to break through (or 'break free'?)

K: Ah, (holistically- wise) you have got 'the wrong end of the stick' . When you use the word 'individual' you have moved away from the fact that our brain is universal. There is no such ( self-centred ?) 'individuality'.

N: That human brain is conditioned ( to think in) this way.

K: Yes, it is conditioned this way through time. It is not ( just ) that time has created the conditioning, ( the very thinking in terms of) time itself is the factor of conditioning. So can that ( psychological) 'time' element not exist? I say it can. As we said (previously?) the ending of suffering comes about when the 'self ( -centred' mental entity?) , which is built up through ( mankind's long evolution in) time, is no longer there.
A man (of his time?) who is actually going through (his existential?) agony, is bound to reject it, but when he comes out of the shock of this, and if he is willing to 'listen' to what somebody ( Mr 'X' ?) points out to him, and if he is seeing for himself the ( inward truth?) of it, he is (ASAP?) out of that field, the brain is out of that time-binding quality.

N: Then, doesn't he 'slip back' into ( the ages old mentality of) time ?

K: No, if you see something ( which is vitally?) dangerous you can't go back to it. Like ( seeing the danger of ) a cobra or whatever danger it is, you cannot.

N: Your analogy is a bit (inadequate?) because the danger ( of psychological time) is ( not so obvious as ) that. You inadvertently slip into it.

K: When you see a dangerous animal (or see yourself in a 'dangerous' situation?) , there is immediate action. But we are ( generally ) unaware of the ( psychological?) dangers. If we would become as aware of the inner 'dangers' as we are aware of a physical dangers there is a (holistically integrated?) action which is not time-binding.

B: Yes, as long as you could perceive the actual danger, you will respond immediately. But to use your analogy of the dangerous animal, it might take another form that you don't see as dangerous.

K: Yes...

B: Therefore there would be a danger of slipping back if you didn't see (it for what it is) . This 'ilusion of time' might come every time in some other form.

K: Of course...The Holy Ghost taking different shapes.

B: But I think that is the point.

K: Sir, that is the real root of it, ( thought's self-projected continuity in?) 'time'.

B: So, the (psychological) time and the (inward ) separation as 'individuality' are basically the same structure.

K: Of course.

B: Although it is not ( so) obvious in the beginning...

K: I wonder if you see ( the inwardness of?) that.

B: It might be worth discussing it : why is (' the psychological) time' the same illusion, the same structure as ( the self-centred?) 'individuality'? . You see 'individuality' is the sense of being a person who is located here somewhere.

K: Located and divided.

B: Divided from the others and he also has an 'identity' which goes over time. He wouldn't regard himself as an individual unless he had an identity, if he said, today I am one person, tomorrow I am another. So he has to be, it seems we mean by 'individual' somebody who is (remaining identical to himself) in time.

K: I think that is such a fallacy, this idea of ( a self-centred?) 'individuality'.

B: Yes, although many people may find that very hard to be convinced that it is a fallacy.

K: Of course, many people find everything very hard (to digest?).

B: There is the common feeling that as an individual (soul?) I have existed at least from my birth if not before, and will go on to death and perhaps later. The whole idea of being an 'individual' is to be in time. Right?

K: So if that (wide spread?) illusion could be broken, that time has created one's individuality, which is erroneous.

B: Yes, through time the notion of individuality has arisen. I think that there is a great momentum in any brain, which keeps rolling, moving along.

K: We have said that ( a totally insigtful ) perception is out of time, seeing immediately the whole nature of time. If there is an insight into the nature of time the very brain cells , which are part of time, can bring about a change in themselves. That is what this (K) person is saying. You may say 'Prove it !'. I say this is not a matter of proof, it is a matter of ( directly perceptive) action. Do it, find it, test it (as optional homework in the leisurely context of 'time-free' & 'stress-free' meditation ?)

N: You were also saying the other day that when the ( ego-centric) consciousness is 'emptied' of its ( psychological) content that leads to a (qualitative?) transformation of the brain cells.…

K: This 'content' is ( the memory of ?) 'time'.

N: Now, when man's consciousness is empty of ( its time-binding 'psychological' ?) content, there...

K:... there is no ( self-centred ?) consciousness, as we know it (presently) .

N: Now, who has this insight?

K: The insight into this whole movement (of thought- time?) , is not my insight. And that ( transpersonal insight?) brings about transformation in the brain. Because it is not time-binding, that insight.

B: If the 'psychological content' is a certain structure physically (engrammed ) in the brain, we may say that in order for this 'psychological' content to exist (for so long) the brain over many years has made many connections of the cells, which constitute this content.

K: Quite, quite...

B: And then there is a (inwardly illuminating ?) 'flash of insight' which sees that all this ( psychological content ?) is not necessary and therefore all this ( psycho-mental construction?) begins to 'dissipate'. And when that has dissipated there is no content and then, whatever the brain is doing is something different.

K: Which is, sir, then there is a total (inward?) emptiness -into which we went the other day.

B: Well, an emptiness of all this ( self-centred ?) inward content.

K: That's right. That ( content free state of?) emptiness has tremendous energy. It is ( pure mind ?) energy.

B: So could you say that the ( time-bound) brain having had all these connections tangled up has 'locked up' a lot of ( its potentially intelligent?) energy?

K: That's right. Wastage of energy.

B: Then when they begin to dissipate that ( intelligent ?) energy is there .

K: Yes.

B: Would you say that is as much physical energy as of another kind?

K: Of course, of course.

K: Now, if I hear all this (only?) with the 'hearing of the ear', I will ( ASAP?) make it into an idea, but if I hear it ( within my inner) being, what happens then? ( a question left open for...homework meditation ?)

If that (inward impact?) doesn't take place it becomes merely a (intellectually stimulating ? ) idea and we can spin along for the rest of one's life playing with ( such) ideas.

B: Maybe a few would ( 'hear' it ) but obviously the majority would not (even care to listen ?)

K: No. So what? You see how do we affect, how do we touch the human brain?

B: Well, to most scientists, all this will sound rather abstract, you see. They will say 'it could be so', but as we have no actual proof of it, it is just another nice theory.( at best?) they would say, if you have some more evidence we will come back later, and become very interested. So you see, you can't give any (positive) proof - in whatever is happening in the outer world nobody can see it, with their eyes.

K: But if our brain is the human brain which has evolved through a million years, if one 'biological freak', can move out of it, how does it make the (average human) mind him to see the ( inward truth of ) this ?

B: Well ( for starters?) you have to communicate the ( intrinsical) necessity of what you are saying, that it is inevitable. Say, you explain it to him and he sees it happening before his eyes he says, 'That's so'. Right?

K: But sir, that requires somebody to 'listen' (with an integrated mind & heart?) . Somebody who says I want to capture it, I want to understand this, I want to find out ( the true feeling of it?) . Apparently that (quality of passionate listening?) is one of the most difficult things in life.

B: Well it is the very function of this (materialistic) brain that it is occupied with itself and it doesn't listen.

N: In fact one of the things is that this ( self-centred) occupation seems to start very early. How do you through ( a holistically open?) education make this..

K: If you are asking how to set about it ( educationally?) I will tell you. The moment that you ( the holistically minded educator?) see for yourself the importance of not being ( inwardly) occupied, (when & if?) you yourself see that as a tremendous truth, you will find ways and methods to help them. That is creative, you can't just copy (-paste?) and imitate.

B: Well then the question is: how is it possible to communicate (this fine point?) to a (self-centred?) brain which doesn't ( even bother to ) listen?

K: I understand, that is what I am asking (rhetorically?) .

B: Yes, well is there a way?

K: Not if I refuse to 'listen'... But I think ( a selfless?) meditation is a great factor in all this. I feel we have been 'meditating' (although) ordinary people wouldn't accept this as meditation. So ( the first & last step in?) meditation is this, sir, the 'emptying' of ( the time-binding content of) consciousness. You follow?

B: Yes, but let's be clear. Now are you saying that meditation is conducive to insight ?

K: Meditation 'is' ( indissociable from) insight.

B: But you see, insight is usually thought of as a flash, while meditation is a more constant activity …

K: Now we must be careful. What do we mean by meditation? Meditation, sir, is this (non-dualistic inward) penetration, this sense of moving without any ( psychological burden of the ) past.

B: The only point to clear up is that when you use the word 'meditation', you mean something more than 'insight', you see. It seems to mean something a bit more ?

K: Much more! Because ( the flash of) insight has freed the brain from (its psychological burden of?) the past, from (its entanglement in?) time. That is an enormous ( revolutionary) statement since the ( current practice of ) meditation - as we know it now - is ( regarded as a process of self-centred ) becoming, and any sense of self-becoming is still ( part of thought's projected ) time, therefore ( in the insight based meditation?) there is no sense of becoming.

B: But that seems to mean that you have to ( the inward clarity of) insight if you are going to meditate. Right?

K: Yes, sir, that's right.

B: You cannot meditate without insight.

K: Of course.

B: You can't regard it as a (convenient ) procedure by which you will come to insight.

K: No. That immediately implies (the self-centred thinking projecting itself in?) time. But having an insight into greed, into fear, into all that, frees the mind from all that ( psychological debris ? Then meditation has quite a different quality. It has nothing to do with all the guru's ( commercialised?) meditations.
So, would we say, sir, that to have ( the inward clarity of?) insight there must be ( an inner space of?) silence?

B: My mind has silence, yes.

K: So the silence of insight has cleansed - cleansed, purged, all that (psychological debris) .

B: The structure of the (ego-centric) occupation ?

K: Yes. Then meditation, what is it? I don't see how we can ( describe or?) measure that by words.... the sense of limitless state (of Consciousness?)

B: But you were saying that nevertheless it is necessary to find a ( holistically friendly?) language, even though it is unsayable.

K: We will ( hopefully ?) find the language. Shall we continue next Sunday?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Apr 2020 #25
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

TEN

Krishnamurti: We left off the other day at the point when the mind is totally empty of all the 'things' that thought has put there, then begins the 'real' Meditation.
But before going further in this matter - I would like to ( take a brief detour ? ) and find out if the human brain, can ever be free, not only from all illusion, any form of self-deception but whether it can have its own ( holistically-friendly?) order - the order not artificially introduced by thought as an effort, an endeavour to put things in their proper place. And also whether the (temporal?) brain, however much damaged it is, and most brains are damaged by shocks and/or by all kinds of stimulations, whether that brain can heal itself completely.
So first let's begin by asking : is there an (inward ) order which is not man-made, which is not the result of calculated order out of disturbance, an order that is probably very satisfying and so it is still part of the old conditioning, is there an order which is not thought-made?

Bohm: Are you referring to the ( order of the universal?) Mind? I mean you can say the order of nature exists on its own.

K: The order of nature is order, but is there a Cosmic order?

B: Which includes the order of the universe and the order of the mind?

K: Yes. A (holistic?) order which man can never possibly conceive - because any concept is still within the pattern of thought.

B: Then... how are we going to discuss it?

