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

K The essential Texts


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 75 in total
Fri, 21 Dec 2012 #1
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

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

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Sep 2013 #2
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

THE ULTIMATE (READER FRIENDLY EDITED) K-BOHM DIALOGUES

FIRST K - BOHM CONVERSATION 'ON INTELLIGENCE' (1972)

Bohm: About 'intelligence', I always like to look up the ( semantic) origin of a word as well as its ( accepted) meaning. It is very interesting; it comes from 'inter' and 'legere' which means 'To read between the lines'. So it seems to me that you could say that thought is like the printed information in a book and that our 'intelligence' has to read the 'meaning' of it. And there is also another ( modern) meaning given in the dictionary which is: mental alertness.
Now, as you have said before, intelligence is not ( the child of ?) thought. You say thought takes place in the old brain, it is a physical process taking place, electrochemical; it has been amply proved by science that all thought is essentially a physical, chemical, electrical process. Would you say there is a real difference between the physical (process of thought) and intelligence?

Krishnamurti: Are we saying that thought is matter?

Bohm: I would rather call it a 'material process'.

Krishnamurti: All right; thought is a material process (in the brain) , and what is the relationship between that and intelligence? Is intelligence the product of thought?

Bohm: And this raises many questions which I think would be important for ( the future of ?) science.

Krishnamurti: Is intelligence the product of thought?

Bohm: I think it is not, simply because ( the self-centred process of ?) thought is 'mechanical' while intelligence is not.

Krishnamurti: So thought is measurable; intelligence is not. And how does it happen that this intelligence comes into existence? Is the cessation of thought the awakening of intelligence? Or is it that intelligence, being independent of thought, and therefore not of time, exists always?

Bohm: That raises many difficult questions. I would like to put this in a framework that one could connect with any scientific views that may exist. So you're saying that 'intelligence' may be there always.

Krishnamurti:I am asking - is it there always? You see the ancient Hindus, had the theory, that 'Intelligence', or 'Brahman', always exists (in us ?) and is only covered over by illusion, by matter, by all kinds of mischievous things created by ( the material residues of ?) thought.

Bohm: Yes; but we don't actually see the eternal existence of Intelligence.

Krishnamurti: They say 'peel off' all this and ( if you're lucky ?) 'that' thing is there. So their assumption is that it existed always.

Bohm: There is a difficulty in this word 'always', because 'always' implies (a continuity in ?) time.

Krishnamurti:That is right.

Bohm: And that is just the trouble. ( Any continuity in ?) time is (created by our own ?) thought - 'time' is of the order of thought. In other words thought has invented time, and in fact thought 'is' (creating its own continuity in ?) time. The way I see it is, that thought may sweep over the 'whole of time' in one moment; but the same (process of ) thought is not noticing that itself is changing (in time) for reasons that have to do with some physical movements in the brain; therefore...

Krishnamurti:...they depend on environment and all kinds of things.

Bohm: So as thought changes with time and you begin to think, everything is changing, I change, everything changes, and one begins to think "I am in time". When time is extended it becomes vast, the past before I was, further and further back and also forward in the future, so you begin to say time is the essence of all, time conquers everything. First the child may think, "I am eternal", then he begins to understand that he is (physically existing ?) in time. The general view is, that 'time' is the essence of our existence. This is not only the 'common sense' view but also the 'scientific' view. It is very hard to give up such a view because it is ( based on ) an intense conditioning. It is stronger even than the conditioning of the (perceptive division between the ?) 'observer' and the 'observed'.

Krishnamurti: Yes, quite. Are we saying that thought is time, thought is measurable, thought can change, modify, expand? But intelligence is of a different quality altogether?

Bohm: Yes, of different 'order'. If we think of the past and the future, we think of the past as becoming the future; but you can see that that can't be, that it is just thought. Yet one gets the impression that past and future are present together and there is movement in another way; that the whole pattern is moving.

Krishnamurti: The whole pattern is moving...

Bohm: But I can't picture 'how' it moves. In other words it is moving in a perpendicular (vertical ?) direction to the direction between past and future. At first sight I'd think that this other movement is ( happening) in another (dimension of ?) time.

Krishnamurti:Yes, that is it. Is intelligence out of time and therefore not related to thought, which is a movement of ( continuity in ?) time?

Bohm: But still thought must be related to it.

Krishnamurti: Is it? I think it is unrelated.

Bohm: Unrelated? But at first sight it seems there is some relation in the sense that you distinguish between an 'intelligent thinking' and an 'unintelligent' one .

Krishnamurti: Yes, but that requires intelligence to recognize unintelligent thought.

Bohm: But when intelligence 'reads' ( between the lines of ) thought, what is the relationship? And does thought respond to intelligence? Doesn't thought change?

Krishnamurti: Let us be simple. Thought is ( generating its own ?) movement in time. Thought is 'measurable' and thought functions in the field of time. Is intelligence within the field of time?

Bohm:Well, in one sense it can't be. But the thing is not clear. First of all, thought is 'mechanical'. Secondly, in some sense there is a movement which is of a different time.

Krishnamurti: Thought is mechanical; being mechanical it can move in different directions and all the rest of it. Is intelligence mechanical? Let's put it that way.

Bohm:I would like to ask the question, what does this 'mechanicalness' mean?

Krishnamurti: Repetitive, measurable, comparative.

Bohm:I would say also 'dependent'.

Krishnamurti: Dependent, yes.

Bohm: Now, let us get it clear, intelligence cannot be dependent on any condition for its truth. But it seems that in some sense intelligence doesn't operate if the brain is not healthy.

Krishnamurti:Obviously.

Bohm: In that sense intelligence seems to depend on the (physical condition of the ?) brain.

Krishnamurti:Or is it (coming in ?) the 'quietness' of the brain?

Bohm:All right, it depends on the quietness of the brain.

Krishnamurti: Not on the ( thinking ) activity of the brain.

Bohm:There is still some relation between Intelligence and the brain. I understand this because we once discussed this question many years ago, when I raised the idea that in physics you could use a measuring instrument in two ways, the 'positive' and the 'negative' way . Like in what is called the Wheatstone bridge, where the reading you look for is a 'null' reading; a null reading indicates harmony, balance of the two sides of the whole system as it were. So if you are using the instrument 'negatively', then the non-function of the instrument is the sign that it is working right. Could we say the brain may have used thought positively to make an image of the world...

Krishnamurti: Which is one of the functions of thought...

Bohm: While the other function of thought is 'negative', which is to indicate non-harmony.

Krishnamurti: Yes, non-harmony. Let us proceed from there. Is intelligence dependent on the brain - we come to that point.

Bohm:It may be simple mechanical dependence. But there is another kind: that one can't exist without the other. If I say, "I depend on food to exist", it doesn't mean that everything I think is determined by what I eat. So I propose that intelligence depends for its existence on this brain, which can indicate non-harmony, but the brain does not have anything to do with the (qualitative content ?) of intelligence.

Krishnamurti: So, we are saying is that if the brain is not harmonious (that compassionate ) intelligence cannot function - like when the brain is hurt.

Bohm: Therefore it seems that intelligence requires the brain in order to exist (manifest ?).

Krishnamurti: But the brain is only an instrument.

Bohm: The brain doesn't create intelligence but it is an instrument which helps intelligence to function. That is it?

Krishnamurti:That's it. Now if the brain is functioning within the field of time, back and forth, negatively, positively, in any way, through that 'movement of time' can intelligence operate? Or must the (brain) instrument be quiet for the intelligence to operate?

Bohm: I would put it slightly differently: the quietness of the (thinking) instrument is (allowing ?) the operation of intelligence.

Krishnamurti: Yes, that is right. The two are not separate.

Bohm: They are one and the same. The 'non-quietness' (or disharmony ?) of the instrument is the failure of the intelligence.

Krishnamurti: That is right.

Bohm: But it could be useful to go back into questions which tend to be raised in the whole of scientific and philosophical thinking. We would ask the question: is intelligence existing independently of matter? Some ( thougtful ?) people have thought that mind and matter have some separate kind of existence. This is one question that should be considered in one way or another in order to help to make the mind quiet.

Krishnamurti: But you see, sir, will (it help if ?) thought is saying to itself, "I will be quiet in order for the awakening of intelligence". Any movement of thought is (in the field of time) time. And realizing that thought may say (subliminally ?) "I would be quiet in order to have that (intelligence) ", then 'that' is still within the field of time.

Bohm: Yes. It is still projecting.

Krishnamurti: It is projecting (an action) to capture 'that'. So realising (the tricky aspect of ?) that, how does this intelligence awaken?

Bohm: Once again the (necessary but not always sufficient ?) condition for it to awaken is the 'non-operation' of thought.

Krishnamurti: Yes.

Bohm: But even to talk about a 'condition' is (in the logic ?) of thought.

Krishnamurti: Do we agree that any movement of thought - in any direction, vertical, horizontal, in action or non-action, is still in (the field of matter and ?) time.

Bohm:Yes.

Krishnamurti: Then what is the relationship of that movement to this (non-material quality of ?) Intelligence which is not a movement, which is not of time, which is not the product of thought? Where can the two meet?

Bohm: They don't meet. But there is still some (inter-)relation.

Krishnamurti: Is there any relationship at all?

Bohm: That depends what you mean by 'relationship' ...

Krishnamurti: Being in contact with, (mutual) recognition, a feeling of being in touch with.

Bohm: Well, the word 'relationship' might mean something else. For example there is a parallel harmony of the two. That is, two things may be related without contact, but by simply 'being in harmony'.

Krishnamurti: Does this 'harmony' mean a movement of both in the same direction?

Bohm: It might also mean in some way keeping in the same order.

Krishnamurti: In the same order: same order, same direction, same depth, same intensity - all that is harmony. But can (our self-centred ?) thought ever be harmonious - thought as a 'movement', not static (theoretical) thought?

Bohm:I understand. There is that activity of thought which you abstract as static, like in geometry, that may have some harmony; but (the self-centred process of ) thought as it actually moves (in space and time ?) is always contradictory.

Krishnamurti: Therefore it has no harmony in itself. But intelligence has harmony in itself.

Bohm: I think I see the source of the confusion. We have the static products of (abstract) thought that seem to have a certain relative order and harmony. But that harmony is really the result of intelligence, at least it seems so to me. In mathematics we may get a certain relative harmony of the product of thought, even though the daily thinking (and feeling) of a mathematician is not necessarily in harmony, generally won't be in harmony. So that (order and) harmony which appears in mathematics is not perfect harmony because every form of mathematics has been proved to have some limit; that is why I call it only 'relative'. But (in this discussion) we want to go further and talk about the action. There is another phase of this question of 'time' which is the action which we generally do, in which we also seem to need time, chronological time. And that action at least should be in harmony it seems to me.

Krishnamurti: As we said, sir, thought is a 'movement' (in time) : in that movement is there harmony? If there is, then it has relationship with the 'other'. If there is no harmony and therefore it is in contradiction, conflict, then it has no relationship with the 'other'.

Bohm:Then would you say that we could do entirely without thought?

Krishnamurti: I would put it round the other way. Intelligence uses thought.

Bohm:All right. But how can it use something which is disharmonious?

Krishnamurti: In the sense of using (the rational function of) thought which is contradictory, which is not harmonious, to create things in the world.

Bohm: But still, there must be harmony in some other sense, in what is done with thought, in what we have just described.

Krishnamurti: Let us go slowly in this. Can we first put into words what is intelligence, what is not intelligence? Or is that impossible because words are (belonging to the field of ?) thought, time, measure and all the rest of it?

Bohm: We can't put it in words. We are trying to point. Can we say that thought can function as the 'pointer' which points beyond the domain of time, to intelligence, and then its own contradiction doesn't matter.

Krishnamurti: So thought's (useful role here ) is that of a pointer. The content (which is being pointed to ?) is intelligence.
Can we put this thing entirely differently? May we say that thought is barren ( sterile ?) ?

Bohm: When it moves by itself, yes.

Krishnamurti: Which is, mechanical and all the rest of it. Thought is a pointer, but without ( a quality of compassionate ?) intelligence the pointer has no (intrinsical) value.

Bohm: Could we say that our intelligence reads the pointer? If the pointer has nobody to see it then the pointer doesn't point.

Krishnamurti: Quite. So intelligence is necessary. Without that this has no meaning at all.

Bohm: Could we now say that without ( the perceptive clarity of this ?) intelligence thought points in a very confused way?

Krishnamurti: Yes, confused, in irrelevant ways.

Bohm: Irrelevant, meaningless and so on. Then with intelligence it begins to point in another way. But then the function of thinking and intelligence seem to fuse in a common function.

Krishnamurti: Yes. So we are asking: what is the (right) action (of thought) in relationship to intelligence? In the carrying out of that action thought is necessary.

Bohm: Well, thinking is necessary and commonly our thinking points obviously towards the matterial world. But here it seems to point both ways, back towards intelligence as well. One of the questions which always comes up is: should we say that intelligence and matter are merely a distinction of the same (but more fundamental) thing, or are they different? Are they really separate? It seems that they ought to be a distinction in the same thing.

Krishnamurti: I think they are separate, they are distinct.

Bohm: But don't they have a common source?

Krishnamurti: That is just it. Matter and intelligence, have they a common source? (Long pause.) I think they have, bound to have.

Bohm: Otherwise there could be no possible harmony, of course.

Krishnamurti: But you see, (at this point in our evolution ?) thought has conquered the world. You understand?

Bohm: It dominates the world ?

Krishnamurti: Thought, the intellect, dominates the world. And therefore ( a compassionate ?) intelligence has very little place here. When one thing dominates, the other must be subservient.

Bohm: One asks, how that came about ?

Krishnamurti: That is fairly simple.

Bohm: What would you say?

Krishnamurti: I would say thought (the thinking brain ?) must have security; it is seeking security in all its movements (activities) .

Bohm: Yes...

Krishnamurti: But intelligence is not seeking (any temporal ?) security. It has no (need for such ) security. The idea of security doesn't exist in intelligence. Intelligence is secure in itself.

Bohm: Yes, but how did it come about that intelligence allowed itself to be dominated?

Krishnamurti: Oh, that is fairly clear. First of all ( for reasons of ) physical security: security in relationship, security in action, security (then pleasure & material comfort ?)

Bohm: But that is an illusion of security.

Krishnamurti: Illusion of security, of course.

Bohm: You could say that thought got out of hand and ceased to allow itself to be ordered by intelligence, or it ceased to stay in harmony with intelligence, and began to move on its own accord.

Krishnamurti: On its own accord.

Bohm: Seeking (to constantly optimise its ) security and pleasure and so on.

Krishnamurti: Now, physical security, is necessary and therefore physical existence, physical pleasures, physical well-being became tremendously important.

Bohm: Yes, I was thinking about that a little. If you go back to the animal, then there is instinctive response towards pleasure and security would be all right. But now when thought comes in, it can dazzle the instinct and produce all sorts of (psychological) glamour, more pleasure, more security. And our human instincts are not intelligent enough to deal with the complexity of thought, therefore thought went wrong, because it excited the instincts and the instincts (blindly) demanded more.

Krishnamurti: Quite. So (our self-centred ) thought really created a world of illusion, miasma, confusion, and put away ( any compassion and?) intelligence.

Bohm: Well, and as we said before, that has made the brain very chaotic and noisy and intelligence is the silence of the brain; therefore the noisy brain is not intelligent.

Krishnamurti: The noisy brain is not intelligent, quite right!

Bohm: Well that more or less explains the origin of the thing.

Krishnamurti: We are trying to find out what is the (right) relationship, in (terms of) action, of thought and intelligence. Because everything (in our life ) is action or inaction. And (the self-centred) thought does produce chaotic action, fragmentary action.

Bohm: When it is not ordered by intelligence.

Krishnamurti: Of course. And it is not ordered (guided ?) by intelligence in the way we all live. It has a fragmented activity, therefore it is not an activity of a wholeness. The activity of wholeness is intelligence.

Bohm: Intelligence also has to understand the (fragmentary) activity of thought.

Krishnamurti:Yes, we said that.

Bohm: Now when intelligence understands the activity of thought, then our thought is different in its operation?

Krishnamurti: Yes, obviously. That is, if thought has created ( the idea of ) nationalism as a means of (physical ) security and when one sees the fallacy of it, the seeing of the fallacy of it is intelligence. Thought then creates a different kind of world in which nationalism doesn't exist.

Bohm: Yes. That is very clear. Intelligence sees the falseness of what is going on. Now that falseness stops. When thought is free of this falseness it is different. Then it begins to carry out the implication of intelligence.

Krishnamurti: Therefore thought has a place.

Bohm: That is very interesting because you could say thought is never actually controlled or dominated by intelligence, thought always moves on its own. But in the light of intelligence, when the falseness is seen, then thought moves parallel or in harmony with intelligence. That would suggest that intelligence and thought have this common origin and that they are two ways of calling attention to a greater whole.

Krishnamurti: Sir, one can see how politically, religiously, psychologically, thought has created a world of tremendous contradiction, fragmentation, and thought's 'intelligence' that is the product of this confusion tries to bring order in this confusion - not the (same) intelligence which sees the falseness of all this. You see, I can be terribly 'intelligent' although I am chaotic.

Bohm: Well, in some ways.

Krishnamurti: That is what is happening in the modern world.
After all, we are concerned with ( the everyday) living, a life in which ( the authentic) intelligence operates - an intelligence which is not of time, which is not of the order of thought. Now ( suppose that ) a human being wants to live a different kind of life. ( His existence ) is dominated by thought, his thought is always functioning in measurement, in comparison, in conflict. He asks, "How am I to be free of all this in order to be intelligent?"
How can the 'I' be the instrument of this intelligence?

Bohm: Obviously it can't be, because this ( entity identified with the movement of ) thought in time is the essence of unintelligence.

Krishnamurti: But one is thinking in terms of 'I' all the time.

Bohm: Yes. That is thought projecting some sort of 'image' of what intelligence is, and trying to achieve it.

Krishnamurti: Therefore I would say that ( this movement of ) thought must be completely still for the awakening of 'that' . There can't be (simultaneously) an (ongoing) movement of ( self-centred) thought and yet the awakening of 'that'.

Bohm: That is clear on the (intellectual) level. We can consider thought to be actually 'mechanical' and this may be seen on one level, but still this mechanism continues through ( recycling its) instincts and pleasure and fear and so on. The intelligence therefore has to come to grips with this ( deeper) question of the pleasures, the fears, the desires, which make thought continue.

Krishnamurti: Yes.

Bohm: And you see there is always this ( potential ) trap, which is to form a mental concept (model) or 'image' of it, which is partial.

Krishnamurti: Of course. So as a ( serious) human being I would be concerned only with this: I know how confused, contradictory, disharmonious one's life is and is it possible to change that (inner condition) so that intelligence can function in my life, so that I live without disharmony, so that the pointer, the direction is guided by intelligence?
You see, sir, that is why the religious people, instead of using the word ( Universal) 'intelligence' , have used the word ( All mighty ?) 'God'.

Bohm: What is the advantage of that?

Krishnamurti: Because it came from his primitive fears, fear of thunder, fear of nature, and gradually out of that grew the idea that there is a 'Super-Father'.

Bohm: But that is still (our good old) brain functioning.

Krishnamurti: Of course. They said have faith in God, then God will operate through you.

Bohm: It is a sort of metaphor, if you said, God is (synonimous with the universal) ) Intelligence. But most people didn't take it as a metaphor.

Krishnamurti: Of course not, that's a terrific image.

Bohm:Yes... But if 'God' means that which is immeasurable, beyond thought...

Krishnamurti: ...it is unnameable, it is immeasurable, therefore don't have an image.

Bohm: Then 'That' (universal intelligence) will (have a chance to ?) operate within the measurable ?

Krishnamurti: Yes. What I am trying to convey is, that man's (intuitive ?) desire for this Intelligence, through ( our evolution in ) time, has created this image of 'God'. And by having faith in that image of God, Jesus, Krishna, or whatever it is, I hope that there will be harmony in my life.

Bohm: And this sort of image because it is so 'total' produces an overriding desire, urge; that is, it overrides rationality.

Krishnamurti: It overrides our rationality, everything.

Bohm: Everything.

Krishnamurti: You heard the other day ( on TV) what the archbishops and bishops were saying - that only Jesus matters, nothing else matters.

Bohm: But it is the same movement when pleasure overrides our rationality.

Krishnamurti: Of course, of course. Fear and pleasure.

Bohm: They override; no (reasonable ) proportion can be established.

Krishnamurti: Yes, what I am trying to say is: you see the ( consciousness of the) whole world is conditioned (to think) this way.

Bohm: Yes, but the question is: what is this 'world' which is conditioned this way? If we take this world as objectively existent, then we have fallen into the same trap. That is, this whole ( real) world is both the cause and the effect of this way of thinking.

Krishnamurti: That is right.

Bohm: And this way of thinking is disharmony and chaos and unintelligence and so on. That is what our trouble has always been; people have developed technology and weapons and other things in terms of some limited intelligence, which is (finally) serving some highly unintelligent purposes.

Krishnamurti: Yes, that is just it.

Bohm: For thousands of years that has been going on. Then of course I think a reaction tends to arise that is all much too big - in other words it is a vast thing, ( stretched) over time and space.

Krishnamurti: But this sense of (inner) harmony is really very simple, extraordinarily simple, and because it is so (universal and) 'simple' it can function in the most complex fields of existence .
Let us go back. We said the 'source' is common to both thought and intelligence. What is that source?

Bohm: Well that would ( definitely) be beyond 'me'.

Krishnamurti: Therefore you can't find it through ( the self-centred) thought.

Bohm: That raises the question: if you find it then what are 'you'?

Krishnamurti: 'You' ( the self-centred entity) don't exist (then) . 'You' can't exist when you are asking what is the Source. 'You' are ( the result of ) time, movement, environmental conditioning - you are all that.

Bohm: In that question the whole of this ( dualistic) division is put aside.

Krishnamurti: Absolutely. That is the point, isn't it?

Bohm: There is no time...

Krishnamurti: When the 'me' enters there is division: so deliberately in understanding the whole of what we have been talking about, I put away the 'me' altogether.

Bohm: But that sounds like a ( verbal) contradiction.

Krishnamurti: 'I' can't put it away. It takes place. Then what is the source? Can it ever be named? For instance the Jewish religious feeling is that It is not nameable: you don't name it, you can't talk about it, you can't touch it. You can only look. And the Hindus and others said the same thing in different words. The Christians have 'tripped themselves up' over this 'image' of Jesus, and have never gone to (see) the ( Un-nameable) Source of It (within themselves ?) .

Bohm: That is a complex question because they were trying to synthesize (in Christianism) several philosophies.

Krishnamurti: Yes, of course. Because after all Christianity came out of Judea.

Bohm: And Greece and Asia...

Krishnamurti: Now I want to get back at this: what is the Source? Can ( the dualistic process of ) thought find it? And thought is born from that source; and intelligence is also born from that source. It is like two streams (of consciousness ?) moving in different directions.

Bohm: Would you say matter is also born from that ( innermost ?) Source, more generally?

Krishnamurti: Of course.

Bohm: I mean the whole universe. But then that Source is beyond the universe.

Krishnamurti: Of course. Now what is that (common source ?) ? Could we put it this way? Thought is energy, so is intelligence.

Bohm: So is matter.
Krishnamurti: Thought, matter, is energy. Intelligence is also energy. ( However, the energy of human ?) thought is confused, polluted, dividing itself, fragmenting itself. And 'this' (common source) is not. This is not polluted. It cannot divide itself as 'my intelligence' and 'your intelligence'. It is intelligence, it is not divisible. Now it has sprung from a source of energy which has divided itself.

Bohm: Why has it divided itself?

Krishnamurti: For physical (survivalistic) reasons, for comfort, for existence, you know all the rest of it.

Bohm: To maintain ( and protect) the physical existence. So a part of intelligence has been changed in such a way as to help to maintain our physical existence.

Krishnamurti: Yes.

Bohm: It has developed in a certain way.

Krishnamurti: And gone on in that way. But both are energy. So there is only one ( inner source of ) energy.

Bohm: Yes, they are different forms of energy. There are many analogies to this in physics: light is ordinarily a very complex wave motion, infinitely complex, but in the laser it can be made to move all together in a very simple and harmonious way.

Krishnamurti: So there is only ( pure) energy, which is the source.

Bohm: Would you say that energy is a kind of movement?

Krishnamurti: No, it is ( Intelligent ?) energy. The moment it is a movement it goes off into this field of thought.

Bohm: We have to clarify this notion of energy. I have also looked up this word in a dictionary ( it comes from the Greek) "To work within."

Krishnamurti: Yes. I was (meditating ?) about this yesterday - I realized the Source is ( in) there, uncontaminated, non-movement, untouched by thought, it is (in) there. From that these two are born. Why are they born at all?

Bohm: One was necessary for survival.

Krishnamurti:That is all. So, in survival this (Compassionate & Loving Intelligent energy ?) has been denied, or put aside in its wholeness.
What I am trying to get at is this: as a ( decent and serious) human being living in this world with all the chaos ( violence) and suffering, and all the rest of it, can the ( meditative ?) human mind touch that Source in which the two divisions don't exist? And because it has touched this Source, because it has no ( inner) division, it can operate ( in the field of reality) without the sense of division. I don't know if I am conveying this?

Bohm: But how is it possible for the human mind not to touch the source? Why does it not touch the source?

Krishnamurti: Because we are ( inwardly) consumed ( fascinated by the inventions of ) thought, by the cleverness of thought, by the ( illusions generated by the ) movement of thought.

Bohm: Yes. I think this brings us to the question of life and death, because that is one of the things that gets in the way. This is also related to survival.

Krishnamurti: Because of thought and its desire for security, it has created ( the frightening image of ?) death as something separate from itself.

Bohm: Yes, that may be the key point. Thought has constructed itself (subliminally ?) as an instrument for ( assuring its own ) survival, not to die. Now therefore...

Krishnamurti: What it has done, it has created ( the image of ?) 'immortality' ( in Jesus, or in this or that).

Bohm: Thought cannot possibly ( stand still and ?) contemplate its own death. So it always projects something else, some other broader point of view from which it seems to look at it. Even if anybody tries to imagine that he is dead, then he is still imagining that he is alive and looking at himself as dead. You can always complicate this in all sorts of theories and religions and so on; but it seems to be built into thought that it cannot possibly consider death properly.

Krishnamurti: It cannot. It means ending itself.

Bohm: That is very interesting. Suppose we take the death of the body, which we see outwardly; the physical organism dies, it loses its energy and therefore it falls apart.

Krishnamurti: It is really that the body is the ( material) 'instrument' of the energy.

Bohm: So let us say the energy ceases to imbue the body and therefore the body no longer has any 'wholeness'. You could say that with thought also; the energy in some ways goes to thought (to the thinking brain ?) , as to the body. Would that make sense?

Krishnamurti: That is right.
Bohm: You have often used the phrase: "The mind dies to the whole of thought." That way of putting it is puzzling at first, because you would think it was thought that should 'die'.

Krishnamurti: Quite, quite.

Bohm: But now you are saying that it is the mind that dies, or the energy that dies to thought. The nearest I can see to what that means is, that when thought is working it is invested with a certain energy by the 'mind' or the 'intelligence'; and when thought is no longer relevant, then the energy goes and thought is like a "dead" organism.

Krishnamurti: That is right.

Bohm: Now it is very hard for the ( thinking ) mind to accept this, because the comparison between thought and the organism seems so poor, because thought is insubstantial and the organism is substantial. So the death of the organism seems something far more than the death of thought. Now this is a point that is not clear. Would you say that in the death of thought we have the essence of the death of the organism as well?

Krishnamurti: Obviously.

Bohm: Although it is on a small scale, as it were, it is of the same nature?

Krishnamurti: Yes. As we said, there is energy in both, and thought in its movement has created this energy, 'is' this energy, and thought cannot see itself die.

Bohm: It has no way of conceiving its own death.

Krishnamurti: Therefore it escapes from death.

Bohm: Well, it gives itself the illusion.

Krishnamurti: Illusion of course. And it has created the illusion of (its own) 'immortality' or a state beyond death, a projection of its own desire for its own continuity.

Bohm: Well, that is one thing, that thought may have begun by desiring the continuity of the organism.

Krishnamurti: Yes, that is right, and then gone on beyond it.

Bohm: Gone beyond that, to desire its own continuity. That was the mistake, that was where it went wrong.

Krishnamurti: Yes, went wrong. It saw the organism as 'itself'.

Bohm: It felt itself to be not merely an extension, but the essence of the physical organism. At first thought is functioning merely in the organism and then thought begins to present itself as the essence of the organism.

Krishnamurti: That's right.

Bohm: Then thought begins to desire its own immortality.

Krishnamurti: And thought itself knows, is very well aware that it is not immortal.

Bohm: It knows it only outwardly, though. I mean, it knows it as an outward fact.

Krishnamurti: Now my next question, observing all this, is: can the mind keep the purity of the original source? The original pristine clarity of that energy which is not touched by the corruption of thought, by thought at all? I don't know if I am conveying it?

Bohm: The question is clear.

Krishnamurti: Can the mind do it? Can the mind ever discover that?

Bohm: What is the mind?

Krishnamurti: The mind is ( the psycho-somatic ) organism, thought, the ( everyday consciousness of the ?) brain with all its memories, experiences and all that, which is all of ( the field of ?) time. And this mind says, "Can I come to That ?" It cannot. Then I say to myself, "As it cannot, I will learn how to be quiet; I will learn how to meditate in order to be quiet'. But it is still the operation of thought.
Then what is it to do? Because a human being who just lives in this disharmony (eventually must come to ?) enquire into this. And that is what we are doing. And in our enquiring, we come to this source.
Is it a ( holistic ?) perception, an insight, and has that insight nothing whatsoever to do with thought? Then what is insight? Can I invite it, cultivate it?

Bohm: You can't do any of that. But there is a kind of (integrated ?) energy that is needed.

Krishnamurti: Now, how does one come upon this insight? (Pause) We have come upon it because we denied all that.

Bohm:nYes, it is there. You can never answer that question, how you come upon anything.

Krishnamurti: I think it is fairly clear, sir. You do come upon it when you see the whole thing. So insight is the perception of the whole and the quality of a mind that "sees the whole" is not touched by thought; therefore there is perception, there is insight.

Bohm: Perhaps we will go over that more slowly. We see all the fragments: could we say the actual energy, activity, which sees those fragments is whole?

Krishnamurti: Yes, yes.

Bohm: And we don't manage ever to see the whole because...

Krishnamurti: ..we are (poorly ?) educated, and all the rest of it.

Bohm: But I mean, we wouldn't anyway see the whole as 'something'. But rather, the wholeness is the freedom in seeing all the fragments.

Krishnamurti: That is right. Freedom to see. This (perceptive) freedom doesn't exist when there are (active ?) fragments.

Bohm: That makes a 'paradox'. But the whole does not start from (puting together ?) the fragments. Once the whole operates then there are no fragments. So the 'paradox' comes from supposing that the fragments are independently real, that they exist independently of thought. Then you would say, if I suppose that the fragments are there independently of me and my thought, and then I must somehow do something about them - that would be a paradox. The whole starts from the insight that these fragments are not substantial realities. They are very insubstantial.

Krishnamurti: Insubstantial, yes.

Bohm: And therefore they don't prevent wholeness.

Krishnamurti: Quite.

Bohm: You see, one of the things that often causes confusion is that, when you put it in terms of (rational) thought, it seems that you are presented with the fragments that are real, having a substantial reality. Then you say, as long as the fragments are there, there is no wholeness so that you can't see them. But that all comes back to the one thing, the one Source.

Krishnamurti: I am sure, sir, really serious people have asked this question. They have asked it and ( those we heard from ?) tried to find an answer through thought.

Bohm: Yes, well it seems natural.

Krishnamurti: And they never saw that they were caught in thought.

Bohm: That is always the trouble. Everybody gets into this trouble: that he seems to be looking at everything, at his problems, saying, "Those are my problems, I am looking." But that 'looking' is only thinking (upon a mental model ?) , but it is confused with 'looking'. One of the confusions that arises is that if you say, 'Don't think but look !', that person feels he is already looking.

Krishnamurti: Quite. So you see, this question has arisen and they say, "All right, then I must control my thought, I must make my mind quiet so that it becomes whole, then I can see all the fragments (at once) , then I'll touch the source." But it is still the (undercover ?) operation of thought all the time.

Bohm: Yes, that means the operation of thought is "unconscious" for the most part and therefore one doesn't know it is going on. We may say consciously that "we have realized that all this has to be changed, it has to be different"...

Krishnamurti:...but the 'unconscious' (activity of thought) is still going on. Can you talk to my 'unconscious', knowing that my 'conscious' brain is going to resist you? Because you are telling me something which is revolutionary, you are telling me something which shatters my whole house which I have built so carefully, and I won't listen to you. You follow? In my instinctive (gut ?) reactions I push you away. So you realize that and say, "Look, all right, old friend, just don't bother to listen to me that way. I am going to 'talk to your unconscious' and (try to) make that unconscious see that whatever movement it does is still within the field of time and so on." So your (self-) 'conscious' mind is never in operation. When it operates it must inevitably either resist, or say, "I will accept", therefore it creates a ( major ?) conflict in itself, and all the rest of it. So can you talk to my 'unconscious'?

Bohm: You can always ask 'how ?'.

Krishnamurti: I think this is what really takes place: when you were talking to me I was not listening to your words so much. I was listening to 'you'. I was listening not to the words which you used, but to to the inward quality of your feeling which wants to tell me something. That ( inward listening) changes me, not all this verbalization. So can you talk to me about my illusions, my peculiar tendencies, without the ( self-) conscious mind interfering and saying, 'Please leave me alone!' (They have tried subliminal propaganda in advertising, projecting images quickly, so that whilst you don't really pay attention, your unconscious does, so next day you buy that particular soap! We are not doing that, it would be deadly )
( In a nutshell:) You are telling me, don't listen to me with your 'conscious' ears but listen to me with the (inner) ears that hear much deeper. That is how I listened to you this morning because I am terribly interested in the Source, as you are.
And I say, 'By Jove, we will come to that!' I caught on to it, and I am really interested in that one thing. All this is the ( verbally) 'explicable', easily understood - but to come to 'that thing' together, feel it together! You follow? I think that is 'the' way to break a conditioning, a habit, an image which I have cultivated. You talk to me about it at a level where the ( self-) 'conscious' mind is not (personally ?) interested.
Say for instance I have a certain 'conditioning'; you can point it out a dozen times, argue, see the fallacy of it, the stupidity. I still go on. I resist it, I say what shall I do in this world otherwise, and all the rest of it. But you see the truth that as long as the mind is conditioned there must be conflict and all the rest of it. So you 'penetrate' my ( self-conscious wall of ?) resistance and get to that, get the 'unconscious' (layers ) to listen to you, because the unconscious is much more subtle, much quicker. It may get frightened but it sees the (psychological) danger of fear much quicker than the conscious mind does. As when I was walking in California high in the mountains: I was looking at birds and trees and watching, and I heard a rattler and I jumped. It was the 'unconscious' (part of mind ?) that made the body jump; I saw the rattler when I jumped, it was two or three feet away, it could have struck me very easily. If the conscious brain had been operating it would have taken several seconds.

Bohm: To reach the unconscious you have to have an action which doesn't directly appeal to the 'conscious'.

Krishnamurti: Yes. That is affection, that is love. When you talk to my waking consciousness, it is hard, clever, subtle, brittle. And you say, all right, keep your own little stuff, and you penetrate it with your look, with your affection, with all the feeling you have. That 'operates', not anything else.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 25 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 Oct 2013 #3
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

The Ending of Time SERIES

OJAI 1ST CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM 1ST APRIL, 1980

JK: Sir, (for starters ? ) I would like to ask if ( the consciousness of ?) humanity has taken a wrong turn.

DB: Well it must have done so, a long time ago, I think.

K: That is what I feel. You see, as I look at it, man has always tried to become something (other than what he was ?) inwardly.

DB: Now what did they want to become?

K: That is, (his inner) conflict has been the root of all this.

DB: If we could put ourselves in the place of the people a long time ago, how would you see that conflict?

K: Isn't it not being able to face the 'fact' and change it , but rather move to something else (outwardly) , more and more and more.

DB: Well what would you say was this 'fact' that people couldn't stay with?

K: What is the fact that people could not stay with? The Christians said, the 'original sin'. Long before thatn the Hindus have this idea of Karma...

DB: Well, whatever it was they wanted to imagine something better. And you could say that technologically they began to make techniques to make things better which made sense, and then they extended this, without knowing it, and said 'I too must become better, all of us must'.

K: Yes, inside becoming better.

DB: Well I should thing it is natural for human thought to project this goal of becoming better, that it is intrinsic in the structure of thought.

K: Is it that the principle of becoming better outwardly, moved to the inside, trying to become better.

DB: Yes, well that's clear that man didn't know any reason why he shouldn't do just that. He says, if it is good to become better outwardly then why shouldn't I become better inwardly ?

K: Is (our thinking in terms of ?) 'time' the factor? Time as 'I need knowledge in order to do whatever it is - I need time for that'. The same principle applied inwardly.

DB: It is the same general idea to say that we project something better outwardly which requires time and therefore the same must be done inwardly.

K: Is 'time' the factor?

DB: One would have to ask a question here: time by itself - we don't see how it is going to cause trouble. We have to say ( that our thinking in terms of ?) time applied outwardly causes no difficulty.

K: It causes a certain amount, but the idea that inwardly I am trying to become something ( better than what I am ?) in time.

DB: Yes but if I could say that most people would say that is only natural. What is 'wrong' about becoming better in time ?

K: In that there is ( an inner) conflict.

DB: O.K. So we see that then.

K: Obviously when I am trying to become something (better inwardly) it is a constant battle (with oneself ?) .

DB: Can we go into that: why it ( has to be) a constant battle ?

K: Because when the principle (of becoming better in time ) is applied (inwardly) it brings about a ( dualistic ?) 'contradiction' .

DB: Yes. And the contradiction is...?

K: Between 'what is' and (the desire for ?) becoming the 'what should be'.

DB: Yes, even outwardly it would appear there is a contradiction too because we have a certain situation 'here' and we try to make it into 'something else'. So, why is it a contradiction inwardly and not outwardly ?

K: Inwardly it builds up, doesn't it, a (dualistic ?) centre, an egotistic centre.

DB: Yes, but does it do it when we do it outwardly? It seems it needn't do.

K: It needn't do.

DB: Yes. Now when we are doing it inwardly then we are trying to force ourselves to become something that we are not . And that is a fight.

K: That is a 'fact'.

DB: But it seems outwardly it needn't be a fight. Because matter will allow itself to be shaped - you know, from 'what is' to 'what it should be'.

K: Is it one's brain is so accustomed to ( the mentality of ?) conflict that one rejects any other form of living?

DB: Well that must have come later. After a while people come to the conclusion that conflict is inevitable and necessary?

K: But we are going into the origin of ( this mentality of ?) conflict. What's the origin of conflict?

DB: I think we touched on it: when we are a certain thing that is what we want to be, and then we also want to be something else, which is different and therefore we want two different things at the same time. Would that seem right?

K: I am trying to find out the origin of all this misery, confusion, conflict, struggle - what is the beginning of it? That's why I asked at the beginning: has mankind taken a wrong turn? Is the origin (the duality between ?) 'I' and 'not I'?

DB: Well, that might be getting closer. I think that is getting closer to separation between 'I' and 'not I' .

K: Yes, that's it. And the 'I' - why has mankind created this 'I', which must inevitably cause conflict? 'I' and 'you', and me better (than you), and so on.

DB: I think that was an (innocent ?) mistake made a long time ago, or as you call it a wrong turn, that again having introduced separation between various things outwardly we then, not knowing better, kept on doing the same thing inwardly . Not out of 'ill will' but simply ( by sheer ignorance or ?) not knowing better.

K: Quite, quite, quite.

DB: Not seeing ( the ultimate consequences of ?) what they were doing.

K: Is that the origin of all this?

DB: Well it is close. I am not sure that it is the origin. What do you feel?

K: I am inclined to observe that the origin is that, (the constitution of ?) the ego, the 'me', the 'I'. If there is no ego(tism) there is no problem, there is no conflict, there is no ( sense of psychological ?) 'time' - time in the sense of becoming, not becoming, being or not being.

DB: But it might be that we would still slip into whatever it was that ( hidden cause that ?) made us make the 'ego' in the first place.

K: Is it ( that the original ?) energy being so vast, limitless, has been condensed or narrowed down in the ( particular) mind, and the brain itself has become narrowed down because it couldn't contain (deal with ?) all this enormous energy - and therefore gradually narrowed down to 'me', to the 'I'.

DB: I don't quite see all the (logical) steps. You're say that this energy was very broad, very big, and the brain couldn't handle it, or it decided it couldn't handle it?

K: It couldn't handle it.

DB: But if it can't handle it, it seems as if there is no way out then?

K: Wait, wait, wait. I just want to enquire, push into it a little bit.
Why has the brain, with all its thought and so on, created this sense of 'me', Outwardly it had to be that way, the family...

DB: Well we needed a certain sense of identity to function, to know where you belong.

K: Yes, and is that the movement that has brought that in? The movement of the outer, where I had to identify with the family, the house and so on gradually became the (inner) 'me'?

DB: Yes, but I think that this ( spiritual ?) 'energy' that you were talking about also entered into it.

K: Yes, but I want to lead up to it slowly. I have got an idea inside, I'll show you a little later.

DB: Certainly what you say is right that in some way this ( identification with outer things ?) gradually strengthened, but by itself that wouldn't explain the tremendous strength that the 'ego' has. It would only be a habit then. The 'ego' becoming completely dominant required that it become the focus of the 'highest' energy, you know, of all the energy?

K: Is that it? That the brain cannot hold this vast (original) energy?

DB: Well let's say the brain is trying to control this, to 'bring it to order'.

K: Energy has no 'order'.

DB: You see if the brain feels it can't control something that is going on inside, it will try to establish ( its own) order.

K: Sir, could we say that the human brain is not just born yesterday, it is very, very old?

DB: In what sense?

K: In the sense that it has evolved.

DB: Evolved, yes, from the animal.

K: From the animal and so on.

DB: And the animal has evolved and so let's say that in the sense that this whole evolution is somehow contained ( enfolded) in the brain.

K: I want to question ( the concept of psychological ?) evolution. I understand say, from the bullock cart to the jet - I understand that ( material) evolution.

DB: Yes. But there is evidence of man developing through a series of stages - you can't question that, can you?

K: No, of course not...

DB: I mean physically it is clear that evolution has occurred in some way.

K: Physically, yes.

DB: And the brain has got larger, more complex. You may question whether 'mentally' evolution has any meaning. I understand that.

K: You see sir, I want to avoid ( the mentality of ?) time 'psychologically', you understand?

DB: Yes, I understand.

K: To me that is the (psychological ?) 'enemy'.

DB: Yes, I understand that very well.

K: Well that is something! And is that the origin of man's (psychological) misery?

DB: Well this use of time certainly. Man had to use time for a certain purpose and he misused it.

K: If I had to learn a language I must have time.

DB: But the misuse of time by extending it inwardly.

K: Inwardly, that is what I am talking about.

DB: Yes. To the essence (of our inner being) .

K: Is that the cause of man's confusion - introducing time as a means of ( spiritual ?) becoming, and becoming more and more perfect, more and more evolved, more and more loving? You follow what I mean?

DB: Well, yes I understand. Certainly if we didn't do that the whole ( ego-centric) structure would collapse.

K: Collapse, that's it.

DB: But whether there is not some other cause still, I don't know.

K: Just a minute. I want to go into that a little bit personally. To me the idea of 'tomorrow' doesn't exist psychologically.

DB: Right...

K: That is, 'time' is a movement either inwardly or outwardly. Right?

DB: You mean the 'psychological' time?

K: Yes, the 'psychological' time and time 'outwardly'.

DB: Yes. And a certain relation between those two.

K: Now if the 'psychological' time doesn't exist then there is no conflict, there is no 'me', there is no 'I' which is the origin of conflict. Do you understand sir what I am trying to get at? Outwardly we evolved - ( the technology involved in ?) this microphone and so on.

DB: And also in the inward physical structure.

K: But 'psychologically' we have also moved outwardly.

DB: Yes, we have focused our life on the 'outward'. Is that what you are saying?

K: Yes. I have extended my capacities outwardly.

DB: Yes we have developed outwardly.

K: And inwardly it is the same movement as outwardly.

DB: Yes, whatever we do outwardly we do inwardly. We have developed outwardly in a certain way through time and we have adopted the same mechanism for developing our inward structure.

K: Yes, now if there is no inward movement as time, (thinking in terms of) becoming more and more, then what takes place?

DB: Yes. Well then if we say this whole movement of time ceases ...

K: Time 'ends'.

DB: Without the movement of time that the energy is (getting integrated ?) ...

K: You see (as we are now ?) the outer movement is ( pretty much ?) the same as the inward movement.

DB: Yes. Whatever you do outwardly you must do inwardly. That seems correct.

K: And it is ( actually) the same movement.

DB: Yes. It is going around and around.

K: Yes, yes, involving time. Now, if that ( inner-outer ?) movement ( of thought) ceases then what takes place? Could we put it this way: we have never touched any other movement than the outer movement.

DB: Yes, well generally anyway. We put most of our energy into the outward movements.

K: Outward, and psychologically is also (directed) outward.

DB: Well it is the ( mirror) reflection of the outward movement.

K: We think it is inward but it is actually outward - right?

DB: Yes.

K: Now if that movement ends, as it must, then is there a really inward movement - movement not in terms of time?

DB: You want to say: is there another kind of movement?

K: Yes.

DB: It still 'moves' but not in terms of time ?

K: That's right.

DB: Well, we have to go into that. By denying time you don't want to return to something static, which still is time.

K: You see one's brain has been accustomed for centuries to go 'North', let's say for instance. And it suddenly realizes that this 'going North' is ( getting entangled in ?) everlasting conflicts. As it realizes ( the danger of this ?) it now 'moves East'. In that (very change of direction ?) the brain itself is changing. Right?

DB: Well something changes, yes.

K: The (inner) quality of the brain changes.

DB: All right. It will 'wake up' to a different movement.

K: Yes, different. I have been 'going North' all my life, and if there is a stoppage from going North, but it is not going East, or South or West, then ( the ages old ?) conflict ceases. Because it is not moving in any direction.

DB: All right. So that is the key point - the 'direction' of movement. When the movement is fixed in direction, inwardly it will come to conflict. So if we say it has no fixed direction then what is it doing? Is it moving in all directions?

K: I am hesitant to talk about this a little bit. Could one say when one really comes to that state (of non-movement) , it is ( reaching) the source of all energy?

DB: Yes, as you go deeper, more inwardly.

K: This is the real inwardness: when there is no outer and no inner movement.

DB: Yes, we can deny both the outward and the inner, so that it would seem to stop movement.

K: Would that be (reaching) the source of all energy?

DB: Well, perhaps we could say that...

K: May I talk about myself a little bit? First of all, (a self-) conscious meditation is no meditation. Right?

DB: What do you mean ?

K: Is there a meditation which is not 'premeditated'? Which is not the ego trying to become something 'negatively' or 'positively'.

DB: Y Now before we go ahead could we suggest somewhat what this 'meditation' should be ?

K: I am using (the term 'unpremeditated) meditation' in the sense in which there is not a particle of ( personal effort or ?) endeavour, or a sense of trying consciously reach a level and so on.

DB: The mind is (abiding ?) simply with itself, silent.

K: That is what I want to get at.

DB: Not looking for anything.

K: You see I don't 'meditate' in the normal sense of the word. What happens with me is that I wake up meditating.

DB: In that state.

K: And one morning, one night in Rishi Valley I woke up - a series of incidents had taken place (in my) meditation for some days - I woke up in the middle of the night, - I hesitate to say this because it sounds extravagant and rather childish- the Source of all Energy had been reached. And that had an extraordinary effect on the brain, and also physically. Sorry to talk about myself but I don't mind now (since ?) I am in it.
And literally there was no sense of division as "the world" and "me" and "That" - only this sense of tremendous Source of Energy. I don't know if I am conveying it.

