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

Holistic Education

Displaying posts 241 - 270 of 305 in total
Mon, 27 Jan 2020 #241
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

5th & 6th ('reader-friendly' edited ) K CONVERSATIONs WITH DAVID BOHM (cca 1980)

Dr Bohm: Yesterday I was discussing with some people in San Francisco and they said you had said that ( the inward clarity of) insight changes the brain cells; so I wonder if we could discuss this (significant experiential ) point (in more detail ?)

Krishnamurti: As it is constituted the brain functions in one ( outward) direction, memory, (materialistic) experience & knowledge. And it has functioned in that area as much as possible. And ( for lack of other inner options?) most people (seem to be ?) satisfied with it. They have given to (intellectual?) knowledge the supreme place importance, and so on.... If one is concerned (with operating ) a fundamental change (in human consciousness?) , where does one begin? Unless there is some (qualitative) mutation taking place inside my mind ( mentality ?) & in the brain, I may (like to?) think I have changed, but it may be a superficial change, not a change in depth.

B: Well, in the present state ( such a psychological mutation?) involves not only the mind but also the nervous system, the (psychosomatic) body, as all is set in a certain way.

K: Yes that is what I meant, the whole thing is moving is in a certain way (along a time-bound direction ?) along which one can modify, adjust, polish, a little more, a little less and so on, but if a (holistically minded?) man is concerned with a very radical change, where is he to begin? As we said the other day, if we rely on the ( ecopolitical pressures of the?) environment to change us they are all moving the same direction. So (if & only if ?) Mr 'X' realizes the need for a radical psychological revolution, he (might eventually?) realises that the need to change the (inward functioning of the?) brain itself...

B: But how can the human brain change?

K: One must introduce (the holistic term) 'insight' , when one comes to this ( critical?) point...

B: You are implying that ( the holistic nature of ?) 'insight' is somehow beyond the brain  ?

K: Yes... But how am I to capture it, or how is this to come about?

B: I think one should clear up this point : are you saying that something which is non-material can affect ( the brain cells'?) matter ?

K: All that you ( K) have said to me is that ( the inward clarity of) insight can bring about ( a qualitative?) mutation in the brain. Now this 'insight' is - not a result of ( accumulated?) knowledge, not the result of thought & time, not a remembrance ; it may be the real (natural ?) activity of the brain.

B: All right, so the brain has many activities which include ( the storage & updating its past ?) memory, but in addition there is a more inward activity ?

K: We must be very clear that it is not the result of ( 'self'-) progressive knowledge, it is not come by through any exercising of (one's) will (-power)...

B: I think that most ( holistically minded?) people can see that ( such a fundamental) insight comes in a flash, it does not come through will. Those who have ( thoughtfully?) considered it, can see that.

K: I think most (thoughtful?) people do see it. So, how is Mr 'X' to have this (sudden flash of ?) insight ?

B: It is not clear what exactly will operate this ( qualitative) change in the brain, is it something more than the brain, is it something deeper in the brain? This is one of the often asked questions....

Q: Some (timeless?) function of the brain which acts without reference to its ( memory) content?

K: To the past, to the content.

B: That is a good question. Is there a function in the brain which is independent of the content, which is not conditioned by the content ?

K: Apart from the ( temporal) consciousness with its content, is there in the brain an activity which is not touched by this consciousness?

B: That suggests that it may be possible for the brain to change. Either the brain is entirely controlled by its (collective memory) content, or in some way it is not that conditioned, it has some...

K: That is a 'dangerous' ( very slippery?) thing admitting to myself that there an activity of the brain which is not touched by the content.

B: Could it be that it has not yet been awakened... ?

K: It has not been awakened, that's right... So, is that activity part of the natural functioning of the brain?

B: Well if there is such a natural activity it could 'awaken' somehow and that activity could change the brain.

K: Our question is: can a material process in the brain bring about a change in itself.

B: Well thought is always going to be apparently a material process.

K: And therefore it is not ( capable of a fundamental?) insight...

B: You are saying that insight is not a material process?

K: ( Yes, but...?) I must be careful of using the right words. Is there (within the human psyche?) another activity which is not a material process?

B: Well, people have asked that question for ages : ''Is there (in us) a spiritual essence beyond matter ?''

K: Is there some other activity which cannot be related to the material process in the brain ? ( The inward clarity of?) 'insight' is not dependent on the material process, which is thought.

B: But the material process may depend on insight, may be changed by insight ?

K: Yes...

B: But you see, generally speaking (the science) people would not see how something non-material could affect something material... It might be easily agreed that something non-material is not affected by matter but then how does the operation work the other way?

Q: Could one envisage may be that ( the energy source of) insight is (coming from?) a much larger movement than the material process of the brain, and therefore that much larger movement can act on the smaller movement but the smaller movement cannot act on the larger movement ?

K: Yes, we are saying (kind of... ?) the same thing.

B: Agreed, the smaller movement has no significant action on the larger movement. You can have a situation similar to dropping a rock in the ocean and the ocean absorbs it with no significant...

K: Quite, quite...

Q: Well then they would still have an action amongst themselves but there is only one action that is significant ?

K: No, no, be careful. Love has no relationship to hate.

B: Well, could you say hate has no action on love?

K: ( Consciousness-wise?) they are independent. This is a very important thing to discover. Love is independent of hate. ( In a human consciousness where there is ( resentment, frustration and/or ) hate, the 'Other' (Loving & Compassionate Intelligence ) cannot exist. Right?

B: Aristotle wrote about the 'unmoved mover' - he says that God is never moved by matter, he is not acted upon by matter but he acts. So that is an old idea then. Since that time ( the materialistic) science has thrown out Aristotle and said that is impossible.

K: If I see clearly that love is independent of hate, hate cannot possibly act on love, love may act on hate, or where hate is the other cannot be...

B: Well ( your holistical statement?) implies two possibilities, one is that love may act on hate, and the other is that they have no action at all on each other... Which one is true ?

K: No sir, Love cannot act on hate.

B: Right... But perhaps 'insight' could ?

K: Whenever there is this material process (of self-centred thinking?) in action, the 'other' cannot exist.

B: Well then, what is this 'other' - insight ?

K: Yes...But where there is violence the 'other' is not (present)...

B: Peace, order, or harmony, right?

K: Where there is violence ( the inner) peace cannot exist. But where there is peace, is there violence? No, of course not. So 'peace' is independent of the other.

Q: Sir you have said many, many times that intelligence can act upon (the time-binding mentality of?) thought, insight can act, can affect thought, but it doesn't work the other way round.

K: Intelligence can wipe away ignorance, but ignorance cannot touch intelligence. Where there is love hate can never exist....

B: Well as long as there is ( the compassionate intelligence of?) love.

K: Yes I am saying that. Can love wipe away hate?

B: Well we said that doesn't seem to be possible, because 'hate' seems to be an independent force.

Q: Is there a question of volume, in other words can there be enough units of love to supplant hate? Are we talking about a physical possibility?

B: Well I think that hate goes on its own independently. It has its own momentum, you see, its own force, its own movement.

Q: Take 'light' and 'darkness', light appears and the darkness is gone.

B: Well when one 'is' the other can't be (anywhere around) ; that is all that we are saying so far.

K: Sir, it just came to my mind. ( the compassionate energy of?) Love has no cause. Right? The material process of (self-centred) thought, has a cause.

B: Yes, thought is part of the chain of cause and effect (going on within the field of reality?) …

K: That which has no cause, can it act ever upon that which has a cause?

B: We can see that the ( inward clarity of) insight might act to change the (self-centred patterns of thought?) …

K: Yes, that's right. Apparently the action of insight has an extraordinary effect on the material process.

B: Yes, like wiping out some causes...

K: As ( the inward essence of?) insight is causeless, that insight has a definite effect on that which has cause.

B: Well, you put it as if it followed necessarily but can we say it is 'possible'.

K: No, no I don't say it is 'possible'. I can't admit 'possibility' in this.

B: Well I merely meant that there is no contradiction in saying that insight acts on...

K: All right. Love being without cause, and hate has a cause, the two cannot co-exist.

B: Yes, although it doesn't follow necessarily that if something has no cause it will act on something that has a cause.

K: I just want to explore a little more. Is 'insight' ( the action of?) Love ?

B: Well at first sight we can see that they are not necessarily exactly the same thing. Insight may be ( the timeless action of?) love, but insight also occurs in a flash....

K: It is a flash of ( inward light?) course. And that flash alters the whole pattern of (self-centred) thought … that flash operates on the whole pattern, uses the pattern in the sense, argue, reason, logic and all that.

B: The flash may make logic possible because you may have been confused before the flash.

K: What I am trying to say is that ( the holistic) insight is not partial ever. I am talking of total insight, not partial insight.

Q: Could you explain that a little bit more? What do you mean by not partial insight?

K: An artist can have a partial insight. A scientist can have a partial insight. I am talking - 'X' is talking about total insight.

Q: So by 'partial' insight you mean a pereption that illuminates only a limited area, or subject. Then what would be a 'total insight', it would encompass what?

K: The total human activity. Right sir?

B: Well that is one point. But coming back we were discussing before that this insight would illuminate the brain, the activity of the brain, and in that illumination it seems that the activity of the brain, the material activity of the brain will change. We must get this point clear, then we could raise the question of totality. Now we are saying that insight is an (intelligent ) energy perhaps which illuminates the activity of the brain. And in that illumination the brain itself begins to act differently ?

K: That's right sir.

B: So, the source of this 'illumination' is not in the material process, it has no cause... ?

K: It has no cause.

B: But it is a real energy.

K: It is pure energy. Which means is there action without cause? That is, this flash has altered completely the ( psychological) pattern which the material process has set.

B: Could you say that the material process generally operates in a kind of (inward) darkness and therefore it has set itself in a wrong path.

K: The material process (of self-centred thought) acts in ignorance, in darkness. And this flash (of insight ) enlightens the whole field. Which means ignorance, darkness has been dispelled. Right. I will hold to that.

B: Well, you could say then in that sense darkness and light cannot co-exist for obvious reasons, but the very existence of light is to change the process of darkness ?

K: Quite right. What has happened is that the material process has worked in darkness and has brought about such confusion and all the rest of it, the mess that exists in the world. And this flash wipes away the darkness. Which means that the material process of thought) then is not working in darkness.

B: Right. But let's make another point clear. Here is the flash but it seems the light will go on ?

K: The light is there, the flash is the light.

B: At a certain moment, the flash is immediate but then as you work from there there is still light ?

K: Why do you differentiate flash from light?

B: Well, if you use the word 'flash', like a flash of lightening gives light for that moment but then the next moment you are back again in darkness until the next flash of lightening.

K: It is not like that...

B: Is it that the light suddenly turns on and stays on?

K: No. Because when we put that question 'stays on and goes off', you are thinking in terms of ( its continuity in ) time.

B: Well, then we'll have to clear this up because it is the question everybody will put.

K: The material process is working in darkness, in knowledge, ignorance, all that. When that insight takes place there is the 'dispelling' of that darkness. That is all we are saying. And thought is no longer working in darkness, therefore that 'light' has ended (the 'dark' continuity of?) ignorance.

B: So we say this 'darkness' (generated by self-interest?) is really something which is built into the content of thought ?

K: The content is darkness.

B: Then that light has dispelled that ignorance.

K: That's right sir. Dispelled that (sad?) content.

B: But we can't say it has dispelled all the content ?

K: It has dispelled the centre of darkness - it has dispelled the centre of darkness which is the (time-bound?) self. I hold to that.

B: Now that means even a physical change in the brain cells. That centre (of ignorance & selfishness?) has ( established) a certain set (steady state?) disposition of all the brain cells and that in some way is being altered...

K: Of course sir, and this (inward action of insight) has an enormous significance in our relationship with our society, in everything.

(Intermission )

Now the next ( experiential ?) question is: how does this flash come about? Let's begin the other way round. How does 'Love' come about? How does (inner?) Peace come about? Which is, (the sense of inner) Peace being causeless and ( thought's mentality of?) violence (having a ) cause, how does that causeless thing come about when my whole life is one of causation? (Obviously?) there is no 'how'. When Mrs Lilliefelt puts the question ''how does it happen ?''. I say that is a wrong question. If you ( attempt to?) show me 'how' you are back into ( thought's highly knowledgeable ?) 'darkness'. But I am asking something else, why is it that we have no ( perceptive?) insights at all, why is it that it doesn't start from our childhood Is it due to our education? Or to (the pressures of a materialistic?) society I don't believe it is ( only ? ) that...
If for Mr (K) ' it seems quite natural, why isn't it natural for ( Mr ) A, B, C & D ? There is ( seems to be?) something 'unnatural' about all this...

B: Well, you have used the words 'centre of darkness', which is maintaining that (mentality of?) darkness...

K: To 'Mr X' it seems so natural. Why isn't it natural to everybody? Why isn't ( the compassionate intelligence of?) Love natural to everybody?

B: Well, some people might feel ( that spontaneous affection & love) is natural to everybody, but being treated in a certain way, they gradually get caught in ( the mentality of resentment & ) hate.

K: I don't believe that.

B: Then you should make it more clear why it would be natural immediately not to respond to hate with hate ; some people would say that fighting back is the ( natural) animal instinct...The animal will respond with love if you treat him with love, but if you treat the animal with violence he is going to fight back and become very vicious.

K: Yes...

B: Now some ( thoughtful?) people would say that the human being in the beginning is like that animal and only later he can understand. Right?

K: Of course. That is, ( if at his origin) the 'human being' began like any other ( survival oriented animal ?) ...

B: Look, almost everybody feels that what I said is true, that we are like the animal when we are young children. Now you are saying why didn't the young child, why don't all children respond immediately, fail to respond to hate with hate?

K: That means, is it the (karmic?) fault of the parents?

B: Well, you are implying that there is something deeper (within the human consciousness?) ?

K: Yes sir. I think there is something quite different. Let's have an insight (into it ) ! Would it be right to say that ( consciousness-wise?) the beginning of man is not animal?

B: Well that is not clear, you see... According to the present theory of evolution there have been apes, developing... and ( excepts some missing links?) you can follow the line where they become more and more like human beings.

K: Yes, I know...If the beginning of man is the animal (world) therefore we have that instinct highly cultivated and that instinct is natural. But someone ( like Mr X) comes along and says, 'Is it so?'

B: Then let's try to get this point more clear because (from the survival point of view) it would not have been helpful to respond to hate with love, and therefore there has been a ( natural?) selection of people who responded to hate with hate.

K: ( Mr K's 'insight' is that?) at the beginnings of the
( evolution of the human beings?) there were half a dozen (of holistically minded ?) people who never responded to hate because they had ( the intelligence of?) Love, and those (unwordly?) people had implanted this ( timeless seed of truth ?) in the human mind
 : that where Love 'is' the other (violent mentality?) is not (present?) . And this is also part of our inheritance. But... why haven't we as human beings cultivated ( the instinctual trend) to respond to hate by hate, why haven't we cultivated the other? (The experiential difficulty being that ) the 'other' (compassionate intelligence of Love) is not 'cultivatable'...

B: Because it is non-causal and 'cultivation' depends on a cause ?

K: ...on a cause. So if this is so, ( there's no wonder?) why have we lost that...?

Q: But when you ( rhetorically?) ask 'why we have lost it ?', that implies that we have had it sometime ?

K: No, no... You have missed it.

B: Some have had it ?

K: Yes. Some, I said that when man began, some 'people' like 'X', 'Y', 'Z', implanted in man this ( quality of compassionate intelligence of universal ?) Love, which is causeless, which will not respond ( violently?) to hate. That has been implanted (way back in time?) . And we have cultivated very carefully by thought, to respond to violence by violence, and so on. Why haven't we moved along the 'other' (evolutionary?) line? To (the young K) the 'other' ( holistic attitude?) seemed so natural. So why isn't it natural to (Mr ) 'Y' and so on? To think he is ( a psychological ?) freak is a stupid way of pushing him off. If it is natural to 'X' it must be natural to others, but...why isn't it natural? You (may) know this ancient idea that the ''manifestation of the Highest'' takes place, occasionally. That seems too easy an explanation (but obviously?) we moved in the wrong direction?

B: You mean ( the collective consciousness of?) mankind? Yes, we have discussed that before (in the 1975 series of dialogues Truth & Reality ? ) , that there has been a wrong turning...

K: ... responding to violence by violence and...

B: ...and giving supreme value to knowledge.

Q: Wouldn't also be an attempt to cultivate the idea of love? ( Mindful) people have always tried to really produce ( selfless?) love and better human beings.

B: That is the very purpose of (any authentic) religion...

K: Cultivable by thought? Thought is a material(istic) process. ( The compassionate intelligence of?) Love has no cause, it is not cultivatable, full stop.

B: A more thoughtful point is to say that the response of hate to hate just makes no sense anyway, so why go on with it? Some people may believe that they are protecting themselves with hate, but ( on the long run?) this is not ( a very realistic) protection.

K: Oh, please give me some insight! A, B, C, are born without cause and 'X', 'Y', 'Z' are caught in (the karmic chain of causality ?) cause. Is it the privilege of the ( fortunate?) few, of ( the self-selected?) elite? Let's begin the other way round : (Mr) 'X's' mind is the mind of humanity. And Mr A, B, C are also part of the mind of humanity, and ( even if ) they do not respond to hate by hate, they are part of 'X's' conscience.

B: Why is there this ( huge qualitative?) difference?

K: Yes sir, that is what I am asking. One (tendency?) is natural, the other is unnatural. Why the difference and who is asking this question? Mr 'X' 'Y' 'Z' who respond to hate by hate, or ( the holistically minded?) Mr A, B, C are asking the question ?

B: It appears that A, B, C have asked the question.

K: A, B, C are asking the question, yes.

B: But you were also just saying that ( essentially?) they are not different.

K: Mr 'X', 'Y', 'Z' say A, B, C are different. A, B, C say we are not different. Which means what?

B: There is ( an all-)one mind ?

K: That's it, (all-) one mind.

B: Yes and how does it come that another part of this one mind says, no?

K: Of course there are all kinds of ( occult?) explanations - Karma, reincarnation, etc . Remove all those explanations, what am I left with are the facts. Right?

Q: They only appear to be different ?

K: Oh no, they are absolutely different, not 'appear'. But I want to find out : are we moving in the right direction? That is, A, B, C have given me that gift (of All-Oneness?) but I have not carried that gift.

Q: In A, B, C it is natural, while in the others it is latent and has never come out, is that it?

K: My father was responding to hate by hate, why has the son not responded in the same direction?

B: I think it is a question of insight.

K: Which means he ( Mr K?) had ( that inward clarity of?) insight right from the beginning. You follow what I am saying. Right from childhood, which means what? (…) I don't want to enter into this 'dangerous' (very slippery?) field yet.

B: Perhaps you want to leave that (for futher homework meditation ?) .

K: There is some (integrative ?) factor that is missing and I want to capture it. You see, if that ( consciousness of Mr K) is an exception then it is silly...

B: All right then ( for the time being) we can agree that this (integrating) 'thing' is dormant in ( the total consciousness of?) all human beings ?

K: That is a ( potentially self-deluding?) statement too ; when I am quite sure I will tell you.

B: All right. The possibility (for a holistically integrated consciousness ) is there in all mankind and in so far as some people have seen (the practicality of?) it...

K: Which means ...?

B: ...that the possibility of ( a holistic) insight is (still dormant in ?) there.

K: Yes, partly. If this seems so terribly natural (for Mr K) , it must be natural to everybody – just like ( in the material world?) water is natural to everybody.

B: Yes, why isn't ( the capacity for a holistic) insight present for everybody from the beginning, so strong that even maltreatment cannot affect it.

K: Nothing can affect it, maltreatment, being put into all kinds of (awkward) situations, hasn't affected it. We had better stop (on this open ended question?) We are coming to something.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 28 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Jan 2020 #242
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

 7TH (reader-friendly edited ) K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM ( 1980)

Dr Bohm: We were discussing that the other day and the animal instincts, it seems, may apparently be overpowering in their intensity and speed, and especially with young children. It may seem that it is only natural for them to respond with the animal instinct.

K: So that means that we are still instinctively behaving like our ( animal?) ancestors?

B: Well in some ways. Probably it is complicated by thought, because all these instincts of 'hatred' now become directed by thought and sustained by thought so that they are more subtle and more dangerous...

K: Mr 'X' ( aka...Mr K?) as we were saying, behaves naturally, in a way which is not responding to the animal instincts. What place has such (holistic) insight in the human society?

B: Yes, well, the modern society is organized under the assumption that pleasure and pain and fear are going to rule, except when you control it. If we want to answer your question, there was a period during the 18th century, the 'age of reason', when they said man could choose to be rational, bring about harmony everywhere. (Unfortunately?) it led to the French revolution and to the terror and so on and after that people didn't have so much faith in reason.

K: But we were talking about ( having a holistic?) insight, that can actually change the nature of the brain itself.

B: Yes, by dispelling the ( 'psychological) darkness' in the brain, it could allow the brain to function in a new way.

K: Right : (the self-centred process of?) thought has been operating in darkness, creating its own darkness and functioning in that. And insight is like a flash ( of spiritual?) light which breaks down that 'darkness'. And then that insight, clearing the darkness, then does it act & function, rationally?

B: Yes (that enlightened?) man will then function rationally in a sense of perception rather than by rules and reason. There will be a freely flowing reason (rationality?)

K: So we are saying that insight is ( a totally holistic?) perception?

B: It is even more fundamental than perception - it is the 'flash of light' which makes perception possible.

K: insight is pure perception and from that perception there is action, which is then sustained by ( a holistically friendly?) rationality. Is that it?

B: Yes....I would say this rationality is a perception of ( universal?) order,

K: So would you say: insight, perception and order? It is not based on (preset) rules. Then you come to the ( quibbling?) question: is insight continuous, or is it by flash?

B: We went into that and said it was a wrong question as ( its inward light?) is not time-bound.

K: So now let's get a little further : as (this total) insight is the elimination of 'darkness' (aka : 'selfishness'?) which is ( gathered in ) the very centre of the self, such an insight dispels the very (content of the?) centre.

B: Yes, since living in this (psychological ) darkness ( a direct inward ) perception is not possible. It's blindness in a way.

K: Right, then what next? (Suppose that?) I am an ordinary man with all my ('self'-sustained?) animal instincts (conditioned by?) pleasure and pain and/or reward and punishment and I hear you saying this, and I see what you are saying makes sense...

B: Yes, it makes sense as far as we can see.

K: Then how am I to have it( this perceptive clarity?) in my daily life? How is it possible for me, with my narrow ( self-centred ?) mind to have this insight so that ( well trodden) pattern of life is broken? I may have once in a while a partial insight but there is still left some partial darkness...

B: Well, if it doesn't dispel the (selfish) content it is not adequate. It may dispel some darkness in a certain area but the source of the darkness, the creator, the sustainer of it is still there.

K: So we have stated (mapped ?) the general plan and I may have to make certain moves, or … make no moves at all. ( The experiential difficulty is that?) I haven't the (necessary) energy, and/or the capacity to see it quickly. Because this (inwardly illuminating insight?) is immediate, not just something I practise and get it. I haven't got that sense of urgent immediacy and everything is (seems to be working ?) against me: my family, my wife, society, and you Mr 'X' can't help me (either) so... I am just left (on my own ) . So I am asking myself : is there a totally different way of approaching this whole turmoil of (human) life? You follow sir?

B: Yes... ?

K: Now I am asking : myself is there an altogether different approach to this ( 'impossible' problem ) ?

B: Well possibly... ? Are you suggesting that there is another way (to approach it?) ?

K: I am asking it because if that is the only way, then I am doomed.

B: But still, you can't produce this flash at will... ?

K: Oh, we have been through that, it can't be produced ( at will?) through any form of mental effort. (However?) we came to a (rather obscure ?) point if to 'X' this insight is so natural, why is it not natural to others?

B: Well let's say that if you begin with the average young child, it seems natural to the child to respond with his animal instincts, and often with great intensity which sweep him away.

K: Yes, but why is that not true with Mr 'X'?

B: Well, it seems 'natural' to most people (who find themselves in critical situations?) that the animal instincts would take over. So... they would say the other fellow is unnatural. That is the way mankind has been thinking, saying that if there are indeed any other people they must be very unusual and unnatural.

K: That's it. That is, most human beings have been acting according to this pattern (of self-interest?) , responding to hatred by hatred and so on. There are those few, perhaps many, who say that is not. Why has this division taken place?

B: Yes, if you say pleasure and pain, fear and hate, are 'natural', then the people say we must try to control it because (if not) it will destroy us. You see, they say the best we can hope for is to control it with reason or in another way...

K: But that doesn't (seem to?) work...So, are those few 'privileged', appearing by some miracle, by some strange chance event?

B: Yes, many people would say that...

K: No, that goes against one's grain …

B: Yes, well if that (karmic exception) is not the case then you'll have to say why is there this ( big qualitative?) difference...

K: Yes, this question has been asked many times, over and over again in different parts of the world. Why is there this (qualitative?) division?

Q: Is the division really total? Even that man you say responds to hatred with hatred, he nevertheless sees that it is wrong.

K: I understand that. But he is trying to get out of it by the exercise of thought which breeds darkness....

Q: I just wanted to say that the division does not seem to be so entire.

K: Oh yes sir, (holistically-speaking ?) the division is entire, complete.

Q: Well then why are people not saying ' Let's live that way, let's kill each other and let's enjoy it to the last moment'?

K: Now wait a minute, sir. Do they actually realize the state they are in and deliberately want to get out of it?

Q: They are ambivalent about it. They want to go on getting the fruits of it but they have a sense it is wrong, that it leads to suffering for them.

B: Or else they find they can't help it - when the time comes to get (really) angry, or pleasure, they can't get away.

K: So what shall we do? Or this 'division' is false ?

B: That's the point. We had better call it a (major qualitative) difference between these two. This difference is not fundamental. One idea is to say it is a difference which is absolute, there is nothing in common, but if you say the division is false, it means fundamentally they are (coming from ) the same (source?) , but a difference has developed between them. Perhaps one has taken a wrong turning.

K: Let's put it that way, yes. They start from the source and one has taken one direction and the other has taken another direction. Right? But the Source is the same. Why haven't all of them moved in the right direction?

B: Yes, but if we can understand (the psychological nature of) this wrong turn, then it becomes possible to change.

K: Yes sir. That is, we start from the same source. 'A' takes one turn...

B: We are continually starting from the same source, not going back in time to a source.

K: Just a minute....

B: There are two possible ways of taking your statement. One is to say that far back in the past we started together and we took different paths. The other is to say the source is timeless and we are continually taking the wrong turn, again and again. Right?

K: Yes. If we cut out (the chronological ) 'time', therefore we apparently are taking the wrong turn all the time. Constantly taking the wrong turn, why? The one who is living with 'insight' and the other not living with 'insight'...And the man who is living in darkness can 'move away' at any time to the other. That is the point: at any (point in) time.

B: Yes, so nothing holds him, except ( his mental inertia of ) 'taking the wrong turn' constantly. You could say the darkness is so (convenient ?) that he doesn't see himself taking the wrong turning.

K: Is this right sir? Suppose you have that insight, and your very centre of darkness has been dispelled completely. And if I am a serious, fairly intelligent human being, I 'listen' to you. (As a result?) I come to question this division (self- divisive mentality?) created by the centre which creates darkness.

B: Yes, and (the culprit?) is the same as with the other divisions, it is thought...

K: ( The self-centred process of ) thought has created this division. The other man (Mr X?) says ''there is no division'' ( the division is 'real ' but it's not 'true'?) .

B: Yes, ( safely installed within) the darkness (of selfishness?) thought constantly creates this division.

K: And you who have the (inward clarity of?) insight, etc., you say there is no division. ( In a holistic nutshell:) I am constantly creating division, although I also wish to live constantly in a state in which there is no division. Right?

B: Yes....

K: But that (wishful thinking) movement is still (part of) the movement of darkness. Right?

B: Yes...

K: How am I to dispel this continuous, constant darkness? You see, this is going round and round in ( a circular logic?)  : I can only dispel the darkness through insight, and I cannot have that insight by any form of mental effort or will ( power) and so... I am left with nothing. So where is the ( experiential difficulty of this apparently 'impossible' ?) problem? My problem is to perceive the thought that is creating darkness and to see that ( my temporal ?) 'self' is the source of this darkness. Why can't I see it even logically?

B: Well, intellectually it's clear …

K: Yes but somehow that (verbal understanding) doesn't seem to operate. So what shall I do? If see this (whole picture?) very clearly, I don't admit the division. So ( Mr X ?) asks me : can you put away this sense of division?

B: In a way you are saying that the thinking process of the mind seems to spontaneously produce division, and you say ''try to put it aside''...

K: Listen: he (Mr X) says something so extraordinarily true, which has immense significance and beauty and my whole being says 'Capture it' !
I recognize that I (the thinking entity ?) am the creator of division. Because I am ( accustomed to) living in darkness, out of that darkness I create. But I have listened to 'X' who says there is ''no division''. So in saying that to me, who has lived in constant division, the very (listening to his ) saying that there is no division has an immediate effect on ( the totality of one's consciousness?) .

B: And therefore there is no need to think in terms of division... ?

K: The (timeless?) truth of your statement has a tremendous effect on me who have lived constantly in division and you come along and say : there is no division. It must have some impact on me otherwise what is the good of your saying anything.

B: So you say there is no division. That makes sense, but on the other hand it seems that the division still exists.

K: ( The inward truth of ) your statement that there is no division has a tremendous impact on me. When I 'see' ( an inward truth?) that is immovable, it must have some effect on me. And I ( may... or not ?) respond to it with a tremendous shock.

B: You see if you were talking about something which was in front of us and you said, 'No, it is not that way' and then we would look again at it and that would, of course, change your whole way of seeing it. Now when you say this division is not (true) we may look again and see if that is so....

K: After ( Mr X ) has very carefully explained the whole business, saying at the end of it that there is no division – and (if?) I am (inwardly ) sensitive & watching very carefully realize 'I am constantly living in division', when you make that statement it has broken the (time-binding?) pattern - if you follow what I am trying to explain....

Q: At least for that (illuminating) moment it breaks the pattern.

K: It has broken the pattern, because he has said something which is so fundamentally true: there is no (division between the Love of ?) God and (the mind of?) man (except that where 'hate' exists the 'other' is not) But 'hating' we want the 'other'. So a constant (self-sustained) division is born out of (one's inner) darkness. And if I am not just a casual listener, a ( laid back) person who says, ' Ttell me all about it' – it (Truth) has been my (passion for a ) life time. And ( the enlightening truth of) your statement enters into me therefore its very action has dispelled darkness. I am not making an effort to get rid of my darkness but you 'are' the light. So it all comes down to : can I listen to you (from this inner) darkness ? Of course I can !

B: Now, why do you say you can listen in the darkness? That needs some clarification …

K: Oh yes, I can listen in darkness. If I can't I am doomed.

B: But that is not (a very rational) argument...

K: Of course that is no argument, but that 'is' so !

B: It's very clear that constantly living in darkness (inwardly speaking) is not worthwhile. But now you say that it is possible to listen in the darkness... ?

K: Yes sir !

Q: This holds with what you say that there is no division.

K: In this 'listening' there is no division.

Q: Can you make it a little bit more clear?

K: He, Mr 'X', explains very, very carefully what 'insight' is – and if I have been listening to him in my darkness, that is making me sensitive, alive, watching. That is what we have been doing that together. And he makes a statement: there is absolutely no division. And ( the inward truth of?) this statement has put the constant movement ( of inwardly strugling in darkness?) to an end. Yes sir, if this doesn't take place I am perpetually living in darkness. But there is a voice in the wilderness and listening to that voice has an extraordinary effect on that wilderness.

B: Listening reaches the source of the ( self-centred) movement (of thought) , whereas observation does not... ?

K: Yes sir, I have observed, I have listened, and done everything that human beings have invented, or is inventing. And I now see (that inwardly wise?) there is only one thing - this constant ( inward blindness?) darkness and I am acting in this wilderness whose centre is the self. I see that absolutely. I mean absolutely, completely, you can't argue against it any more. And you come along and tell me this. See what happens? In that wilderness a voice says ''There is water !''. You follow? There is immediate action in me.
Which is, sir, one must realize, that this constant movement in darkness is ( in the inner core of?) my life. Can I with all my ( materialistic) experience & knowledge of a million years, suddenly realize that (inwardly-wise?) I am living in total darkness? That means I have reached the end of all ( my psychologically motivated?) hopes and cut the 'future' altogether. So I am left with this enormous ( mount of?) darkness and I am there. The realization of that is the 'ending of (self-centred?) becoming'. I have reached that point and 'X' tells me, ''Naturally sir''.
You see the (only positive?) fact is that ( even in this 'inner' condition of ) 'wilderness' I have been listening  (to the inner truth?) : that in (the inward clarity of) insight there is no division.

B: Yes....

K: Which means sir, that in the Ground (of Creation) there is no darkness as darkness, no light as light. In that ground, there is no division.

B: Are you saying that ( within it?) light and darkness are not divided?

K: Right.

B: Which means to say that there is neither ?

K: Neither, that's it.... There is a different movement which is 'non-dualistic'.

B: Non-dualistic means what? No division?

K: No division...

B: But nevertheless there is ( a creative?) movement.

K: Movement, of course.

B: What does this mean, 'a movement without division'?

K: A( loving & compassionate?) movement that it is not time, and doesn't breed division. So I want to go back to the Ground. In that 'ground' (of Creation) there is no division. Would you say sir, that the Ground is an endless movement?

B: It could well be a movement (of Creation) that is undivided, without division - it is very difficult to express in words ....

K: What is movement sir, apart from here to there, apart from ( the movement in space & ) time, is there any other movement?

B: Yes... ?

K: There is. The 'psychological' movement from 'being' to 'becoming'...
But is there a 'movement' which in itself has no division?

B: Well, you are saying that when there is no division then 'that' movement is there.

K: Yes. And Mr 'X' says that is the (inward?) Ground (of Creation) . Would you say - these are words - it has no ending & no beginning?

B: Yes. It flows without division...

K: But do I capture the significance of that? Do I understand the depth of that statement? A movement in which there is no division, which means no time, no distance as we know it, no element of time in it at all. So I am trying to see sir if that Movement, is surrounding man?

B: Enveloping... ?

K: Enveloping man. I am concerned with the ( total consciousness of ?) mankind, humanity, which is me. Mr 'X' has made several (holistic) statements and I have captured (the gist of?) a statement which seems so absolutely true: that ''there is no division''. And that movement without time, etc., it seems that is ( envelopping) the world.

B: The Universe ?

K: The Universe, the Cosmos, the Whole...

B: The Totality (of All That Is?) .

K: Isn't there a ( biblical) statement sir in the Jewish world, 'Only God can say, ''I am''? You follow what I am trying to get at?

B: Yes...

K: What am I trying to say?

B: Well that only this movement 'is'.

K: You see sir, can the (human) mind be ( an integrated part?) of that movement? Because that is timeless, therefore deathless.

B: Yes, the movement ( of Creation) is (obviously ) without death. So, In so far as the human mind takes part in That, it is the same.

K: You understand what I am saying?

B: Yes. But then...what dies when the individual dies?

K: It (this death) has no meaning once I have understood there is no division...

B: Then it is not important ?

K:... death has no meaning.

B: Although it still has a meaning in some other context.

K: Oh, the ending of the physical body, that's totally trivial. But capturing the ( spiritual) significance of your statement ''there is no division'', has broken the spell of my darkness, and I see that there is a (timeless?) movement and that's all. Which means death has very little meaning...

B: Yes.... ?

K: You have abolished totally the fear of death.

B: Yes, I understand that when the human mind is partaking in that 'M' then the mind 'is' (becoming an integral part of) that Movement.

K: That's all. The mind 'is' that movement.

B: Would you say that matter is also that movement?

K: Yes sir, I would say everything.
( In a nutshell) in my ( very sad condition of psychological?) darkness I have 'listened' to you. That's most important. And (truth's) clarity has broken my spell. Also when you have said there is no division, you have abolished the division between 'life' and 'death'. I don't know if you see this?

B: Yes....

K: One can never say then 'I' am immortal, or 'I am seeking immortality'. Or, 'I am becoming' – as you have wiped away the whole sense of moving in darkness. All that you have done to (help?) me, who has listened very carefully, is that you have dispelled (thought's subliminal identification with the egotistic?) centre. ( Living ) in darkness I can invent a lot of ( nice sounding) significances, that there is Light, there is God, there is Beauty, but all that is still (a nicely decorated wall-paper?) within the area of darkness. Caught in a room full of darkness I can invent a lot of ( New Age?) pictures...

However, the mind of the one who has ( grasped ?) this insight, therefore dispelled darkness and therefore has ( a holistic) understanding of that Ground, which is a movement without time and so on, then that mind itself is ( becoming an integral part of ?) that Movement.

B: Yes, but it isn't the totality of It. We were saying that the ground may be beyond the universal mind. You were saying earlier that the Ground ( of Creation?) is more than the universal mind still, more than the ( inward) emptiness.

K: We said that, much more....

B: But we have got to get it clear (what is actually meant when ) you say the mind 'is' this movement.

K: Yes, the mind 'is' the movement - 'mind' in the sense the Ground.

B: In what we were discussing a few days ago we said we have the (inward) emptiness, ( then ) the Universal mind and the Ground is beyond that...

K: Yes, that's right. ( The universal?) Mind emerges from that Movement.

B: And it 'dies back' into the Movement ?

K: That's right. It has it being in that ( Ground) movement (of Creation) .
But what I want to get at is: I am a human being faced with this ( time-binding ) 'ending' and 'beginning' (dying & being born?) , and you abolish that (division?)

B: Yes, it is not a fundamental (division)
K: So, you have removed one of the greatest fears of my life which is ( the fear of?) death.

B: Yes... ?

K: You see what it does to a human being when there is no death? Which means the 'mind' doesn't age - the ordinary mind I am talking about.

B: Let's go slowly. You say the mind doesn't age, but what if the brain cells age?

K: I question it.

B: How can we know that?

K: When there is no ( psychologically motivated?) conflict, because there is no strain, there is no 'becoming' - (as time-bound?) movement. You follow?

B: Yes, well this is hard to communicate with certainty....

K: Of course. You can't prove any of this...

B: But the other things , what we have said so far...

K:... can be reasoned (thought-out rationally ?)

B: It is reasonable and also you can feel it for yourself. But now you are stating something about the brain cells for which I have no feeling. It could be so ( or... not?)

K: I want to discuss it (from a holistic perspective ?) . The human mind, which has lived in the darkness (of survivalistic selfishness?) is in a constant (time-driven ?) movement.

B: Yes...

K: Therefore there is the ( inevitable) wearing out of the brain's cells, a decay.

B: We can see that this ( state of inner) conflict will cause ( brain's) cells to decay but even without conflict they would decay at a slower rate. Let's say if you were to live hundreds of years, for example, in time the cells would decay no matter what you would do.

K: Go into this slowly...

B: I can readily accept that the rate of decay of cells could be cut down when you get rid of (the causes of the inner) conflict.

K: Decay can be slowed down a great deal... ( up to ?) ninety per cent... 

B: That we can understand.

K: It can be very greatly slowed down. And what is the quality of that mind which has no ( psychologically motivated?) problems? Suppose such a mind lives in pure air, & has the right kind of food and so on , why can't it live two hundred years?

B: Well it is possible, some people are said to have lived up to a hundred and fifty, living in very pure air and good food.

K: But you see those very people who have lived a hundred and fifty years, if they had no conflict they might live very much longer.

B: Yes, they might. There was a case of a man in England who lived to a hundred and fifty, it was recorded. And the doctors became interested in him, they invited him to London and 'wined and dined' him and then he died in few days...

K: Poor devil!

Q: Krishnaji normally you say that anything that lives in time also dies in time.

K: Don't bring in time yet. We are saying that insight brings about a ( qualitative) change in the (functioning of the ) brain cells, which means  these brain cells are no longer thinking in terms of time.

Q: 'Psychological' time?

K: Of course, that is understood.

B: If they are not so disturbed they will remain in order and perhaps they will break down more slowly, we might increase the age limit from one hundred and fifty to two hundred provided you also had healthy living all round.

K: Yes...all that sounds (pretty ?) 'trivial'... What if I live another hundred years (or... just six ?) What we are trying to find out is: what effect has this extraordinary (timeless) Movement (of Creation ) on the human brain ?

B: If we say that this brain in some way directly 'enveloped' in this movement, that would certainly bring it to order. There is a direct (inter-) flow, physically and also mentally...

K: Yes, It must have an extraordinary effect on the ( energy matrix of the human?) brain. We said that Movement is total energy and when the (human mind empowered by ? ) insight has 'seen' that extraordinary movement, it is now ( becoming an integral?) part of that ( Intelligent?) Energy.
I want to come much closer to (the everyday living on 'lonely' planet?) Earth, where man has lived ( for ages?) with the fear of death, fear of not becoming (or just of not surviving... ?) and so on, I see (with my mind's inner eye that ?) there is no division and suddenly understand this whole thing. So what has happened to my brain? If you see this whole thing noverbally, (if?) you see it as a tremendous truth, with all your heart & mind, that very perception must affect your brain.

B: Yes. It brings order in the brain. The 'science people' can prove that if you are under (a major existential?) stress the brain cells start to break down. It is proved. And if you have (the sense of that Cosmic) order in the brain cells then it is quite different...

K: I have a feeling sir, that the brain never loses the ( holistic) quality of that movement...

B: Once it has (seen the inward truth of ?) it ?

K: Of course. I am talking of the ( earnest holistically minded?) person who has been through all this and so on...

B: So probably it would no longer be dominated by ( the highly addictive habit thinking in terms of?) time. The human brain is not evolving in any (psychological?) sense, it is just ( a wide spread?) confusion. You can't say that man's brain has evolved since the last ten thousand years. Science & knowledge has evolved, but (the average) people felt the same about life several thousand years ago as they do now.

K: Sir I want to find out: in that silent emptiness ( of the 'meditator-free' Meditation?) is the brain becoming absolutely still?

B: Well not 'absolutely' because the blood is still flowing inside the brain.

K: Yes, we are not talking of that (stillness of death?) .

B: Then, of what kind of 'movement' are we discussing?

K: I am talking of the movement of thought, movement of any ( mental) reaction...

B: Yes... as you were saying there is the 'Movement of the Whole' but the brain does not go off on its own, like thought... ?

K: ( In a nutshell ?) we have done a tremendous act, which is to have abolished (the fear of) death - a tremendously significant ( metaphysical achievement?) . And so, what has (happened to the human brain ) when there is no (psychological fear of) death? It has undergone (holistically speaking ?) a 'surgical' operation.
B: The brain has normally the notion of ( its own ) death continually ( lurking?) in the background and that notion is disturbing the brain constantly, because the brain foresees its ( 3-rd degree encounter with?) death and is constantly trying to 'stop' (thinking about?) it.

K: (Stop thinking about ?) the ending of itself and so on...

B: It foresees all that and it can't - therefore it has a (major existential) problem in the background.

K: So all that (psychological problem) has come to an end. What an extraordinary thing has been done ! And... how does that affect my daily life of ( highly competitive) aggressivity , this everlasting ( mental effort for) becoming successful, all that has gone (down the drain...?) . What an extraordinary thing has taken place. We will pursue this (on Saturday) but we have understood a great deal today.

B: In bringing in this question of daily life we might bring in the question of (the intelligence of) compassion ?

K: Is that Movement ( just the intelligent action of) Compassion?

B: It ( the Ground of Creation ?) would be beyond and ( the loving intelligence of ?) Compassion might emerge out of it.

K: Of course (iff ?) you have got That....

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 30 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 31 Jan 2020 #243
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

 8TH ('reader-friendly' edited ) K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (1980)

Krishnamurti: We left off with ( the holistically minded ) human being who ( after leaving the well trodden ?) 'path of becoming' went through this sense of (inward) emptiness, silence & ( cosmic?) energy, and ( still deeper ?) he comes to the Ground (of Creation?) . And ( if) he has (free access to ?) this insight, how does it affect his daily life? What is his ( responsible ?) relationship to a world that is really living and struggling in ( spiritual ?) darkness ?
I would say, sir, as we discussed the other day, (his inward action) is one of 'non-movement'. What does that mean?

B: Well, we said before that the Ground ( of Creation) was a 'movement without division'....

K: Without division, quite right...

B: So it seems inconsistent to say 'non-movement' while you say the Ground is movement.

K: Would you say an ordinary, average man, educated, sophisticated, with all his pleasant & unpleasant activities is constantly (engaged ) in a movement in time - a 'movement in becoming'. And for the man who has trodden that (inward) path and come to that point, and from there what is his action? We said for the moment 'non-action', or 'non-movement'. What does that mean?

B: Well ; it means not taking part in this ( time-binding) process... ?

K: Yes, that is obvious. But if he doesn't take part in this process, what part does he play? I see something but I am trying to put it into words.

B: Well it is not clear what you mean by 'non-action' ; we might think that it is an action of another kind which is not part of the ( self-centred) process of becoming.

K: It is not becoming, but he still has to live here (for a while …?) .

B: Well, in one sense whatever you do is action, but his ( holistic way of ?) action is not directed towards the illusory process, but towards what underlies this illusory process. It would be directed, like we were discussing the other day the 'wrong turning' which is continually coming out of the Ground...?

K: You see various religions have described - especially in Hindu religious books - the man who is illuminated : how he looks, how he walks, the whole state of his being. Although that may be merely a poetic description, but somebody who described it knew exactly what it was.

B: Well how should we know?

K: It is a very interesting ( academical?) question, this, if you go into it rather deeply. I think that is right, sir : there is a state of 'non ( -temporal?) movement'.

B: You see, it's not clear what exactly you mean by non-movement.

K: One becomes poetic, it is like a single tree in a field. There is no other tree but that tree, whatever the name of that tree is, it is there.

B: Well, the tree in the (inner life) sense is (alive &?) moving but in relation to the field it stands. That is the picture we get...

K: ( Supposing?) you have gone ( in your holistic meditations?) from the beginning to the end. And now you are at the end with a totally different kind of ( inwardly awakened ?) movement, which is timeless and you 'are' that. Now, I come to you and say, 'What is the state of your mind, that has totally moved out of darkness ?'

B: If you say it is 'non-movement' are you implying the sense of standing together as a whole ?

K: Is that it?

B: That is the picture which ( the poetical metaphor with) the tree in the field suggested.

K: Yes, it is a nice ( poetical) image but let's move from it. What is the (inner ) quality of that mind in which the 'centre of darkness' has been wiped away ? That mind must be (qualitatively?) entirely different. So, what does such a mind do, or not do, in the ( the real) world which is ( unknowingly living?) in darkness?

B: Yes, well for one thing, it does not enter (get entangled) into the movement of that world...

K: What has happened to that mind? It has no ( existential) anxieties , no ( psychological?) fears and all the rest of it. The mind being no-thing (not a thing!) and therefore empty of knowledge, would it be always acting in the light of insight?

B: Would it be pervaded by the ( holistic?) quality of insight... ?

K: Yes, that is what I mean. It is acting constantly in the light, (of) that flash of insight. So what does that mean in one's daily life? (How would he?) earn a (decent?) livelihood.

B: Well, that would be another point. Probably he would have to find an (intelligent?) way to stay alive.

Q: Why has he learned no skill to earn a livelihood?

K: I am just (academically?) enquiring into it - why should I have any skill to earn a livelihood?

B: Well suppose you had to take care of yourself, you would probably need to learn a certain skill...

K: (In the modern world?) skill implies ( acquiring some practical ?) knowledge and from that knowledge gradually develop a skill which gives you an opportunity to earn a livelihood, meagre or a great deal (better ?) . And this ( newly enlightened?) man says, there may be a different way of living and earning. We are used to the ( 'no pain, no gain'?) pattern and he may say, 'Look, that may be totally wrong'.

B: It all depends on what you mean by skill. Say for example, suppose he has to drive a car, well that takes some skill, you see. He will certainly have to learn how to drive...

K: Yes... I had better go carefully into the word 'skill'.

B: Yes. On the other hand, skill could have a bad meaning by being very clever at getting money.

K: So this man is not avaricious, he is not money-minded, he is not storing up for the future, he hasn't any insurance, but he has to live, and when we use the word 'skill', as driving a car...

B: And people become very skilful at getting other people to give them ( or to donate?) money!

K: As I am doing... ???

Q: Is it that ( generally) we have made a division between (our daily?) living and earning a livelihood?

K: It is that, it is that...I need to have food, I need to have clothes and a shelter.

Q: But as the society is built now we have a division between living and working.

K: We have been through all that (false division) . We are talking of a man who has been through all this and has come back to the ( real?) world ; what is his relationship to society and what is he to do? Has he any relationship to society?

B: Well not in a fundamental sense, although there is a superficial relationship he has to have. He has to obey the laws, he has to follow the traffic signals...

K: Quite. But what is he to do? Even writing & (giving public?) talks , that means skill.

B: Well, this kind of skill need not be harmful, you see ?

K: I think if we could find out (experientially?) the quality of a mind that has been through from that from the beginning to the end, as we had in the last five or six discussions, that man's mind is entirely different, and he is ( still) in this world. You have 'reached' (the Ground of Creation?) and come back and I am an ordinary man, living in a world of darkness... (Hint:) An authentic relationship can only exist when I come out - when ( my egotistic mentality of ) darkness ends.

B: Yes... ?

K: Then there is only 'that' (the spirit of holistic cooperation?) . But now there is ( a chasm of psychological ?) division : I look at you with eyes which are accustomed to darkness and to division. And you don't. And yet you have to have some contact with me. Is that relationship ( based on intelligent ) compassion - not translated by me as 'compassion'? From my (state of inner ?) darkness, I cannot judge what your compassion is. 'Y' says, 'Who are you? You seem so different, your way of looking at life is different. Who are you'? And what will Mr 'Y' do with Mr 'X'? That is the question.

B: Yes, what will he do?

K: What would happen generally is I would worship him, 'kill' him ( his public image?) , or neglect ( ignore?) him. ( case a :) If 'Y' (for some obscure reasons?) worships 'X' then everything is very simple. He has (enough money to pay for the ?) 'goodies' of the world. But that doesn't answer my question. My question is not only what will 'Y' do to 'X' but will 'X' do with 'Y'? 'X's' demand is to say, 'Look, walk out of this darkness, there is no answer in this darkness so walk out.' - it doesn't matter, whatever phrase we use, dispel it, get rid of it, etc., etc. And 'Y' then says 'Help me, show me the way' - I am back again, you follow?

B: But then 'X' will work ( more thoughtfully?) to find a way to penetrate the darkness.

K: So is 'X's' ( true) job to work on ( dispeling the?) darkness? So, in that way he is earning a living.

B: depends on whether people are willing to pay him for it.

K: Probably Mr 'X' is the ( World?) Teacher. 'X' is unrelated to this field of darkness and 'X' is telling to the people of darkness, 'Come out'. What's wrong with that?

B: It's perfectly all right as long as it works, it is perfectly all right.

K: It seems to work (for Mr 'X'?) !

B: Of course if there were a lot of people like 'X' there would be some ( offer & demand) limitation .

K: What would happen if there were lots of people like 'X'? If there were lots of people like that they would not be divided. That is the whole point, right?

B: I think that even if ten or fifteen people were undivided they would exert a force that had never been seen in our history.

K: Tremendous. That's right.

B: Because I don't think it has ever happened, that ten people were ( inwardly ) undivided.

K: That is 'X's' job in life. A group of those ten 'X's' will ( hopefully?) bring a totally different kind of ( spiritual) revolution. Will society stand for that?

B: They will have this extreme intelligence and so they will find a (holistically friendly ?) way to do it and society will stand for it because they will be intelligent enough to not to provoke society and society will not react before it is too late.

K: Quite right, quite right. Would you say then that the ( educational) function of many 'X's' is to awaken human beings to that intelligence which will dispel the darkness? And that is his means of livelihood. There are those people who ( are comfortably installed ?) in darkness and exploit people, and there are 'X's' who don't exploit people. (Intellectually it seems very simple. But I don't think it is all that simple....)

B: Well it is a difficult function, it is certainly not so simple.

K: The function may be complicated but ( eventually?) that can easily be solved. But I want to find out something much deeper : Apart from function, what is Mr X to do? 'X' says to 'Y', 'listen', and 'Y' takes time and and perhaps sometime he will wake up and move away. But is that all 'X' is going to do in life?

B: Well that can only be an outcome of something deeper.

K: The deeper is the Ground.

B: Well he needs to be in some sense 'creative', more deeply, I think.

K: Sir, suppose you are Mr 'X' and have an enormous field (of the universal Consciousness?) in which you operate, you have ( free access to?) this extraordinary Movement (of Creation?) which is not in ( the field of) time . That is, you have this abounding energy and you have produced in order to (help moving the whole consciousness of mankind ?) out of darkness.

B: Well that is what I meant by some creative action, beyond this....

K: Yes, beyond that. You teach, you write and/or heal, to help me to move out but you certainly have ( access to?) something much more immense than that.

B: Yes, so...?

K: How is That (Intelligent ) Immensity operating on (the matrix of the human consciousness ) apart from ( showing Mr Y how to pull himself out of?) darkness ?

B: Are you saying that there is some more direct action?

K: Either there is more direct action, or Mr 'X' is doing something totally different to affect the (total) Consciousness of man.

B: Yes...and what could this be? You seem to suggest that there is some sort of extrasensory effect, that spreads ?

K: That is what I am trying to convey. Because that Immensity necessarily has other ( collateral) activities.

B: Yes, at other levels... ?

K: Yes, other activities, at various levels of ( the Universal ?) Consciousness.

B: Well, since any Consciousness emerges from the Ground, it is affecting all mankind from the Ground ?

K: Yes.

B: You see, many people will find this very difficult to understand...

K: I am not interested in 'many people'. I want you, I, & Mr 'Y', to understand that this Ground, that immensity, is not limited to such a petty little affair.

B: Yes, since the ground includes physically the whole universe...

K: The whole universe, yes, and to reduce all that to...

B:... to these little ( propagandistic?) activities....

K: sounds so silly.

B: Yes, and this raises the question of ''What significance has (the fate of?) mankind at the scale of the Universe, or in the Ground?''

K: Yes, that's it...

B: Because even the best that we have been doing here has very little significance on that scale. Right?

K: Yes. I think that by his very existence (presence?) 'X' is…

B:... is making something possible?

K: Yes. Einstein has made something possible, which man hadn't discovered before.

B: We can see that fairly easily because it works through the usual channels of ( the scientific) society...

K: Yes, , but if Mr 'X' has ( free access to?) that immense intelligence, that (Cosmic?) ' something ', he must operate at a much greater (higher?) level than one can possibly conceive, which must affect the consciousness (matrix) of those living in darkness

B: Well... possibly so. The question is will this effect show manifestly in any way?

K: Apparently it doesn't - if you see (what's happening?) in the world...

B: Yes, that is a matter of great concern.

K: But it must affect sir. It has to.

B: Well (on what basis) do you say 'it has to'?

K: Because (the presence of spiritual?) light must affect darkness.

B: Well perhaps Mr 'Y' living in darkness, is not sure that there is such a (metaphysical?) effect. He might say ''maybe there is, I want to see it manifest''. And...not seeing anything and still being in darkness, what shall he do?

K: How would it be shown to Mr 'Y', who wants ( an irrefutable?) proof of it ?

B: Well not 'proof' but just to be shown. Mr 'Y' might say that many other people have made a similar statement and some of them have obviously been wrong although one wants to say this could be true. Until now I think the things we have said here make sense and they follow logically... to a certain extent. But now you are saying something which goes much further and other people have said things like that and one feels they were on the wrong track, you know, that they were fooling themselves, certainly some of these people were.

K: No, no... Mr 'X' says we are being very logical

B: Yes, but at this stage logic will not carry us any further... But you could say that having seen that this whole thing was reasonable so far, Mr 'Y' may have some (intimate?) 'confidence' that it may go further.

K: Yes that is what I am trying to say.

B: And of course ... there is no ( solid?) proof... ?

K: No...

B: So we could only explore (the validity of those statements within ourselves?)

K: That is what I am trying to do...

Q: What about the other activities of Mr 'X'? We said 'X' has a function of teaching, but we said 'X' has other activities.

K: Must have. He necessarily must...

B: Well you are saying that somehow he makes possible an activity of the Ground in the whole consciousness of mankind which would not have been possible without him.

K: Yes... We are trying to find out what is that Greater (factor) that must necessarily be operating?

Q: Is it something that appears in the daily life of Mr 'X'?
K: Yes....In his daily life Mr 'X' is apparently doing the petty little stuff - teaching, writing, ( carwashing & ) book-keeping...Is that all? It seems so silly.

B: Are you saying that in the daily life Mr 'X' does not look so different from anybody else?

K: No, he apparently is not.

B: But there is something else going on which does not show, right?

K: That's it. When 'X' talks it may be a different (feeling) , he may say things differently but...

B:... that is not fundamental because there are so many people who say things differently from other people.

K: But the ( holistically integrated consciousness of this?) man who has walked through that right from the beginning to the end, is entirely different and when he says something, that is also different, but I am not concerned about that. If such a man has ( free access to?) the whole of that 'energy' to call upon, to reduce all that energy to this petty little place seems so ridiculous.

B: Yes, well let me ask you a ( collateral ?) question : Why does the Ground require this man to operate on ( the Consciousness matrix of?) mankind? You see why can't It operate directly to clear things up?

K: Are you asking why does the ground demand action? I can easily explain it . It is part of Existence, like the stars.

Q: Can the immensity act directly on mankind? Does it have to inform a man to enter the consciousness of mankind?

K: Why does the Ground need this man? It doesn't need him...

B: But if he is here then the Ground will use him ?

K: That is all.

B: Well, would it be possible that the ground could do something (more) to clear up this... ?

K: That is what I want to find out. The Ground doesn't need this man (Mr X) but (if) the man has touched the Ground, the Ground is employing him. He is part of that movement. So, why should he do anything except this (proxy effect?) ?

B: Well perhaps he does nothing.

K: That very 'doing nothing' may be 'the' (Ground's) doing.

B: Well in 'doing nothing' Mr X makes possible the action of the Ground. It may be the case . In doing nothing which has any specified aim...

K: That's right. No 'specific' content which can be translated into human terms.

B: Well yes, but still he is supremely active in doing nothing.
K: Yes...

Q: Is there an action which is beyond time for this man?

K: He 'is' (the Intelligent vector of?) that.

Q: So, we cannot ask for any concrete result of this man... but Mr or Mrs 'Y' is asking for a result.

K: Mr 'X' says I am not concerned with (the psychological wellfare of?) Mr 'Y'. I am only concerned to talk, or do something in a petty little way, that is a very small thing and I am not bothered about that. But there is a vast field ( of Ground's direct action?) which must affect the whole (consciousness?) of mankind.

B: Well there is an analogy in chemistry : a catalyst makes possible a certain chemical reaction without ( apparently?) itself taking part - merely by being what is it.

K: Yes, that's what it is....

Q: But even then, Mr 'Y' would say : it isn't happening because the world is still in a mess....

K: 'X' says he is sorry that is no question at all. There is a much greater 'movement' (at Creation's Ground Zero ?) which necessarily must play a part in the world.

Q: Does this 'greater movement' play a part through 'X'?
K: Obviously, obviously. And if there were ten such Mr 'X's', of course it would be... ??? 'X' says there is. Right? Sir, it must be. Otherwise it is all so childish.

B: But I think the general view which ( the science) people are developing now is that the universe has no (spiritual) meaning...that it moves in an odd way, all sorts of things happen and none of them have any ( higher) meaning.

K: None of them have meaning for the man who is ( stuck down?) here, but the man who is there, speaking relatively, says it is full of meaning, not invented by thought and all that...
( In a nutshell?) Mr 'X' says, perhaps there will be ten ( holistically minded?) people who will 'join the game', and that might affect the ( evolution of human?) society - which might be based on intelligence, compassion and all the rest of it.

B: Well if there were ten they might find a way to spread it much more ; but if the whole of mankind were to see this, are you saying then that that would be something different?

K: Oh, yes sir. It would be ( the proverbial?) 'paradise on earth'.

B: It would be like a new kind of organism...

K: Of course. I think we had better stop there. But I am not satisfied in leaving this Immensity to be reduced to some ( holistically sounding?) words. You follow? Mr 'X' brings the light. That's all he can do and...isn't that enough?

B: To bring the light which would allow other people to be open to the Immensity (of Creation?) .

K: We only see a small part of it but that very small part extends to infinity. It's endless. I can't help but think that it must have some immense affect on Mr 'Y', and on ( the future of human) society.

B: Well certainly the perception of this must have an effect but it seems that this is not ( yet manifested?) in the consciousness of society at the moment.

K: I know...

B: But you are saying ( that its timeless?) effect is (acting deep down?) there ?

K: Yes sir...

B: Well, do you (really) think it is possible that a thing like this could divert the evolution of mankind away from the dangerous course it is taking?

K: Yes sir, but to divert the course of man's destruction somebody must listen. Somebody - ( or just) ten people must listen to that Immensity calling.

B: So that immensity (of Universal Intelligence ?) may divert the course of man, yes. The individual cannot do it.

K: The (self-centred?) 'individual' cannot do it, obviously. But the (holistically integrated?) individual, Mr 'X' who has trodden this path says, 'Listen !'....

B: Exactly : is it possible to discover how to make people 'listen'?

K: No, ( because then) we are back (within the field of reality?)

B: What do you mean?

K: You have nothing to do (in this regard?) .

B: What do you mean by 'not doing anything'?

K: Sir as ( a holistically minded?) Mr 'Y', I come to realize that whatever I try to do (inwardly) I am still living within that 'circle of darkness' . So Mr 'X' says, 'Don't act, you have nothing to do.' That is (generally?) translated as ''I'll wait'' (for Divine Grace?) or in doing everything except ''wait and see what happens''. We must pursue ( at another time the holistic approach of 'non-action'?) sir.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 01 Feb 2020 #244
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

9TH ( reader-friendly edited) K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM ( 1980)

K: ( For the holistically-minded Mr 'Y'?) we are now coming to an (essential) point, which is: direct perception and immediate action. Our ( everyday) perception ( within the field of reality?) is directed by knowledge – the ( memory of the?) past 'perceives' and so this perceiving and acting from knowledge is ( ultimately becoming?) a factor of shrinking the brain. So is there a (quality of direct ?) perception which is not time-binding and therefore an action which is immediate. Am I making myself clear? The human brain has evolved through time, and it has set (for itself a?) pattern of time in action. And as long as the brain is still living within in this ( thought -projected?) pattern of time (it is becoming mechanical and/or ?) senile. If we could break ( through?) that pattern of time, something else (may?) take place.

B: Perhaps a point should be clarified : the (process of self- introspective) analysis is based on our past knowledge which organizes our perception and one may take a series of steps to accumulate (more & more ) knowledge about oneself. But if you say this is a 'pattern of time' and that one has to break out of it, most (thoughtful?) people would ask: what other pattern is possible?

K: First let's 'understand' - not merely intellectually but actually see ( the actual truth?) that all our way of living, our whole thinking, is bound by time. Or (rather?) it comes with ( a vast amount of?) knowledge ( accumulated in) time.

B: Well, certainly any attempt to analyze yourself involves this cummulative process .

K: Which (essentially) is a process of 'time'. We are now trying to find out if there is a different approach to the problem. You see I am concerned to end this shrinkage ( of the human brain?) and asking whether the brain itself, the cells, the whole thing, can move out of 'time' altogether, otherwise deterioration, shrinkage, senility is inevitable. ( Hint : the 'senility' may not show but the brain cells are becoming weaker...) .

B: Well, if all the cells were to regenerate perfectly in the body and in the brain, then the whole thing could go on indefinitely.

K: Look sir: we are now destroying the ( natural sensitivity of the?) body, drink, smoke & over indulgence in sex (not to mention the stress & ) all kinds of other things. We are living most unhealthily. Right? If the body were in excellent health, maintained right through, which is no heightened emotions, no strain on the body, no sense of deterioration in the body, the heart functioning healthily, normally, I am sure it can last a great any more years than it does now.

B: Yes, I think that is true. There have been cases of people living up to one hundred and fifty in quiet places.

K: So, if the body can be kept healthy and the body affects the mind, nerves, senses and all that, that ( inward) part also can be kept healthy.

B: You see, the brain has a tremendous effect on organizing the body. The pituitary gland controls the entire system of the body glands and also all the organs of the body are controlled in that way and so on. When the mind deteriorates the body starts to deteriorate.

K: Of course...So can this brain which is the (human) brain which has evolved through millions of years, going through all kinds of pleasant and/or destructive experiences, pleasant and all the rest of it, can this brain be free of all this, of (all the psychological scars of?) time? I think it can.

B: We should first discuss what it actually means to be (inwardly?) free of 'time' - obviously you don't mean that the ( biological?) clock stops or anything like this. What does it really mean to be 'psychologically' free of time?

K: That there is 'no tomorrow'...

B: Can you describe better what do you mean when you say, 'no tomorrow'?

K: Sir, what does it mean to be living (inwardly) in time? Thinking & living in the ( memory field of the?) past and acting from the knowledge of the past, the 'images', the illusions, the prejudices, they are all an outcome of the past, all that is ( creating the psychologically active memory of?) 'time'. And (directly or indirectly?) that is producing ( the chaotic state of the ) world...I am just saying the way we are living now is in the field of time. And there we have brought all kinds of (psychologically motivated ) problems, suffering & all that. Right?

B: Yes, but perhaps it should be made clear why this produces suffering necessarily ?

K: It is simple (to explain 'holistically'?) . Which is, ( the memory of ? ) time has built the 'ego', the 'me', the 'self'-image which is sustained by society, by the parents, by education. This (self-centred consciousness?) has been built after millions of years, that is the result of ( man's long evolution in?) time. And from there 'I' act...

B: ...towards the 'future' (which means, psychologically?) towards some future state of being. Right?

K: Yes. This (self-conscious?) 'center' is always becoming...

B: Trying to become something better ?

K: Better, nobler, (richer, safer … ?) etc ; so all this constant ( conscious & un-conscious?) endeavour to become something is the psychological 'factor of time'.

B: And you you saying that ( eventually this?) produces suffering?

K: Obviously. Because it is divisive. It divides 'me' from 'you' and (from everything else?) and if I depend on somebody and if that somebody is gone I feel lonely, miserable, unhappy, grief & suffering. So ( in a nutshell) we are saying that : this factor of (psychological) division which is the very nature of the ( temporal?) 'self', there must inevitably bring suffering.

B: So, you're saying that the 'self' is set up through time and then the self introduces (a mentality of?) division and conflict and so on. But if there were no such 'psychological time' then maybe this entire structure would collapse and something entirely different would happen?

K: That's it. That is what I am saying. And therefore the brain itself has broken out that pattern .

B: Well, that is the next step to say that the brain has broken out of that rut and maybe it could regenerate then. It doesn't follow logically, could.

K: Yes. You look sceptical!

N: Yes, because the whole human predicament is bound to time - the society, individuals, the whole structure. The (inertial) force of this is so great that if you have to break through, one must have greater energy.

K: Yes.

N: And no individual seems to be able to generate so ( much) energy to be able to break through.

K: Ah...when you use the word 'individual' you have got the 'wrong end of the stick', you have moved away from the fact that our ( evolutionary?) brain is 'universal' and it is conditioned ( to think in a self-centred?) way through time. ( Thinking in terms of?) time is the factor of conditioning. So can that 'psychological time' element not exist? I say it can. And we said the ending of suffering comes about when the 'self', which is built up through time, is no longer there. The man who is going through a terrible time might reject this, but when he comes out of the shock , and somebody points out to him, and if he is willing to listen, if he is willing to see for himself the sanity of it, he is out of that field, the brain is out of that time-binding quality.

N: Temporarily...

K: Ah... 'temporarily' means time.

N: He slips back into time.

K: No, you can't go back, if you see something dangerous you can't go back to it. Like seeing a cobra, or whatever the ( imminent) danger is, you cannot. Psychologically ( inwardly?) we are unaware of the dangers. But if we become as aware of the 'psychological' dangers as we are aware of a physical danger there is an action which is not time-binding.

B: Yes, as long as you could perceive this danger you will respond immediately. But you see if you were to use this analogy of the ( dangerous) animal, there might be an 'animal' that you realize is dangerous, but then he might take another form that you don't see as dangerous.

K: Yes...

B: Therefore there would be a danger of slipping back if you didn't see (the nature of the danger) . The ( very realistic) illusion of 'time' might come in some other form.

K: Of course.

B: But I think the major point is that you are saying that the human brain is not belonging to any ( particular) individual.

K: Yes, sir, absolutely.

B: And therefore it is no use saying that the 'individual' slips back, but the danger might be that the brain itself might slip back.

K: The brain itself might get back because it itself has not seen the danger...

B: Hasn't seen the other form of the illusions.

K: Sir, that is the real root of it, ( our un-conscious thinking in terms of?) 'time'...

B: You see ( thinking of oneself in terms of time?) time and the ( illusory ) separation as 'individuality' are basically the same structure.

K: Of course.

B: Although it is not obvious in the beginning.

K: I wonder if you see that.

B: It might be worth discussing why is the 'psychological' time the same illusion, as ( the self-centred?) 'individuality' - the ( inner) sense of being a person who is located here...

K: ...located and divided.

B: Divided from the others. His domain extends out to some periphery and also he has an identity which goes over time. He wouldn't regard himself as an 'individual' unless though said, today I am one person, tomorrow I am another. So it seems we mean by 'individual' somebody who is in time.

K: I think that is such a fallacy, this idea of ( egocentric) 'individuality'.

B: Yes, but many people may find that very hard to be convinced that it is a fallacy. There is a common feeling that I have existed as an individual at least from my birth if not before, and go on to death and perhaps later. The whole idea of being an individual is to be in time. Right?

K: Obviously, sir, obviously. So the illusion that time has created (an authentic?) individuality is erroneous...

B: Yes, the notion of individuality has arisen through time...

K: Of course. Can this ( temporal?) brain understand that?

B: Well I think that there is a great ( inertial) momentum in any brain, which keeps rolling, moving along.

K: Can that momentum stop?

N: The difficulty is that more or less unconsciously you are driven by this momentum of the past And suddenly you see in a flash something true. But the difficulty is it operates for some time in the sense that it may operate for a day, but then there is the fact we are again caught in the old momentum. It is a ( very common) human experience.

K: I know that. But I say it will not be caught ( for good?) once the brain is (becoming fully) aware of this fact it cannot go back. How can it?

N: You are suggesting that the very seeing prevents you from going back, from slipping (back into the time-binding patterns of the brain ) . However, this (inertial momentum of the past?) is a common human condition.

K: If I see the fallacy of all the religious nonsense, it is finished...

B: The only question which I raise is that you may not see it when it comes in another form...

K: (If) the mind is ( holistically?) aware, it is not caught. Which, to use a good old world, is to have an 'insight' into the nature of time. If there is an insight into the 'nature' of ( thought-created) 'time', the very brain cells bring about a change in themselves. That is what this (Mer X) person is saying. You may say ''prove it''., but this is not a matter of proof, it is a matter of action. Do it, find it, test it.

N: You were also saying the other day that when the consciousness is empty of its content, that leads to the transformation of the brain cells. When you say consciousness is empty of the content there...

K:.. there is no consciousness as we know it.

N: Who has this insight?

K: Not the 'me'. There is an insight.

N: You are implying that in the very emptying of the content is ( creating a free inward space for the timeless flash of ?) insight.

K: We are saying time is a factor which has made up the content. It has made it up and it also thinks about. All that ( psychological) bundle, is the result of time. Now, the insight into this whole movement, it is not 'my' insight.

B: If you say the 'psychological' content is a certain structure physically (engrammed?) in the brain, you can say that for this psychological content to exist, the brain over many years has made many (cross) connections of the cells, which constitute this content.

K: Quite, quite.

B: And then there is a flash of insight which 'sees' that all this (psychologic content) is not necessary and therefore it begins to dissipate. And when that has dissipated there is no (psychological) content. Then, whatever the brain is doing is something different.

K: Then there is the 'total emptiness' we went into the other day...

B: Yes, well emptiness of that ( psychologically adictive?) content. But when you say total emptiness you mean emptiness of all this inward content ?

K: That's right. That ( state of inward) emptiness has a tremendous energy. It is energy.

B: So could you say that the brain having had all these connections tangled up has locked up a lot of ( intelligent?) energy?

K: That's right, a wastage of energy.

B: Then when the (redundant connexions) begin to dissipate that energy is there ?

K: Yes.

B: Would you say that is as much physical energy as an energy of other kind?

K: Of course, of course...So sir, we are more or less, you and I, a captured audience and how do we affect, or how do we touch the human brain?

B: Well, to most scientists it will sound rather abstract, you see. They will say it could be so, it is a nice theory, but as we have no proof of it, they would say, if you have some more evidence we will come back later, and become very interested. So you see you can't give any proof because you know whatever is happening nobody can see it, with their ( physical) eyes.

K: Of course, but I am asking: how do you get at the human mind to make him see this?

B: Well, you have to communicate the 'necessity' of what you are saying, that it is inevitable. Say, you explain it to him and he sees it happening before his eyes he says, 'That is so !'. Right?

K: But sir, that requires somebody to listen, somebody who says I want to capture it, I want to understand this, I want to find out. You follow what I am saying? Apparently that (passion for truth?) is one of the most difficult things in life.

B: Well, the (present condition of the human) brain is ( being predominantly) occupied with itself, so it doesn't listen...

N: In fact this (self-centred) occupation seems to start very early. When you are young it is very powerful and it continues through all your life. How do you through education make this..

K: Oh, if you are asking how to set about it, I will tell you : the moment you see the importance of not being occupied (inwardly) , you yourself see that as a tremendous truth, you will find ways and methods to help them. That is being creative, you can't just be told and imitate....

B: Well then the question is: how is it possible to communicate ( this passion for truth?) to a brain which doesn't listen?

K: I understand, that is what I am asking.

B: Well, is there a way?

K: Not if I refuse to listen...You see, sir, I think ( the 'meditor free' ?) meditation is a great factor in all this. I feel we have been meditating here, although ordinary people wouldn't accept this as 'meditation'.

B: The word has been used so often..

K:.. ( that its true meaning) is really lost. So ( the authentic) meditation is this, sir, the emptying of consciousness. You follow?

B: Yes, but let's be clear. Before you said it would happen through insight and are you saying now that meditation is conducive to insight ?

K: Meditation IS insight !

B: It is insight already. Then there is some sort of work to be done - the insight is usually thought of as the flash.

K: Yes, insight is a 'flash'.

B: But then, meditation is a more constant ( endeavour?)

K: Now we must be careful. What do we mean be 'meditation'?

B: That's 'the' (right ) question, yes...

K: We can reject the ( traditional) systems, methods, authorities, the acknowledged Zen, Tibetan, Hindu, Buddhist, because it is obviously merely traditional repetition, time-biding nonsense.

N: Don't you think some of them could have had original insights?

K: If they had, they wouldn't belong to Christians, Hindu, Buddhist, they wouldn't be anything.

N: How about in the past?

K: Who knows? Now meditation, sir, is this ( inward) penetration, this sense of moving without any past.

B: The only point left to clear up is that when you use the word 'meditation', you mean something more than insight ; it seems to mean something a bit more.

K: A bit more, much more! Because the insight has freed the brain from the past, from time. That is an enormous statement. Meditation as we know it is ( a sublimated form of self-) becoming, and any sense of becoming is still time, therefore here there is no sense of becoming.