K: I think we can (by approaching it negatively?) . You see the human brain, the ( self-conscious?) mind is so contradictory, so bruised, it can't find order.

B: Yes, but what kind of order does it want?

K: It wants a (long lasting sense of ?) order in which it will feel safe. It won't be bruised, it won't be shocked, it won't feel the pain of physical or psychological pain.

B: The whole point of order is not to have ( any internal) contradiction. That is the whole purpose of mathematics.

K: But the brain is in ( accustomed to live in conflict & ) of contradiction...

B: Yes, something has gone wrong –perhaps as we said, it took a 'wrong turn'.

K: It took a wrong turn, we think, yes. But I want to go into something else , which is: can the mind, the brain, be totally free of all 'organized' (pre-programmed?) order?

B: What is wrong with this (man-made?) order.

K: It becomes a (mechanical ) pattern.

B: So, you mean by organized order a 'fixed' order ?

K: Yes, a fixed pattern ( of behaviour?) imposed ( from outside?) or self-imposed. Because we are trying to investigate whether the brain can ever be free from all the impositions, pressures, wounds, bruises, all the trivialities of existence, pushing it in different directions, whether it can be completely free of all that. If it cannot, ( the insight based?) meditation has no meaning.

B: Yes, and probably our daily life has no (deeper) meaning if you cannot free it of all that. It goes on ( repeating the same patterns?) indefinitely.

K: Yes, if it goes on as it has done indefinitely for millennia, life has no (deeper?) meaning. But I think there is a ( profound spiritual?) meaning, ( providing that) the (time-bound) brain is totally free of all this.

B: So, that is what you ( generically ?) call 'disorder'. But what is the source of what we call disorder? We could say it is like a ( mental form of ) 'cancer' that is going on inside the brain. It is moving in a way which is not compatible with the (natural) health of the brain. And it ( seems to?) grow as time goes on, it increases from one generation to another.

K: Every generation (updating & upgrading ?) the same ( self-centred mental ) pattern being repeated.

B: It tends to accumulate (its own psychological debris?) from one generation to another through tradition. Now we say - it is almost the same question to ask how are we going to stop these '(mental) cancer' cells from taking over.

K: That is what I want to get at. How is this pattern, which has been set, and which has for generation after generation accumulated, how is that to end, be broken through? That is the real question that is at the back of my mind.

B: Could we ask a (collateral) question: why does the brain provide the soil for this stuff to go on, to grow?

K: It may be merely tradition, habit.

B: Well, why does it stay in that, you see?

K: It may be that it is so afraid of something new taking place because in the old tradition it takes refuge. It feels safe.

B: Well, then we have to question why does the brain like to deceive itself? It seems that this whole pattern of ( mental) disorder involves the fact that the brain deceives itself about this disorder. It doesn't seem to be able to see (the vital danger of?) it clearly.

N: If a certain pattern of order has served in the past, why can't the human brain just put aside now, when it is no longer useful or adequate.

K: Apparently it can't. Psychologically we are talking of, it can't, it doesn't. Take an ordinary human being like any of us, it goes on repeating fears, sorrow, misery, all that is part of its daily existence. Is it so heavily conditioned that it cannot see its way out of it? Or it may be merely ( that indulging in) this constant repetition, the human brain has become (inwardly unperceptive & ) dull.

N: Is there a 'momentum' of repetition ?

K: Yes. This (time-binding) momentum of repetition makes the mind sluggish, mechanical. And in ( the psycho-somatic comfort of?) that mechanical sluggishness it takes refuge and says, 'It's all right, I can go on forever '. That's what most human beings do.

B: Well, to think that way is a manifestation of ( a 'steady state' form of inner ) disorder.

K: Of course. Let's come back ( to the real world ?) I am the ordinary man. I see that I am ( mentally) caught ( in the clutches of time ?) in my whole way of living; my (self-centred) thinking, attitudes and beliefs, are the result of enormous length of time. ( Thinking in terms of?) time is (providing the psychological backbone of ? ) my whole existence. In the (mental images & memories of the?) past, which cannot be changed, I take refuge. Right?

B: Well I think that this 'ordinary' man doesn't really understand that 'time' is something that happens to him.

K: But after talking over with you ( with Mr X?) I can see that my whole existence is based on time. Which is, ( the process of psychological) 'time' is ( mentally projected by the ) memory of the past and in that the brain takes refuge.

B: But you see, it is quite common to think that the future can be changed, the Communists have said, give up the ( mentality of the?) past & we are going to change (you ASAP ?)

K: But I can't give up the past. We only ( like to) think we can give up the past.

B: Yes, that is the second point - that even those (activistically minded revolutionaries?) who try to give up the past, those who don't want to take refuge in the past, still can't give it up (their self-centred mentality?) ...

K: That is just my point.

B: So it seems whichever way you would try to do it... you are stuck (in thought's temporal mentality?) .

K: So the next step is: why does the brain accept this ( time-binding ?) way of living, and why doesn't it break it down? Is it ( just) laziness? Or is it that in breaking down ( thought's self-centred continuity?) it sees no (alternative?) hope?

B: Yes, well that is still the same question - going from ( the 'certainty' of the?) past to ( an uncertain psychological?) future.

K: I think this is applicable to most ( thoughtful & thoughtless ?) people, isn't it? So what is there to be done?

B: We haven't yet understood why ( the human brain) is doing this. It is not clear. Many (thoughtful) people can see that this ( egocentric) behaviour is disorderly, irrational and so on, and some of them have said, 'OK, let's give up the past but we find we can't' - why can't we?

K: If I give up (my self-centred mentality anchored in the ?) past, (quite obviously...?) 'I' have no ( sense of temporal ?) existence.

B: Well you'll have to clarify that …

K: It is simple: if I give up all my ( high expectations & ) remembrances, I have nothing (left in terms of my psychological continuity?) , I am (feeling inwardly as?) nothing. Is that the ( subliminally scary?) reason why we cannot possibly give up the ( mentality of the?) past? Because my existence, my way of thinking, my life, everything is from the past. And if you say, wipe that out, what have I left?

B: Well, obviously we'll have to keep certain things from the past like useful (practical) knowledge and technology.

K: Yes, we went through all that (necessary knowledge) .

B: Suppose that ( a holistically minded person would?) say : we can keep that ( utilitary) part of the past and ( endeavour to?) wipe out all the aspects of the past which are ( psychologically) contradictory...

K: All the 'psychological', contradictory (stuff?) and so on. What is left? Just ( the routine of) going to the office? ( Inwardly -wise?) there is nothing (not-a-thing?) left. Is that the ( main subliminal?) reason why we cannot give up (the self-centred mentality of the past?)?

B: So, are you saying simply that when people say they are 'giving up the past', they just simply are not doing it ?

K: They are not doing it.

B: They are merely turning it into another (roundabout) question which avoids the issue.

K: Because my whole ( psychological) being has its roots in the past.

B: Now, what if you told somebody 'OK, give all that up and in the future you will have a mind which is open and creative'. You see, people want to be assured of at least something.

K: That is just it. ( Psychologically speaking?) there is nothing. You, the common human being, wants something to which he can cling to, can hold on to.

B: Or reach for ? They may not feel that they are 'clinging to the past' but rather that they are reaching for something (different & meaningful?) .

K: If the 'I' (the self-centred thinking entity ?) is 'reaching for something' it still is (anchored in the subliminal memory of the?) the past.
( In a nutshell:) As long as 'I' have my ( psychological) roots in the past there cannot be ( any holistic inward) order.

B: Because the past (experience of mankind ) is pervaded with disorder?

K: Yes, disorder. So, is my mind, my brain, willing to see ( the inward truth?) that if I give up the past there is absolutely no-'thing' (no psychological content left?) ?

B: And you are saying that there is nothing to reach for ?

K: No-thing. So if I have no carrots, nothing ( to look forward ) as a reward or punishment, how is this ( psychologically active ?) 'past' to be dissolved? Because otherwise 'I' (the self-centred mental entity ?) am still living in the field of time. So...am I willing to face ( my ) absolute ( inward?) emptiness?

B: Well, what will you tell somebody who is not willing (to volunteer for this total psychological challenge?) ?

K: If somebody says, 'I am sorry but I can't do all this nonsense' - you say, 'Well, carry on '. But ( if?) I am willing to 'let go' completely my ( psychological attachment to the?) past - (if?) my brain is willing to face this extraordinary state ( which is totally new to it) of existing ( inwardly ) in a state of 'no-thing'ness. This is apparently frightening...

B: Because ( for a mind with ) roots in the past (in the field of the 'known') , this notion of (living in a state of inner ) 'no-thingness' is...( not looking very atractive?)

K: ( But the inwardly mature human ?) brain says, 'I am willing to do that'. I am willing to face this absolute no-thingness, or (inward) emptiness because it has seen for itself all the various 'places' ( psychological 'mansions'?) where it has taken refuge are illusions, so it has finished with all that.

B: Now, is very possible that a decently healthy human brain could do this fairly readily, providing that it was not already been damaged ( by the various incidents & accidents of the 'real' life) .

K: Look: can one discover what has caused damage to the brain? Amongst these factors are the strong ( thought-) sustained emotions, like hatred, anger, or any other violent response - they are not only creating a physical shock but they ( emotionally?) 'wound' the brain. Right?

B: Well, also getting excessively excited by other means.

K: Of course, drugs and all that stuff. Excessive excitement, excessive anger, violence, hatred, all that. The natural response doesn't damage the brain. Right? Now suppose that my brain has been damaged through anger.

B: Probably the neurons get connected up in the wrong way and the connections are too fixed. I think there is evidence that these things will actually change one's ( psychological) structure.

K: The structure, yes. Now, can one have a (holistic?) insight into the whole nature of disturbance, anger, violence. If yes, that insight changes the ( functioning of those ?) cells of the brain which have been wounded.

B: Well possibly it would start them healing, yes.

K: Yes. All right. Start them healing. That healing must be 'immediate' (or...ASAP?) .

B: Well, it may take some physical time, in the sense that if some wrong connections have been made it is going to take time to redistribute the (neurological) material. But the beginning of ( the healing process?) , it seems to me, is immediate.

K: Put it that way, all right. (If?) I have 'listened' to you, (if ?) I have carefully read, ( & if...?) I have thought about all this and I have seen (the inward truth?) that anger, violence, hatred, all those excessive - or any form of excitement - and so on, do bruise the brain. And the insight into this whole business does bring about a mutation in the cells. It is so. And ( further down the line?) the nerves and all their ( neuronic) adjustments will be as rapid as possible (ARAP?) .

B: Something similar happens with cancer cells. Sometimes the cancer suddenly stops growing and it goes the other way, for some reason that is unknown but a change must have taken place in those cells.

K: Would it be, sir, that when the brain cells change, a fundamental change there, the cancer process stops?

B: Yes, fundamentally it stops and it starts to dismantle.

K: Dismantle, yes that is it.

N: So a beginning (of healing) is made and it is made 'now'.

K: That is the ( timeless action of a holistic ?) Insight.

