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

K The essential Texts

Displaying posts 31 - 39 of 39 in total
Sat, 18 Apr 2020 #31
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

(excerpts from David Bohm's introduction to the dialogues 16 & 17 held in 1983

These last two dialogues took place three years after the series of fifteen dialogues between Krishnamurti and myself and were inevitably profoundly affected by what had been done in these earlier dialogues. In a certain sense, they deal with closely related questions. Of course, "The Ending of Time" could go into these questions in a more thorough and extensive way, but nevertheless, even these ( last dialogues ) can provide important additional insights into these problems.

The starting ( question ?) for these discussions was the question: "What is the future of humanity?" which is by now of vital concern to everyone and it soon became clear that the origin of the ( present ?) situation is (to be found) in the generally confused ( self-centred ?) mentality of mankind, which has not changed basically throughout the whole of recorded history and probably for much longer than this. Evidently, it was essential to inquire deeply into the root of this ( psychological) difficulty if there is ever to be a possibility that ( the global evolution of?) humanity will be diverted from its present (ambiguous & ?) dangerous course. (...) As Mr Krishnamurti points out, the 'psychological' time, or '( self-centred) becoming' is at the very source of the destructive current that is putting the future of humanity at risk. To question ( the validity of this 'psychological ) time' is to question the ( in-)adequacy of knowledge and thought as a means of dealing with the (profound human) problems. And if knowledge and thought are not adequate, what is it that is actually required? This led to the question of whether the 'mind' is limited by our physical brain ( loaded with ?) all the knowledge that mankind has accumulated over the ages. The ( psychological burden of this) ) knowledge, which now conditions us deeply, has produced an 'irrational' self-destructive 'programme' in which the brain seems to be helplessly caught up.

If the human mind is limited by such a ( knowledge filled) state of the brain, then the 'future of humanity' looks grim indeed. However, Mr Krishnamurti does not regard these limitations as 'inevitable'. Rather, he emphasizes that the ( the transpersonal human ?) mind is essentially free of the distorting bias which inherent in the conditioning of the brain, and that, through ( a time-transcending ) 'insight' arising in the attention without a centre , it can change the cells of the brain and remove its destructive conditioning.
If this is so, then it is crucially important that we give to this attention the same energy that we generally give to other activities of life that are really of vital interest to us.


J.Krishnamurti: I thought we were going to talk about the future of the whole of mankind. And from what one can observe the world has become dangerous. Terrorists, wars, and the national divisions and racial divisions and also religiously there is tremendous separation.

DB: Yes, I think there is also the economic crisis and the ecological crisis.

JK: Yes. Man's ( existential) problems seem to multiplying more and more. So, what is ( awaiting us in ) the future of not only the present generation but the coming generations?

DB: Well, it looks ( pretty ) grim...

JK: So, we were (still?) young what would we do knowing all this ? What would be our reactions? What would be our life, our way of earning a livelihood and so on ?

DB: Yes, well, I have often thought of that. " Would I go into science again?" And I am not at all certain now because science does not seem to be relevant to the ( present global) crisis.

JK: On the contrary...

DB: It might help but in fact it isn't.

JK: So, what would you do? I think I would stick to what I am doing.

DB: Well, that would be easy (to say?) for you. But if a young person is just starting out, he has to make a living, right?

JK: Of course...

DB: Now there are very few ( holistically friendly ?) opportunities now ; most of these are in jobs which are very limited.

JK: Limited and unemployment right throughout the world. I wonder where would ( a holistically minded young person would ?) begin?

DB: Well I think (that for starters?) one would have to 'stand back' from ( the psychological pressure generated by?) all these particular problems of my own needs and the needs of other people around me...

JK: But even then... what will I do? This is a (major existential) problem that I think most young (& less young?) people are facing.

DB: Well, is there something which you could suggest?

JK: You see I don't think in terms of ( temporal?) evolution.

DB: I understand that, and it's a point I was expecting we would discuss.

JK: Yes. I don't think there is a 'psychological' evolution at all.

DB: Yes, we have discussed this quite often so I think I understand to some extent what you mean. But I think that people who are new to this, who are ( reading this or?) viewing this tape, are not going to understand.

JK: I want to discuss ( the existential aspect of) this whole question: Why are we concerned about ( what we shall do in) the future, when ( psychologically-wise ?) the whole future is ( implicitly contained in what we are doing ?) now ?

DB: Yes, in some sense the whole future 'is' ( already present in what we are doing & thinking ? ) now but we'll have to make this point more clear (since this holistic paradigm ? ) goes very much against the whole way of thinking of the tradition of mankind and of all of us.

JK: Yes, I know. It goes - I know. Mankind thinks in terms of ( temporal) evolution, continuance and so on.

DB: Maybe we could approach it in another way. What objections do you have to our thinking in terms of evolution.

JK: We are talking 'psychologically'.

DB: Yes, but first let's dispose of it physically.

JK: I mean an acorn will grow into an oak (although its genetic information is already present in it) ...

DB: Yes. Well also the species have evolved for example from the plants to the animals and to man.

JK: Yes, we have taken a million years to be what we are.

DB: You have no doubts that it ( the Darwinian evolution?) really happened?

JK: No, that has happened.

DB: And it may continue to happen. That is a valid process.

JK: Of course. That is a valid natural process.

DB: And therefore in that ( physical area) the past, present and future are important.

JK: Yes obviously. If I don't know a certain language, I need time to learn it.

DB: Well it also takes time to improve the brain. You see if the human brain started out small and then it got bigger and bigger, that took a million years.

JK: Yes, and becomes much more complex and so on. All that needs time. All that is ( the evolutionary?) movement (of our species?) in space and time.

DB: Yes. So you will admit ( the objective reality of a ) physical time and of a neurophysiological time.

JK: Of course. Any sane man would.

DB: Yes, but most ( mentally sane?) people would also admit ( the reality of the ) 'psychological' time, what they call a 'mental' (continuity of) time.

JK: Yes, that is what we are talking about. Whether there is such a thing as psychological 'tomorrow' - a 'psychological' evolution ( of one's consciousness?) in time

DB: Now, at first sight I am afraid this will sound strange - because I can remember ( what I did) yesterday, and there is 'tomorrow' that I can anticipate. And it has happened many times, as the days have succeeded each other. So I do have the experience of ( my own psychological existence in) time, from yesterday to today to tomorrow – right?

JK: Of course. That is simple enough.

DB: That is simple enough. Now what is it you are denying?

JK: I deny that ( tomorrow?) I will become ( inwardly ) 'better'.

DB: I can certainly change (my ways) but there are two ways of looking at that. One way (of looking at it) is that will I intentionally 'become better' because I am trying (really hard ) , while other ( thoughtful) people may feel that ( man's psychological) evolution is a kind of natural, inevitable process, in which we are being swept along like in a current, and we are perhaps (learning life's lessons and) become better, or something is happening ( independently of) us.

JK: Psychologically ?

DB: Psychologically, yes, and which takes ( eons of?) time which may not be the result of my trying to become better. Some people may think one way, some another. Now, are you denying also that there is a kind of natural psychological evolution of ( the collective consciousness of) mankind as there is the natural biological evolution?

JK: I am denying ( the spiritual validity of?) that, yes.

DB: Yes. Now why do you deny it?

JK: Because first of all, the 'me', the 'ego', what is it?

DB: Now some people who are thinking (in terms of mankind's spiritual) evolution are thinking that there will be a (stage of ) evolution in which the ( selfishness of the?) 'me' is transcended. That is that it will rise ( the collective consciousness?) to a higher level.

JK: Yes, but does (this holistically friendly ) 'transition' need time?

DB: So there are two questions: one is will the 'me' ever improve? That is one argument. And another argument, is even if we (would really) want to get beyond the ( intrinsical limitations of the?) me, can that be done in time?

JK: That cannot be done in time.

DB: Yes, but we'll have to make it clear 'why not'.

JK: Yes. What is the 'me'? The 'me' is the whole (self-identified mental) 'movement' which thought has brought about.

DB: Now why do you say that?

JK: The 'me' is my ( self-identified ) consciousness, my name, form and all the various experiences that I have had, remembrances and so on.
( In a nutshell:) The whole structure of the 'me' is put together by thought.

DB: Well, that ( statement) would be something which some people might find it had to accept.

JK: Of course, of course. We are discussing it.

DB: Yes but the first experience, the first feeling I have about the 'me' is that the 'me' is there independently ( of the thought process ) and that the 'me' is the entity who is thinking.

JK: Is the 'me' independent of my thinking?

DB: Well the first ( empirical) feeling is that the 'me' ( my self-consciousness?) is (already present) there independent of my thinking, and it is the 'me' that is thinking, you see ?

JK: Yes, yes...

DB: Like 'I' am ( present ) here and I could (choose to?) think, or I could move my head...

JK: Yes, yes...

DB: Now is this ( self-consciousness?) a (thought-created?) illusion?

JK: No.

DB: Why?

JK: Because when I move my arm there is the intention to grasp something, to take something, to put something, which is (preceded by) the movement of thought, and that makes the arm move and so on. My contention is - and I am ready to accept it as false or true - that thought is the basis of all this (self-centred consciousness?)

DB: Your contention is that the whole ( self-conscious?) sense of the 'me' and what it is doing is coming out of ( a subliminal process of?) thought.
So, what you actually mean by 'thought' is not merely ( the mental or the ) intellectual (activity of the brain) ?

JK: No, no, of course not.

DB: But what ( is it) more ?

JK: Thought is the movement of ( personal & collective) experience & knowledge (stored in the brain cells') memory. It is this whole movement ( the overall survival oriented activity of the brain ?).

DB: You mean ( the temporal ) consciousness as a whole ?

JK: As a whole, that's right.

DB: And you are saying that this whole 'movement' is ( focussing itself as ) the 'me' – right?

JK: The whole content of this ( time-bound ) consciousness (whenever it is challenged) is ( expressing itself as) the 'me'.

DB: Well, one could say that I 'am' my consciousness for if I am not conscious I am not here. However, is this ( self-) consciousness nothing (else apart from) what you have just described, which includes thought, feeling, intention, aspirations, memories, beliefs, dogmas, the rituals that are performed,

JK : The whole (of man's self-centred experience) , like the computer that has been programmed.

DB: That certainly is ( contained in our) consciousness. Everybody would agree, although many ( spiritually inclined ) people would feel that there is more to it than that, or that the human consciousness may go beyond its (time binding content?) .

JK: Let's go into it ( sanely & rationally?) . The ( active ?) content of our consciousness makes up the consciousness.

DB: I think this may require some ( holistically friendly ) understanding....

JK: All right. ( One's self-) consciousness is made up of all that one has (experienced in the past and/or ) remembered (from one's cultural environment) beliefs, dogmas, rituals, the nationalities, fears, pleasures, sorrow.

DB: Yes, now if all that were absent, would there be no 'consciousness' ?

JK: Not 'as we know it'...

DB: But there would still be a kind of consciousness?

JK: A totally different kind !

DB: Well, so we should say that the human consciousness -as we generally know it - is made up...

JK: ( The 'temporal' ) consciousness - as we know it- is all that.
And (its psychologically active content) is the result of multiple activities of thought. Thought has put all this together, which is my (ego-centric ? ) consciousness with all its reactions, responses, memories, remembrances, all that makes up our (self-centred ?) consciousness.

DB: As we now know it ?

JK: As we know it. Now, the question is whether this ( man-made ?) consciousness has a future.

DB: Well, doesn't it have a past?

JK: Of course. Remembrance.

DB: Then...why do you say it has 'no future' then?

JK: If it has a ( temporal ?) future it will be exactly the same kind of thing, moving (on mechanically ?) . The same (hedonistic?) activities, same (tweeted?) thoughts, ( updated or?) modified, but the ( egotistic ) pattern will be repeated over and over again.

DB: Yes. Are you saying that ( the self-centred process of?) thought can only repeat itself ?

JK: Yes.

DB: But the general feeling is that thought can develop new ideas for example.

JK: But thought is ( intrinsically) limited because ( its past ) knowledge is limited.

DB: Well yes, that again might require some discussion. Why do you say that our knowledge is always limited?

JK: Because you as a scientist, you are experimenting, adding, searching, so you are adding, and after you some other person will add more. So knowledge, which is born of ( man's materialistic) experience, is limited.

DB: Well some ( science) people hope to obtain perfect knowledge, or absolute knowledge of the laws of nature.

JK: The 'laws of nature' are not ( necessarily the same as ?) the laws of the human (consciousness ?).

DB: Well do you want to restrict the discussion then to knowledge about the ( consciousness of the?) human beings?

JK: Of course, that's all we can talk about.

DB: There is a question of whether ( a total ) knowledge of ( the laws of?) nature is possible too.

JK: Of course. But we were talking about the future of man.

DB: All right. So we are saying that man cannot obtain unlimited knowledge of the 'psyche'?

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: There is always more that is unknown...

JK: Yes, that's right. There is always more and more unknown. So if once we admit that ( both qualitatively & quantitatively man's ) knowledge is limited then (it follows logically that ) thought is limited.

DB: Yes, because thought depends on ( the available ) knowledge and this ( Home Depot of?) knowledge does not cover everything.

JK: That's right.

DB: Therefore thought will not be able to handle (to deal in real time with ?) everything that happens.

JK: That's right. That is what the politicians and all the other people are doing. They think ( that their superior thinking?) can solve every problem.

DB: Yes. You can see in the case of politicians that their knowledge is very limited, and when you lack the adequate knowledge of what you are dealing with, you create ( lots of collateral?) confusion.

JK: Yes. So then as ( the competency area of?) thought is limited, the ( self-centred ) consciousness which it has been 'put together', is also limited.

DB: Now, can you make this more clear? That means ( that consciousness-wise?) we can only stay in the same circle ( of the 'known'?) .

JK: The same circle...

DB: But you see, people are generally thinking : although my knowledge is limited I am constantly discovering new things and keep up with the actuality.

JK: But that is also limited.

DB: Well, there is always the unknown (stuff?) which I have not discovered.

JK: That is what I am saying. The Unknown, the Limitless (inward dimension of human consciousness?) cannot be captured by ( the mechanistic process of?) thought. Because (of the obvious 'fact' that the self-centred process of ) thought in itself is limited.

DB: Well, there is a very strong feeling, (or cultural) tendency, to feel that thought can do anything.

JK: ( Consciousness-wise?) it can't. See what it has done in the world.

DB: Well I agree that is has done some terrible things but that doesn't prove that it will be always wrong. You see, one could always blame it on the people who have used it wrongly...

JK: I know, that is the good old trick! But ( bottom line?) thought in itself is limited, therefore whatever it does is limited.

DB: It is limited in a very serious way is what you are saying.

JK: Of course in a very, very serious way.

DB: Well could we bring that out, say what that way is I mean?

JK: ( Just by looking at ) what is happening in the world. The totalitarian (or utopian?) ideals, are is the invention of thought.

DB: Yes, the very word 'totalitarian', probably means they wanted to cover the totality but they couldn't and the thing collapsed.

JK: It is collapsing.

DB: But then there are those who say they are not totalitarians...

JK: But all their thinking is still limited...

DB: Yes, it is limited in a way that is (inwardly and/or outwardly divisive ?) and ( ultimately?) destructive. Now why is it so important (to understand thought's intrinsical limitation) ?

JK: That is fairly simple (to explain holistically ?) : because whatever action is born of this thinking ( limited by self-interest ? ) must inevitably breed conflict. Like geographically dividing humanity into nationalities ( and also religiously) has created havoc in the world.

DB: Now, let's connect that ( geo-political division?) with the limitation of thought. Our knowledge is obviously limited, but how does that lead me to divide the world into...

JK: Aren't we ( the self-centred thinkers?) seeking security?

DB: Yes...

JK: So we thought there is ( a higher level of ?) security in division : in the family, in the tribe, in nationalism..

DB: Yes, but for example, one may feel "Within my own tribe I am secure." And I think I know enough to be sure that is so, but other things that I don't know may happen which can make that (tribal appartenency) very insecure. Other tribes come along...

JK: No, no, the very ( ego-centric mentality of) division creates insecurity.

DB: Yes it helps to create it, but I don't see the ( psychological connexion?) .

K: One doesn't see it because one has not thought ( responsibly?) about anything, never looked at the world as a whole.

DB: Yes, the ( thread of self-centred ) thought which aims at ( one's personal) security attempts to know everything that is 'important' (in this regard) . As soon as it knows everything important it says, "This will bring security" - but one thing it doesn't know is that this (mentality of) thought itself is divisive.

JK: Divisive, yes...

DB: ...because I define a (home-base?) area which is secure, divided from another area.

JK: Because ( the self-centred thinking?) in itself it is limited.
( And, as a psychological 'rule of thumb'?) Anything that is limited must inevitably create conflict.

DB: Well you mean any thought that is (ego-centric)

JK: If I say I am an 'individual', it is a limited (outlook) .

DB: Yes...

JK: I am ( openly or just subliminally?) concerned with myself, that ( survivalistic mentality ) is very limited. The 'me' is a divisive entity.

DB: Let's see more clearly why.

JK: Because it is ( prioritarily) concerned with 'itself' ( with its self-interest ) . The 'me' identifying with the greater nation, is still divisive.

DB: Yes, so, I define myself in the interest of (my personal or my group) security and this ( mental attitude?) creates a division between 'me' and 'you'.
Now that comes from my limited thought because I don't understand that we are really closely related and connected.

JK: As human beings. And ( psychologically-wise?) all human beings have more or less the same problems.

DB: But if I haven't understood this (holistic mentality) , in the very act of trying protect 'me & my own' and not the others, I create (a global condition of socio-economic?) instability.

JK: Yes, (a global climate of?) insecurity. Now, if we actually feel that we 'are' the rest of humanity, then the responsibility becomes immense.

DB: Yes, well how can you do anything about that responsibility?

JK: Then I either contribute to the whole mess, or keep out of it. That is, to be at peace (within myself & with the world?), to have ( a holistic) order in oneself.

DB: I think we have just touched upon an important point. We say the whole of humanity, ( the consciousness ) of mankind, is one, and therefore to create division there is... dangerous.

DB: Yes. Now ( generally speaking?) mankind doesn't realize that it is all one.

JK: Why?

DB: Well ( existentially-wise?) this is a crucial point. ( Outwardly ) it is pretty clear why it doesn't - there are so many ongoing divisions : not only between nations and religions but even from one person to another.

JK: Why is there this ( generalised mentality of?) division?

DB: Well the first cause would be that every human being is ( considering oneself as an isolated?) 'individual'. This (highly individualistic attitude) may not have been so strong in the past...

JK: That is what I question. I question altogether whether we (really) are individuals.

DB: Well that is a big (existential ) question...

JK: As we ( have often) said the ( self-centred ) consciousness (of the) 'me' is similar to all the rest of mankind. They all suffer (whether consciously or not?) , they all have ( conscious & unconscious?) fears, they are all ( feeling occasionally ? ) insecure, they have their own particular 'gods' and 'rituals', all put together by ( the collective streaming of ?) thought.

DB: Well, there are two ( objectionable?) questions here. One is, nobody feels that he is similar ( to all the rest) - most people feel they have some unique quality or distinction, or at least they (are working at it?) ...

JK: What do you mean "unique distinction"? Distinction in doing something?

DB: Well there may be many things. For example one nation may feel that it is able to do certain things better than another, one person has some special things he does, a quality, or...

JK: Of course. You are more 'intellectual' than I am. Somebody else is better in this or that.

DB: And he may take pride in his own special abilities, or advantages.

JK: But when you put away all that, basically ( inwardly?) we are the same.

DB: You are saying these things which you have just described which are only superficial (treats of character ) ?

JK : Yes.

DB: Well now the things that are basically common to all human beings are what?

JK: Fear, sorrow, pain, anxiety, loneliness, and all the human 'travail'.

DB: Well many people might feel that the basic things are the highest achievements of man.

JK: What has he achieved (inwardly?) ?

DB: Well we have discussed this often but I think we must bring it out.

JK: Yes Sir, (consciousness-wise?) what have we achieved?

DB: Well, many people may feel proud of the achievement of mankind in science and art and culture and technology.

JK: We have 'achieved' in all those directions, certainly we have. Vast advances in technology, communication, travel, medicines, surgery...

DB: Yes, it is really remarkable in many ways.

JK: There is no question about it.

DB: Yes. Now you are saying...

JK: What have we 'psychologically' ( or spiritually?) achieved?

DB: One point is to say that none of these ( technological advancements ) has affected us psychologically (or inwardly, in a positive way?) .

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: And ( ultimately?) the 'psychological' ( aspects of the ) question are more important than any of the others because if ( the psychological mess?) is not cleared up, the rest is ( becoming potentially?) dangerous.

JK: Quite right. If (inwardly or?) 'psychologically' we are limited (to a self-centred existence within the 'known') , then the technology will then be used by our limited...

DB:...yes, the ( leading factor?) is this limited psyche and not the rational structure of technology. And then our technology becomes a dangerous instrument. So that is one point that the ( self-interest dominated?) 'psyche' is at the core of it all, and if this 'psyche' is not in order then the rest is useless.

JK: If (one's inner) house is not in order...

DB: Now, although a certain (inner) 'lack of order' is common to us all, (although we may all have a potential for something else) , the second ( contention) point is : are we really 'all one' ? Even though we are all similar that doesn't say we are all the same, or that we are 'all one'.

JK: We have said previously that (with)in our consciousness basically we all have the same 'ground' on which we stand.

DB: You are trying to say that the (totality of ) human consciousness is not an entity which is individual...

JK: That's right.

DB: So, if you go ( meditating still ?) deeper into this question, the total consciousness ( of mankind?) is shared by all human beings.

JK: I think that ( the self-identified consciousness) is an ( wide-spread) illusion because we are sticking to something that is not true.

DB: Then, do you want to say that there is one (original matrix of ) consciousness of all mankind?

JK: It is 'all one'.

DB: It is 'all one', or perhaps it could be many which are then inter-communicating and building up the larger unit. So, you think from the very beginning it is 'all one'?

JK: From the very beginning it is all one.

DB: And the sense of our (psycho-logical?) separateness is an illusion – right?

JK: That is what I am saying over and over again. That ( holistic hypothesis?) seems so logical, sane. The other is 'insanity'...

DB: Well, most people don't feel that the notion of a separate (psychical) existence is 'insane' because one extrapolates from the body to the mind, one says it is quite sensible to say my body is separate from yours, and inside my body is my mind. Now are you saying the 'mind' is not inside the body?

JK: That is quite a different question. Let's finish with the first. If each one of us thinks that we are separate (isolated) individuals 'psychically', what we have done in the world is a colossal mess. Each one thinks he has to do what he wants to do, (in order to) fulfil himself. So he is struggling in his (self-created ) 'separateness' to achieve (his) inner peace or his material security, ( and in the meanwhile) a material security and a peace ( for all?) is totally denied.

DB: Well if we are trying to separate what is inseparable the result will be chaos.

JK: That's right.

DB: Now that is clear, but I think that it will not be clear to people immediately that the consciousness of mankind is one inseparable whole.

JK: Yes Sir, an inseparable whole.

DB: Many questions will arise if you once even consider this ( holistic) notion. One question is why do we think we are separate?

JK: Why do I think I am separate? That is my ( cultural) conditioning.

DB: Yes but how did we ever adopt such a foolish conditioning?

JK: From childhood : this toy is mine, not yours.

DB: I say it is 'mine' because I already feel that I am a separate (entity) . Now it isn't clear how the ( global) human 'mind' which is ('all-) one' came to this illusion that it is all broken up into many pieces ?

JK: I think it is again due to the ( survival oriented ?) activity of thought. Thought in its very nature thought is divisive, fragmentary and therefore (the 'thinking entity' thinks : ) 'I' am (an individual) consciousness ?)

DB: Well ( the self-centred ) thinking will create ( a very realistic sense of its own) fragmentation . And after a while you see so much evidence of your separation that you forget how it started and you say that it was always there.

JK: Of course. That's why, Sir, I feel if once we grasp the nature of thought, how thought operates, what is the source of thought, and see that it is always limited (to function within its own perimeter?) , if we really see that then...

DB: Now the 'source of thought' is what? Is it memory?

JK: Memory. Memory is the ( brain's verbally processed?) remembrance of things past, which is ( duly stored as ) knowledge.

DB: Yes but thought also includes, the attempt to go forward, to use logic, to take into account new discoveries and insights, you know.

JK: As we were saying some time ago, ''thought is time''.