B: Does that mean you have to have ( a basic) insight if you are going to meditate ?

K: Yes, sir, that's right.

B: You cannot (truly) 'meditate' without insight ?

K: Of course.

B: So, you can't regard meditation as a procedure by which you will come to insight ?

K: No. That ( 'quid pro quo' mentality ?) implies time. A (fail-safe?) system or method to have (the timeless light of ) 'insight' sounds so nonsensical. Insight into ( the inward fallacy of) greed, fear & all that, frees the mind from all that. Then meditation has quite a different quality. It has nothing to do with all the gurus' meditations. Right? Would you say, sir, that to have insight there must be ( inner peace & ) silence?

B: Well, my mind has silence...

K: Silence. So the 'silence of insight' has cleansed,purged, all that...

B: ... structure of ( self-centred?) occupation.

K: Yes. Then meditation is not a 'movement' as we know it - movement means time and all that. It is not that kind of movement.

B: Some other kind?

K: I don't see how we can describe by words the sense of limitless state.

B: But you were saying that nevertheless it is necessary to find some language, even though it is unsayable.

K: We will find the language....Shall we continue next Sunday?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Feb 2020 #245
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

10-th ( reader-friendly edited) K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (1980)

Krishnamurti: I think we left off the other day when the mind is totally empty of all the 'things' that thought has put there, then begins real meditation - if I remember rightly. Is the brain willing to face this extraordinary state, totally new to it, of being, (inwardly) in a state of 'nothingness'. ( And ) my brain says, 'I am willing to do that'. I am willing to face this absolute nothingness, emptiness because it has seen for itself all the refuges, the various places where it has taken refuge are illusions, so it has finished with all that.

(...) N: Yes, but for many people the energy that is required for such an insight is lacking...

K: You are tremendously keen to earn a livelihood, to earn money, to do something if you are really interested in something. If you are interested vitally in this you have the energy. We are talking of the psychological state of mind where there is no movement of thought, there is absolutely nothing.

B: When you said that there is no movement of thought, what does it really mean?

K: What it really means is: thought is movement, thought is time. Right? There is no time and thought.

B: And perhaps no sense of the existence of a (thinking) entity inside ?

K: Absolutely, of course. The existence of that (self-conscious mental .) 'entity' is the bundle of ( psychologically active ?) memories of the past.

B: But ( the sense of one's) existence is not only a matter of thinking about it, but also the feeling that it is there, inside oneself...

K: If there is a feeling of ( a self-conscious?) being continuing... I wonder if you not are caught in an illusion that there is such a state.

B: Well it may be... So this 'no-thingness' would be a state without ( self-centred) will, without...

K: Of course. All those are gone.

B: Now, how do we know that this state is real, is genuine?

K: Suppose you have this peculiar ( feeling of) compassion, can you communicate it to me who am living in pleasure and all that? You can't.

N: But supposing I am prepared to listen to you ?

K: Prepared to listen - but how deeply?

N: To the extent my listening takes me to.

K: Which is, you will go as long as it is safe, secure.

N: No, not necessarily.

K: In that state he (Mr 'X') says there is no ( sense of self-conscious?) being at all. In other words, there is no 'me'. Now you say, 'Show it to me'. It can be shown only through certain qualities it has, certain actions. What are the actions of a mind that is totally empty of ( self-becoming & ) being? All right, this man has got this sense of (inward) emptiness so he is not acting from self-centred interest ; and his actions are (observable) in the world of daily living. That's all, you can judge only there, whether he is a ( self-deluding?) 'hypocrite', whether he says one thing and contradicts it the next moment, or whether he is actually 'living' this compassion..

B: Well, if you are not doing the same you can't tell...

K: That's just it ! So how can you convey to me in words that peculiar quality of a mind? You can describe it ('holistically' ?) but you can't give me the ( living) essence of it. I can go very close but I can never enter or come upon that mind unless I have (the direct experience of?) it.
So, we come to that point of what is meditation? When there is this no (inner sense of self) becoming, or being, then what is ( the 'meditator-free' ?) meditation? It must be totally 'unconscious' & totally uninvited (non-premeditated?)

B: Without a conscious intention ?

K: Yes, without a 'conscious' intention. Yes, I think this is right. Would you say, sir that the Universe, the Cosmic order, is in ( a state of?) meditation?

B: Well if it is 'alive', then you would have to look at it that way...

K: It is in a state of meditation.

B: We should try to go over what is meditation, what is it doing? What order can we discern, which would indicate this cosmic meditation or universal meditation?

K: All the stars, the planets, the whole thing is moving in perfect order.

B: We still have to connect this (living order of the Universe?) with meditation. You see, according to the ( Webster's?) dictionary the meaning of 'meditation' is to reflect, to turn something over in your mind and to pay close attention.

K: And also to measure ?

B: That is a further meaning, in the sense of weighting the significance of something. Now, is that what you mean?

K: No...

B: Then... why you used the word 'meditation' ?

K: Don't let's use the word 'meditation'. Would you say, sir, it's a state of infinity, a measureless state in which there is no division of any kind.

B: Yes, but isn't there any sense of the mind being in some way aware of itself ? At other times you have said that in meditation the mind is emptying itself of ( the self-centred psychological) content.

K: Yes, but what are you trying to get at?

B: Well, I am trying to get at that it is not merely infinite but it seems that something more is involved.

K: Oh, much more.

B: So when the past is cleaned up, then you say that is meditation ?

K: That is contemplation..

N: The emptying of the past is just a beginning ?

K: This ( inward cleansing) must be done. Emptying the past which is anger, jealousy, beliefs, dogmas, attachments, all that is the ( psychologically active ?) content. If any part of it still exists, it will inevitably lead to illusion. So we said the mind must be totally free of all ( self-created ?) illusion - illusion brought by desire, by hope, by wanting security and all that.

B: Are you saying when that (once that inner cleansing) is done, this opens the door to something broader, deeper?

K: Yes. Otherwise life has no meaning, just repeating this pattern. I want to go into this...

N: What exactly did you mean when you said the ( Mind of the) Universe is in meditation?

K: I feel that way, yes. Meditation is a state of 'non-movement' movement .

B: Could we say first of all that the order of the universe is not actually governed by its past ? It is (time-) free and creative ?

K: It is creative, (living & ?) moving.

B: And then this ( non-moving?) 'movement' is an order.

K: Would you, as a scientist, accept such a thing?

B: Well, as a matter of fact I would! You see, the ( Intelligent ) Universe creates certain forms which are relatively constant (for a while?) , so the people who look at it superficially only see that, it seems to be a (causal) Order determined from the past.

K: Sir, put the question the other way: is it really possible for ( the thought generated ) time to end - the whole (thinking in terms of?) time, to have 'no tomorrow' at all? Of course there is ( a chronological ) 'tomorrow', but the (inward) feeling of having 'no tomorrow' is (for Mr 'X'?) the healthiest way of living.

B: The physical time is a certain part of the natural order, but the question is whether ( inwardly) we have a sense of experiencing past, present & and future or whether we are free of that sense.

K: Sir, is the ( Living Order of the?) Universe based on time?

B: I would say "no"...

K: That is all I want, you say "no". And therefore, can the human brain which has evolved in time..

B: Well, "evolved in time" is a ( politically correct?) way of talking ; but ( inwardly?) it has become "entangled in time"...

K: Entangled, all right...

B: It got entangled in ( thinking in terms of?) time ; because if you say the (Order of the?) Universe is not based on time, the human brain is also part of the (Living Order of the?) Universe.

K: I agree...

B: It can't be based merely on time. In fact, thought has entangled the brain in time.

K: In time... Can that entanglement be unravelled, freed, so that the ( Living Order of the?) Universe 'is' ( the inward order of?) the mind? You follow? If the universe is not of time, can the human mind which has been entangled in time, unravel itself and so 'be' (integrated in) the Universe? You follow what I am trying to say?

B: Yes...Now, would you say that is ( the true purpose of ?) Meditation?

K: That is it. A state of ( 'meditator'-free?) meditation in which there is no element of the past.

B: So, you're saying the mind is disentangling itself from time and also really disentangling the brain from time ?

K: Yes, sir. Would you accept that?

B: Yes, as a proposal (to be further contemplated ?)

K: Somebody (like Mr X?) says one can live this way and life has an extraordinary meaning in it, full of compassion and so on, and every act in the physical world, can be ( if necessary?) corrected immediately and so on. Would you, as a ( holistically minded?) scientist, accept such a state ?

B: I feel it is perfectly possible, it is quite compatible with anything that I know about nature.

K: Oh, then that's all right...

B: Part of the 'entanglement' ( of modern civilisation?) is that science itself has put 'time' into a fundamental position which helps to entangle it still further.

K: We had better stop, sir. Shall we continue (the dialogues?) in September? Of course putting it into words is not the (actual) thing. But can it be communicated to another?

B: Well I think that the ( experiential) point about communicating this is to bring it about.

K: Of course. Now can some of us get to ( the bottom of?) this so that we can communicate it actually?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Feb 2020 #246
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

 11TH (reader-friendly edited ) K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM ( 1980)

K: (….) Do we have to go (again?) through what is 'insight' ?

B: Well, just to sum it up ; I think it would make it more intelligible.

K: Could we start (negatively?) with being ('psychologically ) tied' to something - to a person, to an idea, to some habit, or to some (personal) experience ? 'Being tied' (inwardly speaking) implies dependence, in the (vain attempt?) to escape from one's ( sense of ) loneliness, fear, and all that. Now to have total insight ( 'in(ner)sight'?) into ( the illusory nature of) this attachment, that very insight clears away all attachment.

B: Yes... we were saying (metaphorically?) that the ( inner core of the ) 'self' (centred consciousness) could be considered like a centre creating darkness in the mind, or clouds ( fog ?) , and the ( light generated by ) insight penetrates that, it would dispel the cloud so that there would be clarity and therefore this ( psychologically motivated?) problem would vanish.

K: 'Vanish', that's right...

B: But it would take a very strong, intense insight, a 'total(ly clarifying) insight.

K: That's right, but if my (subliminal identification with these ?) attachments is too strong... I may be 'unwilling' ( or just uncapable?) to let them go.

B: Yes, but then what?

K: I think it's only very few ( holistically minded people?) who want to do this kind of thing ( for their psychological homework?)... Now (for their benefit?) we are discussing whether that 'insight' can dissolve this whole movement of being ( psychologically?) attached or dependent, 'at one blow', as it were. I think a profound insight into this whole thing can. That insight (enlightening inward perception?) is not the (result of the time-binding activity ?) of memory, knowledge, experience, which is totally different from all that movement.

B: Well, it seems that it's an insight into the whole of ( one's inner) disorder, into the source of disorder, not just into attachment or greed. And with ( the inward clarity brought by?) that insight then the mind can clear up and then it would be possible to approach the cosmic order.

K: That's what I want to get at, because any serious man ( can and?) must put his house in order. Right? And that must be complete order, not order in a particular direction, but order in the wholeness of man. If that can be done, and if that is necessary, because society as it is disintegrating destroys human beings. It's a machine that is destructive in itself and if a human being is caught in it, it destroys him. And realizing that, any ordinary human intelligence says, 'I must do something about it', not just sit back and talk about it.

B: You see, most people might feel that 'doing something about it' consists of solving particular problems like attachment or removing disagreements between people, or something like that...

K: The resolution of a particular problem is not the resolution of the whole.

B: That's the key point : that getting at this source is the only way, because if we try to deal with a particular problem, it's still always coming from the source.

K: The source is the ( selfish nature of the?) 'me', understood. A apart from the Great Source, this ( personal ?) little pond, must dry up.

B: Yes, this little stream confuses itself with the great one, I think.

K: Yes, we're not talking about the Great Stream, the immense movement of life, we're talking about the little me with the little movement, little apprehensions and so on that is creating disorder. And as long as there is that 'centre' ( of selfishness?) which is the very essence of disorder, unless that is dissolved there is no order. So at that level it is clear. Can we go on from there?

B: Yes, I think so.

K: Now, I'd like to ask, is there another 'order' totally different from this? This is man-made disorder, and therefore man-made order. Right?

B: Yes, this ( local) order which we see in this room, like the television set is man-made, which is a high degree of order, but also we see (on it) all the fighting going on these terrible programmes put on this orderly television system.

K: I can put my house in order. And if perhaps, many of us do it, we'll have a better society, etc., etc. Yes, that is relevant, that is necessary, But that has its (own intrinsical) limitation.

B: Yes, eventually people will get bored with that.

K: Now how does a human being who has really deeply understood (the nature of the) disorder made by human beings, and therefore affecting society and all that, he says, 'Is there an order that's beyond all this?'

B: Yes...but how do we get into that question?

K: The ( holistically inclined?) human mind isn't satisfied by merely having physical, social order and says, 'Yes, I've understood that, let's move on'.

B: Yes, but even in science, they are seeking (to understand) the order of the whole universe because the question fascinates them. And I think that perhaps many ( spiritually earnest people?) have been seeking the 'absolute' (Hint:) The word 'absolute' means to be free of all limitation, of all dependence, of all imperfection.

K: Yes, of all motives and all the rest of it...

B: So the absolute has been the source of tremendous illusion because this limited self ( centred consciousness) seeks to capture the 'absolute'.

K: Of course, that's impossible.

B: But supposing we recognize that the absolute is necessary in the sense of (one's inner) freedom, because anything that is dependent in any way is not free.

K: So, as a scientist, would you say there is a (wider Cosmic ) order which is beyond all human order and disorder?

B: Well, I don't think that a scientific (background) is particularly significant because any order discovered by science is relative...

K: Because their own egotism... ?

B: Not only that but also the information we have is limited and we can say that it goes only so far. But (in the past) men have felt the need for the absolute and not knowing how to get it they have created the illusion of it in religion, in science or in many other ways.

K: So, our enquiry then is, is there an order which is not man-made ?

B: Free of man's ( mental) constructions ?

K: Yes...

B: Now, we have the order of nature, the cosmos which we don't really know in its depth but we could consider that to be that sort of order.

K: Unless man interferes with it, nature has its own order. Now let's move to something else. Man has sought a different dimension ( of consciousness?) because he has understood (the limitations of?) this dimension. He has lived in it, he has suffered in it, he has gone through all kinds of mess and misery, and has actually come to the end of all that. You may say there are very few people who do that, but this question must be put...

B: Yes, but what is the significance of this question to the vast number of people who have not gone through that? Is it of any interest to one who hasn't gone through it?

K: I think it is, because even if only intellectually, he may see the limitations of it.

B: So, it's important for him to see this (transcendental necessity?) even before he has finished clearing it up ...

K: Of course not - that would be too stupid. So how does the mind approach this problem? (pause) I think all religious(ly minded?) people have attempted to understand something which is not all this (man-made order?) . Does it come about through 'meditation' ?

B: Well, we've discussed that here in Brockwood, that the original meaning of the word 'meditation' is to ponder, to weigh the value and significance of things...

K: Yes. So we are using this word as the ( natural) outcome of having kept, bringing about order in the house, and moving from there.

B: So if we see things are in disorder in the mind, then that is (a first step in?) meditation.

K: Yes. But first the mind must be free of 'measurement' ( verbally comparing & evaluting?) , otherwise it can't enter into the 'other' (dimension of consciousness) .

B: Well, that's an important point, since seeing one's (inward ) disorder, the instinctive tendency is to try to correct it ; and that might be a fundamental mistake (in the context of meditation?) .

K: We said that all (mental ) effort to bring order into disorder is ( perpetuating the existing) disorder.

B: Yes, and in that way this is very different from what almost everybody has been saying over the whole of history.

K: I know, we are perhaps 'exceptional'....

B: There may be a few who implied it, but it's never been said explicitly to my knowledge.

K: All right, let's explicitly say it.

B: So we say that it is the attempt to ( mentally evaluate & ) 'control' that it has no meaning (in meditation) . But now we say there's no control, what do we do?

K: No, no, no.... if I have an insight into the whole nature of (thought?) control that liberates the mind from that burden.

B: Could you explain the nature of this 'insight', what it means ?

K: This insight is not a movement from knowledge, from thought, and remembrance but the cessation of all that and to look at the problem with pure observation, without any ( personal) motive, all that - to 'observe' (non-verbally?) this whole movement of measurement.

B: We can see now that 'measurement' is the attempt of the mind to measure itself, to control itself, to set itself a goal is the very source of the (psychological) disorder.

K: That is the very source of disorder.

B: But I think the first reaction would be : if we don't control this thing it will go wild. That's what somebody might fear.

K: Yes, but having an insight into (the inward falseness of self-) measurement, that very insight not only banishes all measurement, but there is ( the beginning of?) a different ( quality of inner) order.

B: So the mind does not 'go wild' because it has begun in order. It is really the attempt to measure (& control?) it that makes it go wild.

K: Yes, that's it. Now after establishing all this (fine tuning ?) , can this mind through meditation find an order, an (inwardly open ) state which is not man-made ? Because I've been through all the man-made things and they are all limited, there is no (inner) freedom in them.

B: Well, when you say 'man-made' things, what are they?

K: Everything.

B: Like religion ?

K: Like religion, worship, prayers, anxieties, sorrow, attachment, detachment, loneliness and suffering and confusion and ache and anxiety, all that...
Now then the question is, is there something ( to be inwardly discovered) beyond all this, which is never touched by human thought?

B: How about the human mind ?

K: As long as the human mind is caught in that, it is limited.

B: Yes, but still, the human mind has ( a self-transcending) potential... ?

K: Tremendous potential....

B: Which ( unfortunately) it does not realize now, as it is caught in ( self-centred) thought, feeling, desire, will, and that sort of things...

K: That's right.

B: Then we'll say that 'what is beyond' is not touched by this limited sort of mind ?

K: Yes... (pause)

B: Now what will we mean by the mind which is beyond this limit?

K: First of all, sir, is there such a mind which can actually say, 'I've' been through this'?

B: You mean, through the limited stuff ?

K: Yes. And being through it means ( having) finished with it. This mind, having come to the end of it, is no longer the limited mind. And (still further) is there a mind which is totally limitless?

B: Yes, but that raises the question of how the brain is able to be in contact with that mind ?

K: I'm coming to that. The human mind, the whole of it, includes the emotions, the brain, the reactions, physical responses and this mind has lived ( for ages?) in turmoil, in chaos, in loneliness and ( but finally) has understood (what the inner freedom is all about?) and has had a profound insight into all that. And having such a deep insight cleared the field. This (new?) mind is no longer that (same old?) mind.

B: Yes, it's no longer the limited mind that you began with...

K: The damaged mind. Let's use that word damaged.

B: Damaged mind, and in its (self-centred) working has damaged the brain cells which are not in the right order.

K: Quite. But when there is this ( the inward clarity of?) insight and therefore order, the damage is undone.

B: Yes. We discussed that the previous time.

K: I don't know if you even agree to that... ?

B: Yes, I certainly see it's quite possible, because you can say the damage was done by disorderly thoughts and feelings, which over-excite the cells and disrupt them and now with the insight, that stops and a new process...

K: Yes, it's like a person going for fifty years in a certain direction and realizes suddenly that that's not the direction, the whole (inward disposition of the ) brain changes.

B: It changes at the core and then the wrong structure is dismantled and healed, that may take (some?) time, but the insight itself …

K:... which is the factor that changes...

B: Yes, that insight does not take time.

K: That's right. Now is that mind which has been limited (for ages) , having had insight into ( the nature of its) limitation, and has moved away from that limitation, isn't it something that is really tremendously revolutionary? You follow? And therefore it is no longer the (time-bound ?) human mind.

B: Yes, so that is the general human consciousness not just in individual's but it has been all round.

K: All, of course not, I'm not talking of an 'individual' (personalised mind) , that's too silly.

B: Yes. But I think we discussed that, that the (so called) 'individual' mind is the particular outcome, rather than an independent thing. You see, that's one of the difficulties.

K: That's one of the (wide spread local?) confusions.

B: The confusion is that we take the individual mind to be the concrete actuality. So, it's necessary to consider this general ( human) mind to be the actuality from which the 'individual' mind is formed.

K: Yes. That's all very clear (for Mr X?)

B: But now you are saying we move away even from that 'general' (human) mind, but what does it mean?

K: Yes, if one has totally moved away from it, then what is the 'mind'?

B: Yes, and what is the human being then ? Didn't we agree to call it 'universal' mind, or would you prefer not to?

K: I don't like ( using too often?) that word universal mind, lots of people used it. Let's use a much simpler word : a mind that is not made (not been conditioned?) by man('s past) . Sir, does one observe ( in meditation whether?) such an (universal dimension of the ) mind exist?

B: Yes, let's see what that means to 'observe' that. 'Who' observes it, is one of the problems that comes up.

K: We've been through all that. There is no division in ( the context of holistic) observation. Not, I observe, but there is only 'observation'.

B: Would you say it takes place in a particular brain, or that the particular brain takes part in the observation?

K: No, sir, it doesn't take place in a particular brain - it is not K's brain. Let's get clear on this point. We live in a man-made world, man-made mind, man-made all that, we are the result of ( a survivalistic) man-made mind - our brains and so on.

B: Well, the brain itself is not man-made but it has been conditioned.

K: Conditioned by ( the survivalistic mentality of?) man, that's what I mean. Now, can that mind uncondition itself so completely that it's no longer 'man-made'?

B: Yes, that's the ( homework meditation?) question...

K: Let's keep it to that simple level. Can that man-made mind as it is now, can it go to that extent, to so completely liberate itself from... 'itself' (from its inherited selfishness?) .

B: Of course that's a paradoxical statement.

K: Paradoxical but it's actual, it is so. One can observe the consciousness of humanity is its content. And its content is all the man-made things - ( selfishness?) anxiety, fear, and all the rest of it. And it is not only the particular human mind, it is the 'general'. Having had an insight into this (karmic residue?) , it has cleansed itself from that.

B: Well, that implies that it was always potentially more than that, and that insight ( the 'holistic inner sight'?) enabled it to be free of that. Is that what you mean?

K: That insight - I won't say it is ( just a ) 'potential'.

B: Well, there is a little difficulty of language, that if you say the brain or the mind had an insight into its own conditioning you're almost saying it became into something else.

K: Yes, I am saying that, the insight transforms ( qualitatively?) the 'man-made' mind.

B: Yes. So then it's no longer the 'man-made' mind... ?

K: It's no longer. That insight means the wiping away of all the (psychologically distorted?) content of consciousness. Not bit by bit, but the totality of it. And that (inner clarity of?) insight is not the result of man's endeavour.

B: Yes, but then, where does it come from ?

K: Where does it come from? In the Mind itself (from?) the whole of it.

B: We say there is ( an Universal?) Mind, right?

K: Let's go slowly - it's rather interesting - the ( temporal dimension of our ?) consciousness is man-made, general and particular. And one sees the limitations of it. Then the ( meditating?) mind has gone much further and it comes to a point (to the moment of truth?) when it says, 'Can all this be wiped away at one breath, at one blow, in one movement.' And that ( holistic perception ) is the movement of insight. It is still in (happening in) the (human) mind. But ( its perceptive clarity ?) not born of that ( time-bound) consciousness.

B: Yes. So, you are saying that (a holistically friendly human) mind has the potential of moving beyond the ( temporal) consciousness.

K: Yes.

B: But we haven't actually done much ( in this other field?) .

K: It must be a part of the (potential of the human) brain, a part of the mind.

B: The human brain or mind can do that, but generally speaking, it hasn't done it...

K: Yes. Now, having done all this (meditation homework?) , is there a mind which man cannot conceive, cannot create - is there such a mind?

B: Well, I think you are saying that having freed itself (from its karmic past?) the mind is freed from its limits, and now this ( universally integrated?) Mind is now much greater. Now you seem to say that this Mind itself is raising a question.

K: This mind is raising the question.

B: Which is what?

K: Which is, first, is there such a mind free from the 'man-made' (limitations of the temporal ?) mind?

B: You mean that it may be a (self-projected?) illusion ?

K: Illusion - that's why one has to be very clear. No, it is not an illusion, because he ( Mr X) knows the nature of illusion, born of where there is desire there must be etc., illusions. And such illusions must create ( still subtler?) limitations, and so on. He's not only understood it, he's over it.

B: He's free of desire ?

K: Free of desire. That is the nature (of any self-delusion?) . I don't want to put it so brutally. Free of desire.

B: But it still is full of ( 'desire recycled'?) energy ?

K: Now, then what is that mind?

B: Yes, you were raising a question about whether there is something much greater ?

K: Yes, that's why I'm raising the question : is there a mind which is not man-made? And if there is, what is its relationship to the man-made mind?

B: Yes... ?

K: This is very difficult. It is half past twelve, do we go on?

B: If you feel like it...

K: I can go on to a quarter to one.

B: Quarter to one, yes that's good, yes.

K: You see, I think that can only be asked when the ( man-made) limitations are ended, otherwise it's just a foolish question. So, one must be absolutely free of all this. Then only can be raised that question is there a mind that is not man-made, and if there is such a mind, what is its relationship to the man-made mind ? Now, is there such a Mind, first. Of course there is. But it is not 'God', because (the concept of?) 'God'...

B: part of the man-made structure.

K: Then, the next question is : if there is such a mind, and someone (like Mr X) says there is, then what is the relationship of that to the human mind, man-made mind? Has it any relationship?

B: I would say it has a superficial one in the sense that the man-made mind has some real (objective) content at a certain level, a technical level, let's say, the television system and so on. So in that sense (at least ) in that area there could be a relationship but as you were saying that is a very small area. But fundamentally...

K: ...the 'man-made' mind has no relationship to That. But That has a relationship to this.

B: Yes, but not to the illusions in the man-made mind.

K: Now has That any relationship to this?

B: Well, That can have a relationship to the man-made mind in understanding its true structure.

K: Are you saying, sir, that 'that mind' has a relationship to the human mind the moment it's moving away from the limitations? What is the relationship then of love to jealousy? (The intelligence of?) love can understand the origin of hatred and how hatred arises and all the rest of it. Are we saying, sir, that in the ending of hatred, the 'other' (universally intelligent Mind) is (present?) .

B: And I think that someone ( living in resentment or ?) in hatred can be moving away...

K: Moving away, then the other is. The 'other' cannot help it in its 'movement away'. So, in the understanding of (the inner causation of resentment & ?) hatred and in the ending of it has ( free acess to?) the Other.
I think we had better pursue this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Feb 2020 #247
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

12TH ( reader-friendly edited ) K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM

Krishnamurti: We were saying the other day that a (holistically minded?) human being, who has worked his way through all the problems of life, both physical and psychological, and has really grasped the full significance of freedom from 'psychological' memories and conflicts and travails, he comes to a point where his mind finds itself free but hasn't gathered that supreme energy to go beyond itself. Can we go on from there?

Bohm: If you like, yes...

K: Can the human mind ever be free from all ( inner) conflicts, from all shadow of any disturbance? Or the idea of complete freedom is an illusion ?

B: Yes, well, that's one possibility. Some people would say ( that in the real world?) we could have only partial freedom...

K: Or the human condition is so determined by the past, by its (karmic?) conditioning that it can never free itself from it, like some of those intellectual philosophers have stated this.

B: Well, some ( thoughtful?) people may feel that's the case.

K: But the deeply religious people, if there are (any left?) , who are totally free from all organized religions and beliefs, rituals, dogmas - they have said it can be done. Very few have said this.

B: Well, of course there are many millions those who have said it is done through reincarnation. And that group say it will take a very long time...

K: Yes, they say you must go through various lives and suffer all kinds of miseries, but ultimately you will come to that. But (here?) we are not thinking in terms of time. We're asking, a human being (becoming responsibly) aware?) that he is conditioned, deeply so that his whole (psychological) being is that, can it ever free itself ? And if it does, what is beyond?

B: Right...

K: Would that (transcendental aspect of the?) question be valid, unless the mind has really finished with all the travails of life? As we said the other day, our mind is 'man-made' (culturally formatted?) . Is it is possible that it can free itself from its own man-made mechanical mind ?

B: I think there's a kind of (verbal) tangle here : if the human mind is totally man-made, totally conditioned, then in what sense can it get out of it? Perhaps we could say that it had at least the possibility of going beyond (its temporal conditioning )

K: Then it becomes a psychological reward, a temptation, a thing to be...

B: I there seems to be an inconsistency in saying that the mind is totally conditioned and yet it's going to get out...

K: I understand, but if you admit, if one admits that there is a part ( of the human consciousness?) which is not conditioned, then we (may?) enter into quite another...

B: ...(potential?) inconsistency ?

K: Yes, into another inconsistency. But in our discussions, we've said (that even if ) the mind is deeply conditioned, it can free itself through ( a time-free inward perception aka :?) 'insight' - that is the real (homework?) clue to this. Would you agree to that?

B: Yes...

K: That 'insight' we went (+/- holistically?) into what it is, the nature of it, and can that 'insight' uncondition the mind completely, wipe away all the illusions, all the desires and so on ? Or is it a partial (one particular conditioning at a time?) ?

B: Well, I think the first point ( to have an insight into?) is that the human mind is not static, and when one says it's totally conditioned it suggests something static, which would never change.

K: Yes...

B: Now, if we say the ( time-bound human) mind is always in movement, then it becomes impossible to say 'what it is' at this very moment, so we couldn't say it has been 'totally conditioned'....

K: Let's say it's in movement, but its movement is within a certain field.
And the (center of that) field is very definitely marked out, it can expand it and contract, but the field is, the boundary is very, very limited, definite.

B: Yes... And even if we try to move freely within that structure, we stay within the same boundary.

K: So, it is always moving within that ( survivalistic self-) limitation. Can it 'die away' from that?

B: That's the point, that ( 'ending' is?) another kind of movement, I mean, it's a kind of moving in another dimension...

K: Yes. And we say it is possible through ( an inward flash of?) insight, which is a totally different kind of movement.

B: Yes, but then you were saying that this ( timeless?) movement does not originate in the individual mind, nor in the general mind ?

K: Quite right, yes. That's what we discussed the other day. It is not an insight of a particular, or of the general (mind)... We are then stating something quite outrageous.

B: Yes, I think that it violates the traditional logic that people have been using, that either the particular and the general should cover everything, in terms of ordinary logic.

K: Yes...

B: Now if you're saying there's something beyond both, this is already a question which has not been stated, at least not (explicitly) . And I think it has a great importance.

K: How do we then come to it?

B: Yes, well, I've been noticing that people divide themselves roughly into two groups, one group feels the most important thing is their concrete particular daily activity. The other group feels that the general, or the universal is the ground (of human existence) . You see, the one is the more 'practical' (pragmatical?) type, and the other the more 'philosophical' type. And this division has been visible throughout our history, but also in the modern everyday life, wherever you look.

K: But, sir, is the 'general' ( condition of human consciousness ? ) separate from the 'particular' ?

B: It's not, and I most people would agree with you , but people tend to give emphasis to one or the other. Like some people give the main emphasis to the particular. They say the 'general' is there but if you take care of the particular the general will be all right. The others say the 'general' is the main thing and the universal and getting that right you'll get the particular right.

K: Quite...

B: So there's been a kind of unbalance to one side or the other, a bias in the mind of man. Now what's being raised here is the notion that neither the general nor the particular (are the 'ground' of human existence?)

K: That's just it. So ( for starters) can't we find out if the general and particular ( consciousness) are not divided at all ?

B: Also that there's to be no bias to one or the other.

K: Quite....not laying emphasis on one or the other. Then what is there?

B: Well, we did discuss in California about the Ground (of Being) . We could say the particular mind 'dies' (returning?) to the general & universal mind or to the emptiness, then we were saying that ultimately the emptiness and the universal mind 'die' (returning ) into the Ground.

K: That's right, we discussed that. Would an ordinary person, fairly intelligent, 'see' all this? Or would he say, 'What nonsense all this is !'

B: Well, if it were just thrown at him, he would reject it as nonsense - it would require very careful presentation (from Mr X?) and some people might see it. But if you just say it to anybody, they would say, ''Whoever heard of that ?''

K: So where are we now? We are neither the particular nor the general mind.

B: Well, ordinarily thought is caught on one side or the other.

K: That's the whole point, isn't it? Ordinarily the 'general' and the 'particular' ( consciousness ) are in the same field (of the man-made reality?) . And thought is the movement between the two.

B: Yes, it has created both and it moves between in that area.

K: Yes, in that area. And it has been doing this for millennia.

B: Yes, and most people would feel that's all thought could do.

K: Now, we are saying, that when (this constant movement of) thought 'ends', that ( continuous?) movement which thought has created also comes to an end, therefore 'time' comes to an end.

B: We should go more slowly here, because it's a ( 'holistic'?) jump from thought to 'time'. As we were discussing (before) thought has a ( knowledge?) content which is about time, and besides that we said thought is a movement which is ( generating a sense of continuity in?) time : it could be said to be moving from the 'past' into the 'future'. Right?

K: But, sir, thought itself is the outcome of (mankind's long evolution in?) time.

B: Yes, but if you say that thought is based on time, then time is more fundamental than thought - is that what you want to say?

K: Yes...

B: So time was there before thought, or at least is at the origin of thought ?

K: Time was there whenever there is an accumulation of ( memory & ) knowledge.

B: Well, that has come out of thought to some extent.

K: No (not necessarily?) I act and learn. This original action is not based on my previous knowledge, but I do something, and in the doing I learn.

B: Then that 'learning' is registered in the memory ?

K: In the memory and so on. So is not thought essentially the movement of time?

B: Well, we have to say in what sense is this 'learning' a movement of time ?
We can say, when we learn it is registered (in the memory) . Right? And then that same learning operates in the next experience, as what you have learned before....

K: Yes. The ( experience of the?) past is always moving into the present.

B: Yes, and mixing, or 'fusing' with the present.

K: Yes...

B: And the two together are again registered as the next experience.

K: So are we saying, time is not different from ( the movement of?) thought, or (in holistic idiom ?) time 'is' thought.

B: Yes, well, this movement of learning and the response of memory into experience and then re-registering, we say that is ( giving the brain the sense of its continuity in ) time, and that is also thought.

K: there a time apart from thought?

B: Well, that's another question... Would we say that physically or in the cosmos that time has a significance apart from thought?

K: Physically, yes, I understand that.

B: Right... So then we're talking about the significance of time within the human mind, or 'psychologically'.

K: Psychologically, as long as there is psychological accumulation as (personal) knowledge, as the 'me' and so on, there is ( the sense of one's psychological continuity in?) time.

B: Yes, so we're saying that wherever there is accumulation there is time ?

K: Yes, that's the point.

B: Which turns the thing around because usually you say time is first and then in (the course of) time you accumulate.

K: No, personally I would put it round the other way,

B: Then, suppose there is no (psychologically motivated?) accumulation, then what?

K: Then - that's the whole point - there is no 'time'....But as long as I am accumulating, gathering, becoming, there is the process of time. But if there is no gathering, no ( self-) becoming, no accumulation, does psychological time exist?

B: Well, probably you could say even the physical time must depend on some kind of physical accumulation.

K: Of course, but that's quite a different matter.

B: That we are not denying - we're denying the significance of the 'psychological' accumulation.

K: That's right. So thought is the outcome of (brain's) psychological accumulation, and that accumulation, that gathering, gives it a sense of (its own ) continuity, which is time.

B: Well, it seems that whatever has been accumulated is responding to the present, with the projection of the future and then that is again registered. Now the accumulation of all that's registered is in the (linear) order of time, I mean, one moment of time, the next moment of time and all that.

K: That's right. So we're saying, thought ( the thinking brain?) 'is' (creating its own sense of?) time.

B: Yes, or time 'is' thought.

K: way or the other.

B: Right - that the two mean the same thing

K: So the psychological accumulation is thought and time.

B: Yes, we're saying that we happen to have two words when really we only need one.

K: One word. That's right.

B: But because we have two words we look for two different things.

K: Yes. There is only one movement, which is time and thought, time plus thought, or 'time-thought'. Now can the human mind which has moved for millennia in that area free itself from that (subliminal process ) ?

B: Yes, now why is the mind bound up? Let's see exactly what's holding the mind.

K: Accumulation.

B: Yes, but why does the mind continue to accumulate?

K: I think that is fairly clear because in accumulation (personal experience) there is safety, there is an apparent security.

B: That needs a little discussion , because in a certain area that is even true, that the accumulation of physical food may provide a certain kind of security.
And since no distinction was made between the outer and the inner, there was the feeling that one could accumulate inwardly either experiences or some knowledge of what to do.

K: Are we saying the outward necessity of physical accumulation for security is necessary and that same movement, the same urge moves into the 'psychological' field ?

B: Yes.

K: There you accumulate ( indiscriminately?) hoping to be secure.

B: Yes, inwardly accumulating present memories, or relationships, or things you could count on, principles you could count on.

K: So this psychological accumulation is ( providing a very realistic sense of?) safety, protection, security.

B: The illusion of it, anyway...

K: All right, the illusion of security and in this illusion it has lived (for ages)

B: Yes, so man's first ( psychological ?) mistake was that he never understood the distinction between what he has to do outside and what he has to do inside, right?

K: It is the same movement ( mental atitude ?) , outer and inner.

B: But now man carried the movement, that procedure which was right outwardly he carried inwardly, without knowing, perhaps entirely ignorant, not knowing that that would make trouble.

K: So where are we now? The (meditating ?) human being, realizes all this, has come to the point when he says, 'Can I really be free from this accumulated security and thought and time, psychological time?' Is that possible?

B: Well, if we see where it had this origin, then it should be possible to dismantle it, but if it were built into us, nothing could be done...

K: Of course not, it is not inbuilt in us.

B: Most people act as though it was....Now, if it's not inbuilt in (our brain) then the possibility exists for us to change. Because in some way we said it was built up in the first place through ( a long evolution in?) time.

K: So I have come to that point,where as a human being, I'm ( becoming) fully aware of the nature of this, and my next question is: can this ( awakening ?) mind move on from this field altogether, and enter into a totally different dimension? And we said, this can only happen when there is insight - that we've been through.

B: Yes, and it seems that (the inner clarity of ) insight arises when one questions this whole thing very deeply and one sees it makes no sense.

K: Now having had insight into this and seen its limitation and therefore go beyond it, what is there 'beyond'? This we talked about a little bit, not only at Ojai, also here.

B: I think it's very difficult to even bring this into words and many people might feel we should leave this ( going beyond?) entirely non-verbal.

K: Can we say (use the 'holistic' disclaimer?) that ''the word is not the thing'' ?
The (verbal) description is not the truth, however much you embellish or diminish it ; recognising that, then what is there beyond all this ? Can the ( meditating) mind be so desire-less, so it won't create an illusion, something beyond?

B: You see, desire must be (involved) in this time process...

K: Of course, desire 'is' time. After all, (the psychologically motivated process of) 'being & becoming' is based on desire.

B: Yes. They are one and the same, really.

K: Yes, one and the same. Now, when one has a (comprehensive) insight into that whole movement of desire, and its capacity to create illusion, it's (psychological mechanism is) finished.

B: Yes, but we should try to say a little more about desire, how it's intrinsic in this accumulating process, how it comes out in many ways. For one thing you could say that as you accumulate ( ever more personal experiences) there comes a sense of 'something missing'. I mean, you feel you should have something more to 'complete' it , since whatever you have accumulated is not complete.

K: So, could we go into the question of ( self-) becoming first, then desire comes into it. Why is it that all human beings right through the world have this urge to become (something better ) ? Outwardly we can understand that, it's simple enough getting a better job, more comfort and so on. But why is there this need in the human mind of trying to become something more or better ?

B: Well, there must be a sense of dissatisfaction with what's in there already, that's one thing.

K: Is it dissatisfaction?

B: Well, you know, a person feels he would like it to be complete. For example he has accumulated memories of pleasure, but these memories are no longer adequate and he feels something more is needed.

K: Is that it?

B: Well, eventually he feels that he must have the whole, the ultimate.

K: Isn't the word (the mentality of?) 'more' is not the real thorn ? ''I will have more, I will become something more'' - this whole movement of gaining, comparing, advancing, achieving – 'psychologically'.

B: The word 'more' is implicit in the whole meaning of the word 'accumulate' : if you're accumulating you have to be accumulating more, there's no other way to do it.

K: So why is there this seed (of psychological greed) in the human mind ?

B: Well, probably mankind didn't see that this more is wrong, inwardly. Man started outwardly to use the term 'more', then he carried it inward ; and for some reason he didn't see how destructive it was.

K: Why? Why have fairly intelligent 'philosophers' and 'religious' people who have spent a great part of their life in 'achieving' you know - why haven't they seen this very simple fact that where there is accumulation there must be (the greed for?) more.

B: Well, they didn't see any harm in it. They're saying, we are trying to get a better life - you see. During the nineteenth century it was the century of progress, of improving all the time.

K: All right, ( the technological) progress outwardly.

B: But they have also felt that man could be improve himself inwardly.

K: But why haven't they ever questioned this?

B: Well, what would make them question it?

K: Obviously ( the accumulated frustration involved in?) this constant struggle for the more.

B: But they thought that was necessary for ( their spiritual) progress.

K: But is that ( an authentic) progress? Is that the same outward urge to 'become something better' moved into the psychological realm?

B: Yes. Now, why it does harm in the psychological realm ?

K: The very nature of accumulation brings about a division between you and me, and so on.

B: Could we make that point more clear, because it is a crucial point.

K: Yes : I have accumulated psychologically as a Hindu. Right?

B: Yes.

K: Another has accumulated as a Muslim.

B: There are thousands of divisions.

K: Therefore accumulation in its very nature divides people. And therefore the division creates conflict... Man has sought psychological security, and that (illusory inward sense of) security with its accumulation is the factor of human division. So, you said that's why human beings have accumulated, not realizing its consequences. But now, realizing that, is it possible not to accumulate (psychological stuff?) ? I mean, that's tremendous.

B: Yes, because it seems the human mind automatically accumulates.

K: For the very clear and simple reason, in accumulation, as outwardly, it feels safe, secure.

B: Yes...and having got on into this trap it was very hard for the ( temporal) mind to get out, because it was already (pre-) occupied with this process of accumulation and it becomes very hard to see anything (inwardly )

K: Yes, suppose my mind is filled with this constant occupation, which is (gathering & processing?) psychological knowledge, can all that (subliminal process?) 'end'?

B: Yes... ?

K: Of course it can !

B: But only if the mind will get to the root of it.

K: Of course it can see it's an illusion ( a self-delusion?) that in accumulation there is ( real psychological ?) security.

B: Well, at a certain level one has drawn a map of this whole process. Then the question is, when you have a map you must now be able to look at the country. The map may be useful ( for one's general orientation?) but it's not quite enough. So, we are saying that desire is what keeps people going on with it.

K: Not only desire but this deep-rooted instinct to accumulate.

B: Like the squirrel ?

K: Like the squirrel, yes. For the future, for safety. That and desire go together. Right?

B: Well, it builds up into an intense desire...

K: So desire plus accumulation is the ( generating) factor of division, conflict and all the rest of it. Now, I'm asking, can that ( momentum of thought & desire?) end ? And does the mind become free of accumulation?

B: Yes, I think that...

K: Yes sir, I think it can, with us (two) . That is, have no 'psychological' knowledge at all, knowledge is accumulation, and so on and so on.

B: Yes, I think that we have to consider that knowledge goes very much further than is ordinarily meant. Not just book knowledge or...

K: ...( knowledge accumulated through) experience - of course.

B: But, I think that in accumulating, for example if you're getting knowledge of yourself then you build up an image, a ( mental) picture of yourself and everything goes into that and one expects it to continue. Right?

K: Can one have ( a complete?knowledge of oneself?

B: No, but if one thinks that there is ( an accumulated) knowledge about what sort of person you are (and what you have achieved?) that builds up into a self-image with all its expectations..

K: But after all, if you have ( accumulated ) knowledge of yourself, you have built an image already.

B: That's right, yes, but that's the same, the tendency is to say that there's a transfer of what you do with the outside, saying, as you observe this microphone you build up knowledge, that enters into your picture of it, your perception of it, then you say I do the same with myself. That I know the sort of person I should be or I am and it builds up, there's a lot of accumulation that builds up in forms that we don't ordinarily call 'knowledge', for example, preferences, likes and dislikes.

K: But once you realize the accumulation of 'psychological' knowledge is an illusion and destructive and causes infinite pain and misery, when you see, it's finished.

B: I was trying to say that very often the word 'knowledge' does not convey all that has to be included. I could say, OK, I know certain things in (scientific) knowledge and it's foolish to have that kind of knowledge about myself, but then there may be other kinds of knowledge which I don't recognise as knowledge, I say that's...

K: What kind, what other kinds of knowledge does one have? Preferences, likes and dislikes, prejudice.

B: Habits ?

K: Habit. All that is ( contained ) in the (self-) image that one has created of oneself ...

B: Yes, and that ( self-identified) image seems extraordinarily real and its qualities don't seem to be just ( the result of accumulating) knowledge.

K: All right, sir. So ( in a nutshell:) we have said, accumulation is time and accumulation is security, and where there is psychological accumulation there must be division. And thought is the movement between the particular and the general, and thought is also born out of the ( self-) image of what has been accumulated. All that is one's inward state. That is deeply imbedded in me.

B: Yes, physically and mentally.

K: All round. Physically it is somewhat necessary...

B: Yes, but it is overdone even physically.

K: Of course, but (inwardly or?) 'psychologically' , how does that movement come to an end? That is the real question.

B: Yes...

K: Does intelligence play a part in all this?

B: Yes. Well, there has to be intelligence to see this.

K: Is it the 'ordinary' intelligence, or some other ( quality of) intelligence, something entirely different? Another ( inwardly perceptive quality is necessary. Is that quality intelligence? I'm trying to move away from 'insight' for a while.

B: Yes, not to repeat the word so much.

K: Too much. Is this ( quality of directly perceptive) intelligence associated with thought? Is it the outcome of very clear precise, exact, logical, conclusions of thought.

B: You're suggesting this intelligence is of a different quality ?

K: Yes. Is that Intelligence related to Love?

B: I'd say they go together.

K: I'm asking : is this intelligence associated or related, or part of love? One cannot accumulate love. Right?

B: No, ( although some) people might try...

K: It sounds silly!

B: People do try to guarantee love.

K: That is all romantic nonsense... You cannot accumulate love, you cannot associate it with hate, all that. So that Love is something entirely different, And has that Love its own intelligence? Which then operates and ' breaks down the wall' ?

B: Yes... ?

K: All right, sir - I've come to the point where this ('self'-enclosing) wall is so enormous that I can't even jump over it. So I'm now 'fishing around' to see if there is a different (inwardly open?) 'movement' which is not a man-made movement. And that movement may be (the compassionate intelligence of?) Love.

B: So, you are saying it is a movement, not just a feeling?

K: No. So is that ( intelligent movement of Universal?) Love the factor that will break down or dissolve this 'wall'? It's not personal or particular, it is something ( from?) beyond. Right?

B: Yes, but that (holistic quality) has never been part of the background, a man tends to make love particularized, a particular thing or individual, but...

K: I think when one 'loves' with that intelligence, it is ( an inner) ' light'. Now, if that is the factor that'll break down the 'wall' which is in front of me, then I don't know that Love. As a human being, having reached a certain point, I can't go beyond it to find that love - what shall I do? What is the state of my mind when I realize any ( mental) movement on this side of the wall is still strengthening the wall? And I realize there is no movement through meditation or whatever (else) you do, but the mind can't go beyond it.
But you (MrX) come along and say, 'Look, that 'wall' can be dissolved, broken down, if you have ( access to) that quality of Love with its Intelligence.' And I say, 'Excellent, but I don't know what it is.' I realize I can't do anything (about it) , Whatever I do is still within this side of the wall.
So (wisely?) realizing that I cannot possibly do anything, any movement, what takes place in my ( meditating) mind? What has happened to the quality of my mind, which has always moved either to accumulate, to become, all that has stopped. The moment I realize this, no movement. So is there in my mind ( a silent?) revolution - in the sense that (the thought-time) movement has completely stopped ? And if it has, is Love still something beyond the wall?

B: Well, the wall itself is the product of the ( thought-time) process which is illusion.

K: Exactly, I realise the (inwardly perceptve ) 'wall' is ( created by) this movement. So when this (mental) movement ends, that (universal) quality of intelligence, love and so on, is ( present?) there. That's the whole point.

B: Could one say the movement ( of thought-time) ends when it sees that ( at the deeper levels ) it has no point ?

K: It is like, the (instinctive?) skill to see a danger.

B: Well, it could be...

K: Yes. Any danger demands a certain amount of awareness.

B: Yes...

K: But I have never realized that the (inwardly) accumulating process is a tremendous danger.

B: Yes, because this process seems to be the essence of one's security.

K: Of course. Now, you point it out to me, and ( if ???) I'm listening to you very carefully I actually perceive the danger of that. And ( this direct inward?) perception is part of Love, isn't it?

B: You're suggesting that Love is a kind of ( purely spiritual?) energy and that it may momentarily envelop certain things ?

K: So ( an inward) perception without any motive, without any direction, etc., perception of the ( smoke?) 'wall' which has been created by this movement of accumulation, the very perception of that is (an action of) Intelligence and Love.
We'd better stop ( on a 'good ball'?) - it's half past twelve. When do we meet again?

B: It's on Thursday, in two days.

K: Thursday. Right, sir.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 #248
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

 13-th ( 'reader-friendly' edited) K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (1980)

Krishnamurti: The other other day we came to the ( critical) point when after one has been through all kinds of travail, (self-) investigation, and insight, one comes to a 'blank wall', and that 'blank wall' can only wither away or be broken down when there is Love and (its insightful ?) Intelligence. That is where we came to the other day. But before we go (deeper) into that I would like (to take a detour and  ?) ask: why do human beings, however intelligent, however learned, however philosophical and religious, they always fall into this 'groove' ?

Bohm: Yes, well I think the groove is inherent in the nature of the accumulated knowledge.

K: Are you saying then that knowledge invariably must create a (time-binding?) groove?

B: Perhaps not 'must', but it has in the way it has developed in mankind. The 'psychological' knowledge that is...

K: We are talking of that, obviously.

B: But this 'psychological' knowledge I would agree must create a ( self-centred) groove.

K: But why does the mind not see the danger of it, see its mechanical repetition, that there is nothing new in it and it keeps on doing it.

B: You see I think when we were discussing this accumulation of knowledge which really constitutes a groove because the knowledge accumulated ( for psychological purposes?) seems to have a significance far beyond, what its real significance is, that it carries a (vital) necessity. If we say we have knowledge of some object, like the microphone, that knowledge has some limited significance. But the knowledge about the nation to which you belong seems to have immense significance.

K: Yes, yes. So is this ( psychological) 'significance' the cause of this narrowing down of the mind?

B: Well, it 'holds' the mind, this knowledge has a tremendous value beyond all other values. It makes the mind stick to that because it seems the most important thing in the world.

K: In India, there is this philosophy saying that knowledge must end - you know it, of course, the 'Vedanta' ( ending the knowledge of the Vedas) . But apparently very, very, very few people do end ( their own 'psychological'?) knowledge and talk from freedom.

B: You see, this knowledge about the 'self' seems to be extremely important, worth holding on to. So, although a ( Vedanta) person may verbally say it should end..

K: You mean I am so 'stupid' (inwardly blind?) that I don't see that this psychological knowledge has very little significance and my mind clings to it?

B: Yes, I wouldn't quite put it that a person is that 'stupid' but rather to say that the (subliminal attachment to this) knowledge 'stupefies' the brain.

K: Stupefied, all right, but it doesn't seem able to extricate itself.

B: Because it is already so 'stupefied' (put to sleep inwardly?) that it can't see what it is doing.

K: I have been watching this for many years, why human beings think or attempt to become free from certain things, and yet this is the root of it. You understand? This 'psychological' accumulation (& processing of one's personal experience) which becomes ( the 'blank wall' of?) psychological knowledge and so it divides and all kinds of things happen around it and within it. And yet the mind refuses to let go.

B: Yes...

K: Is it that it doesn't see (its implicit danger?) ? Or it has given to knowledge such immense importance because there is ( a very realistic illusion of) safety or security in it?

B: It seems to be a source of ( temporal) security but in some way this kind of knowledge has taken on the significance of the 'absolute', you see, when knowledge should be properly 'relative'...

K: I realize all this and I realize the significance and the value of knowledge at different levels of human existence , but deeper down inside one, this accumulated (& cvasi-crystallised?) knowledge is very, very destructive.

B: That is true, but this (psychological) knowledge deceives the mind so that the person is not normally aware of its destructive nature....

K: Is that why human beings cling to it?

B: Well, we don't know exactly how they got started on it, but once it gets started the mind is generally functioning in a (self-protected?) state in which there is a tremendous defensive mechanism to avoid looking at the whole question.

K: Why?

B: Because it seems something supremely precious (one's identitary 'self'?) might be at stake.

K: One is strangely (inventive and/or ?) 'intelligent' in other directions, capable and efficient, having a great deal of (money making?) skill, but here, where the root of all this trouble is, why don't we comprehend it fully? You must know this...

B: I think once this has happened there is ( an inwardly blind self- protective mentality ?) that resists ( or objects to any holistic action of ?) intelligence.

K: So what shall I do as a (holistically minded?) man, with all this ( self-protective) knowledge which I have accumulated, which is divisive, which is destructive and yet I hold on to it... I realize I must let it go but I can't? I think this is the average person's problem - a problem which arises when we are a little bit serious about all this. Is it due to the lack of energy?

B: Not primarily. You see the (existing intelligent?) energy is being dissipated by the process.

K: Having dissipated a great deal of energy (in the outer world?) I haven't got the energy to grapple with this.

B: The ( necessary mental?) energy is constantly being dissipated and the average person may be a little worn down but he could recover it, if only this wastage would stop. I don't think it is the main point.

K: So my next ( experiential) question is: how am I to break down this (self-protective) 'blank wall' ?

B: Well, I am not sure that it is clear in general to people that ( functioning efficiently in the field of ?) knowledge is doing all this. You see this knowledge is experienced as some (identtary) entity, this knowledge creates the (temporal?) 'me' and the me is now experienced as an actual entity which is not knowledge, but some real being. Right?

K: Are you saying the (identitary sense of one's?) being is different from knowledge?

B: It certainly appears to be different ...

K: But is it?

B: It isn't, but it has a very powerful ability.

K: But that has been my ( ages old survivalistic ?) conditioning...

B: That is true. Now the question is, how do we get through that (psychologically active firewall) to break down the (highly knowledgeable?) groove (of thought-time) - because it creates an imitation or a pretension of a state of being.

K: It seems so utterly hopeless. And realizing the (statistically based?) hopelessness I sit back and say, I can't do anything. But if I apply my mind to it then the question arises: is it possible (just for myself?) to function without ( the screen of?) 'psychological' knowledge in this world?

B: That is right. But if you would tell this to somebody he may say : it looks reasonable perhaps, but let's say that his status is threatened. It doesn't seem to him that it is just (a matter of) knowledge but something more. Knowledge seems to be at first sight something passive, something which you know, which you could use if you wanted to and which you could fail to use if you don't want to, just put it aside... But when the moment ( a personal crisis) comes, this ( identitary psychological ) knowledge no longer appears to be just simple 'knowledge' (but a ' knowing attitude' ?)

K: Now, a ( holistically minded?) human being, I ( begin to?) see how important it is not to be caught in the (time-binding?) process of this 'psychological' knowledge, is always dodging me, it is like a 'hide and seek' (mind game ? ). ( Anyway...?) this is the 'blank wall' that has to be broken down. And we said that it can be 'broken down' through Love and (its own ?) Intelligence. Aren't we asking something enormously difficult? I am behind this side of the wall, and you are asking me to have that love and intelligence which will destroy the wall. But I don't know what that love is, what that intelligence is, because I am caught in this, on this side of the wall. I realize what you are saying is accurate, true, logical, and I see the importance of it, but the wall is so strong and dominant and powerful that I can't get beyond it. And we said the other day that the wall can be broken down through insight... ( Unfortunately...?) that 'insight' becomes a (new intellectual) idea, not an actuality. When you (Mr X) describe the ( nature of this) insight, how it is brought about and so on, I immediately make a (mental) abstraction of it, which means I move away from the (potentially disturbing) fact and the abstraction becomes all important. Which means ( remaining in the field of) knowledge. So I am back again.

B: Well, I think the (experiential) difficulty is that this ( psychological) knowledge is not just sitting there as a form of information but it is extremely active, meeting every moment and shaping every moment according to one's past knowledge, so even when we raise this issue, this knowledge is all the time waiting and then acting. My point is that in our whole cultural tradition knowledge is not active but passive, while in fact it is really active (in many obscure ways?) but people don't generally think of it that way.

K: Of course...

B: It is waiting to act, you see. And even before you try to do something about it, this knowledge is already acting. By the time you realize that this is the problem it has already acted...

K: Yes...But do I realize it as an idea which I must carry out? You see the difference?

B: Yes, the first point is that (the knowledgeable attitude of this psychologically active) knowledge automatically turns everything into an idea which you must carry out (or...not) . That is the whole way it is built. Right?

K: That is the whole way I have lived. How am I to 'break ( through') this (all- knowing attitude?) even for a second?

B: It seems to me that this would be possible only if this knowledge could become aware of itself at work, but the point is that this ( core of) knowledge seems to work unawares, you see, it is just simply waiting there and then acts and by that time it has disrupted the natural order of the brain.

K: I am very concerned about this because wherever I go this is what is happening. Would you say the capacity to listen is far more important than any of these explanations, any logic, (just) to listen?

B: It comes to the same problem.

K: No, it doesn't. When I listen to ( the inward truth of) what you (Mr X) are saying, the wall ( of self-centredness?) has 'broken' down...

B: So, if it's a matter of capacity to listen then...the (time-bound ) mind of the ordinary man is full of ( personal problems & ) opinions, so... he can't listen.

K: You can't 'listen' ( to truth?) with opinions, you might be just as well dead.

B: You see, I think (the psychologically motivated?) knowledge has a tremendous number of defences, it has evolved in such a way that it resists (the deeper truths) , is built so as to resist seeing this, so it has opinions which also act immediately.

K: I understand that, sir. But there must be a communication between you (Mr X) and me who is the ordinary man, a communication that is so strong that the very act of listening to you and you communicating with me operates. You follow?

B: Yes, but then you have to break through this opinion, through the whole structure.

K: Of course, of course. That is why I have come here. As an ordinary man I have come for that. I have left all the churches and all that stuff, I have thrown them years away, I have finished with all that. I have just come here and I realize all that has been said here is true and I am burning to find out. When you communicate with me your communication is so strong, so real. You follow? You are not speaking from knowledge, you are not speaking from opinion and all the rest of it. You are really a free human being who is trying to communicate with me.

B: Right...

K: And can I listen with that intensity which, you the communicator, is giving me?

B: Well, we would have to ask, is the ordinary man full of that (passion for truth?) ?

K: No, I said I am an ( 'ex-) ordinary' man but I have moved away from all that, I have come here. I have left all that behind and I want to listen to somebody who is telling the truth and in the very telling of it something is taking place in me. You are telling me about something which I know must be enormously important because you have given your life to it, and as a student I have given up so much just to come here. Is it the fault of you (Mr X) who are communicating with me that I don't receive it instantly? Or is it my fault that I am incapable of really 'listening' to you?

B: Well, whichever it is, but suppose the difficulty is that I am incapable of 'listening', then what can be done?

K: Nothing can be done. If I am incapable of 'listening' (non-verbally?) because I am full of ( my own ?) prejudices, opinions, and judgements, defences and all the rest, then, of course, I won't listen to you.

B: Well let's say there is somebody who comes along who has got through some of these defences and so on, but perhaps there are others that he is not aware of, you see ? There is something not quite so simple as that.

K: I think it is dreadfully simple somehow : if I could listen with all my being, with all my attention, it takes place. I think it is as simple as that...
But you see, sir, if there is a (time) interval between my telling and your absorbing, in that interval is the danger (of incomprehension?) . If I didn't listen to it with all my being, it is finished ('game over'?) . Is it because you are not offering me any pleasure, any gratification ? You are saying : ''it is so, take it !''. But my mind is so (surreptitiously ) involved in ( seeking the ultimate?) pleasure, I won't (really) listen to anything that is not completely satisfactory. I realize too the ( spiritual?) danger of that...

B: Danger?

K: Of seeking satisfaction and pleasure and all that. I say, 'All right, I won't, I see what I am doing' - so I put that aside too. No pleasure, no reward, no fear of punishment in my listening - only pure observation.
So is this pure observation, which is actually 'listening', is that pure observation (the act of?) Love? The (direct) perception without any motive, direction, pure perception is Love. And in that perception (of) Love is intelligence. They are not three separate things, they are all one thing. I have a feeling for it. Because you have lead me very carefully - not lead me - you have pointed out very carefully step by step, and I have come to that point, I have a feeling for it and say, 'By Jove, that is so !' But... its (inward clarity) goes away so quickly. Then begins, 'How am I get it back?' Again the 'remembrance' of it, which is knowledge, blocks.

B: Well what you are saying is that every time there is a communication, knowledge gets to work in many different forms.

K: So you see, it is enormously difficult to be (inwadly) free of (one's 'self'-identified?) knowledge.

B: Could we ask why doesn't knowledge (stay put &?) wait until it is needed?

K: Ah, that requires to be psychologically (inwardly) free of knowledge, and when the occasion arises you are acting from freedom, not from knowledge.
To put it rather succinctly, that is freedom from knowledge (or the freedom from the known?) , and from this freedom one actually communicates, not from knowledge. That is, from 'emptiness', and from that state of complete freedom there is communication.

B: Yes...

K: Now, sir, can I communicate with you from freedom? Suppose I, as a human being, have come to that point where there is complete freedom from knowledge and from that freedom an (authentic) communication takes place. Can I be in such a state of mind to receive that communication?

B: Well, it seems that knowledge itself does not ordinarily see that knowledge is not free.

K: It is never free.

B: No, but at first sight, you are free to use your knowledge...But (if the mind isn't free from the known?) any activity of knowledge is part of the un-freedom.

K: Of course... If I am going to understand myself (in real time ?) there must be (the inner ) freedom to look at myself.

B: And knowledge has ( a lot of expectations & ) pressures in it to prevent you.

K: Knowledge prevents me from (directing ) 'looking', that is so obvious !

B: Well I mean it may be obvious at this stage (of insightful meditation?) but generally people don't see that...

K: To 'look' I must be somewhat free of opinions, (value) judgements and evaluations ... So, how will you communicate with me who have come to a certain point when I am really burning to receive what you are saying, so completely it is finished? Am I, having come here in that state really? Or am I fooling myself?

B: Well that is the question: ( the psychologically motivated?) knowledge is constantly deceiving itself. I would say it is not even that I am deceiving myself but knowledge has a 'built-in' tendency to deceive itself...

K: So, sir, is my ( time-bound) mind always deceiving itself?

B: The tendency is constantly there when knowledge is operating psychologically.

K: So what shall I do?

B: Again I think it is the same point: (take all the necessary leisure ) to listen.

K: Why don't we listen, sir? Why don't we immediately understand this thing, instantly, immediately, why? One can give the reasons why - old age, conditioning, laziness, ten different things.

B: Well, these are only superficial cause ... But would it be possible to give the deep reason for it?

K: You see, sir, is it that this (psychological) knowledge (identifying itself as ) the 'me' is so tremendously strong as an 'idea', not as a 'fact'?

B: Yes, I understand it is a (crystallised?) idea. That is what I tried to say, that this idea has ( gathered around itself) a tremendous significance and meaning. For example, suppose you have the idea of 'God', this takes on a tremendous power.

K: Or like I am British, or French, it gives me a great energy...

B: ... and it creates a (self-identified mental ?) state which seems to be the very being of the 'self'. So, the person doesn't experience it as mere knowledge but feels it's something very powerful which doesn't seem to be just knowledge. Is there anything that could be communicated about this overwhelming power that seems to come with knowledge.

K: And with identification !

B: Identification... that seems to be worth looking into.

K: What is the root meaning of 'identification'?

B: Well, it is 'always the same'...The 'self' is always the same. At least, it tries to be always the same in essence if not in details.

K: Yes, yes.

B: I think this is the thing that goes wrong with knowledge : that knowledge tries to find what is permanent and perfect and 'always the same'. I mean even independent of any of us... you see. It seems in-built in the brain cells..

K: From this arises a question: is it possible to diligently attend? 'Diligence' in the sense of being accurate.

B: Literally it means to take pains...

K: To take pains, of take the whole if it. Sir, there must be some other way round all this intellectual business. We have exercised a great deal of intellectual capacity and that intellectual capacity has led to the 'blank wall' . I approach it from every direction and eventually the 'wall' is there, which is the 'me', ( thought's self-identification?) with my knowledge, my prejudice, and all the rest of it - 'me'. And the 'me' then says, 'I must do something about it' - which is still the 'me'.

B: Well the 'me' wants to be always the same at the same time it tries to be different...

K: Put on a different coat. But it is always the same. So the mind which is functioning ( identifying itself ) with the 'me' ; is always the same mind !

B: You see, (thought) being 'always the same' gives a tremendous force. Now is it possible ( for the mind) to let go that 'always the same', you know?

K: You see, this comes back to the fundamental question: what will make this 'wall' totally disappear? I think, sir, that it is only possible when I can give my total attention to what you (Mr X) are saying. There is no other means to break down this (psychological) wall - not the intellect, not the emotions, not any of these things. When somebody who is beyond the wall, has gone beyond it, broken down the wall, says, 'Listen, forGgod's sake, listen !' (Clue:) When I ( truly) listen to you, my mind is empty. So it is finished.

B: I think that something will actually happen, but... in its own time.

K: ( If the totality of the ) mind is empty and therefore 'listening', it is finished !
To put it differently : in order to discover something new as a scientist, you must have a certain (state of inward) 'emptiness' ( the humble state of 'not-knowing' ?) from which there will be a different perception.

B: Yes, but I think there is a difference in the sense that the scientist's mind may be 'empty' with regard to that particular question, allowing for discovery and insight into that question.

K: But without any 'specialization', doesn't this ( inward state of) 'emptiness' hold in it everything ? It is most extraordinary when you ( meditatively?) go into it...

B: If a person can take this scientific attitude and question the whole of knowledge..

K: Oh, of course, of course...

B: But some (more thoughtful?) people would feel they must keep knowledge in one area in order to be able to question it in another. You see with what ( background of) knowledge do I question that (psychological) knowledge?

K: Yes, quite...

B: In a way we do have some knowledge because we have seen that this whole structure, we have gone through it logically and rationally and seen that the whole structure makes no sense, that it is inconsistent and has no meaning. The structure of psychological knowledge has no meaning.

K: Would you ask then from that 'emptiness': is there a Ground or a Source from which all things begin? Matter, human beings, their capacities, the whole movement starts from there.

B: We could consider that (possibility in our meditation homework?) But let's try to clarify it a little. We have the 'emptiness'...

K: Yes, ( a state of inward) emptiness in which there is no movement of thought as knowledge...

B: As 'psychological' knowledge ?

K: Of course, and therefore no time.

B: No 'psychological' time ?

K: Yes, no psychological time.

B: Though we still have the (chronological time indicated by the ) watch...

K: Yes. We have gone beyond that, don't let's go back to it.

B: These ( holistically used?) words are often confusing, they can carry wrong meanings...

K: There is no 'psychological' time, no movement of thought. And is there in that emptiness the beginning of all movement?

B: Well, would you say the 'emptiness' is the Ground then?

K: Let's go slowly into this. Shall we postpone this for another day?

B: Well perhaps it should be gone into more carefully... ? In California we were saying there is the 'emptiness' and beyond that is the Ground.

K: I know, I know...

B: So, we'll leave it for the time...

K: When do we meet again?

B: It is two days from now, on Saturday.

K: The day after tomorrow ?

B: Yes.

K: Right, sir.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 06 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Feb 2020 #249
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

14-th ( 'reader-friendly' edited ) K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM 1980

Krishnamurti: We talked the other day about the (meditating?) mind that is entirely free from all ( thought-time) movement, from all the things that thought has put there, that thought has brought about, has experienced, the past and the future and so on. But before we go into that I would like to (take a brief detour & ?) ask, what is the nature of 'materialism'?

B: Well, consider first of all materialism is the name of a certain philosophical ( mentality asserting ) that matter is all there is.

K: I want to go into that a little bit. That is, all nature, all human beings react physically and this reaction is sustained by thought. So ( thought's mental) reaction as in nature, in animals, in human beings, is the 'materialistic' response.

B: Well, I think the word materialistic is not quite right. It is the 'response of matter'.

K: All right, the response of matter. That's better...
We were talking about having an empty mind and we have come to that point when the wall has been broken down and this emptiness and what lies beyond it, or through it, and so on, we will come to that, but before I begin with that, as I said: are all thought's reactions of a matterial nature ?

B: Well, there is a lot of evidence in favour of that  - science has found a tremendous number of reactions which are due to the nerves.

K: would you call 'material movement' the reactions which exist in all organic matter?

B: Yes, all ( forms of living) matter go by the law of action and reaction. Every action has a corresponding reaction.

K: So 'action and reaction' is a material process, as thought is. Now to go beyond it - that is the point.

B: Yes. Now some ( materialistically minded?) people might say it has no meaning to go beyond it. That would be the whole philosophy of materialism.

K: But if one is merely living in that area ( one's existence) it is very, very shallow. It has really no ( universal ?) meaning at all. But if one recognizes that thought is a material process and its ' actions & reactions ' are a material movement...

B: Yes...but some ( thought addicted ?) people have said that matter is not merely 'action and reaction' but it may have a creative movement. You see,( within the field of reality ) material life may create new forms.

K: Matter may create new forms, but it is still within that area...

B: Yes, but let's try to make it clear what is the difference, as there are some very subtle forms of materialism which might be difficult to pin down.

K: Let's begin: would you consider, or see that thought is a material process ?

B: Yes, although some people might argue that it is both material and something beyond material.

K: I know, but it is not.

B: How can we say that simply to make it clear?

K: Because any 'movement' (mental activity of?) of thought is a material process, whether it is here or 'beyond'...

B: Well we have to make it more clear so that it is not a matter of ( accepting Mr X's) authority. From observation one sees that thought is a material process, now how would one see it's only that?

K: How would one be aware that it is a material process. I think that is fairly clear. There is a particular experience or an incident, which is being recorded, which ( being processed by thought) becomes 'knowledge', and from that knowledge the next movement of thought ( & time ?) arises and ( the subsequent ?) action takes place....

B: Yes... So you're saying that thought is (only?) that ?

K: Any assertion that it is ( something) beyond is still ( the operation of?) thought.

B: It is still coming from (brain's memory ) background. So anything new coming in there is not part of this process, is that what you are saying?

K: Yes, if there is to be something ( really?) new, (the mental activity of?) thought, as a material process, must end. Obviously !

B: And then it may take it up later ?

K: You see what happens later. So could we say that all (forms of mental) action and reaction and the next action ( resulting ) from the subsequent reaction is ( are?) a movement of matter.

B: A very subtle movement of matter ?

K: Yes, a very subtle movement of matter. So as long as one's mind is ( moving) within that area, it must be a movement of matter.

B: Well, let's proceed from there then....

K: So is it possible for the ( meditating ? ) mind to go beyond ( its personal ) reactions ? That is the next step obviously. As we said yesterday morning in our group discussion, one gets irritated and that is the first reaction. Then the reaction to that is 'I must not (get so nervous about that ?) '. Then the third (thinker-level?) reaction, 'I must control it ', or justify it. So it( the self-centred mind ) is constantly (engaged in a chain of) actions and reactions. Can one see this is a continuous ( thought-time?) movement without an ending?

B: This (mental chain of action &) reaction is actually continuous, although it seems at a certain moment to have ended, and the next moment appears to be a 'new' moment...

K: But it is still ( a 'time & thought' ?) reaction.

B: It is still the same, but it presents itself differently.

K: That's right...

B: It is always the same (mental process but?) it presents itself as always different, as always new.

K: That is just it. You say something, I get irritated, but that irritation is a reaction.

B: Yes, but it seems to be something suddenly new.

K: But it is not...(since the 'thinker' entity is the same?)

B: Yet, one has to become aware of that....

K: Of course, of course...

B: But generally the mind tends not to be aware of it.

K: But after discussing a great deal ( with Mr X) and talking (in various discussion groups ?) one can (become aware of it?) .

B: We are 'attentive' to it.

K: Yes, we are sensitive to it, alert to the question. So there is an ending to (thought & thinker's) reaction if one is watchful, attentive and by having an insight into this reacting process, it can ( of course?) come to an end. It is very important to understand this (generally ignored point ?) , before we discuss ( the meditation related question of?) what is an empty mind and if there is something beyond, or in that very emptying of the mind there is some other quality. So is (one's attempt of emptying the ) mind a reaction to (one's endless existential) problems of pain and pleasure and suffering, along with the reaction to escape from all this into some ( problem-free?) state of 'nothingness' ?

B: Well the mind can always do that, if it fails to notice ( that it is constantly driven by the principle of ) 'pain and pleasure'...

K: Of course, it can (just) invent it and that becomes an illusion. ( We went at another time) into the question and said that desire is the beginning of illusion) Now we have come to the ( Meditation 'Check-?) point' where this quality of ( inward) 'emptiness' ( or of 'nothingness') is not a ( psychologically motivated?) reaction. So, is it possible to have a (meditating?) mind that is really completely empty of all the things that (the self-centred process of ) thought has put together?

B: When thought ceases to react ?

K: That's it.

B: Thought being ( basically?) a material process, perhaps we could say that its reactions ar due to the (unpredictable) nature of matter which is continually reacting and moving, but then... is (brain's ) matter affected by this insight?

K: Does insight affect the cells of the brain which contain all the memory (of the past )?
B: The ( brain cells' ) memory is continually moving, as does the air and the water, everything around us. Now if nothing (extraneous would) happen, why would it ever stop?

K: Quite. ..After all sir, if I don't react physically I am paralysed. But (mentally) reacting continuously is also a form of paralysis (or senility?)

B: Yes, the (mental) reactions around the psychological structure...
But now assuming that this (kind of) reactions around the psychological structure have begun in ( the distant past of) mankind why should it ever stop, because one reaction makes another and another...

K: It is like a ( cause-effect) chain, endless.

B: Yes, and one would expect it to go on for ever, unless something will stop it. Right?

K: Only ( a global) insight into the nature of reaction ends ( the karmic chain of) psychological (actions &) reactions...

B: Yes... then you are saying that (brain's ) matter is affected by 'insight', which is beyond matter ?

K: Yes. So, is this (state of inward) 'emptiness' within the brain itself?

B: Yes, although no matter what the question is, thought ( the thinking brain?) feels it can always make a (positive?) contribution.

K: Quite....

B: In the past thought did not understand that there are areas where it has no useful contribution to make, but it keeps on ( trying) by saying ( this state of inner) emptiness is very good, therefore I will try to help bring about (more?) 'emptiness'....

K: We have been through all that, but I have come to a point: is this emptiness within the mind itself, or beyond it?

B: What do you mean here by the 'mind' ?

K: The mind being the whole (mental structure, including?) emotions, thought, (self-)consciousness & the ( thinking) brain - the whole of that is ( holistically called?) the 'mind'.

B: This word 'mind' has been used in many ways. Now you are using it in a (holistical ?) way as representing the whole material process - thought, feeling, desire and will... ?

K: Yes, the whole material process.

B: Which many people have called 'non-material'.

K: Quite...But the ( temporal ?) mind is the whole material process...

B: ...which is going on in the brain and the nerves ?