( Intermission)

N: There is another thing which I wanted to ask you about the 'past': for most people the ( recycled & updated memory of the?) 'past' means pleasure.

K: Not only past pleasures, the remembrance of all the things.

N: One starts disliking pleasure only when it becomes stale, or it leads to difficulties when one wants to keep the pleasure afresh and not have the staleness or the problems it brings. I mean this is the 'normal' human being. How does one deal ( holistically?) with this immense problem of pleasure in which most people are caught because in it is (enfolded the whole momentum of) the past.

K: There is no ( self-conscious sense of ?) pleasure at the moment it is happening. It comes in later when it is remembered. So the 'remembrance' is the ( actual momentum of the ) past. But if - as an ( inwardly mature) human being- I am willing to face ( this inward state of ?) 'no-thingness', this ( may ?) wipe out all that.

N: How does one wipe out this tremendous instinct for pleasure? It almost seems to be an instinct.

K: No, what is the ( psychological) nature of 'pleasure'? It is a constant (personal?) remembrance of things past which have happened.

B: And also the expectation that it will happen again...

K: Of course, but always from the (memory field of the?) past.

B: You have usually made this distinction of pleasure and enjoyment.

K: Yes, I did.

N: Of course you have made a distinction, but still the ( average) human being, even though he understands intellectually what you are saying, he is sort of 'held back' in this field (of the 'known' ?)

K: Because he is not willing to face (his inward?) emptiness.
I don't know if you see that ( the common drive for) pleasure is not (related to the intelligence of Love & ) Compassion . But perhaps if there is this ( holistic inward ) mutation, Compassion is stronger than pleasure. So pleasure has no place in the ( intelligent action of) compassion. Compassion has got tremendous strength, an incalculable strength, pleasure is nowhere in it.

N: But what happens to a man in whom pleasure is dominant?

K: We said that. As long as he is unwilling to face this extraordinary (inward) emptiness he will keep on with ( following) the old pattern.

B: You see we have to say that the ( average) man (of the world) had a damaged brain too. There is a certain brain damage which causes this emphasis on sustained pleasure as well as the fear and the anger and the hate.

K: But the ( psychologically?) damaged brain is healed when there is insight.

B: Yes. Many people would agree that hate, anger and so on, are products of the damaged brain, but they would find it hard to say that ( this ages old drive for?) pleasure is the product of a damaged brain.

K: Oh yes, of course it is.

B: Shouldn't we say that true enjoyment is not the product of the damaged brain, although it is ( unfortunately?) confused with pleasure ?

K: ( Anyway...?) do I, as an (inwardly mature?) human being, have an insight into the past, how very destructive it is to the brain, and the brain itself sees it and has an insight into it and moves out of that?

N: You are saying the beginning of order comes from ( the inner clarity brought by?) insight?

K: Obviously. Let's (move on?) from there.

N: Is it possible to ( virtuously?) gather a certain amount of ( inner) order so that it gives rise to a certain amount of insight?

K: Ah! You cannot through false (means) find truth.

N: I am saying it on purpose because for many people the ( basic intelligent) energy that is required for insight seems to be lacking.

K: You are tremendously keen to earn a livelihood, to earn money, to 'do something' if you are really interested in ( getting) something (in the material world ?) . ( Therefore ) if you are vitally interested ( inwardly ) in this transformation, you have the energy.

May we go on, sir? (Supposing that Mr 'Y' ) as a ( holistically minded ?) human being, had this insight that 'wiped away' the ( thought-time momentum of the?) past, and the brain is willing to live in ( the universally open state of inneer?) 'no-thingness'. From there I want to go on; may we?
There isn't a 'thing' which thought has put there. There is no ( ego-centric) movement of thought, except ( in the area of of practical) knowledge, which has its own ( rightful?) place. We are talking of an (inward) state of mind where there is no movement of thought, there is absolutely no-thing.

B: You mean also no feeling ?

K: Wait a minute. What do you mean by 'feeling' there?

B: Well, usually people might say, well, OK, there is no thought, but they may have various feelings.

K: Of course, I have (sensory) feelings. The moment you put a pin in to me..

B: These are ( generally called?) 'sensations'. But there are also inner feelings.

K: Inner feelings of what?

B: It is hard to describe ( the more profound ones) - those that can be easily described are obviously the 'wrong' kind such as anger (resentment & ) and fear.

K: Is compassion a ( personal?) feeling?

B: Probably not...though many people may 'feel compassionate'. Even the very word suggests it is a ( holistically friendly?) form of feeling : 'compassion' has the root word 'passion' in it which is a feeling. So, you see it is a difficult question. What we usually call 'feelings' are those ( emotionally charged) things that could be recognized as feelings, or having a describable character.

K: Sir, let's go into that a little bit. What do we mean by feeling? Sensations?

B: Well, people don't usually mean that. You see sensation is connected with the body.

K: So you are (refering to) 'feelings' which are not of the body ?

B: Yes, or which are said to belong to the (human) 'soul' ( as they would have said in the old days) , you see ?

K: The soul, of course. That is an easy 'escape' ( psychological excuse ?), but it means nothing.

B: No... (?)

K: So, what are these 'inner feelings'? Pleasure?

B: Well, as you can label it that way it is clear that it is not valid there.

K: So what is valid? The non-verbal (inner) state ?

B: It may be a 'non-verbal' state which includes something that would have something analogous to a 'feeling' but which isn't fixed, you see? That you couldn't name... I am just considering ( the possibility that) this could exist.

K: I don't follow...

B: I was just trying to clarify ( where we are going now?) . Somebody could say, 'OK, I understand, I am not thinking, I am not talking, I am not figuring out what to do'. Now, if we have to go further (into this inward 'no-thingness'?) What does it really mean?

K: All right. There is no ( inner movement of?) time and thought. ( Hint : thought is not projecting its own continuity in?) time. Right?

B: And no sense of the existence of a (self-conscious?) 'entity' inside ?

K: Absolutely, of course. The 'existence' of the entity is the bundle of (active?) memories of the past.

B: But the ( inward sense of its) existence is not only thought thinking about it but also the feeling that it is there, inside, you get this sort of (a transpersonal ?) feeling.

K: The feeling, yes, but otherwise there is nothing. If there is a feeling of one's being continuing...

B: Yes, even though it doesn't seem verbalizable...

K: I wonder if you are (not?) caught in an illusion that there is such a ( transcendental?) state.

B: Well, it may be.... It would be an (inward ) state without will, without..

K: Of course. All those are gone...

B: Now, how do we know that this state is genuine?

K: In other words you want ( a K certified?) proof of it ?

B: Not a 'proof' but rather a (shared?) communication of that state.

K: Now wait a minute. Suppose you have (free access to?) this peculiar (Love & Intelligence of?) Compassion, how can you communicate ( share it with?) me who am (comfortably?) living in pleasure and all that? You can't.

N: But if I am prepared to 'listen' to you ?

K: Prepared to 'listen' - how deeply?

N: To the extent my ( inward capacity of) listening takes me to.

K: Which means what? You will go as long as it is safe, secure.

N: Not necessarily.

K: The ( 'X' ) man says there is no ( sense of one's temporal ?) being. And one's whole life has been ( following the temporal thread of ) this ( self-centred) 'becoming', or 'being' and so on. And (Mr X )says in that state there is no ( sense of one's temporal ) being at all. In other words, there is no 'me'. Now when you say, 'Show it to me !', it can be (only) shown ( indirectly) through certain qualities it has, certain actions. What are the actions of a mind that is totally empty of (thinking in terms of its self-centred ) being? What are its actions? Actions in the physical world?

N: Partly...

K: Mostly that.

N: Not 'mostly', partly.

K: All right, this ( 'X') man has got this sense of ( universally open inward) emptiness and there is no ( sense of an ego-centric ) being, so he is not acting from self-centred interest. And you can judge ( the truthfulness of?) his actions in the world of daily living - whether he is a hypocrite, whether he says one thing and contradicts it the next moment, or whether he is actually living this ( transpersonal intelligence of?) compassion ( Hint : not 'I' feel being in in a compassionate mood?)

B: Well if you are not doing the same, you can't tell, you see ?

K: That's just it. That's what I am saying.

N: I can't judge you there.

K: You can't. So how can you convey to me in that peculiar quality of an (inwardly free ?) mind? You can describe, you can ( metaphorically) go 'round it', but you can't give to another the essence of it. I can discuss it and if he has this ( intuitive?) sense of 'being (inwardly) empty' , I can go very close but he can never 'enter it' or 'come upon' that ( holistic dimension of) mind unless he has (a transpersonal insight into?) it.

N: Is there any way of 'communicating' It ( not through words) for someone who is open?

K: We said Compassion. It is not (at all the same as?) 'I' feel compassionate . That is altogether ( holistically?) wrong. You see after all in daily life such a mind acts without the 'me, without the ego, and therefore (even if) it might make a ( personal?) mistake, it corrects it immediately, it is not carrying that mistake.

N: It is not stuck.

K: Not stuck (in thought's continuity in time?) . We must be very careful here not to find an excuse for wrong.

So sirs, ( if?) we have come to that point, what is then the true meaning of Meditation? For the man of ( ego-centric ?) 'becoming & being', it has no meaning whatsoever. But when not, then what is mediation? It must be totally un-conscious (non 'self-conscious'?). Right sir? Totally uninvited.

B: Without ( a pre-meditated?) conscious intention, is what you mean ?

K: Yes, without 'conscious intention'. Would you say, sir that the Cosmic Order of the Universe is in ( a state of?) Meditation?

B: Well if it is 'alive' then you would have to look at it that way.

K: No, no, it ( existing?) is in a state of meditation.

B: Then we should try to go over what is this (Cosmic) Meditation, what is it doing? What (everyday aspects of this Cosmic ) Order can we discern, which would indicate the universal meditation?

K: The sunrise and sunset is order, all the stars, the planets, the whole thing is in ( moving in ) perfect order.

B: We'll have to connect this (physical order of the Universe ) with Meditation....According to the dictionary the meaning of 'meditation' is to reflect, to ponder something over in your mind and to pay close attention.

K: And also to measure.

B: It means 'measure' in the sense of weighing ( the significance of something) or to 'ponder over' . Now is that what you mean by Meditation ?

K: No.

B: Then why do you use this word ? For instance 'contemplation' - to create an inwardly open space really is its basic meaning.

K: Is that 'open space' between God and me?

B: That is the way the word arose ...

N: From 'temple' ?

B: Which means an 'open space'.

N: The Sanskrit word 'dhyana' doesn't have the same connotation as 'meditation'. Because meditation has the overtones of measurement and probably in an oblique way that measurement is order.

K: Don't let's use the word meditation.

B: Let's first find out what you really mean by it ?

K: A state of ( inward ) infinity, a measureless state in which there is no division of any kind. ..

B: At other times you said that Meditation is ( the inward action of ) the mind which is emptying itself of ( its psychological?) content.

K: Yes. What are you trying to get at?