DB: So the brain was in contact with this Source of Energy?

K: Yes. Now, 'coming down to earth', as I have been talking for sixty years, I'd like other (people ?) to 'reach' this - you understand what I am saying? Because ( in its light ?) all our problems are resolved, political, religious, every problem is resolved because it is pure energy from the very beginning of time.
Now how is one to say, 'This way leads to a complete sense of peace, love and all that'? Suppose you have come to that point and your brain itself is throbbing with it, how would you help me? Not with words, how would you help me to come to That?

DB: Yes.

K: My brain, not mine, the human brain has evolved. Evolution implies time and it can only think and live in time. Now for it to deny (its conditioning of ?) time is leading to a tremendous activity of 'having no problems'. Any problem that arises, any question is immediately solved. It has no duration of a problem.

DB: Well is this sustained? Is this situation sustained or is it for that period (of Grace ) ?

K: It is sustained, obviously, otherwise there is no point in it. It is not sporadic, intermittent and all that. Now how are you to 'open the door', how are you to help me to see, 'Look, we have been going in the wrong direction, there is only another (inner dimension of ?) 'non-movement', and if that takes place, you follow, everything will be correct.'

DB: Well it is hard to know beforehand if everything is going to be correct. But ( reaching ?) that ( 'non-moving' dimension of ?) 'movement' would have value anyway. Certainly it should make a big difference.

K: Sir, let's go back to what we began with. That is, has (the consciousness of ?) mankind taken a 'wrong turn', psychologically ?

DB: Yes, we went into that in various ways.

K: Can that 'wrong turn' be completely reversed? Or stopped? Say, my brain is so accustomed to this evolutionary idea, can that brain realize suddenly (that inwardly ?) there is no such thing as 'time'?

DB: Yes. I think it would be untrue to say the human mind evolved in time.
And I think you are implying that the 'mind' is not originating in the brain. Is that so? The brain is perhaps an instrument of the mind?

K:... (of ) the mind. And the mind is not time.

DB: You mean that it does not evolve with the brain ?

K: Sounds odd, doesn't it?

DB: It would sound odd to (the modern) person not used to it, but in the past people used to accept this idea quite easily.

K: The mind not being of time, and the brain being of time - is that the origin of conflict?

DB: Well, we have to see why their (dual nature ) produces conflict. It is not clear to say even that the brain is of time, but rather it has developed in such a way that time is in it.

K: Yes, that is what I meant.

DB: It has evolved in time so it has 'time' within it.

K: Yes, (its thinking in terms of ?) 'time' is part of it.

DB: It has become part of its (thinking) structure. And now however the 'mind' operates without time, the brain is not able to do it.

K: You see, that would mean that God is (already) in man('s consciousness ?) and this (Mind of ?) God can only operate if the brain is quiet, if the brain is not caught in time.

DB: Well, I wasn't meaning that. I was saying that the brain having a (mental infra-) structure of time is not able to respond properly to the 'mind'. That's really what seems to be involved there.

K: Can the human brain itself 'see' (the fact that) that it is caught in time and as long as it is moving in that direction its ( state of inner ) conflict is endless? You follow what I am saying?

DB: Yes. Now does the brain 'see' this ?

K: Yes, has the brain the capacity to see that what it is doing now, caught in time, in that process there is no end to conflict ?

DB: Yes. Wouldn't you say the human brain is not totally caught in time it can awaken and 'see' ?

K: That means, is there a part of the brain which is not of time ?

DB: Not (completely) caught in time. Some (dormant ?) function.

K: Can one say that?

DB: I don't know...

K: That means that the human brain, not being conditioned by time completely, so there is a part of the brain...

DB: Well not (necessarily ) a 'part', but rather the brain now functions dominated by ( thinking in terms of ?) time but that doesn't necessarily mean that it couldn't shift. The general tendency now is for time to dominate the brain.

K: Yes. That is, can the brain dominated by time not be subservient to it?

DB: That's right. In that moment it comes out of (its internal process of ?) 'time'. And it is dominated (by time) only when you 'give it time' : (the ordinary functioning of our ) thinking which takes time is dominated but anything (really) fast is not dominated.

K: Yes, that's right. (So, to recap) the human brain which has been used to (its psychological continuity in ?) time, can it see that in that process there is no end to conflict, can it see this? What is the (triggering ?) factor that will make the brain see the way it has gone is not ( psychologically ?) correct - and what will make it suddenly realize that it is totally mischievous? You follow what I am saying? What will make the brain realize this (existential impasse ?) ?

DB: I think that the (traditional ) brain is resisting such a (radical) realization.

K: Of course, of course. Because it is used to that (way of functioning) , for centuries. How will you make the brain realize (the truth of ?) this fact? You see (serious people) have tried, you must have talked to many people, they have tried fasting, no sex, austerity, poverty, chastity in the real sense, purity, having a mind that is absolutely correct; they have tried going away by themselves; they have tried everything practically that man has invented, but none of them have succeeded (or... we never heard of those who did ?) .

DB: Well it is clear that everyone of those is an attempt to break (through) the process of (self-)becoming.

K: Yes, that's right. So it means denying completely all that.

DB: You see, to go further (in this attempt ) I think one has to deny the very notion of 'time' in the sense of looking forward to the 'future', and (relying on our psychological experience of the ) past.

K: That's just it sir, that's just it. ( The 'psychological' process of ) time is (our own ?) 'enemy'. (So the right inner action is to :) meet it and go beyond it.

DB: ( Or at least ?) to deny that that is an independent existence. You see I think we have the impression that (the Stream of ?) Time exists independently of us and we are (drifting /swimming/rowing/ speed-boating in ?) this (Psychic ?) Stream and therefore it would seem absurd for us to deny it because that is all what we are, you see ?

K: Yes, quite, quite. So it means really 'moving away' (or 'stepping away' ?) from everything that man has put together as a means of (reaching ) Timelessness.

DB: Yes, well we can say that none of the methods that man uses outwardly are going to since (following ) any 'method' implies time.

K: Of course, of course. It is so simple, clear.

DB: You start out immediately by setting up the whole structure of time, the entire notion of time is presupposed before you start.

K: Yes, quite. How will you or 'X' talk to a man who is caught in time and will resist it, fight it, he says, there is no other way, and so on, how will you convey this to him?

DB: I think that unless that person has looked at this, you know, and gone into it, you are not likely to convey it at all...

K: So, as that cannot be conveyed through words, then what is a man to do?
Would you (for starters ?) suggest him/her to resolve a (developping) problem immediately as it arises - one has to go into that because if you can't resolve it immediately, later on you may do the most foolish things.

DB: Well you may even think you are (actively working at ) solving it...

K: Yes, yes. You may do the most foolish things or think you have resolved it.

DB: Because you can get the sense of the 'immediate' from time, from thought because thought can also give the sense of 'now'.

K: Not allow time. Suppose I have a problem, any problem, it doesn't matter, a psychological problem: can the mind resolve it immediately? Not deceive myself, not resist it - you understand, all that. To face it and end it.

DB: Well, with a psychological problem, that is the only way. Otherwise we would be caught in the very source of the problem.

K: Of course. Would that activity end the 'psychological' time we are talking about.
DB: If we could bring this immediate action to bear on what you call the (central) problem, which is the 'self'.

K: Sir, one is greedy, or envious, to end immediately that greed or attachment, and so on, there are a dozen things. Will that not give a clue to the ending of time?

DB: Yes, because any action which is not immediate has already brought ( its own extension ?) in time.

K: Yes, yes.

DB: The ending of time is (supposed to be ?) immediate - right?

K: Immediate, of course. Would this (approach) point out the wrong turn that mankind has taken?

DB: Yes, to bring in time and thought ( the thinking in terms of time ?) to mediate psychologically. If man feels something is out of order (inwardly ) then he then brings in the notion of time and the thought of becoming, and that creates endless problems.

K: Would that 'open the door' to this sense that (thinking in terms of ?) time has no place inwardly? Which means sir that thought has no place except outwardly.

DB: If you are going to say thought is a process which is involved in time...

K: Of course it is. Wouldn't you say (that our self-centred) thinking is a process of time? Because it is based on (our past) experience, knowledge, memory and (their active ) response, which is the whole (inner process of ?) of time.

DB: We have often (in the past dialogues) discussed a different kind of thinking that would be a (natural) response to intelligence. But thought as we have generally known it is ( functioning ) in time.

K: Thought as we know it now is of time.

DB: Yes. Well possibly people may have known it a little differently from time to time. But I would say 'generally speaking'.

K: Generally speaking as of (what it is ) now, thought is ( a process of ) time.

DB: Yes, it is based on the notion of 'time'.

K: Yes, but to me (thought ) itself 'is' time.

DB: Thought itself creates (its own continuity in ?) time, right.

K: Does it mean when there is no (more) time there is no thought?

DB: There may be another kind of thinking which is not dominated by time, you know, because you were saying you could still use thought to do things.

K: Of course sir, that's so.

DB: So, we have to be careful not to say that thought is necessarily dominated by time.

K: I have to go from here to my house, that needs time, thinking, all the rest of it. I am not talking of that kind of time.

DB: So let's make it more clear that you are talking of the thought whose content is of the order of the mind.

K: Yes, yes.

DB: And we will say that that thought clearly is (creating its own continuity in ?) time.

K: Yes. Would you say that (all our) knowledge is (the result of ?) time?

DB: Well in so far as has been known and may project into the future and so on.

K: Of course, knowledge is (both gathered and used in ?) time. Through ( all his evolution in ?) time, man has acquired knowledge - science, mathematics, philosophy. Then I read philosophy, I read this or that. So the whole movement of knowledge is (an active process ?) involved in time. See what that means ?

DB: I think you say that man has taken a wrong turn and got caught in this kind of knowledge, which is dominated by time because it is 'psychological' (personal ?) knowledge.

K: Yes. So he lives in time.

DB: He lives in time because he has attempted to produce a knowledge of the nature of the mind. Now you're saying that there is no real knowledge of the mind. Would you put it that way?

K: The moment you use the word 'knowledge', it implies time.

DB: Yes, and you are saying the 'mind' is not of time.

K: No. When you 'end time', in the (inner) sense we are talking about, there is no knowledge as (accumulated ?) experience.

DB: Well people say, 'I learn by experience, I go through something.'

K: Which is becoming.

DB: Well let's get it clear. You see, there is a kind of experience you get in your job, which becomes skill and perception.

K: Of course, that is quite different sir.

DB: So we are saying there is no point in having experience of the mind, of (gathering) 'psychological' experience.

K: Yes, let's put it that way. That is, (our) 'psychological' experience is in time.

DB: Yes, and it has no point (inwardly) because you cannot say, 'As I become skilled in my job, I will become skilled in my mind'.

K: Right.

DB: In a certain way you do become skilled in thinking but not become skilled fundamentally.

K: Yes. So, where this is leading to? Suppose I realize knowledge is time, the brain realizes it, and sees the importance of time in a certain direction, and no value of (thinking in terms of ?) time at all in another direction. It is not a contradiction, right?

DB: O.K. I would put it that the value of time is limited to a certain direction or area and beyond that it has no value.

K: Yes. So what is the mind or the brain without ( its psychological ?) knowledge?

DB: Without 'psychological' knowledge to organize itself ?

K: Yes. Is then the mind, the brain (living in) disorder? Certainly not.

DB: No. But I think many people being faced with this (possibility) , might feel that there would be (a total inner) disorder.

K: Of course.

DB: I think that what you are saying is the notion of controlling yourself psychologically has no meaning.

K: So the knowledge of the 'me' is ( belonging to the field of ?) time.

DB: Yes, I understand that the whole totality of that knowledge, is 'me', is time.

K: Yes. So then what is our existence without this (psychological knowledge ) ? There is no time, there is no knowledge in the psychological sense, no sense of 'me', then what is there?

DB: Well, it seems there would be nothing.

K: Nothing.

DB: It would be rather dull! It ( that 'no-thingess' ?) is either frightening or it is all right.

K: But if one has come (inwardly ?) to that point (of 'nothing'-ness ?) what is there? Would you say because there is 'no thing' it is ( one with ?) everything?

DB: Yes, I know that. That is true, it has all. So far as a 'thing' is limited and this is not a 'thing' because there are no limits. I mean at least it has everything in potential.

K: Wait sir. If it is nothing and so it is everything, that 'everything' is energy.

DB: Yes. The ground of everything is energy.

K: Of course. And what is the source of this thing? Or is there no source at all of energy? There is only energy.

DB: Energy just 'is'. There is no need for a source.

K: The fact of it is, if there is nothing therefore there is everything and all that is cosmic energy. But what started this energy?

DB: Well the Christians have an idea of what they call the Godhead, which is the very source of God too.

K: And also the Hindus have this. I mean the Arabic world and the Jewish world also have this. Are we going against all that?

DB: It sounds similar in some ways. Many things like this have been said over the ages. It is a familiar notion, yes.

K: Then is one just living in emptiness?

DB: Well, you must make that clearer.

K: Does it then mean there is only the organism living, which is a part of energy? There is no 'K' at all, except the Passport, the name and form, otherwise nothing. And therefore everything and therefore all energy. Has mankind journeyed through millennia to come to this: that I am nothing and therefore I am everything and all energy?

DB: Well, that it might be a new beginning.

K: Wait, wait, that is what I wanted you to begin with. The ending of all this, the ending of 'time' we will call it briefly, is that there is a new beginning. What is that? Because this seems so utterly futile for a moment: I am all energy and just the shell exists, and time has ended. It seems so...

DB: I understand that if you stop there...

K: Yes. So the ending is a new beginning. What is that (new beginning ?)

DB: There could be a movement ( in a different dimension) which had no time.

K: That is why I want to make it clear...

DB: Yes but it is hard to express. It is a movement that has not the order of time...

K: Yes. So we will use the word '(new) beginning' and deprive it of (the connotations of ?) time.

DB: Yes, because ending and beginning are of no special time. In fact they can be any time or no time.

K: No time.

DB: That's right, no time.

K: What is then happening? Not to 'me', not to 'my' brain.

DB: You mean to (the 'mind' ?) energy?

K: Sir, we have said when one denies 'time' there is nothing. After this long talk - nothing means everything. Everything is energy. And we stopped there. But that isn't the end. Right?

DB: No.

K: That is not the end (of our journey ) . Then what is going on? Is that (joining ) Creation?

DB: Well (it might be helpful ) if we discuss what we mean by Creation.

K: We will do it... tomorrow

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 25 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Jan 2014 #4
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

OJAI 2ND CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM 2ND APRIL, 1980

K: As we said yesterday, when you come to that ( reference ?) point ( in meditation ?) when there is nothing and there is everything, and all that is energy, and when time ends, is there a beginning of something totally new? That's where we came up to yesterday.
So what is there when all (the inner movement ) 'time' ends?

DB: Well we were discussing yesterday that essentially it is the possibility of Creation.

K: That is, is something 'new' taking place ? We are trying to find out what happens when the 'I' (the self-consciousness ?) , which is ( formed through ?) time, has completely come to an end. I believe the Buddha is supposed to have said, 'Nirvana' and the Hindus call it 'Moksha'. I don't know if the Christians called it 'Heaven' ...

DB: The Christian mystics have had some similar...

K: So, in cleansing of the mind of the (psychological) accumulations of time, which is the essence of the 'me', what takes place?
As we said in another discussion, then there is only the 'mind'.

DB: Yes, but we left the question somewhat unsettled because we had to ask what is meant by nature, if there is only mind, because nature seems somewhat independent.

K: But we also said all the universe is the (creation of the ?) Mind.

DB: The universal mind ?

K: If the particular mind has come to an end, then there is only the Mind, the Universal Mind. And is there something beyond the cosmic order, mind?

DB: Are you saying that the Mind ( Intelligence ?) of the Universe, that Mind that has created nature has an order that is not merely just going around mechanically? It has some deeper meaning ?

K: That is what we are trying to find out.

DB: You are bringing in the whole universe as well as mankind. What is the source of this perception?

K: To put it very simply: division has come to an end. Right? The division created by time, created by thought, created by this education and so on and so on, all that, because it has ended, the 'other' is obvious,

DB: You mean without the (inner) division ( brought by time ?) then the 'other' is there to be perceived ?

K: Not to be perceived, it is there.

DB: But then how do you come to be aware that 'it is there'?

K: Would you say it is not (a matter of) I perceive it, or that it is perceived.

DB: No. It is.

K: It 'is'.

DB: You could almost say that 'It' is saying it. In some sense you seem to be suggesting that 'it' is what is saying.

K: Yes. I didn't want to (say) it - I am glad you put it like that!
So, where are we now?

DB: Well we say that the Universe is alive, as it were, it is (an Intelligent ) Mind and we are part of it.

K: We can only say we are part of it when there is no 'I' .

DB: No division ?

K: No division. I would like to push it a little further, which is: is there something beyond all this ?

DB: Beyond the energy, you mean?

K: Yes. We said (that beyond the 'I' consciousness there is an inner state of ?) 'no-thingness' and that no-thingness is (containing ) everything and so it is the 'total' energy. It is an undiluted, pure, uncorrupted (Mind) energy - right ? Is there 'something' beyond that?

DB: Could we say this 'something beyond' is the Ground of the whole (Creation ?) . You are saying that all this (Mind and matter ?) emerges from an inward 'ground'?

K: (To recap:) We said that desire and thought are part of the 'I', which is time and all that. When that is completely ended then there is absolutely nothing and therefore that is the (Mind of the ?) universe, that (inner) 'emptiness' which is full of energy. We can put a stop there for the time being .

DB: Yes, because we haven't yet seen the necessity for going beyond the energy, you see.

K: I think it is necessary.

DB: Yes, why is it necessary?

K: Why is it necessary? Tentatively: there is something in us that is operating, there is something in us much 'greater'. But how can we talk about it? You see energy exists only when there is emptiness. Now beyond that 'emptiness'...

DB: Are you trying to suggest that there is that which is beyond the emptiness, the (Creative ?) Ground of the emptiness?

K: Yes.

DB: Would that be something in the nature of a 'substance'?

K: Could we use the word (timeless ?) 'quality'? We have not been caught in any illusions so far. Right? And can we keep that same kind of 'watchfulness' in which there is no illusion for 'That' which is beyond emptiness to 'come down to earth' - in the sense to be communicated ?

DB: Well, why hasn't it come down until now ?

K: Why hasn't it come down? Has man been ever free from the 'I'?

DB: No, well not generally speaking, no.

K: No. And It demands that the 'I' ( the self-identified consciousness) ends.

DB: I think we could look at it this way: that the 'ego' becomes an illusion of that (timeless) substance.

K: Yes, the ego is substance, quite right.

DB: And therefore That (other) substance seems to be...

K:... untouchable.
DB: But that ego is an illusion of true substance. You see the mind tries to create some illusion of that substance.

K: That is an illusion, why do you relate it to the Other?

DB: In the sense that if the mind thinks it already has this (timeless) substance then it will not be open to It.

K: Of course, of course. Can 'That' thing ever be put into words?

DB: Well, if anything can be properly perceived then after a while the words come to communicate it.

K: Yes, but can That (Ground of Creation ?) be 'perceived' and therefore communicable?

DB: This 'thing' beyond emptiness, is that still living?

K: Living, yes. Oh yes.

DB: And intelligent?

K: I don't want to use those (much abused ?) words.

DB: They are too limited?

K: Living, intelligence, love, compassion, it is all too limited.
Sir, you and I are sitting here, we have come to a point and there is "That (timeless) thing" which perhaps later on might be put into words, without any illusion. We have come up to a certain point and we are saying there is something still more - but is it palpable, is it something that the mind can capture? You follow?

DB: Yes. Are you saying it is not?

K: I don't think it is possible for the mind to 'capture' it, grasp it, understand, for the mind to look at it even. Sir, you are a (well known ?) scientist, you have examined the atom and so on and so on, don't you, when you have examined all that, don't you feel there is something much more beyond all that?

DB: You can always feel there is more beyond that but it doesn't tell you what it is.

K: No, but you know there is something much more.

DB: It is clear that whatever we know it is limited and there must be more beyond.

K: How can that communicate with you so that you, with your scientific knowledge, with your brain capacity and so on, can you enter it (experientially ) ? Sir, (in the context of meditation ) what is beyond emptiness? Is it silence? Or is that silence part of emptiness?

DB: Yes, I should say that.

K: I should say that too. If it is not silence, could we say it is something absolute? You understand?

DB: It would have to be something totally independent, that is what 'absolute' really means - it doesn't depend on anything.

K: Yes, sir. You are getting somewhere near it.

DB: Entirely self moving, as it were, self active.

K: Yes. Would you say everything has a cause and 'That' has no cause at all?

DB: You see this notion is already an old one. This notion has been developed by Aristotle, that this 'absolute' is the cause of itself.

K: You see the moment you said Aristotle, it is not that. How shall we get at this? Probably it can never be put into words.

DB: You are saying this 'absolute' must be put into words, yet any attempt to put it into words makes it relative.

K: You see being ignorant of what other people have said - Aristotle and the Buddha and so on- has its own advantage, in the sense that the mind is not coloured by other people's ideas, it is not caught in other people's statements. And that is part of our (cultural) conditioning and so on, all that. Now to go beyond all that...

DB: Then whatever it is, is beyond emptiness and silence.

K: Sir, emptiness and silence and energy is immense, it is really immeasurable. But there is 'something greater' than that.

DB: Whatever you say - carry whatever you say to silence, energy, whatever, there is always room logically for something beyond that.

K: No, no, no. There is nothing beyond.

DB: Well, this point is not clear...

K: There is nothing beyond it. I stick to that. Not dogmatically or obstinately. I feel 'that' (Ground of Creation) is the beginning and the ending of everything. Sir, just in ordinary parlance, the ending and the beginning are the same. Right?

DB: You mean in the sense that you are using the 'beginning' of everything as the 'ending' of everything?

K: Yes. You wouldn't say that?

DB: Yes, if we take the Ground from which it comes ,it must be the (same) Ground to which it falls.

K: That's right. That is the Ground upon which everything exists, space...

DB:... energy...

K:... energy, emptiness, silence, all that is on that - not 'ground', you understand?

DB: No, 'Ground' is just a metaphor.

K: There is nothing beyond It.

DB: This Ground has no cause.

K: No, no, that is the beginning and the ending . Does that convey anything to you?

DB: Yes, well I think that that conveys something.

K: Would you say further: (that Creation-wise ?) there is no beginning and no ending ? The implications are enormous. Is 'death' the complete ending of everything?

DB: We began with emptiness is the ending of 'things', isn't it?

K: Yes, yes. That emptiness is the 'death' (the ending ?) of everything the human mind has cultivated (in time) .

DB: Right...

K: That 'emptiness' is not the product of the particular mind.

DB: Yes, it is the universal mind.

K: That emptiness can only exist when there is the death (ending) of the particular.

DB: Yes, the particular goes, but then you are saying that in this Ground that death goes further?

K: Oh yes, oh yes.

DB: So you are saying the ending of the particular, the death of the particular is the emptiness, which is universal. Now are you going to say that the universal (Mind) also 'dies'?

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

DB: (Returning ?) into the Ground ?

K: After all, I am not an astronomer, but everything in the universe is exploding (or imploding ?) dying.

DB: I think we are moving: first the particular (mind) dies (disolves ?) into the emptiness and then comes the Universal (Mind).

K: And that dies too.

DB: Into the Ground (of Creation) , right?

K: Yes, sir.

DB: So you could say this Ground is neither born not dies.

K: That's right. Everything is (created and is ?) dying, except That. Does this convey anything?

DB: Yes. Well it is out of That that everything arises and into which it dies.

K: So, That has no beginning and no ending.

DB: Yes. Well what would it mean to talk of the ending of the Universal (Mind) ?

K: Why should it have a 'meaning' if it is happening? But what has that to do with (the consciousness of ) man, who is going through a terrible time ?

DB: Well let's say that man feels he must have some contact with the ultimate Ground in his life otherwise there is no meaning.

K: But it hasn't. That Ground hasn't any (interactive ?) relationship with man.

DB: Apparently not...

K: No....he is doing everything contrary to the ground.

DB: Yes, that is why life has no (deeper) meaning for ( the modern ) man.

K: So as an ordinary man I say, all right you two have talked marvellously, it sounds excellent, but what has that got to do with me? How will your talk help me to get over my (everyday) ugliness?

DB: Well I would go back and say we went into this logically starting from the suffering of mankind, showing it originates in a 'wrong turning' and that leads inevitably...

K: Yes but help me get to the right turn. Put me on the right path. And to that you (sternly ?) say, please don't become anything (psychologically-wise ) . You see, sir?

DB: Right. What is the problem then?

K: He won't even 'listen' to you.

DB: Yes, well now it seems to me that it is necessary for the one who sees this to find out what is the barrier to listening.

K: Obviously you can see what is the barrier. The 'I'.

DB: Yes but I meant more deeply so that...
K: More deeply, all your (self-centred) thoughts, deep attachments and all that is in your way. If you can't leave all this (behind) then you will have no relationship with That. But man doesn't (really) want to leave all that.

DB: I understand that. What he wants is the result of the way he is thinking.

K: What he wants is some comfortable, an easy way of living without any trouble, and he can't have even that. There must be some (communicating) relationship of the Ground with this ordinary man otherwise what is the meaning of living?

DB: Yes, well that is what I was trying to say before, that without that (contact) there is no (deeper) meaning and then people just invent (buy and sell ?) meanings.

K: Of course. Billy Graham does it everyday (...on TV) .

DB: Well even going back, the ancient religions have said similar things that God is the ground and they say seek God, you know...

K: Ah no, this isn't 'God'.

DB: Yes, it is not 'God' but it is playing the same role - you could say that 'God' is an attempt to put this notion a bit too personally perhaps ?

K: Yes. Give them hope, give them faith, you follow? Make life a little more comfortable (inwardly) .

DB: Well are you asking at this point: how is this to be conveyed to the ordinary man?

K: Yes more or less. But also it is important that he should 'listen' to this.

DB: Yes, I meant exactly that.

K: You are a scientist. You are good enough to listen because we are friends. But who will listen among your (scientific ?) friends? I feel, sir, if one pursues this we will have a marvellously ordered world.

DB: Yes. And what will we do in this world?

K: Live.

DB: Yes but I mean we said something about 'creativity'.

K: Yes. And then if you had no conflict, no 'I' (no 'egotism' ?) , there is 'something else' operating.

DB: Yes, it is important to say that because the Christian idea of having a perfection may seem rather boring because there is nothing to do.
K: Sir we must continue this some other time, because it is something that has got to be 'put into orbit'.

DB: It seems impossible.

K: We have gone pretty far.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 25 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 Jan 2014 #5
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

OJAI 3RD CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM 8TH APRIL, 1980

Krishnamurti: What shall we talk about?

B: I was reading somewhere that a leading physicist said that the more we understand the universe the more pointless it seems, the less meaning it has.

And it occurred to me that in science there may be an attempt to make the material universe the 'ground' of our existence, and then it may have meaning physically but it does not have ...

K:... any other meaning, quite.

B: And the question that we might discuss is whether this Ground which we were talking about the other day, is it as indifferent to mankind, as the physical universe appears to be?

K: A good question.

B: But in the past people were more religious and felt that the ground of our existence is in something beyond matter - in God, or whatever they wished to call it. And that gave them a sense of deep meaning to the whole of our existence, which meanwhile has gone away. That is one of the difficulties of modern life, the sense that it doesn't mean anything.

K: So, how does one find out if life has a meaning beyond this? How would one set about it?

B: I was thinking about what we had been discussing the past two days the notion of some ground which is beyond matter, beyond the emptiness.
Perhaps we could clear this up: if this ground is indifferent to human beings then it would be the same as scientists' 'ground' in matter. You see the universe appears to be totally indifferent to mankind. It goes in immense vastness, it pays no attention, it may produce earthquakes and catastrophes, it might wipe us out, it essentially is not interested in mankind. It does not care whether man survives or does not survive . Now I think that people felt that God was a ground who was not indifferent to mankind. You see they may have invented it but that is what they believed. And that is what gave them possibly...

K:... a tremendous energy, quite.

B: Now I think the point would be: would this Ground be indifferent to mankind?

K: Quite. What is the relationship of this Ground to man? What is its relationship with man and man's relationship to it?

B: Yes, that is the question. Does man have some significance to it? And does it have significance to man?

K: Suppose one says it has, otherwise life has no meaning, nothing has any meaning, how would one, not prove, how would one find out? Suppose you say this ground exists, as the other day I said it. Suppose somebody, you say it, and then the next question is: what relationship has that to man? And man's relationship to it, how would you find out? How would one discover, or find out, or touch it, if the ground exists at all? If it doesn't exist then really man has no meaning at all. I mean I die and you die and we all die and what is the point of being virtuous, what is the point of being happy or unhappy, just carry on. How would you show the ground exists? In scientific terms as well as the feeling of it, the non verbal communication of it?

B: Yes, well you say 'scientific' you mean rational?

K: Rational.

B: So something that we can actually touch.

K: Yes. Not touch, sense - better than touch, sense. "Scientifically", we mean by that, rational, logical, sane, many can come to it - that it isn't just one man's assertion.

B: Yes, I think that is fair.
K: That would be scientific. I think that can be shown. Because we said from the very beginning that if half a dozen of us actually freed ourselves, etc., etc., etc. - I think it can be shown but with all things one must do it, not just verbally talk about it.
Now, (reaching) the Ground has certain demands: there must be absolute silence, absolute emptiness, which means no sense of egotism in any form. Right? Am I willing to let go all my egotism because I want to prove it, I want to show it, I want to find out if what you are saying is actually true, so am I willing - ten of us - willing to say, 'Look, complete eradication of the self'?

B: Perhaps in some sense one is willing but there may be another sense in which the willingness is not subject to your conscious effort or determination.

K: No, wait. So we go through all that: it is not ( a matter of) will, it is not desire, it is not effort. And what are the facets or the nature of the self? So we go into that. You point it out to me and I say, 'Right' - Can ten of us do it? Not be attached, not have fear, have no 'beliefs' , being absolute rational - you know - observation. I think if ten people do it any scientist will accept it. But there are no ten people.

B: I see. We have to have the thing done together publicly...

K:... that's it.

B:... so that it becomes a real fact.

K: A real fact. Now, who will do this sir? The scientists want to say that the thing is all illusory, nonsense, but there are others, 'X' says 'It is not nonsense, there is a ground.' And 'X' says, 'If you do these things it will be there.'

B: Yes. Now I think that some of the things that you say may not entirely in the beginning make sense to the person you talk with.

K: Yes, quite, because he isn't even willing to listen.

B: Yes, but also his whole ( cultural) background is against it. You see the background gives you the notion of what makes sense and what doesn't. Now if you say for example, one of the steps is not to bring in 'time'...

K: Ah, that's much more difficult.

B: Yes but that is fairly crucial.

K: I wouldn't begin with time, I would begin at the 'schoolboy level'. and say, look, do these things.

B: Well what are they? Let's go over them.

K: Observe that you have 'beliefs' ( cultural root assumptions ?) , you cling to them since they give you a sense of security and so on and so on. And that belief is an illusion, it has no reality.

B: You see scientists actually have (their own) beliefs. One will believe that this theory is right, and the other believes in that one.

K: No. I have no theories. I don't have any theories. I start at the schoolboy level by saying, Look, don't accept theories, conclusions, don't cling to your prejudices and so on and so on.' That is the starting point.

Q: You see Krishnaji if I am an open minded scientist I would also say I don't have theories. I don't see that the world which I construct for my scientific theories is also theoretical. I would call it 'fact'.

K: So we have to discuss what are facts? I would say a 'fact' is that which is happening. Actually happening. Would you agree to that?

B: Yes. But the scientists would say that what is happening is understood through theories. You see in science you do not really understand what is happening except with the aid of instruments and theories.

K: Now, wait, wait, wait. What is happening 'out there', or what is happening 'in here'.

B: All right, but let's go slowly. First what is happening out there. The instruments and theories are needed to even....

K: What are the (psychologically related ?) facts out there? There are ( countless human) conflicts, why should I have a theory about it?
And inwardly the only fact is that mankind suffers, is miserable, confused, in conflict. That is a fact. Why should I have a theory about it?

B: You must go slowly. You see if you are intending to bring in the scientists, this is to be 'scientific' so that we don't leave the scientists behind!
The scientists might say yes, psychology is the science with which we try to look inwardly, to investigate the mind. And they say biased people have had theories such as Freud, and Jung and other people - I don't know all of them. Now we have to make it clear why it has no point to make these theories.

K: Because theory prevents the direct observation of what is actually taking place.

B: So, outside it seems that theories are both necessary and useful in organizing facts about matter, outwardly and yet inwardly, psychologically they are in the way, they are no use at all.

K: Yes. What is the meaning of the word, 'theory' ?

B: Theory means a 'way of looking', a way of observing.

K: A way of observing. Can't you observe inwardly what is going on ?

B: Yes, but when we look at matter outwardly, to a certain extent we fix the observing. This appears to be necessary to study matter. Matter does not change so fast and it can be separated to some extent, and we can then make it a fairly constant way of looking at changes but not immediately, it can be held constant for a while. And we call that a 'theory'.

K: As you said, means, the actual meaning of the word 'theory' is a way of observing.

B: In Greek it has the same root as 'theatre'.

K: Now, where do we start? With an ordinary way of looking, the way of looking depending on each person - the housewife, the husband, the money-maker - what do you mean the 'way of looking'?

B: Well the same problem arose in the development of science. We began with what was called 'common sense' - the common way of looking. Then scientists discovered that this was inadequate.

K: That is what I am coming to. The 'common way of looking' is full of prejudice.

B: Yes, it is arbitrary. It depends on your ( cultural) background.

K: Yes, all that. So can I be free of my background, my prejudice?

B: When it comes to looking inwardly, the question is whether a 'theory of psychology' would be any help in doing this. The danger is that the theory itself might be a prejudice.

K: That is what I am saying. That would become a prejudice.

B: That would become a prejudice because (in terms of direct perception ?) we have nothing - we have not yet observed anything to found it on.

K: So the common (inwardly observable ?) factor is that man suffers. Right?

B: I wonder whether scientists would accept that as the most fundamental factor of man.

K: All right. Conflict?

B: Well they have argued about it.

K: Take attachment, pleasure, fear...

B: I think some (science) people might object saying we should find something more positive.

K: Which is what?
B: For example some people might have said that rationality is a common factor.

K: No, no, no. I won't call rationality a common factor. If they were rational they wouldn't be fighting each other.

B: We have to make this clear. Let's say that in the past somebody like Aristotle might have said 'rationality' is the common factor of man. Now your argument against it is that men are not generally 'rational'.

K: No, they are not.

B: Though they might be, they are not.

K: That's it.

B: So you are saying that is not a fact.

K: That's right.

B: But the reason I brought up rationality was that the very existence of science is based on the notion that rationality is common to man.The very possibility of doing science depends on people feeling that this common goal of people finding the truth is beyond personal satisfaction because even if your theory is wrong you must accept that it is wrong, though it is not gratifying. That is, it becomes very disappointing for people but they accept it, and say, 'Well, that is wrong'. They may agree that they are not very rational in private life, but they say that at least they are capable of being rational when they do scientific work. Otherwise it would be impossible to begin.

K: So outwardly in dealing with matter they are all rational.

B: At least they try to be and they are to some extent.

K: They try to be. They become irrational in their relationship with other human beings.

B: Yes. They cannot maintain it.

K: So that is the common factor.
B: Yes. O.K. It is important to bring out this point: that rationality is limited and that you say the fundamental fact is more generally they cannot be rational.

K: That's right. Now, that is a common factor. That is a fact: I, as a common human being, have been irrational, my life has been totally contradictory and so on and so on, which is irrational. Now can I as a human being change that?

B: Yes. Let's see how we could proceed from the scientific approach. Now this would raise the question, why is everybody irrational?

K: Because we have been conditioned that way. Our education, our religion, our everything.

B: Well that won't get us anywhere because it leads to more questions: how did we get conditioned and so on.

K: We can go into all that.

B: Yes, but I meant that following that line is not going to answer (experientially) . We were saying the other day that perhaps man took a wrong turning.

K: You are going back to taking the wrong turn. I think the wrong turn was taken when thought became all important.

B: Yes, and what made it all important?

K: Now let's think it out. What made human beings to enthrone thought as the only means of operation?

B: Also it would have to be made clear why thought causes all the difficulties. These are the two questions.

K: That is fairly simple - thought has been made king, supreme. And that may be the wrong turn of human beings.

B: Yes, but also thought became the equivalent of truth. You see people took thought to give truth, to give what is always true. At a certain stage that when there may be the notion that we have knowledge, which may hold in certain cases for some time, but men generalize because knowledge is always generalizing and when they got to the notion that it would be always so this gave the thought of what is true, you see. This would give thought this supreme importance.

K: Why has man given - you are asking, aren't you - why has man given thought such importance?

B: I think he has slipped into it. You see, in the beginning he did not see the danger. But then how did we slip into making thought so important?

K: Why has man given importance to thought as the supreme thing? I think that is fairly easy. Because the things I know are more important than the things I don't know - the 'things' thought has created, the images, all the rest of it.

B: Yes. It slipped into irrationality to say 'All that I know is all that is important.' But why should man have made that (silly) mistake?

K: Would you say that that mistake is made because he (instinctively) clings to the known and objects to anything unknown?

B: Well, I am asking why he was not intelligent enough to see that this...

K: Because (inwardly) we are basically irrational.
So, the 'religious' man, Mr 'X', starts (by acknowledging that) 'I am irrational, I contradict' and so on. So I will have to clear up that first, either step by step, or I can do the whole thing at one blow. Right? I ( humbly ?) accept that (inwardly) I am irrational.

B: Well there is a difficulty: if you accept you are irrational, you stop because you say how are you going to begin. Right?

K: If I accept completely that I am (inwardly) irrational - I am rational!

B: You will have to make that more clear. You see I think you could say that man has been deluding himself into believing that he is already rational.

K: I don't accept that. The (inner) fact is I am irrational. And to find the ground I must become terribly rational in my life. That's all I start with. And irrationality has been brought about by thought creating this idea of 'me' as separate from everybody else, etc., etc. So can I, being irrational, find the cause of irrationality and wipe it out? If I can't do that I cannot reach the ground which is the most rational.
(So, to recap:) Mr 'X' comes along and says (this Ground of Being) does exist. And you, the scientist, says, 'Show it.' Mr 'X' says 'I will show it to you. First become rational in your life'. Begin in here rather than out there. What would you say to all that?

B: Well...

K: This must be done without effort, without desire, without will, without any sense of persuasion, otherwise you are back in the old game.

B: So then you might as well look at the source of the whole irrationality.

K: That's it. That is what I am saying.

B: But now you have to make it clear that it really can be done, you see.

K: Oh yes, I am showing it to you. I say first recognize, see, observe, be aware - or whatever word - that you are totally irrational.

B: Well the word 'totally' will cause trouble because if you were totally irrational you couldn't even begin to talk about it, you see.

K: No, that is my question. I say you are (inwardly) totally irrational. First recognize it. Watch it. If the moment that you admit there is some part of you which is rational - right - who wants to wipe away the irrationality...

B: But there must be sufficient rationality to understand what you are talking about.

K: Yes, of course.

B: I would rather put it that you are dominated (inwardly) by your irrationality, that irrationality dominates even though there is enough rationality to discuss the question.

K: I question that.

B: You see, otherwise we couldn't even begin to talk!

K: Just a minute, a few of us begin to talk because we are willing to listen to each other, we are willing to say 'I'll set aside any conclusion I have', and so on, we are willing to 'listen' to each other.

B: That is part of rationality.

K: With us, but the vast majority are not willing to listen to us because we are concerned, serious enough to find out if the ground exists. Right? That gives us rationality to listen to each other.

B: Yes. Well listening is essential for rationality.

K: Of course. Are we saying the same thing? So can we, who are listening, be rational somewhat and begin? 'X', 'Y', 'Z', because they listen to each other, because they have become somewhat rational, therefore they are listening to each other, can say thought is the main source of this current.

B: Yes, well we have to say what is 'thought' ? How do you know you are thinking? What do you mean by thinking?
K: Thinking is the movement of memory, memory which is experience, knowledge stored up in the brain. Which you and I - we know all this.
Q: You see Krishnaji at this moment we are also thinking partly but nevertheless it seems that this kind of thinking is not just memory.
K: Oh yes, it is memory, sorry. No, no, I don't go further, I stop just here.
B: Suppose we want to have rationality which includes rational thought.
K: That is just it.
B: But rationality must include rational thought.
K: Of course.
B: Is rational thought only memory?
K: Rational thought if it is - now wait a minute, careful!
B: Yes. Right.
K: Wait a minute. If we are completely rational there is total insight. That insight uses thought and then it is rational.
B: Then it is rational.
K: My god, yes.
B: Then thought is not only memory?
K: No, no.
B: Well, I mean since it is being used by insight.
K: No, insight uses thought.
B: Yes, but what thought does is not just due to memory now.
K: Wait a minute.
B: You see, I see it this way.
K: Quite right.
B: Ordinarily thought runs on its own, it runs like a machine on its own, it is not rational.
K: Quite right.
B: But when thought is the instrument of insight then you see it would be the difference between...
K: Agreed, agreed. Then thought is not memory.
B: It is not based on memory.
K: No, not based on memory.
B: Memory is used, but it is not based on memory.
K: That's right. Then what? 'X', 'Y', 'Z', who are fairly rational, who have seen this point that thought being limited, divisive, incomplete, can never be rational.
B: Without insight.
K: That's right. Now how is 'X', 'Y', 'Z', to have insight? Which is total rationality. Not the rationality of thought.
B: It is rationality of perception, I should say. I should call it rationality of perception.
K: Perception.
B: To perceive rational order.
K: Yes, rationality of perception.
B: Then thought becomes the instrument of that, so it has the same order.
K: Now how am I to have that insight? That is the next question, isn't it? What am I to do? Or not do, to have this instant insight, immediate insight, which is not of time, which is not of memory, which has no cause - right - which is not based on reward or punishment, it is free of all that. Now how do I in discussing with 'X', 'Y', 'Z', who want to come upon the ground, how do I, how does the mind have this insight? When I say, 'I have the insight', that is wrong. Obviously. So how is it possible for a mind, which has been irrational, and has somewhat become rational, 'X', 'Y', 'Z', and that 'X','Y' 'Z', asks is it possible to have that insight? Yes it is possible to have that insight if your mind is free from time.
B: Right. Let's go slowly, because you see, let me say, that if we go back to the scientific point of view, even common sense, I think that implicitly time is taken as the ground of everything in scientific work.
K: Yes.
B: And common sense. In fact even in ancient Greek mythology you see Chronus the god of time produces his children and swallows them. That is exactly what we said about the ground, everything comes from the ground and dies to the ground. So in a way mankind began to take time already as the ground.
K: Yes.
B: Long ago, right.
K: Yes, that is right. And you come along and say time is not the ground.
B: That's right. So up until now even scientists have been looking for the ground somewhere in time, and everybody else too.
K: Yes sir, that is the whole point.
B: Now you say time is not the ground.
K: Go on, this is very interesting.
B: This of course somebody might say is nonsense but we say OK, we will stay open to that. Right?
K: No, we, 'X', 'Y', 'Z', are open to it.
B: We are going to be open to it but I am saying some people might easily dismiss it right away.
K: Of course. Science fiction writers may accept it!
B: Well they may, some of them, yes.
K: I was only joking.
B: Now if you say time is not the ground, this seems to leave us, well, let us say we don't know where we are.
K: I know where I am. We will go into it.
B: Yes.
Q: Is time the same movement as this thought which we described first?
K: Yes, time is that. Time is thought.
B: Yes, well, let's go slowly again on that because there is, as we have often said, chronological time.
K: Of course, that is simple.
B: Yes but in addition we are thinking. You see thinking takes time chronologically but in addition it projects a kind of imaginary time...
K:... which is the future
B:... which is the future, the past as we experience it.
K: Yes, that is right.
B: That time which is imagined, which is also a kind of real process of thinking.
K: Which is a fact.
B: It is a fact. It is taking time physically, to think, but we also have the time we can imagine the whole past and future.
K: Yes, which are facts.
B: So let's say that this time is not the ground, perhaps not even physically.
K: We are going to find out. We are going to find out.
B: Yes. But we feel it to be the ground because we feel that we, as the self, I as the self, exist in time. Without time there could be no me.
K: That's it.
B: I must exist in time.
K: Of course, of course.
B: Eternally being something or becoming something.
K: Becoming and being are in the field of time. Now can the mind, which has evolved through time...
Q: That is a strange statement.
K: Why?
Q: What do you mean by mind then?
K: Mind - the brain, my senses, my feeling all that is the mind.
B: The particular mind, you mean?
K: Particular mind, of course, I am talking not the mind which is - I am talking of 'X', 'Y', 'Z',s' mind. That mind has evolved through time. Right?
B: Well even its particularity depends on time.
K: Time, of course and all the rest of it. Now we are asking: can that mind be free of time to have an insight which is totally rational, which then can operate on thought, which will be rational? That thought is not based on memory. Right?
B: Right.
K: Now how am I - 'X' - 'X' says how am I to be free of time? I know I need time to go from here to there, to learn a lesson, a technique and so on. I understand that very clearly, so I am not talking about that time. I am talking about the time as becoming.
B: Or as being.
K: Of course, becoming is being. I start from being to become.
B: And being something in myself, you see.
K: Right sir.
B: Being better, being happier.
K: Yes, the whole thing - the more.
B: The more.

K: Now can my brain investigating to find out if the ground exists, can my whole mind be free of time? We have now separated time. The time which is necessary, and the time which is not necessary. That is, can my brain not function as it has always in time as (self-identified) thought? Which means can ( the self-centred process of ?) thought come to an end?

B: Well, could you make that more clear ? You see we could see that the first question is: can the brain not be dominated by the function of thought?

K: Yes, which is time.

B: Time. And then if you say this 'thought' comes to an end...

K: No, can time as (the continuity of this ?) thought come to a stop?

B: The 'psychological' time comes to a stop ?

K: Yes, I am talking of that.

B: But we will still have the (capacity of using the objective or ?) rational thought ?

K: Of course. That is understood.

B: We are discussing (the thinking related to our self-) conscious experience ?

K: And the retention of the memory of the past, as (psychological ) knowledge. Oh, yes, that can be done.

B: You really mean the memory of (the personal) experiences?

K: The memory of (the past) experiences, hurts, attachments, the whole of it. Now can that (self-sustained movement ?) come to an end? Of course it can. Now this is the (experiential check-) point: it can come to an end when the very perception asks, what is it hurt? What is damaged psychologically, the (insightful ?) perception of it is also the ending of it. Not carrying it over, which is the ( very nature of psychological ?) time. The very ending of it is the ending of time. Is that clear?
'X' is hurt, wounded from childhood, for various reasons, you know all that. And he, by listening, talking, discussing with you, realizes that the continuation of these hurts is (the psychological ) time. And to find out the Ground, this 'time' must end. So he says can my hurt end immediately ?

B: Yes, but I think there are some (missing) steps in that. You say he finds that hurt is (generating the psychological continuity of ) 'time' but the immediate experience is that (the memory of) it exists on its own.

K: Of course, Which is, I have created a (self-protective) image about myself and the 'image' is hurt but not me.

B: What do you mean by that?

K: All right. In the (process of self-) becoming, which is (the psychological) time, I have created a (self-protective) image about myself. Right?

B: Well (the process of my self-centred) thought has created that image.

K: Thought (the 'thinker' controlled thinking ?) has created the (personal or public ?) 'image' through its own experience, through education, through conditioning, (implying ) that this 'image' is separate from me. But this image is actually (part of ) me.

B: Yes.

K: But we have separated the (disposable) 'image' and the 'me', which is irrational. So in realizing that the 'image' (making mechanism) 'is' me, I have become somewhat 'rational' (inwardly) .