K: The whole of it. And one can see ( for meditation homework that ?) this process of material ('action & ) reaction' can (come to a natural?) ending . And the next ( bonus?) question I was asking is: is that 'emptiness' within or ( coming from ) elsewhere ?

B: Where would it be?

K: It is (from with)in the mind itself. Not ( from) outside it. Right?

B: Yes...

K: Now what is the next step? Does this (inward state of?) emptiness contain nothing, 'not-a-thing'?

B: Well, 'not a thing' , means anything that has form, structure, stability ?

K: No form, structure, capacity, reaction - all that (kind of 'things') . It contains none of that. Is it then total energy?

B: Yes, ( a free?) movement of ( Universal) energy. The 'real world' can be regarded as made up of a large number of 'things' which react to each other and that is one kind of (material) movement. But we are saying it is a different kind of energy movement.

K: Entirely different.

B: Which has no 'things' in it ?

K: No 'things' in it and therefore it not of time - right? That (state of inward) emptiness has no 'centre' as the 'me' with all (its psychologically motivated ) reactions and so on. ( In a nutshell:) In that (inward) 'emptiness' there is a movement of timeless energy.

B: Yes, when you say 'timeless energy' - we have already said that time and thought are the same.

K: Yes, of course.

B: Then you were saying that time can only come into a material process.

K: Time can only come into a material process, that's right.

B: Now if we have an energy that is timeless but nevertheless (alive  & moving ) … what is this movement?

K: Is there an (inwardly creative ) 'movement' which has no beginning and no ending? That is, thought has a beginning and thought has an ending. There is a movement of (brain's) matter as reaction and the ending of that reaction.

B: Yes, within the brain...

K: In the brain. There are various kinds of 'movements' (within the field of reality?) . That is all we know, and someone comes along and says there is a totally different kind of (timeless?) movement. But (one's mind) must be free of the movement of the material process of thought, and of its movement in time, to understand a (living ) movement (of Creation) that is not...

B: ...that has no beginning and no ending, but also which is not determined as a series of (causal) successions from the past - it is not a series of causes & effects one following the other.

K: Of course. No (time binding) causation.

B: You see, (the material world) can be looked at as a series of causes & effects , but you are saying that this (inwardly creative ?) 'movement' has no beginning and no ending, meaning that it is not the result of a series of causes, one following another without end...

K: Sir, do we want to understand, verbally even, a 'movement' that is not a (material) movement ?

B: Then why you call it a 'movement' if it is not a movement?

K: Because it is 'active'.... It has a tremendous (life-creating ?) energy, but in that energy (there is ) a stillness (an inner peace ???) .

B: Well, the ordinary language does not convey it properly, but this energy (of Creation) itself is still and is also 'moving' (alive?) …

K: Yes, within that movement it is a movement of stillness.

B: This movement (of Universal Creation?) can be said to emerge from stillness ?

K: That's what it is, sir. And is the (meditating?) mind capable of that extraordinary stillness without any movement? And when it is so completely still, there is a ( creative?) movement ( born ) out of it...

B: Well , some people have had this notion in the past - such as Aristotle, who talked about the 'unmoved mover' - that is the way he tried to describe God.... but I think that since then (this concept ) has gone out of fashion,

K: Was it an intellectual concept or an actuality?

B: This is very hard to tell because so little is known (about his life) but I wanted to point out that other very respectable people have had ( the vision of) something similar. ..

K: And is that 'movement out of stillness', is that the movement of Creation? ( Hint : ) This creation is not expressed in form... And would you say, sir, that this movement (of Creation) is eternally new?

B: Yes. It is eternally new in the sense that the creation is eternally new ?

K: Creation is eternally new. You see I think that is what the artists are trying to find out. Therefore they indulge in all kinds of various absurdities, but to come to that (Meditation Check-?) point where the mind is absolutely silent, completely silent, and out of that ( inward peace & ) silence there is this movement which is eternally new. But the moment when that movement is expressed...

B: ... then it gets fixed ( crystallised ) and it may become a barrier.

K: I was told, once by an Indian scholar, that (in the ancient times) before they began to sculpture a head of a god, or whatever it is, they had to go into deep ( state of contemplation & ) meditation. At the right moment they took up the hammer and the chisel...

B: To have it coming straight out of that (state of creative) emptiness... ? Actually thought could be also looked at that way. You see the marble is already too static, (although) it stays ( in museums?) for thousands of years. So although the original sculptor may have understood (the true meaning of it?) , the people who follow see it as a fixed form.

K: Sir, what relationship has all that (meditative endeavour?) to my daily life? What way does that act through my everyday actions, through my ordinary physical responses to noise, to pain, various forms of physical disturbances. What relationship has one's physical existence to that 'silent movement (of Creation?) ?

B: Well in so far as the mind is silent then (one's thinking) is orderly.

K: Yes, it is orderly. And would you say that silent movement with its unending newness, 'is' ( reflecting?) total order of the Universe?

B: Yes, we could consider that the (Cosmic?) Order of the universe emerges from this silence and emptiness.

K: So what is the relationship of one's mind to the ( Order of the?) Universe?

B: The human mind in general ?

K: Beyond the particular and the general mind there is the Mind.

B: Well would you say that Mind is universal?

K: I don't like to use the word 'universal'... Can't we find a different word? A mind that is beyond a particular...

B: Well, it has been called the 'absolute'.

K: I don't want to use that word absolute either...

B: The word 'absolute' means literally that which is free of all limitations, of all dependence, right?

K: All right, if you agree that absolute means freedom from all dependence, from all limitations. Let's use that word for the moment for our convenience, in our dialogue. There is this absolute stillness and in that stillness or from that stillness there is a movement and that movement is everlastingly new. And what is the relationship of this ('absolute' ) mind to the ( creative order of the?) Universe?

B: To the universe of matter?

K: To the whole universe. Matter, trees, nature, man, the heavens.

B: Well that is a very interesting ( academical?) question...

K: The Universe is (functioning?) in order, whether destructive or constructive, it is still order.

B: Well, this ( Cosmic) order has the character of being absolutely necessary. In the sense that it cannot be otherwise. The order that we usually know is not absolutely necessary, it could be changed, it could depend on something else, any ordinary order is contingent, it depends on something. But in considering the order of the whole universe, it cannot be otherwise.

K: Quite. Now in the universe there is order and this mind which is ( in peace with itself & ?) still, is completely in order.

B: The deep mind, the absolute ?

K: The absolute mind. So is this mind (an integral part of the order of) the universe?

B: In what sense ?

K: It means sir, is there a division, or a barrier, between this 'absolute' mind and the ( intelligent Order of the?) Universe? Or are both the same?

B: Both are the same, right...

K: That is what I want to get at. I want to be quite sure we are not treading on something which really needs a very, very, subtle (approach), great care, you know what I mean?

B: (To recap:) We have said the body is physical, it is material. And we said the mind which is in the body - thought, feeling desire, the general and the particular mind is a part of the material process. And therefore what we usually call the mind is not different from what we usually call the ( psychosomatic?) body.

K: Quite, quite...

B: Now you are making this much greater in considering the order of the whole universe. And we say what we call the mind in the universe, is it different from what we call the universe itself?

K: That's right. You see, that's why I feel in our daily life there must be ( a holistically friendly?) order, an order that is...

B:... free of limitations ?

K: Free of limitations, yes. In terms of one's daily life this means no conflict whatsoever, no contradictions, and all the rest of that. So if in my daily life there is complete order in which there is no disturbance, what is the relationship of that order to the never ending order (ofthe Universe?) ? Can that silent movement of ( Cosmic) order, of that extraordinary something, can that affect my daily life when I have a deep inward psychological order?

B: Yes, if the (inward) order human being in his daily life can be similar.

K: Obviously. So that ( Intelligent Order of the ) Universe, which is in total order, does affect my daily life...

B: Yes....although some brain scientists might ask 'how ?'. You see, it is not so clear how this absolute Mind affects their daily life.

K: Ah! What is my daily life? A series of reactions and disorder...

B: Well, inwardly it is mostly that.

K: Mostly. And thought is always struggling to bring order within that.

B: Yes...

K: And even when it does that, it is still disorder.

B: Because thought is always limited by its own contradictions.

K: Of course. Thought is always creating disorder because it is itself limited.

B: Yes, even the highest order you can produce is limited.

K: Limited. And the ( meditating?) mind realizes its limitation and says, let's go beyond it.

B: Let's try to make it clear what is wrong with thought's limitation?

K: In that limitation there is no freedom, it is (at best a?) limited freedom.

B: Yes. So eventually we come to the boundary of our freedom... Something not known to us makes us react and through reaction we would fall back into ( man's existential) contradiction.

K: Yes, I am always moving within a certain area (within the field of the known?)

B: Therefore I am under the control of (its inertial?) forces...

K: The (creative human) mind inevitably rebels against that.

B: That is an important point. You see the mind wants freedom. Right?

K: Obviously.

B: Yes, it says that is the highest value...although some people get used to it and say, 'I accept it'.

K: I won't accept it. My mind says there must be freedom from this (inner) prison (of the known?) . The prison is very nice, very cultured and all the rest of it, but it is still limited and it says there must be freedom beyond all that.

B: Yes, but which mind says this? Is it the particular mind of the human being?

K: Who says there must be freedom? Oh, that is very simple (to explain holistically?) . The very pain, the very suffering, the very all that, demands that we go beyond.

B: So, the particular mind even though it accepts limitation, finds it ( frustrating & ) painful and feels somehow that (something) it is not right... It seems to be a necessity of freedom...

K: ( In a nutshell:) Freedom is necessary and any hindrance to freedom is retrogression. (Inwardly-wise?) this means there must be freedom from reaction, freedom from the limitation of thought, freedom from all the movement of ('thought-) time'. There must be 'complete' (inward ) freedom from all that, before I can really understand the empty mind and the ( intelligent?) order of the universe is then (reflected) in the order of the mind. Am I willing to go that far ( in my meditation homework) ?

B : In asking this (excellent rhetorical) question: ''am I willing to go that far ?'', it seems to suggest that there may be something attractive in doing this... ?

K: I am sure, (but) to come to that point and 'let go' ( one's psychological attachments) without conflict, demands its own discipline, its own (inward clarity of) insight. That's why I said (for) those of us who have given a certain amount of time, thought and investigation into all this, can one go as far as that?

B: We went into that.

K: Yes, we have been through all that so I refuse to enter again into all that. Now I say is that ( Intelligent Order of the?) Universe and the mind that has emptied itself of all this, are they one?

B: Are they ?

K: They are not separate, they are one. (However?) we must be very careful not to fall into the trap ( of assuming) that this Universal mind is always there.

B: Yes, well how would you put it then?

K: They have said that God, or Brahman, or the Highest Principle, is always there and all you have to do is to cleanse yourself and arrive at that. Do all kinds of ( strongly recommended?) things to come there. Which is also a very dangerous ( slippery?) statement because then you say, there is the eternal in me.

B: Well, thought is projecting it ; there is a logical difficulty in saying it is always there, because that implies time and it is there every minute, while what we are discussing here has nothing to do with time.

K: Nothing to do with time.

B: So we can't place it as being here, there, now, or then.

K: Sir, we have come to a point, that there is this universal mind, and the human mind can be of that when there is ( inward?) freedom.
I think that is enough, isn't it?

B: Well that should be enough. You want to continue next week, on Saturday?

K: We will see...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Feb 2020 #250
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

15TH ( reader-friendly edited) K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (1980)

Krishnamurti: Sir, I would like to have a dialogue about something which we were talking about the other day : We have cultivated an (outwardly directed?) mind that can solve almost any technological problem ; but apparently (the inner) human problems have never been solved. Human beings are drowned by their problems: the problems of communication, the problems of knowledge, problems of relationship, problems of heaven and hell - you know, the whole human existence has become a vast complex problem. And apparently throughout history it has been like this. And in spite of his (practical) knowledge, in spite of his centuries of evolution man has never been free of problems.

Bohm: Yes, well really of insoluble problems.

K: I question if human problems are insoluble.

B: Well, I mean as they are put now...

K: As they are, of course, now these problems have become so complex, and so incredibly insoluble, as things are. No politician, or scientist, or philosopher is going to solve them... So what are the things that prevent the solution of these problems, completely? Is it that we have never turned our minds to it because we spend all our days and probably half the night in thinking about (practical &) technical problems that we have no time for the 'other' (inward dimension of human consciousness ?) ?

B: Well, many people feel that the 'other' should take care of itself. I think many people don't give a lot of attention to these problems.

K: I am asking in this ( 'all-purpose' final) dialogue, whether it is possible to have no (psychologically generated?) problems at all. These human problems seem insoluble – but why? Is it due our ( superficial) education? Is it due to our deep rooted mentality to accept things as they are?

B: Yes, well that is certainly part of it. These problems accumulate as civilization gets older, people keep on accepting those very things which make problems...

K: Of course. We are talking about human problems of relationship, of lack of inward freedom, the sense of constant uncertainty, fear, & all the human struggle. The whole thing seems so extraordinarily wrong...

B: Yes, well I think people have lost sight of that. Generally speaking they accept the situation in which they find themselves and try to make the best of it, like trying to solve some little problems to alleviate their situation. They wouldn't even look at the (psychological implications of the?) whole situation very seriously.

K: ( Inwardly speaking ?) we live in 'chaos' (in a chaotic condition?). What is the root of all this? What is the cause of all this human chaos?

B: We have been discussing this (rather academically?) for a long time...

K: I am trying to come to it from a different angle: whether there is an ending to problems. You see personally I refuse to have problems.

B: Well, we'll have to make it clear what you mean because I don't know without an example.

K: I mean by ( psychologically motivated ) problem something that you worry about, something you are endlessly concerned and questioning, answering, doubt, uncertain, and taking some kind of action at the end which you may regret.

B: Let's begin with the technical problem : you have something which needs to be done, and you say that is a problem. Now the word 'problem' is based on the idea of putting forth something, a possible solution and then trying to achieve it.

K: Or I have a (more complex) problem but I don't know how to deal with it. I (may) go (online?) asking people & getting more and more confused...

B: And if you (Mr X) say it is my problem to give up my ( personal) opinions, it doesn't really make sense since it may not seem like an opinion at that point, people may feel it is true. ..

K: They call it 'fact'....

B: Well some ( more thoughtful?) people might say that we have got not only opinions, but self-interest : if two people have self-interests which are (conflicting) as long as they maintain that, there is no way that they can work together. Now how do you break into this (conundrum?) ?

K: That is what I want to discuss.

B: Let's discuss it. Ordinarily when we say 'I see the importance of doing something and I have the intention to do it', I just go and do it. But ( in Mr X's schools ?) there is a new factor coming in : a person sees something is important and he intends to do it, but... he can't 'do it'.

K: That's it, and that creates a (major psychological) 'problem' to him...

B: And to everybody... So, why is it that we cannot carry out our ( bestest?) intentions? It seems puzzling...

K: One can give many reasons for that but one's ( holistic?) explanations don't actually solve the problem. Take for instance : ''what will make a human mind change?'' One is seeing it is necessary and yet one is incapable or unwilling to change. What factor is necessary in ( solving) this? Some new factor is necessary.

B: Well I feel it is the ability to observe ( inwardly) whatever is 'holding' the person, preventing him from changing.

K: So is the new factor 'attention'?

B: Yes, that is what I meant, 'attention', but what kind of attention do you mean?

K: Now without making attention into a problem, what do we mean by that? So that I understand it, not verbally, not intellectually but deeply, in my blood I understand the nature of ( an integrated state of ) attention in which no (psychological) problem can ever exist. Obviously it is not ( mental) concentration, it is not a (premeditated?) endeavour, or a struggle to be attentive. But you ( Mr X) show me the nature of ( the problem-free?) attention : when there is attention there is no (thought controlling?) 'centre' from which I attend.

B: Yes, but isn't that a difficult thing ? I have been trying that for a long time and the difficulty is that when the person is looking, the ( self-identified?) content of thought may think he is attending.

K: No, in this state of ( holistic) attention there is no (interference of) thought.

B: But do you stop thought ? You see, while (the process of self-centred) thinking is going on there is an impression of ( paying) attention which is not 'attention'. One just supposes that (s)he is paying attention.

K: No, no.... When one supposes one is paying attention, that is not the (observer-free ?) 'attention' (Mr X is talking about?) .

B: But that is what often happens. So how do we communicate what is the true meaning of attention?

K: To find out what is 'attention' could we discuss what is inattention and through the negation (of the false ?) come to the positive. What takes place when I am (inwardly?) inattentive? In this ( generic state of) 'inattentiveness' I ( may?) feel lonely, depressed, anxious and so on...

B: The mind begins to 'break up' (or...'break down'?) and go into confusion.

K: ( An inward?) fragmentation takes place. Or in my lack of attention I identify myself with so many other things.

B: Yes, and it may also be pleasant (temporarily?) .

K: Of course. It is always pleasant....

B: But then, it may be painful too.

K: I find later on that what seemed to be pleasing becomes painful. So all that is a 'movement' ( a condition of mental activity ?) in which there is no attention. Are we getting anywhere?

B: I don't know...

K: I feel that ( an inner state of holistic ) attention is the real solution to all this. A mind that is really attentive, has understood ( & negated) the nature of inattention and moved away from it.

B: Now, what is the nature of inattention?

K: The nature of inattention? Indolence, negligence, self-concern, self contradiction, all that is the nature of inattention.

B: Yes... a person who has (who is driven by?) 'self-concern' may feel that he is attending to the concerns of himself. He feels he has got problems, but he is paying attention to ( solving) them.

K: Ah, I see...if there is a self-contradiction in me, and I pay attention to it in order not to be self-contradictory, that is not attention.

B: But can't you make it more clear because ordinarily one might think that that is attention.

K: No, that is not, it is merely a process of thought, which says, 'I am this, but I must not be like that'.

B: Then you are saying this ( psychological) attempt to become ( something else?) is not attention.

K: Yes, that is right. This 'psychological' becoming breeds inattention ( a mental imitation of attention?)

B: Yes, the person may think he is attending to something but he is not (holistically attentive ) , when he is engaged in this ( dualistic ) process.

K: Isn't it very difficult sir, to be free of (the desire of 'becoming' or of ?) 'not becoming'? That is the root of it (of holistic attention?)  : to end becoming.

B: Yes... That is the question, to stop it. The difficulty is that the ( self(centred) mind plays tricks dealing with this and it does the very same thing again.

K: Of course, of course. So let's come back to this mind coming to a (blank wall?) point where it finds that it can't move on.

B: There is nowhere for it to move, yes.

K: So, what would we tell to the (meditating?) person who has come to that point and wants to break through it ? Can one look (directly) at this whole complex issue of myself?

B: Well, we did not look at the whole process of becoming : part of (the self-centred mind) seemed to slip out and became the 'observer'. Right?

K: Sir, look, ( in a nutshell) 'becoming' has become the curse of man- psychologically speaking. A poor man wants to be become rich and a rich man wants to be richer, and it is this movement all the time of becoming, becoming, both outwardly and inwardly. And this sense of (self-) becoming, fulfilling, achieving has made our life into all that it is. Now I realize that but I can't stop it.

B: Yes, why can't one stop it?

K: Partly because there is (the subliminal expectation of?) a reward at the end of it and/or the avoidance of pain or punishment. And in that cycle (of inner inaction?) I am caught. That is probably one of the reasons why the mind keeps on trying to become something. And the other perhaps is deep rooted fear that if I don't become something, I am lost, and I am uncertain, insecure. So the mind has ( subliminally) accepted these illusions and says ''I cannot end that''.

B: Then we have to go into the question that there is no meaning to (indulge in) these illusions.

K: Can you convince me that I am caught in an illusion? You can't, unless I see it for myself. And I cannot see it, because that illusion (of self-becoming?) has been traditionally cultivated by religion, by family and so on , it is so (psychologically recomforting &?) deeply rooted that I refuse to let that go.

B: Well then it seems impossible...

K: That is what is taking place with a large number of people. They say, 'I would really want to do this but I cannot'. Now given that situation, what is a (holistically minded educator?) to do? (Will Mr X's ?) explanations of all the various contradictions, and so on, will that help him? Obviously not.

B: Because it all gets absorbed into the structure (of listener's past knowledge ?) .

K: Obviously not. So what is the next thing?

B: Well I would question if he says, 'I want to change', there is also the wish not to change...

K: Of course. The man who says, 'I want to change' has also at the back of his mind 'Really, why should I change?' (The desire to become or not to become?) go together.

B: So we live inwardly in a (major existential?) contradiction....

K: That is what I mean : I have accepted living in this contradiction.

B: And why should I have accepted it ?

K: Because ( the inner inattention is a cultural) habit.

B: But I meant, when the mind is healthy it will not accept such a (contradictory existence?) .

K: But our mind isn't healthy. Our minds are so (fragmented?) , so confused, that even though you point out all the ( psychological) 'dangers' of this, it refuses to see it. So, suppose I am a man in that position, how do we help him to see clearly the danger of psychologically becoming, which implies identification with a nation and all that. Or, I have had an experience, it gives me tremendous satisfaction, I am going to hold on to it. I have had knowledge - all that. How do you help me, such a person, to be free of all that? Your words, you explanations, your logic, everything says, quite right, but I can't move out of that. I wonder if there is another way of communication, which isn't based on words, knowledge, explanations and reward and punishment. I think there a ( more direct) way of communicating which is not verbal, which is not analytical ? Is there such a communication? My mind has always communicated with another with words, with explanations, with logic, with analysis, either compulsive, or with suggestion and so on. There must be another element which breaks through all that, otherwise it is impossible.

B: To break through the inability to listen ?

K: Yes, the inability to listen, the inability to observe, to hear and so on. There must be a different method. You see, I met a man once, who have been to a place with a certain 'saint' (holy person?) and in his company he said that all his problems are resolved. ( Except that) when they go back to their daily life, they are back to the old game.

B: Well, perhaps there was no 'intelligent communication' in it.

K: I the very presence of that man who was being quiet, non-verbal, in his they feel quiet and feel all their problems are resolved.

B: But it is still ( a silence induced) from the outside.

K: Of course. Like going in a good ancient church, or in a cathedral, you feel extraordinarily quiet. It is the atmosphere, it is the structure, you know, all that, the very atmosphere makes you be quiet.

B: Yes, it does communicate what is meant by quietness, but it gets across the communication which is non-verbal.

K: It is like incense, it evaporates! So if we push all that aside, what is there that can be communicated, which will break through the wall ( of knowledgeable self-interest?) which human beings have built for themselves?
As we said sir, is ( the compassionate intelligence of?) Love the factor that will break through all this clever analytical approach, is that the element that is lacking?

B: Well, as people resist listening (to Truth) , they will resist 'Love' too...

K: Of course. That is why I said it is rather a risky (slippery) word.

B: But we meant by 'Love' that ( Universal) energy which also contains intelligence and caring...

K: Will that ( non-verbal intelligence of Love ?) act? If not we human beings are (spiritually?) lost. I think that is the (missing) factor sir. Attention, perception, intelligence and love. You ( Mr X) bring it to me and I seem incapable of receiving it. And I can't hold it because the moment I go outside this room I am lost (in a 'reality-based ' world ?)

B: Well that really is the problem...

K: Now, is this Love something outside (oneself) – like a 'Saviour' is outside, and Heaven is outside and all that ( church ) stuff ? Is Love something which you bring to me, which you awaken in me, which you give me as a gift; or it is in my darkness, in my illusion, suffering, is there that quality? Obviously not, there can't be.

B: Then where is it?

K: That's just it. It must be 'in here' – but this ( compassionate intelligence of?) love is not something that belongs to this person, and doesn't belong to the other...

B: This is an important point. It is a common ground for all of us. But if somebody is looking for love and he is saying, this must be my love, you have got it and I haven't - that is (the general) way of thinking.

K: No, no... ( the Compassionate) Intelligence is not personal...

B: But again it goes contrary to the whole of our thinking. Everybody says this person is intelligent and that one is not. So this may be one of the barriers to the whole thing, that behind the ordinary everyday thinking there is deeper thinking (mentality ) of mankind that we are all divided and these various qualities either belong to us or they don't belong to us.

K: Quite, quite. It is the 'fragmentary' (survival-oriented?) mind that invents all this...

B: It has all been invented (thousands of years ago?) and we have picked it up verbally and non-verbally from childhood and by implication, therefore it pervades all our thoughts & of all our perceptions. So this (non-holistic mentality?) has to be questioned.

K: We have questioned it, we have said that (sorrow &) grief is not (only?) my grief, but ( a general) human (feeling) .

B: But how comes that a person who is caught in grief feels that it is his ( personal) grief ?

K: I think it is partly because of our ( non-holistic ) education, partly our (whole cultural) tradition.

B: But isn't it also implicit in our whole way of thinking ?

K: Yes, quite right....

B: So, we have to jump out of that (self-isolating mentality?)

K: Yes... so what am I to do?

B: Perhaps we can see that ( the Compassionate Intelligence of?) Love is not personal, love does not belong to anybody any more than any other human quality. I was thinking of an example in physics: if the scientist or chemist is studying an element such as sodium, he does not say it is 'his sodium' and somebody else studies theirs and they somehow compare notes.

K: Quite...

B: Sodium is sodium, universally. So we have to say love is love universally.

K: When you say sodium is sodium, it is very simple, I can see that. But when you say to me, grief is common to all of us...!

B: Well, it took quite a while for mankind to realize that 'sodium is sodium'.

K: That is what I want to find out sir: isn't ( the compassionate intelligence of?) Love something that is common to all of us?

B: Well, in so far as it exists, it has to be common. It many not exist but if it does it has to be common.

K: I am not sure it doesn't exist. Like, compassion is not 'I am compassionate' ( the human sense of) compassion is there...

B: Well if we say compassion is the same as sodium, it is universal, then every person's ( free inward access to?) compassion is the same ?

K: Compassion, love, and intelligence. There can't be compassion without intelligence.

B: So we say Intelligence is universal too ?

K: Obviously.

B: Well, this may be a holistic way of thinking, but...we are not yet in it.

K: Yes. So, this 'holistic thinking' is not (plain ) thinking, it is (pervaded by?) some other factor....

B: Some other factor that we haven't gone into yet ?

K: If love is common to all of us, why am I blind to it?

B: Well, I think partly because the (average thinking) mind refuses to consider such a fantastic change of concept in its way of looking.

K: But you said just now that sodium is sodium...

B: Well, that (insightful realisation) was built up through a lot of work and experience ; now we can't do that here with love...

K: Oh no. Love isn't (approacheable through) knowledge.

B: You can't go into a laboratory and prove that ''love is love''...

K: Why does one's mind refuse to accept a very ( holistically ?) obvious factor, why? Is it the fear of letting go one's old values, standards, opinions & all that?

B: I think it is probably something deeper. It is hard to pin down but it isn't such a simple thing. I mean that is only a partial explanation...

K: That is a superficial ('holistic' ) explanation. I know that. Is it the deep rooted anxiety, or the longing to be totally secure?

B: But that again is based on ( thought's mentality of) fragmentation. If we accept that we are fragmented we will inevitably want to be totally secure. Right? Because being ( inwardly) fragmented you are always (feeling) in danger.

K: Is at the root of it this longing to be totally secure in my relationship with everything, to be 'certain'?

B: Yes, but even so, the real security is found in 'no-thingness' – isn't this is what you have said before ?

K: Of course, in nothingness there is (a sense of) complete (inward) security.

B: So, it is not the demand for security which is wrong but the demand of the fragmentary mind be secure. The fragment cannot possibly be secure.

K: That is right. Like each country trying to be secure, it is not (really) secure.

B: But the way you have put it (in your public talks?) sounds as if we should live eternally in insecurity.

K: No, no... We have made that very clear (that Mr X was talking 'psychologically'?) ...

B: So, it makes sense to ask for security, but we are going about it the wrong way ?

K: Yes, that's right... So, how do you convey ( the holistic feeling?) that love is universal, not personal, to a man who has lived completely immersed in the narrow groove of personal (and/or collective ) achievement?

B: Well, will he agree to question his (apparently) 'unique' personality?

K: They (kind of …?) question it, they (think they) see the logic of it and yet... So what shall we do (educationally-wise?) ? (Suppose?) I have a brother who refuses to see all this. And as I have a great affection for him, I would want him to move out of it. But in pointing out that this 'flame' can be awakened in himself, this also means he must 'listen' to me.

B: Yes, well... ?

K: But my brother refuses to listen.

B: It seems that there are some actions which are not possible. If a person is caught in a certain thinking ( mentality) such as fragmentation, then he can't change it because there are a lot of other thoughts behind it – the ones he doesn't know. He is not actually free to take an action there because of the whole structure of thought that 'holds' him. So we have to find some place where he is free to act, to move, which is not controlled by the conditioning...

K: So how do I 'help' my brother? It is the responsibility of intelligence which asks that...There is a tradition in India, and probably in Tibet, that there is one ( spiritual entity?) called the Maitreya Buddha who took a vow that he would not become the ultimate Buddha until he has liberated human beings too...

B: Altogether?

K: Yes. You see, the tradition hasn't changed anything (until now?) . So, if he has that intelligence, that compassion, that love, can the purity of that be transmitted to another? Or living with him, talking to him - you see it all becomes mechanical. It has not been solved but our intelligence says : these are the facts and perhaps some will capture it...

B: Well it seems to me that there are really two factors: one is the preparation by reason to show that it all makes sense; and from there possibly some will capture it.

K: We have done that sir. You (Mr X) have laid out the map very clearly and I have seen it very clearly, the conflicts, the misery, the confusion, the insecurity, the becoming, all that is very, very, very clear, but at the end of the chapter I am back at the beginning. Or I have got a glimpse of it and that becomes my craving to capture that glimpse and then that becomes a memory. You follow? And all the nightmare begins.
In your showing me the map very clearly you have also pointed out to me something much deeper than that, which is ( the universal Intelligence of?) Love, and I am (actively) seeking after that. But the weight of my body, my brain, my tradition, all that draws me back. So it is ( becoming) a constant battle. But I think the whole thing is so wrong....

B: What is wrong?

K: The way we are living is so wrong...

B: Well I think many people must see that by now. At least a fair number.

K: I remember talking in Ojai whether man has taken a wrong turning, entered into a ( dead?) valley where there is no escape. That can't be sir, that is too depressing, too appalling.

B: The very fact it is (looking ) appalling does not necessarily make it untrue. You would have to say some stronger reason why you feel that to be untrue. Do you perceive in the human nature some possibility of a real change?

K: Of course sir, otherwise we'd be (just clever?) monkeys, or ( programable bio-?) machines. But that faculty for a radical change is attributed to some outside agency and therefore we look to that and get lost in that (sweet illusion?) . If we don't look to anybody and (try to?) be completely free from all that, that ( inward) solitude (of All-Oneness) is common to all of us.

B: Yes... ?

K: It is not (the loneliness of?) isolation, it is an obvious fact that when you see all this and say, this is so ugly, unreal, so stupid, you are naturally alone( free of all influences) . And that sense of 'all-oneness' is common.

B: Yes, one could say that all the fundamental things in life are universal and therefore you are saying that when the mind goes deeplly (into itself) it comes into something universal.

K: Universal, that's right. So, that is the problem (of any holistic education?) to make the mind go very, very deeply into itself.

B: Yes, it occurred to me that when we start with ( trying to solve ) our particular problem it is very shallow, then we go to something more general - the word 'general' has the same root as (genus) the depth of what is generated.

K: That's right, sir.

B: And going from that, still further, trying to solve the 'general' ( human problem) is still limited because it is ( the creation of) thought...

K: Thought, quite right. But sir, to go so profoundly it requires tremendous, not only courage, but the sense of constant pursuing the same stream. That goes with a religious ( holistic?) mind which is diligent in its action, in its thoughts, in its activities and so on, but that is still limited. If the (meditating) mind can go from the particular to the general and from the general...

B:... to the absolute, to the universal ?

K: Move away from that.

B: Well, many people would say that is all very abstract and has nothing to do with their daily life.

K: I know (but on the long term?) it is the most practical thing. Not that it is an abstraction.

B: But you, most people would want something that really affects us in daily life, we don't just want to get ourselves lost in talking. Now I mean it is true that it must work in daily life, but the daily life does not contain the solution of its problems.

K: No. The daily life is the 'general' life.

B: The general and the particular ?

K: And the particular.

B: The problems which arise in daily life cannot be solved there, as the human problems.

K: From the particular level move to the general, from the general level move still deeper (inwardly) , and there perhaps is (to be found?) this ( Universal) purity of compassion, love and intelligence. But that means giving your mind to this (homework meditation?) , your heart, your mind, your whole being must be involved in this.
We had better stop. Have we reached somewhere?

B: Possibly so.

K: I think so.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #251
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

A ('reader-friendly' edited ) K DISCUSSION WITH BUDDHIST SCHOLARS (cca 1985)

KRISHNAMURTI (K): I would like to ask several ( meditation related ?) questions. Is there (within the human consciousness?) a line of demarcation, where the self-interest ends and where a state which is not self-interest begins? We all have self-interest; it is (implicit our self-centred?) knowledge, in language and in every part of our life. And in our everyday life, where do we draw the line and say: here it is necessary, there it is not necessary at all?

Q: This question is very difficult to answer if you lay down certain conditions, like the difficulties we meet ( in interacting ) with society; but if you do not lay down conditions, then I shall try to answer.

K: I am not laying down the way you should think, but ( the facts of?) life show me that in every work in every part of the world self-interest is dominant. We play with religion, we play with K as ( if he were ) a plaything, we play with all kinds of things, but the ( central) thread of self-interest is very, very strong, and I ask myself, where does it begin, and, is there an end to it ? I come to you to solve the (central) problem the human brain has, which may be linked with 'self-interest'.

Q: Creating or receiving problems and trying to solve them has become a rule of life for us, and this way of doing things nurtures my (inner) being.

K: Therefore your (inner) being (dominated by self-interest?) is the problem. Your (inner) being is (fueled by?) the identification with this country, with its literature, with its gods; you are identified, therefore you have taken root in a place, therefore that becomes the ( time-bound ?) being. Why have you made the human life, which is meant to be lived like a tree growing beautifully, into this? You have destroyed ( the holistic quality of human) living by knowledge, by science, by computers - you have destroyed my living. Sex becomes a problem, eating becomes a problem, everything is a problem. And if I don't want to have ( psychologically based?) problems, does not mean that I deny life. From birth to death, our life is treated like a problem: school, college, university, then job, marriage, sex, children and then death becomes ( the ultimate?) problem. Why can't one's brain be simple enough, free enough to say this ( time-bound way of living) is the problem and solve it? That is, the brain is free ( of the 'known'?) to solve it, not add another problem to it.

Q: If I may say so this (existential) problem does not come from outside; the problem arises in this brain, which creates this problem. Why doesn't it immediately destroy it at that very instant?

K: Because it has not solved ( completely ?) any (human) problem.

Q: Doesn't the brain have that capacity of ending (its own problems) ?

K: Yes, but I must make clear one (fina holistic?) point. The brain is the ( physical ?) centre of our ( self-centred) consciousness, and that consciousness we treat as 'mine' . But (fundamentally) it is not mine; it is not personalized as 'K'. And it is not 'yours' either because every human being on earth (does eventually?) go through this (psychological?) torture - sorrow, pleasure of sex, fear, anxiety, uncertainty, hoping for something better and so on; so this consciousness is (the time-bound consciousness of all ?) humanity. I 'am' humanity.
( On the other hand?) the 'mind' ( the timeless matrix of human consciousness?) is different from the ( survival-oriented consciousness of the?) brain - totally dissociated - has no relationship whatsoever. Love has no relationship with self-interest. The fact is that 'love' may exist. We may have sympathy, empathy, affection, pity - but that is not Love, so I leave that aside. Love and self-interest cannot exist together and therefore (mankind's psychological ?) problems have no meaning if the 'other' (the universally integrated mind?) exists. If the other is, problems are not.

Q: I am not sure if they cannot co-exist...It seems to me that we know two kinds of action: one which is 'thought out' by the brain, calculated, and which therefore invariably is motivated by self-interest. ( I don't think the brain is capable of doing anything that does not contain in it the seed of self-interest, because it is the ( survival-programmed ) instrument meant for that purpose. But there is also a spontaneous action which we experience occasionally, which is not born as a product of (our brain's self-centred?) thinking. But because man does not know what to do with this kind of action, he has cultivated what his brain can do well : to calculate, (to stay focussed on?) what it can achieve, and the whole ( modern) world is therefore filled with such activity. And this has become our ( standardised mentality of) life. While the 'other', which is the vital (& spontaneous action ) , is only occasional. I think that even a person who has self-interest and who has (collateral) problems, occasionally acts without the interference of the brain - out of love. So I would not say that the ( conditioned ) existence of the brain denies love completely.

K: Sir, I say it is like having occasionally (at breakfast?) a bad egg. I want a good egg every day - not 'occasionally'. So I am asking you all, is there an end to self-interest or is all action born out of self-interest? Don't tell me, 'occasionally'; occasionally I may look out of the window, but that window is very narrow (since inwardly?) I am ( living ) in a (self-created?) prison.
Please follow me for a minute : there is a tremendous ( timeless?) order in the universe. ( Even ) a 'black hole' is a part of that (cosmic) Order. But wherever man's (mentality of self-interest) enters he creates disorder. So can I, as a ( holistically minded?) human being who 'is' the rest of humanity, create order in myself first? Order means no self-interest.

Q: Sir, the problem is, it is not easy to deny on the basis of ( the realisation that we're ) having a common consciousness, the nucleus that comes to shape itself as the limited self, the acquisitive self, for which all the problems are 'real', not imaginary. I mean I have disease, I have death - in what way could these be considered as 'no problems'?

K: Are we saying that (thought's ) 'self (identification' ?) is 'the' (central) problem? Why don't we look at the problem ? If the 'self' is the problem, why don't we say : let me understand it, let me look at this (potential?) 'jewel' without condemning it ? The very condemnation is the problem. Do you follow what I mean? Let me first look at it (with the intelligence of Compassion?) .

Q: Sir, consider a person who has a thorn in his body and is feeling pain. The pain of the thorn is similar to the constraints and problems impinging upon the self.

K: No, sir. If I have a thorn in my foot, I look at it first and ask myself, why wasn't I aware of it? So my (inward?) observation is at fault. So I say, what happened to my brain which didn't see that? Probably it was thinking of something else. Why was it thinking of something else when I am on the path?

Q: Because in the case of our psychological ( inward?) problems, the observer and what is observed are hopelessly entangled ?

K: Let us stick to one issue : where does self-interest begin and where does it end, and if it ends, what is that state?

Q: To my mind the very notion of 'self' begins with the coming into being of this body, and then the self and self-interest go together. Self-interest can only end when the self ends. And a part of the self remains so long as the body remains. So, in an ultimate sense, it can only end with death. Short of that, we can only refine self-interest with the gradual perceiving of it, but we cannot wholly deny it so long as the body exists. That is how I see it.

K: I understand. They are discovering that when the baby is born and suckling, it feels secure and it begins to learn who are the friends of the mother, who treat her differently, who are against her; it begins to feel all this because the mother feels it. It comes through the mother - who is friendly, who is not friendly. The baby begins to rely on the mother. So there it begins. It felt very safe in the womb, and suddenly, put out in the world it begins to realize that the mother is ( providing ) the only safety. There it begins (the psychological dependency in terms of) feeling secure. And that's our life. And I question whether (for a holistically integrated mind?) there is ( such a 'psychological ?) security' at all.

Q: : Sir, the ( survivalistic) instinct of self-preservation is present in the animal world too, but when it has evolved into man, it started creating (psychologically motivated?) problems. If we believe that man evolved from the animal, then he has all the instincts which the animal has. The essential difference is that man has in addition the ability to think, and this ability to think has also created all those ( collateral) problems. And what you are asking is, can we use this ability (of intelligent thinking ?) not to create problems but to do something entirely different?

K: Yes, sir that's right.

Q: You suggest that the brain can end these problems. Then what is the difference between that brain which has ended and the mind?

K: See, you are asking a question that involves ( the psychological) 'death'. We know what is birth, how the baby is born and ( eventually?) goes through this extraordinary tragedy (of the time bound existence?) . It is a tragedy; it is not something happy, joyous, free. It is a bigger tragedy than any Shakespeare ever wrote. Now, what is death?

Q: When we were discussing 'time' the other day, you spoke of a 'Now' in which was contained all time, both living and death. The brain, having the capacity to see the flow of living, also has the capacity to reveal that ending which is death. That is the answer.

K: I said, (that man's temporal) living is attachment, pain, fear, pleasure, anxiety, uncertainty, the whole bag, and death is (waiting) 'out there', far away. I keep a careful distance (especially if I ?) have got property, books & jewels; I keep it ( safely locked in) here and death is 'out there.' I said , bring the two together, not tomorrow, but 'now' - which means 'end' (relying on?) all these ( time-bound attachments ?) now. Because that's what death is going to say : 'You can't take anything with you'; so invite 'death' and live with it. ( The 'psychological' experiencing of?) death is 'now', not 'tomorrow'.

Q: There is something lacking in this. I may be able to 'invite death' now and the brain may be still for a time, but the whole thing comes back again; then the problems of my daily life comes back.

K: Not (necessarily?) : suppose I am attached to a good friend of mine, I have lived with him/her , we walked together, we played together, (s)he is my companion, and I am attached to him/her . Death says to me, You can't take him(or her?) with you. So (why not?) free yourself ( of this psychological dependency ?) now, not ten years later. And I say, Quite right, though I am still his/her friend, I am not ( inwardly) dependent on him(or her?) at all. What's wrong with that? You are not arguing against that?

Q: Which means, sir, you have to end all ( expectations for further ?) gratification...

K: I am not saying that. I said, (end) attachment.

Q: ( Ending?) all my attachments... ?

K: That's all.

Q: Sir, isn't it that the ( attachment) problem comes because you (surreptitiously?) begin to use that pleasure as a fulfilment for yourself, and therefore you want a continuity of that and ( ultimately ) you want to possess that person?

K: Yes. Therefore, what is ( the right approach to ) relationship? I won't go into it as we have no (more?) time.
(To recap:) I asked you where the 'self-interest' begins and ends. Isn't its ending more important than anything else? - ending? And what is then that state in which there is no self-interest at all? Is it ( the inward peace of?) death? ( The inward significance of?) death means 'ending' – ending (one's attachments to) everything. So 'it' says, 'Be intelligent, old boy, live together with death.'

Q: Which means die (to all psychological attachments ) but keep the body. The other death is coming anyway (in its own time?)

K: (The death of the?) body? Give it to the birds (burn it?) or throw it into the River. But psychologically, this tremendous structure (of mental attachment ?) I have built, I can't take with me.

Q: Is it an instinct, a the genetic inheritance ?

K: Don't reduce it to an instinct, sir.

P8: What was the 'joke' you were going to tell us?

K: A man dies and meets his friend in heaven. They talk and he says, 'If I am dead, why do I feel so awful?'

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 10 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Feb 2020 #252
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

2-nd (reader-friendly edited) K DISCUSSION WITH BUDDHIST SCHOLARS ( 1985)

Q : As we have understood from you, there is no Path ( leading man ?) to Truth . Therefore each person is faced with every moment by itself. If this ( "all time is now" ?) moment is to be understood, then it is (a holistically integrated ?) moment of "action, knowledge and desire". Is this understanding correct?

KRISHNAMURTI (K): Sir, this is a subject that requires a great deal of (self-) inquiry.... I don't say, 'That is right, this is wrong', but together we are going to go into it.

Q: How can there be a ( holistically minded ) human being who does not decide what is correct or incorrect, what is good or not good?

K: I don't say there is no Goodness, but it may be entirely different from your (concept of?) goodness and from my (concept of ) goodness. So let us find out which is really the 'Good' - not yours or mine, but that which is 'Good'...

Q: itself. But don't you introduce an element of uncertainty into one's way of looking at things or one's philosophical outlook ?

K: Yes, but if you start with certainty, you ( might well) end up with uncertainty. So, sir, because you raised a question which implies time, thought and action, could we begin by going into the question of what is 'time'? Could we, for the time being, put aside what other people have said, , including what I have said or haven't said - wipe all that out - and say, 'Now, what is time?' Isn't this the only ( major ?) problem we have in life : we live in time. Acquiring book knowledge implies time, our hope to become enlightened also implies time and the whole of living from birth to death is a problem of time. So what is it that we call 'time'?

Q: You have spoken about this many times, but I want to say that the moment which is knowledge, action, as well as desire, is a moment in which there is no time.

K: Wait, wait.... Can you divide this ( timeless?) instant from the rest ( of your existence?) ?

Q: In the instant of ( undivided?) 'attention' or observation, there is no time.

K : If we are to understand each other we must be clear about the meaning of these two words - "attention" and "observation". What takes place actually when you observe? - not theoretically. Could we start, both of us, as though we know nothing? Leave your moorings (in the field of the known) and let us float together.

Q: How can we do it together when we are at two different levels?

K: I don't admit that we are at two levels.

Q: We have a complaint against you that you are a poor physician ; there are all the ( existential) difficulties and conflicts outside but the physician is not able to say how to cope with those things which are outside and solve the difficulties there.

K: So you want to solve first the difficulties 'out there', and then approach the problems in here. Is that it?

Q: No, I want to solve them both together.

K: I do not admit the division. The (collective consciousness of the?) world 'is' me, I 'am' ( responsible for?) the (consciousness of the?) world. I see what is happening in the (outer) world - all the appalling things that are actually happening. Now, who created it?

Q: The human beings.

K: Do you admit that we all of us have created that?

Q: Yes, of course.

K: All right. So, if all of us have created it, then we can ( together endeavour to?) change that. Now, in what manner will you bring about the change? I met the other day in New York, a doctor who has become a philosopher. He said this is all talk, but the real question is: can the cells in the brain bring about a (qualitative?) mutation in themselves ? Can the brain cells themselves see (the global mess?) they have created and say: This is wrong – mutate!

Q: But you have recently distinguished the brain from the mind...

K: Yes, because the brain is the very centre of our (physical?) sensations.

Q: And should we wait for that mutation?

K: You can't. It ( the collective momentum of self-interest?) will go on.

Q: Will ( this qualitative mutation) come automatically?

K: No.

Q: So we should try for that.

K: Now, what will change that in the brain's cells which contain all the (fragmentary ?) memories of the past. Can those cells, without ( Mr X's ?) pressure, without influence say: That is the end of that; we will change (ASAP?) ?

Q: If there is no ( Mr X's?) influence, no pressure, it means (this psychological mutation ) is taking place by itself.

K: No... Listen to it. The brain cells hold all the memories, all the pressures, all the education, all the experience, everything - it is loaded with ( man's survivalistic?) knowledge of two and a half million years. So I ( Mr X?) say to myself, why does this ( time bound human?) brain (have to?) depend on all these (artificial incentives?) - chemicals, persuasion, pleasure? Is it waiting to be ( miraculously?) released? I ( the 'holistic physician' ?) say, 'No, sorry, that is another form of escape. So, can the brain cells (themselves?) , with all the past memories, put an end to all that ( time-binding condition?) now? That is my question (left for your homework meditation ?) . What do you say, sirs?

Q: I have to teach my students and I do it through a logical process - rationally so many things are (very easily?) explained. But at the same time I realize the ( experiential) limitation of that, especially having come into contact with your (teachings) - that this is all artificial, theoretical, very limited. Then, when we come to you, we hear what is good, and we go from one fine point to another, but we find at the end of it all that we are still nowhere near the Truth. So it just means that instead of going round in that circle of logic we go round in this ( holistic approach?) , but it makes no difference.

K: Yes, sir, these are all just explanations and we move from that ( linear) logic to this (holistic) logic. Now, can I leave that logic without going to another logic, because I see at the very beginning that ( any knowledge based?) logic has its own limitation - whether it is a refined logic or plain common sense?

Q: But here it is not just logic, as we get bits of insight, bits of (inner) light; but if we keep moving around with these little bits, there is no ( total) comprehension.

K: All right. If that is so, is it that you want a 'complete insight'?

Q: We should be satisfied with what we are getting, but we need that (holistic quality of?) happiness which shapes thought. We get little bits of insight, not the whole.

K: I am not talking of happiness; I am talking of insight. Will you listen to it? I will present the whole, but...will you 'listen' ?

Q: We need to understand this point . What is a 'full insight'? Is it an (inwardly enlightening?) experience?

K: No, I doubt if it is a (personal?) experience and you cannot lay down laws about it...

Q: You have just said that you were going to tell us how all this will be a whole.

K: ( For starters, putting together?) the partial insights does not make the whole (insight) . I am just saying, you are approaching it wrongly : it is not based on ( one's previous?) knowledge. What is based on knowledge is (called) "invention", not ( the direct action of?) Creation. I don't understand your ( experiential) difficulty. (Suppose that?) somebody comes along and tells me a Story (of Knowledge) . I listen to it with rapt attention and it goes on and on day after day, and I am consumed by the story. So ( eventually) the story ends by saying, 'It stops here.'

Q: The story (of Knowledge ) doesn't end for us; the ( imbedded?) problems continue...

K: I want to tell you ( the 'real life' story ?) that people have limited insight. Your ( 'insight - doctor'?) friend here says, I will tell you in what manner you can have the whole insight. But will you listen (with an open mind & heart?) to him? You give (a bowl of) rice to the beggar; in the same way, he is giving me a gift and he says, 'Take it, don't ask me why you are being given it, or who is giving it; just take it.' So I am telling you that ( a total ?) insight is not dependent on (one's previous ) knowledge or on any form of remembrance, and it is not dependent on time. Enlightenment is not dependent on time. When ( brain's subliminal process of thought-projected ?) time, memory, remembrance doesn't exist (in one's meditation?) ; then you have a complete insight.

He ( Mr X ?) tells me this ( holistic clue ?) and disappears. He has left with me a (potentially?) tremendous jewel saying : 'Take it, my friend, live with it, and if you don't want it, throw it (or...give?) it away.' I am enthralled by the (inward beauty of this ) 'jewel' and ( the timeless light generated by ?) that jewel begins to reveal things I have never seen before, and if you hold it more closely, you will see much more.' But as you put it on the table and come back in the evening, when you look at it, the (inner light of the) jewel is fading, so you have to hold it, you have to cherish it, love it, watch it, care for it... ( The illusory value of one's 'psychological' ?) knowledge may be the poison in all of us.

Q: Does ( the 'meditator'-free?) meditation have a place in all this?

K: Yes. Sir : a meditation which is not contrived, which is not deliberate, which does not say "Practise, Practise & ...(more) Practise", which had nothing to do with all this (process of self-centred becoming) ? Because, if I practise to become an (inwardly -) rich man, I have a deliberate purpose. Therefore it can't be the ( commercialised ?) 'meditation' we're doing now. So, perhaps there is a ( 'self-interest' free?) meditation which has nothing to do with all this - and I say there is.

Q: Shall we stop here?

K: Yes, we stop - like the story (of knowing ?) .

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 11 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Feb 2020 #253
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

3-rd (reader-friendly edited) K DISCUSSION WITH BUDDHIST SCOLARS (1985)

Krishnamurti (K): Is there 'still ?) something sacred in this part of the world, in India ? Something long-lasting, not conditioned by (the rampant?) commercialism ?

Q: There is certainly 'something' in this country which is not influenced by external factors.

K: That was not my (full ?) question. Is there something here which does not exist anywhere else - not influenced, not corrupted, not made ugly by all the circus that goes on in the name of religion? Is there something already here, for which - if it exists - one has to give one's whole mind and heart - to preserve?

Q: I cannot say, because in some sense I have not experienced this in a tangible way; nor can I say whether other people have. But my study of ancient texts gives me a certain certitude that there is 'something' (of a timeless nature ?) which can be experienced in a clear way.

K: I'm asking, Panditji, if there is something enduring, which is not bound by time, evolution and all that. It must be very, very sacred. And if it exists, then one must give one's life to it, give vitality to it - not by doctrines and knowledge, but by the feeling of it, the depth of it, the beauty of it, the enormous strength of it. That's what I'm asking.

Q: We desire to find such a thing, but have not been able to do so. And we find ourselves tangled in many theories, in many traditions, many systems. Occasionally we hear a clear voice that speaks about this in a compelling way. That 'voice' comes from you, but we are in some way unable to reach it. The whole phenomenon is like some huge fair with a lot different chaotic voices offering solutions.

K: You're not answering my question: is there or is there not? Not the historical process of ancient culture being destroyed by commercialism, but the great impetus which was set going by some (original) power, by some intelligence? That power, that intelligence - does it exist now?

Q: If I have to answer your question, then I would say that this thing - is life itself .

K: I'm asking a very simple question : (the spirituality of) India 'exploded' over the whole of Asia, like (the culture of the ancient) Greece 'exploded' over the whole of Western culture. It spread like wildfire. And it had the tremendous energy of something original something enormous; it had the power to move things. Does that exist here, or is it all in abeyance? Does it exist at all now?

Q: Sometimes it appears ( to manifest itself?) and it is always fresh, but the contact with ( individual persons is not always there....But why do you want to connect it geographically with this part of the world?

K: I'll tell you. All ancients, as far as I understand, worshipped mountains. The gods came from there for the Greeks; and also for the ancient Sumerians, the sense of something holy there. Then you come to the Himalayas - ( generations of?) monks meditated there. Is ( that spirit) still ( present) there or is it being commercialized ?

Q: It cannot be commercialized. The commercialization is something else.

K: Is it ( still alive?) there?

Q: Yes, from the beginning I was saying that it is there, but the relationship, the contact, with the masses...

K: I'm not talking about the masses. ..

Q: ...with individual persons, is diminished.

K: Why has it diminished, why has it become something small?

Q: ( The younger generations ?) are not interested. They're more interested in commerce...

K: Yes, so it's gone. Is it ( due to) this tremendous ( stream of) self-interest - self-interest in the form of knowledge, in the form of Buddhism, Hinduism? And this ( Stream of) Self-interest is increasing tremendously in the (modern) world, that is the ( revolving?) door which shuts the 'Other' out...

Q: The question which you just posed calls for a counter question : How are we, in today's society, going to find it, experience it, and share it?

K: You can't 'experience' it (as a self-centred entity?) . To 'experience' it there must be an 'experiencer'. He has had a thousand experiences; and he wants to add another to it - that's my whole point. It's not something to be experienced – it is ( simply) there like electricity.

Q: Human beings have only one gift, that is the ability to experience, and you are snatching that away. After that what are we to hold on to?

K: I'm not 'snatching away' anything, but I see that ( its personal) experience is a very small affair. We depend on (our physical) experience, but that 'thing' can't be experienced. You can't ( have the ) experience of water - it is there.

Q: Water is there, but I only know it through experience of it.

K: What you call 'experiencing' is based on sensory perception. And our sensory perceptions are partial, never complete. Now, to observe with all your senses alert - that's not a (personal) 'experience'. The brain is always conditioned by its past experience, by its sensory responses – (by its ability ) to argue, to deny and all the rest of it. Therefore, when you say experience, or you must learn this or do that, it's all from a brain which has become small, conditioned.

Q: We come again to the ('poor physician' issue ) we discussed before. We understand about conditioning, self-interest, and so on. There is the (theoretical) possibility of moving away, and then we just stop there.

K: Why, sir?

Q: Or should I say that the 'moving away' is not absolutely possible?

K: Why not remain where you are and see what happens. ? That is, sir, you never ( wholly) abide with 'what is'. I am this, but I (hope to) be that - it's a movement away from 'what is'.

Q: Either we stay where it is, or stay out of the movement.

K: What is that movement? We have to enquire what is ( the movement of (thought-) time - by which we live daily: time as past, time as present, time as future. So what is time? Everything we do ( in the physical world) requires time. But (inwardly-wise) what is time?

Q: The real problem of time seems to hinge on how it works within the human psyche. There is something unresolved that we want to resolve.

K: Sir, if I may humbly suggest, what is the brain?

Q: The brain is possibly the physical base of the mind.

K: The brain is the centre of all our sensory responses; it is the centre of all thinking. What is the quality of the brain that is asking the question: 'what is time? ' How do you receive the question?

Q: We have understood after discussing with you that it is only a total attention that will bring about a total transformation. That's where the problem begins.

K: Time is the ( momentum of the ) past : the 'now' is shaped by the ( stand-by memory of the?) past. And the 'future' is a modification of the present. So, if all (the movement of psychological ) time is contained in the 'now' - the past, the present and future - then what do we mean by change?

Q: The word 'change' does not have any meaning ?

K: If that's a fact - that all time is contained in the now, this is the future, this is the present. There is no ( mental) movement towards or from (something) . When there is no such movement, I am what I am: ( for instance?) I am greedy, and I say 'yes'.

Q: How can we break this stream (of 'thought-time'?) in which we flow?

K: I'll show you : all time is contained in 'now', at this second. It is a most extraordinary thing to see that all the future & all the past, 'is' (are present) now. Is that a fact ?

Q: If all time is in the 'now', then there is nothing else.

K: That may be the most extraordinary thing, if you go into it. That may be the essence of compassion. That may be the essence of an amazing, undefinable intelligence. If all ( the psychological) time is contained in the now, there's no ( further mental) movement. What I do now, I'll do tomorrow. So, what am I to do if (my psychological) future - tomorrow - is now? If I'm greedy, envious, and I'll be envious tomorrow. Is there a possibility of ending that (momentum of?) greed instantly?

Q: That seems very difficult...

K: It's not (experientially) 'difficult' (providing) I see that if I am greedy & envious today, tomorrow I'll be still greedy and envious unless something happens now. It is very important that something happens now. So can I change, mutate, now? If there is a radical (psychological) mutation now, there is ( the awakening of?) a movement which is not of time. You understand, sir? Two and a half million years ago we were barbarous. We are still barbarous; wanting power, position, killing each other, envious, comparing, all that. You've put me this ( homework meditation?) challenge: If all ( thought-projected?) 'time' is now, I say to myself: My god, if I don't change now, tomorrow I will be the same, or in a thousand tomorrows. So, is it possible for me to totally mutate now? I say ''yes''...

Q: Can you tell us how?

K: The moment you ask 'how', you are already (projecting yourself) in another process of ( thought-) time. If I tell you : do these things , and you say I will do all this to get to 'that'. But 'you' ( the self-centred entity ?) can't get it, because you are what you are now.

Q: That means that in the listening to that statement of yours, 'All time is now', there is a ( subliminal) quality of acquisitiveness ?

K: Of course.

P6: So the 'listening' has to be purified.

K: Then, sir, there is no knowledge, there is no meditation, there is no discipline. Everything stops.
May I put the question ( more dramatically?) ? Suppose for instance I know I'm going to die. There is a ( two months ?) time interval between now and the time of my death: that is, I will die on the first of January. If all time is now, my ( encounter with?) death is now. Can the human brain live with death all the time? You understand? If I realize the (inward truth of the?) fact that all time is now - that means the dying and living are together; they are never separate. So it is only the 'knowing' that I'm going to die at the end of January that makes me frightened; I say, Please, please, wait, wait, wait, I've got to leave a will, I've got to do this, I've to do that. But if I am constantly living with death, I am dying now, that means I'm living (a new life ) - there's no divorce or separation between living and dying.
Can you do this ( for meditation homework?) ? That means, death says, 'You can't take anything with you.' Your ( psychologically motivated attachments to ? ) knowledge, wife and children, money, and all that you've built up for yourself - 'everything goes' at the end with death. You may say there's a possibility you'll ( eventually?) reincarnate. But I'm asking you: Can you live now without the least attachment to anything? Why postpone this ending of attachment - until the sickbed? Be free of attachment now.

Q: May we sit silently with you?

(K assents...)

Q: You had started the discussion with the question: What is this thing, and, is there this thing in this country? Is this that thing?

K: (nods, then after a long silence) See, it's not difficult if you can start at this level...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Feb 2020 #254
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

16-th (reader-friendly edited ) K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (1983)

J.Krishnamurti: We were going to talk about the future of ( the consciousness of?) humanity ?

DB: Of the whole of mankind. Our future is all interlinked anyway.

JK: As things are ( as of 1983) , from what one observes the world has become tremendously 'dangerous'... Terrorists, wars, national divisions and racial divisions, and so on & on. But also religiously there is tremendous separation.

DB: Yes, not to mention the (looming?) ecological crisis.

JK: Problems seem to multiplying more and more. So, what is the (predictable?) future of not only the present generation but the coming generations?

DB: Well, it looks pretty grim... Is there something you would suggest?

JK: You see, I don't think in terms of 'psychological' evolution at all.

DB: I think I understand to some extent what you mean. But I think that people who are new to these teachings are not going to understand ...

JK: Why are we concerned about the future when the whole future is ( unfolding right ?) now.

DB: Yes, in ( a holistic) sense the whole future 'is' (co-present) now but we'll have to make this point more clear as it goes very much against the whole traditional way of thinking of the whole mankind... So, what objections do you have to thinking in terms of an evolution (of human consciousness ) in time ?

JK: Of course, we are talking 'psychologically'....

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

JK: Yes, it became much more complex and so on. All that needs time. All that is ( the result of manknd's evolutionary ?) movement in space and time.

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

JK: Of course. Any sane man would...

DB: Now most people also admit a 'psychological' (evolution in ) time...

JK: Yes, that is what we are talking about. Whether there is a 'psychological' 'tomorrow'....

DB: Now at first sight this may sound strange, because I can remember 'yesterday', and also there is a 'tomorrow' that I can anticipate. So we have the objective experience (of a conscious continuity in?) time, from yesterday to today to tomorrow – right?

JK: Of course. That is simple enough.

DB: So, what is it that you are denying?

JK: I deny that I will ( actually ) become something better by 'tomorrow'...

DB: Now, there are two ways of looking at that : one way is will I intentionally become (inwardly) better because I am trying it, and secondly, some people feel that there is a natural, long lasting, but inevitable process, in which we are being swept along in a current (of collective consciousness?) and we are perhaps becoming better, worse, or something (unexpected) is happening to us... And this process takes its own time - which may not be the result of my trying to become better. So, are you denying that there is a natural psychological evolution as there is a natural biological evolution?

JK: I am denying that, yes....

DB: Now why do you deny it?

JK: Because first of all, what is the human 'psyche' - the ( self-centred) 'me', the 'ego', what is it?

DB: The word 'psyche' has many meanings...For example it may mean the ( soul or the spiritual essence of the ?) mind ...

JK: I am talking of the ( temporal) 'ego', the 'me'...

DB: Yes. ..Now some people are thinking there is also be a (spiritual) evolution (of mankind) in which the 'me' is transcended. That is, that it will rise to a higher level of consciousness, a transcendence...

JK: Yes, but does this transition need time? That is my whole question.

DB: So there are two questions: one is : will the 'me' ever be ( ready, able & willing?) to improve? And the second is : even if we really want to get beyond the ( limitations of the self-centred?) 'me', can that be done in time?

JK: That cannot be done in time.

DB: Well, why not ?

JK: What is the 'me' (the self-centred consciousness?) ? The 'me' is the (self-identified core of the ?) whole movement which thought has brought about.

DB: Now why do you say that?

JK: The 'me' is ( identifying itself with the content of ?) one's consciousness, name, form and all the various experiences that one has had in the past. The whole structure of the 'me' is put together by (the 'survival-oriented ' activity of?) thought.

DB: Well, that again would be something which some ( more thoughtful?) people might find it hard to accept because the first feeling is that the 'me' is there independently and that the 'me' is the one who is (doing all the ) thinking.

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

DB: Well, my first feeling is that the 'me' is there independent of my thinking, and it is the 'me' that is thinking, you see ? Now, is that an illusion?

JK: No, but my contention is that thought is at the basis of all this (self-identified entity?)

DB: Now, what you mean by 'thought' is not merely the intellectual ( activity?) ?

JK: No, of course not....

DB: But what more ?

JK: The whole movement of (brain's past) experience, knowledge & memory ....

DB: It sounds to me as if you mean the ( leading activity of the?) human consciousness ?

JK: As a whole, that's right.

DB: And you are saying that that movement is ( impersonated by?) the 'me' ?

JK: The whole ( self-identified?) 'content' of that consciousness is the 'me'. This 'me' is not different from 'my' consciousness.

DB: Well, one could easily say that I 'am' my consciousnes, for if I am not conscious I am not here....

JK: Of course...

DB: Now is my consciousness nothing but say what you have just described, which includes thought, feeling, intention...

JK:...(personal) aspirations, memories, beliefs, the rituals that are performed, the whole, like an (ages old) 'computer' that has been programmed.

DB: Now, all this (psychological content) certainly is in (our temporal) consciousness, but many people would feel that there is more to it than that. Namely, that (one's) consciousness may go beyond that.

JK: Let's go into it (holistically?) The content of our consciousness makes up the consciousness

DB: I think this requires some (deeper) understanding. The ordinary use of the word 'content' is quite different. If you say that the content of a glass is water – right?

JK: Yes...

DB: So, the word 'content' would suggest that something contains it – right?

JK: All right... ( mankind's time-binding ) consciousness is made up of all that has been remembered (stored throughout the ages?) beliefs, dogmas, rituals, the nationalities, fears, pleasures, sorrow....

DB: Yes, now if all that were absent would there be no (self- ) consciousness?

JK: Not as we know it.

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

JK: A totally different kind.

DB: Well, then you really meant to say that ( man's time-bound ) consciousness, as we know it now, is made up...

JK: Our (self-centred) consciousness - as we know it – is (made up of?) all that. And that (residual content) is the result of multiple activities of thought - the reactions, the responses, the memories, the remembrances, the extraordinary complex intricacies, subtleties, all that is the - makes up (one's self-) consciousness.

DB: Now, does this consciousness has a past?

JK: Of course. Remembrance.

DB: Then, why do you say it has no future ?

JK: Its ( psychological ?) future it will be exactly the same kind of activities, the same ( self-centred) thoughts, ( updated or) modified, but the pattern will be repeated over and over again.

DB: Yes. Are you saying that thought can only (recycle & ) repeat (the psychological memory of the past) ?

JK: Yes, if you admit that ( our available) knowledge will always be limited...

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

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

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

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

DB: So you want to restrict the discussion then to ( the 'psychological') knowledge about the human being?

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

DB: All right. So we are saying that man cannot obtain unlimited knowledge of the ( human) psyche, since 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 (one's psychological?) knowledge is limited then thought is limited.

DB: Yes, because thought depends on knowledge and one's knowledge does not cover everything.

JK: That's right...

DB: Therefore thought will not be able to handle everything that happens (inwardly?) . Therefore, when you lack the adequate knowledge of what you are dealing with, you create confusion.

JK: Yes. So then as thought is limited, our ( self-centred ?) consciousness, which has been put together by thought, is limited.

DB: Yes. Now, does that mean that we can only stay in the same circle (of the existing knowledge ?) .

JK: ( Within ) the same circle. The Unknown, the Limitless, cannot be captured by ( a self-centred?) thinking. (…) And I say there is another way of looking at the whole thing without time. Which is, when the observer 'is' (not dividing itself from what is?) observed. (when the brain is not locked in a self-protected mode?)

DB: Yes... ?

JK: In that observation there is no (interference of 'thought-) time'.

DB: Now in what sense can we make it clear that in this (thought-free observation?) there is no 'time'?

JK: ( In a nutshell:) Time is division, as thought is division. That is why thought 'is' time.

DB: One can see that thought makes divisions of all kinds, and that it also divides up intervals of time, 'past', 'present' and 'future'. But it doesn't follow from that ( generic observation) that thought 'is' time.

JK: The 'psychological' time is a (thought-projected ) movement of becoming.

DB: Now when we talk of a 'psychological' movement, do you mean just a change of content?

JK: Change of content?

DB: Well, what is 'moving' in this psychological movement?

JK: I am this, and I am attempting to become something else...

DB: So that (is a mental ?) movement in the content of your thought, you see ?

JK: Yes...

DB: So if you say 'I am this' and 'I am attempting to become that', I feel I am (engaged in a mental  ?) 'movement'.

JK: Yes...say for instance that I am greedy. Greed is a (psychologically motivated mental ?) movement.

DB: What kind of a 'movement' is it?

JK: To get what I want.

DB: To get more (of it?) , yes.

JK: To get more, more. It is a (time-binding?) movement.

DB: All right...

JK: And (if eventually?) I find that 'movement' (activity of greed ?) painful, I may try not to be (so ) greedy. The attempt ( to control myself in order ) not to be greedy is another movement of becoming in time.

DB: Yes but also the ( initial ) greed was ( a primitive form of) becoming...

JK: Of course. So that is the real question, is it possible not to (indulge in the illusion of pychological ?) becoming ?

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', I am this, that, then either I will want to become something else or remain (stuck with?) what I am – right?

JK: Now, if greed 'is' me  can I remain with what I am ?

DB: Your saying that I 'am' my ( psychological) attributes, suggests that the thought of attribution creates the sense of 'me'.

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

DB: Well, this would have to be perceived immediately as obvious ?

JK: That is the whole ( experiential) point : to perceive the totality of this whole movement instantly. Then we come to the point of (direct) perception: whether it is possible to perceive something directly without the word, without the reaction, without the (usual interference of collateral ) memories entering into perception.

DB: Well, that is a very big question because memory has constantly entered perception. This it would raise the question of what is going to stop memory from entering perception?

JK: Nothing ( pre-calculated ?) can stop it. But if I see (that) the (thinking) activity of my memory is limited, the very perception that it is limited, (acts) and you have moved out of it into another ( perceptive) dimension.

DB: It seems to me that you have to perceive the whole limitation of memory...

JK: Yes, not one part.

DB: One can see in general that our memory is limited but there are many ways in which this is not obvious. For example many of our reactions may be ( the mechanical response of) memory but we don't experience them as 'memory', you see. You experience the 'me' as being there presently and not memory. That is the common experience. Say, suppose I say I am becoming. I want to become less greedy, so I experience greed and I experience the urge to become ( non-greedy) as an actuality - which may be the result of memory, the 'me' is the one who remembers, not the other way around, that memory creates me – right?

JK: Sir, ( in a holistic nutshell) all this really comes down to: can humanity live without conflict? Can we have peace on this earth?

DB: Yes, well....

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

DB: Yes, well it seems clear from what has been said that the activity of (man's self-centred) thinking cannot bring about peace, as it is inherently, bringing about conflict.

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

DB: Are you saying there is an activity which is beyond thought?

JK: Yes.

DB: And which is not only beyond thought but which does not require the cooperation of thought? So it is possible for this to happen when thought is absent?

JK: That is the real point. We have often discussed this, whether there is anything beyond thought – an 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 purposively brought it in! This (compassionate ) 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: And then thought can be the action of intelligence - would you put it that way?

JK: Yes.

DB: Or it could be the (mechanical) action of memory?

JK: That's it. The action born of memory and our memory is limited, therefore thought is limited and it has its own activity which then brings about conflict.

DB: I think this would connect up with what people are saying about computers. You see every computer must eventually depend on some kind of memory, on memory, which is put in, or...

JK:...programmed ?

DB:...programmed. And that must be limited – right?

JK: Of course.

DB: Because when we operate ( mechanically?) from memory we are not very different from a computer; or perhaps the other way around, the computer is not very different from us.

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

DB: Yes, now you are bringing in the notion of an intelligence which is free of the programme, it is creative perhaps and...

JK: Yes, that's right. That ( holistic ) 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: That's right, but to come to that one has to go into the whole question of human suffering, whether there is an ending to suffering, since as long as suffering and fear and the pursuit of pleasure exists there cannot be (the compassionate intelligence of?) Love.

DB: Well, there are many questions there. The first point is that ( this global sense of human ) suffering is including pleasure, fear, loneliness and we could include anger and violence and greed in that.

JK: Of course, otherwise ( would be so much easier?)

DB: We could say first of all that all those are the response of (mankind's ancestral) memory and as long as they are going on it seems to me that intelligence cannot operate through thought.

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

DB: Yes, that is a key point....

JK: That is really a very serious and deep question (left for optional homework?) : whether it is possible to end suffering, which is the ending of (thought's identification with the ) 'me' .

DB: Yes, but the general feeling is that I am there and I either suffer or don't suffer. I either enjoy life or... I suffer.

JK: Yes, I know that (existential objection ?) …

DB: But I think you are implying that suffering arises from thought, it is thought...

JK: ...identified.

DB: So what is it that suffers ? It seems to me, that memory may produce ( a continuance of) pleasure and then when it doesn't work, or when it is suppressed, it produces pain and suffering.

JK: Not only that. The human suffering is much more complex, isn't it?

DB: Yes... ?

JK: The ( experiential ) meaning of the word is to have pain, to have grief, to feel utterly lost, lonely...

DB: Well, it seems to me a very pervasive sense of total ( existential) pain …

JK: But suffering is (also caused by?) the loss of someone.

DB: Or by the loss of something very important to you...

JK: Yes, of course. Loss of my wife, or loss of my son, brother, or whatever it is, and the ( subsequent ) desperate sense of loneliness.

DB: Or simply the fact that the whole world is going into such a state...

JK: Of course sir. I mean, all the wars...

DB: It makes everything meaningless you see.

JK: What a lot of suffering the (recent) Falkland war has created...

DB: Well all these wars.

JK: And wars have been going on for thousands of years. That is why I am saying we are carrying on with the same pattern (mentality?) of the last five thousands years or more, of wars....

DB: Now one can easily see that all the violence and hatred (involved in these ) wars will interfere with (the holistic) intelligence. But you see, some ( 'old school' ?) people have felt that by going through suffering people become purified, like going through the crucible – right?

JK: I know - that through suffering you 'learn' (the hard way, the lessons of Life?)

DB: Or you are being purified in some way.

JK: That through suffering your 'ego' is dissolved...

DB: Yes, dissolved, or... refined ?

JK: It doesn't (really?) . People have suffered immensely. How many wars, how many tears and the destructive nature of ( autocratic?) governments only multiply them - unemployment, ignorance...

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

JK: Suffering is a ( psychological) shock : - I suffer, I have pain, it is the essence of the 'me'.

DB: Yes, and the ( dualistic) difficulty with suffering is that it is the 'me' that is suffering. And this 'me' is really being 'sorry for itself' (in the first place ).

JK: 'My' suffering is different from 'your' suffering... We don't see that 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 is (the cause of this ) suffering. ( For starters?) it is not my suffering...

DB: Yes, well that is an important (experiential point) . 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 ( subjective ?) notion of the whole thing...

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

DB: If you are dealing with an illusion you can do nothing with it. But to come back : why is suffering the suffering of many? At first it seems that I feel pain in the tooth, or I have a loss, or something has happened to me, and the other person (on the street?) seems perfectly happy.

JK: Happy, yes.... but also he is (or he will be eventually ?) suffering too in his own way.

DB: So, at the moment he doesn't feel it, but he has his (psychological) problems too (which will manifest in time...) .

JK: Suffering is common to all humanity.

DB: Yes but the fact that it is common is not enough to make it 'all one'.

JK: It is actual.

DB: Yes, but aren't you saying that the suffering of mankind is 'all one', inseparable?

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

DB: As is the consciousness of man?

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: So, when anybody suffers, the whole ( consciousness?) of mankind is suffering ?

JK: The whole point is that we have suffered from the beginning of time, and we haven't solved it.

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

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

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

JK: Yes...

DB: Now any attempt to deal with an illusion (or with something which is not understood?) cannot solve anything. Now, we would like to make it very clear...

JK: ...that thought cannot solve anything psychologically ?

DB: Yes because 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' which creates illusion which can only multiply suffering. Now it seems to me that the statement that suffering of mankind is one, is inseparable from the statement that consciousness of mankind is one.

JK: We said that suffering is part of our (time-bound?) consciousness.

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

JK: Sir, ( consciousness-wise?) the world 'is' me, I 'am' the world.