DB: All right. Thought is time. But this (holistic statement) requires more discussion too, because the first experience is that ( the chronological continuity of) time is there first, and thought is taking place in time.

JK: So we think in terms of time.

DB: Yes. Just as doing everything ( in the real world) takes time, to think also takes time - right? But you are saying that thought (itself ) is ( a process of) time. That is, 'psychically' speaking ?

JK: 'Psychologically', of course.

DB: Now how do we understand this (insightful statement) ''Thought is time''? It is not something self-obvious.

JK: Would you say 'thought' is ( a mental) movement and ( the 'psychological) time' is ( the forward projection of this ?) movement ?

DB: Now you see, 'time' is a mysterious thing. I could understand that we cannot have time without movement.

JK: Time 'is' movement. Time is not ( a dimension ) separate from movement.

DB: Instead of ''time 'is' movement'' could we say that ''time and movement cannot be separated'' ? Because that seems fairly clear. Now a physical movement which ( has its own) physical time – right?

JK: Physical time, the seasons, sunset and sunrise. All that.

DB: Yes. Now inwardly we have the 'movement' ( the mental activity?) of thought. Now that brings in the question of the ( physical ) nature of thought. You see is thought nothing but a ( mental) movement in the nervous system, in the brain...

JK: What is time (inwardly?) ? Let's take the question of (one's 'psychological' ) becoming: Let's take, for example, that I want to become 'non-violent', That is altogether a ( wishful thinking ?) fallacy.

DB: Well we can easily understand that it is a 'fallacy' but the reason it is a fallacy is that there is no time of that kind, is that it?

JK: ( In certain critical situations the ?) human beings are violent ( reacting violently?) . And they have been talking a great deal of ( achieving the 'noble ideal' of) 'non-violence'. The fact is we are violent, and the (noble ideal of) 'non-violence' is not real. But we want to become that.

DB: Yes but this seems the natural extension of the kind of thought that we have with regard to ( improving the ) material things. If you see a desert, the desert is real and you say the garden is not real, but in your mind is the garden which will come when you put the water there. So we can plan for the future when the desert will become fertile. Now (inwardly ?) we have to be more careful ; when we realise that we are 'violent', we cannot by a similar planning ( hope to) become 'non-violent'. Now why is that?

JK: Why? Because the 'non-violent' ( inner) state cannot exist when there is ( the mentality of) violence.

DB: I think that you are saying that when you are violent that is all there is.

JK: Yes, not the other.

DB: And the the ( mental) movement towards the 'other' ( state of mind) is illusory.

JK: Illusory. So 'psychologically' all ideals are illusory.

DB: Yes, if you are violent and if you ( deviously?) continue to be violent in trying to become non-violent, it has no ( experiential) meaning.

JK: So I question the ( validity of the psychological ) becoming, which is either becoming ( more of) 'what is' or becoming ( something else) away from 'what is'.

DB: Yes. Now when you talk of the movement of thought as (projecting itself in) time, it seems that this (psychological) time which comes from the movement of thought is illusory, is it?

JK: Yes.

DB: We sense it as time but it is not a real kind of time.

JK: That is why we asked: what is ( the psychological) time? I need time to go from here to there. I need time if I want to learn 'engineering' I must study it, it takes time. That same (time-binding mental attitude?) is carried over into the (inner world of the) 'psyche'. I need time to be 'enlightened'.

DB: Yes, and that will always create a conflict (of interests between 'what I am now ' '& 'what I expect to become in the future'.

JK: Yes.

DB: Between one part of you and another. Therefore this ( thought-projected ?) movement in which you say 'I need time' also creates a division in the human psyche, between the ( hopeful ) 'observer' and the ( undesirable treats which are being) 'observed'.

JK: Yes, that's right. We are saying the observer 'is' ( not actually separated from) the observed.

DB: And therefore there is no time, 'psychologically'.

JK: ( In other words?) the thinker 'is' the thought. There is no 'thinker' separate from ( the process of) thought.

DB: All that you are saying seems very reasonable, but I think that it goes so strongly against the tradition that we are used to, that it will be extraordinarily hard for people to really, generally speaking, to...

JK: Most people want an ( inwardly & outwardly) comfortable way of living: "Let me carry on as I am, for God's sake leave me alone."

DB: Yes but that is the result of so much conflict, that people are warned off by it I think.

JK: But in not resolving conflict, the (subliminal 'observer vs observed' ) conflict still exists, whether you like it or not. So is it, that is the whole point, is it possible to live a life without conflict?

DB: Yes, well that is all implicit in what has been said.

JK: That's right.

DB: The source of conflict is thought or knowledge, or the past.

JK: So then one asks: is it possible to transcend thought? Or is it possible to end knowledge? I am putting it 'psychologically' not...

DB: Yes. We say knowledge of objects and material objects and things like that, knowledge of science, will continue, but the ( inner presumption of?) knowledge is what you are asking to end, isn't it?

JK: Yes.

DB: Well on the other hand people have said, even you have said, self-knowledge is very important.

JK: Knowing oneself ( in real time?) is important but not if I take time to understand myself through self-analysis or by ( diligently?) watching my whole relationship with others and so, all that involves time.

DB: Yes, well...

JK: And I say there is another ( direct) way of looking at the whole thing without ( introducing the psychological) time. Which is (becoming effective only ?) when the observer 'is' the observed.

DB: Could we go further into your statement that there is no ( psychological) time?

JK: ( The ' psychological ?) time' is (the result of a mental?) division - right?

DB: Time is a series of divisions of past, present, future.

JK: ( And the process of?) thought is also ( operating in a ) divisive (way) . So time 'is' thought. Or, thought 'is' time...

DB: Well, it doesn't exactly follow ( logically) from what you said …

JK: Let's go into it !

DB: You see, thought makes all kinds of ( mental) divisions, and it does also divides up intervals of time, as 'past', 'present' and 'future'. But it doesn't follow from just this ( generic observation?) that thought 'is' (a) time (-based process?) ....

JK: Look, we said time is ( a mental dimension associated to any material ?) movement.

DB: Yes...

JK: And thought is also a series of ( mental ?) movements.

DB: Yes, all right.

JK: So both are 'movements'.

DB: Thought is a ( mental) movement of the nervous system and...

JK: You see, 'psychologically' ( the central thread of thought ?) is a movement of ( self-) becoming ( constantly measuring its progress in terms of time ?) …

DB: But when we talk of a 'psychological movement', what exactly is this 'movement'? Is it just a change of content?

JK: Sir, look: I am this, and I am attempting to become something ( better ?) psychologically.

DB: So ( it is a virtual?) movement (operating) within the content of your thought ? If you (think) : now I am 'this' and I am attempting to become 'that' , then I am ( inwardly engaged in a virtual mental?) movement – right?

JK: Yes...

DB: At least... I feel I am in movement.

JK: Yes. Say for instance I am ( inwardly) greedy (inwardly driven by the desire to get more of anything?) . Greed is a ( self-identified ) movement ( of desire, constantly pursuing its objectives now or in the future ?) .

DB: Well, what kind of a 'movement' is it?

JK: ( A constantly updated projection of the basic desire?) to get what I want (or more?) .

DB: To get more, yes.

JK: It is a ( mental) movement (projecting its own 'future' within the space of one's consciousness?) .

DB: All right...

JK: And ( eventually?) I find that ( highly motivated mental ?) movement ( is eventually losing momentum and/or becomes ?) painful. And then, I ( decide to reverse engine & ) try to become less greedy.

DB: Yes.

JK: This ( second wind?) attempt to become less greedy is a movement of time, is ( a process of 'negative'?) becoming.

DB: Yes but even the ( original momentum of?) greed was engaged in a process of 'becoming' ( in the desire to get more)

JK: Of course. So the real ( 'no-time' ? ) question, is it possible not to become psychologically ?

DB: Well it seems that that would require that you should not be ( identified with?) anything 'psychologically'. That is, as soon as you define yourself as 'greedy', or say I am this, or I am that, then either I will either want to become something else or to remain ( go along with?) what I am – right?

JK: Now can I ( take a break from this process of becoming & ) remain ( with) what I am? Can I remain with ( the mental momentum of?) greed ? And (also realise that the momentum of ) greed is not different from 'me' (from my time-bound consciousness?) (or in a holistic nutshell:) the greed 'is' ( an integral part of) me.

DB: Yes. But the ordinary (dualistic) way of thinking is that 'I' am here ( anyway) and I could either be 'greedy' or 'not greedy'. These are attributes which I may or may not have.

JK: But these attributes are ( an integral part of?) 'me'.

DB: Yes. Now that again goes very much against our common (dualistic) language and experience.

JK: Of course Sir.

DB: So, saying that ''I am my attributes'' means that thought's attributes creates the sense of 'me' ?

JK: All the qualities, the attributes, the virtues, the judgements, the conclusions and opinions, 'are ' ( defining the ?) 'me'.

DB: Well, it seems to me that this (totally insightful observation?) would have to be perceived immediately as obvious...

JK: That is the whole question. To perceive the totality of this whole ( self-centred mental ?) movement instantly.
Then we come to the point (of direct?) perception: whether it is possible to perceive it without all the ( interfering) movement of memory? To perceive something directly without the word, without the reaction, without the (knowledgeable?) memories entering into this perception.

DB: Yes, well that is a very big question because ( the psychologically active?) memory has constantly entered perception.

JK: Of course. That is the whole (experiential difficulty?)

DB: You see, this would raise the question : what is going to stop memory from entering perception?

JK: Nothing (no mental effort?) can stop it. But if I see that the (interfering ) activity of memory is limited, in the very perception that it is limited you have moved out of it into another ( non-dualistic) dimension.

DB: So, you have to perceive the whole of the limitation of memory ?

JK: Yes, not only one part.

DB: You can see in general that memory is limited but there are many ways in which this (dualistic limitation ) is not obvious. For example many of our (psychological) reactions may be ( subliminal responses of an ancestral) memory but we don't experience them as 'memory', you see. I experience 'myself' as being there presently and not a ( mere psychological) 'memory'. That is the common experience. Say, when I want to become less greedy, I experience greed, but the 'me' is the one who remembers, not the other way around, that memory creates 'me' – right?

JK: Sir, all this really comes down to: can humanity live without conflict? That really basically comes to that. Can we have peace on this earth?

DB: Yes, well...

JK: And the activities of thought never bring it about.

DB: Yes, well it seems clear from what has been said that the activity of thought cannot bring about peace ; psychologically it inherently brings about conflict.

JK: Yes, if we once really see ( the inward truth of?) that, our whole ( relational) activity would be totally different.

DB: Are you saying there is a ( directly perceptive mental ) activity which is beyond thought?

JK: Yes.

DB: And which is not only beyond thought but which does not require the cooperation of thought?

JK: Certainly not.

DB: And it is possible for this to occur when thought is absent?

JK: That is the real point. We have often discussed this, whether there is anything beyond thought. ( I am not talking of something holy, sacred) but whether there is a (holistic) activity which is not touched by thought? We are saying there is. And that activity is the highest form of intelligence.

DB: Yes, now we have brought in 'Intelligence'.

JK: I know, I purposively brought it in! So ( this holistically minded ?) intelligence is not the activity of cunning thought.

DB: Yes, but this intelligence can use thought, as you have often said.

JK: Intelligence can use thought.

DB: Yes, then thought can be either the action of intelligence, or it could be the action of memory ?

JK: That's it. If thought is the (mental) action born of memory (as both the content & the capacity of our memory is limited) therefore thought is limited and it has its own ( self-centred) activity which then brings about conflict.

DB: I think this would connect up with what ( the science) people are saying about computers : when we operate from memory we are not very different from a computer; or the other way around perhaps, the computer is not very different from us....

JK: The Indian (brain) has been programmed for the last five thousand years to be a Hindu, and in this country you have been programmed as British, or as a Catholic or as a Protestant. So we are all ( culturally) programmed up to a certain extent.

DB: Yes, and now you are bringing in the notion of a ( quality of holistic) Intelligence which is free of the programme, it is creative perhaps and...

JK: Yes, that's right. That intelligence has nothing to do with memory and knowledge.

DB: Yes. It may act in the field of memory and knowledge but it is has nothing to do with it ?

JK: Yes it can act through memory, etc. But how do you find out ( experientially?) whether it has any reality, not just imagination and romantic nonsense? To come to that ( Intelligence check-point?) one has to go into the whole question of suffering, whether there is an ending to suffering, and as long as suffering and fear and the pursuit of pleasure exists there cannot be ( the compassionate intelligence of ?) love.

DB: Yes, well there are many questions there. Now the first point is say suffering, but could we also include (frustration ) anger and violence and greed in that.

JK: Of course, otherwise...

DB: We could say that all these are the response of ( man's self-centred) memory and they are nothing to do with intelligence.

JK: They are all part of thought and memory.

DB: And as long as these are going on it seems to me that intelligence cannot operate through thought.

JK: That's right. So there must be freedom from ( the psychological burden of human ) suffering.

DB: Yes, well that is a very key point. Now...

JK: That is really a very serious and deep question. Whether it is possible to end suffering, which is (coming down to) the ending of 'me' ( of the 'one who suffers')

DB: Now again, the general feeling is that 'I' am here and I either enjoy things or I suffer. But perhaps you are saying that suffering arises from ( the self-centred activity of) thought, it is thought...

JK: ...( self-) identified.

DB: Yes. And that...

JK:...( a subliminal form of ) attachment.

DB: So then, what is it that suffers? You see, suffering ( or aggravated frustration) it is really the opposite of the feeling of pleasure, it seems to me, that ( our self-centred thinking within the field of) memory tends generally to produce ( a comforting inner feeling of safety &) pleasure, but when ( due to various life incidents ) this (psychological trick?) doesn't work, it produces ( an overall sense of ) pain and suffering.

JK: Not only that. Suffering is much more complex, isn't it? The meaning of the word is to have grief, to feel utterly lost, lonely...

DB: Well it seems to me that it is not only pain but a total ( existential) pain, a very pervasive...

JK: But suffering is ( triggered by) the loss of someone - my wife, my brother, or whatever it is, and the desperate sense of loneliness.

DB: Or else just simply the fact that the whole world is going into such a state. It makes everything else look meaningless.... However some ( religiously minded ?) people have felt that by going through suffering people become ( inwardly) purified, like going through the crucible – right?

JK: I know. That through suffering you learn...

DB: Or you are purified in some way.

JK: You are purified. This is through suffering the ego (-centric mentality) is vanished, dissolved.

DB: Yes dissolved, refined.

JK: It doesn't (really?) . People have suffered immensely. How many wars, how many tears & ignorance...

DB:...ignorance, disease, pain, everything. But you see what is suffering really? Why does it destroy intelligence, or prevent it? Why does suffering prevent intelligence? What is going on really?

JK: Suffering is ( generally caused by) being concerned with myself (& my own?) - is ( the result of a personal) shock- 'I' suffer, 'I' have pain, ( in a holistic nutshell ?) it is the essence of the 'me'.

DB: Yes the difficulty with suffering is that it is the 'me' that is there that is suffering. Tthe me is really being 'sorry for itself' in some way.

JK: My suffering is different from your suffering. We don't see that ( our deeply existential) suffering is shared by all humanity.

DB: Yes, but suppose we see it is shared by all humanity?

JK: Then I begin to question what suffering is. It is not ( an obsession with ?) my suffering.

DB: Yes, well that is important. In order to understand the nature of suffering I have to get out of this idea that it is 'my' suffering because as long as I believe it is my suffering I have an illusory notion of the whole thing...

JK: ... and I can never end it.

DB: But to come back : Why is my suffering the suffering of many? At first it seems that I feel pain in the tooth, or else I have a loss, or something has happened to me, and the other person seems perfectly happy.

JK: Yes, but he ( may be ) suffering too in his own way (and for different reasons) .

DB: Yes. At the moment he doesn't see it but he has his problems too.

JK: Suffering is common to all humanity.

DB: Are you saying that the suffering of mankind is 'all one', inseparable?

JK: Yes Sir. That is what I have been saying.

DB: As is ( shared in) the consciousness of man? When anybody suffers the whole of mankind is suffering ?

JK: The whole point is that man has suffered from the beginning of time and he hasn't solved it.

DB: It is clear that it hasn't been solved.

JK: We haven't ended ( the inner causation of) suffering.

DB: And the reason we haven't solved it because we are treating it as personal or as in a small group where it cannot - that is an illusion.

JK: Yes.

DB: And any attempt to deal with an illusion cannot solve anything. Now the - we would like to make it very clear...

JK: (The self-centred process of) thought cannot solve anything psychologically.

DB: Well yes because you can say that the thought itself divides. Thought is limited and is not able to see that this suffering is all one - right? And that way divides it up as mine and yours.

JK: That's right.

DB: But one doesn't get the feeling immediately that this suffering belongs to the whole of mankind, you see.

JK: Sir, the world 'is' me, I 'am' the world.

DB: You have often said that. But by the 'world', you mean the physical world, or the world of society, or...?

JK: The world of society, the world - the psychological world primarily.

DB: So we say the ( consciousness of the ) world, of all human beings, is one , but when I say 'I am that world', what does it mean?

JK: The world is not different from me.

DB: The world and I are one - right? ( Consciousness -wise?) we are inseparable.

JK: Yes. But that requires ( doing one's homework in terms of ) real meditation, you must feel this, not just verbal statement, it is an actuality.

DB: Yes, now many religions have also said that.

JK: That is just a verbal statement - they don't ( really) do it in their hearts.

DB: Perhaps some have done it but in general it is not being done - right? I mean there may have been a few...

JK: I don't know if anybody has done it (or not?) – but we (the average) human beings haven't done it. Our religions actually have prevented it.

DB: Because of division, every religion has its own beliefs and its own organization?

JK: Of course. Its own 'gods' and its own 'saviours'.

DB: Yes.

JK: So is that intelligence actual? You understand my question? Because the ending of suffering means Love.

DB: Yes but before we go on, let's clear up a point : in some sense it seems that you are still defining an 'individual' - is that right?

JK: I am using the word "I" ( holistically) as a ( convenient) means of communication.

DB: Yes but what does it mean?

JK: Sir, that is the whole ( difficulty ) in our human relationship. You feel that you are not separate and that you really have this sense of love and compassion, and I haven't got it. I haven't even gone into this question. What is your relationship to me?

DB: Yes, well... ?

JK: That's what I am saying: you have a (intelligent & compassionate ?) relationship with me but I haven't any ( such?) relationship with you.

DB: Well one could say that the person who hasn't seen ( the all-oneness of human consciousness) is almost living a world of dreams psychologically. But the (lucky?) fellow who is awake can perhaps ( do something to) awaken the other fellow ?

JK: You are awake, I am not. Then your relationship with me is very clear. But I have no ( authentic?) relationship with you (because) I insist on division and you don't.

DB: Yes, in some way, the consciousness of mankind has divided itself, it is all one but it has divided itself by thought – right?

JK: That's is what we have been through.

DB: Yes and that's why we are in the present situation.

JK: That is why - all the problems that humanity has now, psychologically as well in other ways, is the result of thought. And we are pursuing the same pattern of thought, and thought will never solve any of these problems. So there is another kind of instrument, which is ( the compassionate?) intelligence.

DB: Yes, well that opens up an entirely different subject.

JK: Yes, I know.

DB: And you also mentioned love as well ?

JK: Yes. Without love and compassion there is no ( universally open?) intelligence. And you cannot be compassionate if you are attached to some religion, some post, you are tied to a post like an animal tied to a post, and it can think it is compassionate.

DB: Yes well as soon as your self is threatened then it all vanishes, you see.

JK: Of course. But you see, the 'self' hides behind...

DB:...other things. Like 'ideals' ?

JK: Yes, yes. It has immense capacity to hide itself.
So (back to our original question ) what is the future of mankind? From what one observes it is leading to destruction.

DB: That is the way it seems to be going, yes.

JK: Very gloomy, grim, dangerous and if one has children what is their future? To enter into all this? And go through all the misery of it all. So (a holistically friendly?) education becomes extraordinarily important.

DB: I think there are two (impending) things: one is people are immersed in their own problems, and there is a tendency toward despair implicit in what is happening now in that most people ( of good will?) haven't much confidence in what they are doing.

JK: So, what is the future of man, mankind, the future of humanity - I wonder if anybody is ( seriously) concerned with it? Or each person, or each group is only concerned with its own survival?

DB: Well, this has been the whole history of mankind : the first concern almost always has been with 'survival' - either the individual or the group.

JK: Therefore perpetual wars, perpetual insecurity.

DB: Yes, but this, as you said, is the result of ( the self-centred operation of ) thought which makes the mistake on the basis of being incomplete to identify with itself, or with the 'group' and so on.

JK: You happen to listen to all this. You see the (inward) truth of all this. Those in ( high positions of 'money & ) 'power' will not even listen to you.

DB: Not (not really?) …

JK: They are creating a world world which is becoming dangerous – and what is the point of you and I seeing something true? This is what people are asking: what is the point of you and I seeing something to be true and what effect has it (upon the total consciousness of mankind) ?

DB: Well if we think in terms of the ( physical) effects...

JK: But also it is a ( holistically?) wrong question.

DB: Because we are bringing in the very thing which is behind the trouble, ( the thinking in terms of) time. That is the first response would be we must quickly get in and do something to change the course of events.

JK: Therefore form a ( non-profit?) Society, a Foundation, organization and all the rest of it.

DB: But you see our mistake is to do that we must think about something, and that thought is incomplete. We don't really know what is going on and people have made theories about it but they don't really know....

JK: But if that is the ( holistically?) wrong question, then as a human being, who 'is' mankind, what is my responsibility?

DB: Yes, we can't look toward ( any immediate?) effects. But is the same as with 'A' who sees, and 'B' who does not – right?

JK: Yes.

DB: Now suppose 'A' sees something (which is fundamentally true) and most of the rest of mankind does not. Then one could say ( that the total consciousness of?) mankind is in some way day-dreaming, or asleep.

JK: It is caught in illusion.

DB: Illusion. And the point is that if somebody sees something (to be true) then his responsibility is to help awake the others up - right? To get out of the ( Collective Stream of ?) Illusion.

JK: That is just it. That is why the Buddhists have projected the idea of the Bodhisattva, who is the essence of all compassion, and is waiting to save humanity. It is a happy feeling that there is somebody ( who is ?) doing this. But in actuality we won't do anything that is not comfortable, satisfying, secure, both psychologically and physically.

DB: Yes, well that ( hedonistic mentality of 'dolce farniente'?) is the ( internal) source of the illusion, basically.

JK: They haven't time, they haven't the energy, they haven't even the inclination. They want to be 'amused'. How does one make (the holistically minded Mr ) 'X' see this whole thing so clearly that he says, "All right, I have got it, I will ( do my homework?) work and see that I am responsible, and all the rest of it. I think that is the (global existential ?) tragedy for (both) those who 'see' and for those who don't (want to see it?) ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Apr 2020 #32
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline


J.Krishnamurti: Sir, last time we were asking whether the consciousness of mankind can be changed through time (or a totally different approach is required ?) . This is one of the questions we should discuss this evening.

DB: Yes. We have discussed it last time and what came out was that with regard to (such a holistic change in ? ) consciousness (our thinking in terms of?) time is not relevant, that it is a kind of illusion. We discussed the illusion of ( psychological) becoming.

JK: Can we put it much more simply: there is no (temporal) evolution of the (human) 'psyche'?

DB: Yes. And since the future of mankind depends on the ( condition of the human) psyche it seems then that the future of mankind is not going to be determined through actions in time.

JK: That's right.

DB: And then this (time-free approach ?) left us with the question: what can we do ('now' ) ?

JK: Now let's proceed (holistically?) from there . Shouldn't we first distinguish between the 'brain' and the 'mind'?

DB: Yes, well this distinction has also been made (in the past ) and there are several views. One view is say that the mind is just a function of the brain - that is the materialists' view. There is another (more spiritually friendly?) view which says 'mind' and 'brain' are two different things.

JK: Yes, I think they are two different things.

DB: But there must be...

JK: ...a contact between the two, (an interacting) relationship between the two.

DB: We don't necessarily imply any separation of the two.

JK: No, first let's see the ( physical) brain : one can observe the (mechanistic) activity of the human brain, that it is really functioning like a ( survival oriented ?) computer that has been ( culturally ?) programmed and 'remembers' ( and 'thinks' ?) .

DB: Well certainly a large part of the (survival oriented) activity is that way, but one is not certain that all of it is that way.