B: Well, that will not be clear because if a person is hurt he also feels that the image is him.

K: All right. But the moment you try to operate on (that hurt) you separate yourself.

B: So, that's your point: the first feeling is that the image 'is' me, and the second feeling is I draw back from the image in order to operate ( or upgrade) it.

K: Which is 'irrationality'.

B: Because it is not correct, eh? And that brings in time because I say it will take time to do that ( image upgrading) .

K: Quite right. So by seeing that I become rational and the (subsequent inner) action is to be free of (the image and the hurt) immediately.

B: Yes, well let's go into that. You see, the first thing is that there has been a hurt. Right? That is the 'image' I feel identified with.

K: I 'am' that.

B: But then I draw back (from the identification with the 'hurt' image) and say there must be a (better ?) 'me' who can do something.

K: Yes, who can operate on it.

B: Right. Now that takes time.

K: That 'is' time.
B: That is time, but the way I'm thinking is that 'it takes time'. Now if I don't do that, hou're saying that the hurt cannot (continue to ?) exist ?

K: That's right.

B: But in terms of common experience, this is not at all obvious...

K: First, let's go slowly into it. I am (my personal or public image is ?) hurt. That is a fact. Then there is a separation saying 'I will do something about it'.

B: The 'me' who will do something (thinks that he) is different. And he thinks about what he should do (to fix the self-protecting 'image' ?) .

K: The 'me' is different because it is (engaged in a constant ) 'becoming' (keeping pace with the times ?) .

B: Well, yes, it projects itself into the future, in achieving a different state.

K: Yes. I am getting hurt. There is a separation: the (thinking ) 'me' , which is always (updating and optimising its temporal ) becoming , says, 'I must control it. I must wipe that hurt. I must act upon it, or I will be vengeful, hurtful' - and all the rest of it. So all this movement of separation is (sustaining the thinker's continuity in ?) time.

B: Yes, we can see that better now. But there is still something that is not obvious. A person is commonly thinking that 'the hurt exists independently of me and I must do something about it'. I project into the future the better state and what I will do. So, let's try to make it clear.

K: My rationality discovers there is no separation.

B: There is no separation but the illusion that there is a separation helps to maintain the hurt.

K: That's right. Because the illusion is ( created by thinking that ) 'I am becoming'.

B: Yes. So I am hurt and I will become non hurt. Now that very thought (of self-improvement ?) maintains (both the 'me' and ?) the hurt.

K: That's right.

Q: But isn't there a (subliminal feeling of self-) separation at the moment I say, 'I am hurt'?

K: That is irrationality. The (sense of self-) separation exists already when I say 'I am hurt'.

B: Well it does, but I think that before that happens you get a kind of shock. The first thing that happens is a kind of shock, a pain or whatever which you identify with that shock and then you explain it by saying 'I am hurt' or whatever and that immediately implies the separation to do something.

K: Of course. If I am not (getting) hurt (by anybody ?) I don't know anything about separation or not separation.

Q: Well, but something might still happen to me.

K: Yes, any kind of shock. ( In a nutshell:) I am ( inwardly ) 'irrational' as long as I maintain the ('image' making mechanism that inevitably will get ) hurt and try to do something about it (update or upgrade it ?) , which is to become. Then 'irrationality' comes in.

B: Now if you don't maintain it, what happens? Suppose you say, 'OK, I won't go on with this ( self-) becoming.'

K: Ah, that is quite a different matter. Which means I am no longer observing (myself) using 'time' as a (guideline for this ) observation.

B: You could say that is not anymore 'your' way of looking. It is not 'your theory' anymore.

K: That's right.

B: Because you could say (that the idea of improving oneself in ) time is a theory which everybody adopts for psychological purposes.

K: That's right. That is a common factor, (this mentality of ?) time is the common factor of man. And we are pointing out this 'time' is an illusion.

B: 'Psychological' time ?

K: Of course, that is understood.

B: Are you saying that when we no longer approach it through ( a mentality of ?) time then the hurt does not continue?

K: Does not continue, it ends.

B: It ends...

K: Because 'you' (the one who got hurt ?) are not becoming anything.

B: In becoming you are always continuing what you are.

K: That's right. Continuing what you are, modified and...
So, we are talking about ( having an?) insight. That insight being free of time acts upon memory, and makes thought 'rational'. We said insight comes into being when there is no (psychological becoming in ?) time. Thought which is based on memory, experience, knowledge, that is the movement of time as becoming. We are talking psychologically, not the other. We are saying to be free of time implies insight. Insight being free of time, it may use thought to explain but it acts. Before action was based on thought, now when there is insight there is only (directly perceptive) action. So insight doesn't (need to ) use thought.

B: Well we have to make it clear because in certain areas of material existence it has to use thought. You see if for example you want to construct something you would use the thought which is available as to how to do it.

K: But that is not ( a total ?) insight.

B: Yes, but even so you may have to have insight in that area.

K: Partial. The scientists, the painters, the architects, the doctors, the artists and so on, they have 'partial' insight. But here we are talking of 'X', 'Y', 'Z', who are seeking the Ground, they are becoming rational and we are saying insight is without time and therefore without thoughts, and that insight is action. Because that insight is rational action is rational.

Q: Could this action involve thought?

K: Forgive me I am not making myself into an example, I am talking in all humility. When that young man in 1929 dissolved the Order (of the Star of the East ) there was no thought. He had an insight (into its fallacy ?) finished. I dissolved it. Why do we need thought?

B: But then you used some thought in dissolving the Order. Say, when to do it, how to do it.

K: That is merely for convenience, for other people and so on. But the (insightful ?)decision acts.

B: The primary action did not require thought, only that which follows.

K: That is nothing. It is like moving a cushion from here to there.

B: Yes, I understand that. The primary source of action does not involve thought. But it sort of filters through...

K: It is like a wave.

Q: Does not all your (whole way of thinking) undergo a transformation in this process?

K: Yes, of course, of course. Because insight is without time therefore the brain itself has undergone a (qualitative ?) change.

B: Yes, now could we talk about what you mean by that?

K: What time is it?

B: Yes, you see we must refer to time! It is twenty five past five.

K: I think we will have to stop for a bit here. My head is buzzing.

B: Maybe next time...

K: (To wrap it up: ) does it mean, sir, every human response must be viewed, or must enter into insight? I am jealous. Is there an insight which will cover the whole field of jealousy: envy, greed, and all that is involved, so end that jealousy. You follow? We irrational people say, step by step, get rid of jealousy, get rid of attachment, get rid of anger, get rid of this, that and the other. Which is (reiterating) the constant process of (self-) becoming. And the (total ) 'insight', which is (holistically ?) rational, wipes all that away. Right?

B: Right.

K: Is that a 'fact', in the sense 'X', 'Y', 'Z', will never again be 'jealous', never ?

B: Well, it is not clear how you could guarantee that.

K: Oh yes, I will guarantee it! We had better stop. Isn't your head aching too?

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 25 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Jan 2014 #6
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

OJAI 4TH CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM 10TH APRIL, 1980

J Krishnamurti: What will make a human being leave the way he is going and move in a totally different direction? I think that is one of our great problems, don't you?

Dr Bohm: Yes. What you say is true.

K: If one is concerned with (the future of ?) humanity, with all the things that are going on, what would be the right action that would move him out of one direction to another?

B: We have been talking about bringing about an ending to time, ending to becoming. And we said that to come into contact with the ground and through complete rationality. But now we could say that the mind is not rational.

K: Yes, we said man is basically irrational.

B: This is perhaps part of the block. If you were completely rational then we would of necessity come to this ground. Right?

K: Yes. We were having a dialogue about the ending of time. Both the scientists through investigation of matter want to find out that point, and also the religious people have endeavoured (experientially) to find out if time can stop. We went into that quite a bit and we say it is possible for a human being, who will listen, to find out through insight the ending of time. Because insight is not (based on past) memory. Memory is time, memory as experience, knowledge stored up in the brain and so on, as long as that is in operation there is no possibility of having a total insight. The artist the scientist, the musicians they all have partial insights and therefore ( inwardly) they are still time-bound. Is it possible to have a total insight? It is only possible with the ending of the 'me', because the 'me' is put together by thought, thought is time, 'me' is time - my ego, my resistance, my hurts, all that. Can that (self-identification ?) end? It is only when that ends there is total insight. Right? That is what we discovered. Right?
And we went into the question; is it possible for a human being to end totally this whole structure of the 'me'. We said yes, but very few people will listen to this because it is perhaps too frightening. And the question then arises: if the 'me' ends what is there? Just emptiness? There is no interest in that. But if one is investigating without any (expectations ?) of reward or punishment, then there is 'something', which is (universal mind ? ) energy and silence. Well, you say that is very nice, it sounds nice but it has no meaning to an ordinary man who is serious and wants to go 'beyond himself' (to transcend his condition) . And we pushed it further: is there something beyond all this ?

B: The Ground (of all Creation ) ?

K: The Ground. And the last thing, we asked : will people listen to this? To listen is (necessary ) from the very beginning of this enquiry. That is where we left off it I remember rightly.
So - what will make a human being move away from this destructive, self-centred activity? If he will move away through (the expectations for a ) reward then that is just another (ego-development) - with it goes punishment. So discard that. Then what will make you, a human being - if I may use the word 'renounce' without reward - renounce it completely? Right sir?
You see man has tried everything in this direction - fasting, self torture in various forms, abnegating himself through belief, denying himself through identification with something greater, with - so on and so on. All the religious people have tried it but the 'ego' is still there.

B: People will move away from something which has no meaning, and makes no sense, ordinarily speaking. But it seems that the perception of this fact is rejected by the mind, you see the mind is resisting it.

K: You mean to say, sir, that the human mind having lived so long in conflict refuses to move away from it?

B: It is not clear why it refuses, but it refuses to give it up. The mind is continually covering it up.

K: The philosophers and the so-called religious people have emphasized the sense of inner striving - control, make effort. Is that one of the causes why human beings refuse to let go of their way of life?

B: Well that may be. They hope by fighting or struggling they will achieve a better result. Not to give up what we have, but hope that the struggle will finally produce something better.
K: I am not quite sure if we have cleared this point: that the (prominent) intellectuals of the world have emphasized this factor of (inner) struggle (for truth ?) .

B: Well I don't know if all of them have. Many of them have - Karl Marx...

K: Yes Marx and even Bronowsky who says through acquiring more and more knowledge, more and more struggle. Is it that they have had such extraordinary influence on our minds?

B: Well I think people do that without any encouragement from intellectuals. You see struggle has been emphasized everywhere.

K: That is what I mean. Why?

B: Well in the beginning people thought it would be necessary to struggle against nature in order to live.

K: So struggling against nature has been transferred to the other?

B: Yes, that is part of it. To become brave. You must struggle against your own weakness to be a brave hunter.

K: Yes, that's it. So is it that our minds are conditioned, or shaped, or held, in this pattern?

B: Well that is certainly true but it doesn't explain why it is so extraordinarily hard to change it.

K: Because I am used to it. I am in a (high security inner ?) prison and I got used to it. So can the human mind say, all right, we have tried all this - Marx, Buddha, you follow? Everybody has pointed out something or other, we have tried, after a million years, obviously. And we are still somehow caught in that pattern, saying you must be interested, you must listen, you must do this and so on.

B: That is still time.

K: Yes. I say let's leave that area completely and look at the problem differently.

Q: The problem which is...?

K: Which is: why do I always live ( barricaded ?) in this centre of 'me, me, me'?
I have listened to all the explanations, what I should, should not do and so on and so on, can I say, all right, I will discard all that ( wordly knowledge ?) . That means I stand completely alone.

B: It seems to me that basically you are saying, leave all this (psychological ?) knowledge of mankind behind. Right?

K: Yes. Leave all that (second hand ?) knowledge and experience and explanations, that mankind has created- discard all that.

Q: But you are still left with the same mind.

K: Ah! It is not the same mind. When I discard (garbage ?) all this (second hand 'psychological' experience the inner quality of ?) my mind has changed.
And I say, perhaps I may have to look at this problem totally differently. Which is not to walk on that path at all. Discard all knowledge I have acquired.

B: In this psychological area ?

K: Psychologically, of course.

B: Since at the core (of one's being ?) knowledge is irrelevant.

K: Yes sir.

Q: But I have one question. The mind at the beginning of whatever you call man was in that position, it didn't have any knowledge.

K: No. I don't accept that. The moment it comes into being it is already formed in that. It is already caught in knowledge.

B: Well, I think it is implicit in the structure of ( our self-centred) thought.
First of all we gather knowledge about the outward, and then it would extend it to the inward into the area of psychological becoming.

K: I have listened to all this - the preachers in India, the teachers in India, the Christians, the Muslims, I have listened to all the explanations, psychological explanations, the cause, Freud, Marxist, everybody. And at the end of it I say perhaps this is a wrong way of looking at it. So now I have come to a point when I say all that (second hand) 'knowledge' (has to be ) discarded. Because that hasn't lead me anywhere - lead me in the sense that I am not free of my egocentricism.

B: It is not enough to say it hasn't worked but actually it cannot work.

K: It cannot work, because it is based on time and knowledge, which is thought. And these explanations are based on thought - acquire knowledge and so on and so on. So when I put those aside, not casually, but because I see the same pattern being repeated, repeated, repeated, different colours, different phrases, different pictures, different images - I discard all that (knowledge approach ?) totally. Instead of (stubbornly ?) going North, as I have been going for millennia, I have stopped and am going East, which means my mind has changed.

Q: Has the (temporal) structure of the 'me' gone?

K: Obviously.

Q: Without insight into it?

K: It is an insight that says, 'out', finished with this constant becoming through (gathering ) experience, knowledge, patterns, finished. I have an insight into that, therefore it falls away. And therefore the mind has broken the pattern (of living in the known ?) completely.

Now, suppose that Dr Bohm has got this insight and broken away the pattern. How could you help (educationally ?) another human being to come to that ?
Exercise the passion of this immense insight. And like a river with a great volume of water flows over the banks, in the same way that passion must move. Now, I am an ordinary human being, fairly intelligent, and I meet this 'X' ( liberated person) and I say, why won't I listen to him?

Q: I think you do listen.

K: Just go very, very slowly. 'X' comes along and says, 'Look, there is a different way of living, different, something totally new' - which means, please listen, will you listen to that ?

Q: What if there is a (subliminal ?) resistance that one does not even see ?

K: Then I will show you your resistance, by talking - you know.
What I am trying to prevent is going back to the old pattern. See it ! Then you say: 'How am I to see?' - which is (the answer of) the old pattern. Just see! 'X' refuses to enter that pattern.

Q: The pattern of explanation?

K: Knowledge, all that. He says come over, don't go back.

B: But even if you say leave all the knowledge behind, (our old addiction to ?) knowledge may take many subtle forms which you don't see. Right?

K: Of course. You are full of this insight and you have discarded all knowledge because of that. And I keep on paddling over the pool of knowledge. And you say, leave it. The moment you enter into explanations we are back into the game. And you refuse to explain. You see, explanations have been the boat on which (we expected) to cross to the 'other shore'. And the man on the other shore says there is no boat. Cross! He is asking me something impossible. Right?

B: If it doesn't happen right away, then it is impossible.

K: Absolutely. He is asking me something impossible for me to do.
( In a nutshell:) I am meeting 'X' who is immovable and absolutely refuses to enter into the game of (explanatory) words. Then what happens to me when I meet something that is completely solid, immovable, absolutely true, what happens to me? Here is a solid thing I am confronted by : I am movable, as a human being, but 'X' is immovable. The contact with it does something, it must. It is not some mystic, it is not some occult stuff and all that kind of thing, but it is simple, isn't it?

Q: Sir, X functions like a magnet, which is why everyone is now in this room. But it doesn't break anything.

K: No, because you haven't let go the ( living in the known ?) pattern. It is not 'X's' fault.

B: Well, can't we say that 'X' communicates the absolute necessity of not going on with the old pattern - you see it absolutely cannot work.

K: Yes sir, put it in your own words. All right.

B: And that ( insight ?) is immovable - is that what you mean?

K: What is working is something of a shock first, naturally. I have been moving, moving, moving, then I meet something that is immovable. 'X' is not becoming and I am becoming. And 'X' shows that becoming is painful. When I meet something like 'X' naturally there is a (spontaneous ?) response to That.
There is some danger in this (approach ) too because people have said (for centuries) when you go to the 'guru' he gives, be silent and you will receive. That's a (very fertile ground for ?) illusions, you know. Well I have said enough.

B: Could we say that when you see that this whole process of time and (gathering) knowledge won't work, then it naturally stops. Now then this leaves one more sensitive. Right?

K: Yes sir. The mind has become 'sharp'. I think the 'psychological' knowledge has made us dull (inwardly unperceptive) .

B: Yes, it has kept the brain moving in an unnecessary way. It is clear.

Q: All knowledge ?

B: Well no. You could say in some sense that knowledge needn't make you dull, but if it starts from the clarity of where we don't have this knowledge at the core...

K: Yes sir. You remember we said too in our discussion, the Ground (of Creation) is not knowledge.

B: You see, the first thing (this dropping of all 'psychological' knowledge does ?) is that it creates (an inner ?) emptiness.

K: Yes sir, that's it.

B: But not immediately the Ground. So the main point, which could communicate it, is to see that knowledge in all its forms, subtle and obvious, cannot solve the 'psychological' problem, it can only make it worse. But then there is another (intelligent ?) energy which is involved.

K: You see now what is happening? If any psychological trouble arises I go to a psychologist who will tell me what to do. Everything around me is being organized (in terms of specialised knowledge ?) and is making me more and more and more helpless.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 25 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Jan 2014 #7
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

OJAI 5TH CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM 12TH APRIL, 1980

Dr Bohm: We raised several questions after these discussions. One was the nature of this Ground that we discussed, whether we could come to It and whether It has any interest in ( the fate of ?) human beings. And also we discussed the possibility that there could be a change in the physical behaviour of the brain.

K: Is this Ground of Being an idea or a philosophic concept? Or it is something 'absolute' in the sense that there is nothing beyond it?

B: How can you tell that there is nothing beyond it?

K: I am coming to it slowly. I first want to see whether we perceive That as a concept. Because after all the whole Western world, and perhaps also the Eastern world, are based on concepts. Their whole religious outlook and beliefs, are all based on that, and in the Asiatic world too. So, do we approach ( the Ground of Creation) from that (conceptual) point of view? Or with a love of truth, love of (experientially ?) investigating the process of the human mind ?

B: Well, perhaps not even all the philosophers have been basing themselves on concepts. But certainly, (nowadays ) philosophy is (conveniently ?) taught through concepts. Whether all the philosophers really wanted to base everything on concepts is another question.

K: I didn't say all, sir.

B: Most of them. But certainly it is very hard to teach it except through concepts.

K: So, what is the (qualitative ?) difference between a religious mind and a philosophic mind? You understand what I am trying to convey? Do we investigate the Ground (of Creation ?) from a mind that is disciplined in knowledge?

B: Yes, well fundamentally we say that the Ground is 'unknown' inherently.
Therefore we can't begin with (using our existing ?) knowledge. Many years ago we had a discussion in London and you suggested we start with the 'unknown'.

K: Yes, yes. Say for instance 'X' says there is such a Ground. And all of us say what is this Ground ? Prove it, show it, let it manifest itself. And when we ask such questions, is it with a mind that has this passion for (finding the ) truth, the love of truth?

B: I think that in that mind (searching for proofs) there is the demand for certainty which says show it, I want to be sure. So therefore there is no (experiential) enquiry, no?

K: How can my mind which has evolved through knowledge, which has been highly disciplined in knowledge, even touch That, because that is not knowledge, that is not put together by thought.

B: Yes, as soon as you say, prove it, you want to turn it into knowledge.
To be absolutely certain knowledge is what you want. And yet of course there is also the danger of self-deception and delusion, the other side.

K: Of course. Right from the beginning we said the Ground cannot be (experientially approached ?) as long as there is any form of illusion, which is the projection of one's desire, pleasure, fear and all that.

B: I merely meant to say that the person who says 'Prove it', is also trying to protect it against those illusions. But it is a vain hope...

K: So is the Ground (of all Creation ?) an idea to be investigated? Or is it something that cannot be investigated with a mind trained, disciplined, by (its material) experience and knowledge, and it can only function in that area. And you come along and tell me that this Ground is not an idea, it is not a philosophical concept, it is not something to be understood by thought.
Then what am I to do? I have only this mind that has been conditioned by (its past ?) knowledge. How am I, as an 'X', to move away, to move away from all that and 'feel' this thing, touch it, comprehend it?
You tell me that words will not convey that. You tell me you must have a mind that is free from all knowledge, except technological, the other kind of knowledge. And you are asking me an impossible thing, aren't you?
You ( K ?) are on the other bank as it were, and tell me that there is no ( available) boat to cross. You can't swim across eithedr . In fact you can't do anything. Basically that is what it comes to. So you are asking this particular mind to eschew all its knowledge ! Has this been said in the Christian world, or in the Jewish world?

B: I don't know about the Jewish world. But in some sense the Christians tell you to give your faith to God, or (as a shortcut ?) to 'give yourself over' to Jesus and let him act as the mediator between us and God.

K: Yes. But (in the Hindu spiritual tradition ) Vedanta means (what comes after ?) the ending of knowledge.

B: It could mean that I suppose. I don't know Sanskrit that well, but 'Veda' by itself means knowledge.

K: It means the end of that.

B: And 'Vedanta' means the end of it, yes.

K: But being a Westerner, I say it means nothing to me. Because from the Greeks on, this culture in which I have lived is emphasizing knowledge. Last night Bronowski was talking again about the evolution of man ( through knowledge) and all that.

B: They re-run it?

K: Yes. But when you talk to an Eastern mind, they acknowledge that in their religious life that a time must come when knowledge must end. Vedanta is the whole way of looking ( free of knowledge) . They would immediately understand that the mind must be free of knowledge. But it is (becoming) only a conceptual, a theoretical understanding. But to a Westerner, it means absolutely nothing.

B: Well, I think there has been a similar (mystical current in the ) Western tradition, but not as common. Like in the Middle Ages there was a book written called 'The Cloud of Unknowing', which is on that line, but that is not the main line of Western thought.

K: That is what I am saying: it is not the (main) line of Western thought. So what shall I do since I can see vaguely, that coming upon this Ground, gives an immense significance to life.

B: Yes, well people have used that notion of God to give significance to life.

K: No, no. (That) 'God' is merely an idea.

B: Yes but the idea contains something similar to the Eastern idea that God is beyond our knowing. Most people accept it that way.

K: But you tell me that you cannot (experientially ?) come upon It through any manipulation of thought.

B: Yes, I understand what you are saying. I am trying to say that there is this problem, danger, delusion, in the sense that in the West people say, 'Yes, that is quite true, it is through a direct experience of Jesus that we come upon it, not through thought', you see.

K: I mean after all a direct experience of Jesus...
B: Well I may not be able to express their view accurately. The Grace of God.

K: As a fairly educated man, fairly thoughtful man, I reject all that.

B: Yes, why do you reject it?
K: Because it has become 'common (place' ?) , first of all, in the sense that everybody says that. And also there may be in it a great sense of illusion created by desire, hope, fear.

Q: But wouldn't you say that there are some more serious people in all religions who would say that God, or the absolute, or the ground is something that cannot be experienced through thinking or also they might even go so far as to say it cannot be experienced at all ?

K: Oh yes, I have said it cannot be experienced. 'X' says it cannot be 'experienced' (recognised ?) - it is this something so immense that my thought cannot capture it. And I say, all right, you have explained that very carefully and how am I, whose brain is conditioned that way, in knowledge, disciplined, how is it to free itself from all that?

Q: Could it free itself by understanding its own limitation?

K: So you are telling me that my thought is limited. Show it to me. I can see the beauty of the earth, I see the beauty of a building, of a person, of nature, I see all that; but when you say my thought is limited I don't feel it. It is just a lot of words which you have told me.

Q: Well it does require some serious investigation.

K: You don't even need the investigation, it is so clear. But how will you aid me to have this ( insight ?) that thought itself is brittle, it is such a small affair, so that it is in my blood - you understand? When once it is in my blood I have got it - you don't have to explain it.

Q: But isn't it possible look directly at what the mind can do ?

K: Which is, (self centred) thinking. That is all I have. Thinking, feeling, hating, loving - you know all that. The activity of the (particular ?) mind. I know that very well, you don't have to tell me.

Q: I would say you don't know it, you only think you know it.

K: Oh no. I know when I am angry. I know when I am wounded. It is not an idea, I have got the feeling, the hurt is carrying inside me.
I am fed up with the (analytical) investigation because I have done it all my life. I say these are all just words. How do I as a human being have this extraordinary feeling about it? I want to have this 'passion' that will explode me out of my little enclosure. You understand? I have built a wall round myself, cultured, fairly respectable, educated, (the perfect mental) wall, which is 'myself'. I have lived with this thing for millions of years and I am still 'anchored' there. And you talk about the Ground because you see something that is breathtaking, that seems so alive, extraordinary and so on. And I am here, anchored in here. You, who have 'seen' the Ground must do something that will explode, break up this thing completely.

Q: I must do something, or you must do something?

K: What is the human mind's relationship to the ground? Perhaps if I could establish relationship it might break up this centre, totally. If the mind could establish a relationship with That, my mind has become (an integral part of) That. So, I am just asking, is there an (open ?) relationship between That and the human mind?

Q: Are you suggesting that the relationship cannot be made by you, but it must come...

K: No, it may be I who have to make a relationship. My mind now is in such a state that I won't accept a thing.

Q: To establish a bridge - if there is such a thing ?

K: My mind says I have been through all this before. I have suffered, I have searched, I have looked, I have investigated, I have lived with people who are awfully clever at this kind of thing, and so on and so on. So I am asking this question being fully aware of (its potential ?) danger.
So 'X' is asking, if the human mind has no relationship to it, and that there is only a 'one way' passage, from That to me...

B: Then that's like the Grace of God... that you have re-invented.

K: That I won't accept. So I am rejecting the explanation - the Grace of God.

B: You are not saying the relationship is 'one way', nor are you saying it is "not one way".

K: I am not saying anything. All that I 'want' is that this 'centre' (of self-interest ?) to be 'blasted'. Because I see that 'centre' is the cause of all the mischief, of all the illusions, all the effort, all the misery, everything is from that core. After a million years, I haven't been able to get rid of it, it hasn't gone. So is there a ( 2-way ?) relationship at all? What is the relationship between 'goodness' and 'bad' (-ness ?) ? - it comes to the same thing. There is no relationship.

B: It depends upon what you mean by 'relationship'.

K: All right: contact, being in touch, ( 2-way ?) communication, being in the same room.

B: Coming from the same root ?

K: Yes, same root.

Q: But Krishnaji, are we then saying that there is the good and that there is the evil?

K: No, no. To another word, the 'whole', and 'that which is not whole'. Is there ( a communicating ?) relationship between these two? Obviously not.

B: Well, if you are saying that the 'centre' is a (self -created) illusion - then an illusion cannot be related to that which is true because the content of the illusion has no relation to what is true.

K: That's it! You see, that is a great discovery. 'I' want to establish relationship with That - this petty (self-conscious ?) 'thing' wants to have relationship with that Immensity. It cannot.

B: Yes, it is not just because of its immensity but because in fact this 'thing' is not actually.

K: Yes.

Q: But I don't see that. Dr Bohm sais the centre is not 'actual'. And that is part of my difficulty - I don't see this (psychological) centre is not actual.

B: 'Actual' in the sense of being genuine and not an illusion. I mean, something is acting ( the self-centred way) but it is not the 'I' which we ( think we ) know.

K: Do you see that?

Q: No. You say the 'centre' must explode. It does not 'explode' because I don't see the falseness in it.

K: You missed my point. I have lived a million years, and at the end of it I am (inwardly) still where I was in the beginning.

Q: Well you said the centre then must explode.

K: No, no, no. The mind says this is too damn small. And it can't do anything about it. It has prayed, it has done everything. It is still there.

Q: Right...

K: And he comes along and tells me there is this (other) 'thing'. And ( presto!) I want to establish a relationship with That.

Q: He tells me there is this thing and he also tells me that the centre is a (self-created, all-purpose ?) illusion.

K: I know it is there. Call it what you like - an illusion, a ( virtual ?) 'reality', a 'fixation' - whatever you like. It is there. And this (self-centred ?) mind says it it wants to have that relationship with That . And That says, 'Sorry, you can't have relationship with me.' That's all!

I have a million years of experience and it has given me a certain ( intellectual ?) capacity. And I realize at the end of it all there is no ( communicating ?) relationship between 'me' and Truth. You follow? It is like you have knocked me out because all my millions of years of experience says go after that, seek it, search for it, pray for it, struggle for it, cry for it, sacrifice. I have done all that. And suddenly 'X' says, you cannot have a relationship with that. That ( Source of Universal Intelligence ?) says, 'Sorry'. So what has happened to the mind that has lived this way, done everything that man has done in search for that, and that says, one morning, 'You have no relationship with me' ?

Q: It is a tremendous shock to the 'me', if you say that.

K: Is it to you? Is'nt it a shock to discover that all your (inner) knowledge is valueless? All your self-examinations, all your struggles, all the things that one has gathered through years and years, centuries - virtue, abstinence, self- control, at the end of it you see they are valueless. Sir, you understand what it does to me?

B: I mean if the whole thing goes then it is of no consequence.

K: Because what you have done or not done (inwardly) , is absolutely of no value. You understand sir?

B: Not in any fundamental sense. It has relative value. It has only relative value within a certain framework, but in itself it has no value.

K: Yes, thought has relative value.

B: But its inner framework in general has no value.

K: That's right. The ground says "whatever you have done on earth" - in quotes - has no meaning. So I must be very careful to see that I don't translate into a concept, but receive the full blow of it!

Q: You see Krishnaji for hundreds of years, probably since mankind existed, man has pursued this, what he calls God or the 'Ground'.

K: As an idea.

Q: Well, for many people it was very (real ?) But then the 'scientific mind' came along and also told that mind that it is just an idea, it is just foolish.

K: No, no, no. Scientific mind says through investigating matter we will perhaps come upon the Ground.

B: Many feel that way, yes. And some would even add 'investigate the brain', you see.

K: Yes. We are talking of 'good scientists', not a government (sponsored?) scientist, but a good scientist says, 'We are examining matter, the brain and all that, to find out if there is something beyond all this.'

Q: And many of these people, many scientists, would say that they have found the ground - the ground is empty, it is emptiness, it is an energy which is indifferent to man.

K: Now, is that an idea, or an actuality to them, which affects their life, their blood, their mind, their relationship with the world?

Q: Well I think it is just an idea.

K: Then, I am sorry, I have been through that. I was a (good ?) 'scientist' ten thousands years ago! You follow, if it is merely an idea we can both play at that game. I can send the ball to you, it is in your court, and you can send it back to me. We can play that (forever ?) . But I have finished with that kind of game.

B: Because in general what people discover about matter does not seem to affect them deeply, psychologically. Though you might think that if they saw the whole unity of the universe they would act differently, but they don't.
You could say that whatever way people managed to look at it, after they saw this unity it didn't fundamentally change...

K:... their lives.

Q: Well you see, what I wanted to say is the ( scientific) dismissal of the pursuit of the Ground has not had any shocking effect on people.

K: No, no. I 'am' the people, it has given me a tremendous shock to discover the truth, not ideas, discover all the churches, all the prayers, all the books have absolutely no meaning - except they have a meaning so that we can build a better society and so on and so on.

B: If we could manage to bring this point to order then it would have a great meaning - to build a good society.

K: From there I start creating a (new ?) society.

B: But as long as this disorder is at the centre we can't use that in the right way. I think it would be more accurate to say that there is a great potential meaning in all that (scientific developpment) but as long as it does not affect the centre - and there is no sign that it has ever done so...

Q: You see, what I don't understand Krishnaji is that there are a great many people who in their life have never pursued what you call the Ground.

K: The are not interested.

Q: Well I an not so sure. How would you approach such a person?

K: I am not interested in approaching any (such) person. All the good works I have done, everything I have done, the Ground says are valueless. And if I can drop all that ( self-centredness ?) my mind 'is' (one with?) the Ground. Then from there I move. From there I create society.
So sir, to come back to earth: why has man done this?

B: Done what?

K: Accumulated ('personal' ?) knowledge. Apart from the necessity of knowledge in certain areas, why has this burden of knowledge continued for so long?

B: Because in one sense man has been trying to produce a 'solid ground' through knowledge. Knowledge has tried to create a ground. That is one of the things that has happened.

K: Which means what?

B: It means illusion again.

K: Which means the 'saints', the 'philosophers', have educated me in knowledge and through knowledge to find the Ground ?

B: But in fact even to create a 'ground' by using knowledge...

Q: You see, there were all these (dark) periods where mankind was caught in the craziest superstition and there knowledge was able to do away with that.

K: Ah! But ( this emphasis on ) knowledge has also crippled me from seeing truth. It hasn't cleared me of my illusions. (In the psychological area ?) knowledge may be illusory itself.

Q: That may be, but at least it has cleared up some illusions.

K: I want to clear up all the illusions that I hold - not some. I have got rid of my illusion about nationalism; I have got rid of illusion about belief, about Christ, about this, about that. At the end of it I realize my ( knowing ?) mind is illusion. To me, ( the human being) who has lived for thousands of years, to find it is absolutely worthless, it is something enormous.

B: When you say you have lived for thousands years or a million years, does that means in a sense that all the experience of mankind is...

K:... 'is' ( in) me.

B: Do you feel that?

K: I do.

B: And how do you feel it?

K: It is a 'fact', an absolute, irrevocable fact to me.

B: Yes, well perhaps if we could share that ( holistic) feeling. That seems to be one of the steps that we're missing, because you have repeated that quite often as an important part of (understanding) the whole thing.

K: Which means sir, that when you ( have true ?) love ( for) somebody there is no 'me' (involved) , it is love. In the same way, when I say 'I am (sharing the consciousness of ?) humanity', it is so, it is part of me.

B: Well let's say it is a feeling that I have gone through all that, all that you describe, all those million years. If others have gone through it then I also have gone through it.

K: Of course. But one is not (consciously ?) aware of it. If we admit that our brains are not my particular brain but the brain that has evolved through millennia.

B: Well let me say why this doesn't communicate so easily: everybody feels that the content of his brain is in some way 'individual', that he hasn't gone through all that. Let's say that somebody thousands of years ago went through science or philosophy. Now how does that affect me? That is what is not clear.

K: Because (consciousness-wise) I am ( safely & comfortably ?) caught in this self-centred narrow little cell, which refuses to look beyond.

B: That is the thing which has been going on.

K: But you come along as a scientist, or as a religious man, that 'my' brain is the brain of mankind.

B: Yes and all knowledge is the knowledge of mankind. So that in some way we all have this knowledge. (Not in detail, of course).

K: So you tell me this . But I come to (realise the truth of ) it only when I have given up ordinary things like 'nationality', you know...

B: Yes, we have given up our (illusory) divisions and we can see that our experience is that of all mankind.

K: It is so obvious sir. You go to the most primitive villager in India and he will tell you all about his problems, his problems, his wife, children, poverty. It is exactly the same thing, only here he is wearing different trousers, or whatever it is. For 'X' it is an indisputable fact, it is so. And he says, all right, at the end of all this million of years, I suddenly discover, that all that I have done ( psychologically- wise ?) is useless. They are ashes. You see sir that doesn't depress one. That is the beauty of it. I think it is like the Phoenix (bird ).

B: Rising from ashes ?

K: Born out of its own ashes.

B: Well in a way this is (the inner) freedom- to be free of all that.

K: Something totally new is born.

B: Now what you said before is that the mind 'is' the ground, it 'is' the unknown.

K: Yes. But it is not this mind.

B: In that case it is not the same mind ?

K: Sir, if I have come to the point when I have to 'end' all that ( self-divisive content ?), it is a new mind.

B: That's clear. The mind is ( generally conditioned by ?) its (psychological ?) content, this content is knowledge and without that knowledge it is a new mind.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 25 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 May 2014 #8
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

OJAI 6TH CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM 15TH APRIL, 1980

Dr Bohm: Yesterday I was discussing with some people your statement that an insight changes the brain cell, but I wasn't able to say a lot more. I wonder if we could discuss that.

Krishnamurti: As it is constituted (formatted ?) the human brain functions (predominantly) in the (closed circle of ?) memory, experience, knowledge. And it has functioned in that area as much as possible. And most people are still satisfied with it.

B: Well, they don't know of anything else.

K: Suppose 'X' has been going in that direction century after century, and when he asks himself what is radical change, is it in the environment, is it in the human relationship, is it a sense of love which is not in the area of knowledge and so on? Where is it to begin? Unless there is some mutation taking place inside the brain, I may think I have changed, or it may be a superficial change, but it won't be a change in depth.

B: Yes, well I think the first thing is to say that what is implied there is that the present state of affairs involves not only the mind but also the nervous system, the psycho-somatic body, all is set in a certain way.

K: Of course, that is what I meant, the whole movement is (set) in a certain way. And along that way I can modify, adjust, polish, a little more, a little less and so on, but if a man is concerned with a very radical change, where is he to begin and what is there to change?
'X' sees he can change certain things along this way, but to go much further than that - what is one to do? I am sure man has asked this question. Unless 'X' finds a way to change the brain itself...

B: But what will change the brain?

K: That's it, that's it. The brain that has been set in a pattern for millennia. I think it is no longer what should I change, it is imperative that I change.

B: So in discussing yesterday it was agreed that there must be a change but the question is how can the brain change?

K: If this question is put to you as a scientist, what would your answer be?

B: I don't think science can deal with that because it doesn't go far enough, it can't possibly probe that deeply into the structure of the brain anyway. Many questions are positing the relationship of brain and mind, which science has not been able to resolve. Some (science) people would say that there is nothing beyond the brain.

K: Purely materialistic, I understand all that.

B: If it is not materialistic then for the moment science has very little to say about it. Maybe some people would try to, but science generally has been most successful, most systematic, in dealing with matter, any attempt to do otherwise is not very clear.

K: You (K) tell me that insight can change the brain cells and so on. My immediate answer to that is, how?

B: You were implying that there is something beyond the brain, it seems clear, in putting that question. We don't know. The very statement implies that insight is somehow beyond the brain else it couldn't change the brain.

K: You explain that this 'insight' is not a result of progressive knowledge, it is not a process of time; it may be the real activity of the brain.

B: I think people can generally see that insight comes in a flash, it does not come through will. Those who have considered it at all can see that. Also that probably chemistry won't bring it about by drugs, you know.

K: I think most people see that.

B: It is not clear what the logic is, what is going to make this change in the brain, is it something more than the brain, is it something deeper in the brain? This is one of the questions.

Q: Are you saying that there is a function of the brain which acts without reference to its (known) content?

K: To the past, to the content.

B: That is a good question, yes. It is on the right line as far as I see it. Is there a function in the brain which is independent of the content, which is not conditioned by the content, but it might still be a physical function?

K: Sir, is this the question: apart from the (self - centred) consciousness with its content, is there in the brain an activity which is not touched by the content of this consciousness?

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

K: That is a 'dangerous' thing. I see the (potential) danger of admitting to myself, and so of trying to tell somebody else, that there is a part of the brain...

B: An activity.

K:... all right, an activity of the brain which is not touched by the content.

B: It is a possible activity. It may be that has not been awakened.

K: It has not been awakened. That's right. So, is there such an activity which is totally independent of the content? That activity, is it part of the brain?

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

K: But would you say it is still material?

B: Yes. There could could be a deeper (and finer) level of matter which is not conditioned by the content.

K: I don't quite follow.

B: If you say water is matter then it is clear. You could take water and it stands inside whatever it is, in the ocean. Now waves are not matter, they are just a process in matter. So, is a material substance, or is it a process in some other material substance, like in the cells of the brain?

K: It is a material process in the brain.

B: Yes, scientists would generally agree with that.

K: Let's stick to that. Then is that material process independent - can that material process ever be independent?

B: Independent of what?

K: Independent of something that is not a material process ...

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

K: I must be careful of using the right words. Thought is a material process in the brain and any other movements springing from that material process is still material.

B: Yes, it has to be.

K: And is there another activity which is not a material process?

B: Well of course people have asked that question for ages. Is there spirit beyond matter, right?

K: Is there some other activity in the brain which be related to this, to the material process ?

B: Well it cannot depend on it. Insight cannot depend on the material process as it would be just another material process. But you were saying that the material process may be changed by insight.

K: The material process is dependent on it, and not that dependent on this.

B: Yes, that is what you are saying, isn't it?

K: Yes.

B: So, ( the pure energy of ?) insight can still act within the material process of the brain, that's the crucial thing.

K: Yes, That's right. It is independent of the material process but yet it can act upon the material process.

B: Well let's discuss that a little. Generally speaking in science if A can act on B it is usually reciprocal action of B on A. We don't find situations where A acts on B and B never acts on A.

K: I see, I see.

B: This is one of the difficulties you have raised. In human relations if I can act on you, you can act on me - right?

K: Yes. But if I don't respond to your action, I am independent of it.

B: Yes. I think that if we are trying to make this clear in science: you see science generally finds that this situation is not possible to have a one-sided action.

Q: Could one maybe envisage that insight is a much larger movement than the material process of the brain, and therefore that much larger movement can act on the smaller movement but the smaller movement cannot act on the larger movement?

K: Yes, we are saying the same thing.

B: The small movement has no significant action on the larger movement. You can have a situation that if you drop a rock in the ocean, 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. Don't enter into that too quickly. Sir, love has no relationship to hate.

B: Well, again it is the word 'relationship'. Would you say hate has no action on love?

K: They are independent.

B: Independent, they have no action on each other. Right.

K: Ah, this is a very important thing to discover. Love is independent of hate. Where there is hate the 'other' cannot exist. Right?

B: Yes, they can't stand side by side acting on each other.

K: No, they can't. So when you scientists say A must have a relation to B, B must have a relation to A - right? We are contradicting that.

B: Well not all scientists have said that, a few have said otherwise - I don't like to bring in Aristotle, but he said there is an 'unmoved mover', you see, he says that God is never moved by matter, he is not acted on by matter but he acts. Do you see? So that is an old idea then. Since that time 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 those are two possibilities, which are you saying?

K: What are the two possibilities?

B: Well you said, one is that love may act on hate, and the other is that they have no action at all on each other.

K: I understand. No sir, love cannot act on hate.

B: Right. They have no relationship. But perhaps insight could.

K: Slowly. I am moving, edging my way into it. I want to be quite clear on this point. Violence and to be without violence are two entirely different factors. Right?

B: Well in that case you could say that the existence of the one is the non-existence of the other, and there is no way to act together.

K: That's right. I'll stick to that. So where there is this material process in action, the 'other' cannot exist.

B: Well, what is the 'other' this time, insight ?

K: Yes.

Q: Well then that sounds as if insight cannot change that material process.

K: Eh?

B: Well that denies what we were saying before that there is an action from insight on the material process.

K: Now steady, yes. Where there is violence the 'other' is not...

B: Peace, or order, harmony, right?

K: Where there is violence 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 thought, insight can act, can affect thought, but it doesn't work the other way round. You have said this in many forms.

K: Intelligence can wipe away ignorance, but ignorance cannot touch intelligence. Where there is love, hate can never exist. Yes I am saying that. Now, can (the insightful action of ?) love wipe away (the psychological content of ?) hate?
It just came to my mind: Love has no cause. Right? Hate has a cause. Insight has no cause. Right? The material process in the brain, as thought, has a cause.

B: Yes, it is part of the chain of cause and effect, yes.

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

B: Well, we can see no reason why 'that' (pure intelligent energy) which has no cause might not act on what has a cause. It won't happen the other way round. What has a cause cannot act on what has no cause because the would deny the whole thing.

K: Yes, apparently the action of ( the pure energy of) insight has an extraordinary effect on the material process in the brain.

B: Yes, so as to wipe out (delete) some causes for example.

K: As ( the energy of ?) insight is causeless, that insight has a definite effect on that (psychological content in the brain ?) which has cause.

B: Well it doesn't follow (logically) but it is possible. I mean you put it as if it followed necessarily but it doesn't follow, so far it doesn't follow but we say it is possible.

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

B: Well we are just saying that there is no contradiction when we say the word possible, I merely mean that there is no contradiction in saying that insight acts on...

K: All right, I see. As long as we are clear on the word 'possible'. We must be careful here. Love being without cause, and hate has a cause, the two cannot co-exist. Now, I just want to explore a little more. Is love insight?

B: Well at first sight we see that they are not necessarily exactly the same thing.

K: Why?

B: Insight may be love but you see insight also occurs in a flash for example.

K: It is a flash of course. And that flash alters the whole pattern.

B: That's right.

K: But that flash operates on the whole pattern, uses the pattern in the sense, argue, reason, logic and all that.

B: Well I think once the flash has operated then the pattern is different and therefore it would be more rational. The flash may make logic possible because you may have been confused before the flash.

K: Ah, yes, yes sir. Aristotle may have come to all this by logic.

B: Well he may have had some insight, we don't know.

K: We don't know but I am questioning it.

B: Well we really don't know how his mind operated because there are only a few books that survived.

K: Would you say he had insight by reading a few of his books?

B: I haven't really read Aristotle directly, very few people have because it is hard. Very few people have actually read Aristotle, what he directly said. Most people read what other people said about Aristotle. There are a few phrases of Aristotle which are common - the 'unmoved mover'. And he has seen some things which suggest that he was quite intelligent, at least.

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

Q: Krishnaji, could you explain that a little bit more?

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 you mean an insight that illuminates a limited area, or subject, is that what you mean by partial insight?

K: Yes.

Q: Then what would be total insight, it would encompass what?

K: The total human (inner & outer ?) activity. Right sir?

B: Well that is one point. But coming back to what we were discussing before that this insight would 'illuminate' the activity of the brain, and in that illumination it seems that the material activity of the brain will change. Would that be fair?

K: Let's go slowly.

B: Yes, we must get this point clear, then we could raise the question of totality. Now we are saying that insight is an '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. That is what takes place.

B: This illumination, its source 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. That's right, sir.

B: Pure energy. It is like saying - the lightening that flashes on the ground is not connected with the causation of what is on the ground.

K: Which means, is there (such an) action without cause?

B: Yes, without time, since any causation implies time.

K: That is, (the illuminating) action of this flash has altered completely the patterns which the material process has set (in the brain) .

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

K: Darkness, yes. The material process acts in ignorance, in darkness. Right? And this flash enlightens the whole field (ofhuman consciousness) . Which means the ignorance, the darkness has been dispelled. Right. I will hold to that.

B: Then you could say then in that sense 'darkness' and 'light' cannot co-exist for obvious reasons.

K: Obviously.

B: Nevertheless the very existence of light is to change the process of darkness.

K: Quite right. I hold to that. Quite right.

B: Yes. Now we must make it very clear that you are saying that the material process of the brain can depend on this 'flash' (of pure intelligent energy) which has no cause, which therefore is outside the chain of ordinary material process.

K: What has happened is that the material process has worked in darkness and has brought about such confusion and all the mess that exists in the world. And this flash wipes away the (surrounding) darkness. Right? Which means what? The material process (of thinking) then is not working in darkness. Right?

B: Right. Yes. But now let's make another point clear. Here is the flash (of insight) but it seems the light will go on.

K: The 'light' is there, the flash 'is' (just one action of ?) the light.

B: We have to consider, you see you have the flash now, right. 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 just simply because the word 'flash' suggests something that happens in one moment. You see we are saying that your insight would only last in that moment. Maybe it is just a matter of (using a holistic ?) language.

K: Is it merely a matter of language?

B: Maybe not, but if you use the word 'flash', like a flash of lightening gives light for that moment but then the next moment you are in darkness until the next flash of lightening.

K: It is not like that.

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

K: When we put that question 'stays on and goes off', you are still thinking in terms of ( a continuity in ?) time.