DB: By the world you mean the physical world, or the world of society, or..?

JK: The 'psychological' ( mentality of the?) world primarily, chiefly.

DB: So, when I say 'I am the world', what does it mean?

JK: The ( total consciousness of the?) world is not different from me.

DB: The world and I are one - right? We are inseparable.

JK: Yes. But ( to see the inward truth of?) that requires a real meditation - it is not just a verbal statement, it is an 'actuality'.

DB: Yes, now many religions have said that.

JK: That is just a verbal statement, but they don't '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 (who were seeing & doing it?)

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

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

JK: Of course. Its own 'gods' and its own 'saviours'... So, is that intelligence actual? To me it is an actuality. Because the ending of suffering means ( the beginning of a new consciousness based on compassion &?) love.

DB: Yes now before we go on, let's clear up a point about the 'me'  ; You just said ''it is to me''. In some sense it seems that you are still defining an (integrated) individual - is that right?

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

DB: Yes but what does it mean? Let's say there may be two people, Mr 'A' who is the way you see (it) and Mr 'B' who is not ( holistically minded?). So this seems to create a division between Mr A and Mr B.

JK: That's right. But Mr B creates the division.

DB: Yes, Mr B' is creating the division by saying, "I am a separate person" but when Mr A says "It's not that way to me", it may confuse Mr B still further- right?

JK: Sir, that is the whole point : you feel that you are not separate and that you really have this sense of ( intelligent) love and compassion, and I haven't perceived it or gone into this question (as experiential homework) . What is your relationship to me?

DB: Well... ?

JK: That's what I am saying: you (Mr A) have a relationship with me but I (Mr B) haven't any ( authentic ) relationship with you.

DB: Well, one could say that the ( Mr B) person who hasn't seen is inwardly living a world of ( self-becoming?) dreams and therefore the world of dreams is not related to the world of being awake.

JK: That's right.

DB: But the ( Mr A) fellow who is awake can try to awaken the other fellow ?

JK: You are awake, I am not. Your (holistically responsible) relationship with me is very clear. But I (Mr B) have no relationship with you as I insist on division and you don't.

DB: In some way we have to say that the consciousness of mankind has divided itself - it is all one- but it has divided itself by thought – right?

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

DB: Yes, well that opens up an entirely different subject. But you have also mentioned Love & Compassion ?

JK: Without Love and Compassion there is no (holistic?) Intelligence. But you cannot be (intelligently?) 'compassionate' if you are attached to ( psychologically dependent on ?) some 'religion', and think (that your action ?) is compassionate.

DB: Well, as soon as your (temporal?) 'self' is threatened then it all vanishes, you see ?

JK: Of course. But this 'self' hides behind...

DB:...other things – like ( following some) noble ideals....

JK: Yes, it has an immense capacity to hide itself.... So what is the future of ( the consciousness of?) mankind? From what one observes it is leading to (self-) destruction... ?

DB: Yes, that is the way it seems to be going...

JK: ( Pretty?) 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 (for both children & parents?) becomes extraordinarily important. (Hint:) But for now, 'education' is merely (focussed on) the accumulation of ( technological skills & book ) knowledge.

DB: Well, every instrument that man has invented, discovered & developed has been ( eventually?) turned toward destruction.

JK: Yes sir, they are destroying nature...

DB:... they are destroying forests and agricultural land...

JK: ( Not to mention the?) over population... and nobody seems to ( really) care.

DB: I think there are two things: one is that (most?) people are immersed in their own problems, but there is also a tendency toward despair - in the sense that many people don't think anything can be done...

JK: Yes... And even if they think something can be done they form little groups, ( propagating their ) little theories.

DB: Well there are those who are very confident in what they are doing, but most people haven't much confidence in what they are doing...

JK: I know, I know. So, sir, what is the future of (the consciousness of ) humanity - I wonder if anybody is (seriously?) concerned with it? Or each person or group are only concerned with their own ( economical) survival?

DB: Well, I think the first concern (of mankind) has been always with survival either the individual or the group. You see, that has been the (unwritten?) history of mankind...

JK: Therefore perpetual wars, perpetual insecurity...

DB: Yes, but as you said, this is the result of a thinking ( dominated by self-interest?) which being incomplete, makes the (elementary) mistake to identify itself with the group and so on....

JK: You happen to 'listen' and 'see' the truth of all this, but people are asking: what is the point of you and I seeing something to be true and what effect has it (on the total consciousness of mankind) ?

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

JK: is a ( holistically?) 'wrong' question.

DB: ...because we are bringing in the very thing which is behind the trouble, 'time'. That is the first response : ''We must quickly get in and do something to change the course of events.''

JK: Therefore form a Foundation and all the rest of it....

DB: But you see our mistake is that we must 'think' about something (that has to be done) , while our own thinking is incomplete. We don't really know what is going on ( within man's consciousness) - people have made theories about it but they don't really know....

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

DB: Well I think it is the same as with 'Mr A' and Mr B : suppose 'Mr A' sees something and most of the rest of mankind does not. Then one could say ( the total consciousness of?) mankind is in some way day-dreaming...

JK: It is caught in illusion.

DB: Illusion. And if somebody sees something then his responsibility is to help awakening the others up - right? To get out of the illusion.

JK: That is just it. That is why the Buddhists have projected the idea of the (Maitreya ) Bodhisattva, who 'is' the essence of all compassion, and is waiting to save humanity. It is a happy feeling that there is somebody (is actually ?) doing this. But (as long as our thinking is functioning in the 'self-locked' mode?) we won't do anything that is not comfortable, (profitable?) satisfying & secure, both psychologically and physically.

DB: Well that is the source of the illusion, basically....

JK: They (pretend they) haven't time, they haven't the energy, they haven't even the inclination. They want to be 'amused' (culturally entertained ?)... How does one make Mr B see this whole thing so clearly that he says, "All right, I have got it - I am responsible so, I will (get to) work. I think that is the ( educational?) tragedy of those who 'see' and those who don't....
Is it over Sir? We have talked an hour...

DB: An hour and a half...

JK: We will wait now, sit quietly.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Feb 2020 #255
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

2ND (reader-friendly edited) K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM

J.Krishnamurti: Sir, last time we were talking about the (psychological?) future of man. Are the (modern?) 'psychologists' (& other psycho-activists?) really concerned with the future of (the human consciousness?) ? Or are they concerned with ( making a living from 'helping' ) the human beings conforming to the present ( state of?) society ?

David Bohm: Well, most psychologists evidently want the human being to conform to this society, but some psychologists, (including) some of whom will be listening to us, are thinking of going beyond that to transform the consciousness of mankind.

JK: Can the consciousness of mankind be changed through time? That is one of the questions we should discuss this evening.

DB: As we have discussed last time, with regard to consciousness time is not relevant, that it is a kind of (sleek thought-projected?) illusion. We discussed the illusion of ( self-) becoming.

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

DB: Yes. And since the ( global) future of mankind depends on the ( condition of the human?) psyche it seems then that its future is not going to be determined through actions in time. But then that left us with the (unanswered) question: what can we do?

JK: Let's proceed from there. Shouldn't we first distinguish between the 'brain' and the 'mind'?

DB: Well, this distinction is not very clear. (Are you implying that?) the mind and the brain are two different things ?

JK: Yes, I think they are two different things. First let's consider the 'brain' - one can observe one's own activity of the brain, that it is really functioning like a (biological?) computer that has been programmed (for collective & individual survival ?) and 'remembers'...

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

JK: No. But it is conditioned by ( the self-centred experience of the?) past generations, by the society & by all the activities and pressures from the outside.

DB: What do you exactly mean mean by this 'conditioning'?

JK: It is programmed to conform to a certain pattern of life, it lives entirely on its ( experience of the?) past, modifying itself with the present and going on.

DB: Yes, now we have agreed that some of this conditioning is useful and necessary, but the conditioning which determines the self, which determines the...

JK: ...the 'psyche'.

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

JK: Let's call it for the moment the 'psyche'. The self (-centred conditioning) .

DB: So, it is this 'self' (-centred ?) conditioning is what you are talking about. That may not only be unnecessary but harmful.

JK: Yes … Giving ( primary ) importance to this 'self' (-centred' consciousness?) , is creating great damage in the world because it is separative and therefore it is constantly in conflict - not only within itself – but with the society, with the family and so on and so on...

DB: Yes. And it is also in conflict with (the world of?) nature.

JK: With nature, and with the whole universe....

DB: And I think we discussed last time that the conflict arose because...

JK: ...of division...

DB: and the division arising because thought is limited...

JK: ...thought is limited. That's right.

DB: Being based on this conditioning, on knowledge and memory, it is limited.

JK: Limited, yes. And (as the human) experience is limited, therefore knowledge is limited, memory and thought. And the very structure and the nature of the 'psyche' (the temporal self?) is the movement of thought in time.

DB: But (regarding) this 'movement of thought'... it doesn't seem clear to me what is moving... It seems to me we are discussing something which is a kind of illusion because you have said becoming is the movement of thought...

JK: Becoming is entirely (the self-projected activity of thought ?) That is what I mean, the movement in becoming.

DB: But this (mental ) movement you are saying is in some way illusory, aren't you?

JK: Yes, of course, of course.

DB: It is rather like the movement on the screen which is projected from the...

JK: ...from the camera...

DB: ...from the video-projector . We say that there are no objects moving across the screen but 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 (psychological) conditioning?

JK: The constant assertion of the 'self' is the (psychological ) movement, is the conditioning.

DB: But there is some real movement happening for example, the brain is doing something. It has been conditioned physically and chemically...

JK: Yes...

DB: And something is happening physically and chemically when we are thinking of the 'self' – right?

JK: Are you saying the brain and the self are two different things?

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

JK: Yes. The ( temporal) 'self' is the conditioning the brain.

DB: Yes. But does this 'self' (really?) exist ?

JK: No, no...

DB: So, the conditioning of the brain, as I see it, is 'involving' (itself) with an illusion which we call the self.

JK: That's right.... Can this ( self-identified?) conditioning be dissipated?

DB: Yes... ?

JK: That's the whole question.

DB: So, it really has to be 'dissipated' in some physical and chemical and neurophysiological sense...

JK: Yes.

DB: Now the first reaction of any scientific person would be that it looks unlikely that we could dissipate it by the sort of thing we are doing here . You see some scientists might feel that maybe we will discover drugs or new genetic changes or acquire 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 some (science) people.

JK: Will that change the human behaviour?

DB: Well why not? You see I think some people believe it might.

JK: Wait a minute, that is the whole point. 'It might', means in the future.

DB: Yes. It would take time to discover all this.

JK: To discover all this. In the meantime man is going to destroy himself.

DB: Well then they might hope that he will manage to do it in time. You see because they could also criticize what we are doing, the same point saying what good can it do? It doesn't seem to affect anybody and will it affect mankind in time to really save (the civilised world?)

JK: Obviously not...

DB: Then why should we be doing it?

JK: Because this is the 'right' thing to do.

DB: Independently ?

JK: Independently. It has nothing to do with reward and punishment.

DB: We do the 'right thing' even though we don't know what the outcome will be – right?

JK: That's right.

DB: Are you 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 psychologists would feel that by enquiring into this sort of thing we could bring about an evolutionary transformation of consciousness.

JK: We come back to that point that through time we hope to 'change' ( bring about a holistic change in the human?) consciousness. We question that...

DB: We have questioned that and are saying that time will inevitably involve that we are all caught in (self-) becoming and illusion and we will not know what we are doing ?

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

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

JK: Yes, that's right. That's right.

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

JK: Both 'experimentalists' and the 'psychologists' and (possibly most of?) ourselves, they are all trying to become something.

DB: Yes, though it may seem that they are really just unbiased observers working on the problem, but underneath you feel there is the desire to become better on the part of the person who is doing it.

JK: To become, of course, of course...

DB: He is not free of that...

JK: That is just it. They are not free of that.

DB: And that desire will ( eventually?) give rise to self deception and illusion, and so on...

JK: So where are we now? That any form of (psychologically motivated?) becoming is an illusion and that for the (human) psyche to change, time is not necessary.

DB: Now, that ties up with the other question of the difference between the 'mind' and the 'brain'. You see, the brain can be understood as an activity in time, as a complex physio-chemical 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 and the mind (the content-free consciousness?) is not.

DB: Well what you are saying is that the mind has a certain independence of the brain. Even if the brain is conditioned...

JK: ...the other is not.

DB: It need not be... ?

JK: ...conditioned.

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

JK: No... let's not begin with ''on what basis do I say that ?''.

DB: Then, what makes you say it ?

JK: As long as one's brain is conditioned, it is not free.

DB: Yes... ?

JK: And the 'mind' is free.

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

JK: I will go into it (experientially?) Let's enquire: what is freedom?

DB: Yes... ?

JK: ( The inner?) freedom to enquire, the freedom to investigate, and it is only in freedom there is a deep insight.

DB: Yes, that's clear because if you are not free to enquire - or if you are biased - then your enquiry is limited...

JK: Limited.

DB: In an arbitrary way.

JK: So as long as the brain is conditioned its relationship to the 'mind' is limited. But the mind being free (of thought & time ?) has a relationship to the brain.

DB: you're saying the mind is 'free' in the sense it not subject to the ( timr-binding) conditioning of the brain ?

JK: Yes.

DB: Now one could ask a question: what is the nature of the 'mind'? For example I could ask is the 'mind' located inside the ( psychosomatic?) body, or in the brain?

JK: No, it has nothing to do with the (physical) body or the brain.

DB: Has it to do with space or time?

JK: It has to do with (inner) space and silence. These are the two factors of the 'mind'.

DB: But not time, right?

JK: Not time. ( The active memory of?) Time belongs to the brain.

DB: You say (inner) 'Space' and Silence, now what kind of 'space' is that ? It is not the ( the outer ) space in which we see life moving.

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

DB: So, in addition to the outer space that we can see ( outwardly ), thought can invent all kinds of space...

JK: And the space ( distance ?) from here to there.

DB: Yes, the space through which we move ( in the physical world ) is that way.

JK: ( Then there is also a ?) space also between two noises.

DB: Between two sounds ?

JK: Sounds...

DB: Well they call it the interval between two sounds.

JK: Yes, interval between two noises...

DB: Two noises, eh... ?

JK: (The silent interval between ?) two thoughts (or between two freight - trains of thought... ? )

JK: Space (or psychological distance?) between two people and so on. But that kind of space is not the (inward?) space of the 'mind'.

DB: You say (this inward space ) is not limited ?

JK: That's right. I didn't want to use the word 'limited'...

DB: It is not being bounded by something ?

JK: No, it is not bounded by the (temporal ?) 'psyche'.

DB: But... is it bounded by anything?

JK: No.

DB: You're saying the psyche is (time-) bounded because we have said it is limited and so on... Right?

JK: So can the (physical) brain with all its ( survival-) conditioned cells, can those cells radically change?

DB: Well, it is not certain that all the cells are conditioned. For example some people think that only a small part of the (brain's) cells are being used, and the others are just rather being dormant.

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

DB: Just touched occasionally. But those ( active) cells that are conditioned, evidently dominate our consciousness now – right?

JK: Yes, and can those cells be changed?

DB: Yes... ?

JK: We are saying that they can ( change qualitatively?) through insight.

DB: Yes... ?

JK: Insight being out of time, it is not the result of ( one's mental ?) remembrance, or desire, or hope, -( in a nutshell:) it has nothing to do with any ( self-centred movement of ?) time and thought.

DB: Yes, so this 'insight', is it of the mind, is (the timeless?) activity of mind?

JK: Yes.

DB: Therefore you are saying that (the compassionate intelligence of the?) 'mind' can act in the (living?) matter of the brain ?

JK: Yes, we said that earlier...

DB: Yes, but you see, this is a difficult point, how this 'mind' is able to act in brain's matter ?

JK: It is able to act on the brain. Say for instance, take any crisis, or any human problem : generally we meet it with all the remembrance of the past, with a (cultural) bias and so on. And therefore the (inward causation of the ) problem multiplies itself. Now to have (a global or 'holistic' ?) perception of the problem without any past memories and thoughts projecting themselves in the perception of the problem...

DB: Now, this implies that (such a holistic) perception also is of the mind ?

JK: Yes, that's right...

DB: Are you more or less saying that the brain is a kind of ( physical) instrument of the mind? Is that what is being said?

JK: (It can be an) instrument of the mind when the (inner activity of the ?) brain is not self-centred.

DB: Well, if we think of all (brain's time binding) conditioning, it may be thought of as the brain exciting itself and keeping itself going just from the ( traditional self-centred) programme. And this occupies the whole capacity of the brain. It is rather like a radio receiver which due to its (background) noise, it would not pick up a ( useful) signal. Would this ( technical) analogy be at all...

JK: Not quite...

DB: It is not very good but...

JK: Not very (meditation-friendly?)... You see sir, ( brain's temporal ?) experience is always limited... And so our knowledge is always limited. And this knowledge is operating in the brain. This knowledge 'is' the ( natural activity of the?) brain. Right? And ( its response as ) thought is also part of the brain and that thought is limited. So the brain is operating in a very, very small area (of what was previously experienced or known ?)

DB: what prevents it from operating in an unlimited area?

JK: Thought.

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

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

DB: So, essentially what you are asking is that the brain should really be responding to the ( compassionate intelligence of the?) mind ?

JK: And it can only so respond if it is free from the ( self-identified activity of ? ) thought which is limited.

DB: Yes, so (that its survival-oriented) programme does not dominate it. But you see, we may still need that programme.

JK: Of course. We need it for...

DB: ...for many things. Yes but is ( the quality of holistic) intelligence (coming?) from the mind then?

JK: Yes, intelligence 'is' the ( perceiving action of the?) mind.

DB: 'Is' the mind... ?

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

DB: Now is all that 'intelligence', 'compassion' and 'love', also of the mind?

JK: Of the ( universal?) mind. And you cannot be ( intelligent, loving & ) compassionate if you are attached to ( relying on?) any particular experience, or any particular ideal.

DB: Yes, well that is again the programme that is...

JK: Yes. Say for instance, there are those ( missionary) people who go out to various poverty ridden countries and work, work, work, and they call that compassion. But (inwardly) they are attached to a particular form of religious belief and therefore that is merely empathy but it is not compassion.

DB: Well I understand that 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! The contact between the mind and the brain can only exist when the brain is (inwardly) quiet.

DB: Yes... that is the requirement for making it - the brain has got to be quiet.

JK: But this is not a trained quietness. Not a self-conscious, pre-meditatated desire for silence, but the natural outcome of understanding one's own conditioning (of thought's intrinsical limitation ?) .

DB: Yes and one can see that if the brain is ( naturally ) 'quiet' it could listen to something deeper – right?

JK: Deeper, that's right. Then if it's quiet it is related to the mind. Then the (compassionate intelligence of the Universal ?) mind can function through the brain.

DB: I think that it would help (our listeners & readers) if we could see whether the brain has any activity which is beyond thought. For example, one could ask is awareness part of the ( holistically -friendly?) function of the brain?

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

DB: Well that may cause (a major experiential) difficulty. You see, what is wrong with (using inwardly one's freedom of ) choice?

JK: Choice (when applied inwardly) means confusion.

DB: It is not quite obvious... if I choose which colour I want to wear I don't see why that choice has to be confused.

JK: There is no confusion there.

DB: But the choice about the (inner qualities of your ?) 'psyche', it seems to me is where the confusion is.

JK: That's all, about the 'psyche'.

DB: You see, the ( holistic use of) language tends to carry one away...

JK: We are talking of the 'psyche' that chooses...

DB: ...that chooses what it wants to become...

JK: Yes. That chooses (what it wants?) to become and such choice exists where there is confusion.

DB: Yes. Well you are saying out of confusion the psyche makes a choice to become one thing or another - right? Being confused ( unhappy with its inward and/or outward condition ?) it tries to become something better.

JK: And this choice implies a duality...

DB: Yes but at first sight we have another ( metaphysical) duality which you have introduced, which is between the 'mind' and the 'brain'.

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

DB: That is important to get clear - what is the difference?

JK: Let's take a very simple example. Human beings are ( inclined to be ?) violent and the (ideal of) 'non-violence' has been projected by thought and that is a (psychologically motivated?) duality – between the 'fact' and the 'non-fact'.

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

JK: Between the 'ideal' and the 'fact'.

DB: Yes. The ideal is non-real and the fact is real.

JK: That's it. The ideal is not actual.

DB: Now, the division of those two you call duality. Why do you give it that name?

JK: Because they are divided and we are struggling to achieve those ideals, which are the outcome of thought, which is limited and this is creating havoc in the world...

DB: Yes. So we are trying to divide something which cannot be divided. We are trying to divide the ( nature of the?) 'psyche'. And the psyche cannot be divided into violence and non-violence – right?

JK: It is 'what it is'.
DB: It is what it is, so it can't be divided into a violent and a non-violent part.

JK: That's right. So - that is very good! So can we (quietly?) remain with 'what is', not with 'what should be', 'what must be' and invent ideals and all the rest of it?

DB: Now, to return to the question of the mind and the brain. You are saying that is not a division ?

JK: Oh no, that is not a division.

DB: Because they are in contact, is that right?

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

DB: Yes, so the mind can still have a certain independence of the conditioning of the brain.

JK: Now careful Sir, careful, careful! Mind obviously has no relationship with that conditioning.

DB: You are using the word Mind, it means it is not my mind.

JK: Oh, 'mind', it is not mine.

DB: Universal or general ?

JK: Yes. And it is not 'my' brain either.

DB: But there is a particular brain, this brain or that brain. Would you say there is a particular mind?

JK: No.

DB: That is an important difference. You are saying Mind is really universal ?

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

DB: Unlimited and undivided ?

JK: It is unpolluted, not polluted by thought.

DB: But for most people there will be an (experiential) difficulty in saying how do we know anything about this mind. I only know 'my mind', is the first feeling – right?

JK: You cannot call it 'your' mind. You only have 'your' brain which is conditioned. You can't say, "It is my mind".

DB: Well, whatever is going on inside ( myself) I feel is mine and it is very different from what is going on inside somebody else.

JK: No, I question whether it is different.

DB: At least it seems different.

JK: Yes. I question whether it is ( actually) different, what is going on inside me as a human being and you as another human being, as we both go through all kinds of (personal) problems, suffering, fear, anxiety, loneliness, suffer, and so on and so on. We have our own dogmas, beliefs, superstitions, and everybody has this...

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

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

DB: We have discussed that this division is an illusion perhaps.

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

DB: It is an illusion, all right. Although it is not obvious when (the average) person first looks at it...

JK: Of course, of course...

DB: Now then, we say the brain & mind are really connected - right? And beyond all that is an (universal?) Mind which has no division at all.

JK: It is unconditioned.

DB: it seems to imply then that in so far as a person feels he is a separate being he has very little contact with the Mind – right?

JK: Quite right. That is what we said it is very important to understand ( in the first place?) not the Mind but my ( self-isolating?) conditioning. Then whether that human conditioning, can ever be dissolved. That is the real issue.

DB: Yes. So, when we have (free access to a ) a mind that is universal, that is in (happening in?) some kind of (inner) space, or is (existing in ) it its own space?

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

DB: But it has a space ?

JK: It lives in Space and Silence.

DB: It lives in a space and silence, but it is a space of the Mind. It is not a space like this physical space?

JK: No. That Space (of the Universal Mind) is not invented (or imagined?) by thought.

DB: Yes, now is it possible to perceive this space when the mind is silent, to be in contact with it?

JK: Not 'perceive'....You are asking a question whether the Mind can be perceived by the brain.

DB: Or at least a sense of awareness ?

JK: Yes. We are saying 'yes', through Meditation. You see, the ( experiential) difficulty is that 'meditation' is generally understood as a 'meditator' meditating. Meditation is really a 'non- ( self) conscious' process.

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

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

DB: There is still a kind of awareness, isn't there?

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

DB: Possibly an awareness of something deeper... ?

DB: You see, there is a kind of 'unconsciousness' which we are simply not aware of at all. A person may be unconscious of some of his problems, conflicts.

JK: Let's go at it a bit more. If I do something (self-) consciously it is the activity of thought. Right?

DB: Yes, it is thought reflecting on itself.

JK: Yes, it is the activity of thought. Now if you are ( self-) 'consciously' (deliberately?) practise ( the art of?) meditation, then you are making the brain conform to another series of patterns...

DB: Yes, it is more self-becoming. You are trying to become better at it …

JK: There is no illumination by ( the ways of self-) becoming. You can't get illumined by saying I am going to be a 'cheap' (for profit?) guru .

DB: But now, it seems very difficult to communicate (verbally about) something which is not 'conscious', you see ?

JK: Let's put it that way: ( the self-) conscious meditation, the conscious activity to control (one's wandering ?) thought, or to free oneself from ( one's psychological) conditioning, is not 'freedom'.

DB: Yes, that is clear, but it becomes very unclear how to communicate what else can one do ?

JK: Wait a minute... Can I tell you what lies beyond thought ?

DB: Or what happens when thought is silent...

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

DB: What about the word 'attention'?

JK: Attention is (sounding) better for me. Would you say in this attention there is no (thought controlling?) centre as the 'me'?

DB: Well, in the kind of attention you are discussing. But usually we pay attention because of what interests us.

JK: The (holistic?) attention is not ( the result of mental) 'concentration'...

DB: Yes that (the self-motivated attention) is (a mental) concentration. But we are discussing a kind of attention without this 'me' present which is not the activity of the conditioning.

JK: ...not the activity of thought.

DB: Yes... ?

JK: In attention thought has no place....

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

JK: No, no. Would it help if we say (negatively) that concentration is not attention, (making a ) mental effort is not attention. (In a holistic nutshell) attention can only come into being when the 'self' is not (around?) .

DB: Yes but that is going to get us in a (vicious ) circle because we are starting ( to meditate ) when the 'self' is (still there...) .

JK: Let's put it that way : as long as there is a (psychologically motivated?) measurement, which is ( part of self-) becoming, there is no Meditation.

DB: Yes. We can discuss ( endlessly ?) when there is not meditation...

JK: Through negation (of the false approach to meditation?) the 'other' is.

DB: So, if we succeed in negating the whole ( self-centred) activity of what is not meditation the ( authentic?) meditation will be there ?

JK: That's right. That's right...As long as there is ( a psychologically motivated?) measurement, which is the ( self-centred) process of thought, meditation or ( inner peace & ) silence cannot be.

DB: So this undirected attention is it of the Mind ?

JK: The (thought- free?) attention is of the Mind.

DB: Well, and it contacts the brain, doesn't it?

JK: long as the brain is ( meditatively?) silent, the 'Other' has contact.

DB: That is, this true attention has contact with the brain when the brain is silent...

JK: Silent and has 'space' (the sense of 'spaciousness'? ) .

DB: What is this 'space' ?

JK: The brain has no 'space' now because it is self-centred and it is limited.

DB: Yes, the Mind is (existing) in its (unlimited) 'Space', but doesn't the brain have its (own inner) 'space' too?

JK: Limited. Thought has a limited space.

DB: But when thought is absent doesn't the brain have its (natural ) space?

JK: That's right. The brain has ( its natural inner) space, yes.

DB: Unlimited?

JK: No. It is only Mind that has an unlimited Space (spatiousness?) .

DB: Unlimited... ?

JK: My brain can be quiet over a problem which I have thought about and I suddenly say, "Well I won't think any more about it" and there is a certain amount of ( problem-free inner?) space. In that 'space' you solve the problem.

DB: So, if the (thinking brain) is silent, is not thinking of a problem, then its space is still limited, but it is open to...

JK: the 'other'.

DB: the attention. Would you say that through attention, or in 'attention', the Mind is contacting the brain?

JK: When the brain is not 'inattentive'.

DB: So what happens to the brain?

JK: We said (that Mind's Universal ) Intelligence is born out of Compassion and ( selfless?) Love. That Intelligence operates when the brain is quiet.

DB: Does it operate through ( this holistic?) attention?

JK: Of course, of course...

DB: So attention seems to be the (result of this ) contact.

JK:, naturally. But this (universally open ?) attention, can only be when the 'self' (- centred consciousness) is not ( interfering ?) .

DB: Yes. Now you say that love and compassion are the 'ground', and out of this comes the intelligence through attention ?

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

DB: Now, about this (insightful) 'intelligence' there are two (open ended?) questions: what is the nature of this intelligence, and what does it do to the brain, you see?

JK: Again, we must again approach it 'negatively'. Love is not ( what is generally associated with?) jealousy and all that. Love is not personal, but it can be personal.

DB: Well if it is (coming?) from the Universal Mind...

JK: That is why I say (that this universal ) Love (sense of unity with All That Is ?) has no relationship to thought.

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

JK: Yes, it is not 'my' love....When there is that ( selfless quality of?) love, out of that there is compassion and there is intelligence.

DB: Now what is this intelligence able to do ? Could one say that it understands 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 (the insightful?) perception. There can be perception only when there is no interference from the ( all-knowing) movement of thought – then there is a direct insight into a problem, or into a human complex(ity) ….

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

JK: Yes, when the brain is 'quiet'.

DB: We used the words perception and intelligence ; how are they related, or what is their difference?

JK: Between (a totally insightful) perception and intelligence?

DB: Yes... ?

JK: None.

DB: So we can say that ( the action of this) Intelligence is the perception of 'what is' - right? And the contact is made through attention... ?

JK: Sir, let's take a ( common psychological ?) problem, like the problem of suffering. Human beings have suffered endlessly, through wars, through every kind of disease, physical disease, and (especially?) through their wrong relationship with each other. Mankind has suffered a great deal. Now can that ( psychological condition?) end?

DB: Well I would say that the difficulty of ending it that is that its (causation is already recorded on) on the 'programme'. We are conditioned to (accept ?) this whole thing – right?

JK: Yes, and 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: It cannot end by any action of the ( survival oriented ) brain because it is caught in (the implicit acceptance of) suffering and it cannot take an action to end its own suffering.

JK: Of course, that is why thought cannot end it. ( The self-centred) thought has created it....Thought has created the wars, the misery, the confusion, and thought has become prominent in all human relationships.

DB: Yes, you see I think people might agree with that, but still think that as thought can do bad things, it can do good things....

JK: No, (psychologically-wise?) thought cannot do good or bad. It is ( self-centred) thought, limited.

DB: Thought cannot get hold of this suffering. That is this ( residual ) suffering being (enfolded?) in the physio-chemical conditioning of the brain, thought has no way of knowing what it is even. I mean that (just) by thinking I don't know what is actually going on inside me. I can't change the suffering inside because thinking will not show me what it is. Now you are saying it is (the compasionate action of?) Intelligence (that can do it?) .

JK: After all, we are asking can ( the ongoing causation of this ) suffering end? That is a problem....

DB: Yes, and it is clear that thought cannot do it because...

JK: That is the point : if I have an insight into it...

DB: Yes, and this insight will be the action of the Mind (through) intelligence and attention.
JK: When there is that (total?) insight, intelligence wipes away ( the causation of?) suffering.
DB: Yes, so you are saying there is a contact from Mind to ( brain cells') matter which removes the whole physical 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.

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

JK: Yes. Therefore it is like I have been going along a certain tradition (of self-cetred mentality ?) and if I suddenly change that (psychological?) tradition there is a ( qualitative) change in the whole brain, which has been going North, 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 is different from matter then people would find it hard to say that mind would actually...

JK: Sir... would you put it that ( the nature of ) Mind is pure (intelligent?) energy?

DB: Well we could put it that way, but say matter is energy too.

JK: Therefore matter is a limited (form of energy) , as thought is limited.

DB: So, we are saying that the pure energy of ( the Universal) Mind is able to reach into the limited energy of ( the consciousness of?) mankind ?

JK: Yes, that's right. And change (its time-binding?) limitations.

DB: Yes to remove some of the limitations....

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

DB: Yes, and we could also add that all the traditional ways of thought trying doing this cannot work because thought cannot get at the basis of its own physical & chemical basis in the cells, and do anything about those cells.

JK: Yes Sir, we have said very clearly that thought cannot bring about a change in itself.

DB: And yet practically everything that mankind has been trying to do is based on thought. There is a limited (technological) area, of course, where that is all right but we cannot do anything about the future of (the consciousness of ) mankind from the usual approach.

JK: Sir, we mustn't reduce all this to a (righteous) intellectual argument. But as (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 (the selfishness of) mankind?

JK: It might, or it might not. As for the question: '' what is the use of it?'' I think it is a wrong question.

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

JK: If each one of us, whoever 'listens', sees the truth of this (psychological fact) that thought in its activity both externally and inwardly has created a terrible mess, great suffering, then one must inevitably ask is there an ending to all this? And if thought cannot end it, what will?

DB: Yes... ?

JK: What is the new instrument that will put an end to all this misery? You see, there is a new ( holistic) instrument of the Mind, which is Intelligence. But the difficulty is (that most) people won't 'listen' to all this. They have come to definite conclusions, both the scientists and the ordinary laymen, they won't 'listen'.

DB: Yes, a few people don't seem to have much effect...

JK: Of course, but after all the 'few people' have changed the world.

DB: Well they didn't change it fundamentally.

JK: No, changed the world superficially if you like. The physical revolutions have never changed 'psychologically' the human condition...

DB: Well do you really think it is possible that a certain number of brains coming in contact with the Mind in this ( meditative ?) way will be able to have an affect on ( the whole consciousness of) mankind which is beyond the immediate obvious 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 a possibility of something entirely different – right?

JK: You see - I have often thought about it - how do you convey to all this rather subtle and very complex issue, to a person who is steeped in tradition, who is conditioned and won't even take time to listen, to consider?

DB: You see, one point is that this conditioning cannot be absolute, you know an absolute block or else there would be no way out at all. But the conditioning may be thought to have some sort of permeability. Is it possible that every person has something he can 'listen' to, if it could be found?

JK: If he takes a little patience....So, who will listen? The idealists won't listen, the deeply steeped religious people won't listen. So perhaps Sir that is the whole point, a so-called 'ignorant' person, not highly educated and conditioned in his professional career, the man who says, "I am suffering, please let's end that."

DB: But even he doesn't listen either, you see. He wants to get a job.

JK: Of course...So perhaps it is like a wave in the world - it might catch somebody...

DB: Well, are you proposing that it affects ( the whole consciousness of?) mankind through the Mind directly, rather than through...

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

DB: So, you are taking very seriously what you said that the mind is universal and is not separate...

JK: Yes. You see Sir there is an (implicit) danger in saying that the Mind is universal, that is what some people say of the Mind, and it has become a (cultural) tradition.

DB: You can turn it into an idea, of course.

JK: That is just the danger of it, that is what I am saying.

DB: Yes. But the (experiential?) question really is the we have to come directly in contact with this (Mind) , to make it real – right?

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

DB: Yes. Would it be worth discussing the question of the 'self', since the 'self ( -identified' consciousness?) is widely active...

JK: I know, that ( self-centredness?) is our long tradition of many, many centuries...
DB: Now is there some ( practical) aspect of Meditation which can be helpful here when the 'self' is acting. Suppose a person says, "OK, I realise that I am caught in the self but I want to get out. What shall I do ?" What would you tell him or her?

JK: That is very simple. Is the 'observer' different from the ( conditioning which is being ?) 'observed'?

DB: Well suppose one says, "Yes, it appears to be different", then what?

JK: Is that an 'actuality'?

DB: What do you mean?

JK: It is an actuality when there is no division between the 'thinker' and the 'thought'.

DB: But ordinarily one feels the 'observer' is different from the 'observed'. I'll say we begin there....

JK: Look at it. Are 'you' (the 'observer') different from your anger, from your envy, from your suffering? You are not.

DB: At first sight it appears that I am, and that I might try to control it.

JK: You 'are' that.
DB: Yes...and how will I see that I 'am' that?

JK: You 'are' ( identified with?) your name. You 'are 'your form, body. You are the belief, you are the fear, you 'are' the suffering and pleasure. You are all that.

DB: Yes but the first experience is that I am here first and that those are (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: But (the bottom line is that ?) you 'are' (openly or subliminally identified with?) all that.

DB: But you see, it is not obvious. When you say I 'am' that, do you mean that I am ( stuck with all) that and cannot be otherwise?

JK: No. At present you 'are' that. It can be totally otherwise.

DB: Yes, OK. So ( as of now?) I am all that...but I feel that I as the observer, am not angry but an unbiased observer who is looking at anger.

JK: Of course...

DB: So, are you telling me that this unbiased observer is the same as the anger he is looking at?

JK: Of course. Like when I analyse myself, the 'analyser' is the (inward stuff being) analysed.

DB: So if I watch anger for a while I can see that I am very biased by the anger, and at some stage I realise that I am one with that (personally biased reaction of) anger – right?

JK: Not 'I am one with it' - you are it !

DB: But that ( reaction of) anger and 'I' arereally the same ?

JK: Yes. ( In a holistically friendly meditation ?) the observer 'is' the observed. And when that actuality exists you have really eliminated altogether conflict (the inner) . Conflict exists when 'I' am (feeling) separate from my 'quality'.

DB: Yes, if I believe myself to be separate then I can try to change it, but since I 'am' that, it (the observing 'self' ) is not trying to change itself and remain itself at the same time, right?

JK: Yes, that's right. When the quality 'is' me, the division (the self divisive mentality of?) has ended. Right?

DB: Yes, when I see that the quality 'is' me then there is no point to (fight?) the whole thing...

JK: When the ( inwardly observed) quality is not me, then in that there is conflict, suppression and all the rest, which is a wastage of ( intelligent) energy. When that quality 'is' me, all that energy which has been wasted is (present) there to look, to observe.

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

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

DB: Yes, well then there is no perception of a difference, the mind does not try to fight itself.

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

DB: While if there is the illusion of a difference, (the thinking) mind must be 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 the brain just stops fighting ( its own shadow ?) .

JK: Stops fighting, and therefore you have a tremendous energy (to be integrated?) .

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

JK: Yes, yes. And (this newly awakened & integrated ) energy means attention.

DB: Wait a minute... we said before that attention was a contact of the Mind and the brain.

JK: Yes sir...

DB: 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 a ) 'low energy' (mode) because we are so conditioned.

DB: So, essentially you are saying that (eliminating the 'observer' vs 'observed' conflict?) is the (right) way to start ( meditating?) ?

JK: Yes sir... Start simply.

DB: Yes... ?

JK: Start with 'what is', with 'what I am'. That is why (the correct understanding of ) self knowledge is so important. Self knowledge is not a process of accumulating knowledge (about oneself ) , which then looks (knowledgeably?) at (what is) , but a constant learning about oneself.

DB: Yes, well if you call it 'self knowledge', it is not the knowledge we talked about before, which is conditioning (time-binding?)

JK: That's right. Knowledge (the inward mentality of 'knowing' ) conditions.

DB: But you are saying that self knowledge of the ( 'not-knowing' ? ) kind is not conditioning (not time-binding ?) . But why do you call it 'knowledge'? Is it a different kind of knowledge?

JK: Yes, yes....the 'self knowing', which is to know and to comprehend one's self -which is such a subtle complex thing, it is living.

DB: It's essentially 'knowing yourself' in the very moment in which things are happening.

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

DB: ...rather than store it up ( as static knowledge) in one's memory ?

JK: Of course. Through ( observing my personal ?) reactions I begin to discover what I (really?) am, and so on & on...

(I think we had better stop, right?)

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 16 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Feb 2020 #256
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

1ST (reader-friendly edited ) K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM & DAVID SHAINBERG (cca 1976)

Krishnamurti: What do you think is the most important thing that we three can talk about?

Dr. Shainberg: Well, the one thing I had an idea lately, that life comes first and not one's thought ; in other words, I find in myself, and find - I think most people are cought up in the fact that we live second hand lives. If we could talk about the 'second handness' of our lives.

K: What do you say?

Dr. Bohm: Well, in relation to that perhaps I would like to talk about the question of 'wholeness'.

K: Shall we talk about 'wholeness' first and then include yours ?

S: I think this is part of that : our life's 'second-handedness' - it's lack of wholeness.

K: Quite. I wonder how we can approach this question knowing that most people are (inwardly) fragmented and not whole. How do we tackle or approach this question?

S: Through a direct awareness of this fragmentation ?

K: Are we discussing it theoretically, or taking ourselves as we are and examining what we mean by ( being inwardly?) 'fragmented'. And then work from there to what is the wholeness ?

S: Right.. if we see the inward fragmentation, wholeness is there.

K: Don't assume anything. We have been talking to lots of students here : whether we can ever be aware of (the totality of?) ourselves, or we are only aware of patches, not of the totality of our fragmentations.

S: Go ahead.

K: Can one become aware of the various fragments, examining them one by one ? And isn't alsi the 'examiner' a fragment who has assumed an (intellectual) authority? So when we talk about being aware of our 'fragments' - socially, morally, ethically, religiously - business, art, you know, the whole human activity is fragmented. Is one aware of the (interactive?) movement of these fragments or do you take one fragment and examine it or say yes, I am aware of that and not the many ?

S: When I think of what you are saying, I seem to be aware of one at a time, you know, like a machine-gun.

K: So you are really aware one by one ?

S: Right. And cought up by the (conflicting activity of the?) fragments.

K: One by one... Are you sure that it is so?

S: Yes, but then sometimes I can take a step back, when I am aware of these many.

K: When Dr. Bohm asked this question of wholeness , I wonder from what source he is asking that question.

S: You mean whether he is coming from a fragmented position or he is coming from a wholistic position?

K: If one may ask, are we aware of the fragments as a whole or are we aware of one fragment at each time? What do you say?

B: Generally, the thing presents itself first as primarily one fragment with a background of all the other fragments perhaps dimly present in it. I mean, in the beginning one fragment seems to take a pre-eminence in awareness.

S: Isn't that one fragment fragments out quickly into many little fragments. I have an idea and then that idea is in contrast to another idea and so I am immediately cought up into two fragments there. And then I have another idea which is the repeatition of that first idea. So I am caught up in a movement of fragments, my identity is fragmented, my relationship is fragmented, my very substance of movement is a feeling of fragmentation. I don't have any centre when I am fragmented.

K: I am not at all sure that there is no centre when you are fragmented.

B: Right... definitely there is a centre.

K: There is.

B: And that is the major fragment that one is aware of.

S: Let us go into that more.

B: Well, I just think that there is a centre which you may sense anywhere, say here, and that seems to be the centre of everything you are doing.

K: Are you aware of the this fragmentation?

S: Not really...
K: Then what are we aware of?

S: I think - that is a terrific question - because when there is fragmentation what we are aware of is like being sucked into more fragments. In other words there is a kind of movement of more fragmentation, which is what we are aware of. It is what you have talked about in terms of pleasure. It is like pleasure is pulling us forward into more fragments: this would give me pleasure, that would give me pleasure, that would give me pleasure. And it is that feeling of pieces.

K: Before we go into the question of pleasure, are we aware actually, or from a (self-conscious) 'centre', which says, "I am fragmented"? That is the question, isn't it?

B: We are both aware of a centre, and from a centre. And this centre seems to be, as you say, the fragment that is dominating, or attempting to dominate.

K: That 'centre' is the dominating factor. But it is itself a (self-identified) fragment.

B: Yes, but it seems to be the centre of your being, or as it were the centre of the self, which one might think is the whole of one's consciousness, because (as the 'thinker' or 'expeiencer') it is in contact with everything, you see.

K: Would you say that having a 'centre' is the very cause of man's existential fragmentation?

B: Yes, I would say that although at first sight it seems to organize everything into a coherent whole.

K: Yes, trying to bring about integration, try to bring a sense of (stability & )wholeness, and all that.

S: Right...if you feel the fragmentation, then you centre here and say, "I can see all the fragmentations" - but that is still centre.

K: I am asking whether this 'centre' (of self-interest) doesn't make for (an artificial) fragmentation of ( one's total consciousness?) ?

S: I see what you are saying. But I am trying to take it from what is the actual experience of fragmentation....

K: I am becoming aware of the fragments because of the contradiction (created by conflicting interests between two ) opposing factors.

B: By contradiction you also mean conflict ?

K: Out of contradiction there is conflict. Then I am becoming (painfully?) aware that there are (conflicting) fragments and that I am working in an area of fragments.

S: Right... But then I am not aware that in fact I got a 'centre'. That is the main self deception, right there.

K: If I may suggest, when there is ( a disturbing sense of inner ) conflict then only you are aware of a the conflict that arises out of fragmentation; between opposing elements, opposing desires, opposing wishes, opposing thoughts.

B: But are you saying that these oppose first before one is aware; and then suddenly you are becoming aware (the hard way ?) of the pain of this opposition since (more often than not) that (state of inner ) conflict is unpleasant?

K: Yes, (the state of inner) conflict is unpleasant and therefore one is aware that...

B: ...that something is wrong ?

K: Wrong. Yes...

B: Not just simply wrong but that something is wrong with the whole thing.

K: Sir, after all, you are aware of 'yourself' only when there is pain, or intense pleasure (or any mixture of them ?) So ( the state of inner) conflict (created by one's inner ) fragmentation brings this awareness that I am in conflict - otherwise there is no awareness.

S: And you are saying that the fragmentation itself breeds (necessity of an all-controlling mental ) centre ?

K: Breeds (or enforces?) the 'centre'.

S: And the 'centre' is breeding the fragmentation, so it is like a (self-sustained self-consciousness)

K: Yes, back and forth.

B: Would you say that this 'centre' ( of self-interest) and thought are always co-existent and that one breeds the other... ?

K: One breeds the other, quite.

B: ... or thought comes first and that produces conflict and then it produces a (thought coordinating?) centre.

S: That's a good one...

K: One is becoming (uncomfortably?) aware of the 'centre' only when there is conflict.

B: Yes, and thought comes in apparently to try to bring about a sense of wholeness again, to take charge of everything.

K: The centre tries to create ( an inner sense of) wholeness ?

B: Yes, to bring all the (conflicting) factors together.

K: Yes, but the centre itself is a fragment.

B: Yes, but (thought) doesn't know that.

K: Of course, it doesn't know but it thinks it can bring all the fragments together and make it a whole. So Dr Bohm was asking the ( old 'chicken or the egg'?) question : did thought exist before the centre, or the centre existed before the thought ?
B: Or are the two (sustaining themselves ) together?

S: So, does thought create the centre in the first place ?

K: Thought creates the centre.

S: So, it would be an after effect of the thought process . In other words, was there a kind of thought before a centre?

K: Yes. (the survival oriented) thought was there before the centre. That's it.

B: Which came into contradiction with what most people think : that the 'me' was there first and then 'I' began to think! Right ?

K: I think thought existed before the centre.

S: But then we have to ask the question :what is thought?

K: Oh, that is a different matter. We will go into that (...some other time?) .

B: That might be a long story...

S: Not now, but eventually we'll have to get at that...

K: We started out asking about the wholeness of life. How can one be aware of that wholeness if one is (inwardly) fragmented? That is the next question. You can't be aware of the whole if I am only looking through a small hole.

S: Right. But in actuality you 'are' the whole.

K: Ah! (At this point?) that is a (very convenient) theory.

S: Is it?

B: A supposition, yes.

K: Of course, when you are (inwardly) fragmented how can you assume that you are the whole?

S: Well that is an issue, because how am I to know I am fragmented?

K: When are you aware that you are fragmented? Only when there is(an inner state of) conflict. When the two opposing desires, opposing elements of (psychologically motivated) movement, then there is conflict, then you have pain, or whatever it is, and then you become conscious (of an inner fragmentation) .

S: Right. But at those moments it often happens that you don't want to let go of the conflict...

K: That is a different matter. What we are asking is : can the (central) fragment dissolve itself ? Then only it is possible to see the whole.

S: Right...all you really know is your fragmentation.

K: Therefore let's stick to that (psychological condition ) and not beat round the bush and say, let's talk about the whole and all the rest of it.

B: The supposition that there is a wholeness (of one's consciousness) may be reasonable but as long as you are (inwardly) 'fragmented' you could never see it. You may think you have experienced it once, but that is gone.

K: Absolutely. Quite right.

S: I wonder if there is not a tremendous ( anxiety or ) pain that goes on when I am becoming aware of my fragmentation. That is the (acute pain of) loneliness somehow.

K: Look sir: can you be aware of your fragments? That you are (identifying yourelf as?) an American, I as a Hindu, you as a Jew or a Communist – and you just live ( safely anchored?) in that state. And it is only when you are personally challenged : ''What are you?", then you (remember your roots and) say, "I am an Indian", or a Hindu...

B: And when your whole country is challenged then you have got to worry.

S: So you are saying that I am living totally ( mechanically & ) reactively ?

K: No, you are living in a kind of confusion. So can we be actually aware, now, of the various fragments? That I am a businessman, I am married, I have family responsibilities, I am an artist, I am a scientist. All this various sociologically ( sustained ) fragmentation, as well as psychological fragmentation...

S: That is exactly what I started with : This feeling of being a fragment.

K: Which you call your 'individuality'.

S: That I call important, not just my (self-centred?) 'individuality'.

K: So can we now in talking over together, become (compassionately?) aware that I got ( un-knowingly identified with) an (egocentric ?) fragment and therefore creating more conflict, more misery, more confusion, more sorrow in the world because when there is (this fragmentary consciousness ) it affects everything.

S: Right...

K: Can you become aware of it as we are discussing?

S: I can be aware of it a little....

K: Look sir (in the field of reality?) You are only aware of it when there is a conflict (of between various fragments ) but now, there is not such a conflict in yourself...

B: But isn't it possible to become aware of one's inner fragmentation) without conflict?

K: That requires quite a different approach...

B: And how will we consider this 'different approach', given that the (egocentric) 'fragment' claims that it is the whole ?

K: Look at what is presently happening : our whole world is broken up that way, outside and inside.

S: Me and you ?

K: Yes, me and you, we and they, and all the rest of it.

B: Now, there is a difference between having a lot of different fragments which are separate and so on, ( which eventually can handle intelligently) and being (wholly identified wih one)...

S: That is exactly how we come to believe in (the reality of) these fragments : we look at (other people ) and we see they are separate human beings , therefore I am a separate thing...

K: Yes...

B: But the ( identification with an) ideal (or with a righteous ideology?) has become so very important, for otherwise I feel that I am totally in error. It is all important, that is one of the (reassuring) ideas. And if somebody else has the idea that he is something else – which for him it is also all important - therefore they must clash with each other....

K: Quite. And I think the politicians, and the so called 'religious' people are encouraging all this (psychological reliance on nice sounding ideals?) .

B: But they are also running by fragments.

K: Of course, they are themselves (inwardly) fragmented. You see that is the whole point. People who are in power, being ( seriously) fragmented (inwardly) , sustain (and encourage?) the (mentality of ego-centric ) fragmentation.

S: Right. The only way to get into power, is to be ( egocentrically ?) fragmented. He says, it is all important that I should be a politician, successful and so on. Now, this 'movement in fragmentation', seems to be caused by something....

K: Is this what you are asking: what is the cause of man's (ego-centric) fragmentation?

S: Yes. Right. What is the cause of the this (ego-) fragmentation? What breeds it? What sucks us into it?

K: We are asking something very important, which is: what is the cause of this fragmentation?

S: That is what I was getting into. There is some cause there and it begins where thought has to 'hold on' to something.

K: Just look at it sir. What has brought (this ego-) fragmentation in you?

S: Well, my immediate response is the need to 'hold on' to something (inwardly stable?) .

K: No, much deeper than that...Why are you and I and the majority of the world (egocentrically?) fragmented? What is the cause of it?

S: It seems that there is a ( subliminal process of self-) focussing or of a 'holding on' to something inside my movements...

K: Sir, try to look at it not from Dr Shainberg's professional point of view, just put it on the table and look at it objectively. What brings about this fragmentation?

S: Fear (of not being?)

K: No, no, much more...

B: Maybe the (thought's self-) fragmentation causes fear.... ?

K: Yes, that's it. What makes me a 'Hindu'?

S: Well, (your cultural) conditioning makes you a Hindu.

K: What is the (psychological) background, that makes me say "I am a Hindu"? Which is obviously a fragmentation (of one's total consciousness?) ?
My father, my grandfather, generations and generations after five or ten thousand years, they have said, ( be proud that) you are a Brahmin. And all that makes me say ''I am a Brahmin''.

S: You don't just say or write, 'I am a Brahmin', you 'are' a Brahmin. That is quite different...

K: It is like you saying, I am a Christian.

S: Right...

K: Which is what?

S: That is (the result of) one's tradition, conditioning, sociology, history, culture, family, everything...

K: But behind that, what is it?

S: Well, that (assertion) gives me a place in society, an identity, I know who I am, I have created my my little (psychological) niche.

K: Who made that 'niche'?

S: Well I made it and they helped me make it.

K: You are it.

S: I 'am' it, that's right... The whole thing is moving towards putting me in a hole.

K: So your great great grandparents created this environment, this culture, this whole structure of human existence, with all its misery and with all the mess it is in, what has brought it about?

S: The same (self-centred) action that makes man right now. All this is all giving me my secondhand existence.

K: Is it due to the desire for security, biological as well as psychological security?

S: You could say yes...

K: If I ( think that I ) 'belong' to something, to some organization, to some ideological community, I am feeling safe there.

B: You may only feel safe.

K: I feel safe then. But it may not be ( an authentic) safety.

B: It seems essential that I shouldn't enquire too far to feel secure, isn't it? In other words, I must stop my enquiry at a certain point, because if I start to ask questions...

K: ...Then you are out! If I begin to ask questions about one's community or about my relationship to the world, I am out of the community. So to feel safe, secure & protected, I belong.

B: I depend wholly in the sense that if I don't have that then I feel the whole thing is sunk...

S: (But as a psy ?) not only do I 'depend' (on the psy-community), but every problem that I now have is with reference to this dependency. I don't actually know about the patient, I only know about how the patient doesn't fit into my system. So that is becoming my (conscience?) conflict.

B: It is still not clear why should I go on asking questions ? In other words as long as I don't ask questions I can feel comfortable. But then if I look at it more broadly I see the whole thing has no foundation, it is all dangerous. In other words this community itself is in a mess, it may collapse. Even if the whole of it doesn't collapse, you can't count on the academic profession anymore, they may not give money for universities. Everything is changing so fast that you don't know where you are.

K: Why don't I ask (the fundamental psychological) questions? Because of fear.

B: Yes, but that fear is from our own inner fragmentation .

K: Of course. So this (self-interest based) fragmentation takes place when one is seeking security - primarily psychologically, then physically.

B: Isn't the tendency to seek security physically built into the organism?

K: Yes, that's right. I must have food, clothes, shelter. It is absolutely necessary...

S: Right.... But let's go a little bit slower here. You are suggesting there that in my need for security biologically I must have some fragmentation ?

K: No (or...not necessarily?) sir. The inner fragmentation takes place when I want security psychologically (inwardly) .

S: OK...

K: That is: if I don't (feel that) 'psychologically' I belong to a group, then (sooner or later...?) I am out of that group. As long as the group gives me physical security, I may accept everything they say to me, but the moment I object psychologically to the structure of that community I am lost.

S: Right....So you're you suggesting that the (instinctive?) answer to this is a conditioned fragmentation?

K: Partly... if there was no fragmentation, both historically, geographically, nationally, we would have lived perfectly safely. All would be protected, you would all have food, all have houses, there would be no wars, we'd be all one. But this (self-centred) fragmentation prevents that taking place.

B: Aren't we going around in a circle.. ?

K: Yes, sir...but we are asking: why does this fragmentation take place? What is the source of it? Is it knowledge?

S: What do you mean by 'knowledge', what are you talking about there?

K: The ( psycholgical aspects of ) knowing . To say, 'I know you', means I am acquainted or intimate with that movement which is going on in yourself. So, it would be (a delusion) on my part to say, I know you. So our knowing, is (based of our experience of) the past. Wouldn't you say that?

B: Yes, what we know is ( based on our memory of) the past.

K: All our knowledge is the ( result of) past.

B: If we recognized, acknowledged that the past is gone, and that what we know is (coming from) the past, that would not introduce fragmentation... ?

K: No, it wouldn't.

B: But if we say what we know is ( encompassing) what is present now, then we are introducing a certain fragmentation, because we are imposing this partial knowledge on the whole.

K: Wouldn't you say ( that our self-centred) 'knowledge' is one of the factors of fragmentation?

B: And also there are plenty of other factors...

K: Yes... bnd that may be the only ( central?) factor.

B: I think we should look at it this way: that generally people hope that by ( acquiring the right kind of?) knowledge they could overcome (their own inner) fragmentation ?

K: Of course...

B: Trying to produce a system of knowledge that will put it all together...

K: Is that not one of the major factors, or perhaps the factor of fragmentation? My experience tells me, I am a Hindu: my experience tells me I know what God is...

B: Wouldn't it be better to say that ( the wide spread) confusion about the proper value of knowledge is because of fragmentation?

K: Of course, and as we said yesterday in our talk; the 'art' (of living) is putting things in its right place. So I will put knowledge in its right place.

S: I was just going to bring in this rather interesting example of a patient of mine who said, I have the feeling that as a doctor the way you operate is : a group of doctors have seen certain kinds of patients, and haved learned that if they do this ( particular thing) to their pacients they will get a certain kind of effect. (the psy-doctor) are not actually talking to me, you are just doing this (procedure) to me hoping you will get this result. (Laughter)

K: Quite...

S: That is what you are saying ?

K: No, a little more than that : we are saying, (mankind's practical) knowledge has its right place, but when knowledge assumes it understands the whole(ness of life?) then begins the mischief.

B: But this is often very tricky because I am not explicitly spelling out that I understand the whole of life , but it is implicit by saying that everything is happening this way, or I 'am' this way...

K: Quite, quite...

B: It implies that the whole of me, the whole of life, the whole of the world is this way, you see.

S: Krishnaji was saying that is this how we deal with ourselves : 'I know this and that (fact) about me' rather than being open to the new. Or even being aware of the fragmentation...

B: So, I shouldn't say 'I know all about the pacient ' because (s)he is not a limited part like a machine is. You see the machine is fairly limited and we can know all that is relevant about it, but when it comes to another person that is immensely beyond what you could really know. Our past experience doesn't tell you the essence.

K: Are you saying, Dr Bohm, that when knowledge spills over into the psychological field...

B: In the field which I call the 'whole'. You see sometimes it spills over into the philosophical field and man tries to make it 'metaphysical', applying to the whole universe. Some (science) people may feel that when they are discussing the 'metaphysics' of the whole universe that is not psychological, it probably isn't but the motives behind it may be 'psychological'.

S: What you are saying can be extended to the way people are (thinking) . They have a metaphysics about other people: I know all other people are not to be trusted...

B: Or you have a metaphysics about yourself saying, I am such and such a person.

S: Right, I have a metaphysics (an existential theory) that life is hopeless and I must depend on these things.

K: ( In a holistic nutshell ?) all you can say is that we are fragmented. That is a fact. And I am ( becoming) aware of this fragmented mind, when there is a conflict.

B: But you were also saying before that there might be an approach where we are not aware just because of that. Are we coming to that?

K: Coming, yes... I said, what is the source of this conflict. The source is fragmentation, obviously. What brings about fragmentation? What is the cause behind it? We said, perhaps it is due to how we I use knowledge psychologically, ( pretending that) I know myself, when I really don't, because I am changing, moving. Or I may use knowledge for my own satisfaction, for my position, for my success, for becoming a great man in the world. I am a great scholar. I have read a million books and I can tell you all about it. It gives me a certain prestige, a status. So (man's inward) fragmentation takes place when there is a desire for security, psychological security, which prevents biological security?

S: Right....

K: And (the desire for) security may also be one of the factors: security in knowledge used wrongly.

B: Or could you say that some sort of ( honest?) mistake has been made, that man feels insecure biologically, and he tries to obtain a psychological sense of security by knowledge?

S: By 'knowing', yes. By repeating himself, by depending on all of these structures.

K: One feels secure in having an ideal...

S: Right.... That is so true.

B: But somewhere one asks why a ( thoughtful?) person makes the same mistake ? If his mind had been absolutely clear, it would never have done that.

S: Yes, but we have just said that there is biological insecurity. I mean there's that biological fact of my constant uncertainty. The biological fact of everything being in a constant change.

K: That is created (or sustained) through psychological fragmentation.

B: Now let's look at that. I may have no money tomorrow. If his mind was clear, what would be his response?

K: You would never be put in that position.

B: But suppose he finds himself without money, you see.

K: He would do something...

B: So, his mind won't just go to pieces and go into this well of confusion.

K: So, we were trying to stick to one (experiential) point: what is the cause of this fragmentation?

S: Right... ?

K: We said ( mankind's mentality of indiscriminately gathering all kinds ? ) knowledge has spilled over into the field where it should not enter.

B: But why does it do so ?

K: Why does it do it? That is fairly simple (to figure out for homework ?) .

S: My sense is that it does it in a delusion of security. Thought creates the illusion that there is security there.

B: Yes, but why doesn't intelligence show that there is no security, you see?

K: Can a fragmented mind be ( holistically?) intelligent?

B: Well, it resists ( any compassionate act of) intelligence. But are you saying that once the mind fragments then intelligence is gone?

K: Yes...

B: But now you are creating a serious problem (for the present & future truth seekers ?) , because you are also saying that there can be an ending of this (inner) fragmentation.

K: That's right.

B: You see at first sight that would seem to be a contradiction....

K: It looks like that, but ( in the field of meditation?) it is not.

S: What if all I know is fragmentation ?

K: Let's go through it ( as meditation homework?) and see if it can end.

B: But you have just said that (a holistically friendly) intelligence cannot operate within a fragmented mind..

K: ( Another issue to be contemplated for homework : ?) is psychological security more important than biological security?

S: That is an interesting (homework) question... It isn't but it sounds like it is
K: : What is the fact to you?

S: I would say the biological security is more important, but my psychological security is what I actually worry about most.

K: Which (eventually) prevents biological security. Because I am seeking psychological security, in ideas, in knowledge, in pictures, in images, in conclusions, and all the rest of it, this ( fragmented activity) prevents me from having biological, physical security for me, for my son, for my children, for my brothers. I can't have it.

S: No question...

K: So can we be free of the desire to be psychologically secure?

S: That is the question.

K: Of course it is. Last night I was listening on TV to some people talking about Ireland, and various things. Each man was completely 'convinced' (of having the right answer for it?)

S: That's right. I sit in on (doctor's ) meetings every week. Each man thinks his territory is the most important.

K: Soman has given more importance to psychological security than to physical security.

B: But it is not clear why he should delude himself in this way.

K: That is, he has deluded himself because - why, why? Because the ( optimising the survival of the temporal) 'me' is ( considered?) the most important thing : my position, my happiness, my money, my house, my wife –( the 'I-me-mine') ..

B: Yes. And each person feels the 'me' is the very essence of the whole. I would feel that if the 'me' were gone the rest wouldn't mean anything.

K: That is the whole point. The ( self- identification of the ) 'me' gives (the sense of a ) complete security, psychologically.

B: It seems all important, because people say, if I am sad then the whole world has no meaning.

K: So, we are saying that in the 'me' is the greatest security.

S: That is what we like to think...

K: No, not just whay we think. This is what is happening (in the real) world .

B: That is what is happening. But it is a delusion.

K: We will come to that later.

S: I think that is a good point - the 'me' is what is important. That is all it is.

K: Psychologically (inwardly-wise ) . Me, my country, me, my god, my house, and so on.

S: It is very important to let that in, you know...

K: So it is twelve o'clock, we had better stop.

S: We have got your point.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Feb 2020 #257
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline


Krishnamurti: Do we go on from where we left off yesterday?

Dr Bohm: I felt there was a point that wasn't entirely clear : we accepted that seeking psychological is ( holistically speaking?) wrong, we didn't make it very clear why we think it is a ( form of self-) delusion. You see, most people feel their 'psychological' security is quite necessary and when it is disturbed - frightened, or sorrowful, or even so disturbed that he may require treatment, he feels that psychological security is necessary before he can even begin to do anything.

K: Yes, right...

B: And I think that it isn't at all clear why one should say that it is not really as important as physical security...

K: Let's go into it : is there any psychological security at all?

B: I don't think we discussed that fully last time...

K: Of course, nobody accepts ( the inward truth of?) that. But we are enquiring into it...

Dr Shainberg: But we said something even deeper, that ( our cultural) conditioning sets the importance of psychological security, and that in turn creates insecurity. Is this conditioning that creates the psychological security as a focus? Would you agree that?

K: First of all, sir, we take it for granted that there is a psychological security.

S: Well, at least we think that we can get it.

K: We feel that there is...

B: I think that if you told somebody who is feeling very disturbed mentally that there is no psychological security he would just feel worse.

K: Collapse, of course.... But here we are talking of fairly sane, rational people, questioning whether there is any psychological security at all, an (identitary?) sense of one's deep-rooted existence 'psychologically' (inwardly ?) .

S: Maybe you could say more about what is meant by this 'psychological' security?

K: If I 'believe' in something, that gives you a tremendous sense of (a purposeful?) existence, living, vitality, and stability.

B: One could think of two such ( extreme ?) examples (of psychological safety) : one is that if I could really believe that after dying I would go to  heaven, and be quite sure of it, then I could feel very secure anywhere - I don't really have to worry, because it is all a temporary trouble and then I am pretty sure that in ( the next life) it is all going to be very good.

K: That is the whole Asiatic attitude, more or less.

B: Or if I am a ( strong believer in the ideals of?) Communism, then I say, in time Communism is going to solve everything, even if we are going through a lot of ( economical?) troubles now but you know it is all going to be worthwhile and it will work out, and in the end it will be all right.

S: Right...

B: If I could be (absolutely) sure of that then I would say I feel very secure inside, even if the present conditions are hard.

K: So we are questioning - though one has ( been subliminally attached ) these strong beliefs which gives a sense of security, permanency, whether there is such (temporal security) in reality, actuality...

S: The question is: is it possible (to actually believe all this ?) ?

K: Is it possible. I may (strongly) believe in God and inspite the impermanency of this world, at least there is permanency somewhere else.

S: Yes... But I want to ask David something. Do you think that, for instance take a scientist, a guy who is going to his laboratory everyday, or take a doctor, he takes ( his sense of physical ) security from the very 'routinization' of his life. But inwardly speaking where does he get his security?

B: Well, he may believe that he is learning the permanent laws of Nature, really getting something that means something, but also from getting a position in society and being sure, being well known and respected and financially secure...

S: He believes that these things will give him the thing. The mother also believes that the child will give her security.

K: Don't you psychologically have security?

S: Yes, right... I get a security out of my knowledge, out of my routine, out of my patients, out of seeing my patients, out of my position.

B: But there is ( an implicit existential ) conflict (involved ) in that because if I think it over a little bit, it doesn't look all that secure - anything may happen. I mean, there may be a war, there may be a financial depression, there may be a flood....So I say there is an ( element of) confusion in my security because I am not sure about it... But on the other end, if I had an absolute belief in God and heaven...

K: This is so obvious!

S: I agree with you (that intellectually?) it is'obvious', but it has to be really 'felt through'.

K: But, you, Dr Shainberg, don't you have any strong belief?

S: Well, I wouldn't say 'strong'...

K: Don't you have a sense of ( self-) permanency somewhere inside you?

S: I do have a sense of permanency about my (existential) intentions. There is a sense of ( long term ) security in the feeling that I can help someone.

K: Yes, and that gives you the 'psychological' security.

S: There is something more about being secure, I won't be lonely...

K: Feeling secure that you have something that is impenetrable (indestructible by time ?)

S: No, I don't feel it that way. I feel it more in the sense of what is going to happen in time, am I going to have to depend, what is my time going to be, am I going to be lonely, is my life going to be empty?

K: No, sir...

S: Isn't that (a form of psychological) security?

K: As Dr Bohm pointed out, if one has a strong belief in reincarnation, then it doesn't matter what happens, because in the next life you (may?) have a better chance. So that gives you a great sense of "this is unimportant, but that is important".

S: Right...

K: And that gives me a sense of inner comfort : this is a transient world anyhow and eventually I will get to something permanent.

S: This is in the Asiatic world; but I think in the western world you don't have that.

K: Oh, yes you have it.

B: It is different but we have always had the search for security.

S: Right, right. But then, what the hell do you call 'security'?

K: Having something to which you can cling to and which is not perishable. It may perish eventually but at the time, for the time being it is there to hold on to.

B: You can feel that it is permanent. Like somebody in the past, people used to accumulate gold because gold is the symbol of the imperishable.

S: We still have people who accumulate gold - we have business men, they have got money.

B: You feel it will never corrode, it will never vanish and you can count on it, you know ?
S: So it is something that I can count on ?

K: Count on, hold on to, cling to, be attached to...

S: I know that I am a doctor. I can depend on that knowledge & experience.

K: On the other hand, you have the security of ( belonging to a cultural ) tradition. So I think that is fairly clear.

B: Yes it is clear enough that we want something secure and permanent. Wouldn't you say that in so far as thought can project (itself in) time, that it wants to be able to project everything all right in the future as far as possible ?

S: That is what I meant when I said loneliness: if I don't have to have my loneliness...

B: In other words the anticipation of what is coming is already (implicit in) the present feeling. You see if you can anticipate that something bad may come, you already feel bad.

K: That's right.

B: Therefore you would like to get rid of that. I would say that ( the psychological) security would be the (implicit) anticipation that everything will be good in the future.

S: So then security is becoming. I see (mentally disturbed ) patients all the time. Their projected belief is 'I will become' - 'I will find somebody to love me', or "I will become the chief of the department", "I will become the most famous doctor", "I will become..." and his whole life goes like that. Because it is also focussed on anticipating that life is going to be good...

B: But it seems to me you wouldn't raise the question unless you had a lot of experience that life is not so good, I mean. In other words, it is a reaction to having had to much experience of disappointment, of suffering...

K: Would you say that we are not conscious (in real time?) of the whole movement (activity?) of thought?

B: Yes... but most people they would say that is only very natural, I have had a lot of experience of suffering and disappointment and danger, and that is unpleasant and I would like to be able to anticipate that everything is going to be good.

K: Yes...

B: But you are now saying there is something wrong with it ?

K: We are saying there is no such thing as ( a long term ?) 'psychological' security.

B: Yes, but for most people it is not very clear that these (projections of thought) are really vain hopes...

K: Sir, ( come to think of it?) there is ( a close encounter with?) death at the end of everything... : You want to be secure for the next ten or fifty years. Afterwards doesn't matter. Or it does matter then you believe (very strongly?) that there is God, or whatever it is you believe. So (when) I am trying to find out whether no 'psychological' permanency, actually means 'no tomorrow' psychologically (speaking)

B: That hasn't yet come out, but we can say empirically that we know these hopes for ( long lasting psychological) security are false because first of all there is death, secondly you can't count on anything, as materially and mentally everything is changing all the time. You can't count on your feelings, you can't count on enjoying a certain thing that you enjoy now, or you can't count on being healthy, you can't count on money...

K: You can't rely on your wife, you can rely on nothing...

B: So that is a fact. But you are suggesting something deeper, as we don't base ourselves only on that (superficial) observation.

K: So, if there is no such 'security' deeply, then is there a 'tomorrow' (in which to project your high expectations ?) psychologically? If there is no such 'tomorrow' you take away all 'hope' (in terms of time ?) .

B: The 'tomorrow' in which things will get better ?

K: Better, greater success, greater understanding, greater, more love, you know the whole business.

S: I think that is a little quick : I hear you saying there is no security. But for me to say, to really say, "Look, I know there is no such security"...

B: Well, isn't it an observed fact, that there isn't anything you can count on psychologically?

K: When you hear there is no (psychological) security, is it an abstracted idea? Or an actual fact, like you can see that table or those flowers?

S: I think it mostly becomes an idea.

K: Is it part of your (intellectual) training?

S: Partly, yes. Part of my professional conditioning.

K: Part of a real objection to see things as they are.

B: It seems that when you see that there is no security, there is something ( in our psyche?) which is trying to protect itself, namely let us say that it seems to be a fact that the 'self' is there ; and if the self is there, it ( does obviously) require security and therefore this creates a resistance to seeing that as a fact and puts it as an idea only. It seems that the apparent factuality of the 'self' (-identified consciousness?) has not been denied.

S: Right. Why do you think it hasn't been denied ?

K: Is it that you refuse to see things as they are? Is it that one refuses to see that one is (inwardly?) 'stupid' (blind?) . To acknowledge that one is (inwardly unperceptive?) is already (a redeeming act?) ... you follow?

B: Doesn't it mean that as long as there is the sense of 'self', it must say that it is perfect, and so on ?

S: What do you think it makes it so hard to see? Is this what you mean when you talk about the (role of) 'destruction' ( negation of the false?) in creation?

K: You must destroy (negate?) that.

S: I must destroy this need for (psychological) security, but... why can't I do it?

K: No, no. You see you are already entering into the realm of action. I say first 'see' it. And from that perception action is inevitable.

S: All right.... Do you actually see there is no psychological security?

K: To see that you are clinging to something which gives you ( an inner sense of) security - like I cling to this house. It gives me a sense of possession, it gives me a sense of physical and therefore psychological security.

S: Right... like I have a place to go.

K: A poor man may say of course I have no security, but he wants it. His security is, give me a job, a stable work and a house, and a good wife and children; that's my security. And that movement of ( seeking physical) security ( insidiously?) enters into the psychological field. I believe in God or I am a good communist...the whole thing. The seeing, or the (inward?) perception of that is the 'total action' with regard to security.

S: I can see that that is the total action...I begin to see how this whole structure is the way in whichg I see everything in the world. I begin to see how all these people ( the pacients) fit into that structure.

K: You see them through the 'image' you have about them.

B: And about what should their relation to me ?

K: Yes. So, this 'image' is (an active ingredient of one's psychological ?) security.

B: Yes, but why does it present itself as so 'real'? I can see a thought process which is driving on, continually.

K: Are you asking why has this 'image', this ( psychologically motivated?) conclusion, become so fantastically real?

B: Yes... It seems to be standing there real, and everything is referred to it.

K: More real than the marbles, than the hills. Why?

S: It is hard to say why, except that it would give me ( a real sense of inner ) security.

B: I am just saying that if it were some simple matter, giving that much proof you would have already seen it ; but when it comes to this, no ( holistic?) proof seems to work. I am presented with the solid reality of myself and my security, and there is a sort of reaction which seems to say, well, that may be possibly so, but it really is only words. The real thing is 'me'. Do you see?

S: There is no question about it. Me, me, me, is important...

K: Which is an ( emotionally loaded?) 'idea'.

B: You can say abstractly that the 'self' is just an idea, but the ( experiential) question is, how do you break into this (self-locked thought ?) process?

K: I think we can break into it, or break through it, or get beyond it, only through ( a direct, non-verbal  ?) perception.

B: Yes, but the ( experiential) trouble is that all that we have been talking about is ( expressed ) in the form of ( intellectual?) 'ideas'. They may be correct ideas but they won't break into this (self-locked process ?) because this dominates the whole of thought.

K: No, sir. Look: if I feel my security lies in some image I have, an (emotion loaded) picture, a symbol, a conclusion, an ideal and so on, I would put it not as an 'abstraction' but bring it down (in the field of direct contemplation?) . ( Then ) you can 'see' (whether?) it is so (or not... ?) .
Let's say ( for educational purpose?) that I actually believe in something. Now I say : why do I believe ?

B: Well, have you actually done that?

K: No, I haven't because I have no beliefs. I have no (self-image ,) I don't go in for all those kind of ( psychological?) games. I said, 'if'.

S: Right...

K: Then I would bring the ( intellectually) abstracted thing into ( the experiential field of inwardly ?) perceptive reality.

S: To see my belief, is that it?