B: Well what I am trying to get at that it is not merely 'infinite' but it seems that something more is involved in this emptying of content - we said that this content is the past which has become disorder. Then you could say that in some sense it is constantly cleaning up the past. Would you agree to that?

K: It is constantly cleaning up the ( psychological debris of the?) past?
( After the mind?) has emptied itself...

B: All right, then you say when the (active psycho-memory of the ) 'past' is cleaned up, then you say that is meditation ?

K: The emptying the 'past' which is anger, jealousy, beliefs, dogmas, attachments, all that must be done (in the first place?) . If any part of that exists it will inevitably lead to illusion. ( In a nutshell:) he mind must be totally free of all ( its self-created?) illusions - brought by desire, by (its vain?) hopes, by wanting security and all that.

B: And when that is done this opens the door to something broader, deeper?

K: Yes. Otherwise ( man's) life has no (universal) meaning, just repeating this ( survivalistic) patterns...

N: What exactly did you mean when you said the Universe is in meditation?

K: I feel it that way, yes. Meditation is a state of 'non-movement movement'.

B: Could we say that the Order of the Universe is not actually governed by its past ?

K: Yes, sir, yes sir.

B: It is ( an intelligent Order which is ) free and creative.

K: It is creative, moving. Would you, as a scientist, accept such a thing?

B: Well, as a matter of fact I would! You see the universe creates certain forms which are relatively constant, so that if people who look at it superficially they only see that, it seems to be then an order which is determined from the past.

K: Sir, let's put the question the other way: is it really possible (in the Meditation context?) for ( thought's continuity in?) time to end - time being the ( constant recycling of the memory of the ) past, and to have no 'tomorrow' at all? Of course there is a (chronological) 'tomorrow', but the ( inward?) feeling, the actual reality of ( inwardly) having no tomorrow ? I think that is the 'healthiest' (holistically speaking ?) way of living. Which doesn't mean that I become irresponsible - that is all too childish.

B: But the physical time is still a part of the natural order of the Universe ...

K: Of course, that is (assumed to be ) understood.

B: So, your ( experiential ) question is whether we have a sense of experiencing (inwardly an unbroken cotinuity of our ) past, present and future, or whether we are free of that ( time-binding) sense.

K: Sir, I am asking you as a (highly knowledgeable ) scientists, is the (Cosmic Order of the?) Universe, based on time?

B: I would say, no, but you see, the general way it has been formulated..

K: That is all I want (to hear ?) you say 'no'. And can the human brain which has evolved in time..

B: Well, has it really 'evolved' in time, or it has become 'entangled in time' ?

K: Entangled, all right.

B: Entangled in time in some way, because if you say the ( Intelligent Order of the?) Universe is not based on time and the brain is part of the universe...

K: I agree.

B: ...its (inward Order) can't be based merely on time. Thought has entangled the brain in time.

K: All right. Can brain's 'entanglement' ( in time) be unravelled, freed, so that the ( Intelligent Order of the?) Universe 'is' (shared by?) the (human) mind? You follow? If the ( Order of the?) Universe is not ( dependent of?) time , can the human (consciousness or ?) mind which has been entangled in time, unravel itself and so be ( part of the Intelligent order of ?) the Universe? You follow what I am trying to say?

B: Yes. That is ( integrating the Cosmic) Order. Now would you say that is ( the deeper meaning of?) Meditation?

K: That is what I would call Meditation - a state of ( contemplative ) Meditation in which there is no element of the past.

B: So, as the mind is disentangling itself from time, it is also really disentangling the brain from ( the limitations of?) time ?

K: Yes, sir. Would you accept that?

B: Yes... as an (inwardly valid) proposal. This 'is' the ( purpose of) real meditation. And somebody ( like Mr 'X') says one can live this way and life has an extraordinary meaning in it, full of compassion and so on, and every (less-than-excellent?) action in the physical world, can be corrected immediately and so on. Would you, as a ( holistically minded?) scientist, accept such a state ?

B: I feel it is perfectly possible, it is quite compatible with anything that I know about ( the Laws of) Nature.

K: Oh, then that's all right...

B: Part of ( man's ) entanglement (in matter & time ) is that Science itself has put 'time' into a fundamental position which only helps to entangle it still further.

K: Of course putting it into words is not the ( actual) thing. That is understood. But can ( the true spirit of?) it be communicated to another?

B: Yes, well I think that the first point about communication of this is to 'bring it about'...

K: Of course. Now can some of us get to ( the bottom of?) this so that we can communicate it actually? ( after the summer break ? )

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Apr 2020 #26
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

ELEVEN

Krishnamurti: Dr Bohm reminded me yesterday that we have talked about order, whether the universe is based on (the order of?) time at all and whether man can ever comprehend and live in that supreme order. And I wanted to investigate profoundly, how to comprehend or live from that Ground (of Being) that is timeless. And I think we had better begin from there.

Dr Bohm: Begin from the Ground.

K: Sir, I don't know if you will agree as a scientist of eminence, whether there is such a Ground, whether man can ever comprehend it, live in ( the true spirit of?) it, and whether we can as human beings come to that ?

B: Well, I don't know if ( modern) science - as it is now constituted can say much about that.

K: Science doesn't ( like to) talk about it. But you as a (highly respected?) scientist, would you give your mind to the investigation of that?

B: Yes. And I think that implicitly science has always been concerned with trying to come to this Ground, by studying matter to the greatest possible depth. But of course (consciousness-wise ?) this is not enough.

K: Didn't we ask, sir, if I remember rightly - ( three months?) it's so long ago - as a human being, living in this world, which is in such turmoil, whether there can be ( inwardly created ) that absolute order first, as the universe is in absolute order, and comprehend an order which is universal.

B: Yes...
K: I can have order in myself, ( brought about ) by careful observation & self-investigation, and understand the nature of ( the ongoing) disorder, and the very understanding, the very insight of it dispels that disorder. And that's one level of order.

B: Yes, well, that's the level ( of order) that most of us have been concerned with till now, you see. We say, we see this disorder going on in the world, and in ourselves, and we say it is necessary to be aware, observe all that, to be aware of that and as you say, to 'dispel' it.

K: Yes, but ( at the end of the day?) that's only a very small affair.

B: ( May be so ?) but people generally don't feel it as a small affair. We've discussed it at great length, but at first ( the holistically minded ?) people feel that clearing up the disorder in themselves and the world would be a very big thing. And perhaps all that's necessary.

K: I mean, ( any?) fairly intelligent and knowledgeable and fairly cultured human beings, cultured in the sense 'civilized', can, with a great deal of enquiry and investigation, come to the point when in himself he can bring order.

B: Yes, and some people would say : if only we could bring that order into the whole of society...

K: If all of us ( now present ? ) in this room, if we are all tremendously in that inward sense orderly, we'll perhaps create a new society. But ( inwardly speaking?) that again is a very small affair...

B: I can understand that, but one should go into it more carefully because people commonly don't see it as a 'small affair' , although a few may be seeing that there's something beyond that.

K: Much more beyond that, that's what I mean...

B: Perhaps it might be worthwhile considering why it is not enough to go into this ( holistically friendly?) order of man and society. In what sense is that not enough? You feel it's very small but...

K: I mean, because we live in chaos, to bring order, we think that's a tremendous affair.

B: Yes, that's agreed, it looks very big. From the present state of this, it looks very big.

K: Yes, very enormous, but in itself it isn't.

B: Could you make it a little more clear why it isn't ?

K: Because I can put my (inner?) room in order, so that it gives me a certain ( sense of ) space, certain freedom. Which ( in a nutshell) is : not to have conflict, not to have comparison, not to have any ( self-divisive sense of 'me' and 'you', 'we ' & 'they', which brings about such conflict. That's simple ( to see in the outer world?) If I'm ( inwardly identifying myself as?) a 'Hindu' and you as a 'Muslim', we are (psychologically ?) at war with each other.

B: Yes, but in every other community, people do 'fall apart' in the same way.

K: Yes, the whole society breaks up that way. So if one profoundly realizes ( sees the whole truth about ?) it, that's finished.

B: Yes. Then suppose we say we have achieved that (basic level of inner order?) , then what?

K: That's what I want to get at. I don't know if you are ( really?) interested in this.

B: Yes, but some people might say that it's something so far away that it doesn't interest us - wait till we achieve it before we worry about the 'other'.

K: All right, but this was a dialogue between you and me, not with...

B: Yes, but I meant, just for the sake of trying to make sure that everybody here 'sees' it, before we go on to see what the question ( of Universal Order ) is.

K: All right, sir. If I'm (inwardly living?) in disorder, (physically and/or psychologically) and the society in which I live is also utterly confused, there is a great deal of ( social) injustice - a miserable affair that my generation, ( plus ) past generations, have contributed to. And I can ( start with myself and ) do something ( right?) about it. I'll put my ( inner) house in order - myself is the 'house' - the (inner ) house must be in order before I can move further. If I apply my ( whole?) 'mind and heart' to the resolution of that, it's clearly (possible) . But ( unfortunately?) we find it tremendously difficult, we are so bound to the ( comfortable memory of the ) past - to our habits and to our attitudes – that we don't seem to have the (necessary intelligent) energy, the courage, the vitality, to move out of it.

B: Yes, this is why it doesn't seem to be 'so simple'. Therefore , what exactly will produce this ( highly intelligent ) energy and courage that will change all this ?

K: I think what will change all this, is to have ( a global) insight into all this.

B: Yes, I think that really is the key point, that without ( the inward clarity of) insight, nothing can change.

K: Nothing can change...

B: So even if we try ( really hard?) to bring ( inner ) order in our daily life, without this much broader ( clearly perceptive ? ) 'insight' into the very root of it...

K: That's right. Now, will that insight really alter my whole ( inward) structure and nature of my being ?

B: This is the ( wider) question, because if we look at bringing ( physical) order in my daily life, it will not involve your whole being.

K: No, of course not.

B: And therefore the insight will be inadequate.

K: Yes. So what is (this total?) insight ?

B: Well, just to 'sum it up', would make it more intelligible.

K: Could we start with being ( inwardly attached or ?) 'tied' to a belief, to a person, to an idea, to some habit, some ( personal) experience – which inevitably must create ( psychological) disorder as it implies the ( subliminal attempt to ?) 'escape' from (facing?) one's own loneliness, fear, and all that. Now to have a 'total insight' into this ( subliminal cover-up of one's psychological ?) attachment, that very insight 'clears away' all attachment.

B: Yes... As the ( inward clarity of such an ) insight penetrates into that, it would dispel ( the dark side of?) it, and therefore this problem would vanish.

K: Vanish, that's right.

B: But it still would take a very strong, intense insight. ( In your own words?) a 'total' insight...

K: That's right, but are we willing to go through all that? Or ( the deeper causation of?) my attachment, or my ( psychological) tie to something is so strong, that I'm 'unwilling' to let go ? Unfortunately, it's only 'the very few' who would actually want to do ( or 'go through'?) this kind of thing.
Now, can this ( total) insight dissolve the whole (psychological causation of ) being tied, attached, dependent, lonely - all that 'at one blow' ?
I think it does when there is a profound insight into this ( whole) thing. This insight is a movement which totally different from the mental (activity) of memory, knowledge, experience.