B: Yes, well we have to clear this up because it is the question everybody will put.
K: The material process is working in darkness, in time, in knowledge, ignorance, all that. When that insight takes place there is the dispelling of that (psychological) darkness. And thought, which is the material process in the brain , is no longer working in darkness, therefore that 'light' has ended ignorance.

B: So we say this darkness is really something which is built into the content of thought.

K: The ('self-interest' based ?) content is darkness.

B: That's right. Then that (pure) 'light' has dispelled the (very causation of) ignorance.

K: That's right sir. Dispelled the (selfishness ?) content.

B: But still we have to be very careful, you still have content in the usually accepted sense of the word, like you know all kinds of things. So we can't say it has dispelled all the content.

K: It has dispelled the centre of darkness. The 'self' (-consciousness) . Right?

B: Well we could say that the self is part of the content and that part of the content which is the centre of darkness, which creates it and maintains it, is dispelled.

K: Dispelled. Yes. The centre of darkness, which has maintained the darkness, has been dispelled. I hold to that.

B: We see now that means a physical change in the brain cells. That centre, that content which is the centre is a certain set form, disposition of all the brain cells and that in some way alters.

K: Of course sir, obviously. You see sir, this has an enormous significance. Right? That is in our relationship with our society, in everything.
Now the next question which Mrs Lilliefelt put, is: how does this flash (of 'light') come about? Let's begin the other way round. How does love come about? How does peace come about? Which is, peace being causeless, violence is cause, how does that causeless thing come about when my whole life is causation? There is no 'how'. Right? There is no 'how'. The 'how' implies a cause, so there is no 'how'. So to the question Mrs Lilliefelt put - how do I get it, how does it happen ? I say that is a 'wrong' question. There is no 'how'.

If you 're attempting to show me 'how' you are back into the darkness. Right ?

B: Right.

K: But I am asking something else : why is it that we have no insight at all, why is it that it doesn't start from our childhood, this insight? Is it our education? Is it our society? Is it our - I don't believe it is just that. You follow?

B: What do you say then?

K: It is some other (more karmic ?) factor. I am groping after it. I am groping after this, which is why don't we have it, it seems so natural?

B: Yes, well at first one would say something is interfering with it.

K: For 'X' it is quite natural. Why isn't it natural for A, B, C ? Why isn't it possible? If we say blockage, education, which are all causes -and trying to remove the blockages implies another cause. So we keep on rolling in that (time-bound) direction. There is something 'unnatural' about all this.
To 'X' it seems so natural. Why isn't it natural to everybody?

B: That is 'the' question. To make it more clear: you see some people might feel it is natural to everybody, but being treated in a certain way they gradually get caught in hate.

K: I don't believe that.

B: Well then you would have to ask: suppose you were to say that the young child meeting hate would not respond with hate. Most people would say that it is natural for the young child meeting hate to respond with hate.

K: Yes, this morning I heard that. Then I asked myself why? 'X' (K ?) has been put under all these circumstances which could have produced blockages, which could have produced all the rest of it - but 'X' wasn't touched by it. You follow? Why is it not possible for everybody?

B: We should make it more clear why we say it would be natural immediately not to respond to hate with hate.

K: All right. Limit it to that.

B: Even thought one hasn't thought about it, you know the child is not able to think about all this. Is it possible, meeting hate not to respond with hate ? Because some people would say it would be the animal instinct to fight back.
The animal will respond with love if you treat him with love, but if you treat the animal with hate he is going to fight back. Now some people would say that the human being in the beginning is like that animal and later he can understand. Right?

K: Of course. That is, the human being began his origin with the animal and the animal, the ape or any other animal, the wolf...

B: The wolf will respond with love too. Now you are saying why don't all children fail to respond to hate with hate?

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

B: Well, you are implying is that it is not entirely that, that there is something deeper.

K: Yes sir. I think there is something quite different. Let's have an insight! I feel that there is something totally different. Would it be right sir, just a question mark, would it be right to say that the beginning of (the consciousness matrix of ?) man is not animal?

B: Well that is not clear, you see. In the present theory of evolution you can follow the line where the apes become more and more like human beings.
Now when you say the beginning of man is not animal, then it is not clear.

K: I am just asking. And therefore if the beginning of man is the animal therefore we have that instinct highly cultivated and that instinct is natural.

B: Yes, that instinct is cause and effect.

K: Yes, cause and effect and it becomes 'natural'. And someone comes along and says, 'Is it?'

B: Right. Let's try to get this clear then.

K: I mean from all the scientific and historical and all the archaeologists, they say man began from the ape. And that as all animals respond to love and to hate, we as human beings, respond instantly to hate by hate.

B: And vice versa, to love by love.

Q: Could we say that that is a question which cannot possibly be answered by scientists?

B: It depends what you mean.

Q: I mean it in that sense that science tries to explain things to primary causes, and the biologist would say, well this kind of instinct has died out, it has died a natural death because man responded to hate with love.

B: Well that is one view, you could say that it would not have been helpful for survival to respond to hate with love, that it would have been a natural selection of people who responded to hate with hate.

K: So at the beginning there were people, or there were half a dozen people who never responded to hate because they had love, and those people, one or two had 'implanted' this thing in the human mind also. Right? And that has also been part of our (human consciousness) inheritance. Right? And why haven't we as human beings cultivated to respond to hate by hate, why haven't we cultivated the other?

Q: They have tried to cultivate it.

K: No, it is not 'cultivatable'.

B: It (Love) is not casual. It cannot be, and any 'cultivation' depends on a cause.

K: So why have we lost that?

Q: But when you ask why we have lost it, that implies that we have had it sometime.

B: Some have had it ?

K: Yes. Some. When man began some 'X', 'Y', 'Z' implanted in man this thing, love, which is causeless, which will not respond to hate. All right. That has been implanted. And we have cultivated very carefully by thought, respond to hate by hate, violence by violence, and so on. Why haven't we moved along with the other line? You follow my question?

B: Yes...

K: Is this a futile question sir?

B: One doesn't see any way of proceeding.

K: To 'X' this (loving mind) seems so natural. 'X' never even thought about the other. So if that is so natural to 'X', why isn't it natural to 'Y' and so on?
If he is (just a biological) freak then there is no answer. That is a stupid way of pushing him off. If it is natural to 'X' it must be natural to others, why isn't it natural? You follow my question? Why?

You know there is this ancient idea in the Indian religions and so on, that the 'Manifestation of the Highest' takes place, occasionally. So, have we moved in the wrong direction?

B: What do you mean by that?

K: We have taken the 'wrong turn': responding to hate by hate, violence by violence and so on.

B: And giving supreme value to knowledge.

Q: Wouldn't another factor also be the attempt to cultivate the idea of love?

K: Who says that?

Q: Well people in literature, people have always tried to really produce love and better human beings.

B: That is the purpose of religion.

Q: It is the purpose of religion.

K: Is it cultivatable by thought? Thought is a material process. Love has no cause, it is not cultivatable, full stop. But I want to find out if it is natural to 'X' why isn't it natural to A, B, C? I think this is a valid question.

B: Another point is to say that you could see that the response of hate to hate just makes no sense anyway, why do we go on with it? Because people may believe in that moment that they are protecting themselves with hate, but it is no protection.

K: Oh, please give me some insight! It is a very good question sir. I think it is valid. 'X', 'Y', 'Z' are born without cause and A, B, C, are caught in cause. There are those who walk along that way and those don't walk along that way. So, is it the privilege of (the lucky ?) few? Of a (spiritual ?) elite? No, no. Let's begin the other way round, sir. 'X's' mind is the mind of humanity. We have been through that. This (generic) mind of humanity has been responding to hate with hate, violence by violence, knowledge by knowledge and so on. But A, B, C are part of 'X's' conscience, part of all that (original heritage) .

B: Then why is there this (huge qualitative ?) difference?

K: Yes sir, that is what I am asking. One is natural, the other is unnatural. Now, who is asking this (major existential ?) question? The A, B, C people, who respond to hate by hate, are they asking the question? Or are the X, Y, Z asking the question?

Q: It would seem that the X Y Z's are asking this question.

K: X, Y, Z are asking the question, yes.

B: But you see we were also just saying that they are not different.

K: They are not different (all have both options in their 'mind' heritage ?) .

B: There is one mind.

K: That's it, one mind.

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

K: That's the whole thing. Of course there are all kinds of (possible) explanations - Karma, reincarnation. But remove all those explanations, what am I left with, the fact that 'X', 'Y', 'Z' are (inwardly) different from A, B, C And those are facts. Right?

Q: They appear to be different ?

K: Oh no, they are absolutely different, not 'appear'.

B: There is a contradiction because you said before that X, Y, Z are saying they are not different.

K: I must be clear. X, Y, Z, do not respond to that ('hate' heritage) .

B: I think the question is: why do the people who (thoughtfully or not?) cultivate hate say that they are different from those who don't.

K: But are we moving in the right direction? That is, X, Y, Z have given me that gift and I have not carried that gift. You follow what I mean? I have carried the other gift but not this - why?

Q: Did you say sir that it is implanted in (the mind of ?) all of us?

K: Of course. If man began there, with the animal, somebody there must have said, look ! If my father - I am talking respectfully - 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 what? He (K) had (access to ?) insight right from the beginning. You follow what I am saying. Right from childhood, which means what? There is some other factor that is missing sir. I want to capture it. You see if that is an exception then it is silly.

B: All right then we agree that this thing is 'dormant' in all human beings - is that what you want to say?

K: I am not quite sure that is what I want to say.

B: But I meant that the ('love' ?) factor is there in (the mind of) all mankind.

K: That is a 'dangerous' (slippery ?) statement too.

B: That is what you were saying.

K: I know, but I am questioning, when I am quite sure I will tell you.

B: All right. We tried this (avenue) and we can say it seems promising but it is a bit 'dangerous' (or slippery) . This possibility is there in all mankind and in so far as some people have seen it.

K: Which means "God is in you"?

B: No, just that the possibility of insight is there in everyone.

K: Why did that (boy K) 'chap' have it?

B: Yes, why?

K: And he says this seems so terribly natural, what is natural it must be to everybody. Water is natural to everybody.

B: Yes, well why isn't (the 'inner light' of ?) insight present for everybody from the beginning?

K: Yes, that is all I am asking.

B: So strong that even maltreatment cannot affect it.

K: Nothing could affect it, maltreatment, beating, being put into all kinds of (odd ?) situations, it hasn't affected it. Why? You follow sir? We are coming to something.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 25 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Jun 2014 #9
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

7TH CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM 17TH APRIL, 1980

Krishnamurti: Shall we start from where we left off? Are we saying sir that human beings are still behaving with the animal instincts?

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

K: So that means that (consciousness-wise ?) after a million years we are still instinctively behaving like our ancestors?

B: Well in some ways. Probably (the ancestral behaviour) it is complicated by thought, the animal instincts have now become entangled with thought and it is getting in some ways worse. 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: And during all these many, many centuries we haven't found a way that will move us away from that track.
Now, 'X' behaves naturally in a way, which is not responding to the animal instincts. What place has such (holistic) insight in human society?

B: Yes, well, in the society as it is now, it cannot be accommodated because society is organized under the assumption that pleasure and pain and fear are going to rule, except when you control it. Say, friendliness is a kind of animal instinct too, people do become friendly for instinctive reasons or may become enemies for similar reasons.

K: We were talking really about 'insight', that it actually changes the nature of the brain itself.

B: Yes, we discussed that yesterday: by dispelling the (internal) 'darkness' in the brain, it allows the brain to function in a new way.

K: Yes. Thought has been operating in darkness, creating its own darkness and functioning in that. And (the spiritual clarity of ?) insight is (acting) like a flash which breaks down the darkness. And then that insight, clearing the darkness, then does the human brain act, function, rationally?

B: Yes, a 'rationally' of direct perception, rather than guided by rules and reason. But there is a freely flowing reason. You see some people identify reason with certain rules of logic which would be mechanical.

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

B: It is the 'flash of light' which makes possible the perception (of the truth or falseness of something ?)

K: Right, that's right.

B: It is even more fundamental than perception.

K: So insight is pure perception and from that perception there is an action which is then sustained by rationality. Is that it?

B: Yes. The rationality being the perception of order, I would say.

K: So would you say: insight, perception and order?

B: Yes.

K: And that 'order' is not mechanical since it is not based on rules. Then you come to the question: is (the perceptive clarity of ?) insight continuous, or is it by flash?

B: We went into that and said it was a wrong question since it is not time-bound.

K: So now let's get a little further. That means we said, didn't we, insight is the elimination of (spiritual ?) 'darkness' which is the very centre of the self, which is the self creates this darkness (as it goes) . And so (the clarity of ) insight dispels that very centre (or accumulation of darkness ?).

B: Yes, with that darkness (a clear inward ) perception is not possible. It's like blindness in a way.

K: So, as an ordinary man with all my (sophisticated ?) animal instincts, pleasure and pain and reward and punishment and so on, I hear you say this, and I see what you are saying has some kind of reason, logic, and order.

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

K: It makes sense. Then how am I to have 'insight' in my daily life? Is it possible for me to have this insight so that (self-centred) pattern of life is broken? As we said the other day, we may have once in a while 'partial insights', but the partial insight is not the whole insight so there is still partial darkness.

B: If it doesn't dispel the (egotistic) 'centre of darkness', 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 the general plan. Right? And I have to make the moves, or make no moves at all. But...I haven't the energy. I haven't the capacity to see it quickly, I haven't got that sense of urgent immediacy. (Not to mention that 'psychologically' speaking ?) everything is against me: my family, my wife, society, everything - and you (the 'X' person, refuse to guide ?) me , so I am just left (on my own ) .
Is there a different approach to this 'insight' question altogether?

B: Well, are you suggesting that there is another way? You can't produce this flash of insight at will.

K: Oh, we have been through that, but also we came to a ('holistic' check-?) point: if for 'X' this insight seems so natural and why is it not natural to others? If we could find that sir...

B: Let's say that if you begin with the child, it seems natural to the child to respond with his animal instincts, which have a great intensity and sweep him away. Darkness arises because it is so overwhelming.

K: Yes, but why is that with 'X'?

B: First of all it seems 'natural' to most people that the animal instincts would take over and they would say the other fellow is 'unnatural'.

K: Yes...

B: And therefore that is the way mankind has been thinking for ages, saying that if there are indeed any other people they must be very unusual and unnatural.

K: That is, human beings have been (consistently) acting according to this pattern of responding to hatred by hatred and so on. But if this is natural, that is, hate, what is one battling against (inwardly) ?

B: Well, if they assume that pleasure and pain, fear and hate, are natural, then the (more thoughtful) people say we must battle to control it because it will destroy us. You see, they say the best we can hope for is to control it with reason or with another way.

K: If that is (statistically ?) 'natural', are the few privileged by some miracle, by some strange chance event?

B: Yes, many people would say that they are unusual in some way.

K: No, that goes against one's (holistic ?) grain. I wouldn't accept that.

B: Well, if you say they are fundamentally the same but why do they behave differently?

K: Differently, yes. This question has been asked many times, over and over again in different parts of the world. Why this division? I can't find out.

Q: Is the division really total? Because even the man who responds to hatred with hatred, he nevertheless (may think about it later and ?) see that it is wrong.

K: He sees that it should be different but he (inwardly) is still battling with ideas, with thought.

Q: That's right but it is not entirely natural. If it were entirely natural he would say, 'OK, that's just the way we live'. He wouldn't even try to get out of it. You see what I am saying?

K: Yes, I understand that. But he is trying to get out of it by the exercise of (the same self-centred) thinking which breeds darkness.

Q: But he doesn't understand that.

K: And we have explained to him.

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

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

Q: Well why are people not saying ' Let's just live that way and enjoy it to the last moment'? They want to get out of it.

K: Now wait a minute sir. Do they want to get out of it?

Q: At least they say so.

K: Do they actually realize the 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 (eventually) leads to (old age and/or ?) suffering for them.

B: Or else they find they can't help it. You see when the time comes they get angry, or pleasure, they can't get away.

Q: But they want to get out of it, they can't help it. They are helpless, there are forces which are stronger than even their will.

K: So what shall we do? Or this division (in the wider context of human consciousness) is false ?

B: That's the point. We had better call it a (qualitative ) 'difference' between these two. This difference is not fundamental.
If you say the difference is false, or the division is false, you say fundamentally they are the same, but a (qualitative) difference has developed between them. Perhaps one has taken a 'wrong turning'.

K: Let's put it that way, yes.

B: But the difference is not intrinsical, 'built in' like the difference between a tree and a rock.

K: Right. So there are (these) two (existential choices ?) , they start from the source and one has taken one direction and the other has taken another direction. But their (Universal mind ?) source is the same. Why haven't all of them moved in the right direction?

B: I was just saying that if you understand (the truth of ) that (unique source) then you do not have to take the wrong turn (any more) . In some sense we are continually taking the wrong turn, so if we can understand 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 (need for us of) going back in time to a (mythical) Source. If the Source is timeless, we are continually taking the wrong turn, again and again. Right?

K: Yes. If we cut out 'time', therefore (we are ) constantly (taking) the wrong turn.

B: Constantly the wrong turn, yes. Which means there is the constant possibility of the right turn.

K: Yes, of course. That's it. We are getting a little more clear. That is if we say the source from which we all once began, then we are caught in ( the mentality of) time.

B: You can't go back.

K: You can't go back. That is out. Therefore it is we apparently are taking the wrong turn all the time.

B: Constantly.

K: Constantly taking the wrong turn, why? The one is living with insight and the other not living with insight, these (two existential options ?) are constantly (available ). So, the man who is (psychologically indulging in ?) living in darkness can move away at any time to the other. That is the point: at any time.

B: Then nothing holds him, except (the inner inertia of) taking the wrong turn constantly. You could say the darkness is such that he doesn't see himself taking the wrong turning.

K: Is this right sir? Suppose you have that insight, and the very 'centre of darkness' has been dispelled completely. And I listen to you. I am a serious, fairly intelligent, human being, I listen to you. And whatever you have said seems (holistically ?) reasonable, rational, sane. So, I question the (actuality of this) division. The ( illusion of this) division is created by the centre which creates (and perpetrates its own ?) darkness. Right?

B: Yes. It is the same as the other divisions, it is (the working of our self-centred ) thought.

K: Thought has created (and maintained) this division. You who have the insight, etc., you say there is no division. But I won't accept that because in my darkness there is nothing but division. So I, living in darkness, have created the division. I have created it in my (self-centred) thoughts...

B: I am constantly creating it.
K: Yes, constantly creating division, that's right, constantly creating division even in wanting to live constantly in a (holistic ?) state in which there is no division. Right?

B: Yes.

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

B: Yes.

K: How is one to dispel this continuous, constant darkness, to perceive the thought that is creating darkness and to see that the self is the source of this darkness. Why can't I see it even logically?

B: Well it's pretty clear logically.

K: Yes but somehow that doesn't seem to operate. So I realize sir, for the first time that the self is creating the darkness which is constantly breeding division. I see that very clearly.

B: Yes and the division produces the darkness anyway.

K: Now if I see that very clearly. What shall I do? So I don't admit (the reality of this) division. 'X' has insight and he has explained to me very clearly how darkness is banished. I listen to him and he says, your very darkness is creating the division. Actually there is no division, no division as light and darkness. So he asks me, can you banish, can you put away this (inner) sense of (self-) division?

Q: Can one put away (this inner sense of) division as long as one is (feeling) divided?

K: No, it can't, but (if I listen to ) something so extraordinarily true, which has immense significance and beauty and my whole being says 'Capture it', this is not (implying ) a division. I have listened to 'X' who says tto here is no division. And I recognize that is an extraordinary statement and my very listening (to the truth of) that saying has an immediate effect on me.

I have lived constantly in division and you come along and say, after discussing, you say there is no division. What effect has it on me? You understand my question? It must have some impact on me.

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

K: I recognize the division, but your statement that there is no division has a tremendous impact on me. When I see something that is immovable, it must have some effect on me. When you say, 'It is so', I respond to it with a tremendous (self-revealing ?) shock. I am sensitive, watch very carefully and all the rest, realize I am constantly living in division, when you make that statement it has - I think (the truth of) it has broken the pattern.

Q: You say at least for that moment it breaks the (self-centred) pattern.

K: It has broken the pattern, because he has said something which is so fundamentally true: there is no (division between ) God and man. But hating I (or insisting on my inner division) want the 'other'. Right? And you make a statement which seems so absolutely true. You follow sir? (The truth of ?) that enters into me therefore dispels the darkness. I am not making an effort to get rid of darkness but you are (bringing) the light..
So it comes to something (very simple) which is: can I 'listen' (non-personally ?) in my (inner state of) darkness, which is constant ? Of course I can.

B: Now why do you say you can 'listen' in the darkness?

K: Oh yes, if I can't I am doomed.

B: But that is no (rational) argument.

K: Of course that is no argument but 'that is so'. If I am constantly living darkness...

B: That's clear: constantly living in darkness is not worthwhile. But now we say that it is possible to 'listen' in the darkness.

K: Yes sir. ( Pure ?) listening is not (the action of) division.

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

K: He, 'X', explains very, very carefully to me what (the nature of) insight is - I am sensitive, I have been listening to him in my darkness but that is making me sensitive, alive, watching. That is what I have been doing together. And he then he makes a ( 'total insight' )statement: there is absolutely no division. Listening to (the truth of that ) statement has put my constant 'movement in darkness to an end'.
Otherwise, if this doesn't take place I have nothing. You follow? I am perpetually living in darkness. A 'voice in the wilderness' and listening to that voice has an extraordinary effect in my wilderness.

B: You mean that this 'listening' reaches the source of the movement in darkness , whereas the common observation does not.

K: Yes sir, in that wilderness a voice says there is water. You follow? There is immediate action in me. But would you say that one must realize, understand, that this 'constant movement in darkness' is my life. Can I realize with all my (experience and) knowledge of a million years, suddenly realize that (inwardly) I am (still) living in total darkness?
That means I have reached the end of all (my psychological) 'hopes' . Right? My hope is also darkness. You have cut the future altogether. You understand? So I am left with (the fact of ) this enormous darkness and the realization of that is the ending of becoming. I have reached that (dead ?) point and 'X' tells me, naturally sir.

You see all of them, all the religions have said this division exists. 'God' and the 'son of God'.

B: Well, I don't know whether the Indian religions haven't said that it can be overcome.

K: I have discussed with some pundits, but I doubt very much. It doesn't matter who said it but the fact is somebody in this wilderness is saying sthat when there is insight there is no division and I have been listening, That means sir, it is not your insight or my insight, it is "insight". In that (light of insight ?) there is no division.

B: Yes....
K: Which means sir, that in the Ground, which we talked about, there is no darkness as darkness, no light as light; there is no division and so it is not born or time, or thought and all that. So in that Ground...

B: ... 'light and 'darkness' are not divided?

K: Right.

B: Which means to say that there is neither.

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

B: Non-dualistic means what? No division?

K: No division.

B: But nevertheless there is (living ?) movement. What does that mean, 'movement without division'?

K: I mean by that a movement that it is not time. That movement doesn't breed division. So, back to the Ground, in It there is neither darkness nor light, which is really no division. So what takes place? Would you say sir, that the Ground (of Creation ?) is an endless movement?

B: Yes.

K: What does that mean?
B: Well, it is not clear - it is difficult to express...

K: I think one can go into it, let's express it. What is 'movement' ? Apart (of going ) from here to there, apart from the time (involved ) is there any other movement?

B: Yes.

K: There is. The 'psychological' movement from being (this) to becoming (that), the movement of time. Is there a 'movement' which in itself has no division (no separation ) ? When you (K) have made that statement that (in the Ground of Creation ?) there is no division, it is That movement, right?

B: Well, you are saying that when there is no division (within our psyche) then 'that' movement is there. Right?

K: Yes. And 'X' says that is the Ground (of All That Is ?)

B: Right...
K: Would you say that movement has no end, and no beginning?

B: Yes... it flows without division, you see.

K: Do I capture the (inner) significance of that? Do I understand the depth of that statement? A movement (of Creation ?) in which there is no division (no separation ?) which means no element of time in it at all. Is that movement, surrounding man's (total consciousness ?) ?

B: Enveloping ?

K: Enveloping (the mind of ?) man. I am concerned with man, with (the consciousness of ?) mankind, which 'is' me. 'X' has made several statements and I have captured that statement which seems so absolutely true: that (consciousness-wise ?) there is no division. Which (if properly understood ?) means there is no action which is (self-) divisive.

B: Yes...

K: And also I see that this movement without time, is (envelopping the whole consciousness of the ?) world.

B: The universe ?

K: The universe, the cosmos, the whole.

B: The totality (of All Existence) .

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

B: That only this (timeless ) Movement (of Creation ) 'is'.

K: So, sir, can the (human) mind be (a part ) of that Movement? Because that is timeless, therefore deathless.

B: Yes, this Movement is without death. And as the (human) mind takes part in That it is of the same (quality) .

K: You understand what I am saying?

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

K: It has no meaning once I have understood there is no division...

B: Then it is not (so ) important ?

K:...(For a cosmically integrated mind ?) death has no meaning.

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

K: Oh, the ending of the (physical) body, that's totally trivial. But your (insightful ?) statement saying "there is no division", has broken the spell of my darkness, and I see that there is an (Eternal ?) Movement and that's all. Which means you have abolished totally the fear of death.

B: Yes, I understand that when the human mind is partaking in that (Timeless ) Movement then the mind 'is' that movement.

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

B: Would you say that matter is also (part of ?) that movement?

K: Yes sir, I would say everything.
(To recap:) In my darkness I have listened to you. That's most important. And your clarity has broken the spell. Moreover, when you have said (that in the Ground of All Creation ?) there is no division, you have abolished the division between life and death. One can never say then 'I' am becoming immortal. It is so childish.
B: Yes, that's the ( mentality of ) division.

K: You have wiped away the whole sense of 'moving in darkness'. I wonder if you get this?

Q: When you make this statement, there is no division, and life 'is' death, what then is the significance of man's existence with all his struggles, with all his...

K: None. He is in darkness. It is like struggling (to survive ?) in a locked room. That is the whole point.

B: The true significance (of existence ) can only arise when the darkness is dispelled.

K: Of course.

B: Aren't we going to say that something more can be done besides dispelling darkness?

K: The mind of the one who has this (liberating ) insight, therefore dispelled darkness and therefore has understanding of that Ground, which is an (eternally creative ?) movement without time and so on, then that mind itself 'is' (one with) that movement.

B: Yes, but it isn't the totality. That Movement is including the material world, (as well as the Universal) Mind.

K: Yes sir. Yes sir.

B: So we were saying that the Ground may be beyond the universal mind. You were saying earlier that the movement, that the ground is more than the universal mind still, more than the emptiness.

K: We said that, much more.

B: Much more. But we are not saying that this Movement is only Mind.

K: Mind -in the sense the Ground - 'is' the movement.

B: But you said the Ground goes beyond the mind...

K: Now just a minute: what do you mean by beyond the mind?

B: Just going back to what we were discussing a few days ago: we said we have the emptiness, the universal mind and then the Ground is beyond that mind.

K: Would you say beyond that (Universal) mind is this Movement?

B: Yes. The mind emerges from the movement as a ground and falls back to the ground, that is what we are saying.

K: Yes, that's right. Mind emerges from the (Ground) movement.

B: And it dies back into that movement.

K: That's right. It has it being in the Ground movement.

B: Yes and matter also ?

K: Quite. But sir, what I want to get at is: I am a human being faced with this (mystery of) ending and you abolish that fear .

B: Yes it is not fundamental.

K: It is not fundamental. You have removed one of the greatest fears of our life - the fear of death. You see what it does to a human being when there is no death? Which means the mind doesn't age, the ordinary mind I am talking about. I don't know if I am conveying this.

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 you know that?

K: Because there is no conflict, because there is no strain, there is no becoming, movement. You follow?

B: Yes, well this is something that it is hard to communicate one's certainty about.

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

B: You are stating something about the (non-aging of the ?) brain cells about which I have no feeling for. It might be so, (or not?)

K: I think it is so. I want to discuss it. A mind which has lived in the darkness is in constant movement .

B: Yes.

K: Therefore there is the wearing out of the cells, they decay biologically .

B: But somebody might argue that even without conflict they could 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 conflict.

K: Decay can be slowed down.

B: Perhaps a great deal ?

K: A great deal. Ninety per cent.

B: That we can understand. But if you say a hundred per cent, then it is hard to understand.

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

B: Well, some people are said to have lived up to a hundred and fifty, living in very pure air and having good ( Greek ?) 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 I was reading 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 anything that lives in time also dies in time.

K: Yes but the brain which has had insight has changed the cells.

Q: Are you implying in a way that even the organic brain...

K: Yes sir. We said that insight brings about a ( qualitative ?) change in the brain cells, which means these brain cells are no longer thinking in terms of time. Right sir?

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. That all sounds so 'damn trivial', all that.

B: Yes, it doesn't seem to make much difference. But it's an interesting idea.

K: What we are trying to find out is: what effect has (the contact of ?) this extraordinary Movement ( of Creation ?) on the human brain, you understand sir?

B: Yes. If we say the brain in some way directly "enveloped" in this movement.

K: Yes, it is.

B: That would bring it to order. But there is a direct (inter-) flow, physically and also mentally.

K: Yes, both. It must have an extraordinary effect on the brain.

Q: Krishnaji, you talked earlier about energy - not the everyday energy but some very...

K: We said that movement is the 'total energy'. Now this (clarity of) insight has 'seen' that extraordinary movement and it (that lucky mind ?) is part of that Energy (of Creation ?) .

But to come much closer to (our life on) earth, I have lived with the fear of death, fear of not becoming and so on, and suddenly I see ( that consciousness-wise ?) there is no division and I understand this whole thing. So what has happened to my brain? If you see this whole thing as a tremendous truth -with all your heart, mind, you 'see' this thing, that very perception must affect (the everyday functioning of) your brain.

B: Yes. It brings order.

K: Not only order in my life but in the brain itself.

B: (The science) people can prove that if you are under stress the brain cells start to break down. It is proved. And if you have order in the brain cells then it is quite different.

K: I have a feeling sir, that the brain never loses the quality of that Movement.

B: Once it has (contacted ) it ?

K: Of course. I am talking of the person who has been ( meditating ?) through all this .

B: So probably it never loses that quality.

K: Therefore it is no longer (getting personally ?) involved in time.

B: It would no longer be dominated by time. The brain, from what we were saying, is not evolving in any sense, you can't say that man's brain has evolved since the last ten thousand years. You see science, knowledge, has evolved but people felt the same about life several thousand years ago as they do now.

K: Now, (for 'meditation' homework ?) I want to find out: in that 'silent emptiness' is the brain absolutely still? I am talking of the (non-) movement of thought, or of any reaction.

B: Yes. The brain does not go off on its own, like (indulging in ?) thought.

K: You see, you have done a tremendous act - you have abolished death, which is a tremendous thing. And what is (inner state of ) the brain, when there is no death? You follow? It has undergone a surgical operation.

B: We talked about the brain normally has the notion of (its own) death continually there in the background and that notion is disturbing the brain constantly.

K: Yes sir.

B: Because the brain foresees its own ending and it is trying to stop it... and it can't.

K: It can't.

B: And therefore it has a (major) problem.

K: A constant struggle with it.

B: In the background.

K: So all that (fear) has come to an end. What an extraordinary thing you have done.
How does that affect my daily life? Because I have to live on this earth. My daily life as this everlastingly becoming successful, all that has gone. What an extraordinary thing has taken place. You follow sir?

Saturday we will pursue this but we have understood a great deal today.

B: In bringing in this question of daily life you might bring in the question of compassion.

K: Of course, of course, all that. You see sir, is that movement compassion?

B: It would be beyond. Compassion might emerge out of it.

K: Of course if you haven't got that yet. We had better stop.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 25 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Jun 2014 #10
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

OJAI 8TH CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM 19TH APRIL, 1980

Krishnamurti: We left off with 'non-movement'. A human being who has been pursuing the (illusory ?) path of ('psychological' ?)becoming and (experientially ?) went through this sense of(inner) emptiness, silence, energy, and abandoned almost everything and comes to the (innermost ?) point, the Ground (of Creation). And how does this (total) insight affect his daily life? What is his relationship to society, what is his action with regard to a world that is really living and struggling in (spiritual) darkness ? As we discussed the other day, (his action) is (in terms of ?) 'non-movement'. What does that mean?

B: Well, in some sense it seems inconsistent to say 'non-movement' while you say the Ground (of Creation) is (a timeless ?) movement.

K: Would you say the ordinary, average man, educated, sophisticated, with all his (pleasant and/or ?) unpleasant activities, is constantly in movement ?

B: Well a certain kind of movement.

K: I mean a movement in time, a movement in (self-) becoming. And we are saying the man who has trodden that path and come to that ( Ground of Creation check ?) point, and from there what is his action? We said for the moment, whatever that may mean, non-action, non-movement. What does that mean?

B: Well it means, as you said, he's not taking part in this (temporal becoming) process.

K: Of course, that is obvious. If he doesn't take part in this (collective ?) process, what part does he play? Would you say a complete non-action?

B: Well it is not clear why you should call it 'non-action', we could think that it is action of another kind which is not part of the process of becoming, but since whatever you do is action, his action would be directed towards what underlies this illusory process: like we were discussing the other day the 'wrong turning' which is continually coming out of the Ground. Right?

K: Yes, yes. You see various religions have described a man who is illuminated, especially in the Hindu religious books, there it is stated very clearly, how he looks, how he walks, the whole state of his being. I think that is merely a poetic description of something which is...

B: You think it is imagination?

K: I'm afraid a great deal of it is imagination. But I have discussed this point with some (pundits) and it is not like that, that is no imagination. Somebody who described it knew exactly what it was.

B: Well how should he know? It is not clear.

K: So what is a man of that kind, how does he live in this world? It is a very interesting (experiential ?) question if you go into it rather deeply.
There is an (inner) state of non-movement.

B: You see it is not clear exactly what you mean by this '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 is (alive and) moving but in relation to the field it stands. That is the picture we get.

K: You see, if you have gone from the beginning to the end, now you are at the end with a totally different kind of (inner) movement, which is timeless and all that.

B: I agree.

K: You 'are' (one with ?) that. And I come to you and say, 'What is the state of a mind, that has walked on that path and ended (its psychological becoming in time) , totally moved out of darkness, what is the state of that mind?'

B: If you say it is non-movement are you implying it is constant?

K: It must be.

B: To stand together as a whole - that is really the literal meaning.

K: Is that it?

B: That is the picture you have got of the tree as well, you know. That is the picture which the tree in the field suggested.

K: Yes, I know. It is a nice image but let's move from it. What is the (inner) quality of that mind that has started from the beginning and went through all that, the centre of darkness has been wiped away, that mind must be entirely different. Now what does such a mind do, or not do, in the world which is in darkness?

B: Well, this mind does not enter into the movement of that (illusory) world .

K: Agreed.

B: And it has a constancy which is not static, but the same as the Ground movement, which is completely free.

K: What has happened to that mind? Let's go into it a little bit. It has no anxiety, no fear and all the rest of it. This mind being no-thing, not-a-thing, and therefore empty of knowledge - would it be always acting in the 'light' of insight?

B: Yes, well, it would be constantly pervaded by the quality of insight.

K: Yes, that is what I mean. It is acting constantly in that (timeless) flash of insight. So what does that mean in one's daily life? Earn a livelihood...

B: Well, that would be another point. You would have to find a way to stay alive.

K: But what will he do? He has no professional skill and no coin with which he can buy (anything) .

B: Well suppose you had to take care of yourself anyway, you would need a certain skill to find the food which you need, you see if everybody were to do this then the human race would perish.

K: I am not sure sir, because developping a skill implies as we said, knowledge, from that knowledge you experience with and gradually develop a skill. And that skill gives you an opportunity to earn a livelihood, meagre or a great deal. But this (K ?) man says, there may be a different way of living and earning. We are used to that pattern - right sir? And he may say, 'Look, that may be totally wrong'.

B: Then it depends what you mean by 'skill'. Suppose he has to drive a car, well that takes some practical skills, you see. Is he going to do without that?

K: I had better go more carefully into the word 'skill'.
B: But 'skill' could also have a bad meaning by being very clever at getting money.

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

B: But then people become very skilful at getting other people to give them money, you see!

K: That might be 'the game'. That may be it! As I am doing!

Q: I wish you were more skilled at that!

K: Sufficient unto the day. We are talking of a man who has been through all this and has 'come back' to the world and says, 'Here I am'. What is his relationship to society ?

B: Well, there is a 'superficial' relationship he has to have.

K: All right. A superficial contact with the world.

B: He has to obey the laws, he has to follow the traffic signals...

K: Quite. But I want to find out sir, what is he to do? Write, talk, that also means skill.

B: Well, that kind of skill need not be harmful, you see.

K: I think if we could find out the (inner) quality of a mind that has been through that from the beginning to the end, that man's mind is entirely different, and he is (living ?) in the world. How does he look upon the world? You have 'reached' and come back and I am an ordinary man, living in this world, what is your (communicating ?) relationship to me? Obviously none because I am living in a world of darkness and you are not. So (an authentic) relationship can only exist when (my inner) darkness ends.

B: Yes...

K: Then there is only (a shared communion with ?) That. But now I look at you with my eyes which are accustomed to darkness and to division. And you don't. And yet you have to have some contact with me, a relationship (based on) compassion - not (what may be conveniently) translated by me as compassion: 'Oh it shows you are not compassionate if you don't do this'. I cannot judge what your compassion is. Right?

B: That follows from that, yes.

K: I don't know what your love is, what your compassion is because my only love and compassion has been this. And so what do I do with you?

B: Which one are we talking about now?

K: You, 'X', who have been through all that and come back.

B: Yes and 'Y' has not.

K: 'Y' has not. 'Y' says to you, 'Who are you? You seem so different, your way of looking at life is different. Who are you'? And what will 'Y' (the average decent worldly person) do with you, 'X'? That is the question.

B: I mean, what will 'Y' do?

K: Our initial question has been what will 'X' do with 'Y'. But I think we were putting the wrong question. What will 'Y' do with 'X'? I think what would happen generally is (a) 'Y' would worship him, (b) kill him, or (c) neglect (completely ignore ?) him. Right?

B: Yes...

K: If (a) 'Y' worships 'X' ,then everything is very simple (for 'X' or 'K' ?) . He has (free access to all ) the 'goodies' of the modern world. But that doesn't (totally) answer my question. My question is not only what will 'Y' do to 'X' but will 'X' do with 'Y'? 'X's' (role ?) is to say, 'Look, walk out of this darkness, there is no answer in this darkness so walk out.' And 'Y' then says ' Show me the way' - We're back again (in the process of 'time') , you follow? So what will 'Y' do to 'X'?

B: Well I can't see that 'Y' can do very much except what you said to worship, or to do something else.

K: Kill him or neglect him.

B: But if compassion works in 'X'...?

K: Yes, 'X' 'is' That. He won't even call it 'compassion'.

B: Then 'X' will work to find a way to penetrate the darkness.

K: Wait: so 'X's' job is to work on darkness?

B: Well to discover how to penetrate darkness.

K: So, in that way he is earning a living (in the field of ...psychology ?) .

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

K: No, I am taking seriously. Probably 'X' is the (holistic ?) teacher. 'X' is out of (the mentality of modern ) society, out of darkness and 'X' is saying to the 'people of darkness': 'Come out'. What's wrong with that?

B: Well nothing is wrong with that.

K: That is his means of livelihood.

B: It's perfectly all right as long as it works for him...

K: It seems to work!

B: Of course if there were a lot of people like 'X' there would be some ($$$ ?) limit.

K: No sir. What would happen if there were lots of people like 'X'?

B: That is an interesting question (for the future generations ?)...

K: What would happen?

B: Well then I think there would be something revolutionary.

K: That's just it.

B: The whole thing would change.

K: That is just it. If there were lots of people like that they would not be (inwardly) divided. That is the whole point, right?

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

K: Tremendous. That's right.

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

K: That is 'X's' job in (this ?) life. He says that is the only thing. A group of those ten 'X's' will bring a totally different kind of ( Consciousness ?) revolution. Will society stand for that?

B: They will (hopefully ?) have this extreme intelligence and so they will find a way to do it, you see.

K: Of course, of course.

B: 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. You are saying something that is actually (supposed to be ?) happening. So would you say then that the function of those many 'X's' is to awaken human beings to that (timeless) Intelligence which will dispel the darkness? And that is (their right ?) means of livelihood. Right?

B: Yes.

K: Then there are those (countless) people who exploit and there are 'X's' who don't exploit people. All right. (On paper ?) that seems very simple. But I don't think it is all that simple.

B: Right.

K: Is that the only function of 'X'? That seems very simple, doesn't it?

B: Well it is a difficult function ( in terms of holistic education ?) , it is not really so 'simple'...

K: The function may be complicated but (with the right people ?) it can easily be solved. But I want to find out something much deeper: apart from this (educational) function, what is 'X' to do? 'X' says to 'Y', 'listen', and 'Y' takes time and gradually, or perhaps (at) once, 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: The Ground and so on, yes.

K: But is that all he has to do in this world? Just to (holistically ?) teach people to move out of darkness?

B: Well that seems to be the prime task at the moment, in the sense that if this doesn't happen the whole society will sooner or later collapse anyway. But he needs to be in some sense creative, more deeply, I think.

K: What is that?

B: Well that is not clear...

K: Sir, suppose you are 'X' and have an enormous field( of Universal Consciousness ?) in which you operate, not merely teaching me, but you have (access to ?) this extraordinary (timeless ) Movement. That is, you have this abounding energy and you have produced all that (in order to) to teach me to move out of darkness.

B: Yes, well that can only be a part of it.

K: So what does the rest ( of this Universally Integrated Consciousness ?) do, you follow? I don't know if I am conveying this.

B: Well that is what I mean by some 'creative action' taking place.

K: Yes, beyond that. You may write, you may preach, you may heal, you may do this and that, but all those are all rather trivial. Right sir? Trivial, it is a very small business. But you have (free access to ?) something else. Have I ( the earnest 'activist & follower' ?) reduced you, 'X', to my pettiness? My pettiness says, 'You must do something more to help me move.' Right? You comply to the very smallest degree, but you have (access to ) something much more immense than that. You understand my question?

B: Yes. So what?

K: How is That operating on (the consciousness of ?) 'Y'? How is that immensity operating on 'Y' apart from (flashing light on his inner ?) darkness - I don't know if I am conveying this?

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

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

B: Yes, and what could this be?

K: That immensity which you 'are' must affect, must do something.

B: It must necessarily do something. But how will it affect mankind? It would suggest to people that there is some sort of "Extrasensory effect", you know that it spreads.

K: That is what I am trying to capture: because that Immensity ...

B: ... necessarily act?

K: I wonder if you see what I am trying to get at sir.

B: You are saying that there is a more direct action ?

K: No, no. That (Intelligent ?) Immensity necessarily has other activities.

B: Yes, other activities at other levels ...

K: Yes, other activities at various degrees of (our) consciousness.

B: There are different levels of acting.

K: Levels. But that too is a very small affair. What do you say sir?

B: Well since the Consciousness emerges from the Ground, this ( Universally Creative) activity is affecting (the consciousness of) all mankind (directly ) from the Ground.

K: Yes.

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

K: I am not interested in those 'many people'. I want you and I to understand that this Ground, that Immensity, is not limited to such petty little affairs. It couldn't.

B: Yes, well since this Ground includes even physically the whole universe.

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

B:... to these little activities.

K: It sounds so silly.

B: Yes, well I think that raises the question of what is the significance of mankind in the universe, or in the ground?

K: Yes, that's it. That's it.

B: Because even the best we could be doing has very little significance on that scale. Right?

K: Yes. I think this is just opening the (next ?) chapter - by his very existence 'X' is ...

B:... he 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 that works through the usual channels of society.

K: Yes, I can see that. What is this ('X') man bringing apart from the little things? Would you say, sir, sincer 'X' has (access to ) that immense intelligence, that energy, and he must operate at a much greater level than one can possibly conceive, which must affect (directly from the Source) the (struggling ?) consciousness of those who are living in darkness.

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

K: Apparently not, but it must affect it sir.

B: Well why do you say it has to?

K: Because (the spiritual) 'light' must affect 'darkness'.

B: Well, perhaps (the holistically open ) 'Y' who is (still) living in darkness he is not sure that there is such an effect. He might say maybe there is, but I'd want to see it manifest. But not seeing anything and still being in darkness, he says what shall I do? It may well be that the activity is much greater but you know it hasn't shown. If we could 'see' it.

K: How would it be shown?

B: Well not proof but just to be shown. Let's say 'Y' might say something like this: many people have made a similar statement and some of them have obviously been wrong and you know one wants to say it could be true. You see until now I think the things we have said make sense and you know they follow logically to a certain extent.

K: Yes, I understand all that sir.

B: But now you are saying something which goes much further and other people have said things like that (for ages) and one feels that they were fooling themselves...

K: No. No. '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 the thing was reasonable so far, 'Y' may have some 'confidence' (good faith ?) that it may go further.

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

B: Of course there is no proof.

K: No.

B: So we could only explore.

K: That is what I am trying to do.

B: Yes.

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

K: Must have. Necessarily must.

Q: Which are what?

B: Well we are saying that somehow he makes possible a (more direct) activity of the Ground in the whole consciousness of mankind which would not have been possible without him.

K: Yes.

B: That is what I understand.

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

Q: Is it something that appears in the daily life of 'X'?

K: In his daily life of 'X' is apparently doing the petty little stuff - teaching, writing, book-keeping, or whatever it is. Is that all? It seems so silly.

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

K: No, he apparently is not.

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

K: That's it. When 'X' talks it may be different, he may say things differently but the man who has walked through that right from the beginning to the end, he is entirely different and when he says something, that is also (qualitatively) different, but let's leave that. We are asking: if such a man has the whole of that (Intelligent & Compasionate) energy to call upon, to reduce all that energy to this petty little place seems so ridiculous.

B: Yes, well let me ask a question. Why does that Ground require this ( K) man to operate on mankind? Why can't the Ground operate directly in (the Consciousness of ?) mankind to clear things up?

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

Q: But can't that Immensity act directly on (the consciousness of ) mankind?

K: The question is why does the Ground need this man? It doesn't need him.

B: Yes but when he is (around ?) then the Ground will use him.

K: That is all.

B: Well would it be possible that the Ground could do something more directly to clear up this (whole mess) ?

K: That is why I am asking in different words. The Ground doesn't need this (K) man but the man has touched the ground. So the ground is 'employing' him. He is part of that movement. So, why should he do anything? Except this?

B: Well perhaps he does nothing.

K: That very 'doing nothing' may be (allowing) the doing (of the ground) .

B: 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 this 'doing nothing'.

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

K: He 'is' that (action) . 'X' says: if I am only concerned to talk, that is a very small thing and I am not bothered about that. But there is a vast field which must affect the whole of mankind.

B: Well there is an analogy which may we can consider it. In chemistry a catalyst makes possible a certain action without directly taking part, merely by being what is it.

K: Yes, what it is.

Q: But even then (the incredulous) 'Y' would say it isn't happening because the world is still in a mess. So is there a truth in the world for the activity of that man?

K: 'X' says he is sorry that is no question at all. I am not interested in proving anything. Right? It isn't a mathematical problem or technical problem to be shown and proved. He says "this is so": I have walked from the beginning of man to the very end of man and there is a 'movement' which is timeless. The Ground which is ( the creative source of ?) the universe, the cosmos, everything. And the Ground doesn't need the man but this man has come upon it. Right? And he is still a man in the world. Right? And that man says 'I write and do something or other.' - not to prove the ground, not to do anything but just out of 'X's' compassion he does that. But there is much greater (innermost ) Movement which necessarily must play a part in the (spiritual evolution of our ?) world.

Q: Does this 'greater movement' play a part through 'X'?

K: Obviously, obviously. And if there were ten 'X's' of course it would be...
I am not saying this out of vanity, but 'X' says there is 'something else' operating which cannot possibly be put into words. There is nothing which a man like 'Y' will understand. He will immediately translate it into some kind of illusory thing. But all that 'X' can say is that there is ('something')

B: Well, the general view which (the science) people are developing now is that the universe has no (spiritual) meaning. That it moves any old way, all sorts of things happen and none of them have any meaning.