K: To see that (believing ?) 'me' in operation. Take a still simpler thing: have you a ( psychologically motivated ?) 'conclusion' about something? Like the concept that 'I am an (true?) Englishman'...

B: Well, our experiential trouble is that we probably don't feel very attached to this kind of concepts....

K: All right...

S: Let's take one that is more 'real' for me: take the concept of me being a doctor. That is a conclusion based on training, based on experience, based on the enjoyment of the work.

K: Which means what? A doctor means, the conclusion, means he is capable of certain activities.

S: Right, OK. So there is a concrete fact that I have had this medical training, that I get this pleasure from the work, I get a kind of feed back, the books I've written, papers, positions. Now the concept that I am a doctor is based on all that, and I continually act to continue (developing) that.

K: Yes, sir, you have the concept that you are a doctor, which is is based on knowledge, experience, everyday activity.

S: Right.
K: So what is actual in that? Your training, your knowledge, your daily operation.
S: Right...

K: That's all. The rest is a ( psychologically motivated?) conclusion.

B: But what is 'the rest'?

K: (The self-image) I am very much better than somebody else...

B: Or that this thing is going to keep me occupied in a good way... ?

S: Yes, I want to hear what you have to say.

B: But isn't there also a certain fear that if I don't have all this (to rely on) then things will be pretty bad?

K: Of course. And if the (mental) patients don't turn up?

B: Then I have no money; fear.

K: And loneliness. So be occupied.

S: Do you realize how important that is to all people, to be occupied ? I can see them running around...

K: Of course, sir, a housewife is occupied. Remove that occupation, she says, please...

B: ...what shall I do?

S: We know that as a fact. Since we put electrical equipment into the houses the women are going crazy, they have nothing to do with their time.

K: But, no. The result of this, neglect of their children. Don't talk to me about it (in this boarding school?) .

S: OK. Let's go on. Now we have got this fact, occupied.

B: Well, keeping oneself occupied seems to me to have a psychological meaning, further than that, that my mind is getting involved in that thing in a relatively harmonious way. There was something I saw on television once of a woman who was highly disturbed, it showed on the graph, but when you was occupied doing her mathematics, the graph went beautifully smooth. She stopped doing the sums and it went all over the place. Do you, therefore, she had to keep on doing something to keep the brain working right.

K: Which means what?

B: Well, what does it mean?

K: A mechanical process : you have reduced yourself to a ( self-programmable) machine.

S: Don't say it! (Laughter) No, it's not fair. But it is true....

B: But why does the brain begin to go so wild when it is not occupied? That seems to be a very common experience.

K: Because in occupation there is (a subliminal sense of brain's ) security.

S: In occupation there is a kind of mechanical order.

B: Right. So our need for security really means we want order. Is that right?

K: That's it.

B: We want order inside the brain now, and we want to be able to project order into the future, for ever.

S: That's right. But would you say that you can get it by mechanical order?

B: Then we get dissatisfied with it, you see, you say, "I am getting sick, bored with it, I am sick of this mechanical life, I want something more interesting". You see the mechanical order won't satisfy us ( forever) because it works for a little while.

S: OK. But suppose some people become totally satisfied with their job?

B: Well, they don't really. I mean ( unless?) then they become dull, you see.

K: Quite. Mechanical , and when you stop that mechanism, the brain goes wild.

B: Right. So they feel they would like some entertainment, or something more interesting and exciting. And therefore there is conflict and confusion involved in the whole thing. Well, take this woman who could always get everything right by doing arithmetical sums, but we can't keep on doing arithmetical sums! (Laughter) I mean somewhere she has got to stop doing these arithmetical sums.

S: Right.... let's say I can get this mechanical order, and it gets boring, but then I will find new parts of it. So I keep doing more of that. It is like an accumulative process.

K: So 'you' (the self-identified 'experiencer'?) move from one mechanical process, get bored with it, and move to another mechanical process... and you call that living ?

S: That is what I call living...

B: I see the potential trouble in it, I now try to be sure that I can keep on doing this, because I can always anticipate a future when I won't be able to do it. You see? I will be a bit too old for the job, or else I'll lose the job, or something. In other words, I still have insecurity in that order.

K: Essentially, it is ( a self-sustaining activity of ) mechanical disorder.

S: Masking itself as (a long term) 'order'....

K: Now, wait a minute. Do you (actually?) see this?

S: I see that, yes. I feel that there is an assimilation, an accommodation and then there is seeing what doesn't fit and going on with it. And then there is more assimilation, and accommodation, and then going on with it. The French psychologist Piager , describes this as the 'enormity of human brains'.

K: I don't have to read Piaget, I can observe it.

B: Right, but the point is, that we are driven to this because we are (subliminally) frightened of the instability of the brain. In other words, that will merely be masking ( the deeper causes of brain's) disorder.

S: Without the mechanics we get this (natural continuity of disorder?) . That is what we know, without the mechanics.

B: Well, it may be very dangerous actually...I mean it may do all sorts of crazy things...In other words, I feel that the main danger comes from (the deeper stuff hidden ?) within, you see.

K: Absolutely. Now, when you see it, observe it, there is ( the actual possibility for a holistic?) action which is not fragmented.

B: But one may feel that you do not know whether this disorder can stop. In other words if you were sure that it could stop, that Religion, that God will take care of it, or something, then you will have ( a permanent ) security.

S: Then you don't need to depend on anything.

B: Nothing can control that ( inward causation of) disorder. You see that this really seems to be the thing that there is nothing that can control that disorder. You may take pills, or do various things, but it is always there in the background. So, one question is, why do we have this disorder? If it were built into the structure of the brain, seeing this is human nature, then there would be no way out.

K: I think the ( sense of inner) disorder arises (implicitly) first when there are (several fragmentary ?) mechanical processes going on. And in that mechanical process the brain feels secure, and when the mechanical process is disturbed it becomes insecure.

B: The question is, why does the brain get caught in mechanism? Do you see. In other words, it seems a very common situation that the brain gets caught in mechanical process.

K: Because (for ages?) it is the most secure way of living.

B: Well, it appears that way...

K: Not, 'appears'. It is so for the time being.

S: Are you saying we are conditioned to be time bound?

K: Conditioned to be time bound by our tradition, by our education, by the culture we live in and so on and so on, to operate mechanically.

B: But it is also a kind of mistake to say in the beginning the mechanical way shows signs of being safer, and at the beginning the brain makes a mistake let's say, and says, "This is safer", but somehow it fails to be able to see that it has made a mistake, it holds to this mistake. Like in the beginning you might call it an innocent mistake to say, "This look safer and I will follow it". But then after a while you are getting evidence that it is not so safe, the brain begins to reject it, keep away from it. I mean that is part of the conditioning that explains how it is propagated. But it still doesn't explain why the brain doesn't see at some stage that it is wrong.

S: Why doesn't it see that at some stage it is wrong?

B: In other words, it continues in this mechanical process rather than seeing that it is wrong.

K: You are asking: why doesn't it see that this mechanical process is essentially disorder.

B: It is essentially disorder and dangerous. It is totally delusory.

S: Why isn't there some sort of feedback? In other words, I do something and it comes out wrong. At some point I ought to realize that. Why don't I? For instance, I have seen my life is mechanical.

K: You see it? Why is it mechanical?

S: Well, it is mechanical because it is all action and reaction. It is repetitious and that is also mechanical : I want it to be easy. I feel that that gives me the most security, to keep it mechanical. I get a boundary. It is like you say I have the house, I have got my mechanical life, that gives me security, it is mechanical because it is repetitious.

K: You haven't answered my question.

S: I am not sure what your question is. Your question is why...

K: ...has it become mechanical ?

B: And why does it remain mechanical?

K: What has caused us to accept this mechanical process, way of living?

S: I am not sure I can answer that.

K: No, look: if the mechanical process that one lives suddenly stopped, wouldn't you be frightened?

S: Yes.
B: Wouldn't there be some genuine danger?

K: That, of course. There is a danger that things might...

B: ...go to pieces.

S: It is deeper than that. It feels like that things take on a terribly moment-by moment effect.

K: No, sir. Look (at it holistically?) : would total order give it complete security? Wouldn't it? The human brain wants (this sense of) total order.

S: Right.... ?

K: Otherwise it can't function properly. Therefore (for lack of anthing better) it accepts the mechanical (way of life?) , and hoping it won't lead to disaster.

B: Could you say that perhaps in the beginning that the brain accepted this just simply not knowing that this mechanism would bring disorder and it just went into it in an innocent state?

K: Yes.

B: Yes, then it got caught in a trap, you see. And somehow it maintains this disorder, it doesn't want to get out of it.

K: Because it is frightened of a still greater disorder.

B: Yes. It says, all that I've built up may go to pieces. In other words, I am not in the same situation as when I first went in the trap because now I have built up a great ( psychological) structure. I think that structure will go to pieces.

K: ( In a nutshell;) what I am trying to get it is, the brain needs this order, otherwise it can't function. It finds order in mechanical process because it is trained from childhood; do as you are told, etc., etc., etc. There is a (life of) conditioning going on right away: to live a mechanical life.

B: Not to mention the ( existential) fear induced of giving up this mechanism at the same time.

K: Of course, of course.

B: I mean that in other words you are thinking all the time that without this everything will go to pieces, including especially the ( inward sense of wholeness in the ) brain.

K: Which means the brain must have order. And finds order in a mechanical (time-binding ?) way. Now, do I see, that this mechanical way of living leads to disorder? Which is, tradition. If I live entirely in the (traditions of the ) past, which is very orderly, I think it is very orderly, and what takes place? I am already 'dead' and I can't meet anything new .

S: I am repeating myself always, right.

K: So please don't disturb my tradition! I have found in it something which gives me order; a belief, a hope, this, or that; and leave me alone. And life isn't going to leave them alone.
Now do you see ( the inward truth of) this whole thing there is an instant action breaking it all away and therefore an order which is absolutely indestructible.

B: Well, it doesn't follow just from what you said that this would ( necessarily) happen. In other words, you are saying this (rather holistically ?)

K: I am saying this.

B: I mean but it doesn't follow logically.

K: It would follow logically if you go into it.

B: Go into it....But can't we reach a point where it really follows necessarily?

K: I think we can only 'go into it' ( in meditation ?) if you perceive the mechanical structure which the brain has developed, attached and cultivated.

S: But do you realize ( the experiential difficulty involved) what you are saying? We live in terms of our inherited cultural structures. We live in terms of history. We live in terms of our mechanics. We live in terms of our form. This is the way we live.

K: But when this ( River of Mankind's) past meets the present and ends there, there is a totally different thing takes place.

S: Yes. But the past doesn't 'meet the present' so often...

K: I mean it can be taking place now.

S: Right now ? Right...

K: Therefore can you stop it there?

S: We must first see it totally...

K: Thake this simple fact (regarding the movement of thought-time) : the past meets the present. That is a fact.

B: Let us see, how does the past meet the present? Let us go into that.

K: We have got four minutes.

B: Well, ( my understanding of?) ''the past meeting the present stops'', is that the past is generally active in the present towards the future. Now when the past meets the present then the past stops acting. And what it means is that thought stops acting so that (holistic) order comes about.

S: Do you think that the past meets the present, or the present meets the past?

K: How do you meet me?

S: I meet you in the 'present'.

K: But 'how' do you meet me? With all the memories, all the images, the reputation, the words, the pictures, the symbol, all that, with that, which is the past, you meet me 'now'. The past is meeting the present.

B: Aren't you saying that the ( momentum of the ) past should stop meeting the present?

K: What I am trying to say is that when the past meets the present it can end there. Not move forward.

S: But what is the 'past' meeting the present? What is that action?

K: I meet you with a (memory streaming of mental image or ?) pictures. But you might have changed in the meantime. So I never meet you. I meet you with the past.

S: Right. That is an observable fact.

K: That is a fact. Now if I don't have that ( thought-projected?) movement going on, if when there is the past meeting the present, one 'see' this, or is completely (transpersonally?) aware of this movement, then it stops. Then I meet you as though for the first time, there is something fresh, it ( our relation then?) is like a new flower coming out.

S: Yes, I understand...

K: I think we will go on tomorrow in tackling the root (cause ) of all this inner disturbance, this turmoil, travail, anxiety - you follow ?

B: And why should the brain be in this wild disorder?

K: I know, wild. You, a psychanalyst will have to ask ( for homework) that fundamental question - why? Why do human beings live this way?

S: Right. Why do they? I keep asking it that all the time.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Feb 2020 #258
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

3RD ('reader'-friendly edited ) K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM & DAVID SHAINBERG (cca 1976)

Krishnamurti: Shall we start where we left off? We were asking (the central holistic question?) ''why do human beings live this way?'' The turmoil, the confusion, the sorrow behind it all, conflict, violence. Why do the so-called 'educated' human beings, knowing all the scientific knowledge, biology, sociology & everything that is now openly (available on internet...?) (indulge ?) living in this (condition of 'psychological ) misery'? Why?

B: I think people just get used to (the normality of?) it. I mean they miss (dealing with) anything they got used to. Whatever happens you get used to it, and you come to miss it after a while just because you are used to it.

S: Yes, we seem to hold on to the conflict and the sorrow. It is a kind of (existential) orientation : I know my conflict, I know what I am at.

K: Have we all become neurotic?

S: Yes. The whole thing is ( pretty much) neurotic.

K: So when you are faced with the fact of the human beings living this way and having accepted it for millennia, I come along and say, why?

B: You see, I think we get to depend on it, as we were saying this morning, to occupy us and so on...

K: Is it that we have started out on the wrong path (of civilisation ?) ? I feel this very strongly because I travel all over the place and I see this extraordinary phenomena going on, in India, in America, here, everywhere, and I say why do people live this way . They have become cynical...

B: That's right. Nobody believes anything can be done about it. People say the human nature...

K: ...can never be altered.

B: I mean, that is not new at all...

K: I know, but why don't you (try to?) change it? You see your son looking at the television for fifty hours; you see your son going off to Vietnam, killed, maimed, blinded, for what?

S: Many people have said ''we don't accept that human nature is this way, we will try to change it'', and... it didn't work. You know, the communists tried it, the socialists tried it...

K: ...the utopians....

B: ...but there has been so much bad experience and all adds up to the idea that human nature doesn't change.

S: So let's say we know these ( psychological) 'facts' about people and the fact of the matter is they don't even try to change.

K: So what is preventing them?

B: People have tried to change it in many cases, but...

K: ...but essentially they are (remaining inwardly ?) the same.

B: I think people cannot find out (a holistic way ?) to change the human nature.

S: Is that it? Or is it that the way they want to change it is part of the ( self-interest based?) process itself?

B: My first point is that whatever people have tried has not been guided by a (holistic) understanding, by a correct understanding of human nature.
Let's take the Marxists who say that human nature can be improved, but only when the whole economic and politician structure has been altered.

K: They have tried to alter it but the human nature stays the same.

B: ... because ( the inertial aspect of ?) human nature is such that they can't really alter it.

S:...or because they are using a mechanical way to make a mechanical change.

K: You, take yourself - why don't you change (inwardly) ?
S: Well... the immediate feel of it is that there is still some sort of false security (involved in our ongoing) fragmentation, the immediate pleasures that are gotten from the fragmentation; in other words there is still ( the rewarding aspect of this) movement of fragmentation. There is not an (intelligent & compassionate?) 'seeing' the whole thing...

K: Are you saying that our political action, religious action, social action, are all separate, almost fighting each other, and we are (getting caught in?) that ?

S: Right... we keep getting something back from it, we get these immediate pleasure and failures, frustrations from...

K: There is a much deeper issue than that.

S: I don't know... I keep coming up with a kind of feeling that I am getting something from not changing.

K: No. Is it the ( self-centred) entity that wishes to change sets the pattern of change, and therefore the pattern is always the same under a different colour? The 'planner' is always the same, but only his patterns change.

S: That's right. Yes. I have an image of what I want to achieve ( inwardly & outwardly) ...

K: ...therefore I am ( identified with the ) 'old' ( self-centred mentality?) and the patterns (of change may be?) 'new' but the 'old' (fail-safe mentality) is always conquering the new....

B: And when I do that I don't feel that I am the old but the new...

S: Yes, I have got a new idea....

B: And I really don't feel that I am ( surreptitiously) involved in the 'old stuff' that I want to change.

K: Just after lunch you were saying that in Kabala there is ( such ) a new system and they say that if you study this you will be transformed.

S: That's right.

K: This has been said a hundred million times: do this and you will be transformed. They try to do it but the 'centre' (of one's self-interest?) is always remaining the same.

B: And each person who 'does it' feels that it has never happened before.

K: Yes. The (inner) experience (acquired ) through that book is entirely different, but the 'experiencer' is the same.

S: The same 'old thing', right....

K: I think that is one of the root causes of it.

B: It is a kind of 'sleight of hand' trick whereby the thing which is causing the trouble is put into position as if it were the thing that is trying to make the change. You see, it is a (very intricate way self-) deception...

K: I am deceiving myself all the time by saying, I am going to change...Say you read a (best-selling New Age) book and say, yes, ''How true that is, I am going to live according to that''. But the 'me' that is going to live according to that is the same old 'me' (...only smarter?)

S: That's right. We run into this in psychotherapy : for instance, the patient will say, the doctor is going to be the one who is going to help him. And then when they see that their doctor is not going to help them since they have never touched that central issue, which is that I thought that somebody could help me. So then they go to something else, and they go to something else - most of them go to another theory...

K: Or to another 'guru'....

S: ...but the the root issue is this belief that someone or something can help you.

K: The root remains the same. And we trim the branches.

B: I think we don't see the root because we put it in the position of the one who is supposed to be seeing.

S: Or like that Sufi story: this guy is crawling around under the lamp post, and another guy comes along and says, "What are you doing there?" "I am looking for my key". And he said, "Did you lose it here?" "No, I lost it over there but there is more light over here".

B: We throw the light on the other part...

K: Yes, sir. So if I ( really?) want to change, because I don't want to live that way, I won't follow anybody because they are all like the rest of the gang. I don't accept any authority in all this.

S: Yes...

K: (The acceptance of any form of psychological ) authority arises only when I am ( inwardly) confused, when I am in disorder.

S: That's right.

K: So can I completely change at the very root?

B: Well there seems ( to be some) confusion ( involved in this exceedingly holistic?) language, because you say "I am going to change", and it is not clear what I mean by 'I'...

K: The 'I' is the root.

B: The 'I' is the root, so how can 'I' change?

K: That is the whole point (left for homework meditation?) .

B: You see, the language is confusing because you say, ''I have got to change at the root', but at the same time (you're saying that?) 'I' am the root.

K: Yes...

B: So what is going to happen?

S: Can we stop here for a minute? What would you say - now I mentioned something about the techniques of psychiatry here - that if I go along with the authority to where I see my addiction to authority then I can free myself from the authority. In other words by giving myself over I will discover my error. Now what do you want to say about that?

K: Is it possible for a human being to change (this trend of self-interest which is?) at the very root of his being? They have tried it in umpteen different ways to change man: rewarding him, punishing him, promising him, but Nothing has brought about this miraculous change. And it is a miraculous change.

S: It would be, yes, yes.

K: It is. And a ( holistically minded ) man like us , comes along and says, look, I don't want to accept anybody's authority (in the psychological field) because they have misguided everybody. (Such) authority exists because human beings are (inwardly living?) in disorder. The disorder has created them, not clarity, not compassion, not something entirely different. So how do I proceed if I have got fifty ( or...less?) years to live...What is the correct action?

S: What is the correct action to live properly?

K: That's all. To become (inwardly) sane. Now, if everybody said, "I can't help you", you'll have to do it yourself, look at yourself, then (an insightful perception of the?) whole thing is beginning to act.
In this (B-Pk ) school I have been saying: if you behave properly there is no authority. The behaviour we have all agreed to - punctuality, cleanliness, this or that. If you really see it, you have no authority.

S: I think is a key point: that the disorder itself creates the need for authority.

K: So let's start from there. In the rejection of ( anybody's 'psychological') authority I am beginning to become (at least potentially ?) sane. And ask myself : what is the correct action in my life?

S: Right...

K: Because I am very serious now. I am deadly serious because this is my life.

B: But you see, you'll have to be so serious in spite of the immense ( cultural) pressures to escape (facing 'what is' ? )

K: I won't.

B: won't. But I am saying that one (newcomer?) will feel at this juncture that there will probably be an intense pressure towards escape, saying this is too much.

K: No, sir. You see what happens?

S: What happens?

K: When I reject ( relying on anybody's psychological ) authority I have much more energy.

S: That's right. In other words then I have to be really open to ( the understanding) 'what is', since that is all I have got. ...

K: So what shall I do?

S: Then there is an intense alertness.

K: So I come to you ( not as an inwardly blind 'follower' but?) as a friend and say, let's find out (the whole truth of the matter?) . Because you are serious and I am serious.

S: That's right, we can work (it out) together.

K: We are together investigating. Because (deep down inwardly) you are ( pretty much?) like me. Confused, miserable, unhappy, neurotic.

S: Right... but how can we 'investigate together' if we are both neurotic?

K: So ( for starters?) I am going to first see in what ways I an 'neurotic'.
Now, (how?) can I look at my neuroticism? What makes me neurotic? All the things that are put into me (by many thousand years of 'survival oriented' evolution?) - can my consciousness empty all that?

S: Your consciousness 'is' that though...

K: Of course...

B: Is it only that?

K: For the moment I am limiting it to that (strictly for educational purposes?)

S: That is ( the actual state of my) consciousness. And the proliferation of my fragmentation is my ( generating my egocentric ) neuroticism. Isn't that right?

K: Of course. But this is (still) a tremendous question : Can the (time-bound) consciousness of mankind , which began five, ten million years ago, with all the ( good & bad?) 'things' that have been put into it, generation after generation, from the beginning until now - can you take (one fragment of it?) at a time and look at it? Or can you look at the whole of it ?

S: That's not very clear (experientially-wise?) . How can you 'take the whole of it' and look at it?

B: There seems to be a language problem (involved) here : if you say you 'are' that, how are you going to look at it?

K: I'll show you in a minute. We'll go into it...

B: I mean there is a ( logical) difficulty in stating it...

K: I know, it is a 'verbally (generated paradox?) - you know, the words are wrong.

B: Right, so we shouldn't take these words too 'literally'... ?

K: Not too literally, of course...

B: Could we say that the (common) words can be used 'flexibly'?

S: Now that's a good point.

K: The word is not the thing (which is described)

B: But we are still using these words and the question is how are we to understand ( the holistic actuality  conveyed by?) them. You see they are in some way a clue to what we are talking about. It seems to me, you see, that one trouble with the words is the way we take them. We take them to mean something very fixed, like say...

K: ...this chair ?

B: ...but this is exactly a chair. But when saying 'I am the neurosis', therefore we take it as something very fixed.

K: It is moving...

B: Yes, it is moving. It is changing, therefore you can't just exactly say I am the neurosis or I am not the neurosis.

K: It is constantly in ( a state of) flux....

B: Right.

S: So you are saying that the very fact of the word being seen as the thing by consciousness, that is the first thing we must investigate.

K: Now, can you look at it without the (cultural conotations of that) word? Is that possible(knowing that) the word is not the actual thing. So, as a ( holistically minded?) human being I realize I am 'neurotic' - in the sense that I live in ( a mental space filled with ?) conclusions, memories...

S: words ?

K: In words, images and ( a man-made?) 'reality'. ..

S: That is how you live....

K: My belief is very real, it may be illusory - but because I believe so strongly it is real to me.

B: Right...

K: So ( for an 'in-class' exercise?) can I look at the nature of the belief, how it arose, look at it?

S: Looking at being trapped by the belief ( implicit assumption?) that the word is the thing ?

K: You have got (such ) a 'belief', haven't you?

S: Oh, yes...

K: Now can you look at it?

S: I mean this morning we were talking about the fact that the belief is ( being a PhD) doctor, or other thing.

K: Can you look at that fact that you have (such) a belief? Whatever it is, God, or whatever... Can you look at that belief?

S: As a belief and not as a fact ?

K: Ah, no... It is a reality to you when you believe in it. Go to a Catholic or a Hindu, or to a Marxist...

S: Right. But how am I going to look at it if I really believe it? Suppose you are telling me to look at my belief in God.

K: What is the ( psychological) necessity of your belief in God? Not that I am an atheist, but I am asking you (for an educational purpose?)

S: Well, God is there for me, if I believe.

K: Then you have shut the door to any ( psycho-analytical?) investigation..

S: That's right....Then, how are we going to do it?

K: We have tried hundreds of times to (point it out to ) somebody who has a very strong belief, he says, what are you talking about? This is 'reality'....

B: That's how our words become a 'reality'. Can we investigate how thought, the word, is giving us the sense of reality ?

K: Why words have become 'reality'...

B: I think the deeper question is, how the mind sets up the 'sense of reality' ? I mean if I look at the outward things I may think they are (objectively) real, but you can say a word and it also seems 'real' when you describe it that way. And therefore in some way, the words we are using set up in the brain a 'construction of reality'. Then ( further down that lane?) everything is referred to that 'construction of reality'.

S: How are we to investigate that?

K: What created that ( mental construction of?) 'reality'? Would you say everything that thought has created is a (man-made?) 'reality' ? These chairs, the table, all these electric lights; thought has created and can describe them (objectively) . And also the illusions (that self-centred thought) has created are a 'reality'...

B: Now, to a certain extent, this ( mental) 'construction of reality' has its place because you see if I feel that the table is real although the brain has constructed it, it is OK. But at some stage we construct realities that are not there, you see. We can see this sometimes in the shadows on a dark night, constructing realities that are not there. And all tricks and illusions are possible by ( Internet trolls, pixies & other 'tweeting' ?) conjurors and so on. But then it goes further and we say that mentally we construct a psychological reality, which seems intensely real, very strong. But it seems to me the question is: what is it that thought does to give that sense of reality, to construct reality? Can we watch that?

S: Yes, like if you talk to someone who believes in God, they say to you that is real, that it is really there, it is not a construction. And if you talk to somebody who really believes in their ( ego-centric?) 'self', I mean I have talked to many people and you have also been talking to the psychotherapists, they say the self is real, that it exists, it is a (real) 'thing'. I mean you heard a psychotherapist say to Krishnaji, "We know the ego exists. We have got a theory, it exists".

B: Well, I think people have felt (experientially?) its 'reality' and what happens is that the illusion builds up very fast; once you construct the reality ( of the 'self)' all other events are referred to it as if they were coming from that reality. You see, and it builds up a tremendous structure, a 'Cloud' (of the known?) around it of support.

S: Right.... So how am I to investigate my 'reality making' mechanism ?

K: We have got five minutes more ( to wrap it up?) We are saying that however real the (temporal?) 'me' is , it is also the source of ( one's psychological) disorder...

S: Right... ?

K: Because that separates, that divides - 'me' and 'you', 'we' and 'they', 'my' nation, 'my' God...

S: Right...

K: Now we are asking ( a question for homework meditation?) : can that (self-centred?) consciousness be aware of itself? - aware of thought 'thinking'....

B: ...thinking about itself?

K: To put it very simply: can thought be aware of its own 'movement' (of its self-centred mental activity?) ?

B: That's the question. It could be (considered as a?) self - reference of thought, thought ( the thinking brain?) understanding its own (mentally active?) structure.

S: But is that thought that is aware of itself? Or is it something else?

K: Try it! Try it!

S: Try what ?

K: Do it now - four minutes you have left ( from 1 hour of video recording) !

S: Right...

K: Do it now ! See whether your thought (the thinking brain?) can be aware of its own (mental) movement.

(Long silent pause)

B: It stops... ?

K: What does that mean?

S: It means what it says: with this (holistic) sense of the observation of thought, thought stops.

K: No, don't put it that way.

S: How would you put it?

K: It is undergoing a radical change.

B: So the word 'thought' is not a fixed thing either ?

K: No.

B: The word 'thought' does not mean a fixed thing. But thought can change in ( the context of direct) perception.

K: You and other scientists have told me that in the very observation through an (electronic?) microscope of a ( quantic?) 'object', the object undergoes a change.

B: In the quantum theory the object cannot be ( considered as ) 'fixed' apart from the act of observation.

S: This is true with patients in psychoanalysis. Being with the patient they (their mood can) change ' automatically'.

K: What takes place when thought is aware of itself? You know, sir, this is an extraordinarily important thing (left for homework meditation?)

B: Yes... ?

K: That is, can the 'doer' be aware of 'his doing'? Is there an (inner) awareness ( in real time?) of thought's movement, of its activity, its structure, its nature, of what it has done in the ( real?) world, the misery, and all the rest of it?

S: Is there an awareness of the 'doing' of the brain? I want to save this (experiential) question for tomorrow : when you are ( becoming fully?) aware of the movement of the brain it does stop.

B: The 'irrelevant' ( time-binding activities of) thought stop.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Feb 2020 #259
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline


Krishnamurti: You know I don't think we answered yesterday the question: why human beings live the way the are living. I don't think we went into it sufficiently deeply.

Dr Shainberg: We got to the point, but we never answered that question (explicitly ?) ...

K: I was thinking about it this morning, and it struck me that we hadn't answered it fully. We went into the ( experientially confusing?) question of "how can thought observe itself ?" but I think we ought to answer this other question.

B: I think that what we said was on the way to answering it. I mean it was relevant to the answer.

K: Yes, relevant, but not 'complete'.

S: No, it doesn't really get hold of the central issue: why do people live the way they do, and why, knowing this, they don't change.

K: Yes. Could we go into that a little bit before we go on?

S: Well, my immediate answer to that question was that they ( seem to) like it (the way it is?)...

K: I think it is much deeper than that, don't you? Because if one actually transformed one's (psychological) conditioning, the way one lives, you might find yourself in a difficult economical position.

S: Right...

K: And also it is going completely against the current...

B: Are you saying that it might lead to a certain objective insecurity ?

K: Objective insecurity.

B: It is not merely a matter of the imagination ?

K: No, no, actual insecurity.

B: You see, in a lot of things we were discussing yesterday, there was involved some illusion of security or insecurity. But in addition there is some genuine...

K: ...genuine insecurity. Doesn't it imply you'll have to stand alone ?

S: Definitely you would be in a totally different position...

K: No, because it is like completely away from the (main cultural ?) stream. That means you have to be ( inwardly ) alone (all-one?) ; can (the average?) human being stand that ?

S: Well certainly the opposite option is being completely together.

K: That is herd instinct - be together, be with people, don't be alone.

S: Be like them, be with them - ( and then) it is all based on competition : I am (doing) better than you.

K: Of course, it is all that...

B: Well, this is unclear because in some sense we should 'be together' , but society is giving us some false sense of togetherness which is really (hiding an inner) fragmentation...

K: Quite right.

B: But it is called 'being together' and it makes you feel that way.

K: So one of the main reasons, that human beings don't want ( don't actually care?) to radically transform themselves is that they are really frightened not to belong to a group, to a herd, to something definite, which (inwardly speaking?) implies standing completely alone? I think that only from an (integrated?) sense of 'all-oneness' you can really co-operate; not the other way round.

B: Well, I think the anthropologists find that in the more primitive people, the sense of belonging to the tribe is even stronger, they feel completely lost, their entire psychological structure depends on being in the tribe.

K: So, that is one of the ( subliminal) reasons why we don't want to change (inwardly) - we are frightened. After all, cling to the misery that you already know, than come into another kind of misery that you don't know.

S: That's right. But there is a whole action-reaction scheme. That is, by being with others you are feeling safe. And I mean it even goes further: the afterthought is that I compare myself with you and therefore, I am together with you, is. In other words, that is part of the circle.

B: Even if you leave off comparison, there is something deeper in the sense that people feel (pretty safe with ) this (subliminal?) sense of belonging to a group - they will be taken care of, like their mother may have taken care of them, and that you are sort of gently supported, and that fundamentally everything will be all right because the group is large, it is wise, it knows what to do. I think there is a feeling like that, rather deep. (Belonging to a?) church may give that feeling.

K: But ( inwardly-wise?) this feeling of 'all-oneness' is much more, it has got a great deal in it. It isn't just ( the feeling of your own?) isolation...

B: Many people are seeking that sense (of belonging to a certain community) , that from the group you have some support from the whole.

K: Of course....

B: Now, isn't it possible that you are talking about an 'all-oneness' in which you have a certain (physical) security? You see, that people are seeking in the group a kind of security, it seems to me, that can arise actually in (an integrated state of?) 'all-oneness'.

K: Yes, that is right. In 'all-oneness' you can be completely secure.

B: I wonder if we could discuss this point, because many people think that you should have a sense of security and they are looking for it in a group, the group being representative of something more 'universal'. The little child thinks the (family or his) tribe is the whole world, you know...

K: (In a nutshell?) a human being who lives in this ( fragmentary) way, if he transforms himself ( defragments himself inwardly ?) he becomes 'all-one', he 'is' all-one. This sense of 'All-Oneness' is not isolation, but a form of supreme intelligence.

B: Yes, but could you go into that a little further about (aloneness?) not being isolation, because at first when you say 'alone', the feeling that I am standing here, entirely apart. Right?

K: It is not apart, no...

S: But what do you think such a person would experiences? One part of it is all people, seem to gravitate, like they have to be together, they have to be like other people. That is one question. What would change anybody from that? And the second is : why should anybody change from that? And third: what would such a person experience when they are 'alone' ( the non-integrated way) ? They experience isolation.

K: I thought we have dealt with that fairly (holistically ?) the other day. That is, after all when one realizes the appalling state of the world, and in oneself, the disorder, the confusion, and when one says there must be a total (inward) change, a total (qualitative) transformation, he has already begun to move away from all that...

S: Right. But here he is ''being together'' ?

K: Being together, what does it really mean? Identifying oneself with the (collective stream of consciousness of the ) group, what is involved in it?

S: I think one of the things that is involved in it, is what I said before, it sets up this (highly competitive mentality based on?) comparison.

K: No, no, apart from all that superficiality, what is involved in it? The group is me & I am the group. Therefore it is like co-operating with myself.

B: Well, I think you could say like Descartes said, ''I think, therefore I am''. Meaning that I am in (competing within?) the group's (consciousness?). You see, if I am not (accepted?) in the ( shared consciousness of the?) group, I have no being at all. That is really the (psychological) condition of the primitive tribe and there is something very deep there because I feel that my very existence, my being psychologically, is implied in being first in the group. The group has made me, everything about me has come from the group. I say I am nothing without the group.

K: Yes, quite right. I 'am' (impersonating?) the consciousness of the group, in fact.

B: And therefore if I am out of the group I feel everything is collapsing. That seems to me deeper than the question of competing: who is the chief, or who is the big shot. That is a secondary affair.

S: Well, I wasn't really saying that that was important so much as I was saying that the very action - what I am trying to get at is some of the moment to moment experiences of being in the group, which is occupied.

B: Could I say that the more striking thing is what happens when a person is taken out of the group and he feels lost, you see ? All this (highly competitive?) stuff seems unimportant because he doesn't know where he is.

S: Right, right. He doesn't know, he has no orientation or anything...

B: To life, or to anything. And therefore that might be the greatest punishment that the group could make, to banish him. Because such a banishment sort of robs him of his being, it is almost like killing him, you see.

K: Of course. I think that is where (originates ) the fear of being alone. Alone is translated as being isolated from all this.

B: It seems to me you are implying that if you are really all-one, genuinely all-one, then you are not isolated from the ( Consciousness of the?) Universe.

K: Absolutely. On the contrary.

B: That is what he is saying. And therefore we have to be free of this false 'universal' first.

S: This false identification with the group ?

B: Identification of the group as the 'universal', you see. Treating the ( collective consciousness of the?) group as if it were the universal support of my being, or something.

S: Right, right. Now there is something more to that. What is being said is that by the localised identification that I am the group, that me, that false security is dropped, then one is opened up to the participation in...

K: No, there is no question of 'participation'; you 'are' the ( Mind of the?) universe.

B: You see as a child I was in a certain town, and I felt that was the whole universe, then I heard of another town beyond that which felt almost beyond the universe. That must be the ultimate limit of all reality, you see. So that the idea of going beyond that would not have occurred to me. (Laughter) And I think that is the way that the group ( consciousness) is treated, you see. We may know intellectually that it is not so, but the ( gut ) feeling you have, it is like of the little child.

K: Therefore is it that human beings (chose to?) hold on to their own (psychological) misery, confusion, and all the rest of it because they don't know anything else?

B: Yes...

K: The 'known' is ( going) so far, then the ( Great?) Unknown.

S: Right...

K: Now to be (inwardly ) all-one implies, doesn't it, to step out of the stream.

S: Of the known ?

K: Step out of the 'stream' (collective mentality?) of confusion, disorder, sorrow and despair, hope, travail - to step out of all that.

S: Right...

K: And if you want to go much deeper into that: to be all-one implies, doesn't it, not to carry the ( subliminal?) burden of tradition with you at all.

B: Tradition being the group (mentality?) , then.

K: Group (mentality) ; tradition also being ( the emphasis on 'second hand?) knowledge'.

B: This knowledge comes basically from the group. Knowledge is basically collective. It is collected by everybody.

K: So to be (inwardly) 'all-one' implies total freedom (from the continuous movement of thought- time) . And when there is that great freedom it 'is' ( one with?) the Universe.

B: Could we go into that further because to a person who hasn't seen this, it doesn't look so obvious...
S: Well, I think David is right there. To most people, I think, and I have tested this out recently, that the idea, or even the deep feeling, that you 'are' (one with ) the (consciousness of the?) universe, and therefore you don't have to do anything, seems to be so...

K: Ah, sir, that is a most dangerous thing to assume . How can you say you are the universe when you are (living inwardly) in total confusion? When you are unhappy, miserable, anxious, you follow, jealous, envious, all that, how can you say you are the universe? Universe implies total Order.

B: Yes, 'cosmos' in Greek meant 'order'. And chaos was the opposite, you see ?

K: Yes... chaos is what we live with. How can I think I have universal order in me? That is the good old trick of the (inwardly dishonest?) mind which says, disorder is there, but inside you there is perfect order, old boy. That is an illusion. It is a concept which thought has put there and it gives me a certain hope, and therefore it is an illusion, it has no reality. What has actual reality is my (ongoing) confusion.

S: Right....

K: My (inner) chaos. I can project a 'Cosmic Order ' , but that is equally illusory. So I must start with the fact of what I am.

S: Right...

K: Which is I am in a 'chaos'.

S: (When) I belong to a group ?

K: Chaos 'is' (implicit in the consciousness of the?) group. They have had (lots of?) political leaders, religious, you follow, the whole thing is a ( self-sustained?) chaos. So to move away from that into Cosmos, which is total order means not that I am alone, there is a total order which is not associated with disorder, chaos. That is all-one.

B: Can we go into that ? Suppose several people are doing that, in that state, moving into Cosmos, into order out of the chaos of society. Now then, are they all 'alone'?

K: No, they don't feel alone there. There is only order. Which is, order is all-one.

B: I looked up the word 'alone' in the dictionary; basically it is 'all one'.

K: All one, yes, yes.

B: In other words there is no (inner) fragmentation.

K: Therefore there is no (us) three (gathered together) ; and that is marvellous, sir.

S: But you jumped away there. We got chaos and confusion. That is what we have got.

K: So, as we said, to 'move away' from that ( fragmentary inner condition?) most people are afraid, which is to have total order. Alone, as he pointed out, is all one. Therefore there is no fragmentation, then there is Cosmos.

S: Right. But most people are in confusion and chaos. That is all they know.

K: So to move away from that is the whole question.

S: That is the question. Here we are in chaos and confusion, we are not over there.

K: No, because you may be frightened of that.

S: Frightened of what ?

K: Frightened of the idea of being (left all - ) alone.

S: How can you be frightened of an idea?

B: That is easy!

K: Aren't you frightened of ( what might happen to you?) tomorrow? Which is an idea.

S: OK...that is a (self-projected ) idea.

K: So they are frightened of an idea which they (or the collective consciousness?) have projected, which says, my god, I am all alone, which means, I have nobody to rely on.

B: Well, let's go slowly becuse to a certain extent it is genuinely so. You are not being supported by a society (dominated by self-interest?) and all that. You do have a certain genuine danger because you have withdrawn from the nub of society.

S: OK, but most people are let's say unaware, or don't know anything about being inwardly 'all one'.

K: Being inwardly in a chaotic conditions, to move away from that they have the feeling that they will be 'alone' (left on their own?)

B: A sense of being totally isolated.. 

K: Therefore they say, "I would rather stay where I am, in my little pond, rather than face isolation".

S: That's right.

K: And that may be one of the reason that human beings don't radically change. The other is we are so heavily conditioned to accept things as they are. We don't say to ourselves, "Why should I live this way?"

B: Well, we have to get out of this conviction that the way things are is all that can be, you see.

K: Yes, that's right. You see the (more thoughtful ?) religions have pointed this out by saying ''there is another world: aspire to that''. This is a transient world, it doesn't matter, live as best as you can in your sorrow, but hand over your sorrow to Jesus, or to somebody else , and then you will be perfectly happy in the next world. But... may I ask you a (very personal?) question? Why don't you change? What is preventing you?

S: Oh, it's a tough question! I don't have any answer!

K: Because you have never asked yourself that question. Right?

S: Not so 'radically'...

K: Is it because our whole society, all religions, all culture, are based on a ( self-centred way of ) thinking which doesn't see its own limitation ? And (doesn't ) realize it cannot change itself?

B: Well, I think that something more subtle happens: thought loses track of something and it doesn't see that itself is behind all this.

K: Of course. We said that. Thought has produced all this chaos.

B: But thought doesn't really see – it sees this abstractly. When you really see it, it's in the bones.

S: What thought does in fact is that it (operates ) through gradual change.

K: That is all the invention of thought.

S: Yes, but that is where I think the 'hook' is...

K: No, sir, please sir, just listen : thought has put this world together, technologically as well as psychologically. The technological world is (+/-) all right, but psychologically thought has divided this world in 'me' and 'outside me' - the various churches, the society and so on. And does thought realize it has made this mess, this chaos?

B: I would say that it doesn't. It tends to look on this (global psychological) chaos as independently existent, do you see ?

K: But it is its 'bogey'!

B: It is, but it is very hard for it to see that. You see we were discussing that at the end of the hour yesterday this question of how thought gives (to the human brain the ?) 'sense of reality'. You see, technology deals with something that thought made, but it is actually an independent reality once it is made.

K: Like the table, like those (video) cameras.

B: But you could say that thought also creates a ( virtual construction of?) reality which it calls independent, but isn't, you see. I thought of a good example, that is: the Corporation : you see people are there working for the Corporation, it makes money, it loses money, they strike against the Corporation and so on. But actually you could say, where is the Corporation? It is not in the buildings because if all the people were gone the buildings would be nothing. And if the buildings all burned down the Corporation would still exist, as long as people think it exists.

K: So, does thought realize, see, is aware that it has created this (psychologically motivated?) chaos?

B: You see, our thought tends to attribute the chaos to something else; either to something outside, or to 'me' (the thinker) who is inside. I was going to say that our thinking has invented a sort of a ( virtual) Corporation who is supposed to be responsible for thinking. We could call it 'Thinking Inc.'! And this (virtual) the Corporation is supposed to be thinking.

S: Yes, yes.

B: So we give credit for thought to this Corporation called 'me'. And thought has said that 'me' is not (the creation of) thought, but in reality it is.

K: Of course, of course...

B: You see thought treats this virtual Corporation as if it were there, just standing like the buildings. It says it is a reality, it is not a mere... I think it is all involved this question of 'reality' : if you say there are certain realities which are independent of thought, there are certain things that are appearances. So it is important to keep clear whether this (temporal 'me') is a reality that is dependent on this whole movement of thought , or whether it stands self-generated, you know - independent. Thought is treating the 'me' as an independent reality.

K: To me, thought has created the 'me'. So the me is not separate from thought. It is (the controlling part of the ?) the structure of thought.

S: Right, right...

K: Does your (thinking brain?), does your thought realize this?

S: If one can be really honest about this, completely true about it, what happens, what is the actuality of thought seeing this creation?

K: We asked a (meditation homework?) question yesterday : does thought see itself ( as a mental process?) in movement?

S: Right... ?

K: This 'movement' (self-centred mental activity ?) has created the 'me', created the chaos, created the division, created the conflict, jealousy, anxiety, fear and all that.

S: Right, but I am trying to get at the 'actuality' of thought seeing itself...

K: You want me to describe it?

S: No, no...what I am trying to get at is the 'actuality' that thought sees. And as I observe this, it seems that thought sees and then forgets.

K: Don't complicate it : does thought see ( the actuality of?) the chaos it has created? That's all. Which means, is thought (or the thinking brain?) aware of itself as a movement? Not 'I' am aware of 'my thinking' - the 'I' (aka the 'thinker' ?) has been created by thought.

B: I think the question that is more relevant here is: why does thought keep on going? You see how does it sustain itself? Because as long as it sustains itself it does produce the illusion of an independent reality. Can this (self-sustained process of) thought stop ( projecting itself in time) right now?

K: Yes.

B: So, what is sustaining this whole thing, at this very moment, was the question I was trying to get at. In other words, say we have a certain insight, but something happens ( surreptitiously) to sustain the old process right now...

K: Dr Bohm asked a very good question which we haven't answered. He said why does thought move...

B: ... when it is irrelevant to moving ?

K: So what is (sustaining its?) movement? Movement is time. Right?

S: This (holistic statement is?) too quick. 'Movement is time'....

K: A movement (within the 'known'?) from 'here' to 'there'. Physically, from here to New York, but also ( a mental movement ?) inwardly from 'here' to 'there'... I am now (like) 'this', but I must become 'that'.

S: But thought is not necessarily doing all that.

K: Thought 'is' (sustaining itself by?) this (mental) movement - if thought stopped there is no (such) movement.

S: I know, but this has to be made very clear.

B: I think there is a kind of (intermediary?) step that might help : asking myself what is it that makes me go on thinking or talking. In other words, I often can watch people and see they are in a hole just because they keep on talking: if they would stop talking the whole problem would vanish. I mean it is just this flow of words, because what they say comes out as if it were a 'reality' in them, and then they say, that is my problem, it is real, and I have got to think some more. Suppose I say, 'Well, I have got a problem, I am suffering'.

S: You have got an 'I' though...

B: Yes. Thinking I have a sense that I am real. I am thinking of my suffering but in that it is implicit that it is 'I' who is there (thinking ) , and the suffering is real because I am real.

S: Right...

B: And then comes the next thought, which is: since that is real I must think about it some more.

S: Right. It feeds on itself.

B: Yes. Then what is my problem ? That I am suffering. And I am compelled to keep on thinking that ( circular thread of) thought all the time. Do you see? And maintaining 'myself' in existence. Do you see what I am driving at? That there is a feedback.

K: Which means, that as thought is ( a self-sustained mental) movement, if there is no such movement 'I' am (non-existing) ! I am 'dead' !

B: Yes, if that movement stops, then the sense that 'I' (the thinking 'thinker') am there being real must go, because that sense that I am real is the result of thinking.

K: This is something extraordinary - when one's (brain?) realizes thought as 'movement'. Right?

S: Right... ?

K: There is not, "I realize thought as a movement", thought (the totality of the brain?) itself realizes thought is a movement.

B: And in this movement it creates the (virtual) image of 'me', that is supposed to be 'moving'.

K: Yes, yes...Now when that ( mental) movement stops there is no 'me'. The 'me' is put together by thought's ( self-projected continuity in ?) time ?

S: Right.... ?

K: So do you, listening to this, realize the ( inward?) truth of it? Not the (truth of the ) verbal, logical statement, but the actual truth of such an amazing thing? (If yes, then ?) there is a (holistic) action entirely different from the action of thought which brings about a fragmentary action, a contradictory action. When the (self-centred mental) movement of thought comes to an end there is a total action.

B: Can we say that whatever thought comes about in the technological has an order?

K: Of course.

B: In other words it doesn't mean that thought is permanently gone.

K: No, no...

S: It can still be a movement in its proper place. I mean the brain can still do that kind of thing.

B: Yes.

K: So why is the (time-bound) human being, afraid of all this? (Sub-) -consciously, deeply, he must realize (it does involve) the ending of (the temporal?) 'me' - a most frightening thing: the ending of ( the attachment to) all my knowledge, my books, my wife, the whole ( self-consciouness?) which thought has put together.

B: Can't you say it is the ending of every 'thing'? Because 'every thing' that I know is in there...

K: Absolutely. So you see, the (time-bound) human being is actually frightened of this ('psychological'?) death - not of the 'biological' death.

S: To die 'now'...

K: Death of all this ( compounded attachment?) coming to an end. And therefore he believes in God, reincarnation, a dozen other comforting things but when (in the context of a 'meditator-free' meditation?) thought realizes itself as movement and sees that movement has created the me, the divisions, the quarrels, the whole structure of the (man-made) world, when thought sees the whole truth of it, it 'ends'. Then there is (the universal order of the?) Cosmos. Now as you listen to this: how do you 'receive' it?

S: Do you want me to answer?

K: I offer you something. How do you receive it? How does one who listens ( or reads?) receive all this ?

S: How indeed ?

K: He (Mr X) says listen to what I am saying and find out for yourself whether thought in that (self-centred) movement has created all this, both the technological world which is useful, which is necessary, and this chaotic world. How does another person who is not here, listen to it? What takes place in you when you listen to it?

S: Panic ?

K: Is it?

S: Yes, there is a panic about this (psychological aspect of?) death, a sort of fear of the death. There is a sense of seeing ( the inward truth of it?) and then there is a fear of that death.

K: Which means you the words have awakened the fear, but not the actuality of the fact.

S: I wouldn't say that. I think that is a little unfair. The words awaken the actuality of the fact, and then there seems to be a very quick process. There is an actuality of the fact and there seems to be a silence, a moment of great clarity that gives way to a kind of feeling in the pit of the stomach where things are dropping out and then there is a kind of...

K: ...withholding ?

S: ...withholding, right. I think there is a whole ( sub-conscious) movement there.

K: So you are describing humanity.

S: No, I am describing 'me'...

K: You are the ( time-bound consciousness of ?) humanity.

S: Right....

K: You 'are' the people who are listening.

S: That's right. So isn't there is a sense of what will happen (with me) tomorrow? I am telling you, that is the fear.

K: No. When thought realizes (itself) as a (self-centred mental) movement, and that movement has created all this chaos, total chaos, not just patchy, but complete disorder, when it realizes (the inward truth of) that, what takes place, actually? You are not frightened, there is no (sense of) fear. Fear is (caused by ) the idea brought about by an abstraction. You have made a (mental) picture of (your psychological?) ending, and got frightened of that 'ending'.

S: You are right. When the 'actuality' takes place there is silence.

B: But as soon as the ( 'self' - identified process of) thought comes in...

S: That's right. Now wait a minute, no don't go away. (Laughter) When thought comes in...

K: Then it is no longer a fact. So, you couldn't remain with the actual fact (of ending)

B: Well, that is the same as to say that you 'keep on thinking'. I mean as soon as you bring thought in it, (it starts a process of ) imagination or a fantasy which is felt to be real, but it is not so.

S: Right...

B: Therefore you are not (remaining contemplatively?) with the 'fact' (of ending) any longer.

K: We have discovered something extraordinary: when you are faced with 'fact' there is no fear.

B: So all (psychological) fear is ( created by?) thought, is that it?

K: All. That's right...

S: That's a big mouthful here...

K: (In a holistic nutshell) All thought 'is' fear, all thought 'is' sorrow.

B: This goes both ways: all fear is thought, and all thought is fear. Except the kind of ( holistically friendly?) thinking that arises with the fact alone.

S: I want to interject something right here : it seems to me that we have discovered something quite important : in the pure act 'seeing', the (energy of) attention is at its peak.

K: Something new is taking place - something that you have never looked at, or that has never been understood or experienced (bu the time-bound mind) . A totally different thing happens.

B: But isn't it important that we acknowledge this in our language? In other words, that if it happened and we didn't acknowledge it then we are liable to fall back.

K: Of course, of course...

S: I don't get it...

B: Well, we have to see it when it happens and we have to say that it happens.

S: Well then are we creating a place (in memory) to 'localise' this ?

K: No, no... He is saying, when this fact, actuality, take place, can thought not move in but remain only with that fact ? It is like saying (for one's contemplative meditation?) : remain totally with sorrow, not try to move away, no 'how am I to get over it ?', (involving?) self pity and all the rest of it, just totally remain with the (ongoing?) 'fact'. Then you have an energy which is extraordinary.

S: Right...

K: But...can you?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Feb 2020 #260
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline


Krishnamurti: Talking about the necessity of human beings changing, and why they don't change, why they accept the (time-binding?) conditions of the human psyche, I think we ought to approach the same thing from the angle of the ('image making' process which is constantly going on in the ) so called 'unconscious'.

S: Well, the history of thinking about the unconscious is a long and involuted process. I think it began...

K: May we ask, are you aware of ( the actual existence of?) your 'unconscious'? Do you know if you have an 'unconscious' ( a subliminally active mind ?) that is operating differently, or trying to give you hints, you know, all that, are you aware of all that?

S: Yes, but I look at it a little differently: an aspect of myself that is aware of my experience, or aware of the events in an incomplete way. That's what I call the 'unconscious'. And it uses symbols and different modes of telling, like a dream where I am discovering an aspect of jealousy that I wasn't aware of...

K: Do you also give importance, Dr Bohm, to a feeling that there is such a thing?

Bohm: Well, I don't know what you exactly mean by the 'unconscious' , but I think there are (within the human psyche) some things we do whose origin we are not aware of. Like when we react (to an unexpected challenge) , we use words in an inhabitual way...

S: ...or we have dreams...

K: I am going to question if there is such a thing as the 'unconscious'. For me (personally ?) I don't think it has played any important part in my life at all.

S: Well, it depends on what you mean by the word 'unconscious' ...

K: I will tell you what I mean. Something hidden, something incomplete, something that I have to go after consciously and discover, unearth it, explore and expose it. See the hidden intentions...

B: Well, could we make it more clear? There are some things people do where you can see they are not aware of what they are doing, but also some things in the nature of thought...

K: I don't quite follow...

B: Well, for example, this Freudian 'slip of the tongue', somebody makes a slip of the tongue which expresses his (actual) will.

K: Yes, quite, but I didn't mean that...

S: You see, there are those people who think that the unconscious is a 'thing' ( like Pandora's Box?) and that there are things which are (lingering) there and must be lifted out. Then there are a large group of people now who think of the 'unconscious' as areas of ( the collective?) human experience that we aren't totally aware of all what happens; so that in the daytime you might have, let's say, an experience of stress, or of 'disorder', you didn't finish with that experience and at night you go through reworking it in a new way.

K: I understand all that.

S: So that would be the 'unconscious' in operation. You get other things, let's say, from the past or from previous programmes of action.

K: From the collective unconscious, the racial unconscious...

B: Let's say somebody has been deeply hurt in the past, and you can see his whole behaviour is governed by that. But he may not know it.

K: Yes, but I am trying to find out why we have divided the 'conscious' and the 'unconscious', while (the human consciousness is ?) may be an unitary total process, moving ( in time?) as a whole current ?
S: The reason may be that Freud and Jung and this kind of people were mostly dealing with ( mentally disturbed ?) people who had already fragmented off this whole movement which you are talking about.

K: That's what I want to get at ; this ( dualistic) state of mind that divides everything, that says, there is the unconscious, conscious, is a process of fragmentation...

B: Well, wouldn't you say that certain material is made 'unconscious' by the brain because it is too disturbing. I mean that is well known in all schools of psychology.

S: That's right. That is what I am saying. That it is fragmented off and that then was called the 'unconscious'.

B: But wouldn't you say that the brain itself is on purpose holding it separate in order to avoid (dealing with ) it?

K: Yes, to avoid facing the fact.

B: So that it is not really separate from consciousness, but the brain has organized it in a fragmented (compartmentalised?) way. Then it is a wrong terminology to call it that. The word 'unconscious' already implies a separation to say there are two layers, the deep unconscious and the surface consciousness, that structure is implied. But this other notion is to say that structure is not implied, but rather, certain material wherever it may be, is simply avoided.

K: I don't want to think about somebody because he has hurt me. That is not the 'unconscious', it's  simply that I don't want to think about him.

B: But a kind of paradoxical situation arise, because eventually you would become so good at it that you don't realize you are doing it. I mean, this seems to happen - people become so proficient at avoiding ( thinking about) these things that they cease to realize they are doing it.

K: Yes...

B: It becomes habitual.

S: That is right. I think this is what happens. That these kinds of things, the hurts...

K:... the (psychological) wound remains.

S: ...the wound remains and we 'remember to forget' ; and actually the process of therapy is helping the remembering and the recall and then to understand the connections of why you forgot, and then the thing can move in a more holistic way, rather than being fragmented.

K: Do you feel that you have been hurt?

S: Yes...

K: And want to avoid (facing ) it? Or, being hurt, resist, withdraw, isolate, the whole picture being the image of yourself being hurt and withdrawing, and all that - do you feel that when you are hurt?

S: Yes, I am reminded of having being hurt deeply by this more superficial hurt ? So I avoid hurt, period.

K: The 'psychological' (energy matrix of the?) brain, if we can call it that, must it be hurt? Is that inevitable?

S: No, I don't think so.

K: No. I am asking: can the 'psychological' brain, if I can use those two words, never be hurt under any circumstances? Because apparently this is one of the major (inner) problems in human existence : the more sensitive you are, the more aware, you get more and more hurt, more and more withdrawn. Is this inevitable?

S: I don't think it is inevitable, but I think it happens frequently, I mean more often than not. Like when a strong attachment is formed and then the loss of the attachment. You become important to me, what you think. You become important to me, I like you, or I am involved with you, then it becomes important to me that you don't do anything that disturbs that image.

K: That is, in that relationship between two people the picture that we have of each other, the 'image', that is the cause of hurt.

B: Well, it also goes the other way: that we hold ( a set of self-protective) images in order to avoid being hurt.

K: Of course, of course.

B: Where does it start?

K: Now are these wounds hidden in the 'unconscious' ?

S: Well, I think you are being a little simplistic about that, because what is hidden is the fact that I have had that event (of being psychologicaly hurt) happen many times, it happened with my mother, it happened with my friends, it happened in school, or when I really cared about somebody ... it's like you form the attachment and then comes the hurt...

K: I am not at all sure it comest hrough attachment.

S: Maybe it is not (a conscious?) 'attachment', that is the wrong world, but there is something there that happens. What happens is that I form a relationship with you where an image becomes important? What you do to me becomes important.

K: You have an image about yourself.

S: That's right. And you are saying that I like you because you are confirming my (self-) image?

K: Or, I come along and put a pin in that 'image'.

S: But first you come along and confirm it...

B: The hurt will be greater if you first come along and be very friendly to me and confirm the image, and then suddenly you put a pin into it. But even somebody who didn't confirm it, if he puts the pin in properly he can produce that hurt.

S: That's right. But why did I have the (self-) image to begin with? That is a (sub-conscious process?)

K: Is it 'unconscious', or it is so obvious that we don't (care to?) look? I question whether it is hidden at all; ( for Mr 'X'?) it is so blatantly obvious.

S: I wonder if all the ingredients of it are so obvious...

B: I think we 'hide it' , as this hurt means that something is wrong with my self- image, but we 'hide it' (in plain view ) by saying that everything is ( going to be?) all right... In other words, the thing that is so obvious (for others?) may be hidden (to oneself) by saying it is unimportant.

S: Yes, but I ask myself what is it that generates this (self-protective) image, that is getting inevitably hurt?

K: Ah, we will come to that. ( To recap:) we are enquiring, aren't we, into the whole structure and nature of human consciousness. We have broken it up into the hidden and the open. It may be the (self-centred) 'fragmented' mind that is doing that and therefore the division grows greater and greater...

S: The 'fragmented' mind is...

K: ...doing this. Now most people have an image about themselves, practically everybody and it is that image that gets hurt. And that image is you, and you say, "Well, I am hurt".

B: It is the same as we were discussing this morning : if I say I have a (rewarding) pleasant self image, then I attribute the pleasure to me and say, that's real. When somebody hurts me then the pain is attributed to me and I say, that's real too. So, it seems that if you have an image that can give you pleasure then it must be able to give you pain.

K: Pain, yes.

B: There is no way out of that.

K: Absolutely.

S: And this ('self'-identified?) image also seems to be perpetuating itself ?

B: I think most people hope that this ( carefully built) 'self- image' will give them pleasure, but the very mechanism that makes pleasure possible makes pain possible because you see the pleasure comes if I say, "I think I am good", and that I is also sensed to be real, which makes my 'goodness' real; but then if somebody comes along and says, "You are not 'good', you are just stupid", then that too is real, and therefore very significant. I mean it makes it hurt. Right?

K: To put it very, very simply, this ( self-identified) image brings both pleasure and pain.

B: Although many people would hope that a (more carefully built self-) image would bring them only ( inner safety & ) pleasure.

S: People do hope that, there is no question. But when I discover that I am not (living up to this self-) 'image' then it works both ways...

B: I think that what is implied in (identifying one's psyche with?) this 'self image' is that everything comes to depend on ( the public confirmation of ) this 'self image' being 'right'. But then, if somebody shows it is wrong, therefore everything seems to be wrong (about myself) .

S: That's right...

K: So, we are always giving a new shape to the image (updating & upgrading it?) . And if this (self-identified ) image means everything for you, this gives it tremendous power.

S: The entire personality is directed to the achievement of this image. Everything else takes secondary place.

K: Let me summarize it first. Every human being practically has an image of themself, of which he is 'unconscious', or not ( completely ) aware.

B: And the general feeling is that one's whole life depends on this ( self-identified) image.

K: Yes, that's right. Now, the next ( experiential ?) question is: how does it come into being?

S: Well, I think it comes into being when as children there is this hurt and there is the feeling that there is no other way in which this hurt can be assuaged. Really it works in the family in some way. You are my father and I understand through my watching you that if I am smart you will like me. Right?

K: Quite. We agree.

S: I learn that very quickly. So I am going to make sure I get that love, so I am going to go from here to there. I am going to become that.

K: It is all very simple. But I am asking: what is the origin of making images about oneself ?

S: Suppose you have got this child, very vulnerable in the sense that he needs physiological support. He has enormous tensions...

K: Sir, agreed to all that. Such a child has a (self-protective mental ) 'image'.

B: Well, that is the question we are discussing. Is it necessary to work that way? Or is this just the result of ( our cultural) conditioning?

K: So what is the cause of all this, apart from sociological, economic pressures and all that ? Is it the parents have an image about themselves and the parents insist in creating a (proper self-?) image in the children?

S: I see what you are saying....

K: And the child refuses to have that image but he has his own image. So the battle is on.

S: Well, that is where I am trying to get; what is their initial relationship ?

K: I doubt if they have any ( authentic ?) relations. That is what I am trying to get at.

S: I agree with you. There is something wrong with their relationship. They have a relationship but it is a wrong (kind of) relationship.

K: But have they any (authentic) relationship? Look: young people get married, they have a child - by mistake, or intentionally. But these young parents they are children themselves, they haven't understood their (relationship with the?) universe, Cosmos or chaos, they just have this child.

S: That's right. That is what generally happens...

K: And they play with it for a year or two and then say, "For god's sake, I am fed up with this child", and look elsewhere. And the child feels left, lost.

S: That's right.

K: But the child needs ( a holistic sense of being in) security, which the parents are incapable of giving them - the sense of "you are my child, I love you, I'll look after you, I'll see that throughout life you will be cared for ". They haven't got that feeling.

S: Right...

K: They are getting bored with it after a couple of years. Is it that they have no authentic relationship neither the husband, nor the wife, boy or girl? It is only a pleasure (based) relationship; and they won't accept there is a pain principle involved with the pleasure principle.

S: That's right....

K: What I am trying to see is that there is actually no relationship at all, except the sensual relationship.

S: I think that they are trying to establish an authentic relationship, but it is (generally becoming) a wrong relationship, as there are all kinds of...

K: There is no 'wrong' relationship: it is an (authentic) relationship, or no relationship.

S: Well then we will have to say they have a relationship. And I think that most parents have a relationship with their child.

B: Wouldn't you say it is their (self-) images that are related? You see, suppose the parent and child have images of each other, and the relationship is governed by those images, the question is whether that is actually a relationship or not, or whether it is some sort of fantasy of relationship.

K: A fanciful relationship.

B: Yes.

K: Sir, you have children - have you any relationship with them - in the real sense of that word ?

S: In the real sense, yes.

K: That means you have no 'image' about yourself. And you are not imposing an 'image' on them ?

S: That's right.

K: And the society is not imposing an 'image' on them (through peer pressure or through mass-media?) .

S: There are moments like that.

K: That is not good enough. It is like a rotten egg!

B: If it is (good only at) moments, it is not ( absolutely) so. It is like a person who has been hurt has good moments when he is not feeling hurt, but ( the memory of having been hurt) is sitting there waiting to explode when something happens.

K: Yes...

B: So ( in terms of human relationships?) he can't go very far. It is like somebody who is tied to a rope, and as soon as he reaches the limits of that rope he is ( finding himself) stuck.

S: That is right...

B: So you could say, I am related as long as certain things are going all right, but then beyond that point it just sort of blows up. You see what I am driving at? That mechanism is inside there, buried, so it dominates you potentially.

S: What you just said is a 'fact'.

B: Yes, it is like the man who is tied to a rope and says there are moments when I can move wherever I like, but I can't really because as I keep on moving I am bound to come to the end of my rope.

S: That does seem happen ; there is a reverberation in which there is yank-back.

B: Either I have come to the end of the cord, or else something yanks the cord and then - but the person who is on the cord is really not free ever.

S: Well, I think that is so true....

B: So, in the same sense the person who has the ( self-identified) image is not really related ever, you see ?

K: Yes, that is just the whole point. You can play with it verbally, but the actual is you have no ( authentic) relationship as long as you have a (self-protective) 'image' about yourself. This is a tremendous revelation. You follow? It is not just an intellectual statement.

S: Let me share with you something: I resent this, because you may have an authentic relationship with somebody but you will go just so far...

K: Of course. That is understood.

B: But then really this (self-identified) image controls it all the time because ( confirming your self-) image is the dominant factor. If you once (tres)pass that point, no matter what happens, the 'image' takes over.

S: That's right...

K: So, the ( 'self-) image' gets hurt. And the child, do you impose the image on the child? You are bound to because you have an image.

S: You are working at it, but the child picks it up, or he doesn't pick it up.

K: No, no. Because you have an image about yourself you are bound to create an image in the child.

S: That is right...

K: That is it. You see what we have discovered? And society is doing this to all of us.

B: So you're saying that the child is picking up an image just 'naturally', as it were, and then suddenly it gets hurt.

K: Hurt. That's right.

B: So the (psychological) hurt has been preceded by this steady process of building an image. You see if the steady process of building a (self-protecting) image didn't occur then there would be no basis, no structure to get hurt. In other words, the (existential) pain is due entirely to some psychological factor, some thought which is attributed to me in saying, "I am suffering this pain". Whereas I was previously enjoying the pleasure of saying, "My father loves me, I am doing what he wants." Now comes the pain: "I am not doing what he wants, he doesn't love me"...

S: But what about the initial hurts?

B: I think we have gone beyond that point.

S: I don't think we touched on the biological situation of the child feeling neglected.

B: Well if the child is feeling neglected, I think he must pick up an image in that very process.

K: Of course. Once you admit, or see the reality that as long as the parents have an image about themselves they are bound to give that image to the child.

S: As long as the parent is an (addicted?) image-maker and has a (self-) image, then he can't see the child.

K: And therefore gives( projects his) image to the child.

S: Right. He will try to condition the child to be into something.

K: That's right. And the parents are bound to neglect the child if they have an image about themselves.

S: That's right. They must, because they are fragmenting rather than seeing the whole.

K: But you see (the collective consciousness of the ) society is doing this to every human being. Churches are doing it, every culture around us is (contributing in) creating this ( self-) image.

S: That is right...

K: And eventually that image gets hurt, and all the rest of it. Now, the next question is: is one aware of all this, which is part of our total consciousness?

S: Right...

K: The content of consciousness makes (our self-) consciousness. And one of the contents is the image making, or it may be the major machinery that is operating, the major ( subliminal?) movement. Being hurt, which every human being is, can that hurt be healed and never be hurt again? That is, can a ( holistically inclined?) human mind put away this (psychologically redundant self-) image completely and therefore never be hurt ? And therefore a great part of one's consciousnes is 'empty', it has no (psychologically motivated?) content.

S: I really don't know the answer to that, but I believe you could.

K: What is the machinery or the process that is making ( self-protecting) images? I am a Catholic, I am a Protestant, I am a Hindu, I am a Zen monk, I am this, I am that. All these are 'self-images'...and if there is ( an identification with?) an image of that kind, how can you have love in all this?

S: We don't have an abundance of it...

K: We don't have it.

S: That's right. We have got a lot of such images (about ouselves & others) .

K: It is a terrible (psychological burden) sir, to have these. You follow?

S: Right. I know about image making and I see it even when you are talking about it. And it is like a (psychological) map, you know where you are at because if I don't make this image I will make another...

K: Of course, sir. We are saying is it possible to stop the machinery that is producing images? And what is the machinery? Is it wanting to be ( or to become) somebody (in the real world?) ?

S: Yes. It is wanting to be somebody, because otherwise I don't know where I am at...

K: Being at a loss?

S: Yes...

K: And the (inner) feeling that you are at a loss, not to have any support, breeds more disorder. You follow?

B: Well, that is one of the ( subliminally induced ?) images being communicated to the child : to say that if you don't have an image of yourself you don't know ( who you are or?) what to do at all. You don't know what your parents are going to do if you start acting without a (self-protecting) image. I mean you may do something and they may just simply be horrified.

S: That's right...

K: Now, this ( identitary 'self-) image' is the product of thought. Right?

S: It is organized by it...
K: Yes, it may go through various forms of pressures and all the rest of it, a great deal of conveyor belt, and at the end ( the thinking brain) produces an image.

S: I agree with you there, yes. It is definitely the product of thought and that thought seems to be the immediate action of knowing where you are at; or in trying to know where you are at.

K: Can this ( image making) machinery stop? Can thought which produces these images, which destroys all relationship, and as it is now there is no love in the world. There is no sense of real caring for somebody.

S: That is true. People don't...

K: The more affluent (the society) the worse it becomes. Poor people haven't got this either; they are after filling their stomachs, and clothes and work, work, work.

B: But still they have got lots of images.

K: Of course. I said both the rich and the poor have these images, whoever it is.

S: Right...

K: And these are the people who are ordering our man-made universe. So I ask myself, can this 'image making' (subliminal mechanism ?) stop ? Because otherwise I don't know what love means, I don't know how to care for somebody. And I think that is what is happening in the world because children are really lost souls, lost human beings, I have met so many, hundreds of them now, all over the world. They are really a lost generation. As the older people also are a lost generation. So what is a human being to do? What is the right action in relationship? Can there be right action in relationship as long as you have a (self-protecting) image?

S: You see, it seems you made a (holistic?) jump there. You said all we know is images, and image making...

K: But we have never said, can it stop ?

S: That is right.

K: We have never said, for God's sake, if it doesn't stop we are going to destroy each other.

B: You see, the notion that we might (be able to?) stop it is something that we didn't know before. You see, I feel that an experiential ) block comes in.
If you say, this is all we know, then it can never stop.

S: Well, to come down to it: what do we do with your (extremely holistic ?) question, 'Can it stop?'

K: I put that question to you. Do you listen to it?

S: I have listened to it.

K: Ah, but do you (actually) listen to (the existential implications of) this statement, 'can it stop?' There is this tremendous global division of ( self-identified) images, symbols and all the rest of it. If that doesn't stop, you are going to have such a chaotic world - you follow? Do I see this, not as an abstraction, but as an 'actuality' ?

S: Right...

K: And as a ( holistically minded) human being, what am I to do? I personally have no ( self-protecting) image about myself: no (personal) conclusion, ideal, all these are images. I have none. And I say to myself, what can I do when everybody around me is ( actively working at ) building self-images, and so destroying this lovely earth where we are meant to live happily, you know, in human relationship, and look at the heavens and be happy about it. So what is the right action for a man who hasn't such an image?

S: Let me turn it back. What happens with you when I say to you: can (this image making mechansm?) stop?

K: I say, of course it can stop . It is very simple to me. But you don't ask me the next question: how do you do it?

S: Well, let's just touch on it. How can it stop? Let me put it to you straight ; I have absolutely no evidence that it can, no experience that it can (be stopped)

K: I say it can stop : definitely. To me this is tremendously important.

S: We agree that it is tremendously important, but 'how'?

K: If I tell you 'how', then you say, tell me your method, and I'll do it every day until I'll get a brand new (self) image.

S: Yes...

K: Now, if I see the 'fact' that is going on in the world : that as long as there are self-protecting) images there is not going to be peace in the world, no love in the world - whether the Christ image, or the Buddha image or the Muslim, you follow. There won't be peace in the world. If I see it as a fact and remain with the (inward truth of this) fact, finished ! As we said this morning if one remains with the 'fact' there is an (inward) transformation. Which is, not to let thought begin to interfere with the fact.

B: Or else, more images come in.

K: More images come in. Now, our present consciousness is filled (inwardly saturated?) with these (self-projected) 'images' : I am a Brahmin, I am the chosen people, I am the Aryan, or...I am the (quintessential?) Englishman: all that is crowding my ( temporal) consciousness.

B: But even when you say, 'remain with the fact', one of the images that may come in is that it is impossible, it can never be done (once & for all?)

K: Yes, that is another (self-protecting) 'image'...

B: In other words, if the ( meditating) mind could stay with that fact with no comment whatsoever...

S: Well, when you say 'remain with the fact', you are really calling for a (psychological non-) action right there. To really remain with 'what is' , the action of perception is (implicit) there.

K: Sir, it is up to you. You are involved in it.

S: But that is different from remaining with it. It feels like something 'carries forward' because we are always running away.

K: So our consciousness, sir, is filled with conclusions, ideas, and that is the essence of the ( self-identified ) image. If there is no image making then what is (one's) consciousness? That is quite a different thing.

B: Do you think we could discuss that next time?

K: Tomorrow.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Mar 2020 #261
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

6TH ('reader-friendly' edited) K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM & DAVID SHAINBERG (cca 1976)

Krishnamurti: As you are a (pretty) well known physicist and scientist, I would like to ask, after all these five dialogues that we had, what will change (the present condition of the consciousness of?) man?

Bohm: Well, I don't know that one's scientific background is going to be very relevant to that question.

K: Probably not, but what is the vitality, the energy, the drive - which seems to be lacking? I mean after all if I listen to you as a viewer I would say, "Yes, it is all very well for these scientists & experts, but it is too far away. Can't you bring it much closer so that I can deal (holistically) with my own daily life.

B: Well, in the last discussion we were discussing (about thought's image making mechanism) and the (subliminal identification with one's ) 'self image' and you were questioning whether we have to have such images at all.

K: Of course but as an (objective) viewer listening to you for the first time, I would say, "Look how does it touch my life? It is all sounding so ( holistically ?) vague and uncertain and probably it needs a great deal of ( homework meditation & ) thinking, which (quite frankly) I am unwilling to do...So please tell me in a few words, or at length, what am I to do with my life. From where am I to look at it? I have hardly any (spare) time: I go to the office; I go to the factory; I have got so many things to do - children, wife nagging, poverty". You follow? "The whole structure of misery and you sit there, you three, and talk about something which doesn't touch me in the least. So could we bring it down to brass tacks, as it were, where I can grapple with it as an ordinary human being?"

B: Well, could we consider your (time-binding?) problems arising in your daily relationship as the starting point?