JK: No. But it is (psychologically) conditioned by ( the ego-centric mentality of the ?) past generations, by the society, by the newspapers, by the magazines, by all the activities and pressures from the outside.
( In a holistic nutshell:) It is 'conditioned'.

DB: Yes, now what do you mean by this 'conditioning'?

JK: It is ( subliminally ) programmed to conform to a certain pattern, lives entirely on the ( accumulated experience & knowledge of ) past, modifying itself with the ( challenges of the?) present and going on (along the same lines) .

DB: Yes, now we have agreed that ( in the real life) some of this ( cultural) conditioning is useful and necessary.

JK: Of course. We discussed that last time...

DB: ...but the ( subliminal?) conditioning which determines the 'self' (-centred consciousness ) , you know, which determines the...

JK: ...the psyche.

DB: ... now you call it the 'psyche' ?

JK: Let's call it for the moment the 'psyche'.

DB: That ( self-identified ) conditioning is what you are talking about. That may not only be unnecessary but harmful.

JK: Yes. The ( culturally transmissible ?) emphasis on the ( 'individuality' of the ) psyche, as we are doing now, and giving importance to the 'self', is creating great damage in the world because it is separative and is therefore constantly in conflict, not only within itself, but within the society, in the family and so on (As Seen on TV?) .

DB: Yes. And it is also in conflict with nature.

JK: With nature, with the whole ( intelligent ) universe...

DB: I think we discussed last time that this conflict arose because thought is limited ( to function safely & efficiently only within the field of the known ?)

JK: Thought is limited. And the ( temporal?) structure and nature of the human psyche is ( subliminally created by ?) the 'movement' (self-centred activity?) of thought in time.

DB: Now I would like to ask you an (experiential) question. When you discussed the 'movement of thought', it doesn't seem clear to me what ( exactly) is 'moving' ? You see, we discussed the physical movement of my hand, that is a real movement. It is clear what is meant. But now when I discuss the 'movement of thought' it seems to me we are discussing something which is some kind of ( mental) illusion, since you have also said that 'becoming' is ( projected by ?) the 'movement of thought'.

JK: That is what I meant , the movement in becoming.

DB: But this ( thought-projected) 'movement' is in some way illusory, aren't you?

JK: Yes, of course, of course.

DB: It is rather like the ( imaginary ) movement on the screen which is projected from the film projector. We say that there are no real objects moving across the screen but ( only a sequence of pictures ) while the only real movement is the turning of the projector. Now can we say that there is a real movement in the brain which is 'projecting' all this (on the screen of one's consciousness?) , which is the ( actual ) conditioning?

JK: Sir, that is what I want to find out. Let's discuss that a bit. We both agree, or see, that the brain is conditioned.

DB: We mean by that that really it has been 'impressed' physically ?

JK: Physically and/or genetically, as well as psychologically.

DB: Well what is the difference between ( being conditioned) physically and psychologically?

JK: Psychologically, ( the brain's conditioning ) is 'self' - centred.

DB: Yes.

JK: And the constant ( all controlling & all knowing ?) assertion of the 'self' is the psychological 'movement', is the ( self-sustained activity of this) conditioning.

DB: Yes, but in so far as we 'experience' it ( on the 4-D screen of our consciousness?) that is an illusion-right?

JK: We said that this is an ( very realistic mental ?) illusion.

DB: But there is some real movement happening within the brain – both physically and chemically- when we are thinking of the 'self' – right?

JK: Are you asking that the brain and the 'self' (-consciousness?) are two different things?

DB: No, I am saying the 'self' (consciousness) is the result of conditioning the brain.

JK: Yes. The 'self' is ( a self-sustained?) conditioning (of) the brain.

DB: Yes. But does the 'self' actually exist ?

JK: No, no.

DB: So, the conditioning of the brain is 'involving' a ( very realistic mental) illusion which we call the 'self' ?

JK: That's right. Now, can that ( self-sustained psychological) conditioning be dissipated? That's the whole question.

DB: To be dissipated in the neurophysiological sense ?

JK: Yes.

DB: Now the first reaction of any 'scientific(ally' minded) person would be that it looks unlikely that we could dissipate it by the sort of ( holistic dialogues ) that we are doing. You see some scientists might feel that maybe we will discover drugs or new genetic changes or by acquiring a deeper knowledge of the structure of the brain. In that way we could perhaps help to do something. I think that idea might be current among the science people.

JK: Will that change the human behaviour?

DB: Well why not? Some people do believe that it might.

JK: Wait a minute...'it might' means (sometimes ) in the future.

DB: Yes. It would take time to discover this ('Miracle 'Self'-Cleaning' product ?) .

JK: And in the meantime... mankind could destroy itself ?

DB: Well then they (the highly ingenious & lucrative science people ?) might hope that he will manage to do it in time. You see, they could also criticize what we are doing, saying what good can it do? You see, it doesn't seem to affect anybody ( in this neighbourhood?) and certainly not in time to make a big difference. You see that is a question that would arise.

JK: Are we very clear in what way this can affect ( the Consciousness of?) humanity?

DB: Now, will it affect mankind in time to really save... ?

JK: Obviously not (in terms of time?) .

DB: Then why should we be doing it?

JK: Because this is the 'right thing' to do. It has nothing to do with reward and punishment.

DB: Nor with goals ; we do the 'right thing', even though we don't know what the outcome will be – right?

JK: That's right.

DB: And you are saying there is no other way ?

JK: We are saying there is no other way, that's right.

DB: Well we should make that clear. For example some ( holistically minded?) 'psychologists' would feel that by enquiring into this sort of thing we could bring about an evolutionary transformation of consciousness – right?

JK: We come back to that point that through ( thought & ) time we hope to change the consciousness of mankind . We question ( the experiential validity of?) that.

DB: We have already 'questioned' that ( time-binding mentality ) and are saying that it will inevitably involve ( a serious flaw : ) if we are all caught in becoming and illusion and we will not know what we are doing.

JK: That's right.

DB: Now could we say the same thing would hold even for those ( highly motivated ?) scientists who are trying to 'do it' physically and chemically or structurally, that they themselves may be still caught in the same (mentality that ) through time they are trying to become better?

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: They will not know what they are doing really.

JK: Both 'experimentalists' and the 'psychologists' and ourselves, are all trying to 'become' something (or other) .

DB: Yes, though it may not seem obvious at first. It may seem that they are really just disinterested, or unbiased observers, you know, working on the problem, but underneath you feel there is the ( psychological drive or?) desire to 'become better' on the part of the person who is doing it.

JK: To become, of course...

DB: He is not free of that.

JK: That is just it. They are not free of that ( time binding thread of self-becoming ?) .

DB: And that ( subliminally active?) desire will give rise to ( collateral) self deceptions and so on...

JK: So where are we now? ( Realising the inward truth ?) that any form of (psychological?) becoming is an illusion, and becoming implies time.
We are saying that for the (ego-centric) 'psyche' to change (its ways?), time is not necessary.

DB: Yes, now this ties up with the other question of the 'mind' and the 'brain'. You see, the ( functioning of our physical) brain can be understood as an activity in time, as an (ongoing) ' physio-chemical' complex process.

JK: I think the 'mind' is separate from the 'brain'.

DB: Well, what does it mean 'separate'?

JK: Separate in the sense the brain is conditioned (by its long evolution ) and the mind ( the energy-matrix of Human Consciousness?) is not.

DB: Well, we can say that the 'mind' has a certain independence of the ( temporal conditioning of the?) brain - is this what you are saying ? Even if the brain is conditioned...

JK: ...the 'other' (its intelligent energy matrix?) is not.

DB: It need not be...

JK: ...conditioned.

DB: Now, on what basis do you say that?

JK: Let's not begin (again?) with 'on what basis do I say that ?'...

DB: Well what makes you say it, right?

JK: As long as the brain is conditioned, it is not 'free'. And the mind is 'free'.

DB: Yes, that is what you are ( always ? ) saying. Now you see, the brain not being free means it is not free to enquire in an unbiased way.

JK: I will go into it. Let's enquire: what is this 'freedom'?

DB: Yes... ?

JK: Freedom to enquire, as you point out, freedom to investigate, and it is only in the freedom (from the known?) that there is Deep Insight.

DB: Yes, that's clear because if you are not free to enquire - or if you are 'biased' then you are limited in an arbitrary way.

JK: So as long as the brain is conditioned (by its past memory?) , its relationship to the (holistic intelligence of the?) 'mind' is limited.

DB: Yes, but the other way round ?

JK: Yes. The Mind being free has a ( intelligent & compassionate ) relationship to the brain.

DB: Yes. So, we're saying that the Mind is free in some sense, not subjected to the conditioning of the brain.

JK: Yes...

DB: Now one could ask a ( metaphysical) question: what is the nature of the Mind? For example I could ask is the Mind located inside the body, or is it within the brain?

JK: No, it is nothing to do with the ( physical location of the?) body or the brain.

DB: Has it to do with space or with time?

JK: Space - just a minute... it has to do with ( inward ) Space and Silence. These are the two ( active?) factors of the Mind .

DB: But not Time, right?

JK: Not time. Time belongs to the ( physical) brain.

DB: You say (free inner ?) Space and Silence, but what kind of Space is this ? It is obviously not the physical space in which we see ( all material) life moving.

JK: Let's look round at it the other way. Thought can invent ( create its own mental ) space.

DB: Well, thought can invent all kinds of ( mental ) 'spaces'.

JK: And also there is the 'space' (of silence?) between two sounds.

DB: Well, they call that the 'interval' between two sounds.

JK: Yes, also ( the silent) interval between two thoughts. And the 'space' ( psychological 'distance' ?) between two ( ego-centric?) people.

DB: The space between the walls of a room...

JK: And so on. But that kind of space is not the ( Inwardly open?) Space of the Mind.

DB: You say it is not limited ?

JK: That's right. It is not bounded by the ( self-protecting walls of the ) 'psyche'.

DB: By the ( temporal ?) psyche. But is it bounded by anything?

JK: No.

DB: So, you say the ( temporal?) psyche is bounded because we have said it is limited and so on. Right?

JK: So, that is what I want to discuss or talk over : can the human brain, with all its ( time-) conditioned cells , can those cells radically change?

DB: Well, it is not certain that all brain's cells are conditioned. Some (open minded?) people think that only a small part of these cells are being used, and the others ( a 'silent majority' ? )are just ( hanging around?) being ( vacant ?) inactive, or just dormant.

JK: Not used at all, or just touched occasionally ?

DB: Just touched occasionally. But those ( survival oriented) brain cells that are conditioned, they evidently dominate man's consciousness (as it is) now – right?

JK: Yes, and can those cells be changed?

DB: Yes... ?

JK: We are saying that they can ( change qualitatively?) through (being exposed to the light of a timeless ?) Insight.

DB: Yes, now...

JK: Insight being out of time, it is not the result of remembrance, it is not a (personal) intuition, or desire, or hope, it has nothing to do with any (mental endeavour of) 'time and thought'.

DB: So, you're saying that this 'Insight', is (the holistic) activity of the Mind?

JK: Yes.

DB: Therefore you are saying that the ( non-material energy of the?) Mind can act in the material brain ?

JK: Yes, we said that earlier.

DB: Yes, but you see, this is a difficult (meta-physical) point, you see, how mind is able to act upon matter ?

JK: It is able to act on the brain, say for instance, take any crisis, or any problem (a challenge being thrown at you) . And ( generally?) we 'meet it' with all the ( knowledgeable) remembrances of the past, or with a ( prejudice ) bias and so on. And therefore the problem multiplies itself. You may solve one problem, in the very solution of one problem, of that particular problem, other problems arise, as they are doing in politics and so on and so on. Right? Now to approach ( holistically) the problem, and have (an insightful) perception of the problem without any ( lingering) past memories and thoughts interfering, or projecting (themselves ) in perception of the problem...

DB: Yes. Now are you more or less saying that the brain is a kind of instrument of the ( transpersonal intelligence of the?) Mind? Is that what is being said?

JK: (Can be a directly perceptive?) instrument of the Mind when the brain is not ( functioning in the ? ) 'self-centred' (mode) .

DB: Yes, well you see if we think of all this conditioning, the conditioning may be thought of as the brain exciting itself and keeping itself going just from the programme. This occupies all of its ( perceptive) capacities.

JK: All our days, yes.

DB: The whole capacity of the brain. It is rather like a radio receiver which generates a ( strong background) noise, it would not pick up any (useful) signal. Now would this analogy be at all correct ?

JK: Not quite... You see Sir, the brain is operating (100 % fool-proof ?) in a very, very small area (of its past knowledge)

DB: What is preventing it from operating in an unlimited area?

JK: Thought.

DB: Thought. But the brain seems to me to be running on its own, from its own programme.

JK: Yes, like a computer that is running on its own programme.

DB: Now essentially what you are asking is that the brain should really be responding to the (holistic intelligence of the?) Mind.

JK: That it can only respond if it is free from the ( 'self' -centred process of ) thought which is limited (by its mechanistic functioning ?) .

DB: Yes so the 'programme' does not dominate it. You see we are going to still need that programme for many (practical) things. But this intelligence is (coming from ) from the mind ?

JK: Yes, intelligence 'is' the mind.

DB: Is the ( natural activity of the?) Mind... ?

JK: Because there is no intelligence without compassion. And compassion can only be when there is ( selfless?) Love which is completely free from all remembrances, personal jealousies and all that kind of thing.

DB: Now is all that compassion, love, also of the Mind?

JK: Of the Mind.

DB: So, we have here two things which can be somewhat independent. There is the 'brain' and the 'mind', though they make contact. Now then intelligence and compassion we say come from beyond the brain. But I would like to go into the question of how they are making contact ?

JK: Ah! Contact can only exist between the mind and the brain when the brain is ( thought-empty &?) quiet.
DB: Yes, that is the requirement for making it. Now then the brain has got to be quiet...

JK: Sir, it is not a 'trained' (a 'professional'?) quietness. Not a self-conscious desire for silence. It is a natural outcome of understanding one's own (psychological?) conditioning.

DB: Yes and one can see that if the brain is quiet then you could almost say it could listen to something deeper – right?

JK: Deeper, that's right. Then if it is (inwardly silent or ?) quiet it is related to the Mind. Then the ( holistic intelligence of the?) Mind can function ( flow freely?) through the brain.

DB: Now I think that it would help ( many holistically minded people?) if we could see whether the human brain whether has any ( transcending ?) activity which is beyond thought. You see, for example, one could ask is ( a choiceless or transpersonal ?) awareness part of the function of the brain?

JK: As long as it is an 'awareness' in which there is no choice. ( The other choice being that ?) 'I' am aware and in that awareness I choose.

DB: Yes, well I think that may cause ( some experiential?) difficulty. You see what is wrong with ( the personal) choice (in the context of awareness?) ?

JK: ( Inwardly-wise?) 'choice' means ( is a sure sign of?) confusion.

DB: Well, it is not so obvious – the confusion is implied in the ( inward ) choices of the human psyche.

JK: We are talking of the 'psyche' (of the 'self'-identified consciousness?) that chooses.

DB: That 'chooses ' ( what is best for it ?) to become' (inwardly ) ?

JK: Yes. Chooses to become, and also (such) 'choice' exists ( in a brain ) where there is confusion.

DB: So, you are saying that out of ( a lack of inner clarity or?) 'confusion' the psyche makes a choice to become one thing rather than another - right? Being confused it tries to become 'something better'.

JK: And 'choice' also implies a 'duality' ( a subliminal split between the 'chooser' & his 'existential choice' ?).

DB: And it seems that we have another duality which you have introduced, which is between the the 'mind' and the 'brain'.

JK: No, that is not a ( 'psychological) ?) duality'.

DB: Well, then it this is important to get this point clear.

JK: That is not a 'duality' ?

DB: Yes, what is the difference?

JK: All right, let's take a very simple example : human beings are ( generally inclined to be greedy and/or ?) 'violent' and a (very noble ideal?) of 'non-violence' has been projected by thought. So, that is an example ( of 'psychological ) duality' – between the 'fact' and the 'non-fact'.

DB: Well you are saying there is a ( 'psychological) duality' between a fact and some mere projection which the mind makes ?

JK: Between ( thought's projected?) 'ideal' ( inner condition ) and the fact.

DB: This 'ideal' is non-real and the ( ongoing inner ) 'fact' is real. Now then, the ( mental) division of those two you call 'duality'. But why do you give it that name?

JK: Because they are divided.

DB: Well at least they appear to be divided. So there is an (artificial) division brought ( by thought's attempt of ) dividing something which cannot be divided. We are trying to divide the ( ongoing activity of our own?) psyche ?

JK: That's right. ( The ancestral heritage of survival-oriented ? ) violence' cannot be divided' into 'violence' & 'non-violence'.

DB: The human 'psyche' cannot be divided into violence and non-violence – right?

JK: Yes, it is... 'what it is'.

DB: It is 'what it is', so if it is 'violent' ('naturally selfish' ?) it can't be divided into a violent and a non-violent part.

JK: That's right. So ( for 'meditation homework'?) can we remain (in a holistically friendly way ?) with 'what is', not with 'what should be', and/or ( choose strongly recommended ?) 'ideals' and all the rest of it?

DB: Now, could we return to the question of the 'mind' and the 'brain'. You were saying it is not a ( dualistic?) division ?

JK: Oh no, that is not a division.

DB: So, they are ( actually?) in contact ?

JK: We said there is an (authentic) contact between the 'mind' and the 'brain' when the brain is ( inwardly?) silent and has ( sufficient free inner ?) space.

DB: Yes, so we are saying that although ( originally) they are (or...were?) not divided at all, the 'mind' can still have a certain independence of the (psychological?) conditioning of the brain.

JK: Let's see : Suppose that my brain (has) been (culturally) programmed as a Hindu, and my whole life is conditioned by the ( very comforting?) idea that I am a Hindu. Obviously the ( 'intelligent' matrix of the?) 'mind' has no relationship with that ( inherited cultural) conditioning.

DB: So, when you are using the word 'mind', it means it is not my ( particular) mind.

JK: Oh, the ( energy matrix of the human ) 'mind' is ( obviously ) not 'mine'.

DB: So, it is 'universal' or 'general' ?

JK: Yes. And (even biologically ?) it is not 'my' ( self-made?) brain either...

DB: No, but as long as there is a 'particular' brain, would you say there is a 'particular' mind?

JK: No.

DB: That is an important ( holistic) difference. You are saying the ( intelligent energy matrix of the human ?) 'mind' is really universal ?

JK: Mind is universal - if you can use that ( largely abused ?) word.

DB: ( How about ?) 'unlimited and undivided' ?

JK: It is an unpolluted (content-empty consciousness ?) , not polluted by thought.

DB: But then most ( thoughtful?) people there will ask : how do we know anything about this ( universal dimension of the human ?) 'mind' ? The first (experiential) feeling is : 'I can know what my own mind is' - right?

JK: ( Holistically-wise ?) you cannot call it 'your' mind. You only have 'your' brain which is conditioned (by its long evolution in time ?) You can't say, "It is my mind"...

DB: Well whatever is going on inside ( my particular 'mind & brain'?) I feel is 'mine' and it is very different from what is going on inside somebody else.

JK: No, I question whether it is ( essentially?) different.

DB: At least, it seems to be different.

JK: Yes. I question whether what is going on inside 'me' as a human being and 'you' as another human being is ( essentially) different - we both go through all kinds of ( existential?) problems, suffering, fear, anxiety, loneliness, suffer, we have our beliefs, superstitions, and everybody has this ( same psychologically loaded content ? ) .

DB: Well we can say it is all very similar but it also seems as if each one of us is isolated from the other.

JK: By ( the self-centred activity of) thought. My thought has created ( the very realistic feeling) that I am different from you, because my physical body is different from you, my face is different from you, so we extend that same (mentality) into the 'psychological' area.

DB: We have discussed that. But now, what if we see that (inwardly) the division is perhaps ( a very realistic ?) illusion ?

JK: Not 'perhaps', it 'is' !

DB: It is an illusion, all right. Although... it is not at all 'obvious' when a person first looks at it. Now once we see that our mind ( the human consciousness ) is not divided, still beyond there is ( an Universal?) Mind which has no division at all ?

JK: It is 'unconditioned' (unlimited?) .

DB: Yes, but in so far as a person feels he is a separate being he has very little contact with this Mind – right?

JK: Quite right. That is what we said. This is why it is very important to understand ( in the first place?) one's (own) conditioning, not the Mind. So, whether this ( psychologically active?) conditioning can ever be dissolved (or not?) is the 'real' (experiential) issue.

DB: Yes. But we'd all want to understand the (inward ) meaning of what is being said. You see, if we have (a free inward access to ) a Mind that is universal, that ( can be contacted ) in some (inner) space we can create , or has It its own 'space'?

JK: It is not ( located?) in me or in my brain.

DB: But It has a space (of its own?) .

JK: It 'is', It lives in Space and Silence.

DB: So, it is the Space of the Mind. It is not at a physical (location in) space?

JK: No. That is why we said ( that this inward ) Space (of the universal mind?) is not invented by thought.

DB: Yes, but is it possible then to perceive this ( Inner ) Space when the ( temporal) mind is silent, and to be in contact with it?

JK: Not 'perceive'.... Let's see. You are asking whether this Mind can be perceived by the brain ?

DB: Or an awareness of Its (Presence?) ?.

JK: Yes. We are saying yes, ( this could be done ?) through Meditation. You may not like to use that word ?

DB: Well I don't mind...

JK: I think it is possible to bring it about - ( but the experiential ) difficulty is that word 'meditation' it is generally understood ( in terms of ) a 'meditator' who is 'meditating'. ( The 'meditator free' ?) meditation is not a ('self-conscious') process.

DB: are able to say that meditation takes place if it is 'un-conscious'?

JK: It is taking place ( is Present?) when the brain is quiet.

DB: So, by ('self-) consciousness' you mean all the movement (the ongoing activity of the self centred) thought ?

JK: The ( self-centred?) movement of thought.

DB: Including the ( personal) feelings, desires, will and all that goes with it, right?

JK: Yes.

DB: But there is still some kind of awareness, isn't there?

JK: Oh yes. Depends what you call 'awareness'. Awareness of what?

DB: Possibly the 'awareness' of something deeper ?

JK: You see, the word 'deeper', is measurement ( meditator's evaluation ? ) - oh no Sir, I wouldn't use that.

DB: Well, let's not use that. Then, is it some kind of un-consciousness ( non-personal consciousness ?) which we are simply not aware of at all ?

JK: Let's go at it a bit more. If I do something 'consciously', it is the action of (the 'thinker-controlled ? ) thought.

DB: Yes, it is ( the self-consciousness of) thought reflecting on itself.

JK: Yes, it is the activity of thought. Now if you ( endeavour to) 'consciously' meditate, practise (various forms of thought control &) all this kind of ( self-centred?) 'nonsense', you are making the brain conform to another series of ( time-binding mental) patterns.

DB: Yes, it is more ( self-) becoming.

JK: More becoming, that's right.

DB: Yes, because you are trying to become (inwardly) better.

JK: You can't ; there is no 'illumination' by becoming. You can't become illumined by going to a 'cheap' guru.

DB: Anyway, it seems very difficult to communicate about something of which one is not conscious...

JK: That's it. That's the difficulty (of a 'meditator-free' meditation) .
Let's put it the( negative) way: the ( self-) conscious meditation, a conscious activity to control thought, or even to free oneself from conditioning, is not ( compatible with an authentic inner) freedom.

DB: Yes, I think that is clear, but now it becomes very unclear how to communicate what else (is there to be done )

JK: Wait a minute. How can I tell you of what lies beyond thought (or beyond the 'known'?) ?

DB: Or ( of what is there ) when thought is silent ?

JK: Quite, silent. What words would you use?

DB: Well I suggested the word 'awareness'. What about the ( Presence of?) 'attention'?

JK: 'Attention' is better for me. Would you that in this (Presence of?) Attention there is no centre as the 'me'?

DB: Well in the kind of ( holistic?) attention you are discussing. The more common kind is where we pay attention because of what interests us.

JK: In ( this presence of?) attention, thought has no place.

DB: Yes, but could we say more: what do you mean by ( this presence of?) attention? Would the derivation of the word be of any use? It literally means 'stretching the mind' - would that help?

JK: No, no. Would it help if we say ( that this) attention is not ( the result of a mental) concentration ? When 'I' ( the self-conscious 'meditator' ?) make effort to attend it is not attention. Attention can only come into (one's ) being when the 'self (- centred' consciousness) is not (active ?) .