K: None of them have meaning for the man who is here, but the man who is there, speaking relatively, says it is full of meaning, not invented by thought and all that. 'X' says (or hopes ?) that perhaps there will be ten people who will 'join the game', and that might affect the human society - it might be something totally different, based on intelligence, compassion and all the rest of it.

B: Well if the whole of mankind were to see this, are you saying then that that would be something different?

K: Oh, yes sir. Of course.

B: Would it be a new...

K:... it would be paradise on earth.

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

K: Of course. I think we had better stop there. But you see I am not satisfied with leaving (the action of) this Immensity to be reduced to some few words. It seems so incredibly stupid. You see, (the wordly man ) 'Y' is concerned with 'show me, prove it to me, what benefits it has, will I get my future (fixed ?) So he reduces that Immensity to his (wordly) pettiness and puts it in a temple, and has therefore lost it completely. 'X' says: there is something so immense, please do look at this, and 'Y' is always translating it into 'show it to me', 'prove it to me', 'will I have a better life' - you follow? He is concerned always with that (mentality of self-interest) .
'X' brings the 'light'. That's all he can do. Isn't that enough?

B: To bring the (inner) 'light' which would allow other people to be open to the immensity.

K: Is it like this sir? We only see a small part but that very small part extends to infinity. That means endless.

B: We see a small part of what?

K: That Immensity we see it only as a very small thing. But that immensity is the (Light of the ?) whole universe. I can't help but think that it must have some immense affect on 'Y', on society.

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

K: I know.

B: But you are saying that Its effect is there?

K: Yes sir.

B: Well, I don't want to raise another question but do you (really ?) think it is possible that a thing like this could divert the course of mankind away from the dangerous course he is taking?

K: Yes sir, that is what I am thinking. But to divert the course of man's (self-) destruction somebody must 'listen'. Right? Somebody - ten people must listen to that Immensity calling.

B: So that Immensity may divert the course of man, yes. The individual cannot do it.

K: The individual cannot do it, obviously. But 'X', who is supposed to be an individual, has trodden this path and says, 'Listen', but they don't 'listen'...

B: Well then is it possible to discover how to make people listen?

K: No, then we are back (in the mentality of time) .

B: What do you mean?

K: Don't act, you have nothing to do.

B: What does it mean 'not to do a thing'?

K: Sir, as 'Y' I realize that whatever I do, sacrifice, give up, practise, I am still living in that (self-centred) circle of darkness. So 'X' says, 'Don't act, 'you' have nothing to do.' You follow? You do everything except wait and see what happens.
We must pursue this sir. It is all (looking ) so hopeless from the point of view of 'Y'.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 25 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Jun 2014 #11
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

9TH CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM 1ST JUNE 1980

K: Can the human brain be psychologically free of of time?
B: What does it really mean to be 'psychologically' free of time?

K: That there is 'no tomorrow'.

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

K: Let's take the other side first: what does it mean to be (inwardly) living in time? Hoping, thinking (about tomorrow) , living in the memories of 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 (the psychological) time. And that is producing (the ongoing) chaos in the world

B: So you say I am looking at the watch but I am not 'psychologically' extending how it is going to feel in the next hour, when I have the fulfilment of my desire, or whatever.

K: I am just saying the way we are living now is in the field of time. And there we have brought all kinds of problems, suffering, all that. Right?

B: Yes, it should be made clear why this produces suffering necessarily. Say, if you live in the field of time you are saying suffering is inevitable?

K: Inevitable, inevitable.

B: Why?

K: It is simple. Which is, ( this collective mentality based on ?) time has built the ego ( the self- image ?) sustained by society, by the parents, by education, and from there I act.

B: Towards the future psychologically, that is towards some future state of being. Right?

K: Yes. Which is, this 'centre' is always (engaged in a process of temporal) becoming.

B: Trying to become better?

K: Better, nobler, or the other way round. So all this constant endeavour to become something psychologically, is a factor of time.

B: Are you saying that produces suffering?

K: Obviously. Because it is a divisive (mental process) . It divides ( isolates ?) 'me' and when I depend on somebody and that somebody is gone, I feel lonely, miserable, unhappy, grief, suffering. All that goes on. So we are saying that any factor of division which is the very nature of the self, must inevitably bring suffering.

B: You are saying that through time the 'self' is set up, organized, and then the self introduces division and conflict and so on. So, if there were no 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.

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, but still it could.

K: I think it does follow logically.

B: Well, it follows logically that it would stop degenerating.

K: Yes.

B: And you are adding further that it would start to regenerate.

K: So can this 'time' element not exist (inwardly) ? I say it can. And we said the ending of suffering comes about when the 'self' (identified consciousness) , which is built up through time, is no longer there.
A man who is actually going through a terrible time, might reject all this, he is bound to reject it, but (if and ?) when he comes out of the shock of this, 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, the brain is out of that time-binding quality.

N: Temporarily. Then he eventually slips back into time.

K: No, you can't. You can't go back, if you see something 'dangerous' . Like a cobra, like whatever danger it is, you cannot. (As a result of a lopsided education ?) psychologically we are unaware of the (potential) dangers. But if we become as aware of these (hidden ?) dangers as we are aware of a physical danger there is an (instant ) action which is not time-binding.

B: Yes, as long as you could perceive this (inner danger of psychological time) you will respond immediately. But to use your analogy of the 'dangerous animal', he might take another form that you don't see as dangerous.

K: Yes.

B: Therefore there would be a slipping back in ( the old continuity of) time if you didn't see. This illusion of time might come in some other form.

K: Of course. Which is, the (unaware ?) brain itself might get back because it itself has not seen the danger.

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

K: The Holy Ghost taking different shapes.

B: I think that is the point.

K: Sir, that is the real root of it, (this inner mentality of ?) time.

B: Well you see, 'time' and our (psychological ?) '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 that. Why is time the same structure as the illusion of 'individuality'? You see, 'individuality' is the sense of being a person who is located here somewhere.

K: Located and divided...

B: ...divided from the others. 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 he had an identity (in time) . So it seems that we mean by 'individual' somebody who is (existing) in time.

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

B: Yes, but many people may find that very hard to be convinced that it is a fallacy...

K: Of course, many people find anything (psychologically challenging ?) 'very hard'.

B: There is a very common feeling that as an individual I have existed 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 (the Stream of ?) time. Right?

K: Obviously, sir...So if that (very realistic ?) illusion could be broken, that time has created individuality, which is erroneous.

B: Yes, it is through (our evolution in ?) time that this notion of 'individuality' has arisen.

K: Of course. Can the human 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' (of psychological time ) stop for a minute ?

N: Is there a faculty in the human system which has some transforming effect on the brain?

K: We have said that (the insightful) perception is out of time, seeing immediately the whole nature of time. Which is to have, to have an insight into the nature of time. If there is (such ) an insight into the nature of time the very brain cells which are part of time break down (from the temporal pattern) and bring about a (qualitative) change in themselves. That is what this (K) person is saying. You may disagree, but I say this is not a matter of proof, it is a matter of action. Do it, find it, test it.

N: You were saying the other day that when the consciousness is empty of its content..

K: The (psychologically active) content is 'time'.

N: You said that leads to the transformation of the brain cells. When you say consciousness is 'empty of the content' there...

K:.. there is no (self centred) 'consciousness' as we know it. (The self-) consciousness is put together by its content (of past memories) . The content is the result of time. If you have an insight into that the whole pattern is gone, broken.

N: Yes, if.. Who has this insight?

K: Not me. There is an insight. We are saying 'time' is the factor which has made up the content. It has made it up and it also thinks about it. All that (pro-active ?) bundle, is the result of time. Now an insight into this whole movement brings about a transformation in the brain. Because it is not time-binding, that insight.

B: If you say this (psychologically active ) content, is a certain structure physically in the brain, you may say that in order for this psychological content to exist the brain over many years has made many connections of the cells, which constitute this content.

K: Quite, quite.

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

K: Which is, sir, then there is a total "emptiness".

B: But when you say 'total emptiness' you don't mean you don't see the railway, but you mean emptiness of all this inward content.

K: That's right. That '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 (potentially intelligent) energy?

K: That's right. Wastage of energy.

B: Then when they begin to dissipate, that energy is there.

K: Yes.

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

K: Of course, of course. So Sir, we are more or less, you and I, a captured (friendly) audience. If there was a scientist, bio-feedback or another brain specialist, would they accept this? Would they even listen to all this?

B: Maybe a few would, but obviously the majority would not.

K: No. So how do we affect, how do we touch the human brain?

B: Well, the way it will sound to most scientists is that it will sound rather abstract, you see. They will say it could be so, it is a nice theory... but we have no proof of it.

K: Of course, of course.

B: Therefore they would say, OK, it doesn't excite me very much because I don't see any proof. So, the more favourable ones 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 (in there) nobody can see it, with their eyes.

K: Of course. I understand. It is the human brain which has evolved through a million years. One biological freak, can move out of it, but how do you get at the human mind to make him see this?

B: Well I think you have to communicate the necessity of what you are saying, that it is inevitable. Say if somebody sees something, you know, you explain it to him and he sees it happening before his eyes he says, 'That is so'.

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.

B: Well it is the (self-sustaining) function of this occupied brain that it is occupied with itself and it doesn't listen.

N: In fact one of the things is that this (self-centred) occupation seems to start very early. 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, you yourself see that as a tremendous truth, you will find ways and methods to help them. That is creative, you can't just be told and copy and imitate, then you are lost.

B: Well then the question is: how is it possible to communicate to the brain, which rejects, which doesn't listen?

K: No, if I refuse to listen. You see, sir, I think 'meditation' is a great factor in all this. I feel we have been 'meditating'. But the ordinary (self-centred) people wouldn't accept this as meditation. So (the beginning of ?) 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, you see. Now are you saying meditation is conducive to insight.

K: Meditation IS insight.

B: It is insight already. But you see insight is usually thought of as the flash.

K: Yes, insight is a flash.

B: But 'meditation' sounds like a more constant (endeavour)

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

B: That's the question, yes.

K: We can reject the systems, the methods, the authorities, the acknowledged Zen, Tibetan, Hindu, Buddhist, we can reject all that, because it is obviously merely traditional repetition, time-biding nonsense.
Now meditation, sir, is this (inward) penetration, this sense of moving without any past.

B: The only point to clear up is that when you (K) use the word 'meditation', you seem to mean something more than insight, you see.

K: A bit more, much more! Because (the flash of ?) insight has freed the brain from the past, from time, therefore there is no sense of (self) becoming.

B: But that seems to mean that you have to insight if you are going to meditate. Right?

K: Yes, sir, that's right.

B: You cannot meditate without insight.

K: Of course.

B: But you can't regard 'meditation' as a procedure by which you will come to insight.

K: No. That immediately implies time. (So, for starters the ?) insight into greed, into fear, into all that, frees the mind from all that. Then 'meditation' has quite a different quality. It has nothing to do with all the guru's (artizan ?) meditations. So would we say, sir that to have insight there must be silence?

B: My mind has silence, yes.

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

B: The structure of the occupation.

K: Yes. Then meditation, what is it? There is no movement as we know it ...

B: Some other (inward ?) kind?

K: I don't see how we can describe by words that sense of a 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?

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 26 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jun 2014 #12
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

10TH CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM 7TH JUNE 1980

Krishnamurti: We left off the other day (at the point ) where the mind is totally empty of all the 'things' (images ?) that thought has put there, then begins real meditation . But I would like to go back a bit and find out if the numan mind, if the brain, can ever be free, not only from all illusion, any form of deception but whether it can have its own (sense of harmony and ?) order . And also whether the brain, however much damaged it is, and most brains are damaged by all kinds of (artificial) stimulations, by shocks, whether that brain can heal itself completely. That is what I would like to go into.
So first let's begin by asking, is there a (sense of inner) order which is not man-made, which is not the result of calculated order out of disturbance, an order which is not thought-made?

Bohm: Are you referring to the (order of the Universal ?) mind?

K: Is there a 'cosmic' order?

B: Well, right that is still the same thing in a sense because the word 'cosmos' means order, but (you're talking of ) the whole order which includes the order of the universe and the order of the mind?

K: Yes. Is there an order which man can never possibly conceive? You follow? Because any (mental) concept (of order) is still within the (existing) patterns of thought.

B: Well, then how are we going to discuss it?

K: Is the 'order' we know (of an entropic nature, and therefore ) part of disorder ?

B: Well (scientifically speaking) anything that actually happens has its own order. Now you can call (the entropic order) 'disorder' if you like.
If your body is not functioning rightly, say a cancer is growing, now that is a certain order in the (developpment of the ) cancer cell, but it is just growing in a certain way which tends to break down the (holistic order of the) body, but the whole thing has its own kind of order and it has not violated the laws of nature.

K: Yes, yes.

B: But relative to some (medical) context you could say it is disorder because if we are talking of the health of the body then the cancer is called disorder.

K: Quite, quite. Cancer has its own order...

B: But it is not compatible with the order of the growth of the body.

K: Quite. So what do we mean by order? Is there such a thing as (a cosmic) order?

B: Well order is a perception - we can't get hold of order.

K: You see (the problem is that ) the human brain, the (thinking ?) mind is so contradictory, so bruised, it can't find (an inner sense of) order.

B: Yes, but what kind of order does it want?

K: It wants an order in which it will feel safe, where it won't be bruised, shocked, or feel physical or psychological pain.

B: The whole point of order is not to have contradictions.

K: That's right. But the brain has (a lot of internal) contradictions

B: Yes, and in some ways something has gone wrong (in its natural functioning) , as we said before , it took a 'wrong turn'.

K: We think it took a wrong turn, yes. But I want to go into something else , which is: can the mind, the brain, be totally free of all 'organized' order?

B: Why you want it to be free of 'organized' order ?

K: Because then it becomes a (time binding) pattern.

B: You mean by 'organized' an order that is imposed ?

K: Imposed or self-imposed. I am trying to find out whether the brain can ever be free from all these (enforced) impositions, pressures, wounds, of all the trivialities of existence, which are pushing it in different directions, whether it can be completely free of all that. If it cannot, meditation has no meaning.

B: Yes, but you could go further and say probably that human life has no meaning if you cannot free it of all that. It just goes on indefinitely.

K: Yes. If it goes on as it has done indefinitely for millennia, our life has no (deeper) meaning. But to find out if it has a meaning at all, and I think there is a meaning, the brain must be totally free of all these.

B: Well, so that is what you call 'disorder'. We could say it is almost like a (mental ?) cancer going on inside the brain. It is moving in a way which is not compatible with the natural health of the brain.

K: Yes.

B: It grows as time goes on, it increases from one generation to another through tradition. Now we say - it is almost the same question to ask how are we going to stop these (mental) 'cancer cells' from taking over.

K: That is what I want to get at. How is this (entropic) pattern, which has been set, and which has for generation after generation accumulated, how is that to end, to be 'broken through'? That is the real question that is at the back of my mind.

B: Why does the brain provide the soil for this stuff to go on, to grow?

K: It may be merely (indulging in old or new?) traditions, habits.

B: Well, but why does it stay in that, you see?

K: It may be that it is (subliminally) afraid of something new taking place because in the old tradition it feels safe.

B: Yes, it seems that the brain deceives itself about this disorder. It doesn't seem to be able to see (what is really wrong with ?) it clearly.

K: I am asking why the brain has accepted that (entropic) pattern in spite of all the conflicts, misery and goes on in the same way, and is it possible to 'break through' that pattern? Dr Bohm asked, why does it go on, why doesn't it break through? And we said is it (either) so heavily conditioned that it cannot see its way out of , or it may be that by this constant repetition the human brain has become dull (inwardly inert, unperceptive ?) .

N: Is there an momentum of repetition?

K: Yes. That (self-sustained) 'momentum' of repetition makes the mind sluggish, mechanical. And in (in the sensory comfort of ?) that mechanical sluggishness it takes refuge and says, 'It's all right, I can go on'. That's what most human beings do.

B: Well to think that way 'is' a manifestation of disorder.

N: Do you connect order with intelligence? Or is order something that exists on its own?

B: Intelligence certainly requires the perception of order without (hidden ) contradictions. But in the terms what we're discussing we don't impose this order but rather it is natural.

K: Yes. Sir, let's come back. I am the ordinary ( 'Y' ?) man. I see that I am caught with my whole way of living; my thinking and my attitudes and so on, beliefs, is the result of this enormous length of time. Time is (the ground of) my whole existence. I take refuge in the (knowledge and experience of the ?) past, which cannot be changed.

B: Yes. But I think that if we were to talk to the ordinary man, the first thing he would feel is he doesn't really understand that ( this psychological process of ) 'time' is something that happens to (within ?) him.

K: After talking over with you, I see that my whole existence is based on time. Which is, time is the past and in that the brain takes refuge.

B: What does that mean exactly? How does it take refuge in the past ? People also think that the future can be changed, the Communists have said, give up the past, we are going to change (it all for you ?) .

K: But I can't give up (my psychological experience of ?) the past. We only (like to indulge in ) thinking that we can give up the past.

B: Yes, well that is the second point that even those who try to give up their past, those who don't want to take refuge in the (routines of the) past, still can't give it up.

K: That is just my point.

B: So it seems that which ever way you're doing it, you are stuck (in the psychological residues of time) .

K: So the next (experiential) step (to consider ?) is: why does the brain accept this way of living, and why doesn't it break it down? Is it just (a matter of) laziness? Or is it that in breaking it down it has no (alternative high ?) hopes?

B: Well, we haven't really understood why it does this. It is not clear. Say this (traditional) behaviour is disorderly, irrational and so on, and people have said, 'OK, let's give up this (psychological conditioning of the ?) past'... but (eventually) they find they can't. Why can't we ?
K: Why can't we give up the (psychological conditioning of the ?) past? If I give up the past... 'I' have no (psychological) existence.

B: Well you may have to clarify that...

K: It is simple: if I 'give up' (or garbage ?) all my (personal) remembrances, etc., etc., I have nothing (left to identify with ?), I am (feeling as) 'nothing'.

B: I think some people would look at it a little differently, like the Marxists. Marx said that it is (first) necessary to transform the conditions of human existence and that will remove his (psychological residues of the ) past, you see.

K: But it has not done this. It cannot be done.

B: Well, is that because when he tries to transform it he still works from the (psychological experience of the ) past?

K: Yes, that is what I am saying.

B: So, we don't depend on the (experience of the ) past at all, as you say, then what are we going to do?

K: I am (feeling as ?) 'nothing'. Because my (self-conscious) existence, my way of thinking, my life, everything is (projected) from the (memories of the ) past. And if you say, wipe that out, what have I left?

B: Well I think you could say we obviously have to keep certain things from the past like useful knowledge and technology.

K: Yes, we went through all that.

B: Now suppose we keep that (useful) part of the past and wipe out all the parts of the past which are contradictory...

K: ( Consciousness -wise) what is left? Just (the daily routines of family and ) going to the office? There is nothing left. Is that the (hidden) reason why we cannot give it up?

B: So you are saying simply that when people say they are giving up the past, they are not doing it also (inwardly) .

K: They are not doing it. Because my whole (psychological ) being has its (active) roots in the past.

B: Now if you told somebody 'Ok, give all that up and in the future you will have something quite different, better', then (some ?) people would be attracted. You see, people want to be assured of at least something.

K: That is just it. There is not-a-thing. You want to be assured, the common man, a human being, wants something to which he can cling to, can hold on to.

B: Or reach for: they feel not that they are clinging to the past but they are reaching for something (new) .

K: If 'I' reach for something it still is the movement of the past.

B: Yes, but that is not often obvious because people say it is a big new revolutionary situation. But it has its roots in the past.

K: That is what I am asking. As long as I have my roots in the past there cannot be a (sense of timeless ?) order.

B: Because the past is pervaded with disorder?

K: Yes, disorder. So, is my mind, my brain, willing to see that if I give up the past there is absolutely no-thing (inwardly) ? So if I have no (psychological ) carrots, nothing as a reward or punishment, how is this (weight of the ?) past to be dissolved? Because otherwise I am still living in the field of time. So am I willing to inwardly face (the feeling of an ) absolute 'emptiness'?

B: Well, what will you tell somebody who is not willing?

K: If somebody says, 'I am sorry I can't do all this nonsense' - you say, 'Well, carry on'. But (if I came all the way to here ?) I am willing to let my (psychological) past go completely, which means there is no effort, no reward, no punishment, no carrot, nothing. And the brain is willing to face this extraordinary state, totally new to it, of existing in a state of no-thing-ness.
(Now, supposing) I am willing to face this absolute no-thingness, emptiness because it has seen for itself that all the various places where it has taken refuge are illusions, so it has finished with all that.

B: I think this leaves out something. You have also brought up the question of the damage of the scars to the brain. The brain if it wasn't damaged possibly could do that fairly readily.

K: Look: can I discover (experientially) what has caused damage to the brain? One of the factors is strong emotions.

B: Strong sustained emotions.

K: Strong sustained emotions, like (frustration or ?) hatred, anger, they are not only a shock but they wound the brain. Right?

B: Well, excessive excitation too. Getting excessively excited by other means.

K: Of course, drugs and all that stuff. Excessive excitement, excessive anger, violence, hatred, all that. The natural response doesn't damage the brain. Right? Now my brain is damaged, suppose, it has been damaged through (my self-righteous ?) anger.

B: You could even say probably that neurons get connected up in the wrong way and the connections are too fixed. I think there is evidence that these things will actually change the structure.

K: Now, can I have an insight into the (destructive) nature of anger, violence ? And (if) so, that insight changes the cells of the brain which have been wounded.

B: Well possibly it would start them healing, yes.

K: Yes. All right. Start them healing. That healing must be immediate.

B: In some way it may take time in the sense that if wrong connections have been made it is going to take time to redistribute the material. The beginning of it, it seems to me, is immediate.

K: Make it that way, all right. And the nerves and all their adjustments will be as rapid as possible.

B: Something similar happens with cancer cells. Sometimes the cancer suddenly stops growing and it goes the other way, for some reason that is unknown but a change must have taken place in those cells.

K: Would it be, sir - if I may ask, I may be on the wrong track - when the brain cells change, a fundamental change there, the cancer process stops?

B: Yes, fundamentally it stops and it starts to dismantle.

K: Dismantle, yes that is it.

N: But there is another thing which I want to ask about the (dropping the ) past: for most people the past means the memories of pleasure.

K: Not only past pleasures, the (personal) remembrance of all the things.

N: One starts disliking pleasure only when it becomes stale, or it leads to difficulties butbasically one wants pleasure all the time. Now, what is your attitude to pleasure?

K: What do you mean, 'my attitude'?

N: How does one deal with this immense problem of pleasure in which most people are caught, because it is the (momentum of the ) past.

K: There is no (mental processing of ?) pleasure at the moment it is happening. It comes in later when it is remembered. So the remembrance (of pleasure) is -(the momentum of) the past.
(Now, back to 'meditation') am I willing to face 'nothingness', which means wipe out all that?

N: How does one wipe out this instinctual drive for pleasure?

K: What is pleasure? It is a constant remembrance of things past which have happened.

B: And also the expectation that it will happen again .

K: Of course, always (projected from the memory of the ) the past.

B: You have usually made this distinction of pleasure and enjoyment.

K: Yes, I did.

N: But I am saying, still the human being, even though he understands what you are saying, he is sort of held back in this field.

K: Because he is not willing to face this emptiness.
( The drive for) pleasure is not compassion, nor love. But perhaps if there is this (inner) mutation, (the motivation of) compassion is stronger than pleasure. So pleasure has no place in the (intelligence of) compassion.

B: Even the perception of order may be stronger than pleasure. If people are really concerned about something, the pleasure plays no role at that moment.

K: Compassion has got tremendous strength, an incalculable strength, pleasure is nowhere in it.

N: But what happens to a man in whom pleasure is dominant?

K: As long as he is unwilling to face this extraordinary emptiness he will keep on with the old pattern.

B: We have to say that there is a certain brain damage which causes this emphasis on sustained pleasure as well as the fear and the anger and the hate.

K: But the damaged brain is healed when there is insight. So do I, do you, as a human being, have an insight into the (psychological ) past, how very destructive it is to the brain, and the brain itself sees it and has an insight into it and moves out of that?

N: You are saying the beginning of order comes from insight?

K: Obviously. Let's walk from there.

N: Is it possible to gather a certain amount of order so that it gives rise to a certain amount of insight?

K: Ah! You cannot through the false find truth.

N: I am saying it on purpose because for many people the energy that is required for insight or the 'keenness' is lacking.

K: You are tremendously keen to earn a livelihood, to do something you are interested in. If you are interested vitally in this transformation, you have the energy.

As a (serious) human being, I have seen this insight has wiped away really the (psychological residues of the ?) past, and the brain is willing to live in no-thingness: there isn't a thing which thought has put there, there is no movement of thought, except (regarding the practical ?) knowledge which has its own place. But we are talking of the 'psychological' (inward) state of mind in which there is no movement of thought, there is absolutely nothing.

B: What does that 'no-thingness' really mean?

K: All right. What it really means is: thought is movement, thought is time. So, (onwardly) there is no time and thought.

B: Yes, and perhaps no sense of the existence of an 'entity' inside ?

K: Absolutely, of course. The existence of the entity is the (interactive) bundle of memories, the past.

B: But that (sense of one's inner) existence is not only (the result of our) thought thinking about it , but also the feeling that it is there, inside, you get a sort of feeling.

K: The feeling of one's being, yes. Otherwise, you follow, there is nothing.

B: Yes, even though it doesn't seem verbalizable.

K: Of course. I wonder if you are caught in an illusion that there is such a state.

B: Well it may be. So that inner 'no-thingness' would be a state without will, without..

K: Of course. All those are gone.

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

K: In other words you want a proof of it ?

B: Not a proof, but a communication of that state.

K: Now wait a minute. Supposing you have this peculiar (sense of) Compassion, How can you communicate it to me who is living in pleasure and all that? You can't.

N: No, but I am prepared to listen to you.

K: Prepared to listen - how deeply?

N: To the extent my listening takes me to.

K: Which means what? That you will go as long as it feels safe, secure.

N: No, not necessarily.

K: The man says (that in that state of no-thingness) there is no (consciousness of one's temporal ?) being. One's whole life has been this movement of (self-) becoming, being and so on. And in that state he says there is no sense of 'me being' at all.
Now if 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 ( the self-conscious) being? What are its actions?
All right, this ( 'X' ?) man has got this sense of emptiness and there is no (self-consciousness of his ?) being, so he is not acting from self-centred interest. So his actions are in the world of daily living and you can judge only there, whether he is a hypocrite, whether he says one thing and contradicts it the next moment, or whether he is actually living this 'Compassion' - (which is) not 'I feel compassionate'.

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

K: That's just it. So how can you convey to me in words that peculiar quality of a (compassionate ) mind? You can describe, you know go round it, but you can't give the essence of it. I mean David, for example, he could discuss with Einstein, they were on the same level. And he and I can discuss here up to a certain point, I can go very close but I can never enter or come upon that (inward quality of ?) mind unless I have (experientially found ) it ( myself) .

N: Is there any way of communicating it (but not through words) for one who is open?

K: We said compassion. In the everyday life such a mind acts without the (all controlling ?) 'me', without the ego, and it might make a (honest ?) mistake but it corrects it immediately and it is not carrying (over) that mistake.

N: It is not stuck.

K: (Is not) stuck (in its own mistakes) . We must be very careful here not to find (convenient) excuses for doing something wrong.
So sirs, (if and when ?) we come to that point (of selflessness and Compassion ?) , what is then (the true significance of) meditation?
To the man (indulging in ) 'becoming' or 'being' (something or other ) who tries to meditate, it has no meaning whatsoever. But when there is this no (self-) becoming, or (self-conscious) being then what is mediation? It must be something totally un-conscious, totally uninvited.

B: You mean without a 'conscious' intention ?

K: Yes, without conscious intention. Would you say, sir that the (Mind of the ?) Universe, the Cosmic Order, is in a state of Meditation?

B: Well we should try to go over what is this (Cosmic) meditation, what is it doing?

N: What order can we discern, which would indicate cosmic meditation or universal meditation?

K: The sunrise and sunset is order, all the stars, the planets, the whole thing is (moving) in perfect order.

B: We have still to connect this with meditation.

N: I am told that in 'contemplation' has a different connotation from meditation. Contemplation implies a deeper state of mind, whereas meditation is..

B: It is hard to know. The word contemplate comes from the word 'temple' really. To 'make an open space' so you can look at it.

K: Is that to create an open space between God and me?

B: That is the way the word arose.

K: Quite.

N: From temple?

B: Which means an 'open space'.

N: The Sanskrit word 'dhyana' doesn't have the same connotation as (the western ) 'meditation'. Because meditation has some overtones of measurement.

B: I just asked why K used the word 'meditation'. Let's find out what you really mean here.

K: Would you say, sir, a state of infinity, a measureless (inner) state in which there is no division of any kind.

B: Yes, but is 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 (its known) content.

K: Yes. 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: But in this emptying of content, we said that this content is the past which has become disorder. Then you could say that in some sense it is constantly cleaning up the past. Would you agree to that?

K: No, no.

B: When you say the mind is emptying itself of content..

K: 'Has emptied' itself.

B: Has emptied itself. All right, then you say when the past is cleaned up, then you say that is meditation.

K: That is contemplation..

N: So, the emptying of the (psychologically active memory of the ?) past is just a beginning ?

K: That must be done. Emptying the (active content of the ) 'past' which is anger, jealousy, beliefs, dogmas, attachments, all that is the content. If any part of that exists (unexposed) it will inevitably lead to illusion. Right? So we said that. The brain or the mind must be totally free of all illusion - illusion brought by desire, (by wishful thinking ?) , by wanting security and all that.

B: Are you saying when that (cleaning-up) is done this opens the door to something broader, deeper?

K: Yes. Otherwise life has no meaning, just repeating this pattern.

N: What exactly did you mean when you said the Universe is in meditation?

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

B: All right, yes. Could we say first of all that the Universe is not actually governed by its past ? That is the first point.

K: Yes, sir !

B: It is free and creative.

K: It is creative, moving.

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

K: Would you, as a scientist, accept such a thing?
B: Yes. Well, as a matter of fact I would! You see the universe creates certain forms which are relatively constant, so if people look at it superficially only see that,- the order of the Univers seems to be then determined from ( what happened wat back in) the past.

K: Sir, (regarding the right approach to meditation) can we put the question the other way: is it really possible for (my thinking in terms of ? ) time to end - the whole idea of ( 'me' continuing in ) time, to have no tomorrow at all? Of course there is tomorrow, you have to go to a talk in the morning and I have to, and so on; there is tomorrow but the (inward) feeling, the actual reality of having no (personal problems for ?) tomorrow. I think that is the healthiest way of living. Which doesn't mean that I become irresponsible - that is all too childish.

B: It is merely a question of physical time ?

K: Sir, is the (order of the ?) universe based on time?

B: I would say, no, but the general way it has been formulated..

K: That is all I want (to hear ?) , you say "no". And can the human brain which has evolved in time..

B: Well, has it evolved in time ? That is a (nice ?) way of talking but (inwardly) it has become entangled in time - because if you say the universe is not based on time, the human brain is also part of the (living) universe.

K: I agree.

B: It can't be based merely on time. But ( the self centred process of) thought has entangled the brain in time.

K: In time. All right. Can that entanglement be unravelled, freed, so that the (living order of the ?) universe 'is' the (order of the human ) mind? You follow? If the (order of 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.

K: That is order.

B: That is order. Now would you say that is (the true role of ?) meditation?

K: That's what I would call 'meditation'. Not in the ordinary dictionary sense of pondering over and all that, but an (inner) state of meditation in which there is no element of the past.

B: You say 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.

K: Wait. Somebody says one can live in this (meditative) way and then (our everyday) life has an extraordinary meaning in it, is full of compassion and so on, and every action in the physical world, can be corrected immediately and so on and so on. Would you, as a scientist, accept such a state ?

B: I feel it is perfectly possible, it is quite compatible with anything that I know about nature. Part of our (mental) entanglement in time is that science itself has put time into a fundamental position which helps to entangle it still further.

K: We had better stop, sir. Of course just putting it into words is not the thing. But can it be communicated to another?

B: Yes, well I think that the point about communication of this is to bring it about.

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

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 26 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 Jun 2014 #13
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

11TH CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM 14TH SEPTEMBER 1980

Krishnamurti: As Dr Bohm reminded me, last time we talked about order, whether the order of the universe is based on time at all, and whether man can ever comprehend and live in (harmony with ) that supreme order. I think that's where we stopped. Dr Bohm and I wanted to investigate profoundly, how to live from that Ground (of all Being) that is timeless, there is nothing beyond it. And I think we had better begin from there.

Dr Bohm: Begin from the Ground...

K: Sir, I don't know if you will agree as a scientist of eminence, whether there is such a Ground, and whether we can as human beings come to That ?

B: Yes, well, I don't know if science as it is now constituted can say much about that.

K: Didn't we ask, sir, as a human being living in this world which is in such turmoil, whether there can be that (inner sense of ?) absolute (non-personal ?) order first and comprehend that (higher dimension of ?) order which is universal.

B: Yes...

K: Now, I can bring (a basic ?) order in myself, by careful observation, self-study, self-investigation, and understand the nature of disorder, and the very understanding, the very insight of it dispels that disorder. And that's one level of order.
B: Yes, that's the level that most of us have been concerned with till now, you see. We see this disorder going on in the world, and in ourselves, and we say it is necessary to be aware, observe all that, to be aware of that and as you say, to 'dispel' (the causes of) it.

K: Yes, but that's a very small affair.

B: May be, but people generally don't feel it as a small affair. We've discussed it at great length, but at first people feel that clearing up the disorder in themselves and the world would be a very big thing. And perhaps all that's necessary.

K: But a man who is fairly intelligent and knowledgeable and fairly cultured human beings, cultured in the sense civilized, with a great deal of enquiry and investigation, can actually come to the point when in himself he can bring order.

B: Yes, and then some people would say if only we could bring that kind of order into the whole of society.

K: Well, if we are all (inwardly) orderly, we'll perhaps create a new society. But that again is a very small affair.

B: Yes, I understand that. But one should go into it carefully because it is not, you know, people commonly don't see it as 'small', although a few have seen that there's something beyond that.

K: Much more beyond that, that's what I want (to discuss) .

B: Perhaps it might be worth thinking about why is it that it is not enough to just produce an orderly living . In what sense is that not enough? You may feel it's very small but...

K: I mean, because we live in chaos, to bring order, we think that's a tremendous affair.

B: Yes, that's agreed, from the present state it looks very big.

K: Yes, very enormous, but in itself it isn't.

B: Could you make it a little more clear why it isn't ?

K: All right. If I can put my (inner) room in order, that it gives me certain space, certain freedom. And I know where things are, I can go directly to them. That's a physical thing. Can I, as a human being, put things in myself in order, which is, not to have conflicts, not to have comparison, not to have any sense of me and you and they, you know, all that, which brings about such division, and out of that division grows conflict. So if one understands that, and profoundly realizes (the significance of) it, that's finished.

B: Yes. Then suppose we say we have achieved that (basic inner order ?) , then what?

K: That's what I want to get at. Will that (inner clarity of ) insight really alter my whole structure and nature of my being ? So what is "insight" - do we have to go again through that?

B: Well, just to sum it up, could make it more intelligible.

K: Could we start with (the common condition of ?) being 'tied' ( strongly attached ?) to a belief, to a person, to an idea, to some habit, to some personal experience ? Which inevitably must create (or amplify the existing) disorder, because being tied implies dependence, the escape from one's own loneliness, fear, and all that. Now to have a total insight into this attachment, that very ( flash of) insight clears away all that (psychological) attachment.

B: Yes. I think we were saying that the 'self (-attachment') is the centre of darkness, it could be considered like a centre creating darkness in the mind, or clouds, and the insight penetrates that, it would dispel the cloud so that there would be clarity and therefore this problem would vanish.

K: Vanish, that's right.

B: But this would take a very intense insight, a 'total' insight.

K: That's right, but are we willing to go through that? Or this attachment is so strong, that I'm unwilling to let go.

B: And then what?

K: And that is (the condition in which ) most people are (inwardly stuck ?) .
I think it's only very few who want to do this kind of thing.
Now, we are discussing the nature of insight, whether that insight can wipe away or dissolve this whole (inner condition ?) of being attached, dependent, lonely, all that, with one blow, as it were. I think it does this when there is a profound insight into this (sef-attachment ?) thing. That insight is totally different from the (ordinary) movement of memory, knowledge, experience.

B: Well, it seems this insight ( throws light ?) onto the whole of (our inner) disorder, into the very source of disorder.

K: Yes.

B: Of all disorder of a psychological nature, not just say, attachment or greed.
So that in that (light of ?) insight the mind can clear itself up and then it would be possible to approach the cosmic order.

K: That's what I want to get at. That's much more interesting than this, because this is all rather immature - any serious man must put his (inner) house in order. And that must be not just order in a particular direction, but order in the wholeness of man.
Now, that can be done, and it is necessary, because society as it is now (is quickly) disintegrating and it's (becoming self-) destructive and all the rest of it, (not to mention that ?) it destroys (the inner quality of) human beings. It's a (very complex ?) 'machinery' that is destructive in itself and if a human being is (getting) caught in it, it destroys him. Right. And realizing that (imminent danger) , any intelligent human being must do something about it', not just sit back and ( leisurely ?) talk about it.

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

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

B: That's the key point that if you find the source that generates this whole (confusion) , then getting at this root is the only way.

K: Yes, that's right.

B: Because if we try to deal with a particular problem, they are still always coming from the source.

K: The source is the 'me', this little pond, this little stream, must dry up.
And as long as there is that (self-identified ?) centre which is the very essence of disorder, unless that is dissolved there is no order. So at this level it is clear. Can we go on from there?

B: Yes, I think so.

K: I'd like to ask, is there another (inner dimension of ?) order totally different from this? This is a 'man-made' disorder, and therefore 'man-made' order. Right? So realizing that (limitation ?) is there an order which is totally different, of a dimension which is necessary to find, because this is so small an affair.

B: Yes, eventually people won't be able to be satisfied with that, so they'll get bored with that.

K: Yes. Now, a human being who has really deeply understood the (inner & outer) disorder made by human beings, says, 'Is there an order that's beyond all this?'

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

K: The human mind isn't satisfied by merely having physical, social order, it has its limitations, it has its boundaries, and says, 'Yes, I've understood that, let's move on.'

B: Yes, even in science men are seeking the order of the whole universe, not to get 'useful results' but because the question fascinates them. And I think that, perhaps many have been seeking the 'absolute' - something free of all limitation, of all dependence, of all imperfection.

K: Yes, of all (our personal) motives and all the rest of it - absolute.

B: Yes, so this (human search for the ) absolute has been the source of tremendous illusion, of course because the limited 'self'-(consciousness) seeks to capture the absolute.

K: Of course, that's impossible.

B: But supposing we recognize that the 'absolute' is (potentially) a very dangerous (or slippery ?) concept, when the particular mind tries to grasp it, and yet it seems to be in some sense (that this aspiration ?) is necessary in the sense of freedom - 'freedom' could mean the same as the 'absolute', you see, because anything that is dependent in any way is not free.

K: So how do we approach this (major existential ?) question? As a scientist, would you say there is an Order which is beyond all human order and disorder?

B: Yes, well, I would say it. Although a scientist may not be able to say anything on this question because any order discovered by science is relative.

K: Of course. Because their own 'egotism'...

B: Not only that but also because the amount of information we have is limited.

K: Limited, quite.

B: And we can only say that science can go only so far.

K: So as a human being who is the totality of human beings, there is order in my life. That order is naturally brought about through insight and so perhaps it will effect society. His enquiry then is, is there an Order which is not man-made ?

B: Free of man's constructions ?

K: Yes.

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

K: Yes. 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 ?) and perhaps used the word '(Cosmic ?) order'. He has sought a different dimension, because he has understood (the limitations of) this dimension: he has suffered, he has gone through all kinds of mess and misery, he says, 'I've come to the end of all that.' I mean not verbally - actually come to the end of all that. And you may say (that nowadays ?) 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 all that? Is it of any interest to one who hasn't gone through it?

K: I think it is.

B: All right, what is it?

K: Because even intellectually, he may see the limitations of it.

B: Yes, it's important for him to see even before he has finished up with it.
rather than to say: wait until I clear it all up and then...

K: Of course, that would be too stupid. So how does the mind approach this problem? (pause) Does it come about through 'meditation' ?

B: Well, we've discussed that the original meaning of the word 'meditation' is to ponder over, to weigh the value and significance of things . And perhaps that may have some significance for seeing that there is disorder.

K: That's what I would say - (a meditation in the sense of ?) measurement can exist only where there is (an ongoing) disorder.

B: Yes, by looking at the way things are 'out of proportion' in the mind, you can see there is disorder. But I think people may have used the word meditation in the distant past to indicate that by looking at measure you can see disorder as being out of proportion, but they may have also meant to go on from there.

K: Yes, let's try to do it. Perhaps it is a preposterous statement but let's see.
But first, this (meditative ) mind must be free of (its old habit of verbal ?) measurement, otherwise it can't enter into the other.

B: Well, that's an important point, because the instinctive tendency is to try to 'make the measures come right', to correct it.

K: Correct it, quite. But we said...

B: And that might be a fundamental mistake.

K: We said that. I mean all effort to bring order into disorder is disorder.

B: Yes, this is very different from what almost everybody has been saying (on meditation) .

K: Yes. 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 the attempt to (verbally evaluate and) control, as you've said, that is wrong, you see that it has no meaning.

K: No meaning, yes.

B: And now we say there's no control, what do we do?

K: If I have an insight into the whole nature of control, that liberates the mind from that burden (of camouflaged self interest ?) .

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

K: It is not a 'movement' (a perceptive activity originating ) from (our past) knowledge, from thought, and therefore remembrance and all the rest of it, but (may occur in ?) the cessation of all that - to look with (a quality of) pure observation, without any pressure, without any motive, all that - to observe this whole movement of (our self-centred) measurement.

B: Yes, I think we can see that this (tendency of mental) 'measurement' is the same as (self-) becoming; and this (self-centred ) attempt of the mind to measure itself, to control itself, to set itself a goal, is at the very source of our inner disorder.

K: That is the very source of disorder.

B: And in a way this was the 'wrong turning' in the sense that man has extended measurement from the external sphere into the mind.

K: Yes.

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

K: Yes, but you see, if I have an insight into (the controlling nature of my inner) measurement, in that very insight there is a different (sense of inner) order.

B: Yes, it does not go wild because it has begun in order. That is really the attempt to measure it that makes it go wild.

K: Yes, that's it. The 'measurement' is creating its own confusion. Right? Now after establishing all this (fundation for a new inner order) , can the mind through meditation find something which is not man-made ?
Because we've been through all the 'man-made' things. Right? And they are all limited, there is no freedom in them, there is chaos, there is mess and all that.

B: Well, when you say "you've been through all the man-made things", what are they?

K: Everything: worship, prayers, anxieties, sorrow, attachment, detachment, loneliness and suffering and confusion and ache and anxiety, all that.

B: It's also all the attempts (to change everything ) by 'revolution'.

K: Of course, physical revolution, psychological, all that. Those are all man-made. And so many people have put this question, obviously, must have. And therefore they say, 'God' - another concept that creates disorder.

B: Well, that's clear that man has invented god and given him the power of the absolute.

K: Yes, quite.

B: Which is himself.

K: Which then becomes himself.

B: Yes, and therefore it dominates him.

K: Yes. Now, one has finished with doing all that. Right? Then the question is, is there "something" beyond all this (man-made stuff ?) , which was never touched by the human thought, mind?

B: Yes, now, that makes a difficult point, not touched by the human mind, but the mind might go beyond (the limitations of the self-centred process of ?) thought.

K: That's what I want - yes.
B: Then what do you mean by the 'mind' ? Only thought, feeling, desire, will, or something much more?

K: For the time being, we have said the human mind is all that. As long as the human mind is caught in that (self-centred activity) , it is limited.

B: Yes, but the human mind has a larger potential.

K: Tremendous potential.

B: Which it does not realize now, since it is caught in thought, feeling, desire, will, and that sort of thing.

K: That's right.
B: Then we'll say That which is beyond this is not touched by this limited sort of mind.

K: Yes. (pause)

B: Now what will we mean by a human mind which is going beyond this limit?

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

B: You mean, through the limited stuff ?

K: Yes. And being through it means finish with it. Is there such a mind? Or it likes to think it has finished with it, therefore creates the (very realistic ?) illusion that there is "something else" ?

B: Yes...

K: I won't accept that. 'X' says, 'I have understood this, I have seen the limitation of all this, I have been through it, and I have come to the end of it.' And this "mind", having come to the end of it, is no longer the limited mind. Is there a mind which is totally limitless?

B: Now that raises the question of how the brain is able to be in contact with that "mind", you know.

K: I'm coming to that. First of all, I want to be clear that the whole nature and the structure of the human mind, includes the emotions, the brain, the reactions, physical responses and all that -and this mind has lived in turmoil, in chaos, in loneliness and (eventually ?) has a profound insight into all (its past) . And having such a deep insight has cleared the field. This (newly liberated) mind is no longer the limited mind.

B: That you began with.

K: Damaged mind. Let's use that word 'damaged'. But when there is this (inner light of ?) insight and therefore order, the damage is undone.

B: We discussed that and certainly you see it's possible, by reasoning you can 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 (right) direction, the whole brain changes.

B: It changes at the core and then the wrong structure is dismantled and healed, that may take time.

K: That's right.

B: But the insight which...

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

B: ... that insight does not take time.

K: That's right.

K: Again, that mind, the limited mind with all its (self-) consciousness and its content, says, it's over. Now isn't that mind having had insight into this limitation, and therefore moved away from that limitation, isn't that something that is really tremendously revolutionary? You follow? And therefore it is no longer the 'man-made' mind with its (limited self-centred) consciousness.

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

K: All, of course not, I'm not talking of the (particular) consiousness , that's too silly.

B: Yes. But I think we discussed that, that the (so called) 'individual' consciousness is the particular outcome of the general consciousness.

K: Yes.

B: A particular outcome, rather than an independent thing. You see, that's one of our confusions: is we take this 'individual' mind to be the concrete actuality.

K: Yes.

B: We've been discussing, that it's necessary to consider this general mind to be the 'actuality' from which the particular mind is formed.

K: Yes. That's all very clear.

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

K: Yes, away from the general and the particular mind.
Now, if one has totally moved away from thir limitations , then what is the (quality of that) mind? And what is the relationship between that (inwardly integrated ?) 'mind' which is not man-made, and the man-made mind?

B: Well, did we agree to call it the 'universal' mind, or would you prefer not to?

K: I don't like that word 'universal mind', since lots of (clever ?) people used it. Let's use a much simpler word.

B: Well, it's the (essential ?) mind which was not made by man.

K: I think that's simpler, keep it to that. A mind that is not made by man.
Does such a mind exist? You follow what I'm trying to say?

B: Yes, let's see who observes it, you see, that's one of the problems that comes up.

K: There is no division in observation. Not, 'I' observe, but there is only ( pure) observation.

B: Would you say a particular brain takes part in this observation?

K: No, sir, it doesn't take place in a 'particular' (personalised ?) brain.

B: Yes, but it seems that a particular brain may respond.

K: Of course, but it is not 'K' 's brain.

B: What I mean by the word 'particular' brain, was that given the particulars of where a certain human being is in space and time or whatever his physical form is, is distinguished from another one which might be here, there.

K: Look, sir, let's get clear on this point. We live in a man-made world, our brains are the result of a man-made mind - and so on.

B: Well, the human brain itself is not man-made but it has been (culturally ?) conditioned.