K: I was going to begin with that. You see my relationship with other human beings is in the office, in the factory...

B: Or at home ?

K: And at home it is pretty much a routine, sex, children...(In a nutshell:) a constant battle, battle, battle all my life. Insulted, wounded, hurt, everything is going on in me and around me...

B: Yes, there is a continual disappointment.

K: Continual disappointment, continual hope to become successful, have more money, more, more, more of everything. Now how am I to alter, change (this time-binding) relationship? If we could tackle that a little bit this morning, a little bit and go on to what we were discussing, which is really very important, which is not to have a (self-identified?) 'image' at all.

B: But at the same time, we tend to be related almost always through this image. I have an image of myself and of you as you should be in relation to me. And then that gets disappointed and hurt and so on.

K: But how am I to change that image? I can see very well I have got a (self-protective social ?) image which has been constructed through generations. How am I to break it down?

B: Well, I have got to become aware of that image, to watch it as it moves...

K: So am I to watch it in the office, at home, the golf club, because in all these areas are my human relationships.

B: Yes. I would say I have to watch it on all those places, and also when I am not there.

K: So I have to watch it all the time, in fact ?

B: Yes...

K: Now am I capable of it, have I got the energy because I go through all kinds of miseries, and at the end of the day I just crawl into bed. And you say I must have energy. So ( eventually?) I may come to realize (that one's everyday ) relationship (with All That Is?) is of the greatest importance.

B: Yes...

K: Therefore I am willing to give up certain wastages of energy.

B: What kind of wastage?

K: Social drink, smoking, useless chatter....

B: That would be only the beginning, anyway...

K: But you see I want ( to enjoy?) all those plus more. You follow?

B: But if I can see that everything depends on this, and I see that all these interfere...then I won't go to the pub.

K: So ( for starters) I must realize the greatest importance of having a right (harmonious ? ) relationship.

B: And perhaps we could say what happens when we don't have it : everything goes to pieces.

K: Not only that everything ( within myself) goes to pieces, but I create such havoc around me. So by putting aside smoke, drink, pubs and you know the endless chatter about this or that, will I gather that (absolutely necessary inner ) energy which will help me to face the (self-identified?) image which I have?

B: Yes. That means that I must let go my ambition and many other things...

K: Of course. You see I begin by ( letting go the ) 'obvious' (energy dissipating) things, like smoke, drink, pubs and all the rest.

Shainberg: Well, let me just stop you here. Suppose my real life image is that I can't do ( this highly demanding self-observation?) for myself.

K: That is one of our favourite conditionings, that I can't do it for myself therefore I must go to somebody to help me.

S: Maybe you ( Mr 'X') can do it for me... ?

K: No, no. I think we don't realize the absolute importance of having a right relationship (with All That Is ?) I don't think we realize the importance of having a relationship which is easy quiet, full, rich, happy, the beauty of it, the harmony of it. Now, can we point out to the ordinary viewer, the listener (or reader ?) , the great importance of that ?

B: I think it should be very clear that nobody can do it for me. You see whatever somebody else does it won't affect ( the inward quality of?) my relationship.

S: How are you going to make that clear?

B: But isn't it obvious that it can't be done by someone else ? I mean suppose you (Mr 'X') live a perfect life. I can't imitate it so I'll just go on as before, won't I? So I have to start doing something myself. Isn't that clear?

S: Can we say that right relationship begins with the realization that I have to do something for myself and realise the (holistic?) responsibility I have for myself ?

K: And the utter importance of ( actively working at?) it. Because you 'are' (humanely responsible for?) the ( consciousness of the?) world. You can't shirk that.

B: Perhaps we could discuss that a bit because it may seem strange to the viewer, to someone to say, "You are the world".

K: After all, all that you are thinking, you are the result of the culture, the climate, the food, the environment, the economic conditions, your grandparents, you are the result of all that.

S: I think one can see that.

B: So, that's what you mean by saying 'You are the world' ?

K: Of course, of course...This is a fact. You go to India, you see the same suffering, the same anxiety, and you come to Europe, to America, it, in essence, is the same (self-centred consciousness?)

B: Each person has the same basic structure of suffering and confusion, and deception and so on. But if I say, I am the world, I mean that there is a more universal structure and it is part of me and I am part of that.

K: Part of that, quite. So now let's proceed from that. You cannot have an (authentic ?) relationship if you have an (ego-centric?) 'image' about yourself, or if you create a pleasurable image and stick to that. (In a nutshell:) any form of ( psychologically motivated?) 'image' you have about another, or about yourself prevents the beauty of (a wholistic ?) relationship.

B: But even the (background) 'image' that I am secure in such and such a situation, for example, and not secure in a different situation, that also prevents (an authentic) relationship....

K: That's right.

B: ...because I will (implicitly ) demand of the other person that he put me in the situation that I think is secure...and then (s)he may not want it.

S: So, if I have the image of the pleasurable relationship, then in all my actions with reference to this other person, I expect him( or her) to act in such a way that he acknowledges that image.

B: Yes. Or I may have the image of what is 'just and right'. So I would say that would be the right way for everybody to behave...So for example the wife would say, "Husbands ought to take their wives out to social parties more frequently", that is part of her image. And husbands have corresponding images and therefore these images clash & one ( or both?) get hurt. Do you see?

S: Right, but to be more specific, each little piece of this is with fury.

B: With energy.

S: Energy and fury and necessity to complete this image in relationship, therefore relationship gets forced into a mould.

K: Sir, I understand all that. But you see most of us are not serious, we want an easy life. You come along and tell me: look, relationship is the greatest thing. I say, quite right, but I carry on the old way. What I am trying to get at is: what will make a human being 'listen' to this seriously even for two minutes? So to whom are we talking to?

B: Well to whoever is able to listen.

K: That means somebody who is somewhat serious. So let's move from there. We say as long as you have an image, pleasant or unpleasant, put together by thought and so on, there is no right relationship and one's life ceases to have any value without right relationship. Now ( the problem is that) my consciousness is filled with these images.

S: Right.

K: Right? And these 'images' make my ( self-) consciousness.

S: That is right...

K: Now you are asking me to have no such 'images' at all. That means no consciousness, as I know it now. Right sir?

B: Could we say that the major part of one's consciousness is the self image? Is that what you are saying? There may be some other parts, but...

K: We will come to that...

B: We'll come to that later. But for now we are mostly occupied with the (safe continuity of the ) self image.

K: Yes, that is right...

S: What about the self image? And the whole way it generates itself, what do you think?

B: Well, I think we discussed that before, that it (the time-bound mind) gets caught on thinking of the 'self' as real, and that is always implicit, you know, to say that for example the image may be that I am suffering in a certain way, and you see I must get rid of this suffering. You see there is always the implicit meaning in that that I am there, real, and therefore I must keep on thinking about this 'reality'. And it gets caught in that feedback we were talking about. You see, the thought feeds back and builds up...

S: ...builds up more images ?

B: More images, yes.

S: So that is our ( time-bound ) consciousness.

K: Wait. The ( active?) content of my consciousness is a vast series of images, interrelated, not separated, interrelated.

B: But they are all centred on the 'self'...

K: On the self, of course. The 'self' (-consciousness?) is (at) the centre.

B: Yes, because they are all aimed at making the self right, you know, correct. And the 'self' is regarded as all important.

K: Yes.

B: That gives it a tremendous energy.

K: Now you are asking me, who am fairly serious, fairly intelligent to 'empty' that consciousness...

S: Right. I am asking you to stop this 'image making' process.

K: Not only the image making, but the images that I have (already gathered) , and prevent further image making.

S: Yes, I am asking you to look at the machinery of ( the temporal) consciousness.

K: And I say, please tell me how to do it. And you (Mr X) tell me, the moment when you ask me how to do it, you have already built another (self-projected) image of the system, or the method (that will get me there?)

B: Yes, when you say, ''how am I to do it ?'', you have already put the 'I' in the middle. The same ( self-centred) image as before, but with a slightly different content.

K: So you (the holistically minded educator?) tell me, don't ever ask how to do it, because the 'how' involves the (same self-centred) 'me' doing it.

B: So that shows the ( subliminal) way you slip into it, because when you say how to do it, the word 'me' is not there but it is there implicitly.

K: How am 'I' to do it - of course...

B: Yes. It usually slips in because (the 'me') is there implicitly and not explicitly. That is the trick, I mean.

K: So now you stop me ( from doing that) and say, proceed from there. How is one to free this ( ego-centric ) consciousness, even a corner of it, what is the action that will do it? What am I to do (or 'not do'?) ? I am very well aware that I am making 'images' all the time. My wife calls me an idiot; already registered in the brain, thought takes it over, it brings up the image which I have about myself and it is getting hurt. So I am very well aware of this process because I have discussed with you. I have gone into it. I see because I have realized right from the beginning during these talks and dialogues that relationship is the greatest importance in life; without that ( one's inner) life is in chaos. So Dr Bohm, what is one to do? What am I to do in order to prevent further hurts and to be free of all the hurts that I have had before ?
The brain registers the flattering or the hurt and the whole thing begins. Now how am I to end that ( 'self'-sustaining process?) ?

B: Well, is there a difference between the stored up hurts and the ones which are to come ?

K: That's the first thing I have to understand. Tell me.

B: Well, there is no distinction really between the past hurts and the present one because they all come from the past, I mean come from the reaction of the past.

K: So, you are telling me, don't divide the past hurt or the future because the ( nature of the self-) image is the same. So you are saying to me, look at this image, not in terms of the past hurts and the future hurts, but just look at (the movement of) that (self-) image which is both the (result of the ) past and the (creator of the ) future.

B: So, you are saying look at the 'image ( -making' mechanism) , not at its particular content but at its general structure ?

K: Yes, that's right. Now then my next ( meditation related) question is: how am I to look at it? Because I have already a ('self'-identified?) image, with which I am going to look. How am I to look at it (objectively ) ? ( Hint :) is the 'observer' different from that ('image making' mechanism?) which he is observing?

B: Well, that is the question...You could say that ( the duality observer-observed ?) is the root of the power of the ( self-) image.

K: You see, sir, what happens? If there is a ( dualistic?) difference between the observer and the observed there is an interval of time in which other activities go on.

B: In which the brain sort of eases itself into something more pleasant ?

K: Yes, yes...And where there is this division there is conflict. So you are telling me to learn the art of ( holistic) observing, which is (happening when) the observer 'is' the observed.

B: Yes, but our whole ( cultural) conditioning, is assuming that the 'observer' is different from the 'observed'. Shouldn't we look at that for a while ?

K: Yes...

B: Because that is what everybody feels.

K: That the 'observer' is different ?

B: Yes. And I think it ties up with what I was saying yesterday about reality, saying everything we think is a 'reality' of some kind, you see, because it is a real thought. But we make a distinction in reality between that reality which is self reference, self sustaining, it stands independent of thought and the reality which is sustained by thought.

K: Yes, we went through that the other day ( ...a year ago?)

B: Now ordinarily we think that the 'observer', is a reality which is independent of thought. Do you see?

K: Yes, we think that is independent of thought.

B: And this 'self' (-identified entity acting as) the observer is a 'reality' independent of the thought which is thinking.

K: But it is the product of thought.

B: Yes, but that is the ( general) confusion.

K: Yes, quite, quite, quite. Are you telling me, sir, that the 'observer' is the (compounded) result of the past? My memories, my experiences, all the rest of it, the past ?

B: Yes, but the viewer (or the earnest reader?) , might find it a little hard to follow that, if he hasn't gone into it ( in the inner space of meditation?) .

S: I think it's very hard to communicate this verbally...

K: It's fairly simple.

S: What do you mean?

K: Don't you live in the past? You are (inwardly speaking ?) living in the past.
And from the (processed memories of the ) past you project the future : I hope my life will be better, I hope that I will be different. It's always from the past to the future.

S: That's right. That's how (one's inner life) is lived.

K: Now ( the psychological entity impersonating ?) that past is the 'me', of course.

B: But it does look as if it is something independent...

K: Is the (temporal) 'me' independent from one's (bank of experience & memory of the ) past?

B: It looks as if the 'me' is here, looking at the past.

K: Yes, of course, quite. The 'me' is (living?) in a ( self-protecting mental ) 'jar'.

S: I can see that I am the product of the past.

K: How do you see it?

S: I see it intellectually.

K: Then you don't ( actually) 'see' it. Why isn't there an 'immediacy of perception' of a truth which is, that you 'are' ( impersonating the movement of the?) past?

S: Because time comes in. I imagine that I have grown through time.

K: What do you mean by 'imagine'?

S: I have an image of myself at three, I have an image of myself at ten and I have an image of myself at seventeen, and I say that they followed in a sequence in time, and I see myself having developed over time. I am different now than I was five years ago.

K: Are you?

S: I am telling you that is how I have got this image ( of myself as) a developmental sequence in time.

B: Yes.

S: And I exist as a (mental) storehouse of accumulated incidents.

K: That is, time has produced that.

S: Right. That is time...

K: What is time?

S: I have just described it to you. Time is a movement in (the field of memory ?)

K: It is a movement from the past.

S: That's right. I have moved from the time I was three, to ten, to seventeen.

K: Yes, it is a movement. But is that movement an actuality?

S: What do you mean ?

B: Or is it a (mental ) image?

S: I am describing my actual (development in time )

B: But that is the whole point about a ( mental) image, that it imitates an actual fact ; you get the feeling that it is real. In other words, I feel that I am really there, an actual fact looking at the past, how I have developed.

S: Right...

B: But is it an actual fact that this is the way it all is, and was, or that all the implications of that are correct ?

S: No, it is not. I can see the incorrectness of my memory which constructs 'me' in time. I mean obviously I was much more at three than I can remember, I was more at ten than I can remember, and there was much more going on obviously in actuality at seventeen than I have in my memory.

B: Yes, but the 'me' who is here now is looking at all that, is he actually there and is he looking? That is the question.

S: Is the me...

K: actuality ?

S: What is an actuality is this image of a developmental sequence.

B: And the me who is looking at it?

S: And the me who is looking at it, that's right.

B: You see, I think that is one of the things we slip upon, because you see we say, there is the developmental sequence objectively so implying me is looking at it like I am looking at the plant.

S: Right...

B: But it may be that the me who is looking is a (self-identified) 'image' as is the developmental sequence.

S: Right. You are saying then that this image of 'me' is...

K: a non-reality.

B: Well, the only 'reality' is that it is ( a product of) thought. It is not a reality independent of thinking.

K: So we must go back ( in time?) to find out what is 'reality'. Reality, we said, is everything that thought has put together: the table, the illusions, the churches, the nations, everything that thought has contrived, put together, is ( the man-made) reality. Nature is not put together by thought, but it is (nevertheless) a reality.

B: It is a reality independent of thought. But you see, is the 'me' a reality that is independent of thought like nature?

K: That is the whole point. Have you understood?

S: Yes, I am beginning to see. Let me ask you a question: is there any difference for you between the perception of this and your perception of the 'me'?

K: This is real, the 'me' is not real.

S: Me is not real, but your perception of me?

K: It doesn't exist.

S: What is your perception of the (self-) image?

K: I have no ( self-protecting) image. So, if I have no ( self-) image where is the me?

S: But I have an image of 'me'. What is my perception of 'me'?

B: Could I put it another way? Suppose you are watching a conjuring trick and you perceive a woman being sawn in half, you see. And then when you see the trick you say, what is your perception of this woman who is being sawn in half. You see, it isn't because she isn't being sawn in half. You see I am trying to say that as long as you don't see through the trick, what you see is apparently real is somebody being cut in half. But you have missed certain points but when you see the points that you have missed you don't see anybody being cut in half.

S: Right...

B: You just see a trick.

S: Right. So I have missed the essence of it ?

K: Sir, just let's be simple. We said we have images; and I know I have images and you tell me to look at it, to be aware of it, to perceive the image. Is the perceiver different from the perceived? Because if he is different then the whole process of conflict will go on endlessly. Right? But if there is no division the observer 'is' the observed, then the whole nature of the problem changes.

S: Right...

K: Right? So is the observer different from the observed? Obviously not. So can I look at that ( self-identified) image without the observer? And is there an image when there is no observer? Because the observer makes the image, because the observer 'is' the movement of thought.

B: Well, we shouldn't call it the 'observer' then because it is not looking. I think the language is confusing.

K: The language, yes...

B: Because if you say it is an 'observer' that implies that something is looking

K: Yes, quite.

B: What you are really meaning is that thought is moving and creating an image as if it were looking but (in fact) nothing is being seen...

K: Yes...

B: Therefore there is no ( actual) 'observer'.

K: Quite right. To put it round the other way: is there a 'thinker' without thought?

B: No.

K: Exactly. There you are! If there is no 'experiencer' is there a (personal) experience?
So ( to recap:) you have asked me to look at my images, and you said, 'look' at it (observerlessly), which is a very serious and very penetrating (meditative) demand. You say, look at it without the observer, because the observer is the image maker, and if there is no observer, if there is no thinker there is no thought. Right? So there is no (self-identified?) image. You have shown me something enormously significant.

S: As you said, the question changes completely.

K: Completely. I have no (self-) image.

S: It feels completely different. It's like then there is a silence...

K: So (to re-recap:) I am saying, as my consciousness is the consciousness of the world, in essence, because it is filled with the things of thought, sorrow, fear, pleasure, despair, anxiety, attachment, detachment, hope, it is a turmoil of confusion, a sense of deep agony is involved in it all. And in that state you cannot have any (authentic) relationship with any human being. So you say to me: to have the most responsible human relationship is to have no image.

S: That is to be ( wholistically?) responsive ?

K: Yes. So you have pointed out to me that to be free of images, the maker of the image must be absent; the maker of the image is the ( active memory of the ) past, the ( choosing ?) observer who says, "I like this", "I don't like this", 'my wife, my husband, my house' - you follow - the me who is in essence the image. So you see I have understood this.
Now the next question is: is this 'image (making' process) deep, hidden? Are the images hidden which I can't grapple, which I can't get hold of?

S: You don't have to unearth them if this is clear to you that the observer 'is' (part of what is) observed...

K: Therefore you are saying there is no unconscious ?

S: Right.

K: I agree with you! The moment when you see (the inward truth that?) the observer is the observed, the observer is the maker of images, it is finished.

S: Right... If you really see that.

K: That's it. So the ( self-centred) consciousness which I know, in which we have lived, has undergone a tremendous transformation: has it? Has it to you?

S: Mm.....

K: No, sir, I mean has it to you? And if I may ask Dr Bohm, both of you, all of us, realizing that the observer is the observed, and therefore the image maker is no longer in existence, and so our ( selfless?) consciousness is not as we know it. Right?

S: I don't know how you say it...

K: I am asking this question because it involves meditation. What happens when there is no (psychologically motivated) movement of thought, which is the image making, what then takes place? You understand my question? When ( the process of psychological ) 'time', which is the movement of thought, ends, then what is there? The moment when there is no image maker the content of consciousness undergoes a radical ( qualitative) transformation and ( the psychological movement of) thought comes to an end, except when it absolutely has its place, knowledge and all the rest of it.
So when ( the self-projected continuity of) thought comes to an end, time has a stop. What then? Is that ( a third degree encounter with?) death?

S: It is the death of the (temporal?) self.

K: No sir. It is much more than that...

S: It is certainly the ending of something...

K: No, no. Just listen to it. When thought stops, when there is no 'image making' process, there is a complete (qualitative ?) transformation in (one's) consciousness : no anxiety, no fear, no pursuit of pleasure, none of the things that create turmoil, division, and then, what comes into (one's ) being ? What takes place in that (holistically integrated consciousness) ? I have to find it out (as meditation homework ?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Mar 2020 #262
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

7TH ('reader-friendly' edited) K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM & DAVID SHAINBERG (cca 1976)

K: After this morning's (rather hectic ?) dialogue you have left me completely empty inwardly without any (self-protecting?) image. I have been left with the sense of a 'blank wall'. I have, at one glance, rejected all the (meditation) systems because I have understood the meditator 'is' ( an integral part of?) the meditation. But... have I solved the problem of ( my personal & collective?) sorrow, do I have this astonishing energy of compassion (which comes with ) the ending of my sorrow, do I know what it means to (have ) 'love' for a human being? And you haven't shown me what ( the psychological?) death is.

B: Yes...

K: So there are these ( meditation related?) things that we should cover before we have finished this evening - a lot of ground to cover.

B: Could we begin on the question of psychological death ? One point that occurred to me when we had come to the ( actually see) that the observer 'is' the observed was that essentially that is ( observer's psychological ) death. Right?

K: Yes.

B: Now, this raises a (still deeper?) question : if the 'self' is nothing but an 'image' then what is it that dies? You see if one's ( self-protective ) image dies that's nothing, that's not death – right?

K: No.

B: So is there something more 'real' that dies?

K: When we were talking this morning, I was trying to point out that if there is no (self-) image at all, there is ( a third degree encounter with?) 'death'.

B: Well that is my point exactly. What is it that has died? You see death implies something has died.

K: The (time-bound?) 'me' is dead.

B: But is that a genuine death or more deeply is there something that has to die? You see, if the physical organism dies, something real has died, you see ? But when the 'self (-identified' image?) dies... ?

K: Ah, but so far the 'self' has been an astonishingly real thing. You three come along - and tell me that that (self-identified) image is fictitious, and I'm a (subliminally?) frightened that when that dies, when there is no (self-) image - you follow - there is an ending to something more...

B. Well what is it that ends? Is it something real that ends? You see, the ending of a (thought-projected ) 'image' is no ending at all, right?

K: If it is merely an ending of an image...

S. Right, then there is nothing much - it's like turning off the television set.

K: Yes, ( but inwardly) it leaves me (with) nothing...

B: Is that what all there is, or is there something deeper that 'dies'?

K: Oh, very much deeper... I would say it is not the (self-identified) image which is dead, but something much deeper than that... ( the ending of the self-image?) is like the ending of a very shallow pool. You have taken away a little water and there is nothing but mud left behind. There is nothing (not-a-thing left)... So is there something much more in the meaning of (this psychological) death ?

S: Well, is there something more than the 'image' that dies, or does death have a deeper meaning beyond the death of this 'image'?

B Is there something about (the mystery of?) death that is bigger than the death of the image?

K: Obviously. It must be...

B: Will this (deeper meaning) include the death of the organism ?

K: Yes. The organism might go on. I mean the organism might go on, but eventually come to an end.

B: One could think there might be a process or a (psychical?) structure beyond the self-image that might die, that creates the self-image.

K: Yes, that is thought.

B: That's thought. Now are you discussing the death of thought?

K: Yes, but again, that's also something superficial...

B: And is there something beyond thought itself that should...

K: Just look. The ( self-) image dies (ends?) that's a very shallow affair.

B: Right.

K: Then there's the ending of thought, which is the ending, the 'dying' to thought.

B: You would say thought is deeper than the ( mental self-) image but still not very deep.

K: Not very deep. So ( from one stroke?) we have removed the 'maker of the image' and the ('self'-identified ) image itself.

S: Right....

K: Now, is there something more?

B: In what sense 'something more'? Something more that exists or something more that has to die ?

K : Is that all death?

B: You mean, is that all that death is ?

K: Yes.

S: Is there a (psychological) meaning of death that's bigger?

K: Death must have something enormously significant.

B: Are you saying death has a (deeper) significance for the whole of our life?

K: Yes, (for the ) whole of (our) life.

B: Now, if we're thinking of the viewer, of the way we live now, death is at the end and you try to forget about it, or try to make it unobtrusive, and so on...

K: But as you three have pointed out, my (inner ) life has been in a turmoil. All my life has been a constant conflict, anxiety, all the rest of it...( In the meditation's context?) I have come to (reach the boundaries of the ) known, and therefore death is ( entering into?) the unknown. So I am (pretty much?) afraid of that. And you ( Mr 'X') come along and say, look death is partly the ending of the image, the maker of the image, but death must have much more, greater significance, than merely this 'empty saucer' (content-empty consciousness) .

B: Well... could you make more it clear why it must have ?

K: Because is our life just a shallow empty pool? With mud at the end of it?

S: Well, why would you assume that it's anything else?

K: I want to know (the whole truth?) …

B: But even if it's something else, we have to ask why is it that death is the key to understanding that.

K: Because it's the ending of every 'thing' – of all my concepts, images - end of all the memories.

B: But that's included the ending of thought, right?

K: In the ending of thought. But also it means, the 'ending of time'.

B: The ending of time... ?

K: ( Thought's projection in ?) time coming to a stop totally. There is no 'future' in the sense of past meeting the present and carrying on.

B: You mean 'psychologically' speaking ?

K: Yes, psychologically speaking, of course.

B: Whereas we still admit the ( chronological ) future and the past.

K: Of course, but the 'psychological' ending of (one's attachments to?) everything. That's what (the deeper significance of?) death is.

B: Right. And when the organism dies then everything ends with that organism?

K: Of course. When this organism dies, it's finished. But wait a minute. If I don't end the ( identification with my self-) image, the stream of image-making goes on...

B: Well again it's not too clear where it goes on, you see ?

K: It manifests itself in ( the temporal consciousness of) other people. That is: the organism dies, and at the last moment I'm still (identified?) with the (self-) image I have...

B: Yes, what happens to that (self-identified image?) ?

K: That's what I'm saying. That image has its continuity ( in the stream of mankind's collective consciousness?) with the rest of the images - your image, my image...

S: Right...

K: Your (self-) image is not (essentially) different from mine. It may have a little more frill, a little bit more colour, but essentially my image is your image.

S: Right...

K: Now, so ( in the total consciousness of mankind?) there is this constant flow of image-making.

B: Well, where does it take place? In people?

K: It is there, it manifests itself in people.

B: Oh, you feel that in some ways it is something more general, more universal.

K: Yes, much more universal.

B: That's rather odd to think of that...

S: It is like a 'River (of Time ?) , it's there. And it manifests itself in (individual) streams ( of consciousness) which we call 'people'...

B: So, in other words, you're saying that one's (self-) image does not originate only in one brain, but in some sense it is 'universal'... ?

K: Universal. Quite right.

B: Yes, well that's not very clear... You're not only saying that it's just the sum of the effects of all the brains, but are you implying something more?

K: Is the effect of all the brains, and it manifests itself in people, as they're born (through) genes and all the rest of it. Now, does (this 'psychological) death' bring about the sense of enormous, endless energy (of Life's Creation?) which has no beginning and no end? Life must have infinite depth...

B: And this (psychological) death opens that up ?

K: Death opens that up...

B: But I'm trying to say : is there real which is blocking thid (inward Source of Life) from realizing itself?

K: Yes, (thought) is blocking (the free access to) 'Tha't through image and the images-making process.

S: Yes, that's what's blocking it though, the image making and thought-making is blocking the greater.

S: Blocking that, right.

K: But there are still other deeper (karmic?) blocks.

B: That's what I was trying to get at. That there are deeper blocks that are 'real'.

K: That are real...

B: And they really have to 'die' (to end) ?

K: That's just it.

S: So, would that be like (being inwardly driven by?) this stream that you're talking about, that's there?

K: There is a stream of (collective) sorrow, isn't there?

B: Is this stream sorrow of deeper than the image-making process ?

K: Yes.

B: It is. Well, then that's important (to know?)...

K: It is. Be careful sir, it's very serious, this thing...

B: Would you say sorrow and suffering are just different words?

S: So, deeper than this image-making is (the stream of collective?) sorrow.

K: Isn't it? Man has lived with sorrow for a million years.

B: Well could we say a little more about 'sorrow '? It's more than pain ?

K: Oh, much more than pain; much more than loss; much more than losing my son and my parent or this or that.

B: Right.... It goes beyond the self-image, beyond thought.

K: Of course. Beyond thought.

B: Beyond what we would ordinarily call feeling ?

K: Oh, of course. Feeling, thought. Now can that (stream of sorrow) end?

S: Well, before you go on, are you saying that the stream of sorrow is a different stream from the stream of image-making? Is it two different streams, or..?

K: No, it's part of the same stream, but much deeper.

B: Are you saying, then, there's a very deep stream – and thought's image-making process is on the surface of this stream ?

K: That's all. But we have been left with that and I want to penetrate (deeper in this meditation ?) .

B: Well, could you say we've understood the waves on the surface of this stream which we call 'image making' (process) .

K: Image making. That's right.

B: Right. And whatever disturbances and sorrow comes out on the surface (manifests ) as image-making.

K: That's right.

B: But what is, you know, (this river of?) sorrow?

K: You know, sir, there is universal sorrow.

B: But let's try to make it clear. It's not merely that the sum of all the sorrow of different people?

K: No... could we put it this way - the waves on the river doesn't bring compassion - compassion and love are synonymous so we'll keep to the word compassion. The waves don't bring this. Then, what will? Because without (the selfless intelligence of ) compassion the human beings are destroying themselves. So, does compassion come with the ending of sorrow which is not just the sorrow created by (one's personal) thought.
B: Yes, right. So, let's say in ( the field of self-centred) thought you have sorrow for the 'self' – right?

K: Yes, sorrow for the self.

B: Which is self-pity, But now you say there's another side, I think we haven't got hold of it. There's a deeper (undercurrent of) sorrow which is universal, not merely the total sum but rather something universal ?

K: That's right.

S: Can we spell that out, go into it?

K: Don't you know it? Aren't you aware of a much deeper sorrow than the sorrow of thought, self pity, the sorrow of the image ?

B: Does this sorrow have any content? Is it the sorrow for the fact that man is in this state of affairs which he can't get out of ?

K: That's partly it. That is the sorrow of ignorance.

B: Yes. That man is ignorant and cannot get out of it ?

K: And that the perception of that sorrow is (coming out of) compassion.

B: Right, so the non perception is sorrow then ?

K: Yes, yes. Say for instance, you see me in ignorance.

B: I see the whole of mankind...

K: Mankind living in ignorance. And after living for millennia, they are still ignorant - ignorant in the sense (of not being aware of ) the image making process and all that.

B: Now, let's say if my mind is really right, good, clear, that ( perception of compassion ) should have a deep effect on me, right?

K: Yes.

S: What would have a deep effect?

B: To see this tremendous ignorance, you see, this tremendous destruction (of the authentic human values ?) .

K: We are getting at it.

B: Right...And then if I don't fully perceive it , if I start to escape the perception of it, then I'm ( back ) in it too?

K: Yes, you are in it too.

B: But the feeling of that universal sorrow is still something that I can feel, is that what you mean to say?

K: Yes.

B: Although I am not very perceptive as to what it means.

K: You can feel the sorrow of ( being trapped in the self-centred) thought.

B: The sorrow of thought. But can I sense, or somehow be aware of the universal sorrow ?

K: Yes. You can...

S: So, you say that this universal sorrow is there whether you feel it or not ?

K : You can feel it.

B: Feel it or sense it ?

K: The (implicit?) sorrow of man living like this.

B: Is that the essence of it?

K: I'm just moving into it.

B: Is there more to it?

K: Oh, much more to it.

B: Well, then perhaps we should try to bring that out.

K: You see me. I live the ordinary life: image, sorrow, fear, anxiety, all th
at. I have the sorrow of self-pity, all that. And you who are 'enlightened' and look at me aren't you full of sorrow for me? Which is (the timeless action of) compassion...

B: I would say there is a (special?) kind of energy which is tremendously aroused because of this situation...

K: Yes.

B: But that energy , what do you call it, sorrow, or you'd call it compassion ?

K: Compassion, which is the outcome of (transcending one's personal ?) sorrow.

B: But has this 'enlightened' person felt sorrow and then compassion?

K: No, no, go very carefully. You see, sir, you are saying that one must have sorrow first in (order to have access to the universal energy of ) compassion.

B: I'm not saying, just exploring it.

K: Yes, we are exploring whether through sorrow you come to compassion ; which implies, that I must go through all the horrors of mankind in order to have that...

S: Right, to experience the human condition...

K: No. That's the point.

B: Well, let's say that the 'enlightened' person sees this sorrow, sees this destruction, and he senses something which is a tremendous energy which we call compassion. So, he understands the people who are in sorrow, but he is not himself in sorrow.

K: That's right.

B: And he feels a tremendous energy to do something ?

K: Yes. The tremendous energy of compassion.

B: Feeling compassion for them ?

K: Compassion.

S: Would you then say that the enlightened man perceives or is aware of the human conflict, he's not aware of sorrow, he's aware of the awkwardness, the blundering, the loss of life... ?

K: No, sir...just listen. Suppose you have been through all this, self-image, thought, the sorrow of thought, the fears, anxiety, and you say. I have understood that. It's over in me. But you are left with very little - you have ( released some inner ) energy, but it is a very shallow business. Is (one's) life so shallow as all that? Or has it an immense depth?

B: Has inwardness..?

K: A great inwardness. And to find that out don't you have to 'die' to everything known?

B: Yes, but how does this relate to sorrow at the same time?

K: I am coming to that. You might feel I am ignorant, my anxieties, all the rest of it. You are beyond it, you are 'on the other side of the stream' ( of human consciousness?) as it were. Don't you have compassion?

S: Yes, yes, I do...

K: Not 'up here' ( mentally) .

S: No, I know. But I see it and I...

K: Is that ( intelligent energy of compassion ?) the result of the ending of the universal sorrow.

B: Why of the 'universal' sorrow? You're talking about a person who was is in sorrow to begin with, and in him this universal sorrow ends. Is that what you're saying?

K: No, it is more than that.

B: If it is more than that, then we have to go slowly, because if you say the 'ending of universal sorrow' the thing that is puzzling is to say it still exists, you see ?

K: What?

B: You see, if the universal sorrow ends, then it's all gone.

K: Ah, no, it's still there...

B: You see, there is a certain puzzle in language. So in some sense the universal sorrow ends (for the enlightened person?) but in another sense it persists.

K: Yes, that's right...

B: Could we say that if you have an insight into the essence of the universal sorrow - then sorrow ends in (the mediative context of) that insight. Is that what you mean? Although you know it still goes on ?

K: Yes, yes, although it still goes on.

S: I've got a deeper question now. The question is...

K: I don't think you have understood.

S: I think I understood that one, but my question comes before: when the image-making (process) has died - that's the waves (of the stream of sorrow) .

K: You've lost the sorrow of thought.

S: Right. The sorrow of thought has gone, but there's a deeper sorrow.

K: Is there? Or are you just assuming that there is a deeper sorrow?

S: I'm trying to understand what you are saying...

K: I am saying, is there an (Universal energy of Love &) Compassion which is not related to thought, or is that compassion born of sorrow?

S: Born of sorrow?

K: Born in the sense when the sorrow ends there is compassion.

S: OK. That makes it a little clearer. When the sorrow of thought...

K: Not the personal sorrow!

B: Not the sorrow of thought, but something deeper.

S: Something deeper. When that (deeper) sorrow ends then there is a birth of the (timeless?) energy of compassion.

K: Now, is there not a deeper sorrow than the sorrow of thought?

S: The sorrow of ignorance is deeper than (the sorrow of) thought. The sorrow for the universal calamity of mankind trapped in the sorrow of a continual repetition of wars and history and poverty and people mistreating each other, that's a deeper sorrow.

K: I understand all that...

S: That's deeper than the sorrow of thought.

K: Can we ask this (holistically friendly ) question: what is the compassion which is (spontaneously generated by?) 'love' - we're using that one word to cover a wide field. Can a man who is ( living in the field of) sorrow, thought, image, can he have (access to?) that? Absolutely he cannot. Right?

B: Yes...

K: Now. When does 'that' (compassionate & intelligent energy of Love) come into ( one's) being? Without 'that' (one's) life has no (universal?) meaning. You (three) have left me without that. So if all that you have taken away from me is superficial sorrow, thought and image, and I feel there's something much more...

B: I mean just doing that leaves one's life emptier, you know?

K: Yes.

B: Meaningless.

K: ( There must be?) something more. Much greater than this shallow little business.

B: You see, when we have the realization of the sorrow of mankind and could you say that the energy which is deeper is being in some way..

K: Moved (released?)

B: You see, first of all in this sorrow this energy is caught up in whirlpools.

K: Yes, that's right, in small fields.

B: It's deeper than (the sorrow of) thought but there is some sort of very deep disturbance of the energy which we call 'deep sorrow'.

K: Deep sorrow.

B: Ultimately its origin is the blockage in thought, isn't it?

K: Yes, yes. That is deep sorrow of mankind.

B: Yes, the deep sorrow of mankind.

K: For centuries upon centuries, it's like a vast reservoir of sorrow.

B: ( This entrapped energy is ) sort of moving around in, in some way that's disorderly and and preventing clarity and so on. I mean perpetuating ignorance.

K: Perpetuating ignorance, right...

B: That's it. Because if it were not for that then man's natural capacity to learn would solve all these problems. Is that possible?

K: That's right, but unless you three give me an insight into something much greater, I say, "Yes that's very nice", and I go off - you follow?

B: Yes....

K: What we're trying to do, as far as I can see, is to penetrate into something beyond ( the mystery of?) death.

B: Beyond death...

K: Death, we're saying, is not only the ending of the organism, but the ending of all the content of the consciousness and the consciousness which we know as it is now.

B: Is it also the ending of sorrow?

K: Ending of sorrow of the superficial kind. That's clear.

B: Yes...

K: And a man who's gone (meditating?) through all that says, that isn't good enough, you haven't given me the flower, the perfume. You've just given me the ashes of it. And, now, we three are trying to find out that which is beyond the ashes.

B: Right. You say 'that' which is beyond death?

K: Absolutely!

B: Would you say 'that' ( timeless energy of Love & Compassion) is eternal ..?

K: I don't want to use this ( much abused?) word.

B: I mean something beyond time ; therefore 'eternal' is not the best word for it.

K: Therefore, there is something (timeless?) beyond this superficial death, a ( living?) 'movement' that has no beginning and no ending ?

B: But it is a movement?

K: It's a movement. Movement - not in time.

S: What is the difference between a movement in time and a movement out of time?

K: That which is constantly renewing, constantly - 'new' isn't the word - constantly fresh, flowering, endlessly flowering, that is timeless.

S: I think we get that feeling of a renewal in creation and in coming and going without transition, without duration, without linearity...

K: Let me come back to it in a different way. Being normally a fairly intelligent man- at one glance I have an insight into all that process n of image-making - at one glance it is finished, I won't touch it! Then a ( meditator-free?) meditation must take place to delve, to have an insight, into something which the human mind has never touched before.

B: Right. I mean even if you do touch it, then it doesn't mean the next time it will be known.

K: Ah! It can never be known in the sense..

B: It can never be known, it's always new in some sense.

K: Yes it's always new. It is not a memory stored up and altered, changed and call it 'new'. It (the inner energy of Creation) has never been old.

B: Yes.

K: I don't know if I can put it that way...

B: Yes, yes, I think I understand that. Could you say it's a mind that has never known sorrow ?

K: Yes.

B: And it might seem puzzling at first but it's a move out of this state which has known sorrow to a state which has not know sorrow.

K: Not yet, that's quite right.

B: In other words, there's no 'you'.

K: That's right. That's right.

S: Could we say that it's an action which is moving where there is no 'you'?

K: You see,the word 'action' means not in the future or in the past, action is the doing. And most of our actions are the result of the cause, or the past, or according to the future - ideals and so on. That's not a creative action, that is just conformity.

S: Right. I'm talking about a different kind of action.

K: So ( the creative) action implies – there are several things involved. To penetrate into this, the mind must be completely silent.

S: Right. ..

K: Otherwise you are projecting something into it.

S: Right. It is not projecting anything.

K: Absolute silence. And that silence is not the product of (thought's) control: premeditated, pre-determined. Therefore that silence is not brought about through will.

S: Right.

K: Now, in that 'silence' there is the sense of 'something' beyond all time, all death, all thought. You follow? Not a 'thing'. Nothing! And therefore empty. And therefore ( having a) tremendous energy.

B: Is this (timeless intelligent?) energy also the source of compassion?

K: That's it... This energy 'is' compassion

S: This energy is compassion. You see, that's different from saying 'the source'.

K: And beyond that there is something more.

S: Beyond that?

K: Of course.

B: Well, why do you say 'of course'? What could it be that's more?

K: Sir, let's approach it differently. Everything thought has created is not sacred, is not holy.

B: Yes because it's fragmented...

K: Putting up a (man-made ) image and worshipping it is a creation of thought; made by the hand or by the mind, is still an image. So, in that there is nothing sacred, because - as you pointed out - thought is fragment, limited, finite, it is the product of memory and so on.

B: Is the sacred, therefore that which is without limit ?

K: That's it. There is something (sacred) beyond compassion...

B: Yes. Is it beyond movement?

K: A living thing; a living thing, you can only examine a dead thing.

B: Right....

K: A living thing, you can't examine. What we are trying to do, is to examine that living thing which we call sacred, which is beyond compassion.

B: Well, what is our relation to the Sacred then?

K: To the man who is ignorant there is no relationship. Right? Which is true
B: Right....

K: To the man who is free of the self- image and the image-maker, it has no meaning yet. Right?

B: Yes...

K: It has meaning only when he goes beyond everything, when he 'dies' to everything - in the sense of never for a single second accumulating anything psychologically. But are you asking, what is the relationship between that which is sacred, holy, to ( the world of?) reality.

B: Yes, well, it's implicit anyway.

K: We talked about this question some time ago, which is: reality which is the product of thought has no relationship to 'that' ( sacredness?) because thought is an empty little affair. But 'That' may have a relationship with this.
And this (truly creative) relationship comes through insight, intelligence and compassion.

S: What is that relationship? I mean, how does intelligence act?

K: Ah... You have had an insight into the (self-) image. You have had an insight into the movement of (self-centred) thought, which is self-pity, creates sorrow, and all that. You have had a real insight into it. Haven't you?

S: Right...

K: It's not a logical conclusion, but you have had a real insight into the 'waves of the river of human consciousness' . Now, isn't that insight (the action of) intelligence? So there is that 'intelligence' - you've already got that intelligence.

S: That's right...
K: Now move (inwards ?) with that intelligence, which is not yours or mine, but is an universal intelligence, global or cosmic intelligence - that 'insight'. Now, move a step further with it. Have an insight into the enormous sorrow of mankind, the sorrow of ignorance, and out of that insight (comes) compassion. Now, (have a still deeper) insight into the nature of Compassion: is compassion the end of all life, end of all death? It seems so because your mind has thrown away all the burden which man has imposed upon himself. So you have that tremendous feeling, a tremendous thing inside you. Now, that Compassion - delve into it. And there is something sacred, untouched by man's mind, by his cravings, by his demands, by his prayers, by his everlasting chicanery & tricks. And 'That' may be the Origin of everything - which man has misused. You follow? Not that it (does already?) exists in him because then we get lost (in theories)

B: Would you say it's the origin of all matter, all nature ?

K: Of everything, of all matter, of all nature...

B: Of all mankind ?

K: Yes, that's right. So, at the end of these dialogues, what have you, or what has the viewer got? Has his bowl been filled ?

S: Filled with the (sense of the ) 'sacred' ?

K: Yes, that's why he has come to you - I have come to you three wanting to find out how to transform my life, because I feel it is absolutely necessary. (How to) get rid of all the silly stuff which mankind has collected. I empty myself of all that. (Experiential Hint:) The 'I' can't empty itself, the 'I' dies to all that. So, have you given me the perfume of 'that' (sacredness of Creation) thing?

S: Can I give you that perfume?

K: Or, yes sir, you can share it with me...Have you two shared this thing with this man?

B: Right...

K: You can only share it when you are really (spiritually) hungry, burning with hunger. Otherwise you share words... So we have come to the point when we see that (one's inner life?) life has an extraordinary meaning.

B: Well, let's say it has a meaning far beyond what we usually think of...

K: Yes, this is so shallow...

B: Well, would you say the Sacred is also (an integral part of?) life?

K: Yes, that what I was getting at. Life is sacred. So, we mustn't misuse (our) life.

B: Right...

K: We mustn't waste it because our life (on planet Earth ?) is so short. You follow?

B: You feel that each of our lives has a part to play in this 'Sacredness' that you talk about.

K: It's (deep down?) there...

B: It's part of the wholeness (of life) and to use it rightly has a tremendous significance ?

K: Quite right... But if you just accept it as a theory it's as good as any other theory.

S: There's something though. Have we shared the (presence of the?) Sacred?

K: All these dialogues have been a real penetrating Meditation which brings insight into everything that's been said.

B: I should say that we have been doing that...

S: And have we shared that?

B: With whom? Among ourselves?

S: Or with the viewer ?

B: Well, I should think that's the difficulty...

K: Are you considering the ( holistically minded reader or?) viewer, or there is only that (Sacred Origin of Life ?) in which the viewer, you and I, everything 'is'? You understand what I'm saying?

S: So, how have we 'shared' (it) in our meditation?

K: This dialogue has it been a meditation?

S: Yes.

K: You know, meditation is not just a clever argument...

S: No, I feel that we have shared...

K: Shared the truth or the falseness of every statement ? Or seen the truth in the false ?

S: And being aware of the false as it comes out and is clarified.

K: See it all, and therefore we 'are' in a ( spontaneous) state of meditation.
And whatever we say must then lead to that ultimate thing. Then 'you' are not sharing. There is only That.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 02 Mar 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Mar 2020 #263
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

A ( 'reader-friendly' edited) K GROUP DIALOGUE (cca 1977)

Questioner : Can we discuss the relation between Krishnamurti's teaching and Truth?

KRISHNAMURTI: Is it the ( holistic ?) expression of truth? There are two things involved. The speaker is either talking out of the silence of truth, or he is talking out of the noise of an illusion which he considers to be the truth. So... which is it that he is doing?

Q: There could be a ( wide-spread?) confusion between his (holistic use of) words and (the living spirit of ) truth: as one feels that he is speaking out of the silence of truth there is a greater possibility for the words to be taken literally as ( the ultimate ) 'truth'.

K: Now, who is going to see the truth of the matter? The ( holistically minded ?) listener, or reader? You hear him talking about these things and you wonder if he is really speaking out of this extraordinary silence of truth, or as a reaction and from a conditioned childhood and so on. Can you 'listen' to what he is saying and see if it is true ?

Q: But what sees it as true?

K: Say one is fairly (inwardly awake & ) alive to things (is one's inner ?) life is concerned with this problem. I don't know how you would find out. I'll tell you what I would do. I would put completely aside his ( very charismatic?) personality, his ( subliminal?) influence and just 'listen' to him sceptically (because) I want to find out (the truth of this matter?) .

Q: 'Sceptical' means you are inclined to doubt it, which is already a bias...

K: Oh, no! I am (using the word?) 'sceptical' in the sense that I don't (have to) accept everything that is being said...

P: So, you lean towards 'doubting' ?

K: Oh, no. I use the word 'doubt', in the sense of (self-) questioning. Am I listening to him with all the ( second hand?) knowledge I have gathered about religion, of what other ( famous?) people have said, or what my own experience tells me?

Q: I may be listening to him precisely because I have rejected all that.

K: Have I rejected it? Or am I listening to him with all ( my knowledgeable background?) ? If I have rejected ( the subliminal attachment to ?) that then I am (in the position of?) 'listening' very carefully to what he has to say.
So at least for the time when I am ( objectively) 'listening' I put aside everything I have known. So, is one capable of listening to what he is saying with complete abandonment of the (knowledge of the ) past? It comes down to that. Then my whole relationship to him is entirely different. Then I am listening out of silence.
This is really a very interesting (experiential) question. I have answered it for myself, would you answer it? How do you know that what he is talking about is ( actually coming from the silence of ?) 'truth'?

Q: The next question which arises is: if I reject all ( my psychologically biased?) knowledge and listen in silence, is truth (to be found?) in that silence?

K: That is one of the things one has got to find out ( in one's meditation homework?) ….

Q: I think that first of all you can be sensitive to what is false. In other words, you can be sensitive to his whole communication to see if there is some deception.

K: If I were a (total) stranger I might say: You have listened to this man for a long time, how do you know he is telling the truth? How do you know anything about it?

Q: I could say that I have looked at ( the inwardness of?) what it was said, and each time I was able to test it it was right. I have not found anything which was (intrinsically ) contradictory.

K: One's own sensitivity, one's own investigation, one's own delving - is that enough?

Q: If one goes all the way through all the possible self-deceptions, one feels there is a (qualitative ) change in oneself. It may not be a total revolution, but there is a change...

K: That can also happen when you go for a walk and look at the (Swiss?) mountains and are quiet, and when you come back to your home certain (inwardly clarifying?) things have taken place...

Q: I think it is typical of thought that it wants to be sure that it is not deceiving itself, that it is listening to truth...but ( the self-centred) thought cannot touch it, cannot 'know' about it.

K: Dr Bohm and I had a discussion of this kind in a different way. If I remember rightly we said: Is there such a silence which is not imagined or induced? And if there such a ( meditating ?) silence, is it possible to speak out of that silence?

Q: The question was whether the words that are used are communicating directly out of the (inner) emptiness, out of silence - we used to say: like the ( properly strung ?) drum which vibrates to the emptiness within.

K: Look, suppose I 'love' ( have a selfless affection for?) you and trust you. Because I trust you and you trust me, you won't tell me something which is not actual to you. There is a relationship of trust, confidence, affection, love; like a man and a woman when they are married, they trust each other. Now is that possible here?

Q: If one has affection for someone, one could also project all kinds of illusions on to him. Is there any way to avoid this (psychological) danger?

K: I don't want to be caught in an illusion.

Q: So can we say that 'truth' is in the silence out of which the teaching comes?

K: But I might have worked ( diligently) to have a silent mind for years, conditioned it, kept it in a cage, and then say, "Marvellous, I am silent". There is also this (potential) danger...

Q: Are we saying that (one's inward ) perception has to be pure and in the realm of silence in order to be able to even come close to this question?

K: Dr Bohm is a scientist, a physicist, he is clear-thinking, logical; suppose someone goes to him and asks, "Is what Krishnamurti says the truth?" How is he going to answer?

Q: For me it is a reality, but I can't communicate it to you. This is what I have found out and you have to find it out for yourself. You have to test it (with)in your own mind.

K: How do you in your heart of hearts, as a human being, know that he is speaking the truth? Dr Bohm has known Krishnamurti for several years. He has a good, trained mind so I go to him and ask him.

Q: I think I could say to him that when we did discuss these things it was from the emptiness, and that I felt it was a direct perception

K: So you are telling me: I have found out that man is telling the truth because I had a direct perception, an insight into what he is saying ?

Q: Yes, but in addition to direct perception I have constantly examined this logically.

K: So you are saying that this (shared ) perception has not blinded you and with that perception goes logic also.

Q: Yes, logic and fact.

K: So perception first, then logic ?

Q: Yes. That is what it always has to be.

K: So through perception and then with logic, you see that it is the truth. Hasn't this been done by the devout Christians?

Q: Logic is not enough, because we have to see how people actually behave as well. I see that Christians say certain things, but when we look at the whole of what they do it doesn't fit.

K: Now I begin to understand what you are saying. One has to move in a field which is full of danger, full (psychological) pitfalls.

Q: Which means one has to be (inwardly?) tremendously awake.

K: So I have learned from talking to him that it's a razor's edge path. Are you prepared to do that when one's whole being says "Be secure" ?

Q: In principle that is the way all science works...

K: Yes, that is right. So we're saying: through the perception of the danger I have found the (inward ) truth of what Krishnamurti is saying. And there is no 'psychological' safety in this. Whereas all the others give me safety...

Q: ( The psychologically motivated?) 'security' becomes the ultimate danger.
What you have described is actually the scientific approach. They say every statement must be in danger of being false; it has been put that way.

K: That is perfectly right. Are we saying that direct perception, insight and the working out of it demands a great capacity to think clearly? But the capacity to think clearly will not bring about insight.

Q: But if the (rationality of ) logic does not bring about (a holistic) perception, what does it do exactly?

K: It sharpens the mind. Logic makes the mind sharp, clear, objective and sane. But that won't give you the 'other' (quality) . We say that (the holistic ) perception does not need logic, but whatever it does is ( ultimately ) reasonable, logical, sane, objective.

Q: It is logical without an intent to make it so ?

K: That's it. Now, will this perception keep the confusion, the (psychological) debris away all the time so that the mind never accumulates it and doesn't have to keep clearing it away? Does one (totally insightful?) perception keep the field clear?

Q: Can one make a difference between insight and (a holistic) perception?

K: Take those two words as synonymous. We are asking: does this perception in itself bring about tremendous clarity in which there is no debris?

Q: Are you saying that once it happens (its inward clarity?) will be there for ever?

K: That is what I am trying to get at : only when the (inward clarity of) one's perception becomes darkened by debris, the ( tedious?) process of getting rid of them begins. But if there is ( a global) perception why should there be a collecting, gathering of (psycho-debris?)

Q: There are a lot of difficult points (to be further clarified?) in this (for homework?)

K: Doesn't it open the door(s) ( of holistic perception ?) so that there is (an inward clarity of?) insight all the time?

Q: Does that mean that you would never have any further confusion?

K: Yes, we came to the point where the (insightful ) perception is complete for the moment. Will one's further actions confuse perception? Or, having perception is there no further confusion?

Q: You also said that the ( self-centred) mind tries to find ( a guarantee of long term?) security in all this....

K: The (self-centred) mind has always been seeking ( an everlasting ? ) security and when that security is threatened it tries to find security in (the insightful) perception.

Q: In the illusion of insight ?

K: our next question is: Must there be a constant breaking of perception? That is, one day one sees very clearly, one has direct perception, then that fades away and there is ( an inward tide of) confusion. Then again there is a 'perception and action', followed by confusion and so on. Or is there no further confusion after these deep insights?

Q: Are we saying that a totally insightful perception is 'whole'?

K: Yes, if the perception is complete, whole, then there is no confusion at any time...

Q: There is also a possible danger of making that (wholistic) action was into a ( handy intellectual) formula and stop having the insight. Let's say that out of an insight which was real a certain action came. One then thinks that is the way things should be.

K: That is what generally happens...

Q: But isn't that a corruption of the perception, just making a pattern out of the action instead of continuing to look? It is like being able to really look at something, for instance looking out of the window and something is seen. But then you don't look out again and think everything is still the way it was. It may have totally changed. The perception starts out being genuine, but you don't continue to look, have insight.

K: Yes...Many scientists may have an insight in some specialized field and that insight is put (for further use) into a category of science unrelated to their life. But we are talking of a ( wholistic?) perception that is not only in the field of action but also in daily life.

Q: But I still don't think we have gone into this question of (psychological) dangers. You said that one day a man came to you and said you were stuck in a groove.

K: Yes, ''caught in a rut''....

Q: You didn't say immediately, "I know I am not because I have had a perfect insight."

K: Ah, that would be deadly!

Q: But rather, you looked at it for several days.... So you were saying that there may be an insight which never goes back into confusion ?

K: Yes, that's right. Would you say, that when there is completely ( illuminating?) perception, there is no further confusion?

Q: It seems reasonable to say that...

K: That means from day to day there is no confusion at all ?

Q: Then why did you feel it necessary to look into it (for several days?) ?

K: Because this is a 'dangerous' (psychologically slippery?) ground and therefore we must be watchful.

Q: Do you mean after an authentic insight you could still deceive yourself?

K: No. (But suppose?) you have a deep insight, complete, whole and someone comes along and says: "Look, you are deceiving yourself". Do you instantly say, "No, I am not deceiving myself because my perception was complete"? Or do you listen and look at it all afresh? It doesn't mean that you are denying (the inward truth of) that complete perception, but you are watching again if it is real or illusory.

Q: That is not necessarily an intellectual process?

K: I would say it is intellectual as well as 'non-verbal'.

Q: Is ( man's capacity for holistic?) perception something that is always there and it is just that (it has to be awakened?)

K: That leads to (another psychologically ?) 'dangerous' ground. The Hindus say that God is always there inside you - the abiding deep divinity, or Soul, or Atman, and it is just covered up. Remove the confusion, the debris and it is found inside. Most people do believe that, but I think that is a (psychologically biased?) conclusion. You just assume that there is something divine inside (your ?) soul ; but from (such ) a conclusion you can never have a total, complete perception.

Q: But if you deny that (timeless potentiality?) , then what makes one (capable to) step out of the stream? Does it mean that the stepping out is for certain (highly priviledged?) 'individuals' only?

K: This possibility exists for (all?) human beings.

Q: For the totality of mankind ?

K: For (inwardly integrated?) human beings.

Q: Then there is some ( intelligent) energy which...

K:...which is outside of them or which is in them...

Q: Yes. We don't know...

K: Therefore don't come to any conclusion. If you think you can perceive (truth?) from (such ) a conclusion, that perception is conditioned (by the dead memory of the past?) , therefore it is not 'whole'.

Q: Does that mean that there would not be the possibility of 'deepening' (one's inward ) perception?

K: You can't deepen (a timeless?) insight. You 'perceive the whole' - that's all.

Q: What do you mean then by saying there was this (Universal?) Mind into which you could continually go more deeply?

K: That is something else (left for optional homework meditation?) ...

Q: I was going to ask: to be caught in a (time binding) habit after a perception, could that not ever happen again, at certain levels?

K: There is 'partial' perception and 'total' perception - let's divide it ( experientially-wise ?) into those two. When there is total perception there is no further ( accumulation of?) confusion.

Q: You don't get caught in (another?) habit?

K: There is no further confusion. Because it is so.

Q: What if something happens to the brain physically?

K: Then of course it is gone (with the wind?) .

Q: So there seems to be a limitation to what you say, because one assumes that the brain remains healthy...

K: Of course, assuming that the whole ( psychosomatic?) organism is healthy. If there is an accident, your brain suffers concussion and something is injured, then it is finished (better luck next life ?) .

Q: So, the major danger (of self-delusion?) is that we would mistake a partial perception for the total. But it it is " in here". You are not tapping it from "out there". That energy is within you, isn't it?

K: One has to go into this question of what is (the holistic) perception. You cannot have (such) perception if your daily life is in disorder, confused, contradictory. Now, is that energy outside, or inside?

Q: Isn't that an artificial division: Outside and inside?

K: She said that this (insightful ) perception needs energy. That energy may be an external energy, or an energy which may exist deeply inside you. Both are mental concepts, or 'conclusions' which one has accepted because tradition has said so, or one has come to that conclusion by oneself. ( Experientially-wise ?) any form of (mental) 'conclusion' is detrimental to (direct ) perception. So what does ( a holistic ) 'perception' mean? Can I have perception if I am attached to my (social) position, to my wife, or to my property?

Q: It colours the act of perceiving.

K: Yes, but take the scientists, they have their family, their attachments, they want a position, money and all the rest of it, but they can have an insight.

Q: But it is not 'total'.

K: So we are saying that total perception can only take place when in your daily (everyday) life there is no confusion.

Q: Couldn't it be that a total perception can take place inspite of that and wipe it away?

K: If the 'windows' are not clean my view is confused.

Q: Would that mean that there is a conditioned insight?

K: If I am (psychologically entangled?) in fear my perception will be very partial. That is a 'fact'.

Q: But don't you need ( a holistic ?) perception to end fear?

K: Ah, but in investigating (how one's self-centred thinking generates this?) 'fear' I (may, or may not ?) have a total perception of fear.

Q: Are you implying that there are certain things that one can do which will make for such perceptions? Which means although you have fear and it distorts, the distortion is not so total that you cannot investigate it. There is still that possibility, although you are distorting through fear?

K: I realize I am distorting perception through fear. So, investigate it (holistically?) look into it. Therefore I am (becoming) aware of every distortion that is going on.

Q: But how can I investigate when I am distorting?

K: Just listen : you are conscious that you are afraid and you also observe what that fear has done. You look more and more into it and in looking very deeply into it you have an insight...

Q: I may have an insight.

K: No, ( eventually?) you will have insight, which is quite different.

Q: What you are saying is that this confusion due to fear is not complete, that it is always open to mankind to have insight.

K: To one who is investigating, who is observing.

Q: So, it is still open to you to investigate fear ( as optional homework?) ...

K: Yes, quite right....(Take a deeper example) one suffers and you see what (psychological damage it?) does. In opening it up, in the very unrolling of it, you have a certain insight. That insight may be (very probably?) partial, therefore one has to be aware that it is partial. Its action is partial (even for the time being) it may appear complete, so watch it.

Q: So, you are saying that when you have an (observer-obseved?) distortion , the one thing you can look at is the distortion ?

K: That's right, one has that capacity.

Q: Could one say that the fear can look at itself?

K: No, no. One is afraid: in looking (inwardly) at that sorrow (as meditation homework ?) you see what it does, what its action is.

Q: By 'looking' you mean being aware of it ?

K: Without any 'choosing' – just being aware. And you see what that (personal sorrow or ) fear does. And in looking at it more extensively, deeply, widely, suddenly you have an insight into the whole structure of (your sorrow or?) fear.

Q: But there is still the question: in that moment of fear, I am (fully immersed in?) fear.

K: How you observe fear matters - whether you observe it as a (self-separated?) 'observer', or (as if?) the 'observer' is that. ( When eventually?) you perceive that the observer 'is' (not separated from the personal sorrow which is ) observed (one realises that) in this action there is distortion & confusion. And when (further down this road?) you examine that confusion, which is born of (one's personal sorrow or) fear, in the very process of examination you have an insight. Do it (for meditation homework ?) and you will 'see' (the inward truth of) it – (providing?) you don't limit yourself by saying, "I am too frightened, I can't look"...

Q: To simplify it, the action of examining the distorting factor, is the 'cleansing' of the window.

K: How you 'observe (non-dualistically?) , how you investigate, that is the real thing.That (direct ) perception can only take place when there is no division between the observer and the observed. Therefore you are watching the movement of fear ('live'?) and in the very watching of it there is an insight. I think that is (at least verbally... ?) clear. But Krishnamurti says: "I have never done this."

Q: Never gone through all this? Then how do you know somebody else can?

K: Suppose you have not gone through all this, but you 'see it instantly'. Because you see it instantly your capacity to reason explains all this. ( And eventually?) another (holistically minded person ) listens and says, " I don't have to go through that whole process."

Q: Are you saying that all we have been discussing just now is merely a pointer to something else and that we don't have to go through all that (self-observation homework?)

K: Yes. I want to get at that...

Q: In other words, that helps to clear the ground, but it is not really the main point.

K: No.

Q: Are you saying there is a short cut?

K: No, not a (linear) 'short cut', but must you go through (sequentially examining?) fear, jealousy, anxiety, attachment? Or can you clear the whole thing instantly?

Q: You previously said that you have never done this and by having that immediate total perception you were able to clean the 'dirty windows' . But this isn't necessarily the immediate way (to proceed ) for those who haven't...

K: First put (yourself ) this (holistic) question and see what comes out of it.
Is it possible that by investigating ( the experiential actuality of ? ) ''the observer 'is' the observed'' and see the totality of it - to free all the rest (of the dualistically generated issues ?) ? I think that is the only way.

Q: Could that be part of one's (cultural) conditioning if one were raised in a certain way, or went to a certain (public ?) school?

K: But also there may be deeper layers (of psychical conditioning ?) and you may not even be conscious of them, or not be totally aware of the deeper fears, etc. You may say, superficially I have none of these conditionings.

Q: But if one went to a certain (more holistically friendly) school where this kind of learning and investigation would take place, could that clear the way towards the possibility?

K: Obviously. Must one go through all this (time consuming self-investigative?) process?

Q: Couldn't we remove from this problem the 'personal' aspect? We are discussing what is open to (the total consciousness of) man rather than to any individual.

K: Yes. Is it open to any human being without going through all this process?
Or can a (holistically minded?) human being see 'the whole thing' at a glance? And that very glance 'is' (simultaneously?) the investigation and the total perception.

Q: This is what you mean when you say ''the first step is the last'' ?

K: Yes, a 'total' (time-free?) perception.

Q: Then what would one's responsibility be towards someone who is in (still immersed in) sorrow?

K: The response to that human being is the (intelligent) response of Compassion. Nothing else.

Q: If you see an injured bird it is very easy to deal with that because it really doesn't require very much of you. But when you come in contact with a (sorrowful?) human being he has a much more complex set of needs...

K: What can you do actually? Somebody comes to you and says, "I am in deep sorrow". Do you talk to him out of (the universal Intelligence of?) compassion, or out of your own particular experience of sorrow which has conditioned you ? A (traditionalist?) Hindu would say: "My dear friend, you suffer now because (in the past) you did this and that - I am so sorry, but ( hopefully?) in the next life you will (manage to?) live better." - and so on. Or a Christian would respond from some other ( 'Jesus'  ?) conclusion. Will you offer him any of those (cheap?) escapes? Whatever comes out of Compassion will help him.

Q: Are you saying that as far as sorrow is concerned you can't directly help anyone, but the energy of ( universal Intelligence of?) compassion itself may be of help?

K: That's right; that's all.
Q: But many such wounded spirits will (occasionally?) come to the Centre here and I think it is going to be a problem to know how to deal with them.

K: There is no such problem if you are compassionate. Compassion doesn't create problems. It has no problems, therefore it is (intelligently?) compassionate.

Q: You are saying that total compassion is the highest intelligence?

K: Of course. If there is compassion, that compassion has its own intelligence and that intelligence acts. But if you have no compassion and no intelligence, then your conditioning makes you reply (in terms of?) whatever he wants. I think that is fairly simple. To go back to the other question: Must a human being go through the whole process? Has no human being said, "I won't go through all this. I absolutely refuse to go through all this"?

Q: Isn't the (experiential) key to this (subliminally hidden?) somewhere in man's desire for continuity, for security ?

K: That's right. A 'bourgeois' (way of life ) implies continuity, security, it implies belonging to something, vulgarity - all that. If somebody says to you, "I have never been through all this", what do you do? Don't you ask yourself that question: "How does it happen, must I go through all this?"

Q: Krishnaji, you are taking two widely separate things. One is the uncontaminated person, who never had to go through the process because he was never 'in the soup', but most other people, apparently, are in some form of (psychological) contamination, it may be fear, or something else. Therefore the person who has already got this 'sickness' says : What good is it to examine that possibility when one is already sick in some form.

K: Can we put the whole thing differently? Do you seek the essence of excellence? Then everything falls away, doesn't it? An ordinary human being, not a specialist, just an average intelligent human being who does not take drugs, does not smoke, is fairly intelligent and decent, if he sought the essence of excellence, that very demand for (spiritual?) excellence and how you demand it - brings the essence of it. ( Clue:) You demand it passionately ! You demand the highest intelligence, the essence of it, and when fear arises, then you...

Q: Where does this demand come from?

K: Demand it! There may be a ( self-interest based?) motive, but the very ( passion of your?) demand washes it all away. (If) I demand the flowering of Goodness, in that very demand there is a demand for the essence.

Q: Does ( a totally insightful ) perception come from this demand?

K: Yes, that's right.

Q: The point is, we confuse 'demand' with 'desire'... when people feel that they want to give up desire then there is a danger of giving up this demand as well.

K: Let's find a (better?) word for it. Would the word "passion" be suitable? There is passion for this, passion for excellence. An burning passion - not for something. The Communists are ( or were?) passionate about their ideas.The Christians have (or had) passion for missionary work – all those passions feed the ego, feed the me, make me important, consciously or unconsciously. We are cutting out all that. There is a young (K) boy who has a passion to grow up into an extraordinary human being, into something 'original'.

Q: He sees that it is possible and therefore he has the passion.

K: Yes, that's right. There is this passion in a human being who demands the ( spiritual?) excellence that may shatter everything else. But again, this (K) human being says: "I never even asked for it.

Q: Perhaps that we are conditioned to mediocrity, not to make this (kind of) demand. That is what you mean by 'mediocrity'...

K: Yes, of course. Mediocrity is the ( time-binding result of the ) lack of great passion. So does total insight bring this passion? Total insight 'is' the flame of passion which wipes away all confusion. It burns away everything else. Don't you then act as a 'magnet' when you are passionate to create? This ( fire of creation ?) may be the thing that is missing. If there is something missing I would ( selflessly?) ask for it.

Q: When you say, "You are the world, the world is you" - is this (holistic?) statement true for the unconditioned & the conditioned human mind ?

K : It is an obvious fact that ''The world 'is' ( creating the?) me and the me 'is' ( creating) the world''

Q: But only the unconditioned mind can perceive ( the inward truth of?) that.

K: It isn't quite like that...

Q: I mean it in the sense that I may say, "I am the world, the world is me", but ( eventually?) I revert to an action which is a contradiction to that. Therefore it is not an 'absolute fact' for me, although there may be moments when the fact of it is seen by me.

K: Yes....When I act selfishly that is a contradiction to the ( inward truth of the?) fact that ''the world is me and I am the world''. A person can say this merely as an intellectual conclusion, or as a momentary feeling... So, you don't have to accept that, but to see the fact, that when one says, "I am the world and the world is me" there is no (self-identified?) 'me'. Can that (selfless?) quality operate in all directions?

Q: The (gist of the) question is: How does one see the confusion that arises around 'I' and 'you'. From what is going on in the world, it appears that people are generally confused about this...

K: ( When the 'thinker' thinks:) 'I exist', there is (a surreptitious mental division between ?) 'you' and 'me'. And... 'you' also think the same thing (about 'me') . So we keep this division everlastingly. But when you and I have the profound insight that, "The world 'is' me and I am the world", ( there is no actual division between one's consciousness & the consciousness of the world ? ) there is no 'me'.

Q: If there is no 'me' and no 'you', the question, "Is there an essential difference between the unconditioned and the conditioned mind) ", doesn't arise, because there is no (separating distance?) "between".

K: That's right. There is no 'you', there is no 'I' in that state (of inward integration?) , which doesn't include the conditioned ('self'-identified?) state. Is this too abstract?

Q: Why do you have to say, "I am the world" first, and then deny this?

K: That is merely a ( holistic?) statement. It is an actual fact that I 'am' the world.

Q: And what you mean by 'the world' ?

K: The 'world' means the whole ( self-centred mentality) of human society - I am the result of that.

Q: And also everybody is the result of that.

K: Yes, the result is 'I' and 'you'.

Q: And the ( sense of) separation ?

K: When I say ''I am the world'', I am (holistically) saying all that.

Q: You mean to say 'I' (one's self-centred consciousness?) is generated by the ( man-made?) world.

K: Yes. I am the product of the world...

Q: ...and the world is the essence of what I am.

K: Yes.... When there is a deep perception of that, not (just?) intellectual, not emotional but profound, there is no ( inward sense of?) 'you' or 'me'. I think that holds (even?) logically.

Q: So, you are saying that one's (self-consciousness?) is the product of the whole of society.

K: Yes, I am really the essential result of all this.

Q: Does it help to use the word "ego"?

K: It is the same thing, but there is a possibility of self-deception that ( behind the temporal) 'I' is the very essence of God.

Q: But is the unconditioned mind also a product of all this?

K: Without using the word "I" it can be said: the result of the world is this (particular consciousness) and the result of the world is also (that particular consciousness . Which means the result ( of the survival-oriented human consiousness ) has created the 'I' and the 'you'. Now, when there is an insight into this (time-bound) result there is no "result". Therefore 'you' and 'I' don't exist (as self-identified consciousness) . See what it means? There is no (self-centred) causation in the mind and therefore there is no effect. Therefore this (integrated consciousness) is whole, and any action born of it is causeless and without effect. In that state (of the meditating mind?) there is no result, no cause, no effect. That mind acts out of compassion. Suppose A is suffering, he says to X, "Please help me to get out of my suffering." If X really has ( access to the universal intelligence of?) Compassion his words have no result.

Q: You mean that something (may) happens, but there is no (thought projected?) result ?

K: That's it.

Q: But I think people generally are seeking a result.

K: Let's put it another way : When there is ( the expectation of a concrete ?) 'result' there is (a thought-projected?) cause. When compassion has a cause then you are no longer compassionate.

Q: What makes us want a (concrete ) result is the idea of separation. Somebody says, " There is a person suffering, I would like to produce the result that he is not suffering. " But that is based on the idea that there is a 'me' and a 'he'.

K: That's it. When I say 'me', the 'you' also exists. The 'you' and the 'I' are the results of man's selfishness, and so on - it is a result. And when one looks into this (psychological) result, the insight brings about a quality in which you and I - who are the results (of the River of Time?) - don't exist. When you see ( the inward truth of?) this deeply (down) there is no 'you' and no 'me'. So, if the person upon whom that ( Universal Intelligence of?) Compassion acts wants a result, we say, "Sorry, there is no result." But the man who suffers says, "Help me to get out of this", or, "Help me to bring back my son, my wife", or whatever it is. He is demanding a result. This thing has no result. The result is the world.

Q: But does ( the timeless intelligence of?) Compassion affect the consciousness of man?
K: Yes. It affects the deep layers of the human consciousness.

( To recap:) The 'I' is the result of the world, the 'you' is the result of the world. And to the man who sees this (inward truth) with a profound insight, there is no 'you' or 'I'. Therefore that profound insight is ( the timeless action of ?) Compassion - which is ( the essence of universal ?) intelligence. And this ( enlightened?) Intelligence says: If you want a (concrete ) result I can't give it to you, I am not the product of a result. Compassion says: this state is not a result, therefore there is no cause, no (expectations for a ?) result & no time.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 07 Mar 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Mar 2020 #264
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

A holistic approach to learning about oneself

He was a youngish man and had probably studied human nature a little not only from books but from observation & from talking to many people. He had travelled extensively and said that he had met many people and was interested in this whole business of man's (uneasy?) relationship to himself. He was concerned with the uncovering of the self that is hidden both in the subconscious as well as in the upper layers of consciousness.

Q: I see the necessity of exploring this whole field (of my temporal consciousness ?) and of 'dying' to it, so that a new thing can come into being, but I can't 'die' to the deeper layers which are so secretly hidden, a fathomless storehouse of things unknown or half-forgotten, which respond and contract from a source which remains covered. Though you have said ( 'holistically' ?) the subconscious is as trivial as the conscious, and that therefore it is of very little importance and have pointed out that it is mechanical yet this 'subconscious' (background of thought?) is responsible for all our behaviour, all our relationships. How can you call it 'trivial'? Do you realize what you are saying?

K: To understand this complex problem, it is important to look ( non-personally?) at the whole structure of human consciousness and not break it up into the 'conscious' and the 'hidden'. We accept this division as natural, but is it really natural, or is it an observation from a (central 'self'-identified?) fragment? Our ( experiential) difficulty is to see the see the whole of our consciousness the 'observer' who sees the whole? Is he not also a fragment who can therefore only look fragmentarily?

Q: Are we ever ( aware of?) the whole, or only of fragments acting separately in contradiction?

K: Can we ever see the whole, or have a feeling of the whole, through this fragment? You can see the whole of the tree if you are at a certain distance - not too far and yet not too close. So to see the whole of anything there must be - not the (mental) 'space' that the words creates - but (an inward ) space of freedom. Only in freedom can you see the whole. We are, as you said, sir, always acting in fragments which are in opposition to each other, or in a fragment which is in harmony with one other fragment.
Q: Our whole life is broken up into the family, the businessman, the citizen, the artist, the sensualist, the good man, and so on. We know only this fragmentary action with its terrible tensions and delights.
K: These 'fragments' have their own hidden motives opposed to other hidden motives which are different and ( very often) contradictory, and the upper layers of consciousness respond according to these underground opposing elements of conditioning. So we are a (dynamic?) bundle of contradictory motives and drives which respond to the various environmental challenges.

Q: The everyday mind is these responses in actual action, and in conflict which is actually visible.

K: So then what is the problem? What do you want to resolve or understand?

Q: My problem is that I (think that?) must see the totality of all these hidden motives and conditionings which are responsible for my (outwardly) visible conflict. In other words, I must see the so-called subconscious. Even if I were not in conflict - and I am in conflict - even if I weren't then l'd still have to know all this subconscious in order to know myself at all. And can I ever know myself (completely?) ?