B: Well, it seems that it is an insight into the source of all disorder of psychological nature, not just into attachment or greed.

K: It is ( encompassing?) all that.

B: Yes, so (in the inward light of ) that insight, the mind can clear up and then it would be possible to approach ( wider issues such as ) the Cosmic Order.

K: That's much more interesting than this rather immature (scholastic talk?) - any serious man must ( sooner or later?) put his (inner) house in order. And that must be a complete order, not only in a particular direction, but order in the wholeness ( into the total consciousness?) of man. If that can be done (ASAP) , because society, as it is going on , is quickly disintegrating and it destroys ( the creative individuality of?) human beings. It's a ( time-bound ) 'machine' that is destructive in itself and if a (careless?) human being is caught in it, it destroys him. And realizing (the inward danger of ) that, any ordinary human intelligence says, 'I must do something about it', not just sit back and talk about it.

B: You see, most people feel that 'doing something' about it consists of solving ( in the first place, their) particular problems like attachment or removing ( the causes of) disagreement between people, or something.

K: The resolution of a 'particular' problem, is not ( necessarily) the resolution of the whole.

B: That's the key point that if you find the source that generates this (whole psychological mess?) and getting at it roots is the only way.

K: Yes, that's right.

B: Because if we try to deal with a particular problem, it's still always coming from the same old source.

K: The source is the 'me' ... This little source, the little stream, must dry up.

B: Yes, the little stream confuses itself with the great one, I think.

K: Yes, we're not talking about the great stream (of human consciousness?) , the immense movement of life, we're talking about the little ( self-centred thread?) that is creating disorder. And as long as there is that ( I-me-mine?) centre which is the very essence of disorder, unless that is dissolved there is no ( authentic sense of inward) order.
So ( if???) at that level it is clear, can we go on from there?

B: Yes, I think so.

K: Now, is there another ( inward dimension of?) order totally different from the man-made disorder or ( fake?) 'order' ?

B: Yes... ?

K: I have put my ( inner) house in order. And if perhaps, many of us ( would?) do it, we'll have a better society – and that is relevant, that is necessary, But that ( 'brave new world' ?) order has its own limitations...

B: Yes, and eventually people will get bored with that....

K: Yes. Now, the ( holistically minded) human being who has really deeply understood the (inward nature of the ) disorder made by human beings says, 'Is there an order that's beyond all this?'

B: Yes, and how do we get into that question? Even in the world of science men are seeking the order of the whole universe, looking to the depth of its structure, not just to get useful results but because the question fascinates them.

K: Yes, it interests them, let's put it that way. Perhaps many ( holistically minded?) people have been seeking ( through out the ages?) the 'absolute' and the word 'absolute' means to be free of all limitation, of all dependence, of all imperfection.

B: Yes, but man's search for absolute has been the source of tremendous illusion, since the limited 'self' (-centred consciousness?) seeks to capture the 'absolute'.

K: Of course, that's impossible.

B: But supposing we recognize that the absolute is a very dangerous ( a very slippery?) concept, when the mind tries to grasp it, and yet it seems to necessary in the sense of ( man's inward) freedom, because anything that is dependent in any way is not free.

K: So how do we approach this question of a (transcendental?) order which is beyond all (man-made) order and disorder?

B: Well, I think that the scientist is is not able to say anything on this question because any order discovered by science is relative.

K: Because their own egotism ?

B: Not only that but also because the information we have is limited.

K: Limited, quite.

B: And we can only say it goes so far...

K: So as a ( holistically inclined ?) human being, there is order in my life. That order is naturally brought about through insight and so perhaps it will effect society. Let's move on from that. The enquiry then is, is there an Order which is not man-made ?

B: As of now we have the order of Nature, the Cosmos which we don't really know in its depth but we could consider that ( it points ) to be that sort of Order.

K: Yes. Unless man interferes with it, nature has its own order.

B: Yes, it has its own order and even when we're told this order in nature is part of an universal order.

K: Man has sought a different dimension (of universal Consciousness ?) because he has understood ( the limitations of this temporal) dimension. He has lived in it, he has suffered in it, he has gone through all kinds of mess and misery, he ( finally?) says, 'I've come to the end of all that.' You may say there are very few people who do that, but this ( ultimate existential ?) question must be put.

B: Yes, but what is the significance of this question to the vast number of people who have not gone through that? Is it of any special interest to one who hasn't gone through it?

K: I think it is, because even (if only) intellectually, he may see the (intrinsical) limitations of it.

B: Yes, it's important for him to see ( a possible way out?) even before he has finished up with ( putting order in his inner house) - not to say wait until I clear it up and then...

K: Of course not - that would be too stupid. So how does the mind approach this problem? Does it come about through 'meditation' ?

B: Well, I think that ( the 'ponder over' aspect ) meditation would only have significance for seeing that there is ( an ongoing inner) disorder.

K: I would say that such (inward) measurement can exist only where there is disorder.

B: Yes, just by looking ( objectively) at the way things are out of proportion in the ( self-centred) mind, you can see there is disorder.

K: Yes. So we are using the word 'meditation' not as measure or even to ponder or think over, but a meditation that is the outcome of bringing about order in ( one's inner) house, and moving from there.

B: So then, what is ( happening in this) 'meditation'.

K: First ( of all) the ( meditatively-friendly) mind must be free of ( its time-binding mentality of ) 'measurement'. Otherwise it can't enter into the 'other' ( dimension of Consciousness) .

B: Well, that's an important ( experiential) point, since the first instinctual reaction at seeing ( the ongoing inner ) disorder, is to try to correct it. And ( in the insight based meditation?) this might be a fundamental mistake...

K: We said that all ( mental ?) effort to bring order into disorder is ( sustaining the ongoing) disorder.

B: Yes, and in that way this ( new meditational approach?) is very different from what almost everybody has been saying over the whole of history.

K: I know, I know. We are, perhaps 'exceptional'...

B: There may be a few who implied it but it's never been said explicitly to my knowledge.

K: All right, let's explicitly say it.

B: So we say that it is the 'attempt to control' has no meaning (in the meditational context ) .

K: No ( experientia) meaning, yes.

B: And now if there's no control, what do we do?

K: No, no, no. If I have an insight into the whole nature of ( thought?) control that liberates the mind from that burden.

B: Could you explain the nature of this insight ?

K: We said that 'insight' is not a movement ( originating ) from (the field of one's past) knowledge, from remembrance and all the rest of it, but ( comes with?) the cessation of all that and by looking (non-dualistically?) at the problem with a pure observation, without any (hidden?) motive - to observe this ( interfering) movement of ( thought's) measurement.

B: Yes, I think we can see that this (psychological) 'measurement' is the same as 'becoming' , an attempt of the mind to measure itself, to control itself, to set for itself a goal - is at the very source of disorder.

K: That is the very source of disorder.

B: So, in a way, this was the 'wrong turning', that man extended measurement from the external sphere into the (inward) sphere of the mind.

K: Yes.

B: But the first reaction would be ''if we don't control this thing it will go wild''. That's what someone ( more thoughtful?) might fear.

K: Yes, but you see, if I have an insight into ( the intrinsical limitations of this psychological) measurement, that very insight not only banishes all (subjective) movement of measurement, but there is a different ( holistic quality of inward?) order.

B: Yes, so the mind does not 'go wild 'because it has begun ( a new movement ) in order. In fact, the attempt to 'measure' it that makes it 'go wild'.

K: Yes, that's it. The measurement is ( generating inner ) confusion.

Now let's proceed : can this mind in 'Meditation' find an (inward) state where there is 'something' which is not man-made ?

B: Well, the 'man-made' things, what are they?

K: Everything : worship, prayers, anxieties, sorrow, attachment, detachment, loneliness and suffering and confusion and ache and anxiety & all that. Those are all man-made. And so many people have put this question, obviously, must have. And therefore they say (the 'other' dimension is?) God.

B: Yes...

K: Which is ( becoming ) another (mental) concept, and that very concept creates disorder.

B: Well, that's clear that man has invented (the ultimate concept of) 'God' and given him the power of the absolute.

K: Yes, quite.

B: Which is ( a 'greater than life' image of of) himself and which dominates him.

K: Now, one has finished with all that. Now then our ( next experiential) question is, is there something beyond all this, which is never touched by human thought, ( by the self-centred) mind?

B: Now, that makes a difficult point, since ( the powers of the human) mind might go beyond thought.

K: That's what I meant - yes.

B: Then do you mean by the 'mind' only thought, feeling, desire, will, or something much more?

K: For the time being, as long as the human mind is caught in that, it is limited.

B: Yes, but the human mind has ( a far higher) potential.

K: Tremendous potential.

B: Which it does not realize now, being caught in ( its personal entanglements in self-centred) thought, feeling, desire, will (power) & and that sort of thing.

K: That's right.

B: Then we'll say that ( holistic dimension of human consciousness?) which is beyond this is not touched by this ( self-) limited mind ?

K: Yes. ( silent pause)

B: Now what will we mean by the Mind which is beyond this limit?

K: First of all, sir, is there such a mind? Not theoretically or romantically, all the rest of that nonsense, but to actually say, 'I've been through this'?
(Mr) 'X' says, ' I have seen the limitation of all this, I have been through it, and I have come to the end of it.' And this mind, having come to the end of ( its self-centredness?) , is no longer the limited mind. And (beyond it?) is there an (Universal?) Mind which is totally limitless?

B: Now, that raises the question of how the brain is able to be in contact with that Mind ?

K: I'm coming to that. First of all, I want to be clear on this point, it's rather (academically?) interesting, if we go into it. The ( trans-personal human ) mind includes the emotions, the brain, the reactions, physical responses and all that, and this mind has lived in turmoil, in chaos, in loneliness and has understood, has had a profound insight into all that. And having such a deep insight cleared the whole field. This ( inwardly -free?) mind is no longer that mind.

B: Yes, it's no longer the self-limited mind.

K: ( The 'psychologically ) damaged' mind. Let's use that word 'damaged'.

B: This ( psychologically) 'damaged' mind has also damaged the brain.

K: Yes, all right...

B: So we have ( the self-centred process resulting from) the damaged mind...

K: Damaged mind means damaged emotions, damaged brain, damaged...

B: The cells themselves are not in the right order.

K: Quite. But when there is this ( sudden inner clarity of) insight and therefore order, the damage is undone.

B: Yes. We discussed that....

K: I don't know it you would even agree to that...

B: Yes, by reasoning you can see that it is quite possible, because you can say the damage was done by disorderly thoughts and feelings, which over-excite the cells and disrupt them and now with the insight, that stops and a new process...

K: Yes, it's like a person going ( blindly?) for fifty years in a certain direction and realizes suddenly that that's not the direction, the whole brain changes.

B: It changes at the core and then the wrong structure is dismantled and healed, ( except that all this healing process ) may take ( some physical) time.

K: That's right.

B: But the insight which...

K:... is the factor that (triggers the inward ) changes.