K: Conditioned by man, right, that's what I mean. Now, can this 'mind' uncondition itself so completely that it's no longer 'man-made'? Can it go (inwardly) to that extent, as to completely liberate itself from 'itself' (or from its 'self' -centredness ?) .

B: That's a somewhat paradoxical statement.

K: Of course. Paradoxical, but it is so.
Let's begin again. One can observe that the consciousness of humanity 'is' (determined by) its (accumulated) 'content' - all the man-made things anxiety, fear, and all the rest of it. And not only the particular, but the general ( consciousess) having had an insight into (the residual nature of this content ?) it has cleansed itself from that.

B: Well, there is a little difficulty of language: you say the brain or the mind had an insight into its own conditioning and then you're almost saying it became something else. The insight transforms (qualitatively) the man-made mind.

B: Yes. So then it's no longer the (same) 'man-made' mind ?
K: It's no longer. That (exposure to the light of) insight means the wiping away of all the (conditioned) content of consciousness. Not bit by bit, but the totality of it. But that 'insight' is not the result of man's endeavour.

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

K: All right. Where does it come from? In the mind itself - the whole of it.

B: We say there is Mind, right?

K: Let's go slowly - it's rather interesting: the (self-centred) consciousness is 'man-made',- both the general and the particular. And logically, reasonably one sees the limitations of it. Then the (meditating ?) mind is going much further and it comes to a point when it says, 'Can all this (residual content) be wiped away at one breath, one blow, in one movement ?' And that is the movement of insight. It is still in the mind. But is not born of that ( content of ?) consciousness.

B: Then you are saying the human mind has the potential of moving beyond the (conditioned) consciousness.

K: Of course. It must be a part of the (intelligent ) mind.

B: The human mind can do that, but it hasn't generally done it ?

K: Yes. So, having done all this, is there a (new quality of ?) mind which man cannot conceive, cannot create, is there such a mind?

B: Well, I think what you are saying is, having freed the 'mind' from the general and particular structure of consciousness of mankind, from its limits, now this 'mind' is much greater. Now, you say that this mind is raising a question.

K: This mind is raising the question.

B: Which is what?

K: Is there a (new ?) mind which is not man-made? And if there is, what is its relationship to the man-made mind? I think that can only be asked when the limitations are ended, otherwise it's just a theoretical (academical) question.

B: That'll be still part of the man-made structure.

K: Of course, of course. So one must be absolutely free of all this. Then only can you put that question. When this question is raised: 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, is there such a mind, first. Of course there is. Of course, sir. Without being dogmatic or personal or all that business, there is. But it is not 'God' - we've been through all that...

B: ... is part of the man-made structure.

K: Then, if there is such a mind, and someone says there is, then what is the relationship of 'that' (purified mind?) to the man-made mind?

B: Yes, the general.

K: Particular and general. Has it any relationship?

B: Yes, the question's a difficult one because you could say that the man-made mind is pervaded with illusion, most of its (psychological) content is not real.

K: No. So this (new mind) is real in the sense actual, and the other is measurable, confused - has this a (cooperating ?) relationship to that? Obviously not.

B: Well, I would say it has a superficial one at a technical level, let's say, the television system (CCTV video-recording of our discussion) and so on. But as you were saying that is a very small area. But fundamentally...

K: ...this man-made mind has no relationship to 'that'. But 'that' has a relationship to this. Let's be clear: the human mind has got illusions, desires and all the rest of it. And there is that 'other' mind which is beyond all limitations. This illusory mind, the man-made mind, is always seeking 'that'.

B: Yes, that's its main trouble.

K: Yes, that's its main trouble. It is measuring it's advancing, am I getting nearer, farther, all the rest of it. So this man-made mind is always seeking 'that' (universal mind ?) , and therefore it's creating more and more mischief, confusion. This man-made mind has no relationship to 'that'. Now, has 'that' any relationship to it?

B: 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?

B: Yes, but in understanding those limitations it moves away.

K: Yes, moves away. Then 'that' has a relationship.

B: Then it has a genuine relationship to what this limited mind actually is, not to the illusions as to what it thinks it is.

K: Let's be clear.

B: Well, the mind which is not limited, which is not man-made, cannot be related to the illusions which are in the man-made mind.

K: Agreed.
B: But it has to be related to the source, to the real nature (energy matrix ?) of the man-made mind, which is behind the illusion.

K: How can 'that' have a relationship to 'this', even basically?

B: So, you are changing what you said before ?

K: No, I'm just pushing it a little (further) . What is the relationship then of (pure) love to jealousy? It has nothing.

B: Not to jealousy itself- which is an illusion, but to mind of the human being who is jealous, there may be.

K: Taking (the human mind that) 'loves' and (a human mind that) 'hates' -they have no relationship to each other.

B: No, not really.

K: None, not really.

B: But I think that the second one might (eventually ?) understand the origin of its hatred, see ?

K: Ah, it might - yes, yes.

B: In that sense I would think they have a relationship.

K: Are we saying, sir, that love - we use that word for the moment - that love has a relationship to 'non-love'?

B: Only in the sense of dissolving it.

K: In the ending of hatred, the 'other' is.

B: Yes, then we have to ask how it gets started ?

K: That's very simple.

B: I mean, supposing we say we have hatred.

K: Suppose 'I hate you' . I can see the origin of it. Because you insulted me.

B: Well that's the (immediate) origin, but why does one behave so irrationally is the deeper origin. You see, if you merely insulted me, why should you respond to the insult.

K: Because all my (past) conditioning is (interfering in ?) that. But does your love help me to understand the origin of my hatred?

B: No, but I think that someone in hatred can understanding this origin and move away.

K: Then the 'other' is. But the 'other' cannot help it to move away.

B: No, but suppose one one human being has this love and the other has not - can't the first one communicate something which will start the movement in the second one?

K: The question was : is (your) hate dispelled by (my) love ? Or in the understanding of hatred and the ending of it, the 'other' is (cuming) ?

B: That's right, but now, if we say that A has reached 'that' and he sees B...
What is he going to do, you see, that's the question.

K: What is the relationship between the two? My wife loves and I hate. She can talk to me, she can point it out to me, the unreasonable and so on, but (no amount of) her love is going to transform the inner source of my hatred.

B: That's clear, yes, except love is the energy which will be behind the talk.

K: Behind the talk, yes.

B: The love itself doesn't sort of go in there.

K: Of course - that's romantic and all that business. So the man who hates, having an insight in the source of it, the cause of it, the movement of it, and ending it, has (access to ) the 'other'.

B: Yes, I think that, we say A is the man who has seen all this and he now has the energy to put it to B - it's up to B what happens.

K: Of course. I think we had better pursue this.

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 26 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 Jul 2014 #14
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

12TH CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM 1980

Krishnamurti: We were saying the other day, man, a 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 his (time-binding) psychological memories and conflicts and travails, comes to a point where the mind finds itself free (of its past) but hasn't gathered that supreme energy to go beyond itself (to transcend its existential condition ?). Can we start, go on from there?

Bohm: If you like, yes.

K: Can the mind really, mind, brain, the whole psychological structure, ever be free from all conflict, from all shadow of any disturbance?

B: Self-disturbance?

K: Self-disturbance, and all that. Can it ever be free? Or the idea of complete (inner) freedom is an illusion.

B: Yes, well, that's one possibility. Some people would say we could have only a partial freedom.

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

B: Well, some people feel that's the case.
K: And really the deep non-sectarian religious people, they have said it can be done. Very few have said this.

B: Well, of course there are those who have said it is done (anyway) through reincarnation.

K: Yes.

B: And in addition, that group say it will take a very long time.

K: Yes, they say it will take a very long time. You must go through various lives and suffer and go through all kinds of miseries and ultimately you come to that. But here we are not thinking in terms of time. We're asking, a human being granting, knowing that he is conditioned, deeply, profoundly, so that his whole being is that, can it ever free itself. And if it does, what is beyond? Would this question be reasonable or valid, unless the mind has really finished all the (psychological ?) travail of life? As we said the other day, our minds are 'man-made' (culturally conditioned) . And is there an (inner quality of ) mind which is not man-made? It is possible that (the mind) can free itself from its own man-made ( mechanical characteristics ?)

B: I think there's this kind of a tangle there: if this mind is totally man-made, totally conditioned, then in what sense can it get out of it? So if you said that it had at least the possibility of something beyond...

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

B: I think that even logically there seems to be an inconsistency in saying that the mind is totally conditioned and yet it's going to get out (of that condition) .

K: I understand that, but if one admits that there is a part which is not conditioned, then we enter into quite another inconsistency. In our discussions, we've said, that the human mind (although) being deeply conditioned, it can free itself through 'insight' - that is the real clue to this. We went into the nature of it that insight, and can it uncondition the mind completely, wipe away all the (self-centred ?) illusions, desires and so on, can that insight completely wipe it out? Or is it partial?

B: Well, I think the first point to consider is that the human mind mind is not static and if one thinks it's totally conditioned, this suggests something static, which would never change. Now, if we say the mind is always in movement, then it seems in some way it becomes impossible to say what it is at this very moment -all we could say 'it has been' totally conditioned.

K: Canwe say it is in constantly movement, but its movement is within a border, within a certain field ?

B: Yes.

K: And this ('known' ?) field can expand it and contract, but the field within the boundaries (of our self-interest ?) is very (seriously) limited.

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

K: The (man-made mind ?) is always moving within that limitation.
Can it 'die away' from that?

B: That's the point, that's another kind of movement - in another dimension, I think you've said.

K: Yes. And we say this is possible through insight, which is a totally different kind of (inner) movement.

B: Yes, but this movement does not originate in the particular , nor in the general mind.

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

B: Yes, I think that it rather violates the sort of logic that people have been using, that either the particular and the general mind 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 clearly . And I think it has a great importance.

K: How do we then state it, or 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, the ground their existence is the concrete particular daily activity. The other group feels that the general, the universal is the ground. You see, the one is the more 'practical' type, and the other the more 'philosophical' type.

K: Yes.

B: And this division has been visible throughout history, also in everyday life, wherever you look.

K: But is the 'general' separate from the 'particular'?

B: It's not, but the question is what is it that's going to be given primary value, people tend to give emphasis to one or the other. That some people give the main emphasis to the 'particular' (aspects of human life) - they say the general is there but if you take good care of the 'particular' the 'general' will be all right. The others say the 'general' and the 'universal' is the main thing and getting that right you'll also 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 of neither the general nor the particular.

K: That's right. That's just it. Can we have a conversation about it, using your scientific brain and and there is this ('X') man who is not all that, so can't we have a conversation to find out if the general and particular are one, not divided at all.

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

K: And not laying emphasis on one or the other. So, if we don't do that, then what is, what is there?

B: Well, then we have no easy way to talk about it...
We did discuss I think in California about the Ground. The question was we could say the particular mind dies to the general universal mind or to the emptiness, then saying that ultimately the emptiness and the universal die into the Ground.

K: That's right, we discussed that. Would an ordinary person, fairly intelligent, agree to all this? See all this?

B: I'm not sure...

K: 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 a very careful presentation and some people might see it, I think. But if you just say it to anybody, they would say, Whoever heard of that ?

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

B: Yes.

K: That's a statement which hardly can be accepted reasonably.

B: Well, it's reasonable in the sense that if you take thought to be a 'movement', rather than a 'content', then thought is the movement between the particular and the general.

K: But thought is the 'general', thought is the 'particular'.

B: But thought is also a movement. So in its movement it goes beyond being (confined in ?) one or the other.

K: Does it?

B: Well, it can, but ordinarily it does not, because 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 are in the same area.

B: Yes, and either you fix on one or the other.

K: Yes, but in the same area, in the same field (of the known). And thought is the movement between the two. (In fact) thought has created both.
B: Yes, it has created both and moves between in that area.

K: Yes, in that area ( of the known personal & collective experience ?) And it has been doing this for millennia.

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

K: Now, we are saying, that when (the self-centred continuity of ?) thought ends, that (illusory 'time ?) movement' also comes to an end, therefore ( the psychogical ) time comes to an end.

B: We should go more slowly here, because it's a 'jump' from thought to time, which we've gone into before but it's still a jump.

K: Let's see (the missing step ?) . Thought has created the general and the particular (field of human experience and knowledge ?) , and thought is a movement that connects the two, thought moves round it, so it is still in the same area.

B: Yes, and doing that it has created (the sense of its own continuity in ?) 'time' - the particular (concept of ) time and also a general time -all time, for ever.

K: Yes, but you see, thought 'is' time.

B: Well that's another question, you were saying, thought has a content which is about time, and besides that, thought is a movement which 'is'( projecting ) its own continuity in ?) time, that it could be said to be moving from the past into the future. Right?

K: But, sir, thought is based on (the memory of things that took place in ?) time, thought is the outcome of (material) time.

B: Yes, but then does that mean that 'time', exists beyond thought? If you say thought is based on time, then 'time' is ( a process ?) more fundamental than thought - is that what you want to say?

K: Yes.

B: So then we have to go into that. You could say that time is something which was there before thought, or at least is at the origin of thought.

K: Time was there when there is the accumulation of (personal and collective ?) knowledge.

B: Well, that has come out of thought to some extent.

K: No, I can act and learn. That action is based not on previous knowledge, but I do something, and in the very doing it I learn.

B: Yes, and then that learning is registered in the memory.

K: In the memory and so on. So is not (the very process of) thought essentially the movement of time?

B: Well, in what sense is this learning (by doing) the movement of time. You can say, when we learn it is registered. Right? And then whatever you have learned operates ( as a reference ?) in the next experience

K: Yes. The (memory of the ?) past is always moving into the present (experience) .

B: Yes.

K: All the time.

B: Yes, mixing or 'con-fusing' with the present.

K: Yes,

B: And the two together are again registered as the next (updated) experience.

K: So, is time different from thought, or time 'is' thought ?

B: Well, this movement of learning and the (controlling) response of memory into (the new) experience and then re-registering, we say that is (a process of) 'time', and that is also (the functioning of ?) thought.

K: Yes, so, is there a time apart from thought?

B: Well, that's another question. Wouldn't we say that physically or in the cosmos that 'time' has an (objective) significance apart from (our own) thinking?

K: Physically, yes, I understand that.

B: Right. So then we're talking of the 'time' in the mind or 'psychologically'.

K: Psychologically, as long as there is an accumulation of 'psychological' knowledge, as the 'me' and so on, there is ( a very realistic illusion of ?) time.

B: Yes, so we say that wherever there is accumulation there is time.

K: Yes, that's the point. Wherever there is accumulation there is time.

B: Which turns the thing around because usually we think that time is there first and then, in time you accumulate.

K: I would put it round the other way...

B: Yes. But it's important to see that actually it's the other way. Then, suppose there is no (self-centred 'psychological') accumulation, then what?

K: Then - that's the whole point - there is no (psychological sense of ?) time. But as long as keep accumulating, gathering, becoming, there is the process of 'time'. But if there is no gathering, no becoming, no accumulation, does any 'psychological' time exist?

B: Well, probably you could say that even the physical time must depend on some kind of physical accumulation.

K: Of course, but that's quite a different matter.

B: That material 'time' we are not denying - we're denying the significance of the psychological accumulation.

K: That's right. So (the self-centred process of ?) thought is the outcome of psychological accumulation, and that accumulation, that gathering, gives it a sense of (self-) continuity, which is 'time'.

B: It seems to be a (virtual) movement, that whatever has been accumulated is responding to the ( challenges of the ) present with the projection of the future and then that is again registered...So, the accumulation of all that's registered is in the (sequential) order (or logic) of time.

K: That's right. So we're saying ( that inwardly ?) thought 'is' time.

B: Yes, or time 'is' thought.

K: One way or the other.

B: But the movement of psychological time is (projected by the very process of ? ) thought.

K: What are you saying, sir?

B: The movement of 'psychological' time, which is the result of that accumulation...

K:... is time.

B: That's time but that's also thought. Both mean the same thing.

K: So the 'psychological' accumulation is thought and time.

B: Yes, we 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 things.

K: Yes. There is only one movement, which is "time & thought", time plus thought, or time-thought. Now can the mind which has moved for millennia in that (very familiar) area, free itself from that?

B: Yes, now let's see exactly what's holding the mind in that area ?

K: (Its very habit of indiscriminate ?) accumulation.

B: Yes, but why does the mind continue to accumulate (all the 'psychological' stuff ) ?

K: I think that it is because in (that 'personal') accumulation there is safety, there is security - apparent security.

B: I think that needs a little discussion - since in a certain area (of our material existence) that is even true, that the accumulation of physical food may provide a certain kind of security (for a certain period of time) .

K: Of course.

B: And then, since no distinction was made between the 'outer' and the 'inner' , there was the feeling that one could accumulate inwardly either (some successful personal ) experiences or some ( superior ?) knowledge of what to do.

K: Are we saying that the outward necessity of physical accumulation for security is necessary and the same urge moved into the field of the 'psychological' ?

B: Yes.

K: And there you accumulate ( a lot of psychological stuff ?) hoping to be secure.

B: Yes, inwardly hoping to accumulate pleasant memories, or relationships, or things you could count on, principles you could count on.

K: So ( we traditionally assume that in this ? ) psychological accumulation there is safety, protection, security.

B: The illusion (of it) , anyway.

K: All right, the illusion of security and in this illusion man has lived.

B: Yes, so it does seem that the first mistake was that man never understood the distinction between what he has to do in the world 'outside' and what he has to do 'inside' himself, right?

K: Yes, we said that. It is the same ( accumulative) movement, outer and inner.

B: But now man carried that procedure which was right outwardly he carried inwardly, without knowing, perhaps being entirely ignorant, not knowing that that would make trouble.

K: So where are we now? A human being has come to the point when he says, 'Can I really be free from this accumulated 'psychological' time?'

B: Yes...

K: Is that possible?

B: Well, if we see where it had this origin, then it should be possible to dismantle it, while if it were built into us, nothing could be done.

K: Of coursse it is not 'built into us'...

B: Although most people act as though they believe it was.
So, if it's not built into us, then the possibility exists for us to change. Because in some way we said it was built up in the first place through (our evolution in ?) time. And I think that's one of the difficulties of people who are hoping that by bringing in evolution they hope to get out of this static boundary.

K: Boundary, quite.

B: But they don't realize that (thinking in terms of ) evolution is the very means by which the trap was made.

K: Yes. So my next question is: can the mind move out from this field altogether, and enter, perhaps, into a totally different dimension? And we said this can only happen when there is insight ( a global perception of this whole situation ?).

B: Yes, and it seems that this insight arises when one questions this whole thing very deeply. One sees it doesn't make sense (to keep going that way ?).

K: Now having had insight into this and seen its limitation and therefore going beyond it, what is there beyond?

B: I think it's very difficult to even bring this into words, but we said that anyway, something has to be done on this line, right?

K: I think it has to be put into words.

B: Could you say why, because many people might feel we should leave this entirely 'non-verbal'.

K: Can we (use the all-purpose experiental disclaimer ?) "the word is not the thing"?

B: That's clear, yes.

K: Whatever the description is not the real, is not the truth, however much you embellish or diminish it, just the word is not 'that'. So, recognising that limitation then what is there beyond all this? Can my mind be so desire-less, so it won't create the illusion of something beyond?

B: Well, then that's a question of desire, you see desire must be involved in this time

K: Of course, desire is (the creator of ?) time. After all, (psychologically) being or becoming something (in time) is based on desire.

B: Yes. They are one and the same, really.

K: Yes, one and the same. Now, when one has an 'insight' (a global perception ?) into that whole movement of desire, and its capacity to create illusion, it's finished.

B: Yes, but since this is a very crucial point, we should try to say a little more about desire, how it's intrinsic in this accumulating process, how it comes out in many ways. For one thing you could say that as you keep accumulating (psychological stuff) there comes a sense of something missing.

K: Of course.

B: You feel you should have more, something to finish, to complete , since whatever you have accumulated is not complete.

K: So, could we go into the question of becoming first, then desire comes into it. Why is it that all human beings right through the world have this urge to become (psychologically) ? Outwardly one can understand that, it is 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 'enlightened' ( or spiritually enriched ?) - let's use that word for the moment - trying to become more good, more or better (within oneself)

B: Well, there must be a (subliminal ?) sense of dissatisfaction with 'what's in there' already, that's one thing.

K: Is it dissatisfaction (with what one is ) ?

B: Well, you know, a person feels he would like it to be 'complete' (or made whole ?) . You see suppose for example he has accumulated a lot of memories of past pleasures, but as these memories are no longer adequate and he feels something more is needed.

K: Is that it?

B: Well, to get more, that's one of the (hidden issues) - eventually he feels that he must have the whole, the ultimate (experience ).

K: I'm not at all sure whether the word 'more' is not the real thorn.

B: The word 'more'?

K: Yes, more. More, I will be more, I will have more, I will become - you follow? - this whole movement of moving forward, moving, gaining, comparing, advancing, achieving - psychologically.

B: The word 'more' is just implicit in the whole meaning of the word 'accumulate'. If you're (engaged in) accumulating you have to be accumulating more, there's no other way to do it.

K: So why is there this seed (of the 'more' ) in the human mind.

B: Well, he didn't see that this (wanting ) 'more' is wrong, inwardly. Right? Now if he started outwardly to use the term 'more', but then he carried it inward, now for some reason he didn't see how (ultimately) destructive it was.

K: Why have fairly intelligent philosophers and religious people who have spent a great part of their life in 'achieving' (superior knowledge and/or wisdom ?) , why haven't they seen this simple (psychological) fact that where there is accumulation there must be ( the constant demand for) more.

B: Yes, well, they've seen that but they don't see any harm in it.

K: Wait, no, I'm not sure they seen (the psychological danger of ?) it.

B: They're all saying, we are trying to get a better life - you see. (Starting with) the nineteenth century it was the 'century of industrial progress', improving everything all the time.

K: All right, progress outwardly.

B: But they felt inwardly too that man would be improving himself inwardly.

K: But why haven't they ever questioned this?

B: Well, what would make them question it?

K: Obviously this constant struggle for the more.

B: But they thought that was necessary for progress.

K: But is that 'progress'?

B: Well, can we make it clear, suppose you had to answer one of the nineteenth century optimists, that man is progressing all the time, to be better inwardly as well as outwardly.

K: Yes, let us admit outwardly. Is it that this same urge (mentality ?) to be better outwardly moved into the psychological realm?

B: Yes. Now, can we make it clear why it does harm in the 'psychological' realm.

K: What is the harm in accumulating, psychologically? It brings about a division (a divisive mentality ?) between 'you' and 'me', and so on.

B: Could we make that clear ? I can see one aspect, that suppose you are accumulating in your way and I accumulate in my way.

K: That's just it. And he, accumulates in another way.

B: And then we try to impose a common way of accumulating and that's creating conflict. They say everybody should be more...

K: Yes. Besides, I have accumulated 'psychologically' as a Hindu, another has accumulated as a Muslim.

B: There are thousands of such divisions in one profession or in another, in one place or another.

K: Therefore (this personalised ?) accumulation in its very nature divides people.

B: Because each accumulates in his particular way. Right? Which is different from someone else, you cannot make a common way of accumulating.
Because everybody already has a different relationship, no matter what we do.

K: So can we say then, in accumulation man has sought psychological security, and that (illusory personal ?) security with its accumulation is the factor of human division.

B: Yes...

K: Psychologically. So, as we said, that's why human beings have accumulated, not realizing its consequences. And realizing that, is it possible not to accumulate ( on the 'psychological' level ?) ?
B: Yes.

K: I mean, that's a tremendous (task) .

B: Yes, because it seems the human mind automatically accumulates.

K: I know. Why? For the very clear and simple reason, that in the 'psychological' accumulation, as in the outwardly one , if feels safe, secure.

B: Yes. Well perhaps you could say that having got on into this trap it was very hard for the mind to get out, because it was already occupied, the mind was filled with this process of accumulation and it becomes very hard to see (clearly) anything.

K: Yes, suppose my mind is filled with this process of (inner self-centred ) occupation, which is can all that (activity of ) psychological knowledge, end?

B: Yes...but only if the mind will get to the root of it.

K: Of course it can, which is to see that it is an illusion that in (this indiscriminate) accumulation there is security.

B: Well, now, one can see this at a certain level as a map, like 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.

K: Yes.

B: So (mapping-wise ?) 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. (an together they create the psychological 'time') Right?

B: You can say desire really means 'need', a person feels he must accumulate more because he 'needs' more.

K: Yes. Now, I'm asking, can that (inner mentality of time ?) end. If it ends through an action of will, it is still the same thing .

B: Well, that's part of desire.

K: Of course. If it ends because of punishment or reward, it's still the same thing. So one's mind 'sees' ( has an in-sight' into all this this and puts all that aside. Right? Does the mind become free of accumulation?

B: Yes, I think that...

K: Yes sir, I think it can, (at least ?) with us. That is, have no ( use for that ?) 'psychological' knowledge at all, knowledge is accumulation, and so on and so on.

B: Yes, but we'll have to consider that knowledge goes very much further inwardly than is ordinarily meant.

K: Of course.

B: I think that in accumulating, for example if you're getting knowledge of how this microphone (works) , then you build up an image, a picture of the microphone and everything goes into that and one expects it to continue. So inwardly if you gather knowledge of yourself, it builds up a picture of yourself.

K: Can one have knowledge of oneself?

B: No, but if there is some knowledge (experientially gathered) about what sort of person you are, that builds up into a (self-image) 'picture', with all the expectations involved .

K: But after all, if 'you' have (gathered) knowledge of 'yourself', you have built an image already.

B: That's right, yes, but there's a transfer of what you do in the outside world , saying, as you observe this microphone you build up knowledge, that enters into your 'picture' of it, your (mental) perception of it, then you say I do the same with myself. That "I know the sort of person I am" and it builds up, there's a lot of accumulation that builds up in forms that we don't ordinarily call 'knowledge', but for example, preferences, likes and dislikes.

K: But once (and if ?) you realize that your 'psychological' accumulations as knowledge is an illusion and it (eventually) causes inner pain and misery, when you see it , it's finished.

B: Yes, but very often the word 'knowledge' does not convey all that has to be included.

K: Of course.

B: I could say, OK, I know certain things (about the limits of our ?) 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 being knowledge, I say that's...

K: What what other ( subliminal forms of psychological ?) knowledge does one have? Preferences, like and dislike, prejudices, (susceptibility ?)

B: Habits, yes.

K: Habit. All that is ( integrated in ?) the 'self-image' that one has created.

B: Yes. Now, (the human psyche) has developed in such a way that that 'image' seems extraordinarily real. And therefore its qualities don't seem to be (mere) 'knowledge'.

K: All right, sir. So (to recap:) we have said, ( this process of psychological ?) accumulation is 'time' and in this (constantly updated ?) accumulation there is (generated a sense of inner ) security, but ... where there is this psychological accumulation there must be a division (between the 'observer' and 'whatever is observed') . And 'thought' is the movement between the particular and the general, and thought (the 'thinker' ?) is also born out of the ( compounded self-) image of what has been accumulated.

B: Yes.

K: Right? All that is one's inward (steady-) state. That is deeply imbedded in me.

B: Yes, both physically and mentally.

K: All round. I recognize that physically (this accumulation of knowledge) is somewhat necessary...

B: Yes, it is overdone, even physically.

K: Of course, but to realize that psychologically (inwardly) , how do I set about it? How do I, who has accumulated (indiscriminately materially and psychologically ?) ) for millennia, that has been the ('steady state' mental) habit, and how do I recognize this (un-conscious) habit, and when I do recognize the habit, how does that 'movement' come to an end? That is the real question.

B: Yes...

K: Does 'intelligence' play a part in all this? You follow what I mean?

B: Yes. Well, there has to be some intelligence just to see this.

K: Is it the so-called 'ordinary intelligence', or something entirely different?

B: Well, yes, I don't know what people mean by 'intelligence', but if they mean just merely the capacity to discern and...

K: ...to solve technical problems, economic problems and so on - I would call that 'partial' intelligence...

B: Yes, we can call that 'skill in thought'.

K: Skill in thought, all right. But here I can see the reason of all that, the logic of all that, but mere logic, reason and explanation doesn't 'end' the thing. Another quality is necessary. Is that quality Intelligence? (I'm trying to move away from "insight" for a while)

B: Not to repeat this word so much.

K: Is ( this holistic) intelligence the outcome of very clear precise, exact, logical conclusions of thought.

B: That would still be more and more ( a thinking) skill. But at least we suggest this 'intelligence' is of a different quality.

K: Yes. Is this intelligence related to love?

B: I'd say they go together.

K: Yes, one cannot accumulate love. Right?

B: No, but some people might try.

K: It sounds silly!

B: People do try to 'guarantee' their love.

K: That is all romantic nonsense, cinema stuff, all that. You cannot accumulate love, you cannot associate it with ( 'love &?) hate', all that.
So that 'love' it's something entirely different. And has that love (its own) intelligence? Which then operates - you follow? - which then breaks down the ( self-enclosing ?) wall.

B: Yes...

K: All right, sir - I don't know what the love is. I know all the physical bit, all that, that I realize, pleasure, desire, accumulation, remembrance, pictures, is not ( the unconditional ?) Love. I realized all that, long ago. But now 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 movement which is not a 'man-made' movement. And that 'movement' may be ( this unconditional, yet intelligent ?) 'love'.

B: You are saying it is a movement, not just a ( personal) feeling.

K: So is that love, with its ( compassionate ?) intelligence, is that the factor that will break down this (inner) wall? ( It is not "I love you, or you love me". It's not particular or general or, it is something beyond. Right?

B: Yes, that's a hard point (to grasp) of course, since that has never been part of (our cultural) background, a man tends to make love particularized, a particular thing or individual, but...

K: I think when one 'loves' with that intelligence it covers the whole, it's not the particular or general - it is 'light', not a 'particular light'. All right.
So if that ( non-personal Intelligence of Love ?) is the ( active) factor that can "break down the wall" , and as a human being, having reached a certain point, 'I' can't go beyond it to find that love - what shall I do when I realize that any 'movement' from this side of the wall is still strengthening the wall?
So you ( the 'X' man ?) come along and say, 'Look, that ( 'self'-isolating inner ?) 'wall' can be dissolved, broken down, if you have that quality of ( unconditional) love with ( its natural ?) intelligence.'
And I say, 'Excellent, but I don't know what it is.' Am I in despair? Obviously not, but realizing that I cannot possibly 'do' anything, any (self-centred) movement, what has happened to the quality of my mind, when all its movement to accumulate, to become, has stopped ?
The moment I realize this, is there in my mind a ( silent ?) revolution? Revolution in the sense that ( all the mental) movement has completely stopped. And if it has, is Love something beyond the wall?

B: Well, it wouldn't mean anything. The wall itself is the illusory product of the (self-centred) mental process.

K: Exactly, I'm realizing the 'wall' is ( created by this self-centred mental ?) movement. So when this 'movement' ends, that quality of Intelligence, Love and so on, is there. That's the whole point.

B: Yes, could one say the movement ends, the (natural intelligence behind that mental ?) movement sees that it has no point.

K: It is like, it is like the (perceptive) skill to 'see' a danger.

B: Well, it could be...

K: Yes. Any danger demands a certain amount of awareness. But I have never realized inwardly that this ( 'psychologically accumulative') process is a tremendous danger.

B: Yes, because that seems to be the essence of ( our self-centred sense of ?) security.

K: Of course, and all the rest of it. You come along and point it out to me, and I'm listening to you very carefully and I actually perceive the 'danger' of that. And ( such insightful ?) perception is part of Love, isn't it?

B: Yes. So, you're suggesting that (this universal intelligence of ?) Love is a kind of energy which is not 'specific' or 'general' and that it may momentarily 'envelop' certain things.

K: So ( the inward ) perception without any (personal) motive or direction, of the ( virtual) 'wall' which has been brought into being by this movement of (psychological) accumulation, the very perception of that is ( the time-free action of ?) intelligence and love. Right?

B: Right.

K: Shall we go on?

B: How do you feel? Maybe it's best to stop.

K: Better stop.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 27 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 Jul 2014 #15
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

13TH CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM 1980

Krishnamurti: We came to the ( critical .) point when we said that one comes, after one has been through all kinds of (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 intelligence. But before we go into that I would like to ask: why do human beings, however intelligent, however learned, however philosophical and religious, they always fall into this groove (of psychological accumulation ?) ?

Bohm: Yes, well I think the groove is inherent in the nature of the accumulated knowledge (about the world we're living in ) .

K: Are you saying then that ( gathering) knowledge invariably must create a groove?

B: Perhaps not 'must', but it has in the way it has developed in mankind. But the (gathering of) 'psychological' knowledge I would agree that it must create a groove.

K: But why has the human mind did not see the danger of it, see its mechanical repetition and therefore there is nothing new in that, and it keeps on doing it.

B: It seems to me that the 'groove', or the 'psychological' knowledge accumulated seems to have a significance far beyond what its real significance is, that carries a necessity. If we say we have knowledge of some object, like the microphone, that has some limited significance. Now knowledge about the nation to which you belong seems, seems to have immense significance.

K: Yes, yes. So is this 'significance' the cause of this narrowing down of the mind?

B: Well, it 'holds' the mind, since this 'psychological' 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 that knowledge must end, the Vedanta. But apparently very, very, very few people do end ( this subliminal movement of 'psychological' ) knowledge and talk from freedom.

B: Well, I would come back to the point that this knowledge generally seems to be extremely important, worth holding on to. You see, though a person may verbally say it should end the knowledge about the 'self'...

K: Yes. You mean I am so ( psychologically ?) 'stupid' that I don't see this psychological knowledge has very little significance essentially and yet my mind clings to it?

B: Yes, I wouldn't quite put it that a person is that 'stupid' but rather to say that this knowledge 'stupefies' the brain.

K: Yes, all right, call it that.

B: I mean that the brain being caught in this knowledge becomes 'stupefied' .

K: Stupefied, all right, but it doesn't seem to extricate itself.

B: Because it is already so stuck (in its self-centredness ?) that it can't see what it is doing.

K: So what shall it do? 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 - this 'psychological' accumulation which becomes ( a self-identified ?) 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 this ? Or it has given to knowledge such immense importance?

B: Yes, that is what I mean, yes.

K: Why? Is that because there is 'safety' or 'security' in it?

B: Partly, but it seems to be a source of ( constantly creating the perfect illusion of inner ?) security but you see I think in some way knowledge has taken on the significance of the absolute, you see, while any knowledge should be properly relative.

K: I understand all that, sir, but you are not answering my (experiential) question. I am an ordinary man, I realize all this and I realize the significance and the value of knowledge in different levels, but deeper down inside one, this ( self-identified ?) knowledge is very, very destructive.

B: That is true, but there is self-deception and the knowledge deceives the mind so that the person is not normally aware that it is destructive.

K: Is that why human beings cling to it?

B: Well, we don't know exactly how it got started, but once it gets started the mind is generally in a state in which it is not able( or willing) to look at this because there is a tremendous defensive mechanism to escape looking at the whole question.

K: Why?

B: Because it seems that something supremely precious ( one's very individuality ?) might be at stake.

K: One is strangely intelligent in other directions, capable and efficient, skilled, having a great deal of skill, but here, where the root of all this trouble is, why don't we comprehend it fully? What prevents the mind? You say it has given importance to knowledge. I acknowledge that, it is so, but yet it holds on. You must know this.

B: I think once this ( self-identification ?) has happened there is a mechanical process that resists intelligence.

K: So what shall I do? I think this is the average person's (major existential) problem - a problem which arises when we are a little bit serious about all this. Is it the lack of energy?

B: Not primarily. You see the energy is being dissipated (or entangled in ?) this ( 'identitary' process ?) process.

K: I understand that. Having dissipated a great deal of energy I haven't got the energy to grapple with this.

B: That energy could come back quickly if we could get out of this. The energy is constantly being dissipated and a person may be a little worn down (inwardly) but he could recover if this would stop. I don't think it is the main point.

K: But what shall I do, as a human being, realizing that this knowledge is inevitably forming the ( self-centred) groove in which I live, my next question is: how am I to break it down?

B: Well, I am not sure that it is clear in general to people that this is actually 'knowledge' - it seems to be the very identity of our being, the self, the me, this is experienced as an entity which is not just having some knowledge, but as some real being. Right?

K: Are you saying this 'being' is different from that knowledge?

B: It appears to be, it feigns the difference.

K: But is it?

B: It isn't but it has a very powerful ability .

K: But that has been my ( multi-millenary racial & cultural ?) conditioning.

B: That is true. Now your question is, how do we get through that to break down the groove? Because it creates a pretension of a 'state of being'.

K: Look: there are several hundred million Catholics, and millions and millions of Chinese. You follow? This is their central movement. It seems so utterly hopeless. And realizing the '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 to function without ( this 'identitary' ?) 'psychological knowledge' in this world? I am rather concerned about it because I think wherever one goes, whether it is California, India, or here or anywhere else, it is this central issue that must be resolved.

B: That is right. But you see, you may tell this to somebody, and he may say it looks reasonable perhaps, but let's say that his ( identitary ?) status is threatened (the 'who I am' ?) . Now we have to say that is ( just) 'psychological' knowledge, but it doesn't seem to him that this is just 'knowledge' but something more.

K: I understand all that.

B: Now he does not see that his knowledge of his (personal identity or ?) status is behind the trouble. 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, you see, which is the way it should be. But when the moment comes, this ( identitary 'psychological) knowledge' no longer appears to be knowledge.

K: How does one go about it? Say for instance, I have a (professional) career, I know it is necessary to have ( practical) knowledge there, but I have come to a point, where I see how important it is not to be caught in the process of 'psychological knowledge' but it is always dodging me, I am playing tricks with it. It is like hide and seek.
All right. From there we said that is the 'wall' that has to break down. And we said that wall can be broken down through ( an insight generated by ?) love and intelligence. Aren't we asking something enormously difficult?

B: Well, it is difficult...

K: And we said the other day that the wall can be broken down through insight - we went into that (but the actual difficulty is that this necessary ?) 'insight' becomes an idea - you describe the insight, how it is brought about and so on, but I immediately make an abstraction of it, which means I move away from the fact and the abstraction becomes all important. Which means ( one is back again in the field of ?) knowledge.

B: Yes, well it is the ( psychological) activity of knowledge.

K: So I am back again (in the known ?) .

B: Well I think the general difficulty is this: 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 the past knowledge, so even when we raise this issue, (the same mechanism of ) knowledge is all the time waiting and then acting.

K: All the time waiting, yes.

B: One point is that our whole cultural tradition is that knowledge is not active but passive, it is really 'active' but people don't generally think of it that way.

K: Of course.

B: It is waiting to act, you see. And anything you try to do about it, knowledge is already acting. By the time you realize that this is the problem it has already acted.

K: Yes. Do I realize it as a problem (that has to be dealt with directly ?) , or as an idea which I must carry out? You see the difference?

B: Yes, the first point is that (this 'identitary' ?) knowledge automatically turns everything into an idea which you must carry out. That is the whole way it is built. Right?

K: That is the whole way I have lived. Now, how am I to break (free from ?) that even for a second?

B: If ( this self-identified) knowledge could become aware of itself at work, but the point is that 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: Would you say ( that at this critical point ?) the capacity to 'listen' is far more important than any explanations, any logic, just to ( purely) listen?

B: It comes to the same problem.

K: No, no. It doesn't. There is a possibility that when I listen completely to what you are saying , the 'wall' has broken down. You understand? I am really deeply involved in what you are saying, but somehow the flame isn't lit, all the fuel is there but the fire isn't there. So what, as an ordinary man, what shall I do?

B: If it is the capacity to listen then we have the question that the ordinary man is full of opinions, you see, so he can't listen. I think (this psychological) knowledge has all sorts of defences. If you are thinking of trying to make it possible for the ordinary man to have this perception, that is really what you are asking, isn't it?

K: Yes.

B: At least those who are interested. Now I think ( that this identitary 'psychological' ?) knowledge has a tremendous number of defences, it has evolved in such a way that it resists, is built so as to resist seeing this, so it has ( a ready to use kit of self-protective ?) 'opinions' which also act immediately.

K: I understand that, sir. But there must be a communication between you and me who is so strong that my very act of listening to you and you communicating with me operates.

B: Yes, but then you (the 'X' person ?) have to break through this opinion, through the whole (identitary ?) 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 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 are not speaking from knowledge, you are not speaking from opinion and all the rest of it. You are really an (inwardly) free human being who is trying to communicate with me.

B: Right...

K: So, can I 'listen' with that same level of intensity which, you the communicator, are giving me?

B: Well, we would have to ask, is the ordinary man full of that (same passion for truth ?) ?

K: No, he is not. But if I want to listen to somebody who is telling the truth, in the very telling of it something is taking place in me - because I am so ardently listening it happens. I wonder if I am conveying anything.
You are a great scientist, I am one of your students, and you want to tell me something which must be enormously important because you have given your life to it, and as a student I have given up (a lot) just to come here. Is it the fault of you 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, supposing the difficulty is that 'I' ( my self-centred mind) am incapable of listening, then what can be done?

K: You see, that is the difficulty. If I am incapable of listening because I am full of ( my self-centred) prejudices, opinions, and judgements, defences and all the rest 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. It is something not quite so simple as that.

K: I feel it is dreadfully simple somehow : if I could listen with all my being, with all my attention, it takes place. It is as simple as that, I think.
You see, sir, usually you are telling me something and there is an interval between your telling and my absorbing. And in that interval is the danger. If I didn't absorb it absolutely, listen to it with all my being, it is finished.
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 ( traditionally) involved in (its expectations of ?) pleasure that it won't listen to anything that is not completely satisfactory. I realize too the danger of that. I say, 'All right, I see what I am doing' - so I put that aside too. No ( high expectations of ?) pleasure, no reward, no punishment, in listening but there is only pure (inward) observation.

So we come back to that point: is this quality of pure observation, which is actually involved in 'listening', is that pure observation 'love'? I think it is. Then where am I? You have told me perception without any motive, direction, pure perception is love. And in that perception (of) love there is intelligence. They are not three separate things, they are all one thing. If I am sensitive enough by listening to all this, I come ( in the context of my own meditation ?) to that point when I have a feeling and say, 'By Jove, that is so'. But it goes away so quickly. Then begins, 'How am I get it back?' Again the 'remembrance' of it, which is ( the psychological) knowledge, ( interferes with it and) blocks.

B: Well what you are saying is that every time there is a communication, ( this 'psychological' identitary ?) knowledge gets to work in many different forms.

K: So you see it is enormously difficult to be free of this 'knowledge'.

B: We could ask why doesn't knowledge wait until it is needed?

K: Ah, that requires to be psychologically free of knowledge but when the occasion arises you are acting from ( a state of inner) freedom, not from knowledge..

B: So, knowledge 'informs' your action but it is not the source.

K: That is, to put it rather succinctly, freedom from knowledge, and being free it is from freedom one communicates, not from knowledge. That is, from 'emptiness' there is communication. One may use the words, or language, which is the outcome of knowledge, but it is from that state of complete freedom.

B: Yes. Knowledge, communication, takes place but it is concerning the question of knowledge as the irrelevance of knowledge, of psychological knowledge, that is the communication.

K: Yes. 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 a communication, using words, takes place. Right? Now will you, as a man of great scientific eminence, can I communicate with you without any barrier?

B: Yes.

K: Can that man who is inwardly free from knowledge, but uses knowledge merely as a means of communication, can I be in such a state of mind to receive that communication?

B: Well, (this psychological) knowledge ordinarily seems more than mere information, it seems that knowledge itself does not ordinarily see that knowledge is not free.

K: It is never free.

B: No, but it may seem it at first sight that you are free to use your knowledge, you see.

K: Of course. If I am going to understand myself I must be free to look at myself.

B: And ( your psychological) knowledge has pressures in it to prevent you.

K: Knowledge prevents me from looking then. That is so obvious !

B: Well, it may be obvious at this stage, but I am saying that generally people don't see that. One tends to say that there are certain kinds of knowledge which are harmful like prejudice and then you say there are other kinds which are not harmful. But the whole thing is one structure, yes. It is impossible to have prejudice in one part without having it in the other.

K: 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, am I in that state really or am I fooling myself ?

B: Well that is the question: knowledge is constantly deceiving itself. I would say that it is not even that I am deceiving myself but ( our psychological) knowledge has a built-in tendency to deceive itself.

K: So, sir, is my ( self-centred ?) mind always deceiving itself?

B: The tendency is it's constantly there when knowledge is operating psychologically.

K: So what shall I do?

B: Again I think it is the same point: 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 but that doesn't - old age, conditioning, laziness, ten different things.

B: Well all that is superficial, but would it be possible to give the deep reason for it?

K: We come back to the same thing. You see I think, sir, is it that this ( psychological) knowledge is (producing the identitary consciousness of the ?) 'me'..

B: Yes, that is the point, yes.

K:.. the knowledge which is ( projecting the ?) the 'me' is so tremendously strong as an idea, not as a fact?

B: Yes, I understand it is an idea, but that idea has 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 great energy.

B: And so it creates a state of mind which seems to be the very being of the self. Now the person doesn't experience it as mere knowledge but at first feels something very powerful which doesn't seem to be 'knowledge'.

K: Yes. Aren' t we going round and round and round?

B: Well I was wondering if there is anything that could be communicated about that overwhelming power that seems to come with ( this psychological) knowledge.

K: And with ( self-) 'identification'.

B: With identification. That seems to be something that would be worth looking into.

K: What is the root meaning of 'identification'?

B: Well, "always the same".

K: Always the same, that's right. That's it, you see! It is 'always the same'.

B: That is the essence of it. You say the 'self' (identified consciousness) is always the same. 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 attempts to be knowledge of what is always the same, you see, so it holds, you see. And knowledge itself tries to find what is permanent and perfect and always the same. I mean even independent of any of us you see. It is built into, like the cells, you see.

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 pain, (in considering ) 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', 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. We all know that.

B: Well the ( psychological knowledge impersonated as the ?) 'me' wants to be always the same at the same time it tries to be different.

K: Put on a different coat. It is always the same. So the mind which is functioning ( self-centred) with the 'me' is always the same ( old ?) mind.

B: You see, 'being always the same' gives a tremendous force. Now is it possible to leave go of that 'always the same'?

K: You see, there is no other means to break down this (self-created inner ?) wall - not the intellect, not the emotions, not any of these things. When somebody who is beyond the wall, has gone beyond, broken down the wall, says, 'Listen, for god's sake listen'. When I so listen my mind is empty. I have no sense of hoping to come back, to have it in the future, or - it is empty and therefore listening. It is finished.

We had better stop, we have come to a (good ?) point. As a scientist, to discover something new, you must have a certain 'emptiness' (state of freedom from what you knew before ?) from which there will be a different perception.

B: Yes, but I think there is a difference in the sense that usually the question is limited and so the mind may be empty with regard to that question.

K: That particular question, yes.

B: Allowing for discovery and insight into that (particular) question.

K: But without any specialization, does this (inner state of ?) emptiness hold every other...

B: Well, I think we are not questioning this particular area but rather we are questioning the whole of knowledge.

K: It is most extraordinary when you go into it.

B: As you were saying, the 'end of knowledge' is the Vedanta.

K: That is the real answer.

B: But if a person can take this scientific attitude and question the whole of knowledge..

K: Oh, of course, of course.

B: But generally people would feel they must keep ( some reference) knowledge in one area to be able to question it in another. You see this is something that might worry people to say, with what knowledge do I question that knowledge? In a way we have gone through it logically and rationally and seen that the whole structure of 'psychological' knowledge has no meaning.

K: Would you then from there, (looking inwards ?) from that emptiness: is there a Ground or a Source ( of Creation) from which all things begin? Matter, human beings, their capacities, the whole movement starts from there.

B: We could consider that certainly. But let's try to clarify it a little. We have the emptiness...

K: Yes, ( a state of inner) 'emptiness' (aka: freedom from the known ?) 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 watch.

K: Yes. We have gone beyond that, don't let's go back to it.

B: The words are often confusing, they carry wrong meanings.

K: There is no psychological time, no movement of thought. And is that emptiness the beginning of all movement?

B: Well, would you say the emptiness is the Ground then?