K: Either you know what has happened or what is actually taking place (in real time?) . (Hint : ) If you are looking with the eyes of the past (at what is going on inwardly in ?) the living present means not seeing it. So the word "know" is here a dangerous word, as all words are dangerous and false. When you say,"l want to know myself," there are two things involved. Who is the entity who says, "I must know myself," and what is there, apart from 'himself', to know? And so it becomes an absurd question if the observer (realises that it) 'is' ( not divided from what is ) the observed. The observer is the entity who dreams, who is in conflict, who wants to know, and wants to be known, the ( image making?) illusion and the demand to end the illusion, the dream which he interprets on waking, and the interpretation which depends on conditioning. He 'is' the whole, the analyzed and the analyser, the experiencer and the experience. He is both the maker of 'God' and its worshipper. All this is a fact which anybody can see with a little (inward) observation. Then, the ( next experiential) question is: Is there an (inwardly perceptive?) action outside this historical accumulation?

Q : Are you asking if there is a part of me which can operate on this accumulation which is not part of it?
K: You mean, am I positing some Atman, soul, (spark of?) divinity, etc., within myself which is untouched?
Q: It looks like it...

K: Certainly, nothing of the kind. When you put this question you are really repeating an ages old tradition of (psychological) escapes. We have to think this anew, not repeat a time-worn superstition. Within this framework of the 'me', of the (temporal ?) 'self', obviously there is no freedom, and therefore its action is always breeding its own misery, social, personal and so on. Is it ever possible to be free from this? We spend our (mental ?) energies discussing political, religious, social freedom, freedom from poverty and inequality, etc.

Q: I agree with you, sir. We spend our time asking if we can be free to act, to change the social structure, to break down social disorder, poverty, inequality, and so on, and I not at all sure we want ( a total inward?) freedom at all...

K: Does this freedom lie within the structure of this accumulated past or outside the structure? Freedom is necessary, and freedom cannot be within this structure. So is it possible for ( any holistically minded?) man to go beyond this structure, to be free - that is, to act not from this ( self-centred?) structure? To live & to act (in freedom) outside this framework? There is such a freedom and it comes into being only when there is the total denial of what actually is (the psychological content of one's consciousness?) , without having a secret longing for freedom. So the negation of 'what is', is freedom.
Q: How do you 'deny' it?
K: 'You' (the self-conscious mental entity?) can't deny it, but the very 'seeing' of what is (going on inwardly?) , is the freedom from it, and this may be called "denial" or any other word you care to use ('negation'?) . So the (act of direct) seeing becomes all-important, not all this rigmarole of cunning subtleties and devious explanations. The word is not the (actual) thing, but we are (generally) concerned with (dealing on the verbal level with?) the words and not with the 'seeing'.

Q: But how can I see the totality of myself, and who is there to see it, if the observer 'is' the observed?

K: As we said previously, sir, 'you' (the self-centred 'observer'?) can't see. There is only 'seeing', not "you" seeing. The "what is" is (constantly unfolding?) before your eyes. This is ( the insightful ) 'seeing', this is the truth.

Q: Is it important to see the ( self-centred ) structure (of thought) which operates, or the content of that structure?

K: What is important is to 'see the whole', not ( divided ) as 'structure' and 'content', but to see that the structure 'is' the content and the content 'is' the structure, the one cannot exist without the other. So what is important is to 'see' (holistically?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Mar 2020 #265
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

Revisiting the K & DAVID BOHM Dialogues on 'TRUTH & REALITY '( cca 1975)

First Dialogue

Krishnamurti: I was thinking about what is 'truth' and what is 'reality' and whether there is any ( interacting ?) relationship between the two, or whether they just projections of thought?
And if thought didn't operate, would (our reality be the same?)

The word 'reality' comes from (the latin root ) "res" (meaning) 'things' ; so anything that thought operates on, or fabricates, or reflects about, is a 'reality', (although) thinking in a distorted, conditioned manner is illusion, and is (a source of self-) deception, & (perceptive) distortion. I left it there, because I wanted to let it come rather than my pursuing it.

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

K : Not having read (the classical ?) philosophers and all that, gives one a tremendous (experiential?) advantage, (as ?) one can start (meditating ?) with 'knowing nothing' and then begin to enquire (deeper ?) . But if one begins to translate it into what the ( world famous?) scholars and philosophers talked about, then one is getting lost (in translation?) ...

DB : Now, one of the questions that arise is : if instead of (holistically ?) saying that reality 'is' thought, I would rather say that 'reality' is something reflected in our consciousness – what would you say ?

K: Are the contents of (one's) consciousness a 'reality' ?

DB : Now, if we want to explore the connexion between consciousness, reality & truth, and we use 'thought' as equivalent for 'consciousness', shouldn't we also include feeling, desire , will, reaction & so on ?

K: Would you separate (the human) consciousness - with its (psychologically motivated?) content, reality and truth - these three things ?

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

K: Yes... And how do they answer it?

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

K: Yes...

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

K: It is, yes.

DB: And it is not just (the creation of?) our own thought...

K: No, obviously not...

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

K: Of course, the cosmos. (But in the human consciousness ?) pain is also 'real'...

DB: Yes. I was thinking that any illusion ( or self-delusion?) is also 'real', in the sense that it is something really going on in (the mind of) a person who is in a state of illusion...

K: To him it is 'real'.

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

K: In a 'real' way, ( but ) in a distorted way...

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

K: Say, for instance: is 'Christ' real?

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

K: Who created (this image of ?) him …

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

K: Jesus was real - if one believed he existed – but ( man's self-centred ) thinking created ( the 'sacred image' of) 'Christ' – which is an illusion.

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

K: You see, the Buddha as a person, was real and what he said, outside the field of thought, is 'truth' ...
So, now we want to find out the distinction between 'truth' and 'reality'. We said anything that thought thinks about, whether unreasonably or reasonably, is a 'reality'. It may be distorted or reasoned clearly, it is still a ( man-made) 'reality', but that 'reality', has nothing to do with Truth.

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

K: Yes, 'fact' means that which is (or has been) done, or that which is actually happening...

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

K: We were saying that anything that thought thinks about, or
reflects upon, or projects, is (in the realm of ) 'reality' , but that 'reality' has nothing to do with Truth. The two are eternally separated ; you can't come from this 'reality' to Truth... The Hindu scholars said : remove the (veil of) illusion, 'Maya', then Reality is. I can remove Maya, by whatever means - but Truth might not exist...therefore it's not a question of removing (the veil of illusion) – but of 'seeing' ( the right place of) reality where it belongs – that's the 'art of seeing' : to place reality where it is, and not move from that in order to get to truth...You can't move from here to there and
call that Truth. I'd want to discuss this point, sir, : can I move from ( living & thinking within the field of?) 'reality' to Truth ? Or there is no such 'movement' ? ( Hint :) Movement involves time, so is there a stop to ( thought's self- projected?) time?

DB: But to come back, any form of (man-made) reality is necessarily conditioned ?

K: It is conditioned. Let's accept that (holistic statement?)

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

K: Quite right.

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

K: Thought is real.

DB: So, one part of reality is influencing another part of reality.

K: One part of illusion ( Maya?) influences another part of illusion (Maya) ...

DB: Yes, but we'll have to be careful because there is this other part of 'reality' which is not made by mankind. But that's still limited. The Cosmos, as seen by us, is influenced by our own ( earthly) experience and therefore limited. Anything that we see, we see it through our own (past) experience, through our own (cultural) background. So that
'reality' cannot possibly be totally independent of man.

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

DB: Yes, of a mutual interaction and reaction.

K: And all his illusions are also his product ?

DB: Yes, they are all mixed ( compounded?) together.

K: Then, what is the difference between a sane, rational,
healthy, whole (human mind) to reality and to truth?

DB: Yes, we must consider that (for further meditation homework?) , but first may we look at this question of 'truth' ? I think the (ethymological dictionary) derivation of words is often very useful. In Latin the root meaning of word "true" in Latin is "verus", which means "that which is". Same (root) as the English "was" and "were", or the German "wahr". Now in English the common meaning of the word "true" means 'honest and faithful' - we can often say that a line is 'true', or the colours are 'true'. There was a ( bed-time?) story I once read about a thread that 'ran so true'; it was using the image of a spinning-wheel with the thread running straight. And now we can say that our thinking , or our consciousness, is true to 'that which is' if it is running straight, if the man is sane and healthy. And otherwise it is false. So the 'falseness' of consciousness is not just (due to) wrong information, but it is actually running falsely as a reality.

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

DB: Yes, his consciousness is (running?) on a straight thread. Therefore his ( perception of?) reality...

K: different from the reality of a man whose (thinking) thread is 'crooked' (dishonest?) , who is irrational, who is neurotic ?

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

K: And for this sane, healthy, whole (holistically minded?) man, what is his relationship to Truth?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K You see, sir, the ancient Hindus talk of 'samadhi' – as reaching a state where your mind 'is' ( one with?) That, with Brahman. That man 'is' Truth. Not 'belonging' to Truth, but he 'is' that .

Dr P : But you have asked the ( rhetorical?) question : what is the relationship of such a man who is (inwardly) whole with Truth ?

K Ah ! I put a wrong ( holistically incorrect?)vquestion ! Such a man 'is' ( the living expression of?) Truth. He can't think irrationally...

Dr B: Well, I wouldn't say quite that, I'd say that he can make a
( honest?) mistake....

K: Of course...

Dr B: ...but he doesn't persist in it. In other words, there is the
difference between the man who has made a mistake and
acknowledges it and changes it, and the the man who has
made a mistake but his mind is not (running) straight and therefore he goes on with it.
But this seems to imply that ( the living dimension of?) Truth must go beyond this man ; does Truth go beyond any particular man; does it include other men, and nature as well?

K: It includes 'all that is'.

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

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

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

K: He comprehends reality! He doesn't separate ( himself from) reality (as in) 'I' see it !

DB : And ( as the field of) reality has ( lots of interacting?) 'things' in itself which are conditioned, he also comprehends the conditions...

K: And as he comprehends the (nature of his inward) conditioning, he is free of conditioning !

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

K: Yes...

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

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

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

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

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

K: I do not hold to anything !

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

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

DB : That means that Truth is absolute ?

K: Absolute, that's right !

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

K : That's can learn more & more & more . That's
all we know.

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

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

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

K: Yes, now I have a (homework experiential ?) question : suppose I am a scholar, I am full of ( second-hand ) knowledge, how am I to comprehend ( the living dimension of?) Truth, in the sense of 'holding it all together'?

DB : I don't think you can comprehend Truth (intellectually?)...

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

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

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

DB: Yes... ?

K: Because once I get to ( have a free access?) That, I comprehend it. If I live here, then my comprehension is always fragmented.

DB: Yes...

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

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

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

DB: I think that I'll have to see first the falseness of this whole (knowledgeable?) structure...

K: Would you say the (active?) 'content' of my consciousness is ( all mankind's past) knowledge? So, how am I to empty that ( all-knowing ?) consciousness and yet retain the ( factual) knowledge which is not twisted - otherwise I
can't function ( in the field of reality ?) – and reach a ( holistic ?) state, or whatever it is, which will 'comprehend' reality.

DB: There is an (experientially difficult) point implied here, knowledge includes time and knowledge is itself time, therefore if I am (functioning exclusively in the field of) knowledge - I'm 'moving' from one form of knowledge to

K: Supose I have walked all the way with knowledge – that has
been my field. And you come & tell me : your knowledge is always within the area of time and thought. And I realise ( the inward truth of?) that and I say to myself : I must find (the direct perception of?) truth, which will then 'comprehend' (the limitation of?) knowledge. I realise that this is only a fragment (of human existence) , and as long as I live in a fragment I cannot comprehend anything, I cannot
hold anything I realise it, as I realise that the window is not
the door ! Am I right?

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

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

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

K: Yes !

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

Dr P : Of what ?

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

K: Yes, but what I'd want to suggest to further it along is : my
human consciousness 'is' (conditioned by?) its content, which is knowledge - a messy conglomeration of irrational knowledge and some (practical knowledge) which is correct. Can this (time-bound?) consciousness comprehend, or bring into itself, Truth?

DB: No, it can't...

K: Or can this consciousness go to that Truth? It can't
either. Then what?

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

K: Yes, it's contradictory.

DB: It muddles things up.

K: Not (just) 'muddles things up ', it 'is' a muddle !

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

K: Yes...

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

K: Yes...

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

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

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

K: From where does it come?

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

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

DB: No, I wouldn't say the energy comes from an outside
agency. I would prefer to say it comes from (a deeper source of?) 'me', in some

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

DB: Yes, suppose we can accept that intellectually , but the (experientially significant?) point is that seeing the truth of this...

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

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

K: Yes...

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

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

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

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

DB: That's what I suggest. But for the moment, there is the
energy of Truth which can comprehend ( the whole field of ?) reality and...

K: ...the other way it cannot.

DB: It cannot, but there appears to be some connection
in the sense that when Truth comprehends reality, reality goes
straight. So there appears to be a connection, at least 'one

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

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

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

Dr P : So you negate that ?

K : Not 'negate'...

DB : Because in an (intellectual ) negation you may still preserve that . The (source of) negation is independent, but the reality is still there...

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

DB: Move from one (undesirable?) reality to another (better one?) …

K: That's right. But ( the time-free action of?) meditation is actually seeing ( the inward truth or falseness of ?) 'what is'…

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Mar 2020 #266
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

2-nd ('reader-friendly' edited) K-Bohm Dialogue on TRUTH & REALITY

K: Sir, if Truth is someting different from (our thought-constructed?) 'reality', then what place has one's action in daily life in relation to Truth and to (the field of?) 'reality' ? Can we talk about that ?

DB : Yes...

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

DB : Can you say that Truth acts in (the field of) reality ? We were saying last time that although reality has no effect on truth, Truth has some effect on reality...
K: Yes, that's right, but one would like to find out : if one lives in Truth – not in the 'relative truth' of reality, but in that Truth which is unrelated to (our thought constructed ) reality – the (common action in the field of) reality being what we said last time, a process of thought thinking about something, or being reflected upon, or distorted -which is illusion- and so on... So, what is the action in (the light of?) Truth ? Can one's mind dissociate itself from the past and from the idea of 'I shall be' or 'I must be' – a projection of my own desires and so on, is there an action which is totally separated from all that ?

DB : Perhaps we're going very fast, but I think that ordinarily this action is related to the ( perception of the actual ?) 'facts'...

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

DB : But the 'fact' has also another meaning : that which is actually perceived, or which is established by direct perception or by experience...

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

DB : Which means is there a separation between
Truth and action , or it is (the perception of ) Truth that acts ?

K: Is (the perception of) Truth action , or Truth acts unrelated to time ?

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

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

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

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

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

K: That's right ; so is perception a movement of time, a thing that comes from the (memory of the?) past, to the present, (moving) to the future, or is perception unrelated to this ?

DB : Yes... ?

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

DB : There is a peculiar history of that, because some people have said that there is an interval of time between the (perception of?) truth and ( the understanding of) how it works – but (in the psychological field?) that's wrong...

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

DB : So the (perception of) truth 'is' action itself.

K: Now, can a ( holistically minded?) human being let (this direct perception of?) Truth operate ?

DB : You are saying that the operation of Truth in 'reality' is Intelligence, right ?

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

DB : So, in some sense, 'Intelligence' is the action of truth ?

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

DB : We discussed 'intelligence' before and now it seems that we are discussing about 'truth'. It seems very difficult to make (the connexion between ) these words clear...

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

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

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

DB : Both of these meanings are relevant, in saying that (our perception of?) reality must be 'honest and faithful', although the word 'truth' in English doesn't have quite the same meaning as in latin- it may have it, but it also has other shades of meaning...

K: Sir, what I'm trying to get at is : can a human being live only in the present - in the sense of living with 'what is' all the time and not with 'what should be' or 'what has been' ?

DB : Yes, providing we can also be clear on 'that which is not', but which appears to be 'that which is'...

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

DB : Yes, but when you say perception of 'what is', doesn't that implies a separation again... ?

K: A (holistic?) perception (in which) there is no (psychological separation between the ? ) 'observer' and the 'observed'...

DB : Yes, but it's very hard in our current language to avoid this (implicit separation?) because as we said, the perception of the fact is 'what is', right ? But we have to get clear what we mean by this word...

K: Are we saying, sir, that the ( non-verbal perception of?) 'what is' has its own action ? That it 'is' its own action ?

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

K: Of course !

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

K: Appearances, quite...

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

K: I don't get it...

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

K: I understand ...

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

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

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

K: Neither do I...

DB :...because the word 'illusion' implies that there is another (deeper) Reality...

K: Yes, quite...

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

K: Quite...

DB... but this 'appearance' has its function, it is necessary, although man has always searched for 'that' (fundamental dimension of reality?) which underlies the appearances – which are always changing, and you can't trust them.

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

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

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

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

K:'s illusion. Quite...

DB : is not an (actual) 'fact'. So I'm saying that there's an unconscious thought process – a sort of a deeper unconscious movement by which we invest everything we see with the shapes of thought...


DB : And this seems to be part of ( mankind's thought constructed?) 'reality'.

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

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

K: Ah, we are getting at it !

DB : But (the direct perception of?) truth is indivisible... ?

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

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

K: If thought has created them, they are all inter-related !

DB : Now, (the world of) nature is also 'real', but it seems to be implying something beyond that...

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

DB : That's the point I was trying to get at : if we say that the tree is 'that which is', or 'is' truth, then we are coming to a point of view to say that reality is not an (essential) substance – and here we are saying that Truth is (the actual) substance. That is the role of the 'substance' : that which underlies, or which 'stands under' and maybe the word 'understand' is related to that...

K: Yes, yes...

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

K: That would lead us to a great (potential 'psychological' ?) danger : are you saying that under the substance is the Truth ?

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

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

DB : When you said the tree is (its own?) truth, it means that the tree is action... ?

K : The seeing (of it ) 'is' the action...

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

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

DB : Yes, the seeing is the action, but doesn't the tree has any action in itself ?

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

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

K: Ah... substance...

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

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

DB : So shouldn't we consider that ?

K: Why should I consider it?

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

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

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

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

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

K Would you say that seeing 'is' action ?

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

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

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

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

DB : Yes...

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

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

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

DB : That's what I proposed : intelligence is Truth acting in the field of reality.

K : But truth 'is' (not separated from?) intelligence ! Because the seeing 'is' the acting and that action is whole. And therefore it is intelligence ; any action that is whole must be intelligence.

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

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

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

K: I speak of 'truth' in the (experiential?) sense : the seeing 'is' the doing ; the seeing of 'what is' is the (perceptive ) action (of Truth?) and that action operates through Intelligence.

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

K: I know...

DB : It's not very clear...

K: Sir, this is what I want to find out : is it possible to live entirely in (the holistic dimension of?) Truth  - that is, functioning only with 'what is' ?

DB : We could look at that...

K: One is not bringing into operation his memories, his rememberances, his personal reactions, but the (holistic perception of the?) 'fact' acts.

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

K: Yes, of course it is !

DB : Therefore we can see memory as an 'actuality', and that is still acting in (one's perception of?) truth, no ? Because you know, we must be able to act in (the light of?) truth even when we are using memory - like when engaging in some (meaningful ?) relation with the tree, to make it grow...

K: Sir, would you say – if one was living in (the light of?) Truth and is therefore living with that (holistic?) capacity of intelligence which operates in the field of reality...

DB : Somehow, from beyond it...

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

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

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

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

K: Holistic...

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

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

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

K: Yes.

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

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

DB : Yes, It can't be 'unique' or it won't be (universally?) true !

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

DB : Maybe by seeing that Truth is indivisible ?

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

DB : I have to see the 'falseness' of that, as (the inward light of?) truth arises …

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

Dr P : But observing is doing...

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

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

K: That's what I want to get at !

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

K: I want to get at that : is the seeing of the distorting factors in the field of reality, the beginning of the (directly perceptive ?) quality of truth ?

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

K: False, neurotic, all the rest of it – is that (opening the door to?) the seeing of the 'other' ?

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

K: No meaning, quite... One wants to find out, having operated in the field of reality all my life, and seeing the (ongoing?) distortions in that field, the seeing of the distortions is ( the intelligent action of?) Truth ! Seeing the 'fact'...

DB : It has to be Truth.

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

K: No ! I live in (the field of ) reality – this 'reality' being all the things thought has put together, all the activity of thought thinking about something or reflecting upon ; thought distorting, thought rational, going on a straight thread -I've lived in that field and here comes the ( Consciousness ?) Doctor, and says : Look, truth is (to be found in the direct perception of?) 'that which is'. And he says, when you 'see' the distortion, that is the truth, that is (Intelligence's holistic) action. In the field of reality seeing (non-verbally?) the 'fact', that is Truth. In the field of reality seeing that the 'observer' is the 'observed', that is truth ! That's it !

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

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

DB : It is without time.

K: That's right !

DB : Later we may express it rationally...

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

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

K: Can it come come gradually ?

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

K: Ah, that's it !

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

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

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

K: That's right !

DB : We can't say it's either...

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

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

K: Then, he's not (actually) 'seeing' (it)  !

DB : Yes...

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

DB : Yes, one hasn't seen the whole of it.

K: Yes, of course, put it this way...This 'seeing' sir, is (coprehending?) the whole !

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

K: 'You' ( the 'observer' entity ?) cannot see the whole !

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

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

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

K: Yes.

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

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

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

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

DB : It is somewhat distorted...

K: Isn't it ?

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

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

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

K: Yes, quite …

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

K: Right !

DB : That could be the key...

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

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

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

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

K: But we have reduced it to that ! So what is the relation between Love and Truth ? Is (the perception of?) truth, (an action of?) love ? 'Love' -that word again - what it means ?

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

K : That is all 'reality'.

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

K: Compassion ?

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

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

DB ; Well, it seems it is.

K; It is ! Then, that (loving?) pleasure has no relation to truth.

DB ; What could we say about 'enjoyment' ?

K: Is enjoyment (related to?) pleasure ?

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

K: There's enjoyment in seeing the tree : the (holistic?) seeing of that tree is a joy ! Therefore the seeing 'is' the doing and the 'doing' is joy.

DB : Yes...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DB : What meaning do we give to different people or to different things in this (inwardly integrated state of?) wholeness ?

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

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

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

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

K: Of course !

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

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

DB : That is saying that (an insightful?) 'seeing' is necessary for compassion, or 'is' compassion ...

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

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

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

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

K: So, in a ( holistic?) school (environment?) , how does one communicate this Truth to the (open minded ?) student ? Or how do you communicate this to a bussiness man or to a priest ? To him, living in (the field of) reality he has created an 'image' of God, or of whatever it is, and that is distortion ! He won't see that …

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

K: Yes, you can, but...

DB : ...there is a resistance ?

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

DB : Yes, or with anybody...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DB : You're not what... ?

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

DB : (also laughs) That's more or less what I do too - to some extent. But there may be a few ( holistically minded people?) who are ready to listen...

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

DB : But not in this fundamental way...

K: Not in this fundamental way, no, but they have affected it... Here, are you influencing them, or adding another chapter to their consciousness ?

DB : There's a danger of that...

K: Or are you're saying : ''Look, get out of all that ! There's no 'seeing' without ( a sense of inner) freedom.'' Right, Sir ?

DB : Yes...

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

DB : But that raises the question that this lack of (inner) freedom is the instrument of ( man's thought-constructed) reality...

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

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

K: Of course, they have said that : change man's (socio-economic?) environment...

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

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

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

K: Yes, that's it ! We have to step out of the whole thing. And that needs ( a lot of intelligent?) energy.

DB : Yes...

K: As I live in the field of (this thought-constructed?) reality, which has its own energy, that energy will not free me.

DB : No...

K: But the 'seeing' of the (thought-created) distortion in the field of reality will give that energy.

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

K: No, no...the 'seeing' of the distortion 'is' (releasing that intelligent?) energy.

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

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

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

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

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

K: No, wait a minute ! In that field of reality there are distortions – the 'seeing' of the (ongoing) distortions - 'seeing' in the sense of ( becoming aware of?) the whole of distortions – the 'seeing' brings that energy – of course, it must !

DB : But even the feeling that 'there is not sufficient intelligent energy' is a distortion...

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

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

K : Includes desire, includes...

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

K: And also the ( time-binding?) energy of ( ignoring the?) distortion. Now, to see that distortion, the mind must be free !

DB : Yes...

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

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

K: Yes...

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

K (Laughter) Yes, (realising that) the observer 'is' the observed and all that !

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

K: Yes, sir, empty !

DB : Between this reality and...

K: This reality is 'empty'

DB : Yes... ?

K: This reality is nothing !

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

K: No-thing, right...

DB ; You see, reality is to be 'some thing', so when we say (inward) 'no-thingness' it doesn't mean unreal - it is out of that field...

K: Out of that field, yes...

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

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

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

K: ( laughs) Yes...

DB : Which means that in this ( inward) 'no-thingness' there is a certain form, which is reality.

K: Reality, yes !

DB : But a form which is 'nothing'

K: Yes sir, but that presuposes that 'there is nothing'...

DB ; Which is only an 'image' …

K: That's right !

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

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

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

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

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

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

DB : Yes, but before you said...

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

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

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

DB : So, we can say that the second 'space' includes everything

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

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

K : Yes.

DB : Now we want to underline the (notion of) 'substance'...

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

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

K: Yes...

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

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

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

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

DB : So, there's the 'visual space' which everyone can sense, and there is an (inward) 'space in the mind'...

K : Space in the mind.

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

K: I can artificially create it...

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

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

DB : Yes...

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

DB : Yes...So this ''nothingness'' is the same as freedom … ?

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

DB : Right...

K: And the intelligent action of this (inward) 'no-thingness' being (time-?) free operates in the field of reality without distortion. That's one factor. And in one's mind, if there is no space, but crowded with problems, with images, with rememberances, with knowledge & all that, such a mind is not free, and therefore 'seeing & acting'. In the (time-bound ) mind that is so crowded there is no (such free inner) space.

DB : Yes, so when there is no 'space', the mind ( man's everyday consciousness?) is controlled by all these 'things'...

K: Yes, controlled by environment, distortions etc. So for a mind that is (inwardly) empty, (like) 'no-thing', the seeing 'is' the doing and the doing 'is' (the holistic action of?) truth & intelligence and so on... ( Meditation clue:) this ( free inner) ''space'' is not created by thought, therefore it is not limited.

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

K: Yes...

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

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

DB : That's what I'm saying. The fact is, there's no (thought-created ?) 'reality' in this space …

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

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

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

DB : Yes...

K: Has thought any place in that (inward) 'spaceness' ?

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

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

DB : It may have no place...

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

DB : We were saying last time, that Truth can act in reality...

K That's right.

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

K: Yes ; one way...

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

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

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

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

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

K: That's right.

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

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

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

K: Yes...

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

K: Sir, the seeing 'is' the doing- let's stick to that (experiential axiom?) - so the seeing of distortion 'is' the (ASAP?) ending of distortion...

DB : Yes...

K: The ending of that distortion 'is' (taking place) because there is the energy of 'seeing'...

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

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

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

K: Is it (running in?) 'parallel' or is there harmony between them ?

DB : Harmony with 'That Which Is' …

K : Can we put it this way, sir ? Thought is a (self-sustained mental ?) movement in the field of time. And we say, Truth is not related to that...

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

K: One way...

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

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

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

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

DB : Yes...?

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

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

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

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

K: Yes, that's right.

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

K: That's right : when thought reflects (or cogitates?) upon Truth then there is a division.

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

K: Yes, it divides itself !

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

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

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

K: And therefore it is all divided...

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

K: Yes, sir, when intelligence operates in the field of reality it is '(All-) One'.

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

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

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

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

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

K: Are we saying sir  that when Truth operates in (the field of?) reality, in that there is no division ? So you are telling me, 'Don't be concerned with (finding the Ultimate?) Truth – as you don't know what this means , but be concerned with (holistically understanding man's thought-created?) reality and its distortions''. But you (the Consciousness Doctor?) say to me : ''be free of (thought's psychologically motivated?) distortions''. And to be free of distortions, just observe the distortions. That (mindful?) 'observance' means freedom ! And therefore that freedom and that 'observance' will give you the (necessary intelligent) energy to push away the distortions. And the 'seeing' of the distortion is the (insightful action of?) Truth

DB : Yes...

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

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

K: You can't, therefore 'seeing' is the whole. Therefore, when you see the whole, therefore that is the (timeless action of?) Truth. But to 'see' that, my mind must have '(lots of free inner) space'

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

K: Of course, occupation means corruption !

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

K : Not occupied. So it's not occupied, it's 'empty' – because it has no (psychologically-motivated?) problems. And therefore the emptying of the mind of its 'content' is ( the first & last step of?) Meditation .

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

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

DB : The rational function ?

K: Function, that's all !

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

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

DB : Then truth is (freely?) operating...

K: That's it ! Therefore ( psychologically -wise?) thought itself is ( or can be?) a distorting factor - if Truth is not operating.

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

K: Of course ! Would you say : ( that the mentality of self-centred) thought in itself is divisive, is creating distortions ?

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

K: No, the other one : thought without that quality of (compassionate & intelligent?) 'seeing' is a distorting factor

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

K: Quite, quite...

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

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

DB ; I think that it was probably a mistranslation into English, as the root meaning of the Sanscrit word 'maya' is to measure and measurement by itself is a function (of thought) , which as we said, it can be rational or...

(But it's already five thirty! )

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Mar 2020 #267
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

A highly actual (reader-friendly edited) 3RD K Discussion with DAVID BOHM on Truth & Reality

K: What do we start off ?

DB : We could start with the question of a 'thinking' which is not verbal or we could go ( via a philosophical detour ?) in the question I have been considering since last week: What is the relationship between necessity and freedom ? Does that seem interesting ?

K: A thinking which is non-verbal... ?

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

K: all the verbal associations.

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

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

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

K: What is that ?

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

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

DB : It depends on what you mean... ?

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

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

K: But that is thinking, isn't it ?

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

K: Yes...

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

K: That is description...

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

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

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

K: Yes, quite...

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

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

DB : Well, I might explain it as if there'll be some kind of 'imagination' (image making process?) and not merely the associations of the word. Ordinarily, this 'imagination' is stimulated by the word...

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

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

K: Is insight imagination ?

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

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

DB : No, but through 'imagination' (mental processing?) one begin to realise the insight, to carry it out.

K: I question that !

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

K: Yes, sir...

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

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

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

K: Ah ! Insight may express itself through words, through 'imagination', but isn't 'insight' different from ( the verbal associations of ?) the words, from the (thought projected ?) 'image' ?

DB : The insight is different from the image, but at the same time, when thought expresses the insight, it may be different from the (mechanical ) image (making process) ...

K: Suppose that I have an insight into this fact that (the man made?) 'reality' is a process of thinking, that (this thought constructed ?) 'reality' is something that you 'think upon' and (eventually?) have an 'insight' into that, while (the non-verbal perception of?) Truth is something totally different from that. Insight – that is having a glimpse into something that is both real and true .

DB : Yes, but the question arises when you want to communicate this insight, if you want the insight to work more broadly (in the context of a 'holistically friendly' education?)

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

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

K: Obvious, right...

DB : Now that was expressed through ( a process of creative ) imagination, you see ?

K: That insight, how does it come about ?

DB : I was about to say that the insight does not come about through thought... but at the same time there is a ( holistically friendly?) thought which may express that and we can call that 'non-verbal' thought ; I mean it was a thought that was not arising (mechanically) with the (usual associations of the?) word.

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Words, yes...

DB : Now I would propose that this (holistically friendly?) use of words is different from somebody who just simply...

K: A-ha, I understand it ! Yes...

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

K: Quite, but is 'insight' separate from thought and separate from action ?

DB : What do you mean by 'separate' ?

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

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

K: Yes.

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

K: Yes, that is : the action (being born ) from insight is different from the action from thought .

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

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

DB : Yes, all right...

K: Then what is the relationship between the action of insight and the action of the process of thought ? Is there an (interacting?) relationship ?

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

K: So you are saying that ''insight - verbal expression - action'' and ''insight, non-verbal expression-action''  are two forms of (expression of) insight...

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

K: Yes, that's what I am saying. In the 'insight-action' (version ) there is no division, no separation, there's no time interval between insight and action. The other (option ) is : insight, verbal expression & acting ….

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

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

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

K: Of course ! But the (holistically correct ?) 'action' born of insight is something totally different from the action born of thought.

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

K: I am not sure...

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

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

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

K: Of course...

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

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

DB : Perhaps one (example of such) action that acts instantly is to see the falseness... ?

K: Yes....Suppose that I have an insight into the 'fact' that people believe in God - I'm taking that as an example -that people 'believe' that...

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

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

DB: Yes, and therefore 'false'.

K: If I have (such) an insight and if I had a (psychologically motivated?) belief in 'God', it drops instantly. So (the perception & action?) are not a process of thought, but a (timeless) insight into truth.

DB: Or into falseness... ?

K: Or into falseness, and that action is complete, it's over and
done with. I don't know if I'm conveying it: that action is 'whole' - there is no regret, there is no personal advantage, there is no (personal) emotion. It is an action that is 'complete'. Whereas the action brought about by thought, into the investigation and the analysis whether there is a God or no God, is always incomplete.

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

K: But this man speaks from an insight...

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

K: Yes, to convey something...

DB: To change things. Let's now consider this aspect, just to get it clear. It's starting from an insight, but it is ( verbally) conveying truth.

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

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

K: ...a 'reasonable' ( holistically friendly?) thinking and so on, of course. But the action coming from a reasoned ( thoughtful?) thinking is different from the action of insight.

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

K: Yes...

DB: And therefore isn't there still some of the quality of the (original) insight, as you convey it? Some (living spirit of ) truth of the insight is still being communicated in this form. And in some sense that is thought (a form of holistically-friendly thinking ?)

K: (Except that?) when conveying to another that insight verbally, his action will be incomplete unless he (himself) has this insight.

DB: That's right. So you whatever you're trying to convey (may or may not?) communicate the actual insight...

K: Can 'you' give an insight?

DB: Not really, but whatever you convey must somehow start
( in the other person's consciousness?) something which perhaps cannot be further described.

K: Yes...but ( in our particular example) that can only happen when you yourself have dropped the ( psychological dependency to your ? ) belief in 'God'.

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

K: No, of course not.

DB: That depends on the other person, whether he is ready to 'listen' (to the inner truth of it ?)

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

DB: I would say there is a kind of thinking that communicates insight. The (original source of the?) insight is non-verbal, but that thinking itself is not 'non-verbal'. There is the (common ) kind of thinking which is dominated by the word and there is another kind of (holistically-friendly?) thinking whose order is determined, not by the words, but by the 'order of insight'.

K: Is the insight the product of thought?

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

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

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

K: (In our in-class example ?) how do I have an insight that 'God' is a (wishful thinking?) projection of our own desires, images and so on? And seeing the falseness of it or the truth of it, how does it take place?

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

K: I have a ( deep ,) feeling inside that thought cannot possibly enter into an area where Truth is ; (although) it operates anywhere else ( In a nutshell?) Truth can operate through thought, but thought cannot enter into that (timeless?) area.

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

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

DB : As I just said : that ( holistically-friendly ) part which expresses a non-verbal insight, and which is of a different order. Now, if you say 'non-verbal' thinking it is not clear what you mean, since (generally speakin) the word 'thinking' implies an activity by thought alone, but I was trying to point out to a ( deeper activity of the human brain which ) is not working in the area of thought alone, you see? So if you are using the term 'non-verbal' thought, that means something which is not coming from thought alone but from something beyond that...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Yes...

DB: But in some way, we said, truth can operate in thought,
in the field of reality...

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

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

K: That's right.

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

K: That's clear...

DB: Now, in some sense thought must accept (the validity of?) that insight, carry it, respond to it.

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

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

K: Yes, necessity.

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

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

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

K: Break through the rejection, break through the habit, the
conditioning, which prevents the insight. Though one may have an insight, the (socio-cultural ?) conditioning is so strong, you reject the insight. This is what happens...

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

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

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

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

DB: It's very rigid...

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

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

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

DB: Maybe we could look at it like this: this (socio-cultural?) conditioning is a very solid 'reality', which is fundamentally (created by) what we 'think about'...

K: Yes...

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

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

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

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

DB: We're back again. We can see that it is only (the action of ? ) truth, the insight...

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

DB: Yes, because then it's not (felt anymore as?) 'solid'.

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

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

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

DB : I see that the conditioning is nothing... ?

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

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

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

DB: The insight into the falseness of it ?

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

DB: Yes...

K: Now, I want to bring this into action in my life. I have accepted 'reality' as (containing the ultimate?) truth, I live in that - my gods, my habits, everything - I live in that. You come along and say "Look, Truth is different from 'reality'" and you explain it to me. How will I put away that tremendous weight, or break that tremendous conditioning? I need energy to break that conditioning. Does the energy come when I see that the observer 'is' (not separated from what is being?) observed ?
I see the importance, rationally, that the conditioning must break down, I see the necessity of it: I see how it operates, the division, the conflict and all the rest of it involved. Now when I realize that the observer 'is' the observed, there's a totally different kind of (timeless?) energy comes into being. That's all I want to get at.

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

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

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

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

DB : Yes...

K: And you say, for God's sake... !

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

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

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

K: Nobody has... It's part of a (time-binding) education ( way of life?) that keeps us constantly in the 'realm of reality'.

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

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

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

K: Of course...

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

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

DB : I understand that...

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

DB : ...and of the great Masters...

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

DB : Yes, like the Buddha...

K : Like the Buddha ! And the tradition says that Maitreya is constantly 'observing' (what is going on in the field of reality?) to help people – that is his only concern ! Not to become more this, or more that, but to drop everything ! To go beyond the (time-binding limitations of) 'reality'. And, (as it seems in the year 1975?) you can wait till Doomsday, nobody's going to do it !

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

K: Life after life, after life...

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

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

DB : We were saying that perhaps we shouldn't use the word 'thinking' - which is in the realm of reality...

K: What word would you use ?

DB : Perhaps we could use the word (holistically friendly?) 'thought' in the sense of the response of the drum to the emptiness within.

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

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

K: The material thing is vibrating. Wait - is Truth (abiding in this) 'no-thingness' ?

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

K: Yes, Truth is no-thing...

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

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

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

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

DB: Yes, that's clear...

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

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

K: That's right. That means thought cannot think about (this inward) emptiness.

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

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

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

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

DB : It must be …

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

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

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

DB : We have often gone into this (time-binding?) question 'How?' There is something wrong with the question...

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

DB : That's all we need, you see ...?

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

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

K: Right...

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

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

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

K: Is an actuality, yes...

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

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

DB : Well, it acts in reality...

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

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

K: Yes, of course...

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

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

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

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

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

K: That's right .

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

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

DB : Yes, because there is the (implicit?) convinction that reality is all there is and that's the only place you can find it

K: Yes. And you come along and say : Look, in 'no-thingness' there is complete security .

DB : Yes, now let's discuss that, because at first sight it seems very implausible - not only because 'no-thingness' is nothing, but also...

K: Just a minute, sir ! I say to you : in 'no-thingness' there is complete security and stability. You 'listen' and you get an insight into it – because you are attentive, there is this conversation going on between us, and you say, 'By Jove, that is so !' But your (time-bound ?) mind -which is (constantly?) 'occupied' says : 'What the dickens is this ?'

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

K: Of course !

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

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

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

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

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

K: Of course.

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

K: No, 'in no-thingness' there is security.

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

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

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

K: How am I to be secure in the ( actual ?) world of reality?

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

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

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

K: Oh yes, it would be totally different, because I'm not
'nationalistic', I'm not "English", I am (inwardly as?) nothing. Therefore one's whole (interaction with the real?) world is different. I don't divide...

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

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

DB: Well, according to what you said, there is a certain
implication that in 'no-thingness' we will be completely secure in every way.

K: That is so, absolutely !

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

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

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

K: Oh, it is complete – 'psychologically' (inwardly-wise?) .

DB: But not necessarily 'physically' ?

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

DB: It makes you do the right thing ?

K: The right thing in the world of reality.

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

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

DB: You have to do everything right...

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

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

K: Of course (not exactly 100 % secure ?) if my house burns down....But you see, (presently ?) we are seeking (our psychological ?) security here, in the world of reality...

DB: Yes, I understand that.

K: Therefore there is no ( true inner ?) security...

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

K: Yes...

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

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

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

K: Because inwardly I'm secure, I (can) create (an authentic sense of cooperation & ?) security (even?) outwardly.

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

K: Of course.

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

K: So the next thing is: you tell me this and I ( keep thinking that I?) don't see it. (In fact?) I don't see the extraordinary beauty, the feeling, the depth of what you are saying about (living in ) complete inward security.

DB : I would say that this notion ( of an inward protection) is present in many (younger?) people, but (eventually) they have so many bad experiences that it gets lost, you see ? Implicitly there is a feeling that you are 'no-thing' inwardly, then nothing can harm you. I've seen many people express this thing when I was younger, but then so many ('real world'?) things happen and gradually it gets...

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

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

K: Ah, an 'idea'...

DB : There's a notion of that...

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Mar 2020 #268
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

4-th ('experientially-friendly' edited ?) K-Bohm Dialogue on TRUTH & REALITY (1975)

DB : During the scientist conference -which incidently was very successful - several questions came about the question of beauty, goodness and love, but I thought that probably it would be best to start with 'desire', because probably that's the factor at the root of this confusion - because ( when it's sustained by thought?) it 'imitates' those three.

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

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

K: Something missing... ?

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

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

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

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

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

K: I might long for that car...

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

K: Is thought separate from desire ?

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

K: So would I...

DB : Now, you often talk about 'desire' arising in perception, contact and sensation...

K : Yes...

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

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

DB : Part of thought, but you are also using it for describing desire as part of perception...

K: I see that car...

DB : That's a sensory perception.

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

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

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

DB : But sensation is also part of perception ;

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

DB : I feel it's perception.

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Does imagination come into it ?

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

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

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

K: So the desire to change it is born out of the perception of this state of society which actually 'is'.

DB : Which is very ugly !

K: Yes.

DB : As the general sensation is unpleasant. ..

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

DB : It is an intense desire for an imagined state...

K: Or, is it perception ?

DB : Perception ? How is that ?

K: I perceive the rottenness and the corruption, or the 'malaise' of this society : I 'see' it ! That perception drives me, not my desire to change society. My perception says : this is ugly ! And that very perception is (behind ) the 'action' of the movement to change it .

DB : Yes, but in that perception there is also the longing to change it .

K : Is there a longing ?

DB : You see, this is what desire is implying...I mean if you go back to the root meaning of that word, it means 'something is missing' – there's a 'longing for' something that's missing...

K: Or, sir, I 'perceive' ( what is) and that very perception 'is' action. The perception of the society as it is, - it is 'ugly' - let's use that word for the moment, and that very perception demands action !

DB : Yes, but now we can't act immediately...

K: No, but the perception will formulate what ( kind of) action can take place.

DB : And that comes by 'thinking' about it …

K: Yes, of course !

DB : The perception formulates a demand 'for' or 'against' – through sensation

K: Yes, so is perception part of desire ?

DB : Well, I should say not in the beginning ; but it is as soon as it reaches the sense of 'ugliness' or of 'beauty'. If you 'see' the actual state of society without the sense of 'ugliness' or 'beauty'...

K: No, perception is action. The ugliness of society is 'perceived' and that 'perception' – I wouldn' use the word 'ugly' because than we'll have to go into conflict & so on. Perception is the root of action, and that action meets the ( deeper process of thought's created ) time and all the rest of it. But where does desire come into this ? I don't see it...

DB : Well, it does seem to come in, doesn't it ?

K: As far as I am concerned, it doesn't...

DB : Then what do you say to those ( revolutionary minded) people who want to change society ?

K: I would say : is it your ( direct) perception that's acting, or your prejudice 'against' ?

DB : But that's still a desire, isn't it ?

K: That's a desire. Is perception part of desire ?

DB : I don't think it is...But you have frequently said that perception contacted sensation and sensation gives rise to desire...

K: Yes, that is quite right but once there is perception, where does desire come in in carrying out that perception ?

DB : Well, in principle, if you could immediately carry it out, there would be no need for desire...

K: Yes, of course ; that's one thing... But (usually) I can't carry it out immediately.

DB : Yes and then you see, something is missing : what I see should be this way but...I can't carry it out imediately.

Dr Parchure : Sir, desire is ultimately a motive power...

K: I don't accept that desire is ultimately the motive of perception ! You 'perceive' society is rotten. Let's put it this way : the 'actuality' is perceived. In that perception of actuality...where does desire come in ?

DB : But we'll have to find out why it comes in...

K: That's it !

DB : If I perceive something very simple – like an apple and I'd like to eat it, then I just eat it and there's no problem of desire. On the other hand, if I can't get the apple, there may come the problem of desire – I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but suppose I see something that I can't get immediately, or if I don't know how to get it...

K: Yes... ?

DB : And then desire may arise, although it doesn't have to...

K: May arise, because 'I' want that apple. So that' s one thing ; but when I perceive the 'actuality' of society , where does desire come in ?

DB : If you do act, desire doesn't come in, but you may feel that you don't know how to act...

K: I may not know how to act, therefore I will consult, talk...

DB : But then you might become discouraged, you see ?

K: Ah ! (If) my perception is so clear – it cannot be discouraged...

DB : That may be so, but I am describing what it generally happens : I perceive the falseness & rottenness of society and I consider how to change it, I talk to people and after a while I begin to see that it doesn't change that easily...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And at some stage I may begin to feel that it may be not possible at all. But even then, there may come a longing to change it, nevertheless...

K: No. If I see that it's not possible to change, then it's finished !

DB : It is finished, yes, but then why is it that people don't accept that ? You see, I'm just describing the general experience : on seeing that it's not possible there is still the 'longing for' that change...

K: Yes, the 'longing for' that which is not possible...

DB : That is the sort of desire that always gets frustrated and it creates all these (collateral) problems...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : Now on the other hand, I cannot just accept that society will go on falsely forever...

K: Of course ! But I still don't see the connection between desire and perception !

DB : Well, there may not be any...but then, why does it seem to be one ?

K: Is it perception that is driving them, or they have never actually perceived (the 'what is') and only desire is driving them ?

DB : Well, that may well be that their perception was born of desire – or what they think it's 'perception' - but then the question is : where does desire originate ?

K: Oh, that is a different matter...

DB : I mean, this is something mysterious : why there should desire be there ?

K: No, I see that car, I'd like to own it – I associate that car with pleasure …

DB : But couldn't it be possible that at some stage the perception fails to be caught in that...You see, if you want to own the car, then there is no problem, unless it becomes an intense longing which is the desire which is driving you. But you also could say : I'd like to own that car, but if it's not possible, then I won't.

K: Ah, I see ...Then there is no problem !

DB : No problem, but you see, that's what is usually meant by 'desire' : longing for what you cannot get – and if you cannot get it, you still long for it...

K: Aha ! I don't function that way !

DB : Yes, but we still have to understand it since it seems to be a general function...

K: That is the general function, I agree.

DB : First of all, it is not clear why it should be there – not clear to me, anyway...

K: Which is, desire ?

DB : Desire, yes...I mean, rationally there is no reason for it, but as far as one can see, it's still there and it's very powerful all over the world...

K: Is desire based on sensation ?

DB : That's what we're exploring – I think that it's not entirely based on sensation...

K: Sensation, imagination...An imagined pleasure one is going to get...

DB : Yes, I think it's based on imagination – not necessarily of pleasure, but also of beauty, of what is 'good' ...You see, almost all the things that are missing are 'imagined' ; and this gives a tremendous energy- you see, people generally desire what is beautiful...And in fact, take things like gold or precious stones, which have very little value in themselves, but people are attached to it because of the eternal beauty of it- and therefore they are ready to do anything for it...

K: It is the same as the desire for power, or for anything... How does it arise ? Is that it ?

DB : Yes, how does it arise and what is the meaning of it ?

K: How does it arise ? I see you driving a big car – you are the politician in a big position- and I like that, I want that...

DB : Yes but it's not clear why I drive myself to go to that length ?

K: It gives me a tremendous pleasure...

DB : Yes, but then, why do I want that pleasure - unless, there would have been tremendous confusion of values

K: Or...'pleasure' is the only thing I know ; I live such a superficial life, this is the only thing I know...

DB : But I know a lot of other things...

K: I live such a superficial life – my education is superficial and pleasure is superficial...And so, I long for that !

DB : But if one may feel one's life is not superficial, then it must be something worth striving for ...I mean, it must at least appear not to be superficial, or else it's not worth longing for...

K: Of course, if I recognise pleasure to be superficial, I would not long for it.

DB : Yes, but somehow there is the feeling that pleasure is something else, something very significant, very deep...

K: Is pleasure 'deep' ?

DB : No, although it may look that way...

K: Of course that it may look, but is it actually ?

DB : It isn't, but you see, why does it look that way ?

K: Why am I deceived by thinking that pleasure is very deep ?

DB : Yes … ?

K: What do you think ?

Dr P : The more lasting element in pleasure is demanding for its own continuity in the sensation of....

K: Sir, is (the pursuit of) pleasure one of the factors in 'covering up' my emptiness ?

DB : Well, it may be, but I think that pleasure also helps create the impression of a full, harmonious life...

K: Ah, I see... is pleasure associated with beauty ?

DB : I think it is : in general people expect that pleasure will give them 'beautiful' experiences...

K: I understand that ; I see something very beautiful – where does the pleasure arise in that ? (Only when?) I'd like to own it, I like to possess it....

DB : I like to have it forever – I'd like that experience to be repeated somehow -not necessarily to own it but to look at it forever …

K: be there. Why do I do this ?

DB : Because of the fear that inwardly I'd be poorer without it ?

K: Is it because in myself I am not 'beautiful' ?

DB : That may be part of it...This sense of not having contact with beauty in myself and therefore wanting something...

K: So, is beauty 'out there' - and therefore I want it ?

DB : Yes, but even in the dictionary it says that 'beauty' is not only in the quality of the thing but also it is in oneself – they are the same thing : the quality of the 'thing' and the quality of one's sensation – and in some sense there is no division of the 'observer' and the 'observed'...I mean this idea is recognised in the dictionary – that it belongs both to the 'observer' & to the 'observed' ...

K: Yes...

DB : But the way I look at this is : suppose I have no contact with it – and seeing this I (try to) create 'beauty' in me...And then when the thing is gone, then I'm back in the previous state and I begin to long for that experience again...

K: Yes... So, what is the problem, sir ?

DB : Well, I think the question really is to understand this process of desire – because without understanding it, the confusion of thought will never end... I mean we can be on one side of desire or on the other side – sometimes desire may be on the side of the 'feeling' and at other times on the side of 'truth & actuality' ...and once this confusion arises, then it drives the whole mind into 'falseness'

K: Would you say that desire is (operating) in the field of 'reality ?

DB : Yes, it is operating in the 'field of reality', but sometimes it seems to divide itself. In other words, once desire is in the (sensory) 'feeling' , once this confusion arises, then it drives the whole mind into falseness.

K : Can I desire 'truth' ?

DB : You see, it is accepted in the general structure of the laguage that you can desire 'the inner beauty', or the 'goodness of truth' – now, I understand you're questioning that ?

K: Yes, I'm questioning that...Is beauty in the realm of reality ?

DB : ...or is the Good in the realm of reality ? I should say that most people regard them as synonimous...In Latin they have the same root : 'bene' and 'beatus' - which also means 'blessed' …

K: As we said : '' Beauty, Truth & Goodness'' : is that in the field of reality, created by thought and something I long to get at ?

DB : If it were in the field of thought, then I would reasonably long to have it – but I don't know exactly where to look for it because I'm separated from it.

K: But is that 'Good, Beauty and Love' in the field of reality ?

DB : No, that is something we discussed – it goes along with Creation...

K: Now, desire 'is' in the field of reality...

DB : It is a (thought sustained ) movement in the field of reality but it can be ( a mental) movement which can project something outside the field of reality – which it creates an almost impossible situation since what is projected by such desire can never be satisfied...

K: That which is projected ( by thought) is still part of reality...But one does not recognise that !

DB : That's right, but the same time, there is also the feeling that this is not all, because even if you have achieved it, there's always the feeling that this is not all that I wanted …

K: But when it says this, it is still there !

DB : I know, this is a contradiction – the field of reality gets broken in two : the part that you have and the part that you haven't got..

K: But it's still in the field of reality.

DB : Yes...

K: So, is the (authentic) 'Goodness' in the field of reality ?

DB : No, I think it's clear it's not...

K: Obviously not ! Therefore longing for 'beauty', as it is in the field of reality, is a movement of thought- projecting 'beauty' and longing for it.

DB: Yes, or at least remembering beauty as it was perceived and longing to continue it, or longing for a new one...

K: So could we say: what is the Beauty which is not in the field of reality ? What is the Goodness which is not in the field of reality ?

Dr P : Wouldn't you say that there is 'goodness' in the field of reality ?

K Of course there is but we are talking about the Goodness which is not induced by thought...I can induce myself to be 'good', I can cultivate or practice 'goodness' , but that is not the 'Goodness' of Truth !

DB : Goodness can act in the field of reality, but I'm a little puzzled by Beauty – which is rather mysterious in some way...if you say there's an object in the field of reality like a tree that is beautiful ? But that is not Beauty- as the essence of Beauty is not in the field of reality …

K: I would say ( the authentic sense of inner) Beauty is not in the field of reality.

DB : Yes, but now the tree is in the field of reality...

K: The tree 'is' - it 'is' !

DB : Right, but this point needs clarification because in the ordinary use of language, we say 'the tree is real'...

K: Quite, quite …

DB : So a lumberman would treat it as 'reality' …

K: I think that what 'is' is beautiful.

DB : Yes, but then we seem come into a difficulty of language : the tree is that which 'is' is not 'real' ?

K: You are saying : we accept the tree as being part of reality, but (the essence of) 'that which is' we say is 'truth' ; and I, looking at the tree bring it in the field of reality by thinking about it...

DB : And also acting about it as a 'real' thing...

K: Of course, like the carpenter... Let me get this clear : we said Goodness is not in the field of reality...

DB : It may act there, but its essence is not in the field of reality .

K: Its essence is not in the field of reality. Good works, good behaviour, good taste, good food, good thoughts - all that is in the field of reality. But Goodness, the essence of it, is not ( to be found ) in the field of reality. This wallpaper, created by thought is quite beautiful – the colours, the birds, the whole pattern of movement on the wallpaper is beautiful ; it is created by thought and therefore it is in the world of reality...

DB : Yes, and also many ideas may be beautiful...

K: Of course, many ideas and all the rest of it...So, where does desire...

DB : But we haven't finished with Beauty...We said that the tree is beautiful...

K: That which 'is' is beautiful.

DB : And we said that the wall paper is also 'beautiful' …

K: That's quite different, ( that's how) I see it...

DB : So how do we get it clear ? You see, that which is created by thought is also 'what is' . Now which is it ? Is it just matter of language ?

K: Ah, I see...Go slowly. That which is created by thought -like the car or the wallpaper...

DB : ...and which may be ( perceived as) 'beautiful'...

K: There is a difference between 'what is' created by thought – which may be 'good' and 'beautiful' – like good ideas, good food, good clothes , and we say, because that 'goodness' is created by thought it is in the field of reality. Now what's the difference between the movement of birds (painted on the wallpaper) and the movement of the actual tree ? Both 'are' part of the world of reality and both are 'destructible' as is the tree...Both are 'beautiful' as is that tree in the field and we're saying : it 'is'.

DB : Now, are we discussing their 'actuality'?

K: That's also actual...

DB : So is that what you mean by the word 'is' ?

K: Yes, both 'are' actual...

DB : Yes and therefore both have their own 'activity' …

K: Both are 'actuality'. And we say : ( the spiritual essence of?) Beauty is not in the field of reality.

DB : Yes, but is it in the field of 'actuality' ?

K: Beauty is 'actual' but we're saying : Beauty - its 'essence' - is not in the field of reality.

DB : Though it may act in the field of reality ?

K: Yes, it may act...Now, what is the difference, sir, between these two 'actualities' – one of which is in the field of reality and the other which is not in that field ? Is there an 'actuality' in the field of truth ?

DB : We were saying that truth 'acts'  , but we were raising the question whether there is an 'actuality' in the essence ?

K: Both are 'actualities'...

DB : Yes, but they are of a different order of actuality, or two different kinds of actuality ? You see, the wallpaper was created by the thought of mankind, although it has some kind of 'actuality' - the actual paper of which it was made...

K: Yes, but that wallpaper and the tree are the same...
Therefore why do we say : ( the living spirit of?) 'Truth' is not in the field of reality ?

DB : Well , I think this goes back to the way we use the words- we said that 'real' means to be a 'thing' – what we think about - while 'Truth' is unconditioned - it is 'no-thing'

K: Yes, 'no - thing'

DB : As Beauty is 'no-thing', Goodness is 'no-thing'...

K: That's right !

DB : But they are 'actual'  - that is what we're implying, right ?

K: Let's go slowly into this...If it is 'no-thing' , is there an 'actuality' ?

DB : You see, that's the question...In the conference with the scientists you've mentioned some sort of energy which was self-sustainable, non-contradictory, a self sustaining energy which is of a 'cosmic' sort...

K: Yes...

DB : And of which we could say it's the (creative) energy of That Which this what you mean to say ?

K: That's why we have to go into this carefully !

DB : Yes...You have mentioned that several times, but also in Physics there is this idea that there is (a lot of free ) energy in the 'emptiness ' of space …

K: Yes, I agree, and which is orderly !

DB : Orderly, I agree, in perfect order …

K: Sir, reality is 'things'...

DB : The totality of all 'things'...

K: And Truth is 'no-thing'. Now, the 'things' of reality create their own energy...

DB : A limited kind of energy?

K: Yes, and the 'not-a-thing' ( the energy of no-thingness) is unlimited...

DB : And you're implying that that 'unlimited' energy (of Truth) is self-sustaining and therefore it does not depend on anything ?

K: Yes, it is independent ; this depends, the other doesn't !

DB : Yes, the 'thing' ultimately depends on That...

K: That's right, that why I said that we may (risk to?) get caught in that (psychological ) trap that ( consists of assuming that) 'God is in us', that that Supreme Intelligent Energy is (already) present in (the consciousness of) man.

DB : But man depends on it...

K: Because one doesn't depend on it, does it mean that one becomes 'evil' ?

DB : Let's try to put it differently : it is all related to whether the energy of thought is one 'thing', or there is a (deeper) 'energy' which has been used wrongly... ?

K: Yes we have talked about this !

DB : Yes, but we never quite settled it...

K: Yes, we have never 'worked it out'...

DB : I think it is similar to asking: Is there only one energy which makes both the 'emptiness' and the 'things' or are there two energies ?

K: We are just discussing  whether there is only one (creative) energy which is misused in the field of reality and the same energy is (present in?) 'no-thingness' … ( long silence...)
'No-thingness' being 'death' ! Right, sir ?

DB : Right... ?

K: I'm just hesitating to put it forward : I think 'That' (compassionate?) energy born of 'no-thingness', 'is' ( qualitatively?) different for the other...

DB : Yes, but there is no interaction ?

K: I think there is a 'one-way' connexion, that is from 'no-thingness' to the 'thing' but not from the 'thing' to 'no- thingness'. Now I want to go into this very carefully : is the energy of 'no-thingness' different from the energy of the 'thing' ? For the moment I see that it is 'different' – in the sense of being 'dissimilar' ...

DB : Yes, that is one meaning of 'dissimilar' but that still allows for a one-way relationship.

K: Or are both the same, and therefore misused in the field of reality and and all the rest of it...The 'other', it is endless.

DB : Well, let's try to put it this way : there is one energy which includes the 'finite', rather than saying that they are two : The 'infinite' (energy) includes the finite, but it does not exclude the other ; that is one proposal...

K Yes, that is one proposal, and the other 'proposal' is that there is no relationship from the 'thing' to the...

DB : Yes, but that is the same as the first proposal : the infinite includes the finite, but not the other way around.

K: I see it for being different : 'no-thingness' is (the unmanifested energy of?) 'death' - which means 'total ending', right, sir ? In the word of 'reality' thought has never an ending – and thought creates its own energy, hmm ? Or are both the same ; one degenerates – like the 'source of water' is polluted in the field of reality, but it's the same 'water' as the energy of Truth ?

DB : A-ha !

K: Is that it ? You misuse it and somebody else doesn't misuse it ! That's one view of it, or is the energy of that 'source of no-thingness' totally different- dissimilar ?
Let's put it this way ; from the 'field of reality' can there be a movement to Truth ?

DB : No...

K: Why ?

DB : Because the field of reality is conditioned, as being made of 'things'...

K: So, as truth has no connection to the field of reality then its (energy) has no connexion to the field of reality.

DB : But, there is still a 'one-way' connexion... ?

K: A 'one-way' connexion, yes ...but not an interacting relationship.

DB : Not a 'mutual' connexion...Perhaps you could say that 'truth' acts in the world of reality through 'death' – like in 'ending' ( or dying to?) the false ?

K: Yes, so we go back to the same thing : thought can be 'ended' ? One can see is that 'ending of thought' the same the (energy of) 'not-a- thing' ? No, sir...I think the two energies are totaly different.

DB : What... ?

K: The energy of 'no-thing'(ness) is totally different from the other.

DB : But then, you haven't explained why there can be the (one-way) relationship in which the (anti-entropic?) energy of 'no-thingness' can act in the field of reality.. ?

K: It can operate because it 'is ' everything !

DB : What do you mean by 'being everything' ?

K; Because in no-thingness means 'ending' -that is 'not a thing' ! In the world of reality 'ending' means the modified continuation of thought. 'This' has no continuity, 'that' has continuity... the word of 'reality' .

K: 'This' has a movement in time, 'that' has no movement in time. Are they the same movement ?

DB : The small movement is contained in the larger.

K: That's it !

DB : In the conference with scientists you used the analogy of a small area inside a big Space ; maybe we can look at 'time' that way ?

K: Let us put it this way, sir : In the field of reality 'love' has a very definite meaning  - related to jealousy and all that...

DB : But Love can act in the field of reality in a 'clear' way, you see ?

K: Love can act in the field of reality, but the 'love' in the field of reality is not Love.

DB : That's desire.

K: So the Love (originating ) in 'no-thingness', can act in the world of reality. But 'this' can never be polluted in the field of reality. Therefore it is something 'entirely original' !

DB : Hmm...

K: Sir, can it be expressed the other way around ? We say 'death' is ( the anti-entropic energy of ?) ending ; and that which has a movement in the sense it has no 'ending' and we said this (energy of) death is the ending (and the beginning?) of everything  - of every 'thing' ! There is no (interacting) relationship between the two ! I would like to think that I can use the World of Truth in the field of 'reality'

DB : All we've we've been saying so far is that 'Truth' acts in the field of reality...

K: Is that so ? Can it ? Can the 'not-a- thing' – which has no movement ...How can 'not-a- thing' act in the field of reality ? Reality is a 'thing'...

DB : You see, there is another view that in the world of reality the 'things' only appear to be solid...

K: Sir, would you put it this way : a mind that is not living (entangled ) in (the thought-created) 'world of measure'; can that (time-free?) mind operate in the world of measure ?

DB ; But what does operate then ?

K: Only measure !

DB : In the world of 'measure'... ? Now, suppose I make a measure (a mental evaluation?) and then I see it's 'false '

K: Then I can correct it !

DB : Yes, but before I can do that, I have to 'see' that as false … Now, isn't that the operation of 'truth' ?

K: Ah, no ; because I can measure the table and then I see that it doesn't fit in the room...

DB : But how do I see that if the mind were operating clearly I could see , but if it becomes confused ...I may not see it....

K: If I measure it properly I would get it right. But it is still in the world of measurement !

DB : So, measurement operates only in the field of the measurable... But it's important that thought should be clear and free of confusion or falseness.
Now, what is the difference between the mind in which thought is 'false' and the mind in which thought is not false ?

K: Can't the 'falseness' ( of the thought process?) be seen in the world of reality ?

DB : Rather, it is the truth about it that can be seen...The truth of the world of reality is ...its 'falseness'.

K: Yes, yes...Sir, can we say it this way- the world of 'reality' is measurement, and that 'measurement' may be false or correct... Now in 'no-thingness' – there is no measurement! Now, what is the relationship between the two ? This has measurement, that is not measurement...

DB : Yes, but what is it that sees that the measurement is 'false' ? You see, if it is false, it brings contradictions – now, what is it that 'sees' the contradiction ?

K: Pain !

DB : Yes, but it doesn't always work...You see, thought's ( capacity for) 'measurement' has no criteria within itself which can guarantee its correctness...There's something 'beyond' that is needed !

K: Quite...But if my 'measurement' ( my mental evaluation ?) is incorrect, there is a disturbance...

DB : Yes, but then I might suppress the awareness of that disturbance...

K: Yes, but it is still in that area !

DB : But what is it that perceives that disturbance ?

K: I can perceive that I am ( psychologically?) disturbed !

DB : Yes, but many people don't perceive that …

K: Because they are (inwardly) insensitive ; they are not aware, they are not conscious...   But the ( subliminal?) pain of that (observer vs observed?) ongoing contradiction is still there !

DB : Yes, but then, why are they not 'conscious' of it ?

K: Because of (an outward oriented) education...I can give you ten different reasons...

Dr P : It may be that (the anti-entropic state of ) 'emptiness' has no attachment...

K: Let's stick to this : there is no ( need for mental) measurement in nothingness, but there is ( a lot of) measurement in the field of reality...false or correct. And Dr Bohm says : who is the entity that perceives the falseness ? It is the same mind which has 'measured' !

DB : But then there seems to be some meaning to it because...

K: Because it's suitable, convenient, etc, but it is still...

DB : But in that field there is no way to guarantee pure corectness...

K: Agreed.

DB : Now we can see that in some people there may be more ability or less ability and it seems to me that there has to be some ( holistically-friendly) 'perception' beyond that field...

K: You can only say there is another (quality of) perception when there is that ( inwardly free space of) 'nothingness' ! Now is that 'nothingness' a verbal structure, or the 'World of Truth' ? Here there is no 'entrance' for thought...Therefore it is nothing ! And we were saying : is there a relationship between the two ? That is the central point we're trying to find out.... Now, there is no relationship between' this' & 'that' but I make a endeavour, struggle to reach that I may imagine that I have a relationship to 'that' – which is ( the working of) 'desire'. And why am I doing this ? Because I want to reach 'something' that is permanent, ( a state of mind?) that can never be hurt...So I project it - as an idea, as an imagination or as a hope- that there is 'that'. When I project from 'this' to 'that', whatever the projection is, it is unreal, imaginary - a fantasy ! Now if there is actually that (state of inner) 'nothingness' , what is the connexion between the two ? In dying to (thought's attachments to ) 'reality' , only then there is 'nothingness' ! Which means, 'dying' to all the 'things' thought has created . Which means dying to all the things of measurement, the movement of time...

I know nothing about this ( state of inner) 'no-thingness' ! I can't even imagine it – I simply don't know what it is ! I am not even concerned with it...but I'm only concerned with (creating a holistically friendly order in) 'this' (field of reality) as I live in it...But ( unfortunately) here I am always caught between the 'false' measurement and the 'correct' measurements (of my thought) . Or pursuing the one and rejecting the other, but it is still here.
And do I see this 'totally' (of this time-bound condition?)  - that desire has no end, hope has no end, struggle has no end if I live here...( For meditation homework ) I shut my eyes to all your inventions, etc ; my central desire is to 'see' all this !

DB : Yes, but isn't it is still a desire ?

K If I'm still exercising thought I'm still caught in the trap of that. So you tell me to end this (desire driven) thinking- I can end it ! But is that 'ending' different from this ?

DB : What do you mean, what is the difference ?

K: I can 'end' it by persuasion, by 'practice'...

DB : But that is not ending it !

K : Of course, but I can 'feel' that I have ended it ! Therefore, is there an 'ending' here without a motive ?

DB : It seems that you've brought in 'nothingness' implicitly by saying : no motive...

K: if I see this 'whole thing' completely, there is an 'ending'... (To recap:) all my energy is limited to this field of corrupted (thought-created reality) ... And there is this ( travelling?) man who says there is a ( anti-entropic energy of ) 'nothingness'...He just says it , he doesn't relate 'this' and 'that' He said : There is (within oneself this ) 'no-thingness'. He doesn't even ( bother to?) say ''In this ( energy field of ) 'no-thingness' everything is (contained) '' - becauses he sees the 'danger' ( of self-delusion) .
And the man (of reality) says '' What is the use of that ?'' It is not marketable, it doesn't relieve my pain, my 'agony' ...Keep it to yourself ! But for someone (who is aware of ) living ( entangled ?) in the field of reality, this statement means something (totally worth considering) .

DB : So, basically you are saying that we got to approach something like this with a feeling that perhaps we've got something wrong – because whatever you're saying about this is still in the field of reality...

K: Right, sir. The (timeless ?) energy of 'no-thingness' is quite different from the (entropic) energy of this (field of reality) , but he says don't bother about it, just look ( holistically?) at this and get out of it (ASAP?)  ! Don't try to bring in the ( universal intelligence of the ?) Cosmos into the limited …

DB : But you did bring it in the discussion with the scientists …

K: I brought it in because I wanted them to know that 'something' existed beyond this blasted little stuff …
You come along and say: Look, there is a state of 'nothingness'. You say that, and it is tremendously true to you – it means 'dying' (to the known & ) 'not a thing' in his mind. And I may have a feeling that it is 'true' - because his very presence, his very saying has that (timeless quality) … But if I would want to 'pull him' into this (field of thought-created reality ) he says : Go to hell ! You can't do it ! Or, otherwise we get caught in the ancient trap : 'God is here'...

Now, does this answer your original question - that Beauty, Goodness, Truth – the purity of it - are all (to be found) 'in here' ? There is in the (spiritual tradition of the ) Hindu and also of the Jewish world, the 'Nameless'...but I live here and name Him all the time. And He doesn't even recognise the name !
Therefore there is no relationship between the two. For a man who 'dies' (inwardly to the thought-created reality ?) the 'love' that exists in reality is one thing ; that same word cannot be applied here - you can call it Compassion... ?

DB : You were once describing 'love' as the movement in relationship , but if you're not using the same's not clear...

K: Sir, ( the non-entropic energy of?) 'no-thingness' is an entirely different thing – therefore my relationship (in the field of reality) is a 'movement' in time, in change, in breaking down one (self-) 'image' and introducing another 'image' and so on & on...But when there is no more division between the 'perceiver' and what is 'perceived'  when they are 'one', then only you can ask about ( Truth Beauty & Love) so.... do that first and then you can answer it (for yourself) !

DB : That's right …

K: ( Supposing) Dr Bohm has ( metaphorically?) 'climbed the Everest' – and he can (truthfully) describe the Beauty of all that , but while I'm still in the valley and long to have that same 'vision', my desire is to access That or for capturing his ( verbal) description ? In the actual 'climbing' there is no desire, but in achieving the poetical descriptions of what he has seen, there is 'desire' . Right, sir ? We are ( generally) getting caught in 'description' , not in the actual 'climbing'...

(Should we we go on ?)

DB : I think it's five thirty – an hour and a half...

K: So, we'd better go and shake hands - in the world of 'reality' ! (laughter...)

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 03 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Mar 2020 #269
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

5-th ('reader-friendly' edited ?) K Dialogue with David Bohm on Truth & Reality (cca 1975)

DB : When we discussed last time there were a few points and consequences which I think they are interesting . Briefly it is this : over the years we have seen that thought moves in inevitable contradictions -from one to another and then we said, let's try to kep thought in its place – where it is technically efficient in the field of reality, but then one discovers that thought cannot 'stay in its place'...

K: It cannot...

DB : Because the moment it defines a place, it is already gone beyond that place – it is moving in a state of permanent contradictions. Until now the general tendency was to say : yes, there are certain things that are wrong with thought, but let us see if we can straighten them out – and the ultimate straightening out was to keep it in its place, but it won't stay in its place ; therefore it occurred to me the idea that perhaps thought cannot be 'strenghtened out'. Perhaps by its very nature...

K: (laughs)'s 'crooked' !

DB : Now if that's the case, it seems to me that we need some other energy, some other movement that will carry out our practical functions. There might be another movement which will carry out the same functions but without becoming crooked. And that would seem to me a good point to start.

K: Are we saying sir, that thought being in itself contradictory and when it tries to put order in that contradiction it creates further disorder and that thought can never have its right place ?

DB : Yes, even if we were to 'start out fresh', it would come to the same thing.

K: Yes...And we're asking : is there an energy which will carry out these functions without becoming 'crooked' ?

DB : Yes, because unless we can find that we must turn to thought …

K: Quite. How does one investigate it, or how does one discover – after realising the intrinsic nature of thought - what is the new instrument which will discover that energy ?

DB : Yes, we started looking at that last time and we discovered there is a very serious (mental) trap, because thought is always projecting itself into anything.

K: Yes. So we are asking whether thought can ever be an instrument that can discover something which is not 'crooked' ?

DB : There is one more point we might discuss: you have often talked about the 'negative thinking' which is really the discovery of contradictions within one's thought …

K: Yes...

DB : And I've been studied this : people have known this as 'dialectic' – according to the dictionary 'the art of discussion through questions and answers'

K: I know, but it also means offering opinions …

DB : Not exactly ; it starts with accepting something which people thinks 'reasonable' – which may be an opinion and to move from there to discover thought's inevitable contradiction. Now there are two ways to look at this : one is to simply 'drop it'...

K: Isn't there in contradiction a synthesis ?

DB : That of the exponents of dialectic I've studied is Hegel, who has carried it quite far. He says that at a certain stage thought reveals its contradiction, then it 'suspends' itself and one sees the emptiness of the forms of contradiction ; but then he goes on to a new idea which will resolve the contradiction...

K: A-ha.. 

DB : And then it moves on & on. Now in order to stop it moving on & on, he introduces the concept of the 'absolute idea'...which he didn't notice that it could be another idea...

K: (laughing) These clever people get caught in their own web...

DB : Yes...and if we pursue that we can see that there's no much point in pursuing the contradiction on & on and we see that thought is inherently creating contradictions and we come to the point which you raised – that thought should find its right place which again you can't . So we've carried the dialectic further than Hegel did and this inevitably leads to the point that thought might end itself.

K: End itself, quite !

DB : I was told by Narayan that Buddha was a great master of dialectic and perhaps he did use it that way, but in general it has not been used that way...

K: I don't know Buddhism very well – I don't know it at all – except at the superficial mutterings of Buddhist priests and so on. I was told that a Buddhist scholar – Nagarjuna- went much further saying that in ending thought there is 'nothingness'.
So, we've come to the point where thought being contradictory, through 'dialectics' thought can resolve it, hoping that by a certain point thought can see its 'absurdity'...

DB : Yes...

K: But when thought conceives a new pattern...It is still thought !

DB : Still thought, yes...

K: So, we've reached that point, and we see that the movement of thought must always be contradictory, self-centred and so on...Can that thought end and a new 'energy' operate in the field of reality and not bring about contradictions in the field of reality ? That's it , we got it !

DB : more point that can be added is that intelectually we can see the contradictions and on the side of 'feeling' we can see them through desire. It comes to the same thing...

K: Exactly ! If you talk about thought it is useless to talk about desire ! Right ? Or should we go into desire ?

DB : If we can say a few things about it, that may help...

K: Sir, when you used the word 'desire' you used it in the sense of feeling, demand, and also in the meaning of this word, 'longing' .