DB: Yes but this (holistic description) is going to put us on a ( loop?) because we are starting (to meditate ) when the (temporal) 'self' is (already present) . So even the (holistically minded ) person who says ''meditation is necessary'', begins with the 'self', he says, "I am here".

JK: No, I used the word ('meditator -free meditation' ?) carefully. As long as there is ( a mental ) measurement, which is ( the natural activity of self-) becoming, there is no Meditation. Let's put it that way.

DB: Yes, we can discuss (the mental condition ?) when there is not meditation.

JK: That's right. And through negation the 'other' is (present ?).

DB: So, if we succeed in negating the whole activity of what is not meditation the ( Presence of?) Meditation will be there ?

JK: That's right. That's right.

DB: So, that which we ( generally) think it is meditation... is not Meditation.

JK: Yes, that's right. As long as there is ( a mental) measurement, which is (part of ) the (self- becoming ?) process of thought, Meditation or Silence cannot be (present?)

DB: Now, this undirected ( Presence of?) Attention is it of the Mind, or...?

JK: Attention is of the Mind.

DB: And It contacts the brain, doesn't it?

JK: Yes. We said that as long as the brain is silent, the 'other' has contact.

DB: That is, this 'true attention' has contact with the ( meditating?) brain when the brain is silent ?

JK: Silent and has (inner) space.

DB: What is this 'space'?

JK: The brain has no ( free inner?) space now because it is (constantly) concerned with itself, it is programmed ( to optimise its self-interest) , it is self-centred and it is limited ( within the field of the 'known' ) ?.

DB: Yes, now would you say the brain have its ( own inner) space too?

JK: Limited.

DB: Limited space?

JK: Of course. Thought has its own limited (mental) space.

DB: But when thought is absent, does the (meditating) brain have its ( own free inner) space?

JK: That's right. That's right. The brain has space, yes.

DB: Unlimited?

JK: No. It is only the Mind that has an unlimited space .

DB: Unlimited... ?

JK: Like when my brain can ' remain quiet' over a problem of which I have thought about and I suddenly say, "Well I won't think any more about it" - there is a certain amount of ( problem-free inner) space. In that space ( may occur the flash of insight which ?) solves the problem (in... no time?) .

DB: Yes, so if the ( thinking) mind is getting silent, its (inner) space is still limited, but it is open to...

JK: the Other.

DB: the ( Presence of?) Attention. Would you say that through attention, or in attention, the Mind is contacting the brain?

JK: When the brain is not inattentive (lost in... inattention?) .

DB: So what happens to that brain?

JK: We said that ( a quality of holistic?) intelligence is born out of compassion and love. That 'intelligence' operates ( creatively?) when the brain is quiet.

DB: Yes, does it operate through ( in the Presence of?) Attention?

JK: Of course, of course.

DB: So attention seems to be the 'contact'.

JK: Contact, naturally. ( But this Presence of) Attention can only be when the 'self' (time-bound self-centred consciousness?) is not (around?) .

DB: Yes. Now you say that Love and Compassion are the 'Ground' , and out of this Ground comes the ( creative action of?) intelligence through attention.

JK: Yes, it functions through the ( selfless?) brain.

DB: And about this Intelligence - there are two ( often asked) questions: (1) What is the nature of this intelligence, and (2) What does it do to the brain ?

JK: Sir, let's see. That is, we must again (take a short detour &) approach it negatively. Love is not ( the 'love' generally associated with) jealousy and all that. Love is not 'personal', but it can be (occasionally?) personal.

DB: Well if it is (coming ) from the universal mind...

JK: That is why I say Love has no ( working) relationship to ( brain's the self-centred) thought.

DB: Yes, it does not originate in the 'particular' brain.

JK: Yes, it is not 'my' love.

DB: Yes...

JK: When there is this (Presence of Universal?) Love, out of that there is Compassion and there is Intelligence.

DB: And this ( Selfless?) Intelligence is able to 'understand deeply' ?

JK: No, not 'understand'...

DB: Then, What does it do? Does it 'perceive' ?

JK: Through perception it acts.

DB: Yes. Perception of what?

JK: Perception - now let's discuss 'perception'. There can be ( an insightful?) perception only when it is not tinged by thought.

DB: When it is not...?

JK: When there is no interference from the movement of thought there is ( a 'though-time' free ) perception, which is direct insight into a practical problem, or into human complex.

DB: Yes, now does this ( holistic) perception originates in the Mind?

JK: Does the ( totally insightful) perception originate in the Mind? Let's look at it. Yes. When the brain is 'quiet' (problem-free?) .

DB: Yes, but we used the words ( insightful) perception and intelligence - how are they related, or what is their difference?

JK: Between perception and intelligence?

DB: Yes.

JK: None.

DB: So we can say ( in a holistic idiom that ?) 'intelligence is perception'.

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: Intelligence 'is' the perception (of the truth or falseness of ?) 'what is' - right? And through ( in the Presence of?) Attention there is contact.

JK: Sir, let's take ( for example) a serious human problem, it is probably easier to understand (the action of a compassionate Intelligence)

DB: Yes... ?

JK: Take the problem of (man's existential ) 'suffering'. Human beings have suffered endlessly, through wars, through every kind of disease, physical disease, (not to mention their ?) 'wrong' relationship with each other. Man has suffered a great deal. Now can this (stream of collective suffering ?) end?

DB: Yes. Well I would say that the difficulty of ending it is that we are conditioned to ( accept the inevitability of ) this whole thing – right?

JK: Yes, we are conditioned by it . Now that has been going on for centuries.

DB: Yes, so it is very deep, somewhat.

JK: Very, very deep. Now can that suffering end?

DB: Yes and because the brain is caught in ( the causation of this) suffering and it cannot take an action to end its own suffering.

JK: Of course it cannot. That is why thought cannot end it. Thought has created it.

DB: Yes, thought has created it (as a collateral effect of its main thread of self-interest?) and now it seems unable to get hold of it.

JK: Yes, thought has created the wars, the misery, the confusion, and thought has become prominent in human relationship.

DB: I think that many (thoughtful?) people might agree with that, but they still think that as the ( self-centred human ) thought can do bad things, it can also ( mend its ways & ) do good things.

JK: No, ( inwardly speaking?) thought cannot do 'good' or 'bad' things . It is limited.

DB: Thought cannot get hold of this ( self-sustained stream of human) suffering. That is this suffering being in the physical conditioning of the brain, and chemical, thought has no way of knowing what it is even. I can't change the course of suffering inside myself because my ( inwardly blind?) thinking will not show me what it is. Now you are saying it is Intelligence that can 'see' it ?

JK: We are asking 'can suffering end'? That is a ( major existential) problem.

DB: Yes, and it is clear that my ( powers of) thinking cannot do it.

JK: Thought cannot do it. But if I have an insight into it...

DB: Now this ( sorrow- dissolving ?) 'insight' will be through the action of the mind, intelligence, and ( in the Presence of a compassionate?) Attention.

JK: When there is that ( kind of?) Insight, ( its Compassionate?) intelligence wipes away suffering.

DB: Yes, now you are saying therefore there is a contact from Mind to matter which removes the whole 'physio-chemical' structure which keeps us going on with suffering.

JK: That's right. In that ending there is a ( qualitative) mutation in the brain cells. We discussed this some years ago.

DB: Yes and that mutation just wipes out the whole psychological structure that makes you suffer.

JK: Yes. Therefore it is like I have been going along a certain ( highway of cultural) tradition, I suddenly change (or drop?) that tradition there is a change in the whole brain, which ( metaphorically speaking?) has been going 'North' ( driven by 'Self-Interest'?) , now it goes 'East' (…???)

DB: Of course this is a radical notion from the point of view of traditional ideas in science because if we accept that mind that is different from matter then people would find it hard to say that Mind would actually...

JK: 'Mind' is after all (a 100 % pure intelligent) energy?

DB: Well, matter is a ( cristallised form of ) energy too.

JK: Therefore ( the energy of) matter is limited, thought is limited.

DB: But we are saying that the ''pure energy of mind'' is able to reach into the limited energy of man.

JK: Yes, that's right. And change the ( active causation of its self-centred ?) limitation.

DB: ... or to remove some of the (existing) limitations....

JK: ...when there is a deep issue, or a problem, or a challenge which you are facing.

DB: Yes, so we have thought - we could also add that all the traditional ways of trying doing this cannot work because...

JK: It hasn't worked.

DB: Well that is not enough. We have to say 'why' because people still might hope it could, it cannot actually.

JK: It cannot.

DB: Because 'thought' ( thinking within the limited the field of one's available knowledge) cannot get at the basis of its own physical, its own physical & chemical basis in the brain cells, and do anything about ( conditioned content imprinted in ) those cells.

JK: Yes Sir, we have said that very clearly that the old ( & knowledgeable?) instrument which is thought is worn out, except in certain (outward ) areas. Thought cannot bring about a change in itself.

DB: Well it never was adequate except in those ( outward ) areas.

JK: Of course, of course.

DB: And man has always been inwardly in trouble as far as history goes.

JK: Yes Sir, man has always been in trouble, in turmoil, fear...
But as (holistically responsible) human beings, facing all the confusion of the world, can there be a solution to all this?

DB: Yes, that comes back to the question that there are a few people who are talking about it, and perhaps 'meditating' and so on, but how is that going to affect this vast 'current (of selfisness' presently going on in the total consciousness ? ) of mankind?

JK: Probably very little (to be noticed during one life-time ?). It might, or it might not....

DB: But you see the first instinct is to say, "What can we do to stop this tremendous catastrophe?"

JK: Yes. What is the new instrument that will put an end to all this misery? You see there is a new instrument which is the Mind, which is Intelligence. But you see the difficulty is also people won't listen to all this.

DB: Yes, well that is the sort of point I had in mind when I said a few people don't seem to have much effect.

JK: I think, after all, that a 'few good people' can changed the (psychological course of the?) world....

DB: Well do you think it is possible that say a certain number of brains coming in contact with ( this Universal) Mind in this way will be able to have an affect on ( the total consciousness of?) mankind , beyond the immediate effect of their communication?

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: I mean obviously whoever does this may communicate in the ordinary way, it will have a small effect but now this is (just opening ) a possibility of something entirely different – right?

JK: I have often thought about it - how do you convey to all this rather subtle and very complex issue, to a person who is so conditioned ( inwardly) that won't even take time to listen, to consider?

DB: Yes, well that is a very good question, but ( people's psychological) conditioning may be thought to have some sort of permeability. Every person has something he can listen to if ( only?) it could be found?

JK: If he takes a little patience. So...who will listen? Perhaps the person, not highly educated and conditioned in his professional career, money, the man who says, "I am suffering, please let's end that." So, perhaps it is like ( starting ) a ( New ? ) 'Wave' in the ( Consciousness of Mankind) - it will ( eventually?) reach somebody ...

DB: Well are you proposing that it can affect ( the Consciousness of?) Mankind directly through the Mind rather than through...

JK: Yes, yes.... It may not show immediately in action.

DB: (So, to wrap it up?) you are taking very seriously what you said that the Mind is universal and is not located in our ordinary space, is not separate...

JK: Yes. You see Sir there is a ( certain) danger in (making statements like) ''the Mind is Universal'' ... as it has already become a ( New Age?) tradition.

DB: You can turn it into a (more lucrative?) idea, of course...

JK: Of course, that is just the danger of it...

DB: Yes. So, the ( experiential aspect of this ) question is that we have to come directly in contact with this to make it Real – right?

JK: Of course, that's it. They can only come into contact with it when the ( time-bound) 'self' is not (around?) . To put it very, very simply, when the 'self'- (cantred consciousness) is not there , there is beauty, there is silence, space, then that intelligence which is born of compassion operates through the brain. It is very simple.

DB: Now is there some aspect of meditation which can be helpful (in real time) when the 'self' is acting ? You see suppose a person says, "OK I am caught in the self (-centred consciousness?) but I'd really want to get out. What shall I do ?''

JK: ( Meditation-wise?) that is very simple : is the 'observer' different from the 'observed'?

DB: Suppose we say, "Yes, it appears to be different", then what?

JK: Is that an idea or an actuality?

DB: What do you mean?

JK: ( the holistic ?) 'actuality' is when there is no division between the 'thinker' and the 'thought'.

DB: But one ordinarily feels that the 'observer' is different from the 'observed' (from what it . I say, we begin there.


K: We begin there. I'll show you. Look at it. Are 'you' (the knowledgeable observer?) different from your ( reactions of) anger, from your envy, from your suffering? You are not.

DB: At first sight it appears that I am, you see, in the sense that I might try to control it.

JK: You 'are' that.

DB: Yes, how will I see that I 'am' that?

JK: You 'are' your name. You 'are' your form, body. You 'are' all the ( self-centred) reactions and actions. You 'are' the belief, you 'are' the fear, you 'are' the suffering and pleasure (the list is left open...) You 'are' (holistically responsible for?) all that ( bunch of subliminal self- identifications ?)

DB: Yes but the first experience is that I am here in the first place and that those are my ( psychological) qualities which I can either have or not have. I might be angry or not angry, I might have this belief or that belief...

JK: ( Which shows a ) contradictory (dualistic mentality ?). You 'are' all that.

DB: But you see, it is not obvious. When you say I am that, do you mean that I am that and cannot be otherwise?

JK: No. At present you 'are' (subliminally identified with all) that. However, it can be totally otherwise.

DB: OK. so I 'am' all that. But as a thoughtful 'observer', I feel an unbiased observer who is looking at anger. Are you telling me that this unbiased 'observer' (aka : the 'witness') is the same as the anger he is looking at?

JK: Of course. Like I analyse myself and the analyser is the analysed.

DB: Yes. He is biased by what he analyses.

JK: Of course.

DB: So if watching my (reactions of) anger so at some stage, I may realise that that I am one with that anger ?

JK: No, not 'I am one with it' ; you 'are' it ! ( in the context of a 'meditator-free' meditation?) the observer 'is' the observed. And when that actuality exists you have really eliminated altogether ( the observer vs observed) conflict. This inner conflict exists when I am separate from my quality.

DB: Yes, because if I believe myself to be separate then I can try to change it but since I 'am' that, ( my mind is not creating a conflict of interests between?) trying to change itself and remain itself at the same time, right?

JK: Yes, that's right. When the quality 'is' me, the ( observer-observed) division has ended. Right?

DB: Yes, but when I see that the quality is me, there is no point to try to change the whole thing.

JK: No, no. What happens before the quality is not me, in that there is ( involved a subliminal inner ) conflict which is a wastage of ( intelligent) energy. When ( I realise that) that quality 'is' me, all that ( psychical ) energy which has been previously wasted is (now gathered together ) there to look, to observe.

DB: But why does it make such a difference to have that quality 'being' me?

JK: It makes a ( big qualitative) difference when there is no division between the quality and me.

DB: Because when then there is no perception of a difference, the mind does not try to fight itself ?

JK: Yes, yes. It 'is' so.

DB: But if there is an illusion of a difference, the mind feels compelled to fight against itself.

JK: The brain.

DB: The brain fights against itself.

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: On the other hand when there is no illusion of a difference (btw the observer & what it is observing inwardly) the brain just stops fighting.

JK: Fighting, and therefore you have ( recycled & gathered a ?) tremendous ( amount of potentially intelligent ?) energy.

DB: Yes. The brain's natural energy is released, eh?

JK: Yes, yes. And which means – that (integrated) energy means ( the holistic presence of?) attention.

DB: Yes. Well you see, the energy of the brain allows for attention...

JK: For that 'thing' (the self- conflicting mental entity ) to dissolve.

DB: Now, as we said before this ( Inward Presence of) attention was a contact of the 'mind' and the 'brain'. So, the brain must be in a state of 'high' energy to allow that contact.

JK: That's right.

DB: I mean a brain which is low energy cannot allow that contact.

JK: Of course not. But most of us are ( functioning in the ) 'low energy' (savings mode) because we are ( feeling safer in being culturally ) conditioned.

DB: So, essentially you are saying that this is the way to start ( by tackling holistically the observer-observed issue) ?

JK: Yes Sir. Start 'simply' with 'what is (going on within myself?) ', with what I am. That is why self knowledge (knowing oneself in real time?) is so important. Self knowledge is not an accumulated process of knowledge, which then looks at, it is a constant learning about oneself.

DB: Yes, well if you call it 'self knowledge' then it is not knowledge of the kind we talked about before, which is conditioning.

JK: That's right. Knowledge conditions.

DB: But you are saying that a 'self knowing' of this kind is not conditioning. Then... why do you call it knowledge? Is it a different kind of knowledge?

JK: Yes, yes. Knowing oneself (in real time?) , - to know & to understand, 'oneself' ( one's own self?) which is such a subtle complex thing, it is living.

DB: Essentially it means 'knowing yourself' in the very moment in which things are happening.

JK: Yes, to know what is happening (in real time ?) .

DB: Rather than store it up in memory?

JK: Of course. Through (observing my 'gut' ?) reactions I begin to discover what I am (subliminally identified with ?) , and ( transcend the time-binding limitations ?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Apr 2020 #33
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline


An 'experientially-friendly' edited K Dialogue, 1971

Krishnamurti: I wonder if we could discuss this morning what the direct (observer-free ?) perception means ? Obviously, the mind takes in much more than the eye does. So when we talk about 'perception', what do we mean by that word?

SW: There must be a factor (of inner freedom ?) other than the visual contact of the object and the senses in the awareness of "I see".

Krishnamurti: (For starters) I am trying to understand what that word 'perception' conveys. There is the visual perception - I see you sitting there. Then there is the ( formation of a mental) 'image' which sensory perception plus the intellectual capacity of thought holds. So, thousands and thousands of images are recorded and held in the ( memory of the ) brain cells. And when I meet you again all the (related) images emerge. This is the ordinary operational process of perception. Where does the trouble begin?

A: The factor of sensitivity and the varying degrees of sensitivity, are they not a vital element in perception?

Krishnamurti: When I have all these accumulated images, conscious or unconscious, my mind is loaded with them. Where is the place for sensitivity?

A: Well, there is always something new in every new perception, but the sensibility degree is inherent - because man's ignorance is imponderable.

Krishnamurti: The mind ( operating in the self-protected mode ?) is crowded with ( previously stored ) impressions and information ( aka: 'conclusions') about the object which it sees. The the whole ( mental) structure of the brain is full and through this burden it looks at you with its associations, with jealousy, pleasure, pain. What is wrong with that?

R: I am never face to face (with the actual object perceived) . There is sensory perception, then the images, then the like, dislike; those are ( interfering psychological ) 'facts' which ( more often than not) I do not realize (as the image recognition process happens so quickly ?)

Krishnamurti: They are 'facts', as much as the fact that you are sitting here. So, each time I see you ( or anything else ? ) through a ( self-protecting mental ? ) screen. What is wrong with that? Is it not a natural process?

SW: In that state I do not 'see' at all...

Krishnamurti: First I want to be clear about this point: there are thousands of ( previously recorded) impressions, thousands of sensory perceptions, thousands of ( personal or collective ) 'conclusions' and through this (mental screen of) conclusions I look, and each succeeding sensory perception thickens the ( memory of the old) perception. So, ( metaphorically speaking?) I am looking at you 'through the eyes of the past'. That is what we are (sub-consciously ?) doing all the time. What started with ( a direct) perception is not perception at all. Now, that is the structure and the nature of the brain cells. The brain cells retain the memory of the past because in that there is safety - in the biological processes as well as in the psychological accumulations. In that there is tremendous safety.

SW: How is there safety? Am I really safe?

Krishnamurti: Otherwise you would not know your name, you would not know how to go home to Bangalore. Living in the field of knowledge, experience & personal conclusions there is nothing disturbing, therefore there is the feeling of complete safety.

SW: There is nothing to disturb ?

Krishnamurti: Anything new is disturbing and as the brain cells need order they find order in functioning within the fiels of the past.

SW: This 'security' implies struggle.

Krishnamurti: I do not know if you have noticed it: the brain needs ( a sense of deep ) order, but in trying to find order in (an environment in ) disorder one can become neurotic. See this?

SW: This point is perfectly clear...

Krishnamurti: The brain seeking order creates for itself a 'harbour' where it feels safe. And K comes along with 'revolutionary' ideas and tells you, this is not "order" - so there is a ( subliminally ?) conflictual relationship between you and him.

A: However, we have discovered something inwardly significant : the moment one sees something new which creates a potential disturbance, ( the intellectual) perception is the instrument by which I convert the new into the old.

Krishnamurti: That is a biological necessity for the brain, because in that it finds the most efficient way of working. So, unless the brain cells themselves understand the ( psychological) danger of seeking security in the ( memory of the ) past, they will not see anything new ; or if they do see something new they will translate it in terms of the old. Therefore (for optional homework?) the brain cells themselves have to see the immense danger of what they consider security in the past. So, how is the human brain which is constantly demanding security, how is that brain to see that in the past there is no security, but always in the new?
The brain cells are seeking security in the field of knowledge: biological knowledge, technological knowledge and the personal knowledge gathered through experience.

SW: There is a modified continuity in this process which creates an overall feeling of progress.

Krishnamurti: The moment you have (acquired some ) knowledge it can be continued, modified, but it is still within the field of knowledge; the whole thing is there. What is wrong with this?

SW: All that you said is a fact. However, there is something radically wanting in this.

Krishnamurti: What is the something which is not quite right? I will show it to you : The mind is always living in the (memory field of the ) past. So the mind is becoming a ( 'conscience'?) prisoner (of its own desire for safety) .
One's present life is a repetitive, mechanical continuity. So, man has to invent an ideal, or he pursues God, Truth, Enlightenment, but as he invents, he is always anchored to the past. This anchorage is biologically necessary ; but can the human brain see where knowledge is essential and also see the (inward) danger of ( getting stuck in the field of ?) knowledge which brings about division? Isn't knowledge the factor that divides?

SW: Yes, of course...

Krishnamurti: Do not agree. "See it !" Can the brain cells seek ( their physical) security in knowledge, and know that inwardly there is ( a hidden) danger of knowledge ?

SW: To see both at the same time is difficult.

Krishnamurti: "See" it at the same time ! Otherwise you will not "see" it.

A: Knowledge 'divides' what?

Krishnamurti: Knowledge ( brain's all-knowing attitude) in itself is divisive. The known and the unknown. Yesterday, today and tomorrow. "I know you" implies having a (self- divisive) image - my image of you divides us. The factor of dividing is (implicit in) the building of the 'image'. So can the brain cells see that (the practical) knowledge is necessary to be physically secure and also see that ( in the human relationships) one's knowledge based on ( a self-) image derived from conclusion is divisive? When you see the whole structure of knowledge, then the mind sees its own bondage of time. But, the brain cells also know that in this there is no freedom, and they want freedom because, in the freedom ( from the known?) may be the super-security. This is why man has from immemorial times talked of freedom. And we are saying this freedom (from the known) is to be found in here, not outside, right?

SW: In other words is ( one's inner) freedom to be found in the field knowledge?

Krishnamurti: Is there freedom in the ( knowledge of the ? ) past? Knowledge is the accumulation of a million years of ( survival-oriented ) experience. And does this experience give ( an authentic sense of ) freedom? Obviously not. So is there inwardly such a thing as freedom?

SW: I can see that looking for freedom outside oneself is a ( wishful-thinking) projection. And yet there is no freedom inside...

Krishnamurti: I have got it: thought is becoming aware that it has created this prison, by demanding security (at any price) , it has created the prison. And it must have (physical) security, otherwise it cannot function. So thought enquires where is freedom?

A: Is it in the act of perception?

Krishnamurti: This is (a holistic) act of perception : that thought has created all this. Knowledge and non-knowledge are still projections of thought. There is this (whole mental infra-) structure of the brain cells who, with their memories which are responsible for thought. This is the structure of thought. Thought says: knowledge is (physically) necessary and the same thought says (that living trapped in the field of knowledge) there is no freedom either. So thought has created all this and there security in the very thinking itself?

SW: It is thinking which has done all this.

Krishnamurti: Therefore, is there (an authentic) security? I see wars, divisions, the yours and the mine, the we and the they, my family, your family - is there security in all this? Is there security in the (knowledge of the) past? The brain cells have sought security in that, but is there security? (Experiential Hint:) The brain cells have to see for themselves that there is no ( authentic) security there. It is a tremendous discovery for me. So thought says, what next? Is there an ending of "myself" (the self-identified 'thinker' ?) without ( any mental) effort? In that is ( highly necessary ) the quality of sensitivity.