K: That is what I am asking. Let's go slowly into this. Shall we postpone this for another day?

B: Well perhaps it should be gone into more carefully.

K: We had better stop.

B: Well just one thing: in California we were saying there is the emptiness and beyond that is the Ground.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 29 Oct 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 08 Jul 2014 #16
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

14TH K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM 1980

Krishnamurti: We talked the other day about a mind ( in meditation ?) that is entirely free from all (mental) movement, from all the things 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 ask (in a roundabout way ?) , what is materialism?

Bohm: Materialism ?

K: Man being caught in this materialistic attitude and values and experiences. What is the nature of 'materialism'? That is, all nature, all human beings react physically. This reaction is sustained by thought. And thought is a natural process. So 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'. We are talking about (getting to the point of ?) 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, but before I begin with that, as I said: is all reaction matter?

B: Matter in movement. Science has found a tremendous number of reactions which are due to the nerves.

K: Yes, all that. So would you call 'matter in movement' the reactions which exist in all organic matter?

B: Yes, all matter as we know it goes 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 is the question, that is the point.

B: Now some people might say it has no meaning to go beyond it. That would be the philosophy of materialism: there is no meaning to go beyond it.

K: Beyond it, that's right. But if one is merely living in that area it is very, very shallow. It has really no meaning at all.

B: Yes. But some people have said that matter is not merely action and reaction but it may have a creative movement. You see matter may create new forms.

K: Matter may create new forms, but it is still within that area.

B: Let's try to make it clear what is the difference since there are very subtle forms of materialism which might be difficult to pin down.

K: Let's begin: would you agree that thought is a material process ?

B: Yes. Though some people might argue that it is both material and something beyond material.

K: But it is not.

B: How can we say that simply to make it clear?

K: Because any ( memory based ?) movement of our thought is a material process, whether it is (tinking of the ?) 'beyond'.

B: Well we have to make it clear so that it is not a matter of authority. From observation one sees that thought is a material process, now how would one see that?

K: How would one be aware that it is a material process ? I think that is fairly clear. There is an experience, an incident, recorded, which ( is verbally processed and ?) becomes knowledge, and from that (stored) knowledge thought arises and action takes place.

B: Yes. So we say thought is (just) that ?

K: Any assertion that is beyond is still ( in the 'known' field of ?) thought.

B: It is still coming from the (memory) background. So if we say that something 'new' ( such as a new insight ?) is coming there, it is not part of this (material) process, is that what you are saying?

K: Yes, if there is to be something new, ( the continuity of) thought, as a material process, must end ( take a break ?) . Obviously.

B: And then it may take it up later.

K: Later, yes. So is it possible for the mind to go beyond reaction? That is the next step obviously. (Eg:) One gets irritated and that is the first reaction. Then the reaction to that, is 'I must not'. Then the third reaction, 'I must control' - or whatever it is. So it is constantly action and reaction (between the 'observer' and the 'observed' ?) . Can one see it is a continuous movement without an ending?

B: Yes. This process of action- reaction is actually continuous but it seems at a certain moment to have ended and the next moment appears to be a new moment.

K: But it is still (in the field of action and ?) reaction.

B: It is still the same but it presents itself as always being different, as always new.

K: That is just it. You say something, ( the new reaction is that ?) I get irritated, but that 'irritation' is (itself) the reaction (of 'I' ?) .

B: Yes, ( to 'me' ?) it seems to be something suddenly new.

K: Suddenly new. But it is not.

B: It is not. But generally the mind tends not to be aware of it (that both the immediate reaction and the 'me' who reacted...are of the same nature ?)

K: But after discussing a great deal, one can.

B: We are attentive to it.

K: Yes, we are sensitive to it, alert to the question. So there is an ending to all reactions (of thought) if one is watchful, attentive, and has an insight into this reacting process all the time, it can of course come to an end. That is why it is very important, I think, to understand this, before we discuss what is an 'empty' (inwardly transparent ?) mind and if in that very 'emptying' of the mind there is some other quality. So is this 'empty mind' a reaction to escape from all these problems of pain and pleasure and suffering into some state of (artificial ) nothingness ?

B: Well the (over-stressed ?) mind can always (try to) do that.

K: Of course, and that becomes a (self-induced ?) illusion. Now, as we went into the question of illusions and said desire is the beginning of illusion, we have come to the point that this quality of inner emptiness is not a reaction. Now is it possible to have a mind that is (inwardly) empty of all the things that (the self-centred) thought has 'put together'?

B: Well, then thought ceases to react.

K: That's it.

B: On the other hand perhaps you could say that the reaction is due to the nature of matter which is continually reacting and moving, but then is matter affected by this insight?

K: I understand. Does "insight" affect the material cells of the brain which contains the memory?

B: Yes. This memory is continually reacting, moving, as does the air and the water, everything around us. Why would it ever stop?

K: Quite. After all sir, if physically I don't react, I am paralysed. But the (thought process ?) reacting continually is also a form of (mental) 'paralysis'.

B: Yes, well the wrong kind of reactions, around the psychological structure.

K: Yes, we are talking 'psychologically' - always.

B: But now assuming that the reaction around the 'psychological structure' has begun in mankind why should it ever stop, because one reaction makes another and another.

K: It is like an endless. chain (of causes and effects ?)

B: One would expect it to go on for ever unless something will stop it. Right?

K: Only the insight (seeing the truth about ?) into the nature of reaction ends psychological reaction.

B: But then you are saying that (the movement of ) matter (in the brain cells) is affected by an 'insight' which is (coming from ?) beyond matter ?

K: Yes, beyond matter. So is this (inner) 'emptiness' (an actuality ?) within the brain itself? Or something that thought has 'conceived' (thought of ?) as being empty? One must be very clear on this.

B: Yes, no matter what the question is, thought feels it can always make a (positive ?) contribution.

K: Quite.

B: So in the past (the human) thought did not understand that there are areas where it has no useful contribution to make, but it keeps on in the habit of trying to say inner 'emptiness' is very good, therefore thought says I will try to help bringing about 'emptiness'.

K: Of course.

B: Thought is trying to be helpful.

K: So, ( in the context of an authentic meditation ?) 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 consciousness (including) the (thinking ?) brain, the whole of that is the 'mind'.

B: This word 'mind' has been used in many ways,. Now you are using it in a certain way, which is that it represents the whole material process (in the brain) : thought, feeling, desire and will -.

K: Yes, the whole material process.

B: Which some people have called 'non-material'.

K: Quite. ( But here) the '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 that this 'materialistic reaction' (of thought ?) can end. And the next question I am asking is: is that 'emptiness' within ( our mind ?) or elsewhere ?

B: Where would it be?

K: I don't think it would be elsewhere but I am just putting it (for 'psychologically correct' reasons ?) .

B: You see 'here' and 'there' are distinctions made within the material process.

K: Yes, that is right. So, it is (occuring within) in the mind itself. Not outside it. Right?

B: Yes...

K: Now what is the next ( meditational ?) step? Does that (inner) 'emptiness' contain "not a thing"?

B: By this "not a thing", you mean no-thing ( no thought created content) that has form, structure, stability ?

K: Yes, all that, form, structure, capacity, reaction - all that. It contains none of that. Then what is it? Is it then (our ?) 'total' energy?

B: Yes, the movement of energy.

K: Movement of energy. It is not the (materialistic) movement of reaction.

B: It is not movement of things reacting to each other. Because the world can be regarded as made up of a large number of things which react to each other and that is one kind of movement. But we are saying it is a different kind of 'movement'.

K: Entirely different.

B: Which has no 'thing' in it.

K: No 'thing' in it and therefore it is not of time - right? So, we say that this ( state of inner ?) 'emptiness' has no centre as the 'me' and all the reactions and so on. In that emptiness there is a movement of timeless energy.

B: Yes, when you say 'timeless energy' - we have already said that (inwardly speaking ?) 'time' and 'thought' are the same .

K: Yes, of course.

B: Then you were saying that (thinking in terms of ?) '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 and ?) 'moving'...

K: Yes, it is not static...

B: Now what is this (time-free ?) movement?

K: Sir, what is ( the spatio-temporal ?) movement? ( Going) from here to there.

B: That is one form...

K: Or from yesterday to today, and from today to tomorrow.

B: Yes, there are various kinds of movement.

K: So what is (timeless ?) movement? Is there an inner (state of being ?) which is not 'moving' (towards anything ?) ? You understand? Is there a ( non-material ? ) 'movement' which has no beginning and no end? Because thought has a beginning and an end.

B: We could say that even the reactive movement of matter might have a beginning but no ending - you are not talking of that?

K: No, I am not talking of that.

B: So it is not enough to say "it has no beginning and no end" - right?

K: That is (inwardly) thought has a beginning and thought has an ending. There is a movement of matter as reaction and the ending of that reaction.

B: Yes, in the brain.

K: In the brain. But there are these various kinds of ( mental and physical ?) movements. That is all we know (and all we do ?) . And someone comes along and says there is a totally different kind of (inner) movement. But to understand that one must be ( inwardly) free of the movement of thought & time to understand a 'movement' that is not...

B: Well there are two things: it has no beginning and no end but also it is not determined as a series of successions from the past.

K: No (temporal) causation.

B: You see, matter can be looked at as a series of causes (and effects) , but you were saying that this (inward ?) movement has no beginning and no ending, it is not the result of a series of material causes, one following another without end.

K: So, sir I want to understand, even verbally, a 'movement' that is not a movement.

B: Then why are you calling it called a 'movement' if it is not a movement?

K: Because it is not still, it is 'active' (alive ?) .

B: It is energy.

K: It has tremendous energy, therefore it can never be 'still' (and...do nothing ?) . But it has got in that energy a 'stillness'.

B: Yes, the energy itself is 'still' and also 'moving'?

K: Yes, it is a 'movement of stillness'.

B: That 'movement' can be said to emerge from stillness ?

K: That's right. You see that is what it is sir.
( To recap:) We said that this 'emptiness' is in the mind. The emptiness has no cause and no effect, it is not a movement of 'thought- time', it is not a movement of ( brain's ?) material reactions; none of that. Which means: is the ( meditative ?) mind capable of that extraordinary stillness without any movement? And when it is so completely still there is a 'movement' out of it. It sounds crazy ?

B: Well it needn't sound crazy. In fact Aristotle also talked about the "unmoved Mover" - that is the way he tried to describe God.

K: Ah, I don't want to do that.

B: You don't want to describe God but I mean some sort of notion similar to this has been held in the past by various people, but since then it has gone out of fashion, I think.

K: Out of fashion. Let's bring it into fashion, shall we!

B: I am not saying that Aristotle had the right idea, it is merely that he was considering something somewhat similar, though probably different in many cases.

K: Was it an intellectual concept or an actuality?
B: This is very hard to tell because so little is known.

K: Therefore we don't have to bring in Aristotle.
Now, is that ( non-moving ?) 'movement' ( emerging ?) out of stillness, is that the movement of Creation? ( to me, the 'creation' of the artists, the poets writers and painters is not Creation, just a ( gifted ?) capacity and skill and memory and knowledge operating there) . But here (in the authentic meditation ?) this (movement of) Creation is not expressed in form.

B: Yes, that is important. Usually we think creation is expressed as form or as structure. Now, then what does it mean?

K: Would you say, sir, that this Movement (of Creation ?) , not being of time, is eternally new?

B: Yes, in the sense that the Creation is eternally new. Right?

K: Creation is eternally new. But to come ( in one's meditation ?) to that point where the mind is absolutely silent, completely silent, out of that silence there is this a Movement which is always new, eternally new. But the moment when that movement is expressed...

B: Yes, its expression is in ( the field of ?) thought - right?

K: That is just it.

B: And that may be useful but then it gets fixed. Then it may become a barrier.

K: I was told, once by an Indian philosopher, an Indian scholar, that before they began to sculpture a head of a god, or whatever it is, they had to have deep meditation, go into deep meditation. At the right moment they took up the hammer and the chisel.

B: To have 'it' come out of the emptiness ?

K: The emptiness.

B: There is another point. The Australian aborigines draw ( their sacred ?) figures in the sand so they don't have permanency. You see the marble is already too static, it stays there for thousands of years. So although the original sculptor may have understood (something beyond ?) , the people who follow see it as a fixed form.

K: Now, what relationship has ( coming upon that still movement of Creation ?) to my daily life? In what way does That act through my action, through my ordinary physical responses? There are no psychological responses but there are physical responses, to noise, to pain, various forms of disturbances, physical disturbances. What relationship has the physical (brain ?) to that silent movement?

B: Yes, well in so far as the mind is silent then the thought is orderly.

K: Yes, it is orderly. Ah, we are getting on to something. Would you say that silent movement with its unending newness, is ( originating from the ?) total order of the universe?

B: Yes, we could consider that the order of the universe emerges from this (inner) silence and emptiness.

K: So what is the relationship of this ( cleansed human ?) mind to the universe?

B: The particular mind?

K: No, 'mind'. Beyond the general and the particular, there is the mind.

B: Well would you say that is universal?

K: I don't like to use the word 'universal'...

B: In the sense, that which is beyond the particular and general would usually be called the 'universal' mind. But it may be that the word is difficult, eh?

K: Can we find a different word?

B: Well you could say it is the source, the essence. It has been called the absolute.

K: I don't want to use that word 'absolute' either...

B: But '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. Then we will use that, all right.

B: It has unfortunate connotations.

K: Of course, of course. 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 that 'mind' to the universe?

B: To the universe of matter?

K: Yes, to the whole universe. Matter, trees, nature, man, the heavens.

B: Yes, well that is an interesting question.

K: That the Universe is in order, whether it is destructive or constructive, it is still order.

B: Well it is a 'necessary' order. You see this (universal) order has the character of being absolutely necessary - 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.

K: Quite. Now in the Universe there is this order and this mind which is still, is completely in order.

B: The absolute (human) mind.

K: The absolute mind. So is this mind (one with ?) the Universe?

B: Well, in what sense is that the Universe?

K: It means sir, is there a division (a separation ?) between this 'absolute' (free human ?) mind and the universe? Or are both the same?

B: Both are the same, right.

K: That is what I want to get at.

B: We have either duality of mind and matter, or they are both the same.

K: I want to be quite sure we are not treading (with our boots ?) on something which really needs very, very, subtle, great care, you know what I mean?

B: Well we have said the (psycho-somatic) body is physical, it is material. And we said the mind of the body - the mind which is in the body - thought, feeling desire, the general and the particular are part of the material process.

K: Absolutely, all the reactions are ( part of the ) material processes.

B: And therefore what we usually call the 'mind' is not different from what we usually call the 'body'.

K: Quite, quite.

B: Now you are making this much greater in saying consider the whole universe, and say what we call the mind is not 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 "order", not the order of ( our self-centred ?) thought.

B: Well thought is of a limited order, it is relative.

K: That's it. So an order that is...

B:... free of limitation.

K: Free of limitation, yes. In (terms of ) my daily life that means no conflict whatsoever, no contradiction. 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 (of the Universe ) ? Can that silent movement of ( universal) order, of that "extraordinary something", can that affect my daily life when I have deep inward psychological order? You understand my question?

B: Yes. The question is whether a human being in his daily life can be similar.

K: Similar. That's it. If not, I don't see what is the point of the 'other'.

B: Then you would fall back into the human mind trying to make its own purpose out of its thoughts. I think some people would say who cares about the universe, all we care about is our own society, what we are doing. But then that falls down because it is full of contradictions.

K: Obviously. So that (order of the ?) Universe, which is ( existing ?) in total order, does affect my daily life.

B: Yes. But I think that scientists might ask how. You see people might say, 'OK. I understand that the universe is constituted of matter, the laws of matter affect your daily life,' - but we are saying it is not so clear how it affects the human mind - if there is this 'absolute' (human) mind which affects the daily life.

K: Ah! What is my daily life (psychologically-wise ?) ? A series of reactions and ( a self-continuing ?) disorder. I am making it very briefly.

B: Well it is mostly that...

K: Mostly. And thought is always struggling to bring order within that.

B: Yes.

K: And when it does that, it is still ( perpetrating) disorder.

B: Because thought is limited by its own contradictions.

K: Of course. Thought is always creating disorder because it is in itself ( self centred and) limited.

B: As soon as it tries to go beyond its ( rational) limits, that is disorderly.

K: That is disorderly. Right. I have understood, I have gone into it, I have an insight into it, so I have a certain kind of order in my life. But that order is still limited. I recognize that and as long as matter, this existence, I say it is limited.

B: Now some people would say: why should you have 'more' ? 'I would be happy if I could bring this limited order, seeing that we have so much disorder now, if we could live in a material life with real order.'

K: Of course that must be done. But in the very doing of it one has to realize it is 'limited'.

B: Yes, even the highest order you can produce is limited.

K: Limited. And the 'mind' realizes its limitation and says, let's go beyond it.

B: Well let's try to make it clear because what is wrong with this (intrinsical) limitation?

K: In that limitation there is no ( total inner) freedom, it is a limited freedom.

B: Yes. So eventually we come to the boundary of our freedom - let's try to put it more clearly. Something not known to us makes us react and this would inevitably fail because through reaction we would fall back into contradiction.

K: Yes, when I am always moving within a certain area, the mind inevitably rebels against that.

B: That is an important point: the human mind wants freedom. Right?

K: Obviously. I realize I am a prisoner within this ( self-created) limitation.

B: Some people get used to it and say, 'I accept it'.

K: I won't accept it. My mind says there there must be a "freedom" beyond all that.

B: Yes, which mind says this? Is it the particular mind of the human being?

K: Ah! The very pain, the very suffering, the very all that, demands that we go beyond.

B: This particular mind even though it accepts limitation, finds it painful, therefore this particular mind feels somehow that it is not right.

K: Yes.

B: It seems to be a necessity of ( total inner ?) freedom.

K: Freedom 'is' necessary. And any hindrance to freedom is retrogression.

B: So that necessity is not an external necessity due to reaction.

K: ( The demand for ?) freedom is not a reaction. You see sir, that (inward freedom) means there must be freedom from reaction, freedom from the limitation of thought, freedom from all the ( self-isolating ?) movement of ( thought & ) time. There must be complete freedom from all that, before I can really understand the ( practical value of the ?) empty mind and the order of the universe, which is then ( integrated within ?) the order of the mind. We are asking a tremendous lot! Am I willing to go that far?

B: Well you know , 'non-freedom' has its attractions.

K: Of course. I have found safety, security, pleasure in (inwardly indulging in ?) 'non-freedom'. I realize in that pleasure, pain, there is no freedom and the mind says, not as a reaction, says there must be freedom from all this. To come to that point and to let go without conflict, demands its own discipline, its own 'insight'. That's why I said those of us who have given a certain amount of (leisure) time and investigation into all this, can one go as far as that? Or there are the responses of the body, responses of daily demand, the responsibilities of daily action - wife, children, and all that - is that what is holding and preventing this sense of complete freedom?
Now, I say is that ( Mind of the ?) Universe and the ( human) 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 also not to fall into the trap that the universal mind is always there.

B: Yes, well how would you put it then?

K: They have said that: "God is always there" and all you have to do is to cleanse (purify ?) yourself (inwardly) and arrive at that. Which is also a very 'dangerous' (slippery ?) statement because then you say, the eternal (is already ?) in me.

B: There is even a logical difficulty in saying it is always there, because that implies time -that it is there every minute and, as we discussed; 'That' has nothing to do with time. 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 ( an integrated part ?) of that when there is ( inward ?) freedom. I think that is enough, isn't it?

B: You want to continue next week, on Saturday?

K: We will see.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 01 Nov 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 10 Jul 2014 #17
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

15TH CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM 1980

Krishnamurti: We have cultivated a mind that can solve almost any technological problem. But apparently 'human' (the 'existential' ?) problems have never been solved. And (the modern) man in spite of his knowledge, in spite of his centuries of evolution, has never been free of (his psychological) 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 except through wars ( methods of thought control ?) and so on. 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 technological (and of our material survival ?) problems that we have no time for the other?

B: Well that is only partly so. Many people feel that the other (psychological domain ?) should take care of itself. I think many people don't give a lot of attention to these problems.

K: Why, why? Is it ( due to our outwardly oriented ?) education? Is it our deep rooted ( survivalistic) tradition that we 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 things which make problems.

K: Of course, but we are talking about human problems - problems of relationship, problems of lack of freedom, of this sense of constant uncertainty, fear and all the ( daily) human struggle : it all seems so extraordinarily wrong, the whole thing.

B: Yes, well I think people have lost sight of that. Generally speaking they sort of, as you say, 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 ( bother) look at this whole big situation very seriously.

K: We live (inwardly ) in chaos. Now, I'd want to find out if I can live without a single ( psychologically created ?) problem for the rest of my life. Is that possible? You see personally I refuse to have 'problems'.

B: Well, maybe you are not seriously challenged with something ?

K: I was challenged the other day about something very, very serious.
A certain problem arose ( at B P ?) the other day which involved lots of people and so on, and a certain action had to be taken. Personally to me it was not a problem.

B: Well, then you'll have to make it clear what you mean by 'problem' .

K: Something you worry about, something with which you are endlessly concerned and questioning, answering, doubt, uncertain, and take some kind of action at the end which you will regret.

B: Let's begin with the 'technical' problem where the idea first arose. Saying you have a challenge, something which needs to be done, and you say that is a problem.

K: Yes, that is generally called a problem.

B: Now the very word 'problem' is based on the idea of putting forth a possible solution and then trying to achieve it.

K: Or, I have a problem but I don't know how to deal with it. So I go around asking people, getting more and more confused.

B: That would already be a change from the simple idea of a technical problem where you usually have some notion of what to do.

K: Technical problems are fairly simple.

B: They often bring challenges requiring you to go very deeply and change your ideas. Even a technical problem may do that. Now (suppose that ?) we have a 'psychological' problem, can't we do the same?

K: Yes, how do we deal with any problem that arises in human relationships.

B: Well let's say people cannot agree (on how to run the K school ?) , they fight each other constantly.

K: Yes, let's take that for a very simple thing. Here with a group of people, it seems to be almost impossible to think together, to have the same outlook, the same attitude - each person puts his opinion forward and he is contradicted by another. And so this goes on all the time both in the world, and here.

B: All right. Now we say our problem here is to 'work together', to 'think together'.

K: Yes, to co-operate together without (the inevitable power and ?) monetary issues involved in it.

B: Yes, well that is another question that people will not better 'work together' if they are paid highly. But given a situation where this is not ( the kind of motivation ?) what we want then we have a 'problem'...

K: Yes, that is right. Now how do we solve such a problem? I offer my opinion, you offer, and he and so on, all of us are offering an opinion and so we don't meet each other at all. So what shall we do? It seems almost impossible to give up one's opinions.

B: Yes, that is one of the difficulties. I don't think - if you say it is my problem to give up my opinions, it doesn't make sense. That is what I was trying to say, I am not sure you can regard it as a 'problem', saying "what shall I do to give up my opinions?"...

K: No, of course. But that is a fact. So observing that and seeing the necessity that we should all come together, and when this is put forward to the others it becomes a problem to them.

B: That is because people find it hard to give up opinions: they feel they is true.

K: They call it 'fact'.

B: Well, some people might say that we have got not only (strong) opinions, but ( their strong ?) self-interests...If two people have self-interest which is different, then there is no way in my view that they can, as long as they maintain that, that they can ( truly ?) work together (although they may pretend to ?) .

K: Agreed. Suppose in a place like this, we are a group of people, and it is important that we all work together; and apparently that becomes almost incredibly difficult.

B: Yes, now how do you break into this?

K: That is what I want to discuss. You point out to me, that we must work together, and show to me the importance of it, and I also see it is important but I can't 'do' it.

B: That's the point, that it is not enough even to see it is important and have the intention to do it. Ordinarily when we say 'I see the importance and I have the intention to do it' - I go and do it. So there is a new factor coming in here that a person sees something is important, he intends to do it and he can't do it.

K: That's it, and that creates a (major) problem to him (personally) .

B: And to everybody...But why is it that we cannot carry out our (good) intentions? We see the importance, knowing we want to do it and yet we can't do it. It seems puzzling.

K: One can give many reasons for that but those causes and reasons and explanations don't solve the problem, don't solve the issue. We come back to the same thing: what will make a human mind change? Some 'new' factor is necessary.

B: Well I feel it is a perception of whatever it is that is holding the person, preventing him from changing.

K: So is the new factor 'attention'?

B: Yes, that is what I meant, attention, but exactly what kind of attention do you mean?

K: We can discuss that. Where there is 'attention' there is no problem; where there is inattention everything arises. So can I understand, not intellectually but deeply, in my blood the nature of that attention in which no problem can ever exist ? Obviously it is not ( the result of mental) concentration, a struggle to be attentive. But you show me the nature of attention which is, when there is attention there is no (self-conscious ?) 'centre' from which 'I' attend.

B: Yes, but that is a difficult thing. I have been trying that for a long time. I think that there is first of all some difficulty when the person is looking at (the self-centred content of his consciousness ?) he may 'think' he is attending.

K: No, in that state of ( non-personal ?) attention there is no ( interference of ?) thought.

B: But how do you stop ( the prcess of ?) thought then? You see, while thinking is going on there is a (self-induced ?) impression of attention which is not 'attention'. That is, one supposes that one is paying attention.

K: No, no. When one supposes one is paying attention, that is not 'attention'.

B: So how do we communicate the true meaning of 'attention'?

K: Or would you say: to find out what is attention could we discuss (about it negatively in terms of ?) 'what is inattention?' And through negation (of the false stuff ) come to the positive. When I am inattentive, what takes place?

B: All sorts of things take place.

K: No, but much more than that. In my 'inattentiveness' I ( may also ?) feel lonely, depressed, anxious and so on.

B: The mind begins to 'break up' and go into confusion.

K: ( A psychological ?) 'fragmentation' takes place. Or in my lack of attention I (may try to ?) identify (or commit ?) myself with so many other things.

B: Yes, and it may also be pleasant.

K: Of course. But I find later on that that which was pleasing becomes painful (boring ?) . So all that is a (mental) movement in which there is no attention. Right? Are we getting anywhere?

B: I don't know...

K: I feel that attention is the real solution to all this. A mind which has understood the nature of inattention and moves away from it.

B: Yes, now what is the nature of ( our inner ?) 'inattention'?

K: The nature of inattention? Indolence, negligence, this self-concern, the self contradictions, all that, is (involved in ?) the nature of inattention.

B: Yes. Now, a person who has self-concern may feel that he is attending to the concerns of himself. He feels he has got problems, then paying attention to ( try to solve) them.

K: Ah, if there is a self-contradiction (a conflict of intersts ?) in me, and then I pay attention to it in order not to be self-contradictory, that is not attention.

B: But can you make it clear because ordinarily one might think that that is attention.

K: No, it is not, it is merely a ( self-focussed ?) process of thought, which says, 'I am this, I must not be that'.

B: Then you are saying this attempt to become (inwardly attentive) is not attention.

K: Yes, that is right. The ( attempt of ?) psychological 'becoming' (self-improvement ?) breeds ( its own ?) inattention.

B: Yes, although the person may (seriously ) think he is attending to something but he is not, when he is ( subliminally ?) engaged in this process.

K: Isn't it very difficult sir, to be free of (self-) becoming? That is the root of it. To end ( this psychological ) 'becoming'.

B: Yes...

K: Does this convey anything?

B: Well we have just answered it: there is no ( integrated ?) attention and that is why all these ( psychological ) problems are there.

K: Yes. So let's come back (to what we were discussing last time) . The human mind which is ( generally ) so full of knowledge, self-importance, self-contradictions, and all the rest of it, has come to a point where it finds that 'psychologically' it can't move .

B: There is nowhere for it to move, yes.

K: So what would you say to a person who has come to that point? I am full of this confusion, anxiety, and sense of despair, not only facing what the world is, but also in myself. I come to that point and I want to 'break through' it. Is this desire to become ( other than what one is ?) the root of all this?

B: Yes, well it must be close to the root, ( but) it keeps on coming in without notice. The inattention is such that you would say that I am looking at my problem and my problem is always 'becoming', so I say I want to stop this 'becoming', which again is inattention.

K:So how do I look at this whole complex issue of 'myself', without the (compensatory ) movement of becoming (something different ) ?

B: Well it seems that one has to look (non-personally ?) at the whole issue. When you said, 'how can I pay attention', you not look at the whole ( process of self ?) becoming - part of it seemed to slip out and became the 'observer'. Right?

K: Sir, look, 'becoming' has become the 'psychological curse' of this. A poor man wants to be rich and a rich man wants to be richer ( or the President ?) , and it is this movement all the time of becoming, becoming, both outwardly and inwardly. And though it sometimes brings (fustration and ?) pain and sometimes pleasure, this sense of becoming, fulfilling, achieving psychologically, has made our life into all that it is. Now I ( finally ?) realize that but I can't stop it.

B: Yes, 'why' can't I stop it?

K: Partly it is because I am always ( personally motivated ?) in this (self-) becoming - there is (the hope for a major personal ?) reward at the end of it and ( by the same stroke ?) I am also avoiding pain & punishment. And in that cycle I am caught. That is probably one of the reasons why the mind keeps on trying to become something. And the other is this deeply rooted fear that if I don't become anything I am lost, and I am uncertain, insecure. So the mind has accepted ( engaging in ?) these ( socially praised ?) illusions and says I cannot end that.

B: Then why doesn't the mind end it? Also we have to go into the question into seeing that there is no ( true) meaning to these illusions.

K: How do you convince me that I am caught in a (collectively accepted ?) illusion? You can't, unless I see it myself. I cannot see it because my ( personal attachment to this ?) illusion is so strong. That illusion ( of self-becoming ?) has been nurtured, cultivated by religion, by family and so on and so on, it is so deeply rooted that I ( subliminally ?) refuse to let that go.

B: Well then it seems impossible.

K: That is what is happening. That is what is taking place with a large number of people. They say, 'I'd want to do this but I cannot'. Now given that situation, what is one to do? Will your (logical) explanations of all the various contradictions, and so on, will that help him? Obviously not.

B: Because it all gets absorbed into the ( old mental) structure.

K: Obviously. So what is the next thing?

B: Well, if he says, 'I want to change', there is also the ( subliminal) wish not to change (too much ?) .

K: Of course. The man who says, 'I want to change' has also at the back of his mind 'Really, why should I change?' They go together.

B: So we get a ( new inner) contradiction.

K: That is what I mean I have accepted living in this field of contradictions.

B: So why should I have accepted it ?

K: Because it is a ( cultural ?) habit.

B: But when the mind is healthy it will not accept a contradiction.

K: But our mind isn't ( holistically ?) 'healthy'. Our minds are so diseased, so corrupt, so confused, that even though you point out all the dangers of this, it refuses to see ( the truth of) it.

So how do we help him to see clearly the danger of this (subliminal ?) 'psychologically becoming', which implies identification with a nation, with all that business.

B: Yes, holding to one's opinions...

K: Opinions, beliefs. How do you help me, such a person, to be free of all that? I wonder if there is another factor, another way of communication, which isn't based on words, knowledge, explanations and ( promises of ?) reward and punishment. You follow? Is there another way of communicating, which we were talking about last time for a brief moment?

B: Perhaps there is.

K: Now how do you communicate with me, who is caught in this trap, non-verbally, so that I grasp it deeply, that breaks away everything else? 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 really impossible.

B: Something that will break through the inability to 'listen' ?

K: Yes, through the inability (or subliminal unwillingness ?) to listen, the 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 and in his company they say "all our problems are resolved". And... then they go back to their life, back to the old game.

B: Yes, well there was no 'intelligence' in it.

K: You see the danger ? That man, that 'saint', being quiet, non-verbal, in his very presence, they feel quiet. And they feel their problems are resolved.

B: But it is still ( a psychical influence ?) from the outside.

K: Of course, it is like going to church. And in a good ancient church, or 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 (and forget about your personal problems ?) .

B: Yes, well it communicates what is meant by quietness, I think, but it gets across the communication which is non-verbal.

K: But 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 (mental) wall which human beings have built for themselves? Is Love the element that is lacking?

B: Well, you see maybe people are somewhat chary of this word and therefore as they resist listening, they will resist love too.

K: Of course. That is why I said it is rather a risky word.

B: But we were saying the other day also that Love also contains Intelligence.
That ( universal ?) energy which also contains intelligence and caring, all that.

K: Now (supposing ) you have that quality and I am caught in my misery, my anxiety and so on, and you are trying to penetrate through this "mass of darkness" with that ( loving ?) Intelligence .Will that act? If not we human beings are ( spiritually speaking ?) lost.
So I think that is the ( missing ) factor sir. Attention, perception, intelligence and 'love'. You bring it to me but I can't hold it - the moment I go outside this room I am lost.

B: Well that really is the problem.

K: Yes sir. That is the real problem. Now, is this 'love' something which you give me as a gift; or 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 is the 'common ground' for ( the consciousness of ?) all of us.

B: But somebody is looking for love is saying "you have got it and I haven't" -
that is his way of thinking.

K: No, no. ( The 'loving' & compassionate ?) intelligence is not personal.

B: But again it goes contrary to the whole of our ( individualistic way of ?) thinking. Everybody says this person is intelligent and that one is not. And saying that if I have this intelligence, I must declare it for myself (and for others) . So this may be one of the barriers to the whole thing, that behind the ordinary everyday thought there is deeper thought of mankind.

K: Quite, quite. It is the ( self -) 'fragmented' mind that invents all this.

B: We have picked it up verbally and non-verbally from childhood and by implication, therefore it pervades, it is the ground of all our thoughts, of all our perceptions. So this ( 'individualistic' mentality ?) has to be questioned.

K: We have questioned it, we have questioned that grief is not my grief, grief is human.

B: But a person who is caught in grief feels that it is 'his' (personal) grief. Doesn't that seem right?

K: I think it is partly because of our education, partly our society, tradition.

B: But it is also implicit in our whole way of thinking. So we have to jump out of that (mentality ?) .

K: Yes. But if the 'jumping out of that' becomes a ( technical ?) problem, then what am I to do?

B: Perhaps we can see that ( the intelligence of ?) 'love' is not personal, love does not belong to anybody any more than any other quality.

K: Earth is not 'English' or 'French', earth is Earth.

B: 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 their (samples) and they somehow compare notes.
Sodium is sodium universally. So we have to say that "love is love" universally.

K: Yes. When you say sodium is sodium, I can see that. But when you say to me, grief is common to all of us...

B: But it took quite a while for mankind just to realize that sodium is sodium.

K: That is what I want to find out sir: ( inwardly speaking ?) is '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. (Similarly) compassion is not 'I am compassionate' - compassion is there, it is something not 'me' (having) compassion.

B: Well, then Compassion is the same as sodium, it is "universal".

K: Compassion, love, and intelligence. You can't be compassionate without intelligence.

B: So we say 'intelligence' is universal too ?

K: Obviously.

B: But we have (scientific ?) methods of testing intelligence in particular people.

K: Oh, no!

B: But that is all part of the things that are getting in the way, yes?

K: Part of this divisive, fragmentary way of thinking. And thinking is fragmentary.

B: Well, there may be a 'holistic' thinking, but we are not yet in it.

K: Yes. Then this 'holistic' thinking is not ( ordinary ?) thinking, it is some other factor.

B: Some other factor that we haven't gone into yet ?

K: So if Love is common to ( the inner consciousness of ?) all of us, why am I blind to it?

B: Well, I think partly the ( particular) mind just refuses to consider such a fantastic change of concept in our whole way of looking.

K: But you said just now that sodium is sodium.

B: But people feel uneasy about transferring (this concept in the psychological area ?) - you have got a lot of evidence for that ( Sodium stuff) in all sorts of experiments. And that was built up through a lot of work and experience, now we can't do the same thing here with 'love'.

K: Oh no. Love isn't ( in the sphere of human ?) knowledge.

B: You can't go into a laboratory and prove (exprimentally) that "love is love".

K: Why does one's mind refuse to accept this very 'obvious' (inner ?) factor, why? Is it the fear of letting my old (inner) values, standards, opinions, all that, to let them go (down the drain ?) ?

B: I think it is probably something deeper. It is hard to pin down but it isn't a simple thing. I mean that is a partial explanation.

K: That is a superficial explanation. Is it sir due to our deeply rooted longing to be totally secure (inwardly) ?

B: But that again is based on ( the mentality of ?) fragmentation.
If we accept that we are 'fragmented' (inwardly) we will inevitably want to be totally secure. Right? Because being fragmented you are always in danger.

K: Is that the root of it? This urge, this demand, this longing to be totally secure in my relationship with everything, to be certain?

B: Yes, but even so, you have often said that that the real (inward) security is found in 'nothingness'.

K: Of course, in 'no-thingness' there is complete security.

B: It is not the demand for security which is wrong but the demand that the ( self-conscious?) 'fragment' be secure. The 'fragment' cannot possibly be secure.

K: That is right. Like each country trying to be secure, it is not ( forever ?) secure.

B: But complete security could be achieved if all the countries got together.

K: Of course, of course, no tribalism, of course there would be.

B: But the ( elliptical ?) way you have often put it sounds as if we should live eternally in insecurity ?

K: No, no. We have made that very clear.

B: So, it makes sense to ask for security but we are going about it the wrong way.

K: Yes, that's right.
So,( to wrap it all up ?) how do you convey that ( the compassionate intelligence of ?) Love is universal, not personal, to a man who has lived (pretty comfortably ?) completely in the narrow groove of personal achievement?

B: Well, will he be ready to question his narrow, 'unique personality'?

K: They question it. You see, people who have been very serious in these matters, have tried to find the 'wholeness of life' through starvation, through every kind of way. The haven't, they imagine they have.

B: That is again...
K: You can't 'be the whole' through self-torture. 'Torture' includes (self-eenforced ?) discipline, you know, all the rest of it. So what shall we do?
I have a brother who refuses to see all this. And I have tried to communicate with him verbally and sometimes non-verbally, by a gesture, by a look, but all this is still ( felt as a pressure imposed on him ?) from the outside. And if I point out that in himself this 'flame' can be awakened, it means he must 'listen' to me.

B: Well, it seems that if a person is caught in a certain pattern of self-centred thought such as 'fragmentation' then he can't change it because there are a lot of other ( hidden variables or ?) thoughts behind it.

K: Of course, of course.

B: Ones he doesn't even 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 ( his active ) conditioning.

K: So how do I - I use the word 'help' with great caution - 'help' my brother? We said ( by ) becoming aware - but after explaining all this he says, 'You have left me where I am'. But my ( compassionate ) intelligence, my affection, love says 'I can't let him go'. You follow?
Which means, am I putting pressure on him? I can't. But still my 'humane' responsibility is that I can't let another human being go. It is the responsibility of ( loving & compassionate ) intelligence which says all that.
Sir, there is a '( spiritual ?) tradition in India, and probably in Tibet, that there is one ( higher spiritual entity ?) called the "Maitreya Buddha" who took a vow that he would not become the ultimate Buddha until he has liberated ( other) human beings too.

B: Altogether?

K: Yes. But you see , the (popular belief in this ) tradition hasn't changed anything.
How can one, if he has that Intelligence, that Compassion, that Love,- the purity of That - can that be transmitted to another? Or living with him, talking to him - you see it all becomes a mechanical (habit) .

B: Well would you say this has never really been solved, this question?

K: I should think so sir. But we must (eventually be able to ?) solve it. You follow? It has not been solved but this (compassionate ) Intelligence says, solve it. Or rather , that 'intelligence' says, these are the facts and perhaps some will capture it.

B: Well it seems to me that there are really two steps: 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 laid out the map (of the human psyche) very clearly and I have seen it very clearly, all the rivers, the conflicts, the misery, the confusion, the insecurity, the becoming, all that is very clear. And I may have a glimpse of it, but that becomes ( the focus of) my craving to capture that glimpse and hold on to it and not lose it. Then 'that' becomes a ( dead) memory. And all the nightmare begins.

However, in your showing me the 'map' very clearly you have also pointed out to me something much deeper than that, which is ( the universality of Intelligence and ?) Love. And (strongly impressed ?) by your person, by your ( holistic) reasoning and logic, I am groping, seeking after that. But the weight of my ( cultural) tradition, all that draws me back. So it is a constant battle. You follow sir? I think the whole 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 we were talking once (upon a time ?) in Ojai, whether man has taken a wrong turning, entered into a (dark) valley from where there is no escape. That can't be sir, that is too depressing, too appalling.

B: I think some people might object to that. The very fact it is 'appalling' does not make it untrue. I think you would have to give a 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 it would be meaningless, we'd be ( thinking ?) monkeys (or programmable ?) machines. You see, if we don't look to anybody ( as a model) and are completely free from all that, then that ( quality of ) Solitude is common to all of us. Am making myself clear?

B: Yes.

K: It is not a self isolation, but you see all this and say, this is so ugly, unreal, so stupid, you are naturally 'alone' (all-one ?) . And that 'sense of all-oneness' is common.

B: Yes. Of course, each person feels it is his own loneliness.

K: That ( sense of one's) 'loneliness' is not Solitude, not All-Oneness, good Lord!

B: I think one could say that when the ( meditating ?) mind goes deep (within itself ?) it comes into something Universal.

K: Universal, that's right. And that is the ( meditation -related ?) problem: to make the mind go very, very deeply into itself.

B: Yes, there is one thing that occurred to me. When we start with our 'particular' problem it is very shallow, then we go to something more 'general' ( the word general has the same root as 'genus'- to generate) you go to the depth of what is generated.

K: That's right, sir.

B: And going from that, still further (within) , the 'general' is still limited because it is ( still in the area of man-made) thought.

K: Thought, quite right. But sir, to go ( inwardly ) so profoundly it requires tremendous, not just only 'courage', but the 'diligent' sense of constant pursuing the same stream.

B: Yes, well that 'diligence' is still too limited, right?

K: Yes, diligence is too limited - that ( meditative inquiry ?) goes with a religious mind in the sense that it is diligent in its action, in its thoughts, in its activities and so on, but that is still limited. I think that is right sir. If the mind can go from the particular to the general and from the general...

B:... to the 'absolute', to the Universal.

K: Move away from all that...

B: Well, you see, many people would say that is all ( sounding) very abstract and has nothing to do with their daily life...

K: I know. It is the most practical thing. Not an abstraction.

B: In fact it is the 'particular' (mind) that is the abstraction.

K: Absolutely. The 'particular' ( outlook) is the most dangerous (self- deceiving ?) .

B: It is also the most 'abstract' because you only get to the particular by 'abstracting'. But I think that many people feel they want something ( tangible ) that really affects their daily life, they don't just want to get ourselves lost in talking. Therefore they say all these 'vapid generalities' don't interest us. Instead of getting into the real, solid, concrete realities of daily life. 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: Many problems which arise in our daily life cannot be solved (at their own level) - such as the 'human' problems.

K: From the particular move to the general, from the general move away still deeper, and there perhaps is ( found ?) this purity of 'that thing' called compassion, love and intelligence. But that means giving your mind to this (inquiry) , your heart, your mind, your whole being must be involved in this.
We have gone on for a long time. Have we reached somewhere?

B: Possibly so.

K: I think so !

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 02 Nov 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 13 Jul 2014 #18
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

THE LAST K CONVERSATIONS WITH PROF D BOHM ( 1983) (FIRST PART)

ON THE FUTURE OF MANKIND

J.Krishnamurti: I thought we were going to talk about the (psychological ?) future of mankind .

Dr.David Bohm: Yes.

JK: I mean, really, were are talking about the future of humanity ( in a ) world which has become tremendously dangerous. Terrorists, wars, and the national divisions and racial divisions, some ( crazy ?) dictators who want to destroy the world and so on and so on. And also religiously there is a tremendous separation.

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

JK: Yes. Our 'problems' seem to multiplying more and more. So, what is the future of mankind - not only for the present generation but for the coming generations?

DB: Yes, well, the future looks very grim..

JK: Very grim. If you were quite young and I was quite young, what would we do knowing all this ? What would be our (intelligent response) ? What would be our life, our way of earning a livelihood and so on ?

DB: Yes, well, I have often thought of that. For example, I have asked myself," Would I go into science again?" And, I am not at all certain now because science does not seem to be relevant to this (existential ?) crisis.

JK: No. On the contrary they are helping...

DB: It makes it worse. Yes.

JK: I think I would stick to what I am doing.

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

JK: Of course.

DB: Now there are very few opportunities now, and most of these are in jobs which are very limited.

JK: Limited and unemployment right throughout the world. I wonder what he would do, knowing that the future is so uncertain. Where would you begin?

DB: Yes, well I think one would have to stand back from all these particular problems of my own needs and the (immediate) needs of other people around me.

JK: Are you saying one should really 'forget about oneself' for the time being?

DB: Yes. Is there something else which you could suggest?

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

DB: Yes, that's the point I was expecting we would discuss.

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

DB: I understand to some extent what you mean. But I think that people who are new to this are not going to understand.

JK: Yes, but I want to discuss this whole question: why are we concerned about the future when (psychologically speaking ?) the whole future is ( already present ?) now.

DB: Yes, in some sense the whole future 'is' now but we have to make that (more) clear since this (concept) goes very much against the whole way of thinking of the tradition of mankind and all of us.

JK: Yes, I know, mankind thinks in terms of evolution, continuance and so on.

DB: Maybe we could approach it in another way. That is, 'evolution' seems in the present era to be the most natural way to think. So I would like to ask you what objections do you have to thinking in terms of 'evolution' ? This word has so many meanings.

JK: Of course, of course. We are talking 'psychologically' (within the human 'psyche' ?)

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

JK: I mean an acorn will ( always ) grow into an oak tree.

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

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

DB: You have no question that that has happened?

JK: No, that has happened.

DB: And it may continue to happen.

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

DB: So this evolution ( of all species) takes place in time. And therefore in that region the past, present and future are important.

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

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

JK: Yes, and becomes much more complex ( and more specialised ?) and so on. All that needs time. All that is an (evolutionary) 'movement' in space and time.

DB: Yes. So you will admit the physical time and the neurophysiological time.

JK: Absolutely. Any sane man would.

DB: Yes. Now most people also admit 'psychological 'time, or what they call the 'mental' time.

JK: Yes, that is what we are talking about. Whether psychologically there is such a thing as 'tomorrow', a psychological evolution.

DB: Now at first sight I am afraid this will sound strange. It seems I can remember yesterday, and there is a tomorrow that I can anticipate. And it has happened many times, you know days have succeeded each other. So I do have the experience of (my inner continuity in ?) time, from yesterday to today to tomorrow - right?

JK: Of course. That is simple enough.

DB: Now what is it you are denying?

JK: I deny that ( while engaged in this temporal continuity ?) I will (inwardly ?) become better.

DB: Now there are two ways of looking at that: one way is will I intentionally become better because I am trying, or, secondly, some people feel that evolution is a kind of natural, inevitable process, in which we are being swept along like in a current (of collective consciousness ?) , and we are perhaps becoming better, worse, or something is happening to us.

JK: Psychologically.

DB: Psychologically, yes, which takes time which may not be the result of my (personal endeavour ) to become better. Some people may think one way, some another. But are you denying also that there is a kind of natural psychological evolution as there was a natural biological evolution?

JK: I am denying that, yes.

DB: Yes. Now why do you 'deny' it?

JK: Because first of all, what is the 'psyche', the (temporal ?) 'me', the 'ego' ?

DB: Yes, now the word 'psyche' has many meanings. It may mean the mind for example. Now do you mean by that the (temporal) 'ego' is the same thing?

JK: I am talking of the 'ego', the 'me'.

DB: Yes. Now some people are thinking there will be a (psychological) evolution in which the 'me' is transcended. That is, that (the human mind) will rise ( its consciousness ?) to a higher level.

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 improve? And the second is, even if we suppose we want to get beyond the 'me', can that be done in time?

JK: That cannot be done in ( within a logic of its continuity in ?) time.

DB: Yes, now we have to make it clear why not.

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

DB: Now why do you say that?

JK: The 'me' is ( my temporal ?) consciousness: my name, (my physical) form and all the various experiences that I have had, remembrances and so on. The whole structure of the 'me' is put together by ( the process our self-centred ?) thought.