DB : Longing, yes...

K Clinging to, seeking the ultimate pleasure in different forms – the highest, the lowest and so on & on...Surely, all that is in the field of thought ! Desire is one of the 'arms of thought' !

DB : Yes, it starts producing feelings...

K: Would there be that 'feeling' if thought didn't enter into that area ?

DB : Now that's the question : in our general culture it is accepted that there would be one...

K: I know...

DB : But on the other hand if we were not identified with thought as a second kind of feeling, it's hard to say what it would be …

K: Yes, quite...I desire this house – in that desire is included the longing for what thought has created...and I want the 'image' of what thought has created as pleasurable...and wanting that pleasure. I don't think there is a difference between desire & thought !

DB : Yes, and the contradiction in desire comes in the same way – just as there is an inherent contradiction in thought, there is an inherent contradiction in desire.

K: Yes...inherent ! But just a minute : when I am young I desire a woman, I desire a house – I change the objects of desire, but desire remains !

DB : Desire remains, but its objects are always contradictory...You see, it won't stay with an object – if you get the object it will move to another one...just the same as thought would not stay there but move from one thing to another..

K: That's it ! That's clear...

Dr P : Now this continuous movement of thought is a continuous 'projection' and the person doesn't come to know of this movement so there is a continuous 'chasing' there...and his life is between the projection and himself...

K: Quite..

Dr P : This is a process of conditioning that starts from feeling, to the 'image' formation...

K: What do you mean by 'conditioning' ?

Dr Parchure  : If you have a young child he has no 'thinking' process stated but a 'feeling' process...

K : I wonder if that is not 'thinking' - so it is a 'dangerous' thing to say that the child has no thought but only feeling …

DB : Yes...Some psychologists have sudied that and they say that the young child has a 'non-verbal' form of thinking - a 'motor thought' , like an animal...And he thinks that through his 'images' and through his 'motor activity'
the child is still 'thinking' in terms of pleasure & all that...

K: Non-verbal...

Dr P : But it seem the child doesn't think in terms of the 'I'

K: I cling to this toy and another child comes and takes it I hold it  : That is the origin of the 'I' 

DB : Or the child clinging to his mother ; when the mother goes away...

K: Of course ! What problem is that... ! So sir, we said : desire in its very nature is contradictory, though the objects may change ; but in its essence desire is contradictory, as thought is contradictory. Now we're saying ; is there an energy wich operates in the field of reality without becoming crooked ?
You see, when I have discussed in India with all the pundits & others, they have said : this 'energy' is divine – I'm using their words- and therefore it can never operate in the field of reality – but if it does, it can never go contradictory – they 'invent', they presuppose, or they 'imagine' an energy which is unconditioned – which is Brahman, or Soul, or God.
Now, if we can 'erase' from our mind that process of invention or 'imagining' -and one must if one really find out, then what have we ? We have only the process of 'thought & desire' – which in its essence is 'crooked' in operation and ...we know nothing else. Right sir ?

DB : Yeah...

K: I think that would be the 'sane' position. I'd like to start that way, otherwise this 'crooked' nature of thought and its desire which constantly changes its longing...And I 'am' my consciousness in which all movement is thought & desire. Right sir ?

DB : Yeah...

K: That consciousness – because it is all the time in movement - has never found an energy which is not contradictory, an energy which is not produced by desire & thought. So, what shall I do ?
Then my problem is : can 'thought' see its own movement and the futility of its own movement ?  Futility in the sense of being contradictory, conflicting...

DB : Yeah, 'seeing the totality' of it. We'd have to see it 'totally' !

K: Totally, that's what I mean ! Of course …Can thought see the totality of its movement in consciousness- see it as a whole ?

DB : Well, there is here a difficulty which perhaps makes it look impossible : when we ordinarily look at something, that very thought separate itself from what we look at ; so when you say ''I 'am' that thing that thought thinks about'', this thought is not sustained...

K: Let's move from there : my consciousness is myself ; there is no separation between myself and the content of my consciousness which is 'me'...

DB : Yeah...

K: That I see. Is this 'seeing' withing the content of the consciousness or outside ? When I say ''I see the contradictory' nature of thought '' Is that 'seeing' an intellectual perception, a verbal comprehension, or is it an actual perception ? Or I imagine that I see I desire ? Is 'seeing' a movement of thought ? If it is, then I don't 'see' -there is no 'seeing'. Then when does the mind say 'I see' ?

DB : Only when the movement of thought stops ?

K: That's it ! And what made it stop ? How has that come about ?

DB : Seeing the contradiction or the absurdity...

K; But does thought 'see' it ?

DB : No, it's the attention to what thought is doing …

K: There is attention to the actuality – the 'actual' is being seen.

DB : Yes...

K: The 'actual' which is the creation of thought – desire, the movement of  thought – that's the actual. And 'who' is it that 'sees' it- how does it happen ?

DB ; Well there's nobody that 'sees' it...

K: That's what I want to get at...

DrP : I think 'attention' is the thing that sees !

K: I don't want to go back ! I don't operate that way, I want to start anew ! I've got a problem : somebody tells me that thought is everlastingly moving from pattern to pattern, in contradictory patterns, contradictory desires- when thought does that, there can be no solution there is no solution to ending sorrow, confusion , conflict & all that. And I listen to him because he's telling me something that is very serious: I respect what he's saying and I say : Give me a moment and I will see it ! What do I see ? The verbal pattern, the verbal description – and therefore I've got the 'colour' of the painting of his description, or  is it an intellectual grasp of what he's saying or it has nothing to do with all that but only perception ? I'm just asking : how does that perception happen ? I 'listen' to him, I respect what he's saying : to me it seems logical, sane and actual – and then at the moment I see the whole of it ! Not the fragments put together, but the 'whole' movement of desire, thought, contradiction, the whole movement from pattern to pattern, the excuses & so on- I see it completely as a whole ; and my action of 'seeing as a whole' is totally different from thought's action...How does it happen ?

DB : Well, it is not clear what you mean by 'how' ?

K: I'm sorry, I shouldn't say 'how' !

DB : Let me just say something : when I looked at it and saw that thought cannot be made straight, I couldn't describe it, but at that moment I was no longer interested to 'make it staight'. I thought that was the direct action of 'seeing'.

K: Are you saying : does thought see itself in its movement in contradiction ?Is that what you're saying ?

DB : I'm saying that when there is 'seeing' the whole movement no longer continues...

K: Does thought 'see itself' ?

DB : No, no...It seems to me that there is a bigger movement...

K: That may be imagined by thought, or it is what scientists say , but I don't know anything about it....All that I know is this : that in listening with attention & respect I see this ; I understand the whole of it ! You don't have to talk anymore about it -I see the whole of it ! What brought this about ? If you say 'attention' – this attention implies that there is no 'center' -center as thought which has created the 'me' and the 'not-me', and therefore I receive eveything he says without twisting it !

DB : But isn't there a thought without the 'centre ? In other words, can there be thought before the centre ? The weakness of thought is that it separates itself from what it thinks about – the imaginary 'other' which it calls the object, but which is still thought...

K: Yes, I see all that...

DB : Now, does that take place before the creation of the 'center', or the 'center' is something else ?

K: I don't quite follow this...

DB : You see, if I say the essential function of thought is to 'reflect' – to create an 'image'...

K: Which becomes the 'centre'...

DB : Yes, let's get this straight...You said ''The image becomes the 'centre' – this is not quite clear to me ...Let's say I'm thinking of a tree - that which I'm thinking about becomes separate from 'me' Therefore it seems that I have created two 'images' – one is the 'tree' and the other is 'me'...

K: That's right : the 'me' is the image that thought has created …

DB : And the 'tree' also ...but it seems that thought presents these two as separate ... Now it would seem from what you're saying that thought cannot exist without a 'centre' ?

K: Yes, that's right...

DB : But if 'something' could awaken, then we wouldn't have the 'centre'...

K: That's right ! Pupul raised this question ; Is the seeing
within the field of consciousness ? That means 'seeing' must have space, and is there in our consciousness a 'space' which is not touched by thought ? And therefore from that space arises the total comprehension ?

DB : Yeah...But is it part of consciousness ?

K: That's it ! It's part of the content of consciousness which has been conditioned ? In that case, where from where does that perception come ?

DB : When that free inner space is part of consciousness ?

K: Yes...I see that this space is still within the space of consciousness, still within the field desire -still within the field of reality that thought has created...Is there a 'seeing' , a 'perception of the whole' outside of it ? And if there is an 'outside seeing' – if I can use that word-
then thought with its movement between 'centre' & perifery, comes to an end....'Seeing' is the ending of thought...Would you say that ?

DB : Yeah...

K: Perception is not the movement of thought...

DB : Yes, that is, when you perceive a contradiction thought stops...

K: You see the truth outside the field of consciousness. Truth is not within the consciousness- if it was in the field of reality, then it will be a contradiction...
If it is not in that field, then it is 'truth' . Then you see it ; and because you see it, thought' action in the field of 'reality' is never 'crooked' Right ?

DB : Yes but it raises a question here : Is it possible that you 'see' it and fall back in it ?

K: Into the field of 'reality' ? Never...if you 'see' it !

DB : I mean, just once is enough?

K: Absolutely !

DB : Hmm. .. ?

K: If I see, if there is a perception of that ; how can I get back into something which is not 'true' ?

DB : But then, how do you come to make mistakes ?

K: Let's look at it ! ...For the moment I am just exploring : all action is in the field of reality. And we're saying that truth's action in the field of reality is never contradictory. And you say : there can be mistakes made by truth, right ?

DB : I don't know who is doing them...there might be mistakes which I wish to understand

K Right...As there is a perception of truth, that perception operates in the field of reality. Would it be a mistake when you take the wrong direction of the road ? The wrong road ?

DB : Well, it depends on how you use the language...or you simply by lack of information you chose one way of the road...

K: This lacking information – the way you look at it ; you say I'm making a mistake . So, truth operating in the field of reality & not having sufficient information can take the 'wrong' direction...

DB : Yes ...

K And you looking at him from 'out there' say : ''He's mistaken, therefore he's never seeen 'truth'''

DB : That is one way of looking at it ...but you can also say : What is the sign of a man who has not seen truth ? I mean, not merely that he makes mistakes ...?

K: That's very simple to see that he lives a very contradictory life.

DB : As he lives in self contradiction, you should be able to distinguish from a mistake and having the wrong information...

K: Yes, that's it : wrong information ! Now what am I to do ? There is a perception of truth and I have to act in the field of reality- do you make a 'mistake' – mistake being 'that which is not truthful ' ?

DB : So we'll have to be very clear about what is 'truth' …

K: Exactly...Truth being something that thought cannot perceive, realise or express it. Reality can't. The logic that thought spins it out becomes illogical

DB : I'd like to put it this way : there is an 'actuality' which is independent on though and an 'actuality' which is being created by thought – like that microphone- and also there is a feeling behing these images. Now thought loses track that it has created those images and then recognises it again as something that it has not created. And that mistake can't be corrected – because thought lacks the information. Now we could say that truth makes no such 'mistakes'.

K: Once you have seen something dangerous, it's finished ! But thought can create a danger by creating an 'image' which is unreal and hold on to that image
which becomes a danger...

DB : Yeah, because thought has lost track of the fact that it has made it...

K: That's right...So, we are saying 'Truth cannot make a mistake'...

DB : And if it makes mistakes it's because of wrong information – it is like a computer- if you give it wrong information...

K: That's it ! you see that 'organised' religions has no truth in it. You 'see' it totally ! You can't go back & organise their religious stuff : it's finished ! And your action will be totally 'logical' – never contradictory , right ?

DB : Yeah...Now several people asked me that most human beings are not capable of such perfection...

K: It is not 'perfection' !

DB ; In one sense it is not, but in anther sense it is....

K: I don't see it as 'perfection' !

DB : I realise that...

K: I see it as a man who is sensitive, attentive and 'sees' the danger - and therefore doesn't touch it !

DB : Well, I've talked with a few of the scientists – and especially with one of them- I think he's got some idea of what you mean, but he's rather dubious that he's ready to drop all his attachments...

K: Why ?

Db : I don't know...

K: Why should it be 'inhuman' to see truth?

DB : You're right, there is no reason, it's merely a tradition...

K: That's it ! The thickness of the 'wall' that thought has created...

DB : I mean it has been a tradition to be 'modest' – ''It's only human to err...''

K: There's no question of modesty about it ! But I think that one has to have a great sense of humility to see truth  ! And I think the expression of this is still humility...

DB : Yes, I understand that...

K: Let's go back to the question of Pupul : Is there a 'space' in consciousness – which is not created by thought ? Is there any part of one's consciousness which thought has not touched ?

DB : I should think it's impossible, because thought is a 'structure' and every part of thought touches any other part...

K: All fragments in consciousness are related...

DB : And the connexions are quite amazing ...for instance you can see that a certain word is not part of our language – and that's connected immediately to the whole of your memory …

K: Right, take the word 'oak treee ' – it doesn't exist in sanscrit...

DB : I mean, anybody can tell immediately that a word doesn't exist in the language....

K: Right, all words are inter-related ...So all the fragments of one's consciousness are inter-related...and so there is no space, no corner, no hidden spot where thought hasn't touched...

DB : Or has the potentiality of touching.

K: Yes, as we said, all thoughts are related, all fragments are related...

DB : And this the cause of one of the main contradictions of thought – to treat them as 'unrelated' .

K: Yes...So, that being so, what brings about the 'act' of perception ?

DB : You frequently ask this kind of questions for which the answers are not clear...

K: I think the answer is clear when thought comes to an end...

DB : Yes that's what you said before . But then one asks : what brings it to an end ?

K: My first question is : does thought see the futility of all its movement -and 'stops' !

DB : Well I shouldn't think that thought has that 'power'. Or, it might see the 'futility' in a fragmentary way...

K: So you're saying that thought cannot see itself in its totality . So, how does this happen ? You say it is 'attention' ? Not quite....

DB : I shouldn't think that thought has that power

K ; There must be a sense of 'no-thingness'...

DB : But what is 'attention' ?

K: Attention is the summation of all energy. But that's not quite enough. So is it happening when the mind that has gone through all this, comes to an absolute no-thingness  - not a 'thing' in it - and that is more than the summation of all one's energy – a 'super' energy !

DB : So we're saying that attention is the summation of all the human energy - which would be 'wrong' to call 'cosmic', but there is an energy beyond that.

K: There's a 'danger' of self - delusion in this because I can 'imagine' that... So the mind has seen through all that...

DB : Now I would like to ask you a question : you were like this all your life ?

K: I'm afraid so...

DB : But that brings up another question- which is what we're doing now - you're communicating it. Now for some odd reason – you were this way and the rest of us are not...

K : I wouldn't like to sound conceited...

DB : But the combination of all tendencies and environment – generally makes one 'conditioned'...

K: human being going through these conditiones is being conditioned , and another human being is not being conditioned...

DB : It's not clear why is there a difference ?

K: Now that becomes tremendous...

DB : Too difficult ?

K: Not difficult but we'll have to go into something entirely different...Let's keep it simple ; there are two human beings – one is being conditioned and the other one isn't. How does it happen that the other doesn't get conditioned ? Is it a lack of good health at the beginning ? He was ill and therefore he didn't listen to the influences, or they didn't penetrate because the mind wasn't healthy ?

DB : Hmm... ?

K: The body wasn't healthy, therefore it didn't receive anything...

DB : And by the time it could receive, it was stronger ?

K: Yes...and therefore it never entered it

DB : It didn't took hold. Now there is this stage in the young children's development where they go through a stage of tremendous opening, but then it closes down.

K: There are several theories about this : One theory is that this has had previous lives and the other theory - but....let's put it down the other way : Would you say there is Goodness in the world, and there is also 'evil' in the world ?

DB : Well, that point has not been very clear...Perhaps we could discusses it, because I'm not clear...

K: I mean, there are these two - the 'evil' and the Good.

DB : Yes but there is a certain feeling that the 'evil' doesn't have the same reality as the Good...The 'evil' is based on falseness …

K: So there are these two 'forces' and the asiatics believe that the Good is with those who are advancing spiritually . Can that Goodness penetrate into a person who isn't selfish ? See, I have talked with those people who knew him as a child – he had a sense of 'vague', moronic. And when he got in the west...It didn't penetrate either. So, what brings this about : there must be a 'natural awareness' and sensitivity- and no choice...

DB : Would you say that 'choice' is the real root of the movement of thought ?

K: Yes...From there 'attention' – there is affection, care and a sense of deep communication. And this is still not enough : the love that exists in attention is different from the 'love' of reality. I love you, therefore I receive you profoundly...Therefore our communication is not verbal...And that is still not enough...

DB : It is in the depths of the human individual...

K: We can go through all this, but it is not enough.
Therefore can this consciousness be completely empty ? Which means, there is nothing inside it ?

DB : But that still includes an awareness of the environment ?

K: Yes, of course ! Is that possible? Then there is this which didn't exist in awareness, nor in concentration...Attention has in itself this quality of Love.

DB : Yes...

K: And that is not enough still -can this consciousness be totally empty ? And therefore, a consciousness which is totally different ?

DB : Then why would you call it 'consciousness' ?

K: That's just it ! We said that consciousness – as we knowing it now - 'is' its content : the movement, wide or narrow of thought. In 'no-thingness' there is no 'movement' at all – but it has its movement which can operate in the field of reality...

DB : We'll have to clarify what is this 'movement '?

K: The 'movement' which we know now is 'time'... Can we use 'emptiness' in the sense where a cup is empty ?

DB : That will imply that it can take content...

K: No, it's not that....Therefore let's begin again from
'nothingness' - it  has a movement which is not the movement of thought, which is, not a movement of time.

DB : It occures to me about 'time' that when thought reaches a contradiction, then it jumps to another thought and that 'jump' is time.

K: Right !

DB : It seems to me that the very essence of psychological time is contradiction...

K: Contradiction, I see that... Sir, we are asking : is there an energy which is not contradictory, which is not jumping from a pattern to another pattern ; a movement which is not related to that energy of time ?

DB : Yes...Let's get another point clear : 'that' energy reveals itself in the world of time. Is that right ?

K: Could you repeat ?

DB : This is a view which I heard : that energy does not exist in time, but it manifests in time, or reveals itself...

K: A-ha.. ! Which is the same thing I 'm saying only put differently...

DB : Yes ; I mean, several different people have said that – some of the ancient Indians in America...

K: Yes, yes ! And in India too they say that it manifests itself in the field of reality …

DB : Is that view acceptable to you ?

K: Let's look at it ! Are we saying that the human being who pursues truth can function in the field of reality and therefore his perceptions are never distorted. 

DB : Yes, but other people watching him would call him a 'manifestation'...

K: Yes, the 'avatar' -a sanscrit word...Now, would that be right ? Would that be true ? That is, you as a human being perceive truth and you manifest that truth in the field of reality. Therefore that manifestation is the operation of an Intelligence which can never be distorted...
May I put a question : why should Truth operate in the field of reality ?

DB : Well, that question was in the back of my mind...

K: (laughing) I caught you ! Why should it operate in the field of reality ?

DB : Let's just put it that generally people accept it – perhaps it doesn't …

K: That's it! Why should we it take for granted that it will operate ?

DB : We take it for granted because we hope that we will have something from it – to keep us 'straight' (both are laughing )

K: Have a string of 'hope' ….Now I'm getting it at last : we have accepted as part of our tradition, as part of our hope & desire that the man who perceives truth can and does operate in the field of reality. And you & I come along and say ; why should he ?

DB : Well, perhaps he shouldn't...

K: He shouldn't ! I think this will be more true – the actuality rather than the desire which creates the actuality ….

DB : Yes, so perhaps we'll have to change it : this man operates in 'actuality'. Would you accept that ?

K: Of course ! But there is a danger in that : that in man there is the highest principle and that it operates... I question that !
So we were asking : why should Truth enter in the field of reality at all ? Why should the Highest Principle manifest itself in the field of reality ?
We want it to we cling to that idea.

DB : Yes because we want some deeper sense of order...

K : But if we do not cling to it, how is one who lives in the world of reality, to bring order to it ?

DB : But then, are you living in the field of reality ?

K: I suppose a human being living in this mess, sees it and says : How do I bring in order ?

DB : Well it almost follows from what you say that it cannot be done !

K: That's just it ! In the world of reality thought cannot bring order there …

DB : No, because thought itself is disorder...

K: So people say ; get away from that – join a monastery or join a 'community of the equal' …

DB : Well, the whole thing is relative because it seems to me that this 'reality' is real but it is false...

K; Quite, quite …

DB : And therefore, as we said, truth cannot operate in the false...

K: Yes, but you follow sir ; I am 'false' ! Because 'psychologically' thought has created this 'false' ...

DB : Yes...

K: And how can Truth operate in the 'false' ?

DB : Well, it doesn't...

K: Obviously it cannot ! But yet, in the field of thought can there be order ? Because that's what we need : I need that...

DB : We can have some relative order...

K: So you're saying this order is relative ?

DB : Yes...

K: But there is an order of truth which is 'supreme order'...

DB : But we said that couldn't be found in the field of reality...

K: Yes...

DB : I mean, we could bring a 'relative' order into the field of reality...

K: Ahh... but that is not good enough ! That's what the politicians are doing... Therefore the human beings introduced the element of 'divine order' and pray to receive the grace of that Divine Order... which will put more than a 'relative' order in my life... And that is not good enough, it's illogical  ! Even verbally this is inacceptable. But I want order here, in the world of reality, because order means safety, security, protection...I must have that !

DB : Hmm...

K: And thought cannot produce that . But if I don't invent 'God' or a Source of Energy which will help man to have that – I don't accept that ! But I need absolute order here ! Why can't one have it without invoking or looking for truth ?

DB : Well, let's go into that, because what determines 'reality' is thought …And thought is contradictory so....what is going to make it 'non-contradictory'. I don't see how you can bring about what you're aiming at ? Now let's try to look at this  : we see that the whole world is almost completely in disorder... People tried to bring in some order in countless ways, but as long as the world is ruled by thought, the disorder will continue...

K: I accept that, because you have explained everything rationally, thought itself says ''I will be orderly'' : I know how I jump from pattern to pattern, but I will be very watchful ! And that very 'self-recollected watchfullnes will have order without introducing 'outside agencies'...

DB : So, your view is that it can be done ?

Dr P : Is it some other form of awareness ?

K: No, sir : thought says 'I have created this whole mess'... And it realises 'I can't do anything about it'. Therefore it abstains to continue in that way : Therefore I will be intelligent ! Can that take place ?

DB : Well, we'll have to look at this. What is it in thought that will allow this to take place ? Somehow it implies that thought is somehow non-mechanical ?

K: (Laughs..) I know, I know....

Dr P : I think thought has in itself some elements which are not mechanical !

K; What ? Thought is not 'mechanical' ?

Dr P : There are some parts of it which are not 'dead mechanical'...So, it can produce some order in itself without appealing to truth...

K: So, you are saying that thought has some parts of it which are 'healthy'  and we're saying 'There's no healthy thought' !

Dr P : You are using the terms 'reality' and 'thought' Now in the field of reality there are some 'springs'...

K: In the field of reality 'suffering' says ''No more !''

Dr P : That's right …

K: Let's look at it : suffering which is brought about by thought , that feeling of intense suffering says 'No more !' But the 'No more' is the action of thought !'re still in the field of contradiction... So if you said all human beings must be fed - without creating a tyrany obviously that's order …

DB : Yes, but that is only a hope !

K: ( Laughs) That's it !

DB : I mean, this has been achieved at certain times …

K: But not without imposing a central authority ! The incas they had a marvelous system but the authority was there … I don't want that kind of 'order' - my orderly intelligence says ' We've been there !' Therefore you introduce the order of truth – which may or may not be there. You say truth can come in the field of reality and someone else says : truth has nothing to do with the field of reality....therefore...I'm stuck with it. So I say hell with truth ! If it cannot operate & bring order here... then what's the point of it ?
So now we deny the starting point of investigation whether truth has or not some relationship with the field of reality...

DB : I think that we explored that statement & seen its contradictions and therefore 'dropped' it..

Dr P : Do you say that in the field of reality there are not sufficient 'springs' to bring this ?

K: Maybe ! I don't know ... it may be that in the field of reality thought itself sees that it cannot act anymore ?

DB : But this implies that thought has the possibility of not being entirely mechanical ?

K: I don't accept this statement that the process of thought is not mechanical .

DB : Then how is this mechanism going to see this ?

K: Is the 'computer' seeing the mistakes it's making ?

DB : No, but then you can make a computer that will take all these mistakes into account …

K: Similarly can thought see that it has made a mistake ?

DB : It can but we have to introduce some new elements like awareness...

K: There's no solution for 'absolute' oder in the field of reality...

DB : Now if thought assumes it is the only 'energy', then it must come to this position : I abstain from operating …

K: Or something else must take place...

DB : What is it ?

K: I see the that thought is bringing its own disorder... Seeing the 'danger' of it ! So, when there is the perception of the 'real' danger, thought doesn't act !
The perception of the danger is a shock to thought !

DB : Hmm…

K: So thought 'holds' – and in that 'holding' of thought is order.

DB : Right...

K: Let's put it this way : we go to Gstaad to see all these marvelous mountains …

DB : Yeah...

K: And your thought is 'gone away'... The beauty of it drives away all the movement of thought... And therefore it is the same when thought sees the tremendous danger...

DB : That's with the aid of attention & awareness, but thought 'sees' it .

K: Thought sees it. Like when I see a car rushing towards me, I jump away This 'jumping away' is order

DB: Yes, but you see, the perception of danger may not be maintained...

K: Or one may not see the danger at all ! When thought does not see the danger of 'nationality' - most of us are neurotic - I mean, when you had ten wars and you still repeating it- it is a neurotic movement !

DB : Yes, but that's part of the problem that thought dulls perception...or prevents perception from operating...

K: Or.... is it because I'm conditioned ?

DB : I'm conditioned to do just that...

K: Now you come along and educate me to see the danger of all this …And as you 'educate' me I see the danger and I will do it ! So, why should truth enter into the field of reality ?

DB : But then what does truth do – what is its action ?

K: What is its function, what does it 'do', what is its value -not in the sense of merchandised or 'employable ? You see, truth is 'supreme ' intelligence – as we said. And we're asking, can that intelligence operate in the field of reality ? If it does, then it can bring about absolute order. And we're saying truth is not something to be achieved or gained or perceived through education, through culture – through the medium of thought...Right, sir ?

DB : Yes, but when you say truth does not operate in the field of reality, it becomes ambiguous...

K: Truth cannot enter in the field of reality...

DB : I don't know if this will help : we said that 'understand' means 'to stand under'.....So when we say that we understand something – I'm using a metaphor- truth is 'standing under' thought – it is 'the substance' of reality...

K: Truth is 'under reality'… ?

DB : I don't know where truth is, but in the act of understanding, the action is 'under' reality, rather than being in the field of reality.

K: Reality is a manifestation of thought, and truth 'stands under' the actuality of thought... What time is it ?

DB : It's six o'clock.

K: Oh my ! We're getting somewhere ! Sir, what has Goodness to do with 'evil' ?

DB : Nothing ?

K: Right ! So why should we want Goodness to operate on 'evil' – modify it, change it ?

DB : Would it be right to say that Goodness dissolves 'evil' ?

K: It is the same thing - operates, dissolves...Has Goodness a relationship to 'evil' ? Then it can do something. But if it has no relationship, then it can't do anything !

DB : But then we can ask the question ; what will bring 'evil' to an end ?

K: I don't believe it can come to an end...Evil being created by man...

DB : By his thought ?

K: By his thought & all the rest of it...So, you come back to the same question : when thought comes to an end !

DB : Yeah...

Dr P : Has goodness an impact on thought ?

K: Ahh ... we said that : Goodness has no relationship with thought ! Goodness has no relationship to evil . If it has a relation then it is an 'opposite' and all opposites are related to each other !
So evil will go on till one sees the contradiction of thought ...To show man that thought can never solve his problems. Right sir ?

DB : Yeah...You could put it like this : as long as thought is going on, there is no possibility to solve his problems...

K: As long as thought – which is time - goes on, evil will go on, misery will go on...It is a tremendous revelation to me when you state that. To me thought was tremendously important  and when I hear a statement like that …

DB : Right, because one may say : What will I do without that ?

K: Exactly ! It is a tremendous revelation : I listen and I live in that revelation and there is no action...

DB : And that's the movement which is beyond 'attention' ?

K: Beyond attention...Because I've paid attention to him, I have listened to him, he has shown me and I'm full of this extraordinary statement. I don't know how I will operate, I don't know how I will live, but I've 'seen' this thing ! And it will operate, it will do something – but I don't have to do anything . Because before I was accustomed to 'do' something – and he says : Don't ! - Yes, sir, quite right ! To 'hurt another is evil' – I'm taking it as an example- In the deep sense of that word to hurt someone 'psychologically' is evil ! And I receive it without any resistance - resistance is thought – It has entered into my 'womb', into my mind, into my whole being and it operates !

DB : Hmm...

K: It functions, it moves it has its own movement ...truth has its own vitality !

DB : Yeah....

K: It's a wrong question for me to ask :'' What place has Truth in the world of reality ?''

DB : The point is that we had to put it first and see that it's wrong, not merely to deny the question ...

K: I think it's enough...Can we get up ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 Mar 2020 #270
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

6-TH ('experientially-friendly' edited ) K- DB Dialogue on 'Truth & Reality' cca 1975

DB : One question that's worth discussing is your last week's statement that Truth does not make direct contact with 'reality' – perhaps we should discuss that...

K: If one's ( perception of) 'reality' is ( dominated by the all controlling ) activity of thought , with the cessation it, will Truth become apparent  ? Can ( the self-centred activity of) thought be stopped or can it naturally cease ? And if that can take place, can Truth exist ?

DB : Wouldn't Truth be 'actual' then ?

K: For the moment, I don't think it happens that way,  as (the self-centred activity of?) thought is so cunning- it can mesmerise itself, hypnotise itself and think it is very quiet....That's one point. And there are various (plenty of?) systems into Zen, or the Hindu forms to quieten thought ; but controlling it is still not ending thought, as one ( central thread of?) thought superimposes on the others. Then can thought ever be(come naturally?) silent – if it's not through 'meditation', in the accepted sense, or if it has not induced itself, very subtly to be silent, or if there is anything that can silence the mind, then is (the perception of?) Truth ( becoming an?) actual fact  ? I think that something else should take place. What do you say ?

DB : Well, we have made a distinction between (the psychologically motivated activity of?) thought which is inherently 'twisted' and the ability to make a mistake which is due to wrong information and correct it...So perhaps we could clarify the difference between thought making a simple mistake and the kind of confusion that thought gets into... Let's say that one is doing something foolish and he may not know exactly why he's done it. Perhaps eventually he sees it...

K: Something out of ignorance... ?

DB : Not necessarily ignorance but simply from 'unawareness'. Then one wonders where is the source of this 'unawareness' ; there are two kinds of unawareness - one is simply failing to be aware - and the one which is due to thought which has a systematic tendency to supress awareness. The 'ignorance' of thought is not merely lack of knowledge but it is 'ignoring' - it 'ignores' certain things in order to be more comfortable, to have more pleasure or not to disturb the equilibrium of its everyday operation- because if it does, then everything will go to pieces...

K: Yes...

DB : Now that kind of 'positive ignorance' is thought positively ignoring ( the ongoing inner facts ) . And there is also the 'negative' form of ignorance, due to the lack of information. But then, it's sometimes hard to distinguish whether someone has done something foolish due to lack of information or due to the lack of some deeper & subtler information...

K: Are we trying to find out whether ( a mind established in?) Truth can make a mistake ?

DB : In a way, yes. In other words is there something more than the mere lack of information ? We said last time that giving the computer wrong information it will produce wrong answers – and now if we take a little further this analogy with the computer : can it give wrong answers for different reasons ?

K: Right...So what is it we're asking, sir ?

DB : Well, it seems that ( a human mind living in the light of?) Truth cannot become involved with any kind of deceptions....

K: Yes, ( a mind firmly established in?) Truth cannot deceive itself, obviously !

DB : Now, is it possible – for instance in your case - that thought can go on for a certain time and then you see something and it will end ? Or is it happening 'instantly' ?

K: Sir, I think we'll have to consider when does Truth manifest itself...

DB : Last time you said that Truth does not manifest in the field of reality …

K: No....let's get this clear ! We are saying there is 'reality' and Truth. We know the activities of thought in the field of reality and we are saying they have no connexion with Truth.
And then we say : How does Truth appear ? Is Truth an abstraction ?

DB : It better not be ! Then it would be still ( a mental imitation created by?) thought...

K: So, it is not a matter of thought calling itself 'truth'. It ( the holistic perception of Truth ?) must be out of time, it must have no continuity. So it must have no relation to (thought's construction?) of the 'past' or to the 'future'...

DB : Which implies, as we said last time, it has no relationship to thought. That seems fairly clear . Now if you
say there's a (directly perceptive?) action of Truth which is always clear....

K: Which is 'total'...

DB : ...which is always right, etc. But this is not necessarily continuous though...

K: Ha ! Cannot be !

DB : Of course not, but it may happen from moment to moment, right ?

K: Yes.

DB : And in between, there is a lack of complete attention? You see, I'm trying to get it clear...

K: Yes, I understand....we'll have to go into this (finnicky issue more seriously?) ...

DB : And there would be one more point : they say that sometimes thought is not present when Truth operates...but nevertheless, at some stage you were saying that thought is entirely twisted...and here I have the question if we can ever do without it or whether we can do or not do without thought
Or is there another function which will do the function of thought without 'twisting'. And there is the possibility that thought works 'twisting' and truth comes in a flash …

K: Could we approach it this way : what is ( a holistic way of ) 'action' ? We know the ( mechanistic?) activities of thought : changing patterns, each pattern creating its own disorder, mischief, pain, and moving all this within the sama area. So, what is the ( directly perceptive?) 'action' that is not in that field ? It must be without a motive, it must be without conformity, without imitation, folowing a pattern and so on. So, it must be totally free from ( the psychological attachments to one's?) memory.

DB : then that's the 'action of Truth'... ?

K: Yes, I'll stick to that.

DB : But still, there is the 'action of memory'...

K: The action of Truth is free from all memory.

DB : But it may use memory ? Or perhaps it doesn't ?

K: If it (the direct perception of the truth or falseness of anything ?) acts instantly, it has no memory...

DB : In other words, ( the perception involving ?) memory is another activity, of a different order...

K: Suppose I see something (directly) - perceiving without the 'perceiver'- which is ( the controlling activity of?) memory - and the action of this perception is instantaneous, and therefore it is Truth. In that case, memory is not necessary.

DB : Not at that moment... ?

K: Not at that moment. So, when is memory necessary ? To carry out ( the practical aspects of?) that perception ?

DB : Well, it could be ; memory may be necessary in all these ( real world?) activities, for example moving around...

K:Yes, yes...

DB : Now, I'm not sure that the perception is carried out...

K: Ah, no... if it's not carried out, then it's not Truth !

DB : It has to be, but is it carried out in the field of reality ?

K: Wait a minute, there is perception- which is to see things as they are, to see what is actual – without the interpretation of the 'perceiver' with its (socio-cultural) background and all that...

DB : So, it is seeing the 'actuality' and that actuality may include thought...

K: Yes, but for the moment we are ( academically?) considering what is the action of Truth and what is its relationship with memory in carrying out the action. We say, ( the direct perception of) Truth is ( spontaneously happening?) from moment to moment and the action of Truth is from moment to moment and that action is totally unrelated to memory. Finished ! (QED...?)

DB : Now we can consider the action of memory...

K: That's quite different...

DB : Now, that action of memory is necessary in order to find your way around, in order to do the right job, etc. But that action of memory, insofar as thought is concerned, may become twisted, confused...

K: I don't think it can get twisted if there is a total integrity.

DB : But that again brings up the relationship between 'truth' and 'reality'...

K: If there is complete integrity in thought itself....

DB : But that is almost the same as talking about truth in thought...

K: Ah, no, no...

DB : Then what is the relationship between ( one's perceptive?) integrity and Truth ?

K: What is integrity ?

DB : It really means 'oneness', ( being inwardly) not divided, not fragmented, not's 'integral'

K: All right, sir, one can be totally integrated, living a life of non-fragmentation - is that man living a life of Truth ?

DB : Well, I don't see how there can be a life of Truth without (inner) integrity – unless he's deceiving himself...

K: What I'm trying to say is : can thought ever be totally integral ?

DB : That's the question I'm raising because you seemed to imply a minute ago that it could...

K: Can't it, sir ? Can't thought (the thinking brain?) see its own fragmentation ?...

DB : Perhaps it could, but then why does it (still continue to) desintegrate ?

K: Because it is not ( completely?) aware of its fragmentary character. When it becomes aware of its fragmentary character, is that Truth ?

DB : Well, that is the 'truth' regarding the nature of thought...

K: Right...But that is not 'Truth', is it ?

DB : There's the distinction between ( seeing) the 'truth of something' and 'Truth', you see ?

K: Ah, I see ! The truth of the nature of thought- I can see my thought being fragmentary and thought then realises the 'actuality' of its own movement. Is that 'Truth' ?

DB : No, but...

K: It is seeing the truth in the false.

DB : Yeah... ?

K: But that truth is not 'the' Truth !

DB : Well, 'Truth' itself is beyond what we could describe (verbally) ...

K: Yes.

DB : But we're still in this area which isn't clear- in which apparently Truth has a relationship with thought , in the sense of seeing the truth in the false, and that seems to establish a relationship again...

K: I see the truth in the false and also I see that 'truth' is not the Truth...

DB : But now, I am not very clear what the distinction is...

K: I'm trying to make it verbally clear...I see my thoughts are 'crooked'- that is the 'seeing' that thought is crooked.

DB ; But that is the 'truth'...

K: Ah no ...! It was seeing the truth in the false. There there is (implied ) a division – the 'false' and the 'truth' .

DB : Yeah...

K: In ( the holistic perception of?) Truth there is no division !

DB : You see, it has been suggested by some people that we should not use the words 'truth' and 'false' as opposites , but rather use 'correct' and 'incorrect' . So you could say that the 'correctness' of thought is 'incorrectness'...

K: Thought sees its own 'incorrectness'...correctly ! (laughter)

DB : Yeah...

K: And the 'seeing correctly' of the incorrectness of thought , you're saying is (the ultimate?) 'Truth ' ? Truth has nothing to do...

DB : Yes...I'm ready to drop that (question) now because there's a difference in language. But I wanted to clear up one more thing : when you say 'thought sees', I'd like to put it like this way : thought has some sort of 'conscious awareness' -some kind of 'awareness' that goes with thought...

K: Yes, like a good businessman, quite.

DB : That conscious awareness which sees the properties of thought. So, in this case, it's not an inconsistency to say that thought 'sees something' . Thought is 'consciously aware' of the incorrectness of its mode of operation.

K: Right. That's simple enough...Then what's the question ?

DB : Then there's no question, because you say that (the living spirit of?) Truth is something entirely different.

K: Entirely different !

DB : The word 'Truth' has been used in so many different senses...

K: ... correct and incorrect. Then what is the problem ?

DB : I'll bring a few more points if you don't mind :
I've been reading Mary Lutyens book about you and I find it quite interesting...

K: Oh, Lord... Rajagopal asked Allan Watts and someone else if they would help him to write a biography, and knowing that it will be one sided, so I asked Mary.
Shiva Rao from India has collected through many years all the events that took place – and he was going to do it, but his eyesight failed. And then I asked him : could I ask Mary and he said 'Delighted !' And that's how it happened.

DB : I think it's a very well written book. Now, this book discusses some 'process' you went through in this transformation – which always raises the question of the difference between the state of truth and the ordinary state – and which will help us if we got it really clear. It's never clear whether this transformation is sudden or gradual – or whether it took place at all ?

K: I think sir, that several points are involved there : we talked about the last time : a mind that's unconditioned- it may be so before it was unhealthy at the beginning – weak, couldn't retain, couldn't be impressed upon...

DB: Yes, that was the theory we considered...

K: Then, the theory of reincarnation and Goodness - personified or not as Maitreya, if you accept that and so on.
Then there is this whole idea which exists in the East- and serious people -not sharlatans have been through it. The Hindu tradition has called it the 'serpent fire'

DB : 'Kundalini' - it was refered in the book...

K: If they put that in the book I must take it out ! (laughs)
And that 'kundalini' can be awakened and a different kind of energy comes into being. This is the second point.
But I'm beginning to question whether there was any transformation at all... Sir, I can tell you one thing : in that book, when the brother dies - actually I have no memory of that...Either he (the young K) could have gone into cinicism, bitterness, unbelief and threw the whole thing out- which he didn't do, or he could have taken comfort in (the belief in) reincarnation, in meeting the brother 'elsewhere' – which he didn't do either. So what actually took place ? If we could actually penetrate that, then we could understand that (such a ) 'transformation' never took place.

DB : Yeah...but I think what's interesting is that finally he made the step to 'Truth is a pathless land' … In other words, you were saying more or less the same things you are saying now...

K: That's right.

DB : I was struck by the similarity, almost identity...

K: I didn't know that...

DB ; You were not discussing 'reality' then, but 'Truth' was the same...

K: I think then that if neither reincarnation, nor the
disappearing into worldliness – this being not ( a matter of) money at all since that hasn't interesting him – but just disappearing into some kind of ( self-comforting) idiocy, all those did not take place... I think what probably happened was facing the 'truth of death'.

DB : Do you feel that was a crucial step then ?

K: I don't think it was a crucial step - though others have said that it was crucial...

DB : Yeah, and even in the book it doesn't appear as what you could call a 'crucial step'...

K: No, but facing the (inward?) 'truth of death'...

DB : But now we'll have to come back to this : would you say the 'truth' or the 'correctness' (of this)... ?

K: Facing the 'actuality' of death freed him from the 'reality' of thought. Could we put this differently? Can the mind be completely detached from its (physical) body.... Is there a state (of Truth?) where the mind is free from all attachment ? Attachment is 'incorrect', and thought can see the 'incorrectness' of attachment.

DB : Yeah, let's say it can be aware of this...

K: Thought can be consciously aware of all the implications of attachment, and thought can say : I won't touch it anymore

DB : Yes, but now let's try to go slowly into this, as you like to refer to that young man...let's say that he was attached to the Theosophical beliefs …

K: I question it !

DB : Well, wasn't there any attachment at all ? At least it appears to be - for example there were letters where he was saying he accepts it all...

K: Because he was just repeating...There was no (actual) conditioning but a dependful state in which he was repeating things which were told him. I think that would be accurate.

DB : The other point is this 'process' as Mary Lutyens called it, which took many years off and on and in which there was so much (physical) suffering and it's not clear what was happening there, you see ? I mean, did it had any part in the transformation or not ?

K: I don't think so.

DB ; Yes, but just for the sake of not making it discouraging for the peeople who might say : then how we can ever do it !

K: There are two answers to that : you know the Theosophical conception -whether you believe it or not, that's not the point- that there is a Maitreya – who is the essence of Goodness and that Goodness has to manifest in the world when the world is in a state of collapse, in a state of 'evil', in a state of destroying itself - that's what the tradition says. But... what are we talking about?

DB : We're trying to get clear whether this young man was really attached and conditioned . Aside from the letters and the relationships which you say were superficial, wasn't there some deeper kind of suffering ?

K: No... no (personal?) attachment...

DB : But you have any idea of what was involved there ?
You see, as I've been reading this , during some of the phenomenon there were intense pain in the head or in the neck or the spine and it appears to be moments where he calls for his mother...

K: I think that's merely a physical reaction when there is intense pain...

DB : But do you have any idea of what the whole trouble was about , or is it something you know anything about...

K: I'm afraid I don't know anything about it... But must everybody go through this ?

DB : Well, most people wouldn't have the time for it ! (laughter)

K: Columbus discovered America ; must everybody become 'Columbus' to discover America ?

DB : All right, so this was the 'fortuitous' way in which this came about, for reasons that are peculiar to your own situation...

K: You see, if you have gone into this whole process of 'kundalini', the whole idea there – as far as I have been told by others and some who have been through it - is a way of releasing ( some spiritual?) energy through various centers (plexuses ) in the body, and those 'centers' have been dormant or not fully in operation...

DB : Yes... ?

K: And when this ( special?) energy is ( awakened & ) in movement, it passes through these 'centers' there is such amount of trouble, pain, disturbance...

DB : But that is not necessary for the transformation you described... ?

K: No, definitely not !

DB : So, in that sense it was something of a side issue ?

K: No, I wouldn't put it this way....

DB : Then, how was it connected in this way ?

K: I haven't thought about this....let's go into it ! That young man, mentally not up to his age...

DB : He had suffered malaria, which is very disturbing...

K: Malaria, a great deal of there was a little 'dullness' and into that 'dull' ( state of) mind nothing could enter – therefore we said that was one of the reasons he was not conditioned.

DB : Yes...not deeply ?

K: Not deeply conditioned. The other point is why
had he go through all this suffering ? Has it any relation to transformation ?

DB : Yeah...

K: I say it hasn't... I must go slowly (because) if I admit that it is ( a necessary?) part of ( an authentic spiritual) transformation, then every human being has to go through it, which is nonsense ! But I think it releases a quality of energy...

DB : The suffering ?

K: Yes, the physical pain of that kind brings about a certain quality of energy .

DB : Yes, but that would imply that those who don't go through it may not have it !

K: No, no...I think I've got it, let's go slowly through this...
Sir, you're a scientist ; you discover something, you see something totally new – and you state that thing, verbally and actually. And another scientist picks it up from there and goes on...

DB : Yes...

K: Here, this man saw Truth, he discovered something 'new' and that 'new' thing enters into human consciousness...

DB : Would you say it's totally new - I mean, it had never been
seen before ?

K: I don't know...

DB : But for him, at least, it was totally new...

K: Of course ! Somebody else might have said it before , but what he saw was something 'new' .

DB : So perhaps that particular (new ) thing has never been discovered before ?

K: Yes. So that discovery of something 'new', once stated, another can carry on and discover something more.

DB : Yes, but what was the role of suffering in this discovery ? Was it to release the (dormant psychical ?) energy ?

K: Probably...

DB: And others may release this energy in different ways... ?

K: Now, wait a minute, this energy is not the energy of thought !

DB : Can't it be called 'kundalini' ?

K: I am rather shy of that word - a lot of superstition is associated with it, a lot of ( very ingenious?) 'sharlatans' have been playing with it – doing lots of ( meditation) practices to awaken kundalini - I think it is absurd !

DB : But in the case of the young man, it seemed it had a place... ?

K: Yes, that's what I am coming to : the release of that ( psychical) energy is something that must come out of (ending) suffering - I am just exploring sir...

DB ; Yes, but is that in general, or for this particular case ?

K: I think, in general.

DB: In general it comes from suffering ?

K: Yes...

DB : But now are you implying there may be some other form of suffering ?

K: That's it ! We're slowly getting it... If, in the world of reality I don't escape from suffering through various means & so on, the very (ending of that ?) suffering brings about great energy. I think this is so ! Now, in this case, there was not the suffering of attachment, it was not the suffering of losing somebody, it was not the physical suffering- he was pretty healthy in these days. So there was no actual 'psychological' suffering except when the brother died - and then he looked at it and finished with it. But this other kind of ( psychical) 'energy' - if we can go into it a little bit – is different .

DB : Yes, but it doesn't necessarily being awakened in the same way as in this young man – going through the spine and so on ?

K: That's what I'm actually trying to convey : I think that energy is completely different.

DB : From what ?

K: From from the ordinary kind. And we say, must everybody go through all this ( physical suffering?) in order to get 'that' energy ? I say, no.

DB : But you're implying that everybody must go through some kind of suffering... ?

K: No, no ! Everybody 'does' suffer (whether consciously or not )  !

DB : But if he doesn't escape from (facing his existential) suffering...

K: Then he has got (the transmuted energy of?) it !

DB : He has got the energy... ?

K: ...of that ( spiritual?) kind .

DB : Now, does it matter whether the suffering is the suffering of attachment or of another kind ?

K: No, that doesn't ( really?) matter...Suffering of attachment, suffering of losing a wife, physical suffering, psychological suffering – there are many varieties of suffering and if you don't escape from ( facing the actuality of?) it, there is the release of a certain kind of energy...

DB : But it wouldn't necessarily involve ( going throught the psychical chakras along?) the spine …

K: No, no... obviously not.

DB : So, ( the awakening of ) Kundalini may be a very limited approach ?

K: Wait a minute... 'limited' in what way ?

DB : Well, when somebody is purposefully trying to awaken kundalini, he obviously has in mind the ( psychical energy going through the ) spine in a certain order and all that...

K: I don't think it can be done 'purposefully' ! That's what they are trying to do now through (various practices & ?) methods, purposefully : ( but the self-centred process of ) 'thought' is trying to do it !

DB : Wouldn't it be better to say that there is an ( awakening of this ) energy (if one is) not escaping ( facing one's ) suffering which doesn't necessarily show itself in various sensations in the spine... ?

K: That's right. A man who faces suffering ( transpersonally ?) he has a (special) quality in him. He's got that kind of 'psychological' passion

DB : Now, that energy of course is not the whole...

K: No, that's not the whole...

DB : But we need this quality of (holistically friendly ?) energy to see Truth. With the ordinary sort (of time-binding) energy we cannot actually have ( a free access to?) Truth

K: No. We say Truth is unrelated to ( the energy field of ?) reality...

DB : ( The field of) reality is (generating) the ordinary kind of energy... ?

K: That's right ! Like a (highly motivated) ambitious man has got a tremendous ( amount of) energy and his energy operates in the field of reality as 'correct' and 'incorrect' (as 'good will ' or 'bad will'?) .

DB : let's say this man comes at a certain point where he sees the ( fundamental ?) 'incorrectness' of the whole operation of thought ; but before anything more happens he needs a higher ( quality of intelligent ? ) energy....Before the perception (of Truth) can work, it would seem he needs the kind of ( holistically friendly?) energy we're talking about...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : Now, it almost seems from what you say that (in its absence) nobody is going to be (inwardly) transformed...In other words even the issue of ( a spiritual) transformation would seems irrelevant... ?

K: No...

DB : Then we'll have to say why, because in the case of that young man you seem to say that there was no (such?) transformation. Right ?

K: But sir, there must be such a (holistically friendly ?) transformation, a radical or basic change in the field of reality.

DB : And what will become of the 'field of reality', then ?

K: Then there will be order in that field...

DB : So, ( such a qualitative ) transformation will bring order in the field of reality . It will still be ( a holistically friendly ?) thought, but not twisted...

K: Yes, that's right, sir, it will be ( a 'holistically?) correct' thought -logical, sane , healthy and all the rest of it. But that has nothing to do with ( the timeless perception of) Truth. Now, sir, I think there are the 'energy of truth' and the 'energy of reality' - two ( qualitatively very?) different things, (at least theoretically?) 'unrelated' to each other.

DB : Now, couldn't we say that Truth works in ( the field of?) 'actuality', and in some sense, reality is also actuality...

K: Yes, that's right...

DB : You see, if we want to get more clear, could we say that 'actuality' is a ( holistically friendly dimension ?) in the field of reality – a function which includes thought and consciousness in the actions which are taking place... That is, as you said, the energy of an ambitious man is all in the field of reality - which is part of 'actuality' …

K: Yes, what is actually going on . That's clear : reality is the movement of actuality.

DB : It's part of the movement, because there is a much bigger movement in 'actuality'.

K: Yes, that's right...

DB : And one of our biggest mistakes is to take reality as the whole of actuality. Now we can say that Truth also acts or operates in ( the more universal field of ) 'actuality'...

K: Yes...

DB : And it seems to me – I'll just propose it - is that Truth has no direct connexion to (the field of) reality , but in some sense, as it also acts in 'actuality', there may be a ( certain) connexion. Reality is also part of what is actually going on- and that includes (the human) consciousness and all that...

K: I'm sorry, I'm not following...

DB : You see, reality is a certain a part of what is going on- that part which we can think about …

K: Yes... ?

DB ; But it is also an 'actuality' because we take action on what we think about. That 'actuality' spreads out like a wave making objects or interacting with the environment …

K: The tree is actual ...

DB : And in addition there may be other ( invisible?) aspects of the actuality of the tree of which we may not think about.
In general 'actuality' goes beyond what we can think about.

K: I understand, but when it goes beyond reality is that Truth ?

DB : We don't know that, but at least it seems that Truth acts in that ( field of?) total action. Or...doesn't it act at all ?

K: Sir, wait a minute, that young man (K) saw 'Truth is a pathless land' and that no ( thought created ?) organisation could lead to It. So, he dissolved the ( Order of the Star of the East) organisation - that's the action of Truth. He talked with various people, naturally, but the perception and the (actual) realisation that truth is a pathless land dissolved it. Right ?

DB : Yes I see that ; but let's look at it for a little while : that perception wasn't involving time and that was the (timeless) action. And from then on, he was taking (time-related) actions talking to the people and finding a way to carry out what that meant. In other words, it took some time to dissolve the organisation...

K: That was simple enough – give back the (Ommen castle &) land...

DB : But it took some real time to carry it out- so it seems that in some way ( the field of ) reality was affected by truth... ?

K: Aha ! No sir, he saw that 'Truth is pathless land'. And as a whole organisation was formed around him and as he saw it (as being 'false'?) & he said 'Out !' But because he was funded by the ( pretty wealthy  TS?) organisation...

DB : But doesn't (his own process of ) thought become consciously aware of the implications of Truth ? It's not very clear what ( has actually) happened to the young man : he's seen that (Truth is a Pathless Land?) and ( the whole course of) his actions has changed – so his thought has changed, because at one point he was ( probably?) thinking : I'm working together with these people and later he was thinking of dissolving the organisation …

K: No, not 'thinking' !

DB : But he has taken the steps in thought necessary for this.

K: Yes, but he 'saw' that truth is pathless and no organisation can lead man to it...That is finished.

DB : But to implement that …

K: The implementation of that took time.

DB : Yes, but I'm trying to understand how thought becomes aware that it has to implement this...

K: Ah...If you see something which is 'true', then you get rid of your ( time-binding?) things quickly- finished !

DB : Yes, but you still have to think how to do it...

K: No !

DB : But you still thought how not to hurt (too much some ?) people...

K: Yes, but that's all irrelevant !

DB : It may be irrelevant to the main point, but in order to understand what we're trying to do now it may be relevant.

K: You're asking ; How did thought capture or become aware of that ( timeless perception of) truth ?

DB : Yes, what were the implications...

K: He saw it, acted and for him that was over. But he was funded by an organisation, by all the implications of it...Dr Besant were ( feeling) beated up....

DB : But he didn't want to hurt her, but that was part of her way of thinking...

K: Yes, he didn't want to hurt her, so he told her before, but he was funded by an organisation. I understand the question very well, but what is your (logical) difficulty ?

DB : Because previously you said that thought doesn't act at all in the 'field of reality' – but in some way, consciousness becomes aware of the implications of truth...

K: Yes...I must go slowly in this ; he saw & acted – he's finished ( with it) ! 'Finished' means completely ending (all psychologically motivated attachments ?) -no regrets, it has no meaning anymore. But he was still (£££ ?) funded by all this (wealthy organisation ). You're asking : how did ( the timeless insight of?) Truth give its intimations to thought ? Was there an intimation ?

DB : Maybe not...but then, what did actually happen ?

K: ( The holistically friendly process of?) thought saw correctly ( clearly) the action which he took...

DB : But what action did thought see ?

K: What happened !

DB : So the perception of truth was active and thought became (responsibly) aware of that action ?

K: That's right...

DB : So, truth takes a direct action in (the field of) 'actuality' and that action now comes to ( one's temporal) consciousness through awareness ?

K: That's right ! And sees the correctness of it.

DB : And then it goes on thinking what to do (in order ) to implement it. All right, so it's becoming more clear...

K: That's actually what took place, because ( outwardly ) he just put it in ( holistically friendly ?) words

DB : Yes, the action was to put it in words, but first there was an action before that of it became aware and put into words

K: ( The direct perception of?) 'truth' put it into words...

DB : So Truth can act directly, without words... ?

K: Careful ! The description is not the described, the word is not the thing...You used the word to describe that …

DB : Yes, but who used it ? Was it truth or was it thought ?

K: He saw...

DB : He saw, but how did the word came out of that ?

K: He saw, and the seeing 'is' the acting ;

DB : Yes and the action was that the whole structure was dead...But ''Truth is a Pathless Land'' is words...

K: The description.

DB : Alright so the whole thing was dead, then came a perception that truth is a pathless land .

K: The ( verbal) description is not the ( actuality ?) described ; so if I tell you : Look at that tree - you (will have to?) actually 'look' – the word is not the tree, so ( providing that the observer-observer division is also cleared???) you 'see' the tree.

DB : I see the tree, then I become aware of the tree - thought becomes consciously aware of what is described by the words. So, we have a perception that acts immediately and also contains something 'universal'- like in the perception that ''truth is a pathless land''...

K: Therefore, you are saying : truth is universal, global...

DB : So seeing that 'truth is a pathless land' is ( in itself the ) action and ( further down the line?) ) the conscious awareness enables thought to pick that up...

K: ( The original perception of?) Truth has nothing whatsoever to do with thought.

DB : Yes, but thought can become aware of the action of truth …

K: Yes, yes...

DB : All right, so we're ( finally?) coming at something... Now it just occurred to me to ask a question about 'awareness'. We have discussed the conscious awareness ; now, is there any 'awareness' that is not 'conscious' ?

K: Yes, there is another 'awareness ' that's not ( born ) in the field of reality.

DB : All right, so we are distinguishing the 'conscious awareness' from 'awareness' in general, which is universal ?

K: Yes.

DB : In fact this universal awareness would be hard to distinguish from attention ; I mean, these are very hard to define...

K: I know, I know...Sir, would you put it this way : the 'center' – which is really the 'observer'- can be aware of itself, conscious of itself and operate within that field ; but that 'awareness', that 'consciousness' is still limited, is enclosed. But is there a consciousness, an awareness, or some other state which is not this ?

DB : Yes... and this 'other' state would include awareness and attention ?

K: No....I must go slowly... That boy's perception (regarding the ) pathless land - he sees it non-verbally – that is the Truth that acts and it's finished ! As far as 'truth' is concerned, it's over. Then the 'wave' takes on the words and describes it and the description is not that. Now, in the field of reality, there is this conscious awareness -which is limited- with its (self-centred) 'attention', with its awareness...So that perception of truth is limited...

DB : Yes, but last time we talked about ( a state of inward ?) 'no-thingness' which is beyond this attention & awareness, although we said they are non-verbal...So, could we say they are still part of the physiological process, although they are beyond thought. So thought is just part of the whole physiological process and there is an attention & awareness beyond that, but Truth is beyond all that ?

K: Beyond all that ! You see, it is said the awakening of kundalini …

DB : But wouldn't kundalini be part of the physiological process ?

K: According to them there's an 'energy' that is not physical.

DB : Yes, it is awakened in the physical ?

K: No, no, we must go very carefully : it goes through various centers...

DB : But are these physical centers ?

K: Physical centers, like the solar plexus is the main center, and there is a center in the thorax, a center in the back of the head and a center in the middle of the forehead and ultimately it goes through the top of the head.

DB : Yes... ?

K: They say that when it goes through the top of the head, that energy is entirely different- it's not physical anymore !

DB : Now, what do you feel about that explanation ?

K: I wouldn't say what I feel, I would say : the 'energy of truth' is entirely different from the 'energy of reality'.

DB : Yeah...But then, kundalini might not be the energy of truth ?

K: No, no...let's be very careful ! We said that the ( human) energy in the field of reality is both physiological and psychological. And we said truth is global – not personal and all the rest of it-...

K: I mean, couldn't we cansider kundalini as a side effect of Truth ? I mean, if you consider ( the timeless energy of) Truth, kundalini must be something more limited...

K: Of course, of course !

DB :... that cannot be the same as Truth, but it might be a combination of physiological and psychological energy, which you say that for the young man (K) were helpful ?

K: Yes. I think that's right : Truth is global and this is limited.

DB : Yeah...

K: And nobody need go through all that (very painful?) bussiness to see this !

DB : Yeah...

K: ''Columbus discovered America'', that's a good ( holistic ?) example.

DB : Now, if we take the energy of Truth, which is universal – not personal...

K: I must take it easy...because I've 'never' talked about this ! And my body becomes a little tense...May I get up for a few minutes ?

DB : Of course. I may also stretch my legs...

( Intermission )

K: You see, sir, there's something much more than all this...

DB : Yes... ?

K: Would you accept the word 'mystery' ?

DB : Yes...

K: There's 'something' of which you cannot talk about – which doesn't mean that it doesn't exist ...(silent pause) I think 'Truth' is (like) that !

DB : Hmm... ?

K: Every religion has talked about that ( sacred?) 'mystery'...Judaism said The Nameless, the Hindus have called it Brahman...while the Christians haven't got very deeply into that matter and just called it 'God'...But there is something tremendously mysterious. And we are trying to articulate it in words...

DB : Well, not really – I think we're trying just to clear up some of the difficulties people may have when reading this...

K: If they'll ( endeavour to?) read this (as of now unprinted) book they'll go through a lot of difficulties !

DB : But I feel that anything we've done here clears up or touches this 'mystery' so that we can communicate it...

K: Now, if you as as scientist accepts that there is something 'mysterious'...

DB : Yes, but I should also say that our reason can only go so far...

K: When you touch that 'mystery', things are totally different...( Sorry, my body is shaking with (the intensity of) it! Let's calm down...) Thought can never touch that ; then what is it that is aware of that ? Why do you say there is a mystery ?

DB : That's hard to explain, but partly it's because I can see that the whole thing can be never be explained by thought – in other words...

K: ...thought cannot touch it !

DB : Yeah...

K: Then what is it that says 'there is a mystery' ? You're following sir ? You see, the Christians say there is a mystery which you cannot go beyond ; which you cannot touch – the 'saints' have said this. I'm not sure they've touched that mystery because they were 'Christians', they were worshippers of certain forms...

DB : I mean, you may say there is a 'mystery' because you don't want to penetrated deeper...

K: Yes sir, that's right...

DB : I think that to a certain extent the 'ego' makes a parody of this 'mystery' in order to protect itself . Now, in the way the ego tries to present itself as the 'ultimate mystery' and therefore if it's identifying it with the Christian teachings, it will make them 'mysterious' too, you see ? So the way I look at it is that thought has perhaps a hint of that mystery and then it tries to capture it for itself by imitation …

K: Quite, quite . Now would you a scientist - logically trained, logically trained to use your words - would you admit that there is such thing as a 'mystery' ?

DB : Yes, thought can probe and extend itself in so many ways, but there is always a 'horizon'...

K: I'm beginning again : the core of that (K) boy's existence was not conditioned, though at the peripheral levels it was...

DB : Yes... ?

K: But basically he was not.

DB : Can we go slowly here, as that raises the question of others who are conditioned ; could we understand a little what that means ?

K: 'Conditioned' means ( identifying with one's?) greed, envy...

DB : Yeah, so it's not clear what the difference is...

K: I think there is a difference. You see, if you read that ( Mary Lutyens biographical ) book - he wasn't able to read it until quite late - one of Dr Besant suffering or misery was  when she said to me : - I don't know if it's put in the book- 'You're not interested in anything – not in women, not in what I'm doing – you're only interested in clothes and cars...

DB : (Laughs)

K: ...and what's going to happen ? You follow sir, it was a tremendous problem to her because she invested everything in that boy ! But the 'ordinary' conditioning goes very deep. Right ?

DB : Yes but it's not clear why it didn't get so deep ?

K: His education, his environment, his parents, his society – everything makes the 'ordinary' conditioning...

DB : So somehow....

K: ... all this ( time-binding conditioning) didn't happen to that boy.

DB : Could I put it that way : it is a conditioning for self-deception, for falsification. If someone is conditioned to deceive himself in order to sit better in society - that is the thing we have in mind ?

K:Yes, all right...

DB : That's a really deep conditioning …

K: Deep conditioning !

DB : Deeper than anything else …

K: Yes...Deceiving himself in order to fit in society - that 's the deep conditioning we see for the moment – and this didn't take place in ( the consciousness of?) that young man, so there was never such self-deception .

DB : Yes... neither was the false information which he accepted from that...

K: Yes, so there was never (in him) a 'conscious effort' to see through this...

DB : So... you skipped a few steps (of psychological conditioning) in this  including that a person conditioned in (thought's habit?) self-deception may feel compelled to seek 'truth' in order to compensate for this ?

K: A human being who is involved in self-deception... Why didn't it take place  in this case ?

DB : Because he wasn't absorbing it – the boy was somehow dulled by the environment... ?

K: By ill health...that's one of the reasons....So there was never a moment when he was overtaken by self-deception. And so he saw directly through (the veil of time?) that 'pathless land'. Right ?

DB : Yes...

K: He stated it in words – and words are not the 'thing' – so the word being thought , thought had been operating  as a function, but that perception is gone, finished !
So, truth is timeless – from moment to moment – it has no (time-binding) continuity.

DB : Yes...

K: Then, suffering in the field of reality has a meaning in the sense that if he doesn't escape , if he faces that suffering and therefore doesn't deceive himself then there's a diffent kind of energy.

DB : Yes, let's come to why this young man would have suffering even if he didn't deceive himself ? My understanding is that only someone who deceives himself would suffer...

K: He suffered physically...

DB : For having been ill... ?

K: So all this suffering would be a 'physical' suffering. Hmm ? Then what's the question ?

DB : I'm trying to find what was at the origin of this suffering?And therefore the ( kundalini?) energy was released becaused he stayed with the physical suffering and didn't escape ?

K: That's right. But... that's only a part of it! So...what next ?
You see sir , to me all this is so simple. Because if you see Truth and act, everything becomes ( elementary & ) logical !

DB : But it raises the ( esoterical ?) question : What is it that 'sees' ? If thought becoming consciously aware of its incorrectnes , then it will behave differently...

K: Yes...

DB : But... what is it that 'sees' ?

K; Wait a minute sir. ( In a nutshell :) he sees that 'truth is a pathless land' and comes to tell you what he has seen - the expression of thought & words. But what he has seen is not the 'word' …

DB : Yes it is a (timeless ) 'perception' – but there may be a 'resistance' to ( the actual truth of?) this perception ( entering into the field of) thought. Let's say that most people who heard this statement ( made back in 1929) either didn't understand it, or rejected it...

K: Ah, of course ; but in him, in that chap there was no ( thought-created ?) resistance.

DB : Yes, but now we'll have to consider those who ( actually ) have this ( mental) resistance ...

K: They will reject it (ASAP?)

DB ; Yes, but now it seems that the whole world has (achieved psychological immunity to ( the direct perception of Truth?) …

K: So they reject it !

DB : Yes, but the question is : is there a way to go beyond this resistance ?

K: If I resist (seeing the inward truth of) what you are saying, then what can you do with me ? You say to me, 'truth is a pathless land' and I am attached to my Guru...

DB : You are attached to what is false …

K; To what is false, yes, but still what you have said, which is ( a timeless glimpse of ) Truth, has entered my consciousness.

DB : Yes... ?

K: It is a 'seed' (of Truth) that is operating ( germinating?) in me ! And ( eventually?) that 'seed' is going to do something !

DB : It 'may do' something...

K: No !

DB : But I mean, everybody who is (reading or) listening to this is going to do something ?

K: It 'must' ! Like Lenin said something which affected the ( consciousness of the ) world...

DB : Yes, but the effect was not exactly...

K: Of course, because he (eventually) treated human beings as insects (numbers?) and so on... Now if the 'seed of truth' is planted in me it also must operate ! It must grow, it must function, it has a life of its own...

DB: Well, many millions of people may have read or heard
what you said and... it may seem that a large number of them haven't understood. Do you feel that they are all going eventually to see it?

K: No, but it's going on, they are worried about it, they ask,
"What does he mean by this?" The seed is functioning, it's
growing, it isn't dead. Similarly, you can say something false and that also operates too (but only for a limited time?)... .

DB: Yes, but now we have a struggle between those two ( truth & false) and we cannot foresee the outcome of this struggle; we can't be sure of its the outcome.

K: You plant in me the seed that, "Truth is a pathless land" and he (the local guru?) comes along and says "There is a (shortcut?) way to truth, follow me". One is false, one is true. They are both imbedded in my consciousness. So there is a struggle going on (in listener's consciousness?) . Causing more confusion, more suffering, more misery and a great deal of suffering, (Hint : ) if I am sensitive enough. But if I don't escape from (facing) that suffering what takes place?

DB: If you don't escape, then it's clear what will take place :
you will have the ( intelligent) energy to see what is true.

K: That's right.

DB: But now, let's take the people who do (enjoy) escaping it, who seem to be in a very large number...

K: They are out, quite right, millions are out (better luck next life???) . But still, the struggle is going on.

DB: Yes, but it is creating confusion...

K: That is what they are all doing.

DB: Yes, but we don't know the outcome of that.

K: Oh yes, we do; dictatorship, deterioration...

DB: I know, it gets worse. But now we want to get it clear. In
a few people who face their ( existential?) suffering, the energy comes to perceive the truth. And in a large number, who escape from suffering, things get worse.

K: And ( being more ambitious?) they 'rule the world'...

DB: Now, what is the way out of that?

K: They said (in the past) there is no answer to that, get away from it.

DB: That also won't do.

K: They said you can't solve this problem, go away into ( a quiet retreat in ) the mountains or join a monastery, become a monk - but that doesn't solve anything. All one can do is to go on 'shouting'...

DB: Yes, but we don't know the outcome of the 'shouting'... ?

K: If you 'shout' in order to get an ( thought-projected?) outcome, it is not the right kind of shouting.

DB: Yes, that is the situation.

K: So, you can just point out. If nobody wants to pay attention it's their business, you go on. Now I want to go further. You see, there is a 'mystery'; thought cannot touch it... What is the point of it?

DB: Of the 'mystery'? I think you could see it like this: that if
you look into the field of thought and reason and so on, you finally see it has no clear foundation. Therefore you see that "What Is" must be beyond that. "What Is" is the mystery.

K: Yes...

DB: I mean, you cannot live ( forever enclosed?) in this field of reality and thought, because of all we said.

K: No, of course not. But I don't mind, I have no such fears.

DB: You don't mind them because you have ( achieved a high degree of ) psychological security. Even if something happens to you, it does not deeply affect you.

K: I live in the field of reality, that is my (everyday) life. There I am consciously aware, and I struggle to keep going in that field. And I can never touch the 'other' (timeless dimension of Truth ) . I cannot say, "I can touch it'' – since there is no "I" to touch it when you really touch it. But you ( Mr X) say to me, "There is a mystery which passes all understanding" because to you it is an actuality, not a self-deception. It is Truth to you. And what you say makes a tremendous (subliminal?) impression on me, because of your integrity. You point it out to me and I would like to get it. Somehow I must get it. What is your ( educational?) responsibility to me? You say : words cannot touch it, thought cannot touch it, no ( personal) action can touch it, only the action of Truth...And perhaps it will give you a feeling of that. And because I am (inwardly ) a miserable human being, would like to get some of that. But you also say, "Truth is a pathless land, so don't follow anybody". I am consciously aware of the limitation of thought, of all the confusion, misery, and all the rest, but somehow I can't get out of it. Is your Compassion going to help me - because an (essential) part of that extraordinary 'mystery' is Compassion. Will your compassion help me? - obviously not (on demand?) . So, all you say to me (as parting words?) is: put order in the field of reality.

DB: Yes, and not escape ( directly facing your ) suffering...

K: If you actually put order into the field of reality then
something will take place. But.... also you say to me, it must be done instantly...
Is it that ( practically?) everybody ( has the subliminal ) feeling that there is a great mystery in life ?

DB: I should think that probably everyone is born with that sense and it gradually gets dimmed through the conditioning.

K: But has he got the vitality, or the intensity, to put away all
that? You see, does that mean that "God is always within you"

DB: There is some sort of intimation of this. I think probably many children have it more strongly when they are young.

K: Do you think that modern children (still) have that?

DB: I don't know about them, probably less. You see, living (trapped?) in a modern city must have a bad effect - the lack of contact with nature; I think any contact with nature gives that sense of Life's mystery.

K: Yes.

DB: If you look at the starry sky at night, for example.

K: But you see the scientists are explaining the stars.... Cousteau explains the ocean; everything is being explained away .

DB: Yes, the feeling has been created that in principle we
could know everything.

K: So ( the cultural emphasis given to ) knowledge is becoming the curse. You see, ( the holistic?) perception
has nothing to do with one's knowledge. Truth and knowledge don't go together; knowledge cannot contain the immensity of Life's Mystery.

DB: Yes... if we start with a little child, he may place the mystery in some part that he doesn't know. He could put it at the bottom of the ocean, or somewhere else outside, far away from where he is, but then he learns that people have been everywhere. Therefore the whole thing is made to appear non-existent.

K: Yes... everything becomes so superficial.

DB: That's the (spiritual?) danger of our modern age, that it gives the ( false) appearance that we know more or less everything, or that we have a general idea of the scheme, if not of the details...

K: May I ask, do you as a trained scientist get the feeling of this Mystery ?

DB: I think so, yes. But I've always had some of that, you see.

K: But in talking now, do you get more intensity of it? Not (just) because I feel it intensely , but in talking about this 'something' we open a door.

DB: Yes. I think that my particular conditioning has a great
deal in it to resist this notion of mystery, although I think that
science is now going in a wrong direction...

K: But even (some holistically minded ?) scientists admit that there is a mystery.

DB: Yes, to some extent...but the general view is that it could be eventually cleared up.

K: Cleared up in the sense of 'explained away' ?

DB: My own feeling is that every particular scientific
explanation will be a certain part of this 'field of reality', and
therefore will not clear away the mystery.

K: I listen to you explaining everything (on TV?) and then I say, "There is nothing".

DB: That is the main point of distinguishing between Truth and reality, because we could say, in the field of reality we may explain everything more and more broadly and there is a limitless progress possible. But the essence (of Life's mystery ) is not explained...

K: Being a very serious person, perhaps you had an intimation of it long ago. But talking now, do you feel it's no longer an intimation but a 'truth'?

DB: I think it's been a truth for some time now. Because it's
implied in what we have been doing here.

K: Seeing the (inward) truth of that mystery makes the mind completely empty, doesn't it ? It's completely silent. Or because it is silent, the truth of that mystery 'is' (present ?). When the mind is completely silent, not in use, not pre-meditated, and because it has put order in the field of reality it is free from that confusion, there is a certain silence... but it is not the real ( depth of) Silence - the mind is just moving away from ( the time-binding cloud of?) confusion.
Realizing ( in one's homework meditation?) that this is not the true silence and not moving away from that realization but staying with it, means negating that ( relative silence?) which (establishing a holistically friendly?) order (in the field of reality) has produced.

DB: You're saying that first you produce order (in the field of reality) . Why is it necessary to produce the order first and then negate it?

K: To negate it is Silence.

DB: Which is of that ( Universal) order. This is why it has to take place in that sequence...

K: Realizing that is not true silence I negate the 'false
silence' (of reality) So in the negation of that silence, this total (inner peace &) silence opens the door to That. That is, when the mind, with all the confusion, is (inwarly as ) 'nothing' - not a thing – then perhaps there is the ( Presence of the?) Other. So, as we're coming to ( Truth's ) Silence, we'd better stop now....

DB : Yes...

K: Could we continue next by taking one 'actuality' after the other  ? Suffering, death, fear and penetrate that as deeply as we can ? Would that be worthwhile ?

DB : It's worth the try...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 241 - 270 of 305 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.)