To come to this point ( without falling asleep ?) requires tremendous subtlety, great attention, great awareness – this ( meditative endeavour) has its own discipline, its own order. The brain now is completely orderly, because it has followed step by step, seeing its own attitudes, searching into things that have no security, seeing that it has sought security in ( thought's self-centred mentality of ) division. Now it sees that in division there is no security, therefore, every ( self-enquiring) step is a step in order and that order is its own security. This (inward) order is ( generated by the ?) perception of things as they are, and I cannot see things as they 'are' (especially inwardly) if I have a 'conclusion'. Thought has sought security in (all kind of collective & personal) 'conclusions' which have spread disorder. Therefore it rejects ( all such ?) conclusions immediately, because it wants ( an authentic inward ) security. Therefore, thought functions in ( the field of) knowledge only when it is necessary, but nowhere else, because everywhere else the function of thought is to create ( psychologically-biased) 'conclusions' & 'images'. Therefore, ( the time-binding continuity of?) thought comes to an end.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 26 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Apr 2020 #34
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

( an 'experientially-friendly' edited K Dialogue, 1971)

Questioner D: The other day you spoke of 'human' energy and 'cosmic' energy. I will state the scientific position : while material energy dissipates itself, the 'life energy' does not. The human mind generally moves with the entropic energy and, therefore, decays. One's (major existential?) problem is therefore: How can a human mind who is becoming aware of this, be part of that movement of energy that is 'anti-entropic'?

P: This is a very important point. If there is a movement of energy which does not dissipate itself, which does not decay, then from the point of view of the scientist as well as ( of the everyday) man, it is probably the answer to all the problems of the world.

Krishnamurti: So, are you asking : How is a human being who is ( presently) caught in this (entropic) movement of thought to put an end to it ? There is this whole field of technological knowledge and the movement ( in the field) of knowledge which has tremendous influence on him, which is really taking him over, absorbing him; ( But inwardly speaking?) the energy of that movement is an energy of decay, an energy of waste. And some (new-age) scientists say that the real human energy is non-mechanical, non-technological. So, what is the question?

D: Some (holistically minded) biologists say that in man there is an emergence of a new consciousness – that the next leap forward ( in mankind's evolution) will come by "a process of seeing"...

Krishnamurti: We will ( hopefully?) come to that if we can examine the decaying processes; the energy which is mechanical, which is entropic. They have even measured the thought (waves) produced by brain's memory cells .

D: If you (indulge in ) flowing with this material energy you are doomed. It is only inviting the entropic movement.

Krishnamurti: So there is this (thought) movement which ultimately, in its very motion, leads to decay.

A: The biologist's approach is very tentative when he comes to 'consciousness'. Whenever he speaks of life-energy, he does not speak with the same precision as the other. There is a recognition that the anti-entropic is the 'unknown', the 'undefinable'. But... even after saying that there is another (anti-entropic) energy, this is still unknown.

P: I think we are going round in circles. The observable thing is, man is born, lives and dies. The phenomenon of a cyclic movement of beginning and ending of energy is visible and deeply structured in our consciousness. Is there ( within the human psyche a timeless ) energy which is not concerned with emerging or disappearing?

Krishnamurti: There is a movement of energy which is mechanical, which is measurable, which may end, and there is life-energy which you cannot manipulate; it goes on infinitely. We see that in one case there is wastage of energy and in the other there is non-wastage of energy.

F: I do not see the 'other' (energy) as a fact.

Krishnamurti: All right...How are we going to find out whether there is another form of energy which can never end, which is not related to the energy which begins, continues and withers away?

D: Is there any form of ( consciousness ) energy that will not decay?

Krishnamurti: I have got it : any energy that meets resistance wears itself out – like a ( motor) car going up the hill without enough power; the energy generated by the engine will wear out. ( Within the human consciousness?) is there a (source of intelligent) energy which has no friction in itself? And even if it meets resistance, it does not recognize ( it as) resistance, it does not recognize friction.

P: The moment thought's energy 'crystallizes'......

Krishnamurti: The human organism is a field of ( life) energy – so, do not use the word crystallization. In this whole field (of reality) , there is this ( material life-) energy brought about through resistance, through conflict, through violence, through growth and decay, through the process of time. Now we are asking, is there any other energy which is not of time, which does not belong to this field?

F: You are asking whether there is an (intelligent & non-entropic energy which is 'time-resistant' or ) 'indestructible' ?

Krishnamurti: All that the human beings presently know is ( thought's 'real' ) energy which is (functioning ) in the field of time. And as (holistically minded?) human beings we are enquiring if there is ( within the human consciousness?) an energy which is not in the field of time? Is there an energy which may go through the field of time and yet not be touched by time? Man must have asked this (meta-physical) question for centuries upon centuries, and not being able to find a (fool-proof?) answer, he formulates an ( omni-potent ) energy which it calls God and worships that. But how do I find out (experientially?) whether there is any other energy which is not of time?

D: Yes... ?

Krishnamurti: (For starters?) I reject (the concept of) 'God' is within the field of time. I also reject the (traditional concepts of) Higher Self, the Atman, the the Soul, Heaven, for they are all within the field of time. Now I ask, is there ( an intelligent?) energy which is timeless? Yes, there is. Shall we go into it?

D: Yes, sir.

Krishnamurti: However ( meditation-wise) my consciousness must empty itself of its ( time-binding?) content.

D: The question is (metaphorically speaking :) I am sitting on a 'chair', which is my condition of existence. I cannot just throw away the chair.

Krishnamurti: You cannot throw away the chair, but you can throw away the (psychologically loaded ) 'content' which time has created which one calls my consciousness. This 'content' makes the self-consciousness; otherwise there is no 'consciousness' (as we know it now ?)

P: Is the total emptying of (the psycho-content of) consciousness not the same as 'seeing' the totality of consciousness?

Krishnamurti: Agreed - there is the ( meditation related?) fact of totally emptying (one's) consciousness; there is another (insight related) fact which is seeing the whole field of time as a total state - now is this 'seeing' different from the field of time, or thought has separated (distanced?) itself from the field of time and then thinks it is free and looks at the field of time which is what we (generally) call (a dualistic ?) perception?

D: Right, Sir. This perception presupposes a 'perceiver'.

Krishnamurti: So the next question arises what is 'total seeing'? Comprehending the whole consciousness of man, the whole of it. And the 'whole of it' is the ( psychologically active ) 'content' of it which has been accumulated through time, as culture, religion, knowledge. Whether it 'expands' including God, nationalism or (inter)nationalism, or 'contracts' ( as I-me-mine ) , it is still within the field of time. ( In both cases) it is the whole movement of consciousness within the field of time. It 'is' time itself, because this content has been accumulated through centuries upon centuries. So, how can one's mind look at this total field of time and not be of the field? Is there a ( wholistic?) perception, a 'seeing' which is not of time? What do you say?

D: That is our question.

Krishnamurti: And if it is not of time, then this ( observer-free?) perception itself is the life-movement.

A: Except that.... I do not know anything about it.

Krishnamurti: Can my mind 'dissociate' itself from the total field? Or is there an ( Intelligent & Compassionate quality of ) perception which is not of ( the field of?) time and therefore 'sees' the totality?

P: I would say is that I cannot posit the "other". The moment I posit it, it becomes the 'God' of the Upanishads. However, when you say it, we 'listen'.

Krishnamurti: I have not yet said anything ('positive') …

A: All I can see is that all ( self-centred) consciousness is within the field of time that I can remain with ( the actuality of ) it. I 'am' it.

Krishnamurti: I (K) do not say there is or there is not, but is there a (global) perception which 'sees' the totality of consciousness - which is (projecting itself in?) time? Is there such a perception?

P: May I say something? I can see this room and I see the interiority of my consciousness. I see X as separate from Y - all this is the 'content' of this room.

Krishnamurti: That is right. The 'observer' and the 'observed' are both within the field of time. That is a fact. And somebody comes along and asks: Is there a movement which is not of time? Isn't that a legitimate question ?

P: I do not know...

Krishnamurti: You can put it to yourself (as meditation homework ?) : Can the mind itself become totally aware so that it sees ( its self-centred) consciousness as (a thought-projected movement in?) time? It is fairly simple.

P: What is involved in seeing one's consciousness as ( a self-sustaining process of thought & ) 'time'? When I am observing thought, I see it as a movement. I see thought as an endless movement; I wake up to a thought having been, then again of the next thought popping up , then again of another thought. Then I put these together and understand that thought is a movement in time . But when Krishnaji says "perceive this room", there is no perception of time. It is happening in the 'active present'.

Krishnamurti: When you enter the room, you perceive its proportions, the space, the colour – but can you perceive your consciousness with the same tactile feel? (Hint : ) In ( a holistic ?) perception, there is no time. I look and there is no time.

P: I am just questioning (the experiential validity of your statement ) "Do you see consciousness as the whole content of time?"

Krishnamurti: My (thinking) mind is the result of time - memory, experience, knowledge, so my ( everyday) consciousness is within the field of time. How can I see that its whole content is within the field of time? Is it an intellectual conclusion, or is it an actual perception?

P: How would you distinguish the two?

Krishnamurti: One is a (verbal) formulation , a conclusion, a statement, the other I am finding it out (in real time?).

P: So, when I say that my ''consciousness is the product of time'', is it a statement or is it something I can 'see' ( right away ?) ?

Krishnamurti: Is it a K statement which I accept, and therefore it becomes an (intellectual) 'conclusion', or is it an actually perceived 'fact' that the whole of my brain, the whole of my consciousness is ( belonging to) this enormous field of time? Is it as concrete as that?

P: How can it be as concrete as the other?

Krishnamurti: Is there not a ( global) perception which is not of thought, of one's ( everyday) mind as ( belonging to ) the total field of time ?

P: Why is it necessary to make such an absolute statement at all?

Krishnamurti. When thought operates, it must operate within the field of time, it must come to a conclusion and this conclusion is (ASAP becoming) part of ( my time-bound) consciousness. When I come to this room, I just 'see' , there is no movement of thought. The moment thought comes in, my seeing comes into the field of time. So, is my mind deceiving itself by saying "I have no formula", but is entrenched in formulas ? Or is there a ( wholistic) perception which has nothing whatsoever to do with thought?
Do I see that whenever thought comes into being, it must create a ( mental image or ) 'formula' within the field of ( thought & ) time ?
So, when I hear you saying ''The whole of our consciousness is time'' - is it a (intellectual) 'formula' which I have accepted (for futher usage) , or is it a 'fact' - a perception (in real-time) of the total movement of thought?

P: When you ask me whether I have accepted it as a formula, I have neither accepted it as a formula, nor is it seen as a fact. It is neither of these.

Krishnamurti: But by (some extra homework of?) 'listening', 'examining', & investigating, you ( may say that ) this is so. Now, move a step further. Is that "it is so", the intellectual acceptance of an idea, and therefore still within the field of time?

P: What can I answer?

Krishnamurti: I want to find out whether the mind sees the truth of it, it sees the 'fact'. If it is seen as a 'fact', nothing more can be said, as thought does not arise. This whole field of (thought & ) time exists only when thought operates. Now, is ( the interference of ) thought completely absent, and the mind is only aware of time and nothing more? Then what takes place? I am aware of this 'room' (of the time-bound human consciousness) without any interference of (thought & ) time.

P: At this very instant what are you aware of?

Krishnamurti: (Makes a sweeping gesture brushing one hand over the other) Nothing.( Not-a-thing?) That is it ! Even logically it is right.

A: But when we hear you , the next moment it has become a memory.

Krishnamurti: Forgive me, but I am not concerned whether you see or do not see. I am investigating (in real time) but you are merely remaining with the (mental) formulation . So, am I perceiving the (creation of this mental) formula with a (formula-addicted mentality) , or perceiving the movement of thought without any formula? Then "P" asks me, in that state what is there to perceive? Absolutely nothing, because it is not of time. That is the factor of ( non-entropic) life-energy.

P: I want to ask another ( bonus experiential) question. You said that there is nothing, but is there movement?

Krishnamurti: When you are asking whether in that ( inward state of) 'no-thingness', there is a 'movement' , - if I say there is, you will then tell me it is measurable and therefore it is in time.

P: Isn't there (a time-free ?) movement in 'nothingness' ?

Krishnamurti: Which means that this ( compassionate ) 'movement' of nothingness is not of time, therefore not measurable. But it has its own (universally creative ) movement which you cannot possibly understand unless you leave the movement of (thought projecting itself in ) time. And that 'Movement' is infinite (without beginning or ending?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Apr 2020 #35
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline


( An 'experientially-friendly' edited K Dialogue, 1973)

Questioner: I wonder whether we can talk about Silence : how it is reached, and whether silence has many facets and forms. Whether it is only the absence of thought; or whether this silence arises through different experiences or different situations is different in nature, dimension and direction ?

Krishnamurti: Where shall we start this?

Q: How do you know which is the true silence?

K: That's why I would like to approach this question by asking, is there a 'true' approach to silence. What is the necessity of silence?

Q (1) : The necessity for silence is very easy to understand. People, in their ordinary daily living, have constantly chattering minds, constantly irritated minds, when it comes to a rest there is a feeling of being refreshed, the mind is refreshed, quite apart from anything else. So the silence in itself is important.

Q (2) : And even in the ordinary sense, there's no seeing or listening, there is no seeing of colour, there's no actual 'seeing' of things unless there is a certain quality of silence. That's in the ordinary sense.

K: How would one , being weary, exhausted by the ( constant mental ?) 'chattering' , quieten the mind?

Q: There are many ways of doing it...

K: Ah, I don't know any. (Suppose that ) I come from a land where we don't know any of these things at first hand. So I say, now, can the mind do this without (a concentration ) effort, because effort implies disturbance of the mind, it doesn't bring about tranquillity, it brings about exhaustion and exhaustion is not tranquillity.

Q: Sir, when I practice my Pranayama there's no conflict in it, but there is silence; it doesn't exhaust you. What is the nature of that silence?

K: There, you are getting more oxygen into your system, and the oxygen naturally helps you to be relaxed. But I am not talking of that. I want to find out. We'll discuss the state of silence afterwards. But I want to find out whether the mind can become tranquil without any kind of (mental) enforcement, control, direction.

Q: When you look at a mountain you also get silent...

K: When you look at a mountain what takes place? The beauty, the grandeur of the mountain, absorbs you and makes you silent, but this silence is still 'artificial'. Seeing the greatness of nature 'knocks out' the 'me' ( one's 'self'-identified consciousness?) for the moment and the mind becomes silent. You can experiment with it (for optional homework ? )

Q: So, you say that is not 'the' silence ?

K: I wouldn't call ( the authentic inner) 'silence', because the 'me' is just pushed aside (temporarily) and the next moment I'm back to my chattering or whatever it (was before) . So, how does one come upon it naturally? (Hint:) if I ( really) want to 'listen' to what you are saying, my mind must be quiet. If I want to 'see' ( the truth or the falseness of?) something clearly, the mind mustn't be chattering. That's a 'natural' approach. No?
Now, the basis for the depth of 'silence' is the harmony between the mind, the body and the heart -a great harmony and the setting aside of any artificial methods, including ( thought) control and all the rest of it. I would said that is the basis, the real basis is harmony.

Q: The experiential difficulty is that we don't know this (integrated state of 'great harmony' .

K: All right, so, if there is disharmony between the mind, heart and body, deal with your ( actual condition) and not with silence. So (spend the necessary quality time in?) dealing with 'what is', and not with 'what might be'.

Q: Are you asking an agitated mind to deal ( holistically?) with its own agitation?

K: So be concerned with ( seeing) 'why' is it agitated? What is this harmony between mind, body and heart ? A total sense of being whole, without fragmentation, without the over-development of the intellect, but the intellect operating clearly, objectively, sanely, and the heart, not sentimentally, with (occasional) outbreak of hysteria, but has a quality in it of affection, care, love, compassion, vitality, and the body has its own intelligence and unintefered by the intellect or by taste - all that. The feeling everything is operating, functioning beautifully, like marvellous machinery. Now is this possible?

Q: Why does this division arise, between the mind, the body & heart ?

K: Arise, because through our 'education', where emphasis is made on the cultivation of the intellect as a function apart from living.

Q: That is, the over-emphasis on the mind. But even without ( the pressures of modern?) education, there can be an over-emphasis of emotions …

K: Of course, but ( in the modern world) mankind worships the intellect much more than the emotions. And emotion is translated into devotion, into sentimentality, into all kinds of extravagance of emotionalism. We have done this all along.
Now, why does the brain, as the repository of memory, why does it give such importance to knowledge? Technological, psychological, in relationship, why have human beings given such extraordinary importance to knowledge? I have an office, I've become an important bureaucrat, which is, I have knowledge about doing certain functions. And I become pompous, stupid, dull - why? Why do I give such importance to knowledge?

Q: Is it ( nourishing ) the (self-) image?

K: It's very simple : knowledge gives you ( a social) status. Human beings have worshipped knowledge, knowledge is identified with the intellect. The man of erudition, the scholar, the philosopher, the inventor, the scientist, are all concerned with knowledge. So, we have developed an inordinate admiration, almost verging on worship, for the intellect. (Not to mention?) all the sacred books and their interpretations, all that. And in contrast to that there is a reaction which says, let me have my feelings, I love sentimentality & extravagance in expression. And the body is neglected. You see, this division takes place, unnaturally.
Now, to bring about a natural harmony where the intellect functions like a marvellous watch, where the emotions and affections, care, love, compassion, all those are healthily functioning, and the body comes into its own intelligence. So, how do you do it?

Q: Don't we have to make a distinction between knowledge and the discovery of the new?

K: Sirs, ( as a rule ?) when knowledge interferes in the discovery of the new, there is no discovery of the new. There must be an interval between knowledge and the (necessary space for the perception of the ) new, otherwise you are just carrying on the old.

Q: Can I will it, or does this harmony btw mind, emotions & body have to come into being by itself?

K: What do you say?

Q: I think I can't 'will it'.

K: So what will one do when becoming aware of this division ? How is the mind to remove all the gaps, and be a whole ( living) mechanism functioning beautifully?

Q: We started with silence and you said we won't touch it. Then we took the word 'harmony', and seen that we cannot touch 'harmony' either...

K: Therefore I say, let's deal with ( the ongoing ) disharmony and when there is the understanding of disharmony, from that may flow naturally silence.

Q: There is a Latin saying, 'I know what is right, but I don't follow it'. So, there is an inertial mechanism (of habit) which seems to deny your statement that if you deal with disharmony, harmony is so.

K: So let's ( try to) deal ( holistically ?) with this disorder.

Q: According to our ( real life?) experience this (inner) disorder never yields. The disorder remains disorder. I look at the disorder and the disorder looks at me...

K: Therefore there is a 'duality' in your observation (between the ) 'observer' and what is 'observed'. A ( very subtle?) division and we can play with this endlessly. I am asking : Is it possible to 'end' this ( self-sustained?) disorder?

Q: Let's discuss it.

K: One observes disorder in oneself, right?

Q: Yes, and I see that it is manifested as thought.

K: Let's go into this very carefully because it's rather interesting. Why do I call what I observe 'disorder'?

Q: Any disturbance is a felt as a sign of disorder.

K: Why do I call it 'disorder'? Which means I already have an intimation about what 'order' is.

Q: Of course.

K: So, I am comparing what I have experienced previously as 'order' and thereby call 'what is' disorder. I say, don't do that; don't compare. Can't the mind know ( the live movement of) disorder without comparing itself with order?

Q: Because otherwise one might not know what it is.

K: (For starters?) can my mind not compare? Comparison ( of what is going on now with what one knew before) in itself may be (one?) cause of disorder. Measurement may be ( at the origin of one's inner) disorder. And as long as I am comparing, there must be disorder. I am comparing my disorder at the present moment with a whiff of order which I felt before and therefore calling this 'disorder'. So we can see that (tackling the habit of ?) comparison is really important, not disorder. As long as my mind is comparing, measuring, there must be ( a state of inner frustration generating its own ? ) disorder. ( Personally?) I've never felt I'm in disorder, except rarely, occasionally, and I say to myself, why are all these (important?) people talking about disorder? Do they really know disorder? Or they know it only through comparison?

Q: To put it crudely, when I don't get what I want, I call (that sense of frustration) 'disorder', but here is no conscious comparison of the mind which says, this is disorder and I want order.

K: No, I'm only asking how do you know 'disorder'?

Q: I see it as a sense of confusion. One thought against another thought.

K: We only know a state of inner 'contradiction' (conflicting desires ?) which is confusion. You're saying my mind is in a state of confusion because it is contradicting itself all the time. All right. Proceed from there.

Q: There is a real difficulty here. You see, you have talked about silence, then harmony, then disorder. We are completely moving away - this way. Otherwise why aren't we dealing with disorder?

K: You see disorder and then what? From there move.

Q: We are bound to ask if there is a way out of this.

K: Yes. Then what?

Q: And as I observe myself asking that question, for the time being, the state of inner disorder comes to an end. To someone else there may not be an ending, but to me there is an ending. Is this (the absolute ) silence (you're talking about?) ? Or is there an undercurrent still operating? You see, there are different qualities and natures and dimensions of silence. The traditional outlook is the gap between two thoughts is silence.

K: But that's not 'silence', silence between two noises is not silence. That's just an absence of noise. Absence of noise is not silence.

Q: I'm talking about the ending of seeing oneself in a state of disturbance.

K: Pupul, you are not being clear. I'm not at all sure that you know what 'disorder' is. I overeat and I have a tummy ache - I don't call it 'disorder'. I overeat, I have pain, and I say to myself, I must be careful at the next meal.

Q: We moved from silence, to harmony and we found that it was impossible to go into the nature of harmony without going into 'disorder'.

K: That's all. Keep to those three points.

Q: It's not necessarily a recognition of disorder, because when there is a conflict between the body, the mind …

K: Therefore you associate ( this state of inner?) conflict with 'disorder' ?

Q: This (inner) conflict makes one weary and you instinctively feel there's something wrong with it.

K: So, what you're saying is that ( this state of inner ) conflict indicates disorder ?

Q: Even when you don't name it 'disorder' there is still an ongoing conflict.

K: Conflict indicates disorder. Whether it is between two thoughts, whether it is a conflict within the (psycho-somatic) body .

Q: So a state of inner conflict indicates disorder ?

K: Not 'indicates'- (this inner) conflict 'is' disorder Then what? From there, let's move on .

Q: I have just said that there must be a way of being free of this (self-sustained inner conflict ) .

K: That's all. So deal with this (state of inner) conflict.

Q: So, what do I do about this conflict?

K: That's what we are concerned about : how am I to deal (experientially ) with ( this state of inner) conflict in a non-artificial way ? You know nothing about it , so when somebody comes along and says, ' Look at this marvellous machinery' and you 'look'.

Q: I see very clearly that I can't think of silence or harmony when I am in conflict.

K: So, is the mind capable of freeing itself from (this inner) conflict? That is the only thing you can ask, right? I say, look, stick to that one thing (namely) (your inner) conflict, and see if the mind can be free of it. Can the mind, knowing what this conflict is, and what it does, end conflict? Surely that's a legitimate question?

Q: You assume that the mind can be free of it ?

K: I don't. We are asking.

Q: If we look into one aspect of it, which is 'comparison', there is no conflict without comparison.

K: ( One's state of inner) conflict is ( directly or indirectly caused by ?) comparison, contradiction, imitation, conformity, suppression, all that; put all that into that one word and see the ( holistic) meaning of that word ( 'conflict' ) , and ask (yourself) 'can the mind be free of conflict?'

Q: Of course it can be free of conflict, but the question which arises is 'what is the nature of that freedom from conflict?'

K: How can you know it before you are free?

Q: There is an ending of this state of (inner) conflict. For a while, at least.

K: Is there a complete ending of conflict?

Q: What is the nature of this 'ending' and what do we mean by 'total ending'?

K: That's what we're going to find out.

Q: There is no ending of conflict.

K: Don't try to justify it, for God's sake ! How is the mind to end ( ASAP this state of inner) conflict, naturally ? I say, yes; but where are you at the end of it? I think mind can be completely, utterly without conflict.

Q: Forever ?

K: Don't use that word, 'forever', because then you are introducing a word of time, and ( thinking in terms of) time is a (still deeper) factor of (inner) conflict.

Q: I feel myself totally helpless in this situation. The fact is that there is this ( and endless) state of inner conflict.

K: Yes...

Q: And seeing the (inward truth of) of that, the mind can say, ''if it is conflict... it is conflict''...