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

JK: Of course, but we are (just ?) discussing it.

DB: Yes but I also to try to bring it out: the first feeling I have about the 'me' is that it is there independently and that this 'me' is thinking.

JK: Is the (temporal ?) 'me' independent of my thinking?

DB: Well my own first feeling is that the 'me' is there independent of my thinking, and is this 'me' that is thinking, you see ? Like I am here (physically) and I could move my arm, or I could think, or I could move my head.

JK: Yes, yes.

DB: Now is 'me' that an illusion (created by thought ?) ?

JK: No.

DB: Why?

JK: When I move my arm there is the (mental) intention to grasp something, to take something, to put something, which is also first it is the movement of thought, and that makes the arm move and so on. My contention is - and I am ready to accept it as false or true - that thought is the basis of all this (subliminal process of creating my self consciousness ?) .

DB: Yes. Your contention is that the whole sense of the (temporal ?) 'me' and what it is doing is coming out of 'thought'. Now what do you mean here by 'thought' - it is not merely the intellectual part?

JK: No, no, of course not.

DB: But what more ?

JK: Thought is the movement of ( recycling all our past ?) experience, knowledge, memory - this whole movement.

DB: It sounds as if you mean the ( movement of the human ?) consciousness as a whole.

JK: As a whole, that's right.

DB: And you are saying that that movement is ( creating ?) the 'me' ?

JK: The whole content of that (self-centred human) consciousness is the 'me'.

DB: Yes, well there are quite a few...

JK: That 'me' is not different from 'my consciousness'.

DB: Yes. I think one could (reasonably) say that 'I am my consciousness' for if I am not conscious... I am not ( aware of being) here.

JK: Of course.

DB: Now is this (self-) consciousness nothing but what you have just described, which includes thought, feeling, intention...

JK:...intention, aspirations...

DB:...memories...

JK:...memories, beliefs, dogmas, he whole (works) , like a computer that has been ( culturally) programmed.

DB: Yes. Now that certainly is ( contained ) in my consciousness. Everybody would agree, but many people would feel that there is more to it than that. That our consciousness may go beyond that.

JK: Let's go into it. The ( memory) content of our consciousness makes up ( is displayed in ) the consciousness.

DB: That requires some indepth understanding. The ordinary use of the word 'content' is quite different. If you say that the 'content' of a glass 'is' water - it means that the glass is one thing and the water is another.

JK: No...

DB: The glass (obviously) contains the water - the very word 'content' would suggest that 'something' contains it - right?

JK: All right. ( Our self-) consciousness is made up of all what is ( personally and collectively experienced and ?) remembered - 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 I think you really mean to say that consciousness, as we know it, is made up...

JK: I said that.
DB: Oh, yes (???)

JK: Our (self-) consciousness 'as we know' it is all that.

DB: As 'we generally know it' ?

JK: Yes. And that is the result of multiple activities of ( our self-centred ?) thought. Thought has put all these ( interacting layers of memories ?) together, which is (forming) my (personal ? ) consciousness - the reactions, the responses, the memories, the remembrances, extraordinary complex intricacies, subtleties, all that is the - makes up consciousness.

DB: 'As we know it'....

JK: We said that. As we know it.

DB: Yes. Now the question is...

JK: ...whether that ( man-made ?) consciousness has a future.

DB: Does it have a past?

JK: Of course. Remembrance.

DB: Yes. Why do you say it has no future then?

JK: If it has a future it will be exactly the same kind of thing, moving. The same activities, same thoughts, modified but the same patterns (of the known ?) will be repeated over and over again.

DB: Yes. Are you saying that thought can only repeat?

JK: Yes.

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

JK: But ( the activity of our self-centred ) thought is limited because ( its available ?) knowledge is limited, if you admit that knowledge will always be limited.

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

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

DB: Well, some people have said it isn't. They hope to obtain perfect knowledge, or absolute knowledge of the laws of nature.

JK: The laws of nature are not the laws of human beings.

DB: So you want to restrict the discussion then to knowledge about the human being?

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

DB: Even ( out ) there there is the question of whether that (complete) knowledge of nature is possible too.

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

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

JK: Yes, that's right.

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

JK: Yes, that's right. There is always more and more 'unknown'. So if once we admit that knowledge is limited then thought is limited.

DB: Yes, knowledge - thought depends on ( our available ?) knowledge and this knowledge does not cover everything.

JK: That's right.

DB: Therefore thought will not be able to handle everything that happens.

JK: That's right. That is what the politicians and all the other people are doing. They think thought can solve every problem.

DB: Yes. You can see in the case of politicians that ( their available ) knowledge is very limited, 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- ?) consciousness, which has been put together by thought, is limited.

DB: Can you make that more clear? That means ( that inwardly ?) we can only stay in the same circle (of the known ?)

JK: The same circle.

DB: You see, people might think : although my knowledge is limited I am constantly discovering (new stuff ) .

JK: But what you discover is added to, but is still limited.

DB: I think that one of the main ideas behind the scientific approach is that though (our) knowledge is limited I can discover and keep up with the actuality.

JK: But that is also limited.

DB: My discoveries are limited. And there is always the unknown which I have not discovered.

JK: That is what I am saying: the Unknown, the Limitless, cannot be captured by thought.

DB: Yes.

JK: Because thought in itself is limited. It is a fact.

DB: Yes, well perhaps we could 'bring it out' still more. That is, thought is limited even though there is a very strong feeling that thought can do anything.

JK: It can't. See what it has done in the ( real ?) world.

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

JK: I know, that is a good old trick! But thought in itself is limited ( by its self interest ?) , therefore whatever it does is limited.

DB: Yes, and it is limited in a very serious way; is this what you are saying ?

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

DB: Well what that ( 'very serious' ?) way is ?

JK: That ( serious) way is what is happening in the world. The totalitarian ideals, are the invention of thought.

DB: Yes, they wanted to cover the 'totality' but they couldn't, the thing collapsed.

JK: It is collapsing.

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

JK: But the democrats and the idealists and so on, all their thinking is limited.

DB: Yes, it is limited in a way that is...

JK:...very destructive.

DB:...that is very serious and destructive. Now in what way - could we bring that out? I could say, "OK my thought is limited but well, it may not be all that serious". You see why is it so important?

JK: That is fairly simple: because whatever action is born of limited thought must breed conflict, inevitably. Like dividing humanity into nationalities and religiously, has created havoc in the world.

DB: Yes, no let's connect that with the 'limitation' of thought. That is, as you said, my knowledge is limited - but how does that lead me to divide the world into...

JK: Aren't we all seeking security?

DB: Yes.

JK: So, we 'thought' there was security in the family, security in the tribe, security in nationalism. We (instinctively ?) 'thought' there is security in (maintaining this) division.

DB: Yes. One may feel (individually) insecure but then one says, "With the tribe I am secure." Now, that is a conclusion. And I think I know enough to be sure that is secure, but I don't. Other things may happen (to my tribe) that I don't know, which make that very insecure. Other tribes may come along.

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

DB: Yes, it helps to create it, but I am trying to say that I don't know enough to know that - right? I don't see that.

JK: One doesn't see it because one has not (seriously) thought about anything, or looked at the world as a whole.

DB: Yes, well the thought which aims at security attempts to know everything important. As soon as it knows everything important it says, "This will bring security" - not only there are a lot of things it doesn't know but one thing it doesn't know is that this very thought ( mentality ?) itself is divisive.

JK: Divisive, yes.

DB: Divisive. It's going to, because I define an area which is secure, divided from another area.

JK: Because in itself it is limited. ( As a psychological rule ?) anything that is limited must inevitably create conflict.

DB: Well you mean any thought that is...

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

DB: Yes.

JK: If I am concerned (prioritarily ?) with myself, that is very limited.

DB: Yes, we have to get this clear : if I say "this is a table" which is limited, it creates no conflict - right?

JK: No, there is no conflict there.

DB: Now when I say this is 'me' that creates conflict.

JK: The 'me' is a divisive entity.

DB: Let's see more clearly why.

JK: Because it is separative, it is concerned with itself. The 'me' identifying with the greater nation, is still divisive.

DB: Yes, well I 'define myself 'in the interest of security so that I know what I am as opposed to what you are and I protect myself - right? Now this creates a division between 'me' and 'you'.

JK: 'We' and 'they' and so on.

DB: Now that comes from my limited ( self-centred) thought because I don't understand that we are really closely related and connected.

JK: We are human beings.

DB: Yes we are all human beings.

JK: All human beings have more or less the same problems.

DB: No, I haven't understood that. My knowledge is limited, I think that we can make a distinction and protect ourselves - 'me' and not 'the others'.

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: But in the very act of doing that I create (a global) instability.

JK: That's right. You create...

DB:...insecurity.

JK: Insecurity. So if we see ( the truth about ?) that, not merely intellectually, but actually feel it, that we 'are' (one with ?) the rest of humanity, then the responsibility becomes immense.

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

JK: Then I either contribute to the whole mess, or keep out of it. That is, to be at peace, to have order in oneself.

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

JK:...is dangerous.

DB: Yes. Whereas to create division between me and the table is not dangerous because in some sense we are not one.

JK: Me and the tree - of course.

DB: That is only in some very general sense that we are one. Now mankind doesn't realize that it is 'all one'.

JK: Why?

DB: Well let's go into that. This is a crucial point. It is clear it doesn't because there are so many divisions and not only nations and religions but even from one person to another.

JK: Why is there this division?

DB: Well the first is, at least in the modern era, that every human being is ( thinking of himself as being ?) an 'individual'. This (individualistic feeling) may not have been so strong in the past.

JK: That is what I question. I question altogether whether we are 'individuals'.

DB: Yes, well that is a big question because...

JK: Of course. We said just now the (human) consciousness which is ( manifested in ?) me is similar to the consciousness of the rest of mankind. They all suffer, they all have fears, they are all insecure, they have their own particular gods and rituals, all put together by thought.

DB: Well I think this calls for some clarification - there are two (contending ?) questions involves here. One is, not everybody feels that he is similar - most people feel they have some 'unique distinction', at least they...

JK: What do you mean "unique distinction"? Distinction in (the skill of ?) doing something?

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

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

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

JK: But when you put that away, basically (consciousness-wise ?) we are the same.

DB: Then, we have to say what are these things that are basically common to all ?

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

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

JK: What has he achieved?

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

JK: Yes, what have we achieved?

DB: Well for one thing people may feel proud of the achievement of man in science and art and culture and technology.

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

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

JK: There is no question about it.

DB: Yes, but now you are saying...

JK: What have we 'psychologically' achieved?

DB: One point is to say none of this has affected us (inwardly) psychologically.

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: And ( on the long run ?) the 'psychological' question is more important than any of the others because if the psychological question is not cleared up the rest is becoming (physically) dangerous.

JK: Yes. Quite right. If we 'psychologically' are limited (by our self-interest ?) , then whatever we do will be limited, and the technology will then be used by our limited...

DB:...yes, the (decisionary ?) 'master' is this limited (human) 'psyche' and not the rational structures of modern technology. In fact, this very technology then becomes a dangerous instrument. So that is one point: that the ( self-centred ?) 'psyche' is at the core of it all, and if the psyche is not in order then the rest is useless.

JK: If the (inner) house is not in order...

DB: Then the second question is: although we are saying there are certain basic disorders in the 'psyche', or a 'lack of order' which is common to us all, are we 'all one' really, you see? Even though we are all similar that doesn't say we are all the same, or that we are all one.

JK: We said that in our (shared field of ?) consciousness basically we all have the same ( common) 'ground' on which we stand.

DB: Yes. Well, you see, from the fact let's say the human body is similar it doesn't prove they are all the same.

JK: Of course not. Your body is different from mine.

DB: Yes we are living in different places, different entities and so on. But I think you are trying to say that the human consciousness is ( at its depth ?) not an entity which is 'individual'...

JK: That's right.

DB:...like the body is an entity which has a certain 'individuality'.

JK: That all seems so clear.

DB: It may be clear (for you?) . But I think...

JK: Your body is different from mine. I have a different name than you.

DB: Yes, well we are 'different' - though similar, our material (body) is different, we can't 'exchange' because the proteins in one body may not agree with those in the other. Now many people feel the same way about the mind, saying that there is a chemistry between people which may agree or disagree.

JK: Yes but actually if you go (meditatively ?) 'deeper' into the question, our 'consciousness' is shared by all human beings.

DB: Yes. But as of now, the general feeling is that the consciousness is individual and that it is communicated as it were...

JK: I think that is a (self- created ?) illusion because we are sticking to something that is not true.

DB: Yes, well do you want to say that there is 'one consciousness' of mankind?

JK: It is 'all one'.

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

JK: From the very beginning ( the energy matrix of human consciousness ?) it is 'all one'.

DB: And the sense of separateness is a (wide-spread ?) illusion - right?

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

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

JK: That is quite a different question. Let's finish with the other first. If each one of us thinks that we are separate individuals ,'psychologically', what we have done in the world is a colossal mess.

DB: Well if we think we are separate when (in fact ) we are not, then it will clearly be a colossal mess.

JK: That is what is happening. Each one is struggling in his separateness to achieve 'peace', to achieve 'security', (with the result that a global) security and peace are totally denied.

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

JK: That's right.

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

JK: Yes Sir, an 'inseparable whole'.

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

JK: Why? That is (the result of ?) my (ages long) conditioning.

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

JK: From childhood it is 'my' toy, not 'yours'.

DB: Yes but the first feeling you get is I say it is 'mine' because I feel I am separate. Now, it isn't clear how the mind which was one came to this illusion that it is all broken up into many pieces.

JK: I think it is again the activity of thought. Thought in its very nature thought is divisive, fragmentary and therefore "I" am a fragment.

DB: Yes well thought will create a sense of fragmentation. You could see for example that once we decide to set up a nation we will think we are separate from the other nation and all sorts of things, consequences follow which make the whole thing seem independently real. You have all sorts of separate languages and a separate flag and you set up a boundary. And after a while you see so much evidence of separation that you forget how it started and you say that was there always and we are merely proceeding from what was there always.

JK: Of course. That's why, Sir, I feel if once we grasp the divisive nature of thought, and how it operates, if we really see that then...

DB: Now the source of thought is what? Is it (just ) memory?

JK: Memory - the remembrance of things past, which is (stored as ?) knowledge and that knowledge is the outcome of experience and our experience is always limited.

DB: Yes but doesn't thought also includes the attempt to go forward, to use logic, to take into account discoveries and insights ?

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

DB: All right, but that requires more discussion too, because the first experience is to say time is there first, and thought is taking place in time.

JK: Ah, no.

DB: For example if we say that a physical movement is taking place, this requires time.

JK: To go from 'here' to 'there' needs time.

DB: Yes, yes.

JK: To learn a language needs time.

DB: Yes. To grow a plant needs time.

JK: You know, the whole thing.

DB: And we also say that "to think" takes time.

JK: So we think in terms of time.

DB: Yes. You see the first point is to say that just as everything takes time, to think takes time - right? Are you saying something else, by 'thought is time' ?

JK: Thought is time.

DB: That is, 'psychologically' speaking ?

JK: Psychologically, of course.

DB: Now, how do we understand that? You see it is not (self-) obvious.

JK: Would you say 'thought' is movement and 'time' is movement.

DB: Now, you see 'time' is a mysterious thing, people have argued about it. We could say that time requires movement. I could understand that we cannot have time without movement.

JK: Time is movement.

DB: Now, if we said that 'time' and 'movement' are one...

JK: Yes we are saying that.

DB: You mean they cannot be separated - right? That seems fairly clear. Now there is the physical movement which means ( involves ?) physical time - right?

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

DB: Yes. Now then we have the 'movement' of thought, that brings in the question of the nature of thought. You see, is thought nothing but a movement in the nervous system, in the brain? Would you say that?

JK: Yes, yes.

DB: Some people have said there might be something beyond...

JK: What is 'time', Sir ? Time is ( the projection of ?) hope.

DB: Psychologically...

JK: I am talking entirely 'psychologically' for the moment. I mean 'hope' is ( thinking in terms of ?) time. Becoming is time. Achieving is time. Now take the question of ( self-) 'becoming' - take that for example "I want to become 'non-violent" That is altogether a fallacy.

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

JK: Sir, human beings 'are' ( outwardly and/or inwardly ?) violent.
And they have been talking a great deal in India of ( the ideal of) 'non-violence'. The fact is we are violent and the 'non-violence' is not real. But we want to become that.

DB: Yes but you see it is again an extension of the kind of thought that we have with regard to material things. You see if you see a desert, the desert is real and you say the garden is not real, but in your mind is the garden which will come when you put the water there. So we say, we can plan for the future when the desert will become fertile. Now we have to be careful, we say we are violent but we cannot by similar planning to become non-violent.

JK: No.

DB: Now, why is that?

JK: Why? Because the 'non-violent' state cannot exist when there is violence.

DB: Yes.

JK: That's an ideal.

DB: Well one has to make it more clear because in the same sense the fertile state and the desert don't exist together either. You see I think that you are saying that in the case of the mind when you are violent it has no meaning.

JK: That is the only state.

DB: That is all there is.

JK: Yes, not the other.

DB: And the ( wishful thinking ?) movement towards the other is 'illusory' ?

JK: Illusory. So 'psychologically' (speaking) all ideals are illusory. The ideal of building a marvellous bridge is not illusory. You can plan it, but to have 'psychological' ideals...

DB: So, you're saying that if you are violent, you continue to be violent even while you are trying to be non-violent...

JK:...it is so obvious... So I question both the 'becoming' : either becoming 'what is' or becoming something away from 'what is'.

DB: Well if you say there can be no sense to becoming in the way of self-improvement, that's...

JK: Oh, 'self-improvement' is something so utterly ugly. We are saying, Sir, that the source of all this is a 'movement (a mental projection ?) of thought' as time.

DB: So, when you talk of the movement of thought as time, you mean that the 'time' which comes from the movement of thought is illusory, is it?

JK: Yes.

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

JK: That is why we asked: what is time? I need time to go from here to there. I need time if I want to learn some engineering, I must study it, it takes time. That same movement is carried over into the (inner domain of the ?) 'psyche'. We say 'I need time to become enlightened'.

DB: Yes, that will always create a conflict between one part of you and another. So that movement in which you say I need time also creates a division in the psyche.

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: Like the division between the 'observer' and the 'observed' ?

JK: Yes, that's right. We are saying the observer 'is' the observed.

DB: And therefore there is no time 'psychologically'

JK: The thinker 'is' (created by ?) the ( movement of ?) thought. There is no 'thinker' separate from 'thought'.

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

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

DB: Yes but that is the result of so much conflict...

JK: So much conflict.

DB:...that people are worn off by it, I think.

JK: But in escaping from conflict, or not resolving (the observer - observed) conflict, this conflict exists, whether you like it or not. So that is the whole point (for the future of mankind ?) : is it possible to live a life without conflict?

DB: Yes, well that is all implicit in what has been said. And the source of conflict is (our self-centred ?) thought or knowledge, or the past.

JK: So then one asks: is it possible to transcend thought?

DB: Yes...

JK: Or is it possible to end the 'psychological' knowledge?

DB: So, what you call (the) 'self' (- related ?) knowledge is what you are asking to end, isn't it?

JK: Yes.

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

JK: Self-knowledge is important but if I take time to understand myself, that is, I will understand myself eventually by examination, analysis and so on and so on and so on, watching my whole relationship with others and so, all that involves time. And I say there is another way of looking at the whole thing without (introducing the postponing quality of ?) 'time'. Which is, when the observer 'is' the observed.

DB: Yes...

JK: In that ( quality of non-dualistic ?) 'observation' there is no time.

DB: Could we go into that further? I mean for example if you say "there is no time" but still you can remember that an hour ago you were not someone else.

JK: Of course, that would be crazy.

DB: Now in what sense can we make it ( clearly understood) that 'there is no time'?

JK: ( Inwardly, thinking in terms of ?) 'time' is (implying a) division ( between 'now' and 'then' ?) - right? As thought is (also implying a ) division (between the 'thinker' anf his thoughts ?) . That is why 'thought' is 'time'.

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

JK: Thought is also that divisive. So ( the psychological ) time 'is' (the product of ?) thought. Or ( the self-centred ?) thought 'is' ( the result of ?) time.

DB: Yes, well I mean it doesn't exactly follow from what you said... At first sight one would think that thought makes divisions of all kinds, with the ruler and with all kinds of things, and also divides up intervals of time, past, present and future. Now it doesn't follow from just that that thought 'is' time. You see ?

JK: Look, we said time is (implicit in any material ?) movement.

DB: Yes.

JK: Thought is also a series of ( mental) movements.

DB: Yes, all right.

JK: So, both are 'movements' (that imply time) . I am speaking psychologically...

DB: Now, when we talk of a 'psychological' movement, what (exactly ) is 'moving'?

JK: Sir, look: I am this, and I am attempting to become something else inwardly.

DB: So you're saying that if 'I am this' and I am attempting to become that', then I am in 'movement' - right?

JK: Yes.

DB: At least I feel I am in movement.

JK: Yes. Say for instance I am 'greedy'. Greed is a ( mental ?) 'movement'.

DB: What kind of a 'movement' is it?

JK: To get what I want.

DB: To get more, yes.

JK: To get more, more. It is a ( mental process involved in that ?) movement.

DB: All right.

JK: And if I find that ( eventually that mental ) movement painful, I try not to be greedy.

DB: Yes...

JK: The attempt not to be greedy is a movement of ( psychological) time, is ( a self-continuity along ?) the becoming.

DB: Yes but even the greed was ( engaged in its own ?) becoming.

JK: Of course. So is it possible - that is the 'real' question - is it possible not to 'become' (anything ) psychologically -(wise) ?

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

JK: Now, can I remain with what I am? Can I remain with my greed ? And ( realising that ) this 'greed' is not different from 'me', greed 'is' me ?

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

JK: Of course Sir.

DB: Saying that I 'am' my (psychological) attributes suggests that the thought of attribution creates the sense of 'me'. Right ?

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

DB: Well it seems to me that this would have to be perceived immediately as obvious.

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

DB: Yes, well that is a very big question because ( our past) memory has constantly entered perception.

JK: Of course. That is the whole...

DB: You see, it would raise the question of "what" is going to stop that (interfering movement of ?) memory from entering perception?

JK: Nothing can stop it. But if I see that the activity of memory is limited, in the very perception of its limitation, you have moved out of it into another dimension.

DB: Well, it seems to me that you have to perceive the whole of the limitation of memory.

JK: Yes, not one part.

DB: In general one can see that our memory is limited but there are many ways in which this is not obvious. For example many of our reactions that are not obvious may be ( subliminal responses of our) memory but we don't experience them as memory, you see ? I experience the 'me' as being here presently and not ( as a response of ?) 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 as an actuality, it may be the result of memory but I say: "I can remember that I am greedy" but this 'me' is the one who remembers, not the other way around, that memory creates 'me' - right?

JK: Sir, ( to sum it up 'holistically' ?) all this really comes down to: can man live, humanity live without conflict? That really basically comes to that. Can we have peace on this earth?

DB: Yes, go on...

JK: And the activities of ( our self-centred ?) thought never bring it about.

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

JK: Yes, if we once really see or (grasp) that, our whole activity would be totally different.

DB: But 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? That it is possible for this to go when ( the self-centred thinking process or ?) 'thought' is absent?

JK: That is the real point. We have often discussed whether there 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 know, I purposively brought it in! So this "intelligence" is not the activity of cunning thought. ( However this ?) "intelligence" can use thought.

DB: Yes, that is thought can be the action of intelligence - would you put it that way?

JK: Yes.

DB: Or it could be just the action of memory?

JK: That's it. Either it is the action born of memory and therefore 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: Therefore when we operate from memory we are not very different from a computer; or prhaps the other way around, the computer is not very different from us.

JK: I would say a 'Hindu' (mind) has been programmed for the last five thousand years to 'be' (and behave like ?) a Hindu, and in this country you have been programmed as 'British', or as a 'Catholic' or as a 'Protestant'. So we are all ( psychologically ?) 'programmed' up to a certain extent.

DB: Yes, but 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 "intelligence" has nothing to do with ( the 'man-made' content of our ?) memory and knowledge.

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

JK: Yes, it can act through memory, etc. But how do you (experientially ?) find out whether (this Intelligence ?) has any reality, not just (the product of your lively ?) imagination ? To come to (the awakening of ?) 'that' one has to go into the whole question whether there is an ending to suffering, and (to contemplate the wider issue that ?) as long as suffering and fear and the pursuit of pleasure exists there cannot be "love".

DB: Well, there are many questions involved there. Now the first point to consider is that in this (generic term of ?) 'suffering' we could include (the constant search for ) pleasure, fear, and I suppose we can include anger and violence and greed in that.

JK: Of course, otherwise...

DB: We could say first of all, that all those are the response of (our psychological) memory ?

JK: Yes.

DB: And they are nothing to do with ( a compassionate & loving ?) Intelligence.

JK: They are all part of ( our self-centred ) thought and (its associated ?) memory.

DB: And as long as they are going on, it seems to me that this Intelligence cannot operate through our thought.

JK: That's right. So there must be freedom from 'suffering'.

DB: Well, that is a key point...

JK: That is really a very serious and deep question. Whether it is possible to end suffering, which is the ending of (the temporal ?) 'me'.

DB: It may seem repetitious, but the general feeling is that 'I am there' and 'I' either enjoy things or... suffer. Now, you are probably saying that suffering arises from thought, it 'is' thought...

JK: ...(self- ?) identified. ( A strong form of personal ?) 'attachment'.

DB: So what is it that 'suffers'? It seems to me that whatever (activity of ourpsychological ?) memory may produce pleasure and when it doesn't work it produces - or when it is suppressed - it produces pain and suffering.

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

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

JK: But suffering is ( created by) the loss of someone...

DB:... or the loss of something very important.

JK: Yes, of course. Loss of my wife, or loss of my son, brother, or whatever it is, and the desperate sense of loneliness.

DB: Or else just simply the 'fact' that the whole world is going into such a (sad ?) state.

JK: Of course Sir. I mean all the wars that have been going on for thousands of years...

DB: It makes everything seem meaningless ...

JK: That is why I am saying we are carrying on with the same ( conflictual ?) patterns of thousands years of wars...

DB: Yes now one can easily see that the violence and hatred in wars will interfere with ( the inner flowering of that ?) intelligence.

JK: Obviously.

DB: Now, some people have felt that by going through suffering people become...

JK:...intelligent?..

DB:...purified, like going through the crucible - right?

JK: I know. That through suffering you learn. This is through suffering your ego is vanished, dissolved.

DB: Yes dissolved or refined.

JK: It doesn't (work this way ?) . People have suffered immensely. How many wars, how many tears, the ignorance...

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

JK: Suffering is ( created by being ?) only concerned (with our self-interest ?) - 'I' suffer, 'I' have pain, it is the essence of the 'me'.

DB: Yes the difficulty with ( dealing directly with ?) suffering is that it (appears that ?) it's 'me' that is suffering. And this 'me' is really 'feeling sorry for itself', in some way.

JK: 'My' suffering is different from 'your' suffering. We don't see that (our psychological ?) 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 (the causation of this ?) suffering is. It is not 'my' suffering.

DB: Yes, well that is important in order to understand the nature of suffering: as long as I believe it is 'my' suffering I have an illusory (or partial ?) 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. So, we have to come back: why is 'my suffering' the suffering of many? At first it seems that I feel pain in the tooth, or else I have a loss, or something has happened to me, and the other person seems perfectly happy.

JK: ( Seems ?) happy, yes. But also he is (feeling the same ?) suffering too in his own way.

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

JK: So, suffering is common to all humanity.

DB: Yes but the fact that it is common is not enough to make it 'all one'.
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 (total) consciousness of mankind?

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: Then, when anybody suffers the whole ( consciousness ?) of mankind is suffering ?

JK: If one country kills thousands of human beings... But the whole point is we have suffered from the beginning of time we have suffered, and we haven't solved it.

DB: No, it is clear that we haven't solved it.

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

DB: But you said is that the reason we haven't solved it because we are treating it as 'personal' or as in a small group - (and holistically-wise ?) that is an illusion. And any attempt to deal ( holistically) with an illusion cannot solve anything. Now, we would like to make it very clear...

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

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

JK: That's right.

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

JK: Sir, the (consciousness of the ?) world 'is' (manifested in ?) me, I 'am' (part of ?) the (consciousness of the ?) world.

DB: You have often said that...

JK: Yes. But we have divided it up into the British world and the French world and all the rest of it.

DB: Do you mean by 'the world', the physical world, or the world of society, or?

JK: The 'psychological' world primarily, chiefly.

DB: And when I say "I am that world", what does it mean?

JK: The (conscious of the ?) world is not different from me.

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

JK: Yes. And that (realisation ?) requires a real meditation, you must feel this, not just verbal statement, it is an actuality. I 'am' my brother's keeper.

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

JK: That is just a verbal statement, 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...

JK: I don't know if anybody has done it - we 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'.

DB: Yes.

JK: So is that '( Loving & Compassionate ?) Intelligence' actual? You understand my question? To me, it is an actuality. Because the ending of suffering means love.

DB: Yes now before we go on, let's clear up a point : you said 'it is not to me'. Now in some sense it seems that you are still defining an 'individual' (consciousness ?) - is that right?

JK: Yes, yes. I am using the word "I" as a means of communication.

DB: Yes but what does it mean? Let's say there may be two people, let's say 'A' who is the way you see and 'B' who is not, eh?

JK: Yes.

DB: So 'A' says it is not (an individual consciousness ?) - that seems to create a division between 'A' and 'B'.

JK: That's right. But 'B' creates the division. So what is the relationship between the two?

DB: Yes, well 'B' is creating the division by saying, "I am a separate person" but when 'A' says "It's not that way to 'me'" , it may confuse 'B' still further - right?

JK: You feel that you are not separate and that you really have this sense of love and compassion, and I haven't got it. I haven't even perceived or gone into this question. What is your relationship to me?

DB: Yes, well...

JK: That's what I am saying: you have a relationship with me but I haven't any relationship with you.

DB: I think one could say that the person who hasn't seen is almost living a world of 'dreams' (of self created 'images' ?) psychologically and therefore the world of dreams is not related to the world of being awake.

JK: That's right.

DB: But the fellow who is awake can at least perhaps (help to ?) awaken the other fellow ?

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

DB: Yes, in some way we have to say the consciousness of mankind has divided itself, it is 'all one' but it has divided itself by (getting trapped in the self-centred process of ?) thought - right?

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

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

JK: That is why - all the problems that humanity has now, psychologically as well in other ways, are the result of (our self-centred ?) thinking. And this thinking will never solve any of these problems (since it is part of the problem ?) . So there is another kind of instrument, which is "intelligence".

DB: Yes, well that opens up an entirely different subject, since you also mentioned love as well as compassion.

JK: Without love and compassion there is no intelligence. And you cannot be compassionate if you are (inwardly) attached to (the 'I' ? ) post, and it can think it is compassionate.

DB: Well, as soon as your 'self' is threatened (psychologically ?) , it 'vanishes', you see.

JK: Of course, the 'self' (-centred consciousness ?) hides behind...

DB:...many other things. I mean, noble ideals...

JK: Yes, yes. It has an immense capacity to hide itself...

So ( back to the main topic ?) what is the future of mankind? From what one observes it is leading to destruction.

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

JK: Very gloomy, grim, dangerous and if one has children what is their future? To enter into all this? And go through all the misery of it all ? So (a new approach to ?) education becomes extraordinarily important. But now education is merely the accumulation of knowledge (and mechanical skills ?)

DB: Yes well every instrument that man has invented, discovered, or developed has ( eventually ?) been turned toward destruction.

JK: Yes Sir. they are destroying nature, there are very few tigers now...

DB: They are destroying forests and agricultural land.

JK: Over population. Nobody seems to care.

DB: I think there are two things involved: one is that people are immersed in their own problems - right?

JK: They are immersed in their own little plans to 'save humanity'!

DB: Well most people are just immersed in their plans to 'save themselves', but I think also there is a tendency toward despair implicit in what is happening now in that people don't think anything can be done.

JK: Yes. Or if they think something can be done, they form little groups and little theories...

DB: Yes, but most people haven't much confidence in what they are doing.

JK: I know. And if you (seem to ?) have tremendous confidence I accept your confidence and go with you... So, Sir, I wonder if anybody is (truly ?) concerned with the future of humanity ? Or each person, or each group is only concerned with (optimising ?) its own survival?

DB: Well I think our first concern almost always has been with survival either the individual or the group. You see, that has been the history of mankind.

JK: Therefore perpetual wars, perpetual insecurity.

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

JK: You happen to listen to all this, you see the truth of all this. Those in power will not even listen to you. This is what people are asking: what is the point of you and I seeing something to be true and what effect has it (on the consciousness of mankind ?) ?

DB: It seems to me that if we think in terms of 'effects', we are bringing in the very thing which is behind the trouble, 'time'. The first response would be that we must quickly get in and do something to change the course of events.

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

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

JK: Then as a human being, who 'is' (sharing the consciousness of ?) mankind, what is my responsibility apart from looking for the effects and all the rest of it.

DB: Yes, we can't look toward (immediate ?) effects. But suppose 'A' sees something and most of the rest of mankind does not. Then one could say mankind is in some way (day-) dreaming, asleep.

JK: It is caught in (its self-created ?) illusion.

DB: Illusion. And the point is that if somebody 'sees' something then his responsibility is to help awake the others up - right? To get out of the illusion.

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

DB: Yes, well that is the source of the illusion (of our wishful thinking ?) , basically.

JK: How does one make another see all this? They haven't time, they haven't the energy, they haven't even the inclination. They want to be 'amused' (entertained ?) . How does one make 'B' see this whole thing so clearly that he says, "All right, I have got it, I see I am responsible, I won't be (self-centred ?) ..." and all the rest of it. I think that is the (communication ?) tragedy of those who see and those who don't. We have talked for an hour...

DB: An hour and a half.

JK: We will now sit quietly.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 05 Nov 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 Jul 2014 #19
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

2ND (THE LAST) K CONVERSATION WITH PROF D BOHM 1983

J.Krishnamurti: The 'psychologists' are they really concerned with the future of man? Are they concerned with the human being conforming to the present society, or are they going beyond that?

David Bohm: Well I think that most psychologists would want the human being to conform to this society (which is paying them ?) , but I think some psychologists, 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: I think that what came out (from the last discussion) was that with regard to human consciousness (or mind ?) time is not relevant, that it is a kind of illusion. We discussed the illusion of (self-) becoming' .

JK: We are saying, aren't we, let's be clear, that (projecting a time-line for the ?) evolution of human consciousness is a fallacy.

DB: As through time, right. Though the physical evolution is obviously not an illusion .

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

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

JK: That's right.

DB: And that left us with the question: what will we do?

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

DB: Yes, well that distinction has been made by many, but it is not clear. Now of course there are several views. One view is say that the mind is just a function of the brain - that is the materialists' view. There is another view which says that 'mind' and 'brain' are two different things.

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

DB: But there must be...

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

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

JK: No; first let's see the (material) brain. I am really not an expert, but one can observe one's own activity of the brain, that it is working really (pretty much ?) like a computer that has been (genetically and culturally) programmed and then 'remembers' (to function along the guidelines of its programming ?)

DB: Well certainly a large part of our brain's activity is ( going on ) that way, but we are not certain that all of it is that way.

JK: No. But it is (easily) 'conditioned' by past generations, by the society, by the newspapers, by the magazines, by all the activities and pressures from the outside. It is conditioned (by our very evolution in time ?) .

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

JK: It is programmed to live entirely (based) on its past (experience & knowledge) , modifying itself in ( contact with ) the (challenges of the ?) present and going on.

DB: Yes, now we have agreed that some of this (temporal) 'conditioning' is useful and necessary. But the conditioning which determines the 'self' (-consciousness ?) ...

JK: ...the 'psyche'.

DB: You call it the 'psyche' ?

JK: Let's call it for the moment the 'psyche', (or) the 'self'.

DB: The conditioning ( of the 'psyche' ) is what you are talking about. That may not only be unnecessary, but also harmful. The emphasis on the psyche, as we are doing now, giving importance to the 'self' (-centred consiousness) , is creating great damage in the world because it is separative and therefore it is constantly (creating ?) conflicts, not only within itself, but with the society, with the family and is also in conflict with nature.

JK: With nature, with the 'whole universe' - if you can call it (metaphorically ?) .

DB: And we discussed last time that this conflictual (attitude ?) arose because...

JK: ...of division...

DB: ...and the division arising because ( our self-centred ?) thinking is limited...

JK: ...thought is limited. That's right.

DB: Being based on its past conditioning, on knowledge and memory, it is limited.
JK: Limited, yes. And the very structure and the nature of this ( temporal ?) 'psyche' is the (inner ) movement of thought in (terms of ?) time.

DB: Yes. Now I would like to ask a question: when you (holistically ?) discussed this (temporal) 'movement of thought ' , it doesn't seem clear to me what is 'moving'. You see, the physical movement of my hand, that is a real movement. It is clear what is meant. But now when I discuss the (mental) 'movement' of thought it seems to me we are discussing something (virtual ?) which is a kind of illusion because you have said 'becoming' is the movement of thought.

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

DB: But that 'movement' is in some way (virtual or ?) illusory, isn't it ?

JK: Yes, of course, of course.

DB: It is rather like the 'movement' on the screen which is projected from the...

JK: ... from the (video) camera...

DB: So, there are no (real) 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, which is the conditioning?

JK: Sir, that is what I want to find out. We both agree, or see, that the human brain is ( culturally ?) conditioned.

DB: We mean by that that really it has been 'impressed' (imprinted ?) physically.

JK: Physically as well as 'psychologically'.

DB: Well what is the difference of physically and psychologically?

JK: Psychologically (the imprinting ?) is centred in the 'self' - right?

DB: Yes...

JK: And the constant assertion of the 'self' (of one's 'self-consciousness' ?) is the conditioning.

DB: Yes, but in so far as we experience it that is an illusion (a mental projection ?) -right?

JK: We said that that is an 'illusion'.

DB: But there is some 'real' movement happening inside the brain - something is actually 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' is the result of ( the spatio-temporal ) conditioning of the brain. But does the 'self' (really) exist ?

JK: No, no.

DB: So the conditioning of the brain, as I see it, is 'involving' (enfolding ?) an illusion which we call the 'self'.

JK: That's right. Now, can that conditioning be dissipated?

DB: Yes. But it really has to be dissipated in some '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. You see some scientists might feel that maybe we will discover drugs or new genetic changes or 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 view among some people.

JK: Will that change the human behaviour?

DB: Well why not? Some (science ) people believe it might.

JK: It 'might', which means (sometime ?) 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, saying what good can it do? It doesn't seem to affect anybody and certainly not in time to make a big difference. You see that is a question that would arise. Suppose for the sake of argument...

JK: You mean, in what way does it affect (the consciousness of ?) humanity?

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

JK: Obviously not.

DB: Then why should we be doing it?

JK: Because this is the ''right'' (holistic ?) thing to do.

DB: Independently.

JK: Independently. It has nothing to do with ( any temporal expectations of ?) rewards or punishments.

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 - right?

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

DB: Yes, well we should make that clear. For example some psychologists would feel that by enquiring into this sort of thing we could trigger an 'evolutionary transformation' of human consciousness - right?

JK: We come back to the point that through time we hope to change (radically the human ?) consciousness. We question that.

DB: We have questioned that and are saying that 'time' will be inevitably involved - we will get caught in becoming and illusion and we will not (really) 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 - that they themselves are still caught in this (same mentality ?) that through time they are trying to become better?

JK: Yes, that's right.

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

JK: Both 'experimentalists' and the 'psychologists' and ourselves (all those present ?) , they are all (inwardly) trying to 'become' something (better/richer/wiser ?) .

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

JK: That is just it. They are not free of that.

DB: And that (hidden) desire will give rise to self deception and illusion, and so on.

JK: So where are we now? ( Seeing) that any form of ( 'self -) becoming' is an illusion, and becoming implies time. We are saying that 'time' is not necessary for the 'psyche' to change.

DB: Now, that ties up with the other question of the 'mind' and the 'brain'. You see, the brain has an activity in time, as a physical chemical complex process.

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

DB: Well what does it mean 'separate'?

JK: 'Separate' in the sense the brain is conditioned and the 'mind' is not.

DB: Let's say that the 'mind' has a certain independence of the brain is what you are saying. 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: As long as one's brain is conditioned, it is not free.

DB: Yes...

JK: And the 'mind' is free.

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

JK: I will go into it. Let's enquire: what is this "freedom"? The freedom to enquire, as you pointed out, and it is only in freedom there is a deep ( perceptive clarity of ?) "insight".

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

JK: So as long as the brain is conditioned its relationship to the "mind" is limited.

DB: Now, we have the relationship of the brain to the mind, and also the other way round.

JK: Yes, yes. But the 'mind' being free has a relationship to the brain.

DB: Yes. So, you're saying that the 'mind' is not subject to the ( temporal) conditioning of the brain ?

JK: Yes.

DB: Now one could ask a (deeper) question: what is the nature of this 'mind'? For example, is the mind located inside the body, or is it in the brain?

JK: No, it is 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 with 'time', right?

JK: Not with 'time'. Time belongs to the brain.

DB: You said 'space' and 'silence', now what kind of space is this ? It is not the (material) space in which we see life moving.

JK: Let's look round at (this inner space ?) it the other way. Thought can invent 'space'.

DB: Well, we have the (physical) space that we see and in addition thought can invent all kinds of (mental ?) spaces.

JK: And (there is the ?) space from 'here' to 'there'.

DB: Yes, the (physical) space through which we move is that way.

JK: Space also between two noises.

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

JK: Yes, interval between two noises, between two thoughts.

DB: Yes...

JK: Space between two people.

DB: Space between the walls.

JK: And so on. But that kind of 'space' is not the ( open ?) space of the mind.

DB: You say it is not limited.

JK: That's right. It is not 'bounded' (enclosed ?) by the 'psyche'.

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

JK: No.

DB: Now you say the 'psyche' is bounded because we have said it is limited and so on. Right ?

JK: So that is what I want to talk over : can the brain, with all its (memory) cells (being ?) 'conditioned', can those brain cells radically change?

DB: Well, we often discussed this, it is not certain that all the cells of the brain are conditioned. For example some 'science people' think that only a small part of the brain's cells are being used, and the others are just rather being inactive, dormant.

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

DB: Just touched occasionally. But those cells that are conditioned, whatever they may be, they evidently dominate our consciousness now - right?

JK: Yes, can those cells be changed?

DB: Yes...?

JK: We are saying that they can (be changed ) through 'insight'. 'Insight' being out of time, is not a (personal ) intuition, or desire, or hope, it has nothing to do with any (mental activity of ?) 'time and thought'.

DB: So, you are saying that 'insight' is it the ( natural ?) activity of the 'mind'?

JK: Yes.

DB: Therefore you are saying (the non-material energy of the ?) 'mind' can act in the matter of the brain ?

JK: Yes, we said that earlier.

DB: Yes, but you see this is a difficult point, you see, how is 'mind' able to act in matter.

JK: It is able to act on the brain, say for instance any crisis, or any problem - (the root meaning of 'problem' is 'something thrown at you'). And (usually) we meet it with all the (personal) remembrance of our past, with a bias and so on. And therefore our 'problems' multiply. You may solve one problem, in the very solution of one particular problem, other ( colateral) 'problems' arise, as they are doing in politics and so on and so on. Right? Now to approach the problem or to have a (direct ) perception of the problem without any past memories and thoughts interfering...

DB: Now that implies that ( such a 'direct', non-personal ?) perception is of the 'mind' ?

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: Are you more or less saying that the brain is a kind of instrument of the 'mind'?

JK: (It can be an ?) instrument of the mind when the brain is not 'self'-centred.

DB: You see, the ('self'-centred) conditioning may be thought of as the brain exciting itself and keeping itself going just from the 'programme'. This (constant running of 'self'-centred applications ?) occupies all of its capacities.

JK: All our days, yes.

DB: The whole ( processing ?) capacity of the brain. It is rather like a ( poorly made ) radio receiver which does generate (so much of ?) its own noise, it would not pick up an (useful radio ) signal. Now would this analogy be at all...

JK: Not quite.

DB: It is not very good but...?

JK: Not very. You see Sir, would you go into this a little bit (in a roundabout way ?) . ( The 'temporal' human ?) experience is always limited -and so (the resulting) 'knowledge' is always limited. And this ( survivalistic ?) knowledge is constantly operating in the brain. This knowledge 'is' the brain. Right? And 'thought' is also part of the brain and that thought is limited. So the brain is operating in a very, very small area (of its past experience)

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

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

DB: Thought. So, the brain is running on its own, from its own ( self-centred) 'programme'.

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

DB: Now, essentially what you are asking is that the brain should really be responding to the 'mind'.

JK: That it can only respond if it is free from the ( self-centred activity of ?) thought which is limited.

DB: Yes so that 'programme' does not dominate it. But (eventually) we are going to still need that 'programme'.

JK: Of course. We need it for...

DB: ...for many things. Yes but is 'intelligence' (coming) from the mind then?

JK: Yes, intelligence 'is' the mind.

DB: 'Is' the mind...?

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

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

JK: Of the Mind. But you cannot be ( 'loving' & ) 'compassionate' if you are attached to any particular experience, or any particular ideal - like those ( industrious ?) people who go out to various poverty ridden countries and work, work, work, and they call that 'compassion'. But they are ( inwardly) 'tied' to a particular form of religious belief and therefore that is 'empathy' , not ( an intelligent action of ?) 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 can make contact. Now then, we say that 'intelligence' and 'compassion' come from beyond the brain. But I would like to go into the question of how they are making contact, you see.

JK: Ah! ( the 2 - way ?) 'contact' can only exist between the mind and the brain when the brain is ( getting totally ?) quiet.

DB: Yes, that is the requirement for making it. Now then the brain has got to be quiet.

JK: Sir, ' being quiet' is not a 'trained' quietness. Not ( the result of ?) a self-conscious desire for silence. It is a natural outcome of understanding ( the truth regarding ?) one's own conditioning.

DB: Yes and if the brain is 'quiet' then it could 'listen' to something deeper - right?

JK: Deeper, that's right. Then if is (that ?) quiet it is related to the Mind. Then the Mind can function through the brain.

DB: Now I think that it would help if we could see with regard to the brain whether it has any (natural) activity which is beyond thought. You see, for example, one could ask is 'awareness' part of the ( holistic ?) function of the brain?

JK: As long as in this awareness there is no ( personal preference or ?) choice .

DB: Yes, well that may cause ( an experiential) difficulty. You see what is wrong with 'choice' ?

JK: ( Inwardly speaking ?) 'choice' means ( is a sign of ?) confusion.

DB: It is not (that ) obvious just from your words. You see, if I choose which colour I want to wear I don't see why that has to be confused.

JK: There is nothing wrong. There is no confusion there.

DB: But the choices about the (options of ) 'psyche' it seems to me is where the confusion is.

JK: That's all, about the psyche.

DB: You now the ( 'holistic', non-explicit ? ?) language tends to carry one away.

JK: We are talking of the psyche that chooses.

DB: That chooses (what ) to become ?

JK: Yes. Chooses to become, and also 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 it tries to become something better.

JK: And this choice implies a duality .

DB: Yes but now it seems at first sight we have another duality which you have introduced, which is the 'mind' and the 'brain'.

JK: No, that is not a duality.

DB: That is important to get clear. What is the difference?

JK: Let's take a very simple example. Human beings are violent and the ideal of non-violence has been projected by thought and that is the duality - the 'fact' and the 'non-fact'.

DB: Yes. The ideal is non-real and the fact is real. Now then, you say the division of those two you call 'duality'. Why do you give it that name?

JK: Because they are divided.

DB: Well at least they appear to be divided.

JK: Divided, and they are the outcome of ( our self-centred) thought which is limited and this is creating havoc in the world.

DB: Yes. So there is a division which has been brought in (mentally) but I think we were discussing in terms of dividing something which cannot be