B: Yes, that ( flash of?) insight does not take time. So it means that the whole process has changed at the origin.

K: So, that limited mind with all its ( self-centred) consciousness and its content & all the rest of it, it's over. Now is that mind which has been limited, and having had insight into this limitation, and therefore moved away from that limitation, is something that is really tremendously revolutionary? You follow? And therefore it is no longer the ( same ) human mind with its ( egocentric) consciousness, which is limited. That is ended.

B: Yes, so that is the 'general' human consciousness which has been all round.

K: Of course not, I'm not talking of the (self-centred) individual mind, that's too silly.

B: Yes. I think we discussed before that the 'individual' mind is the outcome of the general Consciousness of mankind ? A particular outcome, rather than an independent thing. You see, that's one of the difficulties.

K: That's one of the confusions.

B: The confusion is we take the (self-identified) 'individual' mind to be the concrete actuality. So, it's necessary to consider this 'general' human mind to be the actuality from which the 'individualised' ( particular) mind is formed.

K: Yes. That's all very clear.

B: But now you are saying we move away even from that 'general' (human) mind, but what does it mean?

K: If one has totally moved away from it, then what is the Mind?

B: Yes, and what is the person, what is the human being then ?

K: And then what is the relationship between this Mind, which is not man-made, and the man-made mind? I don't know if I'm making myself clear...

B: Well, didn't we agree to call it 'Universal Mind', or would you prefer not to?

K: I don't like the term 'universal mind', (since ) lots of other people used it. Let's use a much 'simpler' word. A ''mind that is not made by man''.

B: Neither individually nor in general.

K:( A consciousness which is ?) 'not made by man'. Sir, can one observe (inwardly & ) deeply : does such a ( transcendental dimension of ?) mind exist?

B: Yes, let's see what that means to 'observe' That. I think there are some difficulties of language here, because for instance 'Who' observes ? is one of the ( wide-spread ) questions that comes up.

K: We've been through all that (before) . There is no ( dualistic) division in observation. Not, 'I' observe, but there is only observation.

B: Does the particular brain takes part in this observation?

K: No, sir, it doesn't take place in a particular brain. It is not K's brain.

B: I don't mean that, what I mean by the word particular brain, you see, we could say that given the particulars of where a certain human being is in space and time or whatever his form is, not giving him a name, is distinguished from another one which might be here or there.

K: Look, sir, let's get clear on this point. We live in a man-made world, ( with a ) man-made ( interfacing) mind, and all that, we are the result of man-made mind - our brains and so on. Now, can the ( holistically friendly) mind uncondition itself so completely that it's no longer 'man-made'?

B: Yes, that's the ( apparently impossible ?) question...

K: That is the question - can the 'man-made' mind as it is now, can it get to that ( transpersonal) extent, to completely liberate itself from 'itself' ?

B: That's a somewhat 'paradoxical' statement...

K: Of course. ( Sounds) paradoxical but it's actual, it is so.
One can ( easily ?) observe that the ( general) consciousness of humanity 'is' ( undissociated from) its ( psychological ) content- of loneliness, sorrow, anxiety, fear, and all the rest of it. Having had an insight into ( the 'reality' of this content) , it has cleansed itself from that.

B: Well, that implies that it was always potentially more than that but that insight enabled it to be free of its (psychological burden ?) . Is that what you mean?

K: That insight... I won't say it is 'potential'.

B: Well, there is a little difficulty of language ; if you say the brain or the mind had an insight into its own conditioning and then almost you're saying it became something else.

K: Yes, I am saying it- this insight transforms the man-made mind.

B: So then it's no longer the 'man-made' mind ?

K: It's no longer. That ( holistic?) insight means the wiping away of all the content of consciousness. Right? Not bit by bit, but the totality of it.
And that ( inward flash of?) insight is not the result of man's endeavour.

B: Yes, but this seems to raise the ( metaphysical) question ''Where does it come from ?''

K: . Where does it come from? ( It occurs?) in the Mind itself.

B: Which 'mind'?

K: Mind, I'm saying the whole of it.

B: We're saying there is ( an Universal?) Mind, right?

K: It's rather interesting, let's go slowly. The ( 'as is' human mind or ) 'consciousness' is man-made, general and particular. And as one sees the limitations of it, the ( intelligent energy of the?) mind comes to a point when it says, 'Can all this be wiped away at one breath, one blow, one movement ?' And that is the movement of insight. It is still in the ( energy field of the human) mind. But not born of that ( part of human ) consciousness ( generally dominated by self-interest?) . I don't know if I'm making myself clear...

B: So, you are saying that the ( transpersonal human ) mind has the potential of moving beyond ( brain's time-bound ) consciousness ?

K: Yes.

B: But we haven't actually ( got to access ) other part ?

K: Of course. It must be a part of the ( original consciousness of the human?) brain, a part of the Mind.

B: So, the human mind & brain can do that, but it hasn't , generally speaking, done it ?

K: Yes. Now, having ( seen & ) done all this, is there a (more universal dimension of the ) mind which the man-made mind cannot conceive or create - is there such a mind?

B: I think you are saying that once the human mind has freed itself from the general and particular structure of consciousness of mankind (dominated by self-interest) from its limits, and now this (transpersonal) 'mind' is now much greater. Now you say that this mind is raising a new question ?

K: This mind is raising the question.

B: Which is what?

K: First of all , is one's mind free from the (time-binding limitations of the ) 'man-made' mind?

B: Yes... ?

K: That's the first question.

B: Although...it may be a (self-created?) illusion.

K: Illusion - that's why one has to be very clear. No, (for Mr X?) it is not an illusion, because he sees measurement is an illusion, he knows the nature of illusion, born of where there is desire there must be etc., illusions. He's not only understood it, he's over it.

B: He's free of desire.

K: Free of desire. That is the nature (of the time-binding consciousness ) . I don't want to put it so brutally. Free of desire.

B: But it is still full of ( intelligent?) energy.

K: Yes. So this mind, which is no longer general and particular, and therefore not limited, ( the limitation has been broken down through insight) and therefore the mind is no longer the same conditioned mind. Now, then what is that mind?

B: This is raising a question about whether there is something (a Mind which is) much greater ?

K: Yes. Is there a Mind which is not man-made? And if there is, what is its relationship to the 'man-made' mind?

B: Yes...

K: This is ( becoming) very difficult. It is half past twelve, do we go on?

B: If you feel like it...

K: I can go up to a quarter to one.

B: Quarter to one, yes that's good, yes...

K: You see every form of verbal statement is not That. Right? So we're asking (non-verbally?) is there a Mind which is not man-made ? I think this ( transcendental question?) can only be asked when the ( self-interest created ?) limitations are ended, otherwise it's just a foolish question. I mean, that becomes theoretical....

B: Part of the man-made structure ?

K: Of course, of course. So one must be absolutely free of all this. Then only can one put that question ; is there a Mind that is not man-made, and if there is such a Mind, what is its relationship to the 'man-made' mind ? Now, is there such a Mind, first. Of course there is. Without being dogmatic or personal, there is. But it is not ( to be interpreted as?) 'God' ...

B: Because 'God' is part of the man-made structure ?

K: Which has created chaos in the world. So, there is such an (Universal ) . Then, if there is such a Mind, what is the relationship of That Mind to the 'man-made' mind?

B: To the general human mind?

K: To the particular and general. Has it any relationship?

B: Yes, this question's a difficult one because you could say that the man-made mind is pervaded with illusion, most of its ( psychological) content is not real.

K: No. So this is Real.

B: Actual ?

K: We'll use the word 'real' in the sense 'actual' - has This any relationship to that? Obviously not.

B: Well, I would say it has a superficial one in the sense that the man-made mind has some real content at a certain level, a technical level, so in that sense in that ( transpersonal) area there could be a relationship but as you were saying that is a very small area. But fundamentally...

K: No, the man-made mind has no ( 2-way interacting?) relationship to That.
But That has a relationship to this.

B: Yes, but not to the (ongoing?) illusions in the man-made mind.

K: Let's be clear. The man-made mind has got illusions, desires and all the rest of it. And there is that other ( dimension of Universal?) Mind which is beyond all limitations. This illusory mind, the man-made mind, is always (subliminally?) seeking ( endeavouring to reach ? ) That.

B: Yes, that's its main trouble.

K: Yes, that's its main trouble and therefore it's creating more and more mischief, confusion. This 'man-made' mind has no relationship to That.

B: Yes, because any ( 'self–centred' ?) attempt to get to That, is ( a potential ?) source of illusion ?

K: Of course, obviously. Now, has That any (working ?) relationship to this ('man-made' consciousness?)

B: Well, what I was suggesting is that it would have to have, but if we take account of the illusions which are in the mind such as (those caused by?) desire and fear and so on, it has no relationship to That. However That ( Compassionate Intelligence?) can have an (educational?) relationship to the 'man-made' mind in (helping it to) understanding its ( self-centred) structure.

K: Are you saying, sir, that this Mind has an (interacting ?) relationship to the human mind the moment it's moving away from the limitations?

B: Yes, if in understanding those limitations it moves away .

K: Yes, moves away. Then 'That' has a relationship.

B: Then it has a genuine relationship to what this limited mind actually 'is', not to the ( self-created?) illusions as to what it thinks it is.

K: Let's be clear.

B: Well, it has to be related to as it were, to the source, to the true nature of the 'man-made' mind, which is behind the illusion.

K: Yes, which is its ( original?) nature ?

B: Yes.

K: Therefore how can That (Mind) have a relationship to this (mind?) , even basically?

B: The only relationship is in 'understanding its (true nature?) , so that some ( intelligent '2-way' ?) communication would be possible.

K: I'm questioning it, just to 'push it' a little deeper … What is the actual relationship of ( Selfless?) Love to ( the sensate 'love' generating ) jealousy? It has none .

B: Not to 'jealousy' itself, no, which is an illusion, but to the human being who is jealous, there may be.

K: Love and hatred have no relationship to each other.

B: No, not really...

K: None, not 'not really'.

B: But ( couldn't the 'man-made' mind endeavour to ) understand the origin of its hatred ?

K: Ah, it might - yes, yes...

B: In that sense I would think, there is a relationship.

K: I see, you're saying, ( the intelligence of?) love can understand the origin of hatred and how hatred arises and all the rest of it. Does love understand that?

B: Well, I think in some sense that it can understand the origin ( of resentment & hatred) in the 'man-made' mind, and moves away...

K: Are we saying, sir, that ( the holistic intelligence of?) love, has a relationship to 'non-love' (to the 'loveless' human mind ?) ?

B: Only in the sense of dissolving it.

K: We must be awfully careful here. Is it that in the ( 'natural) ending' of hatred, the 'Other' is ( making itself felt?) ?

B: Well, then we'll have to ask how it gets started, you see ?

K: That's very simple (to explain verbally?) .

B: But what if we have ( a 'mind & heart' stuck in the divisive mentality of ?) hatred ?

K: Suppose I have ( a reaction of?) hatred. I can see the ( immediate ) origin of it. Because you have insulted me.

B: Well that's a 'superficial' origin ? Why does one behave so irrationally is the deeper origin. You see, if you merely insult me, ( any rational person could ) say ''why should you respond to the insult ?''.

K: Because all my ( ages old) conditioning is (getting involved in) that.

B: Yes, that's what I mean by understanding the ( actual) 'origin' of hatred...

K: I understand that, but does ( the natural intelligence of?) love help me to understand the origin of hatred?

B: ( It can help one to ) understand its deeper origin and moving away.

K: Moving away...

B: Yes.

K: Then the 'Other' is. But the ( Compassionate Intelligence of the?) Other cannot help the 'movement away' ( cannot do it for you ?)

B: No, let's put it this way : one human being has this ( intelligence of selfless ) love and the other has not - can't the first one communicate something which will start (trigger) the ( hatred) movement in the second one?

K: That means, A can influence B ?

B: Not influence but one could raise the question for example, ( otherwise?) why should anybody be talking about any of this.

K: That's a different ( meta-physical) matter - is ( the collective momentum of frustration, resentment and/or ) 'hate' dispelled by (the Compassionate Intelligence of?) Love ? Or in the (non-dualistic ) understanding of hatred and the ending of it, the Other is.

B: That's right, but now, if we say that A has reached That (Compassionate Intelligence?) and he sees B... What is he going to do, you see, that's the (deeper existential) question.

K: Just a minute, sir. ( Suppose that ) my wife 'loves' and I 'hate'. She can talk to me, she can point it out to me the unreasonable (aspects of hatred) and so on, but her love is not going to transform ('vaporise'?) the ( inward) source of my hatred.

B: That's clear, yes, except that love is the ( inspirational) energy which will be behind the talk. The (intelligence of?) 'love' itself doesn't 'go in there' (& clean it up for you?) .

K: Of course - that's 'romantic' and all that business. So ( the ball is on the consciousness field?) of the man who hates, and having an insight and ending the causation of it, the 'movement' of it, has ( gained free access to?) the Other.

B: Yes, we're saying that if A ( Mr 'X'?) is the man who has seen all this and he now has the energy to put it to B - it's up to B what happens...

K: Of course. I think we had better pursue this (rather delicate issue next time)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Apr 2020 #27
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

TWELVE

Krishnamurti: We were saying the other day that a ( holistically minded ?) human being, who has worked his way through all the problems of life, both physical and psychological, and has really grasped the full significance of freedom from psychological memories and conflicts and travails, one comes to the point where the mind finds itself free but it hasn't gathered that supremely ( intelligent & compassionate ?) energy to 'go beyond' itself. Can we go on from there?

Bohm: If you like, yes.

K: Can the human 'mind & brain', the whole psychological structure, ever be free from all ( sense of inner) conflict & from all shadow of any ( psychological ) disturbance?

B: Self-( created?) disturbance ?

K: Self-disturbance, and all that. Can it ever be free? Or the idea of ( complete spiritual ) freedom is an illusion ?

B: Yes, well, that's one possibility. Some ( materialistically minded ? ) people would say we could have only a 'partial freedom'.

K: Yes, partial freedom. Or ( assert that the ) human condition is so determined by the past, by its own conditioning, it can never free itself from it, like some of those 'intellectual philosophers' have stated this.

B: Well, some people may feel that this is the case.

K: But the deeply non-sectarian 'religious' ( holistically minded?) people have said it can be done.

B: Well, many of them said it is done through reincarnation.

K: Yes.

B: But in addition, that group say it will take a very long time.

K: Yes, they say it will take a very long time. You must go through various lives, going through all kinds of (personal joys & ) miseries and ultimately you come to That. But ( here?) we are not thinking in terms of time. We're asking, whether a ( holistically minded ?) human being, knowing that he is ( seriously ) conditioned can ever free itself ? And if he does, what is ( there to be found?) beyond? That's what we were coming to.
As we said the other day, our ( time-bound) minds are 'man-made'. And is there a mind which is not 'man-made'? It is possible that it can free itself from its own 'man-made' mechanical mind.

B: I think there's a ( logical ?) tangle there, ( if we just assume that?) the human mind is totally 'man-made', totally conditioned, then how can it 'get out' of it ( or 'break free '?) ? On the other hand, if we would say that it has at least the (potential or the ) 'possibility' of something beyond...

K: Then it ( would) becomes a reward, a temptation, a 'thing to be'...

B: There seems to be some (logical) inconsistency when you are saying that the mind is totally conditioned and yet...it's going to get out. I'm not saying it 'is' inconsistent but ( to any objective outlooker?) it may appear to be inconsistent.

K: I understand that, but if one admits ( or takes for granted ?) that there is a part ( of his consciousness?) which is not conditioned, then we enter into quite another...

B: ... kind of inconsistency ?

K: Yes, into another ( experiential) inconsistency. However, in our previous discussions, we've said , that ( even if ) the ( present condition of the human?) mind is one of being deeply conditioned, it can free itself through ( having a total) Insight (into the nature of this conditioning) - that is the real ( experiential) clue to this. Would you agree to that?

B: Yes...

K: We went into what is this (total) 'insight', what is the nature of it ; and can that insight uncondition the mind completely, wipe away all the illusions, all the ( selfish?) desires and so on, can that insight completely 'wipe it out'? Or is it just partial?

B: Well, I think the first point we should look at - since the human mind is not static - when one says it's 'totally conditioned' it suggests a ( rigid psychological condition ) which would never change.

K: Yes...

B: Now, if we say the mind is always in movement, then, even if it seems impossible to say what it is at this very moment, we could say it has not been totally conditioned.

K: It is in movement, but the movement is ( confined ) within a boundary ( within the field of the 'known' ?)

B: It's within a border, yes.

K: And this ( 'self'-centred) field ( of the 'known '?) can expand or contract, but the boundary is very, very limited.

B: Yes. But then, how can this whole ( self-centred) structure 'die away' ? You see, if we ( make any ) move within that structure, we stay within the same boundary.

K: Now, it is always moving within that limitation. Can it 'die away' from that?

B: That's the key point : this ('dying away' is ) another kind of movement, in another dimension (of consciousness?)

K: We say it is possible through 'insight', which is a totally different kind of 'movement'.

B: Yes, and then we say that this ( inwardly enlightening ?) movement does not originate in the individual, nor in the general mind.

K: Quite right, yes. That's what we discussed the other day. It is not an insight of a particular, or of the general ( time-bound mind) . Are we then stating something quite 'outrageous' ?

B: Yes, I think that ( this concept ?) violates most of the ordinary logic that people have been using, that either the particular or the general mind should be able to deal with everything.

K: Yes.

B: Now if you're saying there's 'something' beyond both, this is already a question which has not been ( scientifically?) stated. And I think it has a great importance.

K: How do we then 'state' it, or how do we 'come to it' ? Can we have a 'conversation' about it using your expertise, your scientific brain , with this ( K) man who is not all that ?
( For starters?) Can we have a conversation to find out if the 'general mind ' and the 'particular mind' are not divided at all ? Then if we don't (make) that (artificial division?) , what is there?

B: Well, we did discuss I think in California about the Ground (of All Being ?) . We were saying that the 'particular & general' mind 'dies' ( returning into the ) Universal mind or into to the (inward) emptiness, then ultimately ( even) this Universal Mind 'dies' (& returns?) into that Ground .

K: That's right, we discussed that...

B: I think that's the kind of 'lead' in ...

K: Would an ordinary fairly intelligent person, agree or see (the inward truth of?) all this?

B: I'm not sure...If it were just 'thrown at him', he would reject it as nonsense - it would probably require a very careful presentation and (hopefully?) some people might see ( the inward truth of?) it. But if you just say it to anybody they would say, ''Whoever heard of that ?''....

K: So where are we now? We are neither in the 'particular' nor in the 'general' (dimension of human consciousness?)

B: Yes, ( not caught in) the constant movement of thought between the 'particular' and the 'general' (areas of human existence) . As I said, ordinarily thought is (getting) caught on one side or the other.

K: That's the whole point, isn't it? That the general and the particular are in the same area, in the same field (of the 'known') . And thought is the ( mental) movement between the two.

B: Yes...

K: Or thought has created both ?

B: Yes, it has created both and it 'moves between' within that area (of its past knowledge)

K: Yes, in that area (of the 'known') . And it has been doing this for millennia...

B: Yes, and most people feel that's all it could do.

K: All it can do. Now, we say, we are saying, that when this (perpetual?) movement ( of thought within the field of the known?) comes to an end, ( its ?) 'time' comes to an end...

B: We should go more slowly here, because it's quite a jump going from 'thought' to 'time'....

K: Right. Let's see.... thought is ( a mental movement within the 'known' ?) ...

B: Yes, and doing that it has created ( its own continuity in ?) time, which is part of the 'general' and the 'particular' mind - there is a particular time and also a general time.

K: Yes, thought ( itself) 'is' time...

B: Yes. Thought has a ( past memory) content (resulting from our species evolution in) time, and besides that, thought is ( generating its own continuity ?) in time, moving from the past into the (self-projected ) future. Right?

K: ( in a nutshell?) Thought is the outcome of time.

B: Does this mean that time exists beyond thought? If you say thought is based on time, then time is more fundamental than thought - is that what you want to say?

K: Yes.

B: So we have to go into that. You could say that time is something which was there before thought, or at least ( has started clicking?) at the origin of thought.

K: Time is ( implicit) whenever there is the accumulation of knowledge. I act and learn . That action is ( not necessarily?) based not on my previous knowledge, but I do something, and in the doing I learn (gather practical knowledge)

B: Yes, and that learning is registered (as life experience) in the memory.

K: In the memory and so on. So is not thought essentially the movement of time?

B: Well, we'll first have to see in what sense is this (accumulative process of) learning ( is generating its own ) movement of time. You can say, when we learn something it is registered , and then ( the learned experience) operates ( as practical knowledge in ? ) the next experience ?

K: Yes. The ( recorded memory of the?) past is always moving to ( guide & control ? ) the present.

B: Yes...

K: All the time !

B: Yes, and con-fusing with the 'present'. And the two together are again registered as the next ( updated ) experience.

K: So are we saying that 'time' is not different from (the memory based process of ) 'thought', or ( in 'experiential' shorthand : ?) ''time 'is' thought''.

B: Yes, well, this movement of learning and the response of memory into experience and then re-registering, we say that is ( a mental proces which is taking place in ) time, and that is also ( a basic process of) thought.

K: Yes ; Is there a Time apart from thought?

B: Well, that's another question. Wouldn't you say that in the material order of the Universe, Time has a significance apart from thought?

K: Physically, yes...

B: Right. So here we're talking ( only about the 'psychological' significance) of time ?

K: As long as there is an accumulation (of self-centred ) knowledge, as the 'me' and so on, there is (a mental projection of ?) psychological time.

B: Yes, then we ( can generalise and?) say that wherever there is accumulation there is time.

K: Yes, that's the ( universal?) point. Wherever there is ( any material?) accumulation there is time.