K: I see what you are trying to say. Can the mind be aware of a state in which there is no conflict? Is your mind totally aware of ( its inner state of ) conflict? Or is there a part of the mind that says, I'm aware that I am ( caught) in a state of conflict, but there is a part of me wishing to be free of conflict? Which means, is there any fragment which separates itself from the totality of conflict? If there is a separate fragment that says, 'I must act, I must do something about it , I must go beyond' ? Or is the mind totally aware that there is only conflict? That is your question, right?

Q: You're saying that the ( dualistic?) mind 'measures' itself and calls it conflict, but true conflict is …

K: Yes sir. that's what we are saying. Is your mind totally aware that there is nothing but conflict? Or is there a ('self'-identified) fragment which says, 'yes I know I am aware of conflict'. I am not (totally caught ) in this (inner) conflict, but I know it'? So, is ( this state of inner) conflict a fragment, or total? Is there total darkness or a slight light somewhere?

Q: If that (small) light were not there,how could we be (totally?) aware of it?

K: I don't know anything about it. When there is a (state of ongoing ) fragmentation of the mind, that very fragmentation 'is' (the main cause of ) conflict. Therefore, the (meditating?) mind, is ever aware that it is total conflict? And Pupul says, 'yes'.

Q: I refuse to move away, but I don't know anything about ( being in a state of) 'total conflict'.

K: Therefore, you only know ( a state of) partial conflict ?

Q: Quite, but can't there be a refusal to move away ( from the 'fact' of it?) ?

K: That's all. So, when you say ''partially I am in conflict'', therefore you are never ( remaining completely ) with conflict.

Q: ( This state of) 'total conflict' cannot know itself, unless there is something else to 'know' (or to see?) it.

K: We're going to go into that ( later on ?). But when one's (inner) room is full of furniture there is no space to move. I would consider that a state of 'utter confusion' - you follow? Is my mind so totally full of this ( thought & desire generated?) 'confusion', so that it has no movement away from this ?
And if (this meditating mind ) it is so completely full of confusion then what takes place? When the ( pressure of all the gathered ?) 'steam' is full, it must do something – explode !
But... I do not think we look at this confusion so totally; this conflict so totally. Could I use another (holistic) word, 'sorrow'? When you move away from sorrow, then you just escape from it, or suppress it ; but is there such a thing as 'being full of sorrow'? In the same way, when you are so completely full of this thing called 'confusion', 'sorrow', 'conflict', it is (transmuted?) no longer there. It's only ( lingering) there when there is ( the observer-observed) division. That's all.

Q: Then it seems to be a hopeless problem, because there is always this (energy leaking ?) …

K: That's why I'm saying  : remain with the ''truth of the thing'', not with the ( intellectual) conclusion of the thing. ( Seeing) the truth of the thing, -providing the mind is remaining completely with it - cannot create conflict. So I say, remain with the fact of that thing : is the mind totally aware, full of this sorrow, this confusion, this conflict? I won't move away 'till that is so.

Q: This is one peculiarity about your approach. When you draw a picture there is always a clear outline, the colours don't match. In reality there are no outlines, there are only colours merging into each other.

K: This, to me, is very clear : if the heart is full of love, and there is no part of envy in it, the problem is finished. It is only when there is a part that is jealous then the whole ( set of psychologically motivated) problems arises.

Q: ( But in the real-life ) love is full of jealousies...

K: Ah ! Therefore remain with it. Remain with it - be 'full' of envy, be (100%) envious. Feel it !

Q: Then its total nature undergoes a change ?

K: A tremendous (qualitative) change.

Q: No ( dualistic?) division.

K: When you say I'm envious but... I must not be, somewhere in the dark corners (of man's collective consciousness ) , the education restraint (pops up?) , and then something goes ( dualistically) wrong (goes off the tangent?) . But to say, yes, I am envious, and don't move (away) from that (by rationalising or suppressing it) , just remain with that feeling...

Q: What is the difference between being fully aware of the conflict and repenting the conflict?

K: Oh, oh, oh! Repentance means there is a 'repenter'. An entity who repents, who regrets.

Q: So the difference is in feeling it fully ?

K: No, don't 'feel' it. If you are jealous, then you are just jealous. The (holistic quality of perception can ) 'break down' only when you are trying to suppress it, go beyond it, rationalise it, and all the rest of it. But (otherwise ...?) it's so simple.

Q: When you find that you are in a mess are you not sorry for yourself?

K: Good God, no ! That is the after-thought; 'I wish I wasn't in a mess'. When you are in a mess, be in a mess; see it, don't move away from it.

Q: That very idea of 'not moving away' is the after-thought.

K: This is merciless. All the rest is playing (mind-) tricks. When there is (a surge of) sorrow, be completely with it. When I look at the beggar out there; I am full of sorrow. I don't have to invent sorrow, there it is, right in front of my nose. I'm 'in it'. I won't move an inch from it !

Q: A (transcendent?) action takes place ?

K: Sir, when you 'are' (remaining) with something, the action (of Intelligent Compassion) has taken place. 'I' don't have to do something. A total action has taken place, which is the ending of that sorrow.

Q: How can we have inner tranquillity when the beggar is there?

K: Tranquillity is ( implicit in) the ending of sorrow.

Q: Is it in the acceptance of sorrow?

K: No. It's the same then as the worshipping of sorrow. Worshipping sorrow is also a form of accepting sorrow.

Q: You have no business to introduce words like that.

K: Why should I accept it? Acceptance implies an 'accepter'.

Q: If there is (the pain of) sorrow one is full of violence.

K: When you are violent, be (meditation wise?) completely with it - while not doing something violently is a moving away from violence. You've got it? Because you have moved away. Suppressing violence is also moving away, or trying to overcome violence, it is still moving away.

Q: Perhaps a ( subtle verbal) distinction can be made : not 'being violent', but 'be' with violence.

K: Be with it, yes. Live with it, be with it, not 'be violent'! If you 'are violent', you can't 'be with' it.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 30 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 May 2020 #36
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

An 'experientially-friendly' edited K Dialogue on 'GOD'

P: Krishnaji, in terms of your teachings what place
has God?

Krishnamurti: I never use the word "God" to indicate something which is not God. If God is invented by thought, it is ( a concept?) within the field of time, within the field of the material.

P: Thought says ''I cannot go further''.

Krishnamurti: Thought knows its limitations. Therefore, knowing its
limitations, it tries (to project a mental image of the ) the 'limitless' which it calls 'God'.

P: But even when thought sees its limitations, it is still aware of an existence beyond itself.

Krishnamurti: ( The human mind?) can only 'go beyond' when thought comes to an end. Now does thought ( the thinking brain?) realize it is limited or does the 'thinker' who is the product of thought realize it?

P: Why do you draw this distinction?

Krishnamurti: Let us be clear in all this. There are the two (mental processes in the brain ?) - the 'thought' and the 'thinker'.
The ( self-conscious) 'thinker' (entity) , observing the process of thought, sees 'intellectually' that its energy is limited. In the realm of thought, the 'thinker' thinks this.

D: When the 'thinker' says thought is limited, both the thought
and the thinker become question-marks.

Krishnamurti: No, not yet... Thought is ( the self-centred) response of brain's past memory (stored, processed & used as ) 'knowledge'. Thought has brought about (for obvious safety reasons) this ( self- identified controlling entity) called the 'thinker'. ( During man's long & convoluted evolution) this 'thinker' (entity) has become separate from thought; at least it thinks it is separate from thought. The thinker, looking at its capacity of reasoning, at the intellect, sees that it is very very limited. Therefore, the thinker says : (as the process of ) thought is very limited, there must be something more beyond this limited field (of the known) . Does the thinker think that thought is limited or does
(the thinking brain ) itself realize it is limited? I do not know if you see the difference.

P: But how does thought feel it is limited?

Krishnamurti: This is ( the experiential 'check-) point'. Does thought realise that it cannot go any further?

F: Why do you have to separate the thinker from the thought? There are many thoughts out of which the 'thinker' is the most dominant

Krishnamurti: Thought has gone through all this and what it has done
in order to have security, is to put together various thoughts which (through a subliminal process of identification ?) have become the 'observer', the 'thinker', the 'experiencer'. So, does the thinker realize that its thinking is limited, or thought itself realizes it is limited? The two are entirely different.

F: We know only the state of 'thinker thinking' thought.

Krishnamurti: That is all we know. Therefore, the 'thinker'
invariably says I must transcend thought; therefore it questions:
Does God exist?

F: You are giving a real existence to the thinker instead of thought...

Krishnamurti: The 'thinker' is not a permanent entity as thought is not permanent, but the thinker is constantly adjusting (updating) & modifying itself. Now if the 'thinker' entity says its thinking is limited (to dealing with matter & time) , then the thinker says there must be something more. Then the thinker says ''there must be God'', there must be something beyond thinking. But if thought itself (the whole of the thinking & feeling brain ?) realizes it cannot go beyond its own tether,
beyond its own ( memory ) rooted brain cells, if thought realizes that, then what takes place?

P: You see, Sir, if you were to leave it at this point, that thought itself sees this, then there is a total consistency and logic; but you are always moving, going beyond this and (in that state of no-thingness) you cannot use any words. Thereafter a feeling of ( something transcendental) is introduced.

Krishnamurti: I won't accept using the word "God"...

P: You take us by holistic reasoning & logic to a point, but you do not leave it there.

Krishnamurti: Of course not. I push it further.

P: ...into an abstraction.

Krishnamurti: I realize that thought and the thinker are very
very limited and I do not stop there. To do so would be a purely
materialistic philosophy. But if I can (experientially) answer the question whether thought itself realize its intrinsical limitations, then what takes place? Knowing that thought is ( a process of) time (which inwardly breeds) suffering, then what takes place (in the holistically minded brain?) ? It realizes that any movement of thought is ( sustaining the self-centred) consciousness, 'is' the content of consciousness, and
without this (time-binding) 'content' there is no ( self-enclosed ) consciousness (as we know it ?) then, what takes place? Is that new (holistically friendly consciousness ) observable or not? I do not ( need to) invent 'God'...

P: I never said you 'invent' God. I said that up to this point your position is objective, rational, (& sane?) but then you seem to introduce another element.

Krishnamurti: No. Look at it. Thought itself realizes - not the
'thinker' entity who posits a Superconsciousness, a higher Self, God or whatever it will - but when thought itself realizes that any movement it makes is ( circumscribed) within the field of time, then what happens? Then thought becomes completely silent – and this is an observable, testable fact. This ( inner state of) silence is not the result of discipline. Then what happens?

P: Let me ask you a (bonus?) question : (in this state of inner silence?) the machinery which registers , what is that thing?

Krishnamurti: The brain.

P: So, the brain is the 'material' (support ) where this registering goes on.

Krishnamurti: It (brain's sensory registering) goes on all the time, whether 'I' am conscious or unconscious.

P: So, you may not name it but the sense of your existence goes on.

Krishnamurti: No, the 'recording' goes on (within the brain's cells) . I want to make the difference here.

P: So, the (sense of 'my' temporal ) existence is not wiped out. It would be if thought ends.

Krishnamurti: On the contrary. (One's) life goes on, but without the "me" as the ( self-isolating) 'observer'. Life goes on, the registration goes on, memory goes on, but the (temporal) "me" which thought has brought about, which is the ( 'self' identified?) content
of one's consciousness, that "me" disappears; obviously, because that
"me" is the limiting factor . Therefore thought says "I am
limited". This does not mean that one's body & mind does not go on, but the centre (of self-interest?) as the "me", is not. So, thought (or rather, the 'thinking brain'?) says I am a limited (perceptive instrument) , but I will not create the ( identitary consciousness of the?) "me" which is a further limitation. It ( the totality of the brain?) realizes it and it drops away ( ASAP?)

P: So, having realised that thought creating the "me" is the (main) limitation......

Krishnamurti:... Thought (the thinking brain which was ?) creating the "me" realizing it is limited (by the subliminal process of self-identification) and therefore the "me" ( the self-centred mental entity?) is not.

F: When this happens, is there any thought at all?

Krishnamurti: ( To recap:) One realizes that thought is ( brain's survivalistic ) response of the ( collective memory of the ) past, and the ( self-conscious ) "me" is made up of various additions of thought which projects itself into time. So, this whole phenomenon is a very small ( but... very complex survival-oriented) affair, what is the next question?

F: What has the state of this 'hopelessness' (of thought) to do with God?

Krishnamurti: It is not a state of hopelessness. When thought realizes all this is a movement of itself in different forms, it 'stops'.
Now let us proceed further.

P: I want to ask you (another bonus) question. If thought as the "me" has ended, what is the instrument of investigation?

Krishnamurti: We have come to a point where thought has ended. It (the natural intelligence of the brain?) is now asking what is the new instrument of investigation.
What is this (new) instrument? Obviously it is not the old instrument – the intellect, the sharpness or the 'objectivity' of thought that has created tremendous confusion; all that has been denied.

P: So, there is something else operating. What is this?

Krishnamurti: If you see clearly thought's limitations, what is happening?

P: A state of 'seeing' where all the sense are functioning holistically ?

Krishnamurti: Absolutely.

P: If there is one sense functioning at a time, then it is
tethered to thought. But when all the sensory perceptive instruments are
functioning (wholistically?) then there is nothing to be tethered to.

Krishnamurti. We agree, then what is the next question? What
is 'perception' then? What is there to investigate? What is there to explore?

P: When thought has come to an end there is nothing more to

Krishnamurti: When thought comes to an end, then what more
is there to investigate?

P: We were trying to investigate 'God' or 'Truth', but as thought has
ended, there is no point towards which there can be (an inquiring) movement.

Krishnamurti: All that you can say is that there is no forward movement. Forward movement implies ( the operation of?) 'thought and time'. When you really deny that ( thought directed) movement, outward or inward, then what takes place?
Now begins a (meditative) investigation of a totally different kind.
First of all, the brain wants ( a profound sense of) order, security, safety to function sanely, happily, easily. That is its basic demand.
Now the ( meditating) brain realizes that any movement (away) from itself is within the field of time and therefore, within the field of thought; then is there a totally different kind of movement, qualitatively different, which is not related to time, to process, to the forward or backward movements? Is there any other ( dimension of inner ) movement which is not related to time & thought? This
question is put by the brain which realizes that any movement in time is ( ending up in) sorrow. So it abstains from any ( mental) movement, naturally. Then it is asking itself if there is any other ( time-free ?) movement which it really does not know, which it has never
tasted? Back to the question of ( life's non-entropic?) energy. There
is human energy and cosmic energy. We have separated energy as
human and cosmic, by looking at human energy as separate, limited, incomplete within its limited field. Now thought's battle ( to integrate them?) is over. We have always regarded the movement of ( our life) energy as separated from the cosmic, universal energy. Now, when thought ( the thinking part of the brain?) has realized its limitation the human ( life-) energy has become something entirely different. ( Hint:) The division - the cosmic and the human - is created by thought. When ( thought's mentality of) division ceases, another factor (holistic element?) has entered. To a mind which is not ( selfishly ?) centred within itself, there is no division. Then, there is (a holistic) investigation but not the one to which I am used - the exercising of intellect, of
reason, and all the rest of it. And this investigation is not ( the good-old?) intuition. When the brain realizes that in itself there is no division, this (newly integrated) brain is not 'divided' in itself as cosmic, human, sexual, scientific, business. ( Life' s total ) Energy has no division. Then, what is the new (time-free perceptive ) instrument that is going to investigate, in which there is no separation, in which there is no 'investigator' and the 'investigated'?
What is this (timeless) 'movement' which is neither inward nor outward? Is it ( the energy of?) death? Is it the total negation of every 'thing'?
When thought 'ends', we include everything in it; we include the (self-centred) consciousness, the ( psychologically active) content of this consciousness, despair, failure, success. It is all within that field. When that ( unbroken continuity of thought) ends, then what takes place? The brain exists, the registering goes on (in the brain cells) but there is the whole of it which is totally quiet. Thought does not enter into that field
at all. Thought enters into a very small field of the brain.

P: It is a fact that we use only a millionth part of our brain.

Krishnamurti: There is the 'other' part. (In a nutshell:) The old brain is very limited. The entire brain is the 'new' which has not been used. The entire quality of the brain is new; the old brain is not active because the limited ( process of self-centred thinking ?) has ceased.

F: I have an objection. Even if the entire brain is used fully, it
will still only be a tremendously enlarged consciousness.

Krishnamurti: Depending if there is a centre.

F: We have been operating only within the 'limited' (field of the known) . Now if you move into the 'other', how do you know that that consciousness has not a focalizing tendency?

Krishnamurti: Focalizing takes place when thought operates as the "me". When the "me" is silent, where is ( one's time-bound ? ) consciousness?
(To recap:) We can ( finally?) see that the brain cells have
operated in a very small field and ( getting stuck ) that small field with its limited energy has created all the mischief. ( Seeing the inward truth of this ? ) the 'old brain' becomes quiet. What we have called 'quietness' is ( thought's self-created ) limitation becoming quiet. The 'noise' of that has ended and that is the 'silence of limitation' (of the 'me') . When
thought (the 'thinking' brain) realizes that, then the whole brain, becomes quiet.

P: Yet it registers ?

Krishnamurti: Of course. Noise is going on.

P: One's existence continues.

Krishnamurti: Existence without any ( thought-projected?) continuance. Then what? The whole brain becomes quiet, not the limited part.

D: What makes you say we are not using the whole brain?

F: I am saying my total brain is functioning but I am not
conscious because I am enclosing myself within the limited field.

Krishnamurti: Please stop first the ( self-centred?) 'movement' of thought, then see what happens.

P: I want to ask one more (bonus) question here. You have said that the
ending of the limitation of "me" as thought, is not 'silence'.

Krishnamurti: That is the beauty of it : when thought with its limitations says it is silent, it is not ( truly?) silent. Silence is when the total quality of the brain is still; the total thing, not just part of it.

F: Why should the total brain become silent?

Krishnamurti: The 'total' ( energy matrix of the?) brain has always been quiet. What we are generally calling 'silence' is the ending of the (thought projected continuity of the ) "me''; of the ( ego-centric activity of) thought which is rattling around. When this ( self-centred) chattering (of thought) comes to an end, then there is a feeling of (mental) silence but that is not Silence. Silence is when the total brain, though registering, is completely quiet, because its energy is quiet. It may 'explode' ( in a flash of insight?) but the basis of its energy is quiet. (Pause)

When (thought's personal & collective ? ) sorrow has no 'movement' there is passion. ( Hint:) Sorrow is energy. ( Generally speaking ?) when
there is ( a major tide of existential ) sorrow there is thought's ( positive) movement of 'escape' by understanding (the cause of) it, or by (covering it up or ) suppressing it, but when there is no movement at all in ( remaining completely with this) sorrow there is an explosion into passion. Now the same thing takes place when there is no movement of ( this self-conscious ) 'silence' which the limited "me" has created for itself in order to achieve something more, there is a total silence, therefore no ( mental) movement of any kind, when ( the totality of the thinking brain) is completely quiet, there is a totally different kind of
explosion which is......

P: Which is 'God' ?

Krishnamurti: I refuse to use this ( widely abused ?) word, but this state ( of Universally Compassionate Intelligence ) is not an invention. It is not a thing put together by a cunning (opportunistic?) thought because thought is now completely without movement. That is why it is important to explore ( the subtle limitations of) thought and not the "Other''

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 07 May 2020 #37
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline


( An 'experientially-friendly' edited K Dialogue,1971)

Questioner SW: When I try to perceive a tree, an idea (a verbal image) arises from my memory which says 'this is a mango tree'. This mental screen of ideas comes in the way of my looking at the tree and so I am not able to 'see' the fact of the tree.

Krishnamurti: Are you asking, sir, what is the relationship between the observed and the observer? : Can there be an (authentic) relationship if there is a ( self-conscious) 'centre' ? When this centre feels it is related to something, is that relationship? If consciously or unconsciously, ( the self-centred process of thought ?) has built a ( self-protective mental) wall around 'myself', in order not to get hurt, to be safe, is there any (authentic) relationship at all?

R: But there is still the ordinary goodwill.

Krishnamurti: But if I have got this wall of ( self-protecting mental) resistance, this ( psychological) enclosure within which I live, I am polite, but I keep a distance. I am always inside a wall.

SW: Even in the life of an ordinary man, there are spontaneous perceptive relationships which are not always from behind a wall.

A: The crux of this relationship is utility.

Krishnamurti: Our everyday relationship is based on a utilitarian relationship. But you are not answering the deeper issue, which is,
as long as there is the observer who is committing himself to a
course of action, is there a relationship between you and me?

A: Are all our relationships only based on an idea?

Krishnamurti: When I look at that tree there is a (psychological) 'distance' between me as the 'observer' is there any
possibility of ( an intelligent & compassionate?) relationship? ( Suppose that) I am married and I have built a (mental) image
of my wife and she has built an image of me. This 'image' is the
factor of psychological distance. You and I may work together
in order to build a house. We both have a common motive, but you
and I are separate human beings. Is that co-operation? Even when I look
at a tree, there is distance between me and the tree and I am not in
a ( directly perceptive) relationship with the tree. That distance is created, not by physical space, but the distance created by ( the psychologically active ?) knowledge. Therefore, what is the factor of division?

SW: (Our knowledgeable ) 'images' in one form or another divide.

Krishnamurti: Go slowly . There is that tree. I look at it. The
physical distance between me and that tree may be a few yards, but
the (self-separating) distance between 'me' and that tree is vast. Though I look at it with my eyes, my mind & heart is very very far away. That
distance is incalculable. In the same way, I am very 'far away' in my co-operative action.

SW: Is it because thought's verbal images are interfering in all this?

Krishnamurti: What is dividing you and me is the goal. We think that working together for a common goal has brought us in contact. In fact the goal is separating us.

SW: Is it ( due to the subliminal identification with our goal of self-centred ) becoming?

Krishnamurti: Do look at it. Your ( psychological) 'goal' and my (psychologically motivated) 'goal' are separate; they have divided us. The goal itself has divided us, not ( our utilitary) co-operation, which is irrelevant to that goal.

SW: I see one thing, where two people come together for the
joy of something, that is different.

Krishnamurti: When two people come together out of
affection, love, joy, then what is the ( shared) action which does not divide? What is action between two people who (cooperate in the spirit of) love?

A: When two people come together out of a sense of shared affection it may produce a result but they are not coming together for the result. Therefore, in any such coming together there is no division.

Krishnamurti: Then all 'status' disappears and there is only function – and I will sweep the garden because it is part of the needs of the place.

R: For the love of the place....

Krishnamurti: No, ( just out of) Love. Goals divide people; a 'goal' being a ( thought-projected) formula, an ideal. When ( and if?) I see what is involved, it is finished. Then I can ask myself how I am to live, or to work with you, without a goal?

A: The fact is (that in the 'real' life ) we are not related. And we struggle to build a relationship, between (our own self-identified process of ) thought and ( other people's ) thought. Unless I do this, I feel absolutely isolated. I feel lost.

Krishnamurti: What is happening to my mind, when my mind is struggling to commit itself to everything - to family, to nature, to beauty, to working together?

SW: There is a lot of conflict going on there ?

Krishnamurti: I see that am not related and then I try to be related. I try to identify myself through my (outward) action. So, what is taking place in the mind? I am moving into peripheral commitments. What happens
to my mind when it moves on the outside all the time?

A: I am escaping from myself ?

Krishnamurti: Nature becomes very important, the family life becomes very important, the ( outward course of) action to which I have completely given myself over becomes all important and what has happened to (the inward quality of my mind?) when it has completely
externalized everything. What has happened to the mind that
has externalized the whole movement of relationship? What
happens to your mind when it is occupied with the external, with
the periphery (of existence) ?

SW: It has lost all sensitivity ?

Krishnamurti: Or, in reaction to this externalization, you withdraw into your own conclusions . What happens to the mind when it withdraws?

SW: It is getting incapable of freshness & spontaneity ?

Krishnamurti: What happens to your mind when you withdraw ( as a reaction to getting outwardly) committed? Instead of the 'outer' world, you create another world which you call the 'inner' world.

SW: The mind is still not free...

Krishnamurti: The inward commitment is the reaction of your own
world of imagination, of mystical experience. What happens to the
mind that is doing this?

R: It is occupied ?

Krishnamurti: Is that all? First the mind externalizes all its activity
and then withdraws and tries to act (in the inner world) . What happens to the quality of the brain which is withdrawing and externalizing?

R: There is a great ( existential) fear. It becomes dull ?

SW: It is not free to look ?

Krishnamurti: Have you watched your mind when it is externalizing all its action outwardly and then shifts all its action inwardly? It is (technically?) the same movement (of thought sustained desire) - like a tide going out and coming in. It is so simple is it not? What happens to ( the quality of ) the (restless) mind which ( constantly) swings between going out and coming in?

A: It becomes 'mechanical' ?

Krishnamurti: It is a mind that is becoming completely unstable, a mind that has no ( sense of universal) order. It becomes neurotic, unbalanced, inharmonious and/or destructive, because there is no stability in the whole movement.

A: It is indeed restless.

Krishnamurti: Therefore, there is no ( sense of inner) stability. Therefore it tries to find stability in family (life) , (or in other outer) commitment and not finding it (there or) in the relationship with nature, it becomes imaginative, romantic or it withdraws into a world of endless
conclusions, utopias & hopes and as there is no stability either it invents an order in that. The mind being unstable, narrow, not rooted in anything, gets lost. Is that what is happening to your mind? It goes from Yoga Vashista, to Ramana Maharishi, or it is caught in the cult of the beautiful, in the cult of devotion, of meditation and so on. (So, the 64,000 $ question is:) How is this mind to be completely still? From that ( meditative) stillness, its action is entirely different. See the beauty of it ?

A: That is the 'dead-end' of the (time-bound?) mind ?

Krishnamurti: No, sir. How is this mind to be completely still, with a sense of inner stability that is (inwardly transparent & ?) flexible ? ( Hint : ) A mind that is completely stable, firm, deep, has its roots in infinity. Now, is that ( inner miracle of compassion & intelligence?) possible? Then what is the relationship with the tree, with the family, with the ( local) community ?

(To recap:) I realize my mind is unstable and I clearly understand that this (constant outward-inward) movement is born of instability. So I (wisely?) negate that. Then I ask what is (the true psychological) stability? I sought stability in family, in work, and I have also inwardly sought stability in withdrawal, in the mystical experience, in knowledge, or... in ( looking for?) God. And now I see that I do not know what ( the sense of holistic) stability is. The 'not knowing' is the stable.
The people who said ''we are the chosen ones'', the vast number of (priests?), teachers, & gurus have said ( or implied?) "I know".
Rejecting all that ( very lucrative industry of falseness?) , start by relying on yourself. And when the (meditating) mind puts away all this, when it has understood that it cannot 'know' what is true stability, then there is (the awakening of) an (inwardly creative) movement of flexibility, of harmony, because the mind is ( free of the psychological burden of the 'known'?)
(In a nutshell:) The (inward) truth of 'not-knowing' is the only ( liberating) factor from which one can move. The ( inward) truth of that is the 'stable'. ( Hint:) A mind that does not (pretend to) 'know' is in a state of learning. The moment I stop & say I have learnt (enough?) , I have stopped learning and in that 'stopping' there is the ( illusory but often profitable ?) stability of division.
So, the (ultimate inner) truth is "I do not know". That is all.
And ( the inward realisation of) that gives you a ( holistic quality of ( life as an endless ?) learning and in ( non-accumulative) learning there is stability. See what it does to the mind ? It completely unburdens the mind and that is ( the essential inner) freedom; the freedom of not-knowing. See the beauty of it : the 'not-knowing', therefore, freedom. Now, ( for homework meditation?) what happens to the brain which functioned ( exclusively within the field) knowledge? That is its ( survival-in-time ) function - to function from memory to memory. In ( this process of) knowledge the human brain has found a tremendous (sense of) security and biologically that security is necessary. Otherwise it cannot survive. Now, what happens to the brain that ( in its meditation homework ?) says ''I really do not know anything except the biological knowledge of survival''? What happens to the (previously un-used) rest of the brain? The rest of the brain before was 'tethered' (in the field of the known?) . Now it is ( awakening & is) not occupied. It will
act but it is not occupied.
( Parting clue :) The ( Total Consciousness of the human ) brain has never been touched (by thought & time ?) . It is not capable of being hurt. There is a 'new brain' born or the 'old brain' is purged of its ( time-binding ?) occupations.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 10 May 2020 #38
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline


( An 'experientially friendly' edited K Dialogue with Pandit J. UPADIAH & Buddhist friends 1985)

K: Yesterday we talked about a (holistically-minded) man, fairly well educated, who starts looking at the movement of the world. It is like a great River of Time flowing and as he is following it upstream he comes to a point where the River begins. And he discovers that this River (of man's collective consciousness?) is ( essentially based on ) self-interest. So, from there he looks back to the immensity of this River, but doesn't know quite how to move from there - he is stuck there. That's where we left him yesterday – right? And although there have been great Teachers before him, he realises that there is nobody there to help him as he is stranded up there, aware of his ( own existential) loneliness & all the rest of it.

Q : You have beautifully described the Stream of Time , in which everyone is being dragged down. But at some point this (spiritually inclined) man feels the need of transcending his condition... Isn't man's natural desire to rise outside this flow of Time ?

K: Sir, he has spent his youth at the mouth of the river, sex, power, you know all the business. And he sees it is a habit, a conditioning, and he is so exhausted and bored with the whole circus. Right? From his (existential) boredom he says, "By Jove, I must move somewhere!" Not something inwardly pushing him, but he is curious enough to find out the origin of the river, although the vast majority likes living at the mouth of the river - they like sex, they like power, position, knowledge...

Q: Nobody denies that. But isn't there some energy which makes him follow the River to its springs ?

K: Curiosity. He wants to find out. Why not be simple about it? He is curious, he wants to know. He has been through all that awful business and says, "My God, I am bored with this stuff" - aren't you bored with sex when you have had enough of it?

Q: Krishnaji, there seem to be two different metaphors involved which are so similar that they are clashing with each other. One is your metaphor of the person finding himself at the mouth of the river, recognizing the river, feeling curious about it and then he asks where do I go from here ? And there is the metaphor of seeing the suffering of whole world and feeling compassionate about all these people being dragged down. The Buddhism talks about the world as a 'sad place' and wouldn't it be nice if these poor people instead of being swept by it, couldn't be somebody to show them the way, somebody to give them a helping hand and so on.
What I am saying is that there are two metaphors running at the same time. They both talk about the River of Sorrow, but they are talking about two different attitudes.

K: My river is the river of everybody. That is the River of Sorrow, pain, loneliness, despair, hope, all that. But then, why reduce everything to sorrow?

Q: I like the idea of not talking only about sorrow but of talking about things as they are.

K: As they are...

Q: So, I have a lot of features in common with mankind. I 'am' humanity and yet that ( collective consciousness of) humanity is given a particular form in me.

K: We said yesterday that I 'am' humanity. And I begin to question, is my life just a meaningless boredom. And from there I begin to move up the stream. This is very important : that I am ( finally?) moving. The moment I move because I am bored with the whole thing, I realize (the inward ) movement (of meditation?) has no ( thought -imposed ) discipline. I am walking up the hill because...

Q: You're saying that this (meditative) movement comes by itself and it has no (preset) law. And such a movement is creativity, is freshness, it has no time that can be associated with it.

K: That's right sir, you have got it !

Q: You have been pointing out (before) how the 'self' comes into being as part of a process of activity of the brain cells, and this activity of the brain cells leads to thought, and then thought leads to ( a static) stabilizing of brain cells. And this is the process of all the people who are in that current.
Now, one wants to know how out of this (Stream of Time) , some person arises who is able to end thought and have ( free access to) love, insight – how come that he is different and also he is part of this?

K: Sir let me finish what I wanted to say : I am not (necessarily?) a spiritual entity, holy, none of that. I began there (at the mouth of the River). I got bored ( of all that is going on there?) and I have become very sceptical, doubtful, I question (everything) . So one moves, naturally ; and in this movement he is becoming aware the difficulties of this (inward meditating?) movement involved in leaving this. So he begins to question why he is finding it so difficult. So (eventually he) understand that it has become a habit, sex, social position and ( tons of second hand?) knowledge, it is all here. I am a still a part of it all because I have also collected a lot of memories. And also I am married, children - you know, all that turmoil. That is the actual position of an intelligent (& holistically minded?) man ; he questions everything, Buddha, Christ, and all the churches and he says for God's sake I don't want any of it. So he is 'moving' (inwardly?) . Then begins an (authentic) humility ( of learning) and with that (inward quality ) he is moving, learning, watching. I am not different from all mankind, I 'am' all that - I am watching but there is no ( self-imposed) discipline for me - I won't accept any effort, & all that. So he keeps on (meditating & ) moving, moving, moving, and the movement is one of learning, not of accumulating knowledge.

And ( eventually?) he comes to at the origin of the River and he says : '' By Jove all this, this tremendous effort I have made ( to meditate at the mouth of the River) been utterly useless because what was there it also up here. I needn't have ( endeavoured to ) move all the way up here, because I was self-centred there and I am still self-centred here ! That's all.

Q: I have now understood what you are saying, and I have also understood my own limit of comprehension, limit of understanding. I am only concerned with the fact that the Stream is there and I am ( drifting?) in it .

K: One is part of that Stream.

Q: But being in the stream I have the urge to get out of the stream, that is my present limitation . There is no desire to get out of it but to get transformed.

K: I have no ( such) desire.

Q : It seems to me that there were irreconcilable differences in our starting point : the stream that you talked about is ( compassionately seen from the shore?) as the totality of all the happenings that I am.

K: I am that.

Q: Right. But my position is that of someone who is immersed in that stream and wants to step out...

K: Sir, I 'am' that. And being there I say : is there any change at all possible? I thought the change consisted in climbing the hill and by going up to the source I would find the whole explanation ; but that explanation is ( present) here : down there as well as up here it is self-interest - right? And I see self-interest has created terrible mess, obviously. This doesn't need a great deal of insight, you can see (with naked eye) everybody is fighting with each other and so on. So, out of that ( global) observation I say is there any ( radical) change at all possible? What does this ( inward) 'change' mean? From this to that ? Or there is (an authentic) 'change' in ending this?
I have come to the point, I see if there is no ( radical inner ) change man will be destroyed ( if he continues ) as he goes on. So there only an ending, which means, ending means ( psychologically?) 'dying' . 'Dying ' (inwardly) to everything I have known, is ( a psychological ) death. And then I will see what happens. The man who has been ( 'up ) there' has come to that point. That's all. What do you think?

Q: I go with you the whole way. Therefore there is not a question of change but there is only ending. But in the stream itself the is the seedling of a new beginning because the stream is continuity.

K: The stream the human consciousness. And I 'am' that consciousness. Now, if I die to that ( 'self- interest' driven human) consciousness, I am not in it. It is out.
Q: There is an (unbroken) continuity to that 'Stream of ( selfish) consciousness' independent of my ending it.

K: Sir, that ( time-bound) consciousness ( of mankind) is sorrow, fear, greed, envy - which is the (very ) essence of self-interest - right? Now after travelling all that down there I come to that point. And I say is it possible for a human being, who 'is' (responsible for?) the entire humanity, to step out of it?

Q: You changed the metaphor... ?

K: It is the same thing. I 'am' that ( consciousness?) stream of humanity. ( The total consciousness of ) humanity suffers, goes through hell and that stream goes on because as long as human beings have not moved out of it that stream will go on.

Q: Then there is a stepping out?

K: If that person who 'is' humanity steps out of that stream, that stream will (nevertheless?) go on. But that person who (has stepped?) out of it, he has (free access to) compassion & intelligence, and therefore that acts.
( To recap:) I recognize that my (existential?) boredom is part of everybody's consciousness. And that stream of self-centred consciousness from the beginning of human existence has been going on. Can one human being step out of it?

Q: Step out?

K: Leave it, abandon it (that selfish mentality) . Not keep on going with that stream. What is the ( experiential) difficulty in that?

Q: What steps out?

K: Nothing. [Laughter] No, no, I mean this. Let me explain. I have taken this as something perpetual, which it is, 'time'. And after seeing it is a whole unitary movement, one is walking along that lane and suddenly realizes there is no-thing. Nothing in the sense not -a- thing. 'Thing' is ( the self-centred consciousness of) thought, which is a material process. So, that (state of inner 'no-thingness' ?) is the end of thought.

Q: So, in that (inward ) no-thingness there is no duality between the self and...

K: Man has been through all this life of conflict. He has been through hell, he has fought , he has struggled.

Q: So, 'ending' and 'stepping out' are the same ?

K: I am wrong in using those words - 'stepping' out... That ( consciousness-) stream of self-interest is perpetuating itself all the time, whether it is in me or in you or... humanity is perpetually caught in that. And he says : By Jove, no movement ! And when there is no movement you are out of it. 'Out of it' - that is a verbal statement – but there is no longer ( the good old selfish thinking) - there is something else.
Now ( for further homework study?) K has never been ( caught?) in all this (stream of collective selfishness?) .

Q: He has never been in all this … ?

K: Jealousy, anxiety, pain, sex and all that. He never 'moved' (psychologically speaking?) - by saying I am 'this' & will become 'that'?) Punditji, is it possible, except biologically, never to have the ( thought-identified?) 'psyche' as the centre? The moment you see that, you are out (of the Stream)..

Q: Could you explain it a little more ?

K: Sir, we all have the idea of a ( spiritual) goal of (self-) achievement. Following (such linear) path ( from A to B) demands self-discipline, control, sacrifice. The horror of it. But somebody like K comes along and says : don't go through all this stuff. Be aware of nature, be aware of all the senses, and how the ( memory of the ) senses create the self, etcetera. See it as a tremendous movement (of self-interest) and in an (insightful) flash of that , you are out of it (in no time?) . It is not a matter of climbing, climbing, sacrificing, giving up, discipline, practice - oh, that is wrong (time-binding?) .

Q: So, you Are saying that from this ( general) human consciousness you push out 'time' and there is no place for time in the understanding of all this. The moment that goes, it ends.

K: And I question whether this ( ending of psychological time) is ( actually) happening in myself. (In a nutshell:) I began (the meditation) by questioning, doubting and asking and... I end it up doubting, questioning, and asking.

Q: Have I moved at all?

K: I don't know, but I leave that 'question' alive. I don't say there an answer. That question itself (the self-questioning movement?) destroys every 'thing'.

Q: No verbal conclusions ?

K: No Sir. I have got a quick bat!
Sir, Punditji, you and I have a dialogue. You put a question, I answer it. We keep this asking, answering until we come to the point when the question itself is ( revealing its true?) answer. The question itself is so vital it bursts the...

Q: I think it would be helpful if you will describe that particular state once again – namely that the question continues to remain and the question is the answer. Could you say a little more ?

K: K comes along and says : why do you go through all this stuff - disciplines, renunciation, thought control ? Don't do all that, but see that there is something else (that can be done:) to see the futility of it - right? And when you really 'see' the depth of that futility ( of the diligent self – centredness ) - when you ask 'why it has come ?' and live with that question, then that (insightful) question itself opens up and withers, like a flower. If you leave the flower alone, watch it carefully, nurture it, the flower blossoms and withers, at the end of it there is no flower at all. Which is...(inwardly being as?) nothing.

Q: So, in seeing this whole stream (of self-interest?) and in questioning it and in its ending, the Stream continues its flow, but the ( insightful?) question remains ?

K: That's it, that's it !

Q3: And it is such a powerful question that when it 'remains' it has an explosive energy independent of me - it is like letting loose...

K: It has nothing to do with 'me', it is like a Fire ( in the Mind) that is burning. I am sure you do that in science. You come to a point where you put the (right?) question and then look at it, wait, and suddenly you have a flash. Shall we continue tomorrow, sir?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 12 May 2020 #39
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline


(An 'experientially-friendly' edited K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM, cca 1972)

Bohm: I looked up for the origin of the word 'intelligence' and its meaning. It comes from ( latin) 'inter' and 'legere' which means 'to read between'. So we could say that (the psychological content of one's self-centred ?) thought is like the information (previously recorded ) in an book and one's intelligence has to 'read' the (true) meaning of it.

Krishnamurti: To 'read between the lines'.... ?

Bohm: Yes, to see what it means. And there is also another meaning given in the dictionary which is: mental alertness. Now this is very different from what people have in mind when they measure (the standardised coefficient of?) intelligence. Now, considering you have said ( in many of your public talks & discussions , you seem to say that a compassionate?) 'intelligence' is not the atribute of ( the self-centred process?) thought. You're saying that thought is a physical process taking place in the old brain – and it has been amply proved by science that all thought is essentially a physio- chemical process. So, we could say perhaps that the compassionate intelligence is not belonging to the order of time at all. Would you say there is a real difference between the physical process of thought and intelligence?

Krishnamurti: Yes, and if thought is a material process, what is the relationship between this process and intelligence? Is the compassionate intelligence the product of thought?

Bohm: Well I think we can take that for granted, it is not.

Krishnamurti: It is not. Why ?

Bohm:  Because thought is a 'mechanical' ( self-centred activity of the brain) and  intelligence is not.

Krishnamurti: So, ( the mental activity of) thought is measurable, while a (compassion-based) intelligence is not. And how does it happen that this ( non-mechanistic) intelligence comes into existence? Is the ( temporary ?) cessation of thought (allowing?) the awakening of this ( quality of holistic) intelligence? Or is it that intelligence, being independent of thought, and therefore not of time, exists always?

Bohm: That raises many difficult questions... So you're saying that intelligence may be there always ?

Krishnamurti: I am asking - is it there always? You see, the ancient Hindus had this ( trnscendental?) theory that Intelligence, or Brahman, exists always ( in the depths of any human consciousness?) but is covered over by the illusion (of Maya) or by all kinds of mischievous (schemes?) created by thought. And they say ''peel all this off, that (timeless) thing is there''. So their assumption is that it has always existed...

Bohm: There is a (hidden) difficulty in the word 'always' because it implies (an unbroken continuity of mankind's thinking in terms of ?) time...

Krishnamurti: That is right.

Bohm: And that is just the trouble. Thought has invented this 'time' - in fact thought is ( both the creator & the creature of?) time. The way I see it, is that thought is always changing without noticing that it is changing - for physical reasons which have to do with some physical activity in the brain...

Krishnamurti: … Which depends on environment and all kinds of other things....

Bohm: So, as thought changes with time, it ( eventually) becomes contradictory and changes in an arbitrary way.  Then one begins to think : I change, everything changes, and also "I am existing in time". When this ( thought-projected ) 'time' is extended, it becomes vast, the past before I was born, further and further back and also extending forward in the future, so (thought objectivates it?) by saying that 'time' is the essence of all, time conquers everything. First the child may think, "I am eternal", then he begins to understand that he is in time. The general view that we get to (as adult people) is that time is the essence of existence. This I think is not only the common sense view but also the scientific view. And it is very hard to give up such a ( standardising ?) view because it is an intense ( reality-based ?) conditioning (of the brain) . It is stronger even than the (basic perceptive ) conditioning ( involving the division between the ) 'observer' and the 'observed'...

Krishnamurti: Yes, quite... Are we saying that thought is time, thought is measurable and the holistic intelligence is of a different quality altogether?

Bohm: Yes, of a different order, of a different quality. And I get an impression of this (illusory mentality of) thought with regard to time : when we think of our past, present & future, we generally think of the past as ( being updated &) becoming the future; but you can see that this is just ( a root assumption of) thought. ( But on a closer look?) one gets the impression that the ( memories of the?) past and ( our expectations of the?) future are present together (now) and that this whole (mental) pattern is moving along with thought .

Krishnamurti: The whole pattern is moving...

Bohm: But I can't picture how it moves. At first sight, I begin to think that this 'movement' is in another (dimension of?) time... ?

Krishnamurti: Yes, that is it. Is ( the holistic?) intelligence out of time and therefore not related to thought, which is a movement of time?

Bohm: But still, thought must be related to it ?

Krishnamurti: Is it? I think it is unrelated.

Bohm:  At first sight it seems there is some relation in the sense that one can distinguish between the 'intelligent' and the 'unintelligent' thinking .

Krishnamurti: Yes, but that requires ( some holistically-friendly ?) intelligence to recognize an 'unintelligent' thought.

Bohm: But when this intelligence reads ( between the lines of?) thought, what is the nature of their relationship? Does thought respond to intelligence? Doesn't ( the psychological content of ) thought change?

Krishnamurti: Let us be simple. Thought is ( a self-sustained mental ?) movement in time. Thought is measurable and thought functions in the field of time. Is intelligence within the field of time?

Bohm: Well, this thing is not clear. First of all, when you say that thought is mechanical, what does this 'mechanicalness' mean?

Krishnamurti:  Repetitive, measurable, comparative.

Bohm: Could we say 'dependent' ?

Krishnamurti: Dependent, yes.

Bohm: So, let us get it clear - intelligence cannot be dependent on any condition for its truth. But it seems that this intelligence doesn't operate if the brain is not healthy.

Krishnamurti: Obviously.

Bohm: So, this intelligence seems to depend on the ( physical condition of the ) brain.

Krishnamurti: Or on the quietness of the brain?

Bohm: All right, it depends on the 'quietness' of the brain – so, when you are using the instrument 'negatively', the non-function of the instrument is the sign that it is working right. Could we say the brain may have used thought positively to make an (ego-centric?) image of the world...

Krishnamurti: ...which is one of the functions of thought .

Bohm: The other function of thought is negative, which is to indicate non-harmony.

Krishnamurti:  Let us proceed from there. We come to the point : is intelligence dependent on the brain ? When we use the word 'dependent' what do we mean by that?

Bohm: It has several possible meanings. I propose that intelligence depends for its existence on this brain, which can indicate harmony or non-harmony, but the brain does not have anything to do with the content of intelligence.

Krishnamurti: So if the brain is not harmonious, can ( a holistic?) intelligence function?

Bohm: That is the question....

Krishnamurti:  And we are saying that it cannot function if the brain is ( psychologically?) hurt.

Bohm:  So, it seems that intelligence requires the brain in order to exist.

Krishnamurti: But the brain is only an instrument - it is not the creator of this ( compassionate?) intelligence. So, if the brain is functioning within the field of (thought & desire ? ) in that movement of 'time' can intelligence operate? Or must that instrument be quiet for the intelligence to operate?

Bohm: Yes, to put it slightly differently : the quietness of the instrument is (allowing ) the operation of Intelligence.

Krishnamurti: Yes, that is right. The two ( inner silence & intelligence) are not separate.

Bohm: But perhaps it would be useful to go back into a question which tend to be raised in the whole of modern scientific and philosophical thinking : Does this intelligence exists independently of matter?

Krishnamurti:  When does this ( compassionate?) intelligence awaken ?

Bohm:  Can we say that the (experiential) condition for it to awaken is the non-operation of thought ?

Krishnamurti: Yes. Any movement of thought in any direction, vertical, horizontal, in action or in non-action, is still in time. Then what is the relationship of that movement to this ( holistic?) intelligence which is not of time, which is not the product of thought ? Is there any relationship at all ?

Bohm: That depends what you mean by 'relationship'?

Krishnamurti: Being in contact with each other, ( a mutual) recognition, the feeling of being in touch with.

Bohm: Well, the word 'relationship' might mean something else. Two things may be related by simply being in harmony.

Krishnamurti: Doesn't harmony imply both moving in the same direction?

Bohm: It might also mean in some way keeping in the same order.

Krishnamurti: In the same order: same order, same direction, same depth, same intensity - all that is harmony. But can thought ever be harmonious - thought as ( brain's self-centred?) movement ?

Bohm:  There is that thought which you abstract as 'static' – like in geometry and which may have some harmony; but thought as it actually moves is always contradictory.

Krishnamurti: Therefore it has no harmony in itself. But ( this holistically friendly?) intelligence has harmony in itself.

Bohm: I think I see the source of the confusion. We have the static products of thought that seem to have a certain relative harmony. But that harmony is really the result of ( a transpersonal) intelligence, even though the actual movement of thought of a mathematician is not necessarily in harmony, generally won't be in harmony. Now that harmony which appears in mathematics, or in science, is the result of intelligence, isn't it?

Krishnamurti: Proceed, sir.

Bohm: It is not perfect harmony because every form of mathematics has been proved to have some limits - I will call it only relative.  But also in the practical actions in which need chronological time there should be a certain sense of harmony...

Krishnamurti: As we said, sir, thought is ( a mental ) movement and in that movement is there harmony? If there is, then it has relationship with the other. If there is no harmony and therefore it is contradiction, change, and all the rest of it, then it has no relationship with the 'other' (dimension of timeless Intelligence) .

Bohm:  Would you say that we could do entirely without thought?

Krishnamurti: I would put it round the other way. Intelligence uses thought.

Bohm: All right, but then, how can it use something which is disharmonious?