B: Then, supposing there is no accumulation ( of 'psychogical' memory), then what?

K: Then - that's the whole ( experiential) point - there is no ( sense of ?) time. As long as I am accumulating, gathering, becoming, there is the process of time ; but if there is no (such) gathering, no becoming, no accumulation, does the 'psychological' time exist?

B: Well, probably you could say even the physical time must depend on some kind of physical accumulation.

K: Of course, but that's quite a different matter.

B: That ( reality of) chronological we are not denying - we're denying the ( inward ) significance of the psychological accumulation.

K: That's right. So ( the self-centred ) thinking is the outcome of psychological accumulation, and that accumulation gives it a sense of continuity, which is ( the 'psychological' ) time.

B: Well, it seems (a self-sustained?) movement : whatever has been accumulated is responding to the ( challenges of the ) present, with the projection of the future, and then that is again registered. Now the accumulation of all that's registered is in the (linear) 'order of time', I mean, ( last time) , this time, the next time and all that...( mentally recycled continuity of 'yesterday-today-tomorrow'?)

K: That's right. So (in a holistic nutshell ?) we're saying : 'thought is time'.

B: Yes, or 'time is thought' ?

K: One way or the other.

B: So, the movement of that ( memory) accumulation is psychological time, but that's also ( the basic process of?) thought. Right ? The two words mean the same thing

K: So psychological accumulation is (generated the self-centred activity of ? ) thought and (its continuity in?) time.

B: Yes, we're saying that we happen to have two words when really we only need one.

K: One ( compounded?) word ('thought-time') That's right.

B: But because we have two words we look for two different things.

K: Yes. There is only one ( basic self-sustained ?) movement, which is 'time & thought', or 'time + thought', or 'time-thought'. Now can the human mind which has moved for millennia in that area, all the time, free itself from that?

B: Yes, now why is the mind bound up? Let's see exactly what's holding the mind ( tethered within the field of the known?)

K: ( Survival oriented?) Accumulation.

B: Yes, but why does the mind continue to accumulate?

K: Because in ( the survivalistic momentum of ?) accumulation there is security - apparent security.

B: I think this needs a little discussion - in a certain area that is even true, that the accumulation of physical food may provide a certain kind of ( temporal) security (see the 'Brexit survival kit'?)

K: Of course.

B: And then since no distinction was made between the outer and the inner, there was the feeling that one could accumulate inwardly either experiences or some knowledge of what to do.

K: Are we saying the outward necessity of physical accumulation for security is necessary, but that same ( survivalistic?) urge moves into the psychological field ?

B: Yes.

K: There you accumulate hoping to be ( forever?) secure.

B: Yes, inwardly hoping to accumulate present memories, or relationships, or other things you could count on, principles you could count on.

K: So ( the obvious goal of any?) psychological accumulation is safety, protection, security.

B: The illusion of it, anyway.

K: All right, the illusion of security and in this (safe inward field of real facts & ) illusion it has lived (or just... survived, for many millenia?) .

B: Yes, so it does seem that man's first ( honest?) mistake was that he never understood the ( subtle?) distinction between what he has to do outside and what he has to do inside, right?

K: Yes, we said that. It is the same ( survival oriented ?) movement, outer and inner.

B: But now man carried the movement, that procedure which was right outwardly he carried inwardly, without knowing, perhaps entirely ignorant, not knowing that that would make ( a major existential?) trouble.

K: So where are we now? (The holistically minded?) human being, have come to the point when he says, 'Can I really be free from this (false security of ) this psychological (illusory inner process of?) thought and time?' Is that possible?

B: Well, if we see where it had this origin, then it should be possible to dismantle it, but if ( we take for granted that) it is built into us, nothing could be done.

K: Of course it is not 'built into us'...

B: Yes, although most people act as though they believe it was...

K: Of course, that's absurd...

B: So, if it's not (genetically?) built into us (we said it was built up in the first place through time) , then the possibility exists for us to change.
I think that's one of the difficulties of people who ( think in terms of temporal) evolution : they 'hope' to get out of this static boundary, but they don't realize that (thinking inwardly in terms of?) evolution is the very means by which this (mind) trap was made.

K: Yes. So I have (finally?) come to the point where I'm fully aware of the nature of this, and my next question is: can this mind move away from this (fake safety of that?) field altogether, and enter, into a totally different dimension? And, as we said (repeatedly?) , the ( 'stepping out' of ?) it can only happen when there is ( the inner clarity of) insight.

B: Yes, and it seems that ( a total) insight arises when one questions this whole thing very deeply.

K: The whole thing – yes.... Now having had ( the enlightening ) insight into this and seen its limitation and therefore go beyond it, what is there ( to be found?) beyond?

B: I think it's very difficult to even bring this into words, and some ( thoughtful?) people might feel we should leave this entirely non-verbal.

K: Can we say ( use the universal disclaimer ?) ''the word is not the thing'' ?
Whatever the description is not the real, is not the truth. Now, realising that, then what is there beyond all this ? Can my mind be so desire-less, so it won't create an illusion, something beyond?

B: Yes, well, then that's a question of desire, you see desire must be in this time process.

K: Of course, desire is ( the active factor of psychological ?) time.

B: Yes, there are very subtle forms of desire, as well as the obvious forms...

K: Sir, after all, 'being & becoming' is based on ( thought sustained) desire.

B: Yes. They are one and the same, really.

K: Yes, one and the same. Now, when one has an (enlightening?) insight into that whole movement of ( thought-sustained ) desire, and its capacity to create illusion... it's finished.

B: Well, since this is a very crucial point, we should try to say a little more about desire, how it's intrinsic in this accumulating process. One thing you could say is that as you accumulate there comes a sense of something ( more) missing.

K: Of course.

B: I mean, you feel you should have more, something to complete it, right. Whatever ( fortune?) you have accumulated is not 'complete'.

K: So, could we go into the question of ( psychological) 'becoming' first, and then see how desire comes into it. Why is it that all human beings right through the world have this urge to become? Outwardly I understand that, simple enough.

B: Well, we have to become stronger and stronger.

K: Physically develop your muscle and...

B: Yes, your language (skills) , your logic...

K: And so, ( be able to get) a better job, more comfort and so on. But inwardly, why is there this need in the human mind of trying to become 'enlightened' - let's use that word for the moment - trying inwardly to become better ?

B: Well, there must be a sense of dissatisfaction with what's in there already, that's one thing. A ( 'becoming'?) person feels he would like his life to be complete. You see suppose for example he has accumulated lots of memories of pleasure, but as these memories are no longer adequate, he feels something more is needed.

K: Is that it?

B: Well, eventually he feels that he must have the whole, the ultimate (spiritual experience) .

K: I'm not at all sure whether the ( desire for) 'more' is not the real thorn.

B: The word 'more' is just implicit in the whole meaning of the word 'accumulate' : if you're accumulating you have to be accumulating more, there's no other way to do it.

K: So why is there this seed (of greed?) in the human mind ?

B: Well, he didn't see that this (wanting) 'more' is wrong, inwardly. Right? If he started outwardly to use the term 'more', then he carried it inward, and for some reason he didn't see how destructive it was.

K: Why? Why have fairly intelligent philosophers and religious people who have spent a great part of their life in 'achieving', why haven't they seen this very simple fact that where there is accumulation there must be ( the greed for?) more.

B: Well, they've probably seen that but they don't see any harm in it.

K: I'm not sure they see it...

B: During the nineteenth (as well as in the 20-th & 21-the ?) century it was the century of progress - improving all the time. So they felt inwardly too that man should also improve himself inwardly (to keep pace with the technological advances of his time?)

K: But why haven't they ever questioned this?

B: Well, what would make them 'question' this whole idea of progress ?

K: Obviously this constant (existential weariness involved in the ?) struggle for the more.

B: But they thought that was necessary for progress.

K: But is that progress?

B: Well, can we make it clear, suppose you had to answer one of the nineteenth century 'optimists', that man is progressing all the time, to be better inwardly as well as outwardly.

K: Yes, let us admit outwardly...Is it that the outward urge to be better moved into the psychological realm?

B: Yes. Now, can we make it clear why it does harm in the 'psychological' realm.

K: What is the harm in accumulating (lots of things) 'psychologically'? Oh yes, it brings about a ( subliminal attitude of) division between 'you' and 'me', and so on.

B: Could we make that more clear, because it is a crucial point.

K: ( Suppose that ) I have accumulated psychologically as a Hindu, and another has accumulated as a Muslim.

B: There are thousands of such divisions.

K: Thousands of divisions. Therefore (the psychological?) accumulation in its very nature divides people. In ( this subjective) accumulation man has sought ( to achieve a long term) psychological security, but ( identifying inwardly with?) that security is the (acting) factor of human division.

B: Yes, any attempt to accumulate will divide. Karl Marx has said that it was this accumulation of capital by some people which divided them from other people, that started tremendous ( social) conflicts.

K: So, that's why human beings have accumulated, not realizing its consequences. But realizing ( the psychological damages created by this very old habit ?) , is it possible not to accumulate?

B: Yes...

K: I mean, that's something tremendous.

B: Yes, because it seems the human mind automatically accumulates.

K: I know. Why? For the very clear and simple reason, in accumulation, inwardly as well as outwardly, if feels more secure.

B: Yes. Well perhaps you could say that having got on into this ( psychological) trap it becomes very hard for the mind to get out, because the mind is ( hetting personally involved ) in this process of accumulation and it becomes very hard to see anything else .

K: Yes, suppose my mind is filled with this process of 'occupation', which is ( gathering, processing & updating its?) psychological knowledge - can it end?

B: Yes, but only if the ( natural intelligence of this ) mind will get to the root of it.

K: Of course it can, which is ( to see the truth regarding ) this (wide-spread) illusion that in accumulation there is security.

B: Well, by now, one can see this as a ( road–map of holistic meditation ?) for this whole process (of ending psychological time?) . But then, the ( practical aspect of the?) question is that even if you have a 'map' you must now be able to look at the ( actual) country.

K: Yes. When you are ( stuck in) looking at the map you don't see the country.

B: The map may be useful but it's not quite enough. Right?

K: Quite.

B: So, we were saying, that ( the momentum of thought-sustained ?) desire is what keeps people going ?

K: Not only desire but this deep-rooted instinct (of the brain ?) to accumulate (anything, indiscriminately)

B: Like the squirrel ?

K: Like the squirrel, yes. For the future, for safety. That (survivalistic instinct ) and 'desire' go together. Right?

B: Well, it builds up into a more intense desire.

K: So, (in a holistic nutshell:) 'desire plus accumulation' is the factor of division, conflict and all the rest of it. Now, I'm asking : can that ( momentum?) end. If it ends through an action of will (-power ?) , or because of ( trying to avoid ) punishment or ( obtain an inwardly gratifying?) reward, it's still the same thing. So the (holistically thoughtful?) mind sees this ('thought-time' trap?) and puts all that aside. Right? But does the mind become free of ( karmic?) accumulation?

B: Yes...