Krishnamurti: In the sense of creating 'things' in the world.

Bohm: But still, there must be some harmony in what we have just described.

Krishnamurti: Let us go slowly in this. Can we first put into words, negatively or positively, what is intelligence, what is not intelligence? Or is that impossible because ( the commonly used ) words are the result of ( our survival-oriented?) thinking , time, measure and all the rest of it?

Bohm: We can't really put it in words, but could we say that thought can function as a pointer to intelligence, and then its ( internal) contradictions don't matter.

Krishnamurti: That is right.

Bohm: Because we are not using thought for its ( self-centred) content, or meaning, but rather as a ( transcendental?) 'pointer' which points beyond the domain of time.

Krishnamurti: So when thought is a pointer, its content is intelligence ?

Bohm: The content which it points to.

Krishnamurti: Yes. Can we put this thing entirely differently? May we say, thought is 'barren'?  Which is, mechanical and all the rest of it. Thought is a pointer, but without intelligence the pointer has no value.

Bohm: Could we say that intelligence reads the pointer? If the pointer has nobody to see it then the pointer doesn't point.

Krishnamurti: Quite. So (the awakening of a holistic ?) intelligence is necessary. Without that this has no meaning at all.

Bohm: But could we now say: that thought without intelligence points in a very confused way?

Krishnamurti: Yes, confused, in irrelevant ways.

Bohm: Then with ( the backing of a holistically friendly?) intelligence it begins to point in another way. Then thought and intelligence seem to fuse in a common function ?

Krishnamurti: Yes. So what is one's action in relationship to ( the awakening ?) this intelligence? In the carrying out of that action ( a holistically-friendly?) thought is necessary.

Bohm: Yes; well, thought is necessary and ( as of now ? ) it points obviously towards the material world. But it seems capable to point towards intelligence as well. One of the ( cosmological?) questions which always comes up is: this intelligence and matter are merely a distinction of the same thing, or are they different?

Krishnamurti: I think they are distinct.

Bohm: They are distinct, but are they actually separate? Don't they have a common source?

Krishnamurti: (Long pause.) I think they have, bound to have.

Bohm: Otherwise there could be no harmony, of course....

Krishnamurti: But you see, ( the ego-centric activity of?) thought has conquered the world.

Bohm: Dominates (man's inner?) world ?

Krishnamurti: ( Man's self—centred ?) thinking & ( its clever?) intellect, presently dominate the ( collective consciousness of the?) world. And therefore ( the selfless compassionate?) intelligence has very little place here.

Bohm: One may asks how this ( pretty sad situation) came about ?

Krishnamurti: That is fairly simple (to explain 'holistically' ?).

Bohm: What would you say?

Krishnamurti: I would say thought (the outward thinking brain) it is seeking security in all its movement (activities?) .

Bohm: Yes...

Krishnamurti: But ( a selfless & compassionate?) intelligence is not seeking ( its temporal) security. The idea of (seeking a time-binding ?) security doesn't exist in Intelligence. Intelligence is secure in itself.

Bohm: Yes, and one could also ask how did it come about that intelligence allowed itself to be dominated?

Krishnamurti: Oh, that is fairly clear. First of all, (for reasons of) physical security: security in relationship, security in action, security...

Bohm: But ( very often?) that is just an illusion of security.

Krishnamurti: Illusion of security, of course...

Bohm: You could say that thought got out of hand when it ceased to stay in harmony with intelligence, and began to move on its own accord seeking security and pleasure and so on.

Krishnamurti: As we were saying the other day, the whole Western world is based on (thought's capacity to evaluate & ) measure; the Eastern world tried to go beyond that. But they used (the measurement skills of) thought to go beyond it.

Bohm: But tried to, anyway.

Krishnamurti: Tried to go beyond this (mentality based on?) measure by exercising thought; therefore they were ( eventually ) caught in thought. Now, as the physical security is (really) necessary, the physical pleasures, and the physical well-being became tremendously important.

Bohm: Yes, I was thinking about that a little. If you go back to the animal, the instinctive response towards pleasure and security would be right. But now when thought comes in, it can dazzle the safety instinct and produce all sorts of glamour, more pleasure, more security. And the instincts are not intelligent enough to deal with the complexity of thought, therefore thought went wrong, because it excited the instincts and the instincts demanded more.

Krishnamurti: Quite. So thought really created a world of illusion and put away intelligence.

Bohm: Well, as we said before, this has made the brain very chaotic and noisy, and s (the necessary condition for) intelligence is the silence of the brain; therefore the noisy brain is not intelligent.

Krishnamurti: The noisy brain is not intelligent, quite right!

Bohm: Well, that more or less explains the origin of the thing.

Krishnamurti: We are trying to find out what is the relationship in (terms of our daily) action, of thought and intelligence. Because everything is action or inaction and thought does produce chaotic action, fragmentary action.

Bohm: When it is not ordered by intelligence.

Krishnamurti: Of course. And it is not ordered by intelligence in the way we all live.  It is a fragmentary (self-centred) action, not an action of wholeness. The action of wholeness is ( based on?) intelligence.

Bohm: So, ( the holistically-friendly action of ?) intelligence has to understand the (fragmentary ?) activity of thought. And then thought is (behaving) differently in its ( everyday?) operation?

Krishnamurti: Yes, obviously. That is, if thought has created ( the concept of) nationalism as a means of security, the seeing of the fallacy of it is (an act of) intelligence. Thought then can create a different kind of world in which (man's identfication with) nationalism doesn't exist and therefore division, conflict, war and all the rest.

Bohm: That is very clear. Intelligence sees the falseness of what is going on. And when thought is free of this falseness it is (qualitatively?) different. Then it begins to carry out the ( practical) implication of intelligence.

Krishnamurti: Therefore thought has a legitimate place.

Bohm: That is very interesting because you could say thought is never actually controlled by (a holistic) intelligence, thought always moves on its own. But in the light of intelligence, when the falseness is seen, then thought moves parallel or in harmony with intelligence.

Krishnamurti: That is right.

Bohm: That would suggest that intelligence and thought have this common origin or 'substance' (essence ?) , and that they are two ways of calling attention to a greater whole.

Krishnamurti: Yes. Sir, one can see how politically, religiously, psychologically, thought has created a world of tremendous contradiction, fragmentation, and the ( self-centred) 'intelligence' that is the product of this confusion tries to bring order in this confusion – (Hint:) not the (compassionate ) Intelligence which sees the falseness of all this.

Bohm: Well, I suppose it is rather hard to understand that ( subtle difference) at this moment. You could say that in some limited sphere it seems that intelligence is able to operate, but outside it doesn't.

Krishnamurti: We are, after all, concerned with a life in which intelligence operates - an intelligence which is not of time, which is not of measure, which is not the product or the movement of thought, or of the order of thought. Now a ( holistically minded?) human being wants to live a different kind of life. ( Unfortunately?) he is dominated by thought, his thought is always functioning in (terms of self-centred ) measurement, in comparison, in conflict. He asks, "How am I to be free of all this in order to be intelligent?" "How can 'I' be the instrument (& the beneficiary of) of this Intelligence?"

Bohm: Obviously it can't be, because his ( self-identified) thinking in (terms of) time is the essence of unintelligence. Therefore his thought is projecting some sort of phantasy of what Intelligence is, and trying to achieve it.

Krishnamurti: Therefore I would say that thought must be completely still for the awakening of That ( compassionate intelligence) . There can't be (simultaneously a self-centred ?) movement of thought and yet the awakening of That.

Bohm: This is clear on the intellectual level, but still the mechanism of 'thought-time' continues through various instincts, pleasures and fears and so on. Therefore this (newly born ) intelligence has to come to grips with the (rather intricate ) question of the pleasures, fears & desires which make thought continue.

Krishnamurti: Yes....

Bohm: And there is always this (common mental) trap, which is to form a concept or an 'image' of it...

Krishnamurti: Of course. So as a human being I would be prioritarily concerned only with how confused, contradictory & disharmonious my (inner) life is. Is it possible to change all that so that ( this holistic) intelligence can function in my daily life, so that I live without disharmony, so that its direction is guided by intelligence? You see, sir, that is why the religious people, instead of using the word 'intelligence', have ( used ) the concept of 'God'.

Bohm:  But why use such a word?

Krishnamurti: Because it came from primitive fear, fear of thunder, fear of nature, and gradually out of that grew the idea that there is a God Father.

Bohm: But that is still the ( self-centred) brain functioning.

Krishnamurti: Of course. And they said trust God, have faith in God and God will operate through you.

Bohm: If you're saying that God 'is' (another name for Universal?) Intelligence, it's a sort of metaphor. But most people didn't take it as a metaphor.

Krishnamurti: Of course not, it's a terrific image.

Bohm: Sp, you could say that if 'God' means that which is immeasurable, beyond thought...

Krishnamurti:  It is unnameable, it is immeasurable, therefore don't have a (thought-created) 'image'.

Bohm:  Maybe 'That' will operate within the ( field of the?) measurable ?

Krishnamurti: What I am trying to convey is that through time mankind's desire for this (Universal) Intelligence, has created this image of God. And by having faith in that image of God, Jesus, Krishna, or whatever it is, - which is still the movement of thought - I hope that way there will be peace & harmony in my life.

Bohm: And this sort of 'image' because it is so total, produces an overriding desire that overrides rationality.

Krishnamurti: It overrides rationality, everything.  You heard the other day what the archbishops and bishops were saying that ''only (the faith in) Jesus matters, nothing else matters''.

Bohm: But it is the same movement whereby pleasure overrides rationality.

Krishnamurti: Of course, of course. Fear and pleasure...

Bohm: They override it; no proportion can be established.

Krishnamurti: Yes, what I am trying to say is: the whole world is conditioned this way.

Bohm: Yes, but the question is : what is this 'world' which is conditioned this way? If we take this world as objectively existent, then we have fallen into the same trap.

Krishnamurti: Of course, of course...

Bohm: That is, the whole world is the result of this way of thinking, it is both the cause and the effect of this ( self-centred) way of thinking.

Krishnamurti: That is right.

Bohm: And this way of thinking is producing disharmony and chaos and unintelligence and so on. That is what our trouble has always been; people have developed technology and weapons and other things in terms of some limited intelligence, which is serving highly unintelligent purposes.

Krishnamurti: Yes, that is just it.

Bohm: For thousands of years that has been going on. And of course thought's reaction tends to be that all this is a vast thing, spread over time and space.

Krishnamurti: But it is really very simple, extraordinarily simple, this sense of harmony. Because it is so simple it can function in the most complex field.
Let us go back. We said the source is common to both thought and intelligence.

Bohm: Yes, we got that far.

Krishnamurti: What is that Source?

Bohm: Well that would be beyond me...

Krishnamurti:  Let's see, what is that source? They generally say that source is God - I am just using that word for the moment - or Jehovah or Brahman. This ( Universal) Source ( of Creation) is common, It is the central movement which divides itself into 'matter' and 'intelligence'. ( Except that?) you can't find it through thought.

Bohm: That raises the question: if you find it then what are 'you'?

Krishnamurti: 'You' don't exist. 'You' can't exist when you are asking what is the Source. 'You' ( the temporal self?) are time, movement, environmental conditioning - you are all that.

Bohm: So, in this question ( who am I ? ) the whole ( mentality ) of ( one's self-centred) division is put aside ?

Krishnamurti: Absolutely. When the 'me' enters there is division: so in the (holistically friendly ) understanding the whole of this, I put away the 'me' ( my temporal 'self '?) altogether.

Bohm: But that sounds like a contradiction...

Krishnamurti:  It takes place. Then what is the Source? Can it ever be named? For instance the Jewish religious feeling is that it is not nameable: you don't name it, you can't talk about it, you can't touch it. You can only 'look'. And the Hindus and others say the same thing in different words. The Christians have tripped themselves up over this word 'Jesus', this image, they have never gone to the source of it.

Bohm: That is a complex question because it might be that they were trying to synthesize several philosophies.

Krishnamurti: Yes, of course. Because after all Christianity came out of Judea...

Bohm: ...and Greece and Asia...

Krishnamurti: Of course. So, what is the Source? Can thought find it? And thought is born from that source; and intelligence is also born from that source. It is like two streams moving in different directions.

Bohm: Would you say matter is also born from that Source more generally?

Krishnamurti: Of course.

Bohm: I mean, the whole universe ? Then the Source is beyond the universe.

Krishnamurti: Of course. It must be...Now what is that? Could we put it this way? Thought is energy, so is Intelligence.

Bohm: So is matter...

Krishnamurti: Thought is energy. Intelligence is also energy. ( But that the energy of) thought (has become) confused, polluted, fragmenting itself and the (original energy of Inteligence) is not. This is not polluted. It cannot divide itself as 'my intelligence' and 'your intelligence'. It is Intelligence, it is not divisible. Thought has also sprung from the (same Universal ) Source of Energy, but it has divided itself.

Bohm: Why has it divided itself?

Krishnamurti: For physical ( survival-related?) reasons, for comfort, for existence, you know all the rest of it.

Bohm: To maintain the physical existence. So a part of ( man's original) intelligence has been changed in such a way as to help to maintain physical existence ?

Krishnamurti: Yes.

Bohm: It has developed in a certain way.

Krishnamurti: And gone on in that way. But (essentially?) both are energy. So there is only one energy.

Bohm: Yes, they are different forms of energy. In science there are many analogies to this, but on a much more limited scale. Light is ordinarily a very complex wave motion, infinitely complex, but in the 'laser' it can be made to move all together in a very simple and harmonious way.

Krishnamurti:  So (in a nutshell:) there is only energy, which is the Source.

Bohm: We have to clarify this notion of 'energy'. I have also looked up this word. You see, it is based on the notion of work; (the Greek root of the word ) 'energy' means, "to work within."

Krishnamurti: I was 'thinking' (meditating?) about this yesterday - I realized the Source is there, uncontaminated, non-movement, untouched by thought, it is there. From That these two are born. Why are they born at all?

Bohm: One was necessary for survival ?

Krishnamurti:  And in ( the course of mankind's ) survival this has been denied, or put aside in its wholeness. What I am trying to get at is this : to find out, as a human being living in this world with all the chaos and suffering, and all the rest of it, can the ( meditating?) human mind touch that Source in which these two divisions don't exist? And because it has touched this Source, because it has no division, It can operate ( in one's existence?) without the sense of division.

Bohm: But how is it possible for the human mind not to ( be able to) touch the Source? Why does it not touch the source?

Krishnamurti: Because ( at this point in time ?) we are consumed by the (time-binding ) movement of thought. All their gods, their meditations, everything is that.

Bohm: Yes... I think this brings us to the question of 'life and death', because that is one of the things that gets in the way. This (addiction to thought) is also related to survival.

Krishnamurti: Because thought's desire for security, has created ( an image of) 'death' as something separate from itself.

Bohm: Yes, this may be the key point : Thought has constructed itself as an instrument for survival, not to die. Now therefore...

Krishnamurti: ... it has projected ( its desire for ) immortality in Jesus, or in this or that.

Bohm: Thought cannot possibly contemplate its own death. It seems to be built into thought that it cannot possibly consider ( its own ending or?) death properly.

Krishnamurti: It cannot. It means ( thought) ending itself.

Bohm: That is very interesting. Suppose we take the death of the body, which we see outwardly; the organism dies, it loses its energy and therefore it falls apart.

Krishnamurti: It is really that the physical body is the instrument of That ( timeless?) energy.

Bohm: So let us say ( that in the physical death ?) this ( timeless intelligent ?) energy ceases to imbue the body and therefore the body no longer has any wholeness. You could say that with ( the death of) thought also; the energy in some ways goes to thought, as to the body. Would that make sense?

Krishnamurti: That is right.

Bohm: You and other ( Oriental?) people have often used the phrase: "The mind dies to the whole of thought." That way of putting it is puzzling at first, because you would think it was thought that should die.

Krishnamurti: Quite, quite...

Bohm: But now you are saying that it is the Mind or the (timeless Intelligent) energy that dies to thought. The nearest I can see to what that means is that when thought is working it is invested with a certain energy by the Mind or the Intelligence; and when thought is no longer relevant, then the energy goes (free?) and thought is left like a dead organism.

Krishnamurti: That is right.

Bohm: Now it is very hard for the ( sophisticated human) mind to accept this, because the comparison between thought and the organism seems so poor, because thought is insubstantial and the physical organism is substantial. So the death of the organism seems something far more real than the death of thought. Now, this is a point that is not clear. Would you say that in the 'death' ('ending'?) of thought we have the essence of the death of the organism as well?

Krishnamurti: Obviously.
Bohm: Although it is on a small scale, it is of the same nature?

Krishnamurti: Yes...and as we said, there is energy in both, and thought in its movement has created this ( self-identified mental ?) energy, 'is' this energy, and thought cannot see itself die.

Bohm: It has no way of imagining, or projecting, or conceiving its own death ?

Krishnamurti: Therefore it 'escapes' from ( facing its own 'ending' or ?) 'death'.

Bohm: Well, it gives itself the illusion...

Krishnamurti: ... it has created the illusion of its own immortality, of a state beyond death, a projection of its own desire for its own continuity.

Bohm: Well, that is one thing, that thought may have begun by desiring ( to ensure ) the continuity of the organism.

Krishnamurti: Yes, that is right, and then gone on beyond it.

Bohm: Gone beyond that, to desire its own continuity. That was the mistake, that was where it went wrong ?

Krishnamurti: Yes, went wrong. It saw the physical organism as itself.

Bohm: It felt itself to be the essence of the physical organism. At first thought is functioning merely in the organism and then thought begins to present itself as the essence of the organism.

Krishnamurti: That's right.

Bohm: Then thought begins to desire its own immortality.

Krishnamurti: And thought is very well aware that it is not immortal.

Bohm: It knows it only outwardly, though. I mean, it knows it as an outward fact.

Krishnamurti: Therefore it creates immortality in pictures, images.
Now observing all this my next question is: can the ( timeless intelligent?) mind keep the purity of the original Source? The original pristine clarity of that Energy which is not touched by thought at all?

Bohm: The question is clear...
Krishnamurti:   Can the ( time-bound?) mind ever discover that?

Bohm: What is the 'mind'?

Krishnamurti: The mind we now say is ( including?) the physical organism, thought, the brain with all its memories, experiences and all that, which is all of time. And this (self-conscious ) mind says, "Can I come to this?" It cannot.

Bohm: Yes... ?

Krishnamurti: That point is very clear. Then what is it to do? Because a human being who just lives in this disharmony, he must ( eventually get to?) enquire into this. And in ( meditatively?) enquiring into it , we come to this source. Is this an ( authentic ?) perception (of that Source?) , an 'insight' which has nothing whatsoever to do with thought? So I have got an (experiential?) key to it. Then what is this 'insight'? Can I invite it, or cultivate it?

Bohm: You can't do any of that. But there is a kind of (integrated intelligent ?) energy that is needed.

Krishnamurti: That is just it. When I cultivate it, it is ( a projection of) desire. So insight is not the product of thought. It is not in the order of thought. Now, how does one come upon this (timeless flash of?) 'insight'?
(Silent Pause) We have come upon it because we denied all that ( self-centred stuff?) .

Bohm: Yes, it is there. You can never answer that question, how you come upon anything like this.

Krishnamurti: I think it is fairly clear, sir : you do come upon it when you 'see the whole thing'. So insight is the ( timeless?) perception of the whole and the quality of a mind that sees the whole is not touched by thought; therefore there is ( the clarity of inward?) perception, there is insight.

Bohm: Perhaps we will go over this ( holistic point?) more slowly... Could we say the actual (intelligent) energy which sees those fragments is 'whole'?

Krishnamurti: Yes, yes.

Bohm: And we don't usually manage to see the whole because... ?

Krishnamurti: ...we are (very poorly) educated, and all the rest of it.

Bohm:  We wouldn't anyway see the 'whole' (truth) as some 'thing'. But rather, the 'wholeness' is (manifesting itself in ) the freedom of seeing all the fragments ?

Krishnamurti: That is right. The freedom to see. The freedom doesn't exist when there are ( conflicting inner ) fragments.

Bohm:  The (perception of the?) whole does not start from the fragments, but once the ( intelligence of the?) whole operates then there are no fragments. So the ( apparent ) paradox comes from supposing that the fragments ( of our self-centred consciousness?) are independently real, that they exist independently of thought. Then you would say : I must somehow do something about them . But the ( intelligent perception of the?) whole starts from the insight that these fragments are in a way 'nothing', that they are not substantial realities.

Krishnamurti: Insubstantial, yes.

Bohm: And therefore they don't prevent ( the direct perception of) wholeness.

Krishnamurti: Quite.

Bohm: You see, one of the things that often causes confusion is that, when you put it in terms of thought, it seems that you are presented with 'fragments' that are real, having a substantial reality. Then you ( assume that you) have to see them, and then you say, as long as the fragments are there, there is no wholeness so that you can't see them. But that all comes back to the (holistic realisation of their ) one source.

Krishnamurti: I am sure, sir, that the really serious people have asked this question, but tried to find an answer through thought.

Bohm: Yes, well it seems natural...

Krishnamurti: But they never saw that they were caught in ( the fragmentary activity of?) thought.

Bohm: That is always the ( experiential) trouble : that the ( thinker or observer) seems to be looking at everything, at his problems, saying, "Those are my problems, I am looking." But that 'looking' is only ( a projection of one's ) thinking, but it is confused with ( the authentic) looking. One of the confusions that arises is that if you say, don't think but look, that person feels he is already looking.

Krishnamurti: Quite. So you see, this question has arisen and they say, "All right, then I must control thought and make my mind quiet so that it becomes whole, then I can see the parts, all the fragments, then I'll touch the Source." But... it is still the ( surreptitious?) operation of thought all the time.

Bohm: Yes, that means the (background) operation of thought is 'unconscious' for the most part and therefore one doesn't even know it is going on. We may say 'consciously' that we have realized that all this has to be changed, that it has to be different...

Krishnamurti: But the 'unconscious' (operation of thought & desire ) is still going on.
So, can you (the holistically minded educator?) talk (directly?) to my un-conscious mind, knowing that the (self-) conscious brain is going to resist, because you are telling me something which shatters my whole house (mental bunker?) which I have built so carefully, and I won't even listen to you. You follow? In my instinctive reactions I push you away. So you realize that ( educational handicap?) and say, "Look, old friend, just don't bother to listen that ( self-conscious?) way. I am going to talk to your un-conscious (mind) and make it see (the inward truth?) that whatever movement it does is still within the field of ( thought, desire &) time ." So the (self-) conscious mind is never in operation (Hint:) When it operates it must inevitably either resist, or say, "I will accept", therefore it creates a (secondary source of) conflict in itself, and all the rest of it. So can you talk to my 'unconscious' mind ?

Bohm: You can always ask 'how ?'...

Krishnamurti:  We two are communicating with each other without the 'self-conscious' mind listening.

Bohm: Yes... ?

Krishnamurti: I think this is what really takes place : When you were talking to me I was not listening so much to your words. I was listening to you. I was open to you, not to your words, but listening to the inward quality of your feeling which wants to tell me something.  That ( quality of selfless listening ?) changes me, not all this verbalization. You are telling me : don't listen to me with your 'conscious' (physical) ears but listen to me with the ( mind's) ears that hear much deeper. That is how I listened to you all this morning because I am terribly interested in ( discovering that Universally Intelligent ? ) Source, as you are. And I say, by Jove, we will come to That as I am really interested in that one thing. All this is the verbally explicable part, but to come to 'That' together, to feel it together, I think that is the way to break any (self-centred) conditioning, a thinking habit, a (self-) 'image' which I have (carefully?) cultivated.
Say for instance I have a conditioning; you can point it out a dozen times the stupidity of it, but I still go on. I say what shall I do in this world otherwise, and all the rest of it. But if you see the truth that as long as the mind is conditioned there must be (a state of endless inner ) conflict and all the rest of it. So...if you get the 'unconscious' (mind) to listen to you, it is much more subtle, much quicker and it sees the ( psychological?) dangers much quicker than the ( time-bound) conscious mind.

Bohm: To reach the 'unconscious' (mind) you have to have an action which doesn't directly appeal to the (self-) conscious (mind)

Krishnamurti: Yes. That is ( the spontaneous intelligence of) affection, that is love. When you talk to my 'waking consciousness', it is hard (headed?) , clever, subtle, brittle. But if you penetrate that with your affection, with all the ( compassionate?) feeling you have, that 'operates', not anything else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 39 of 39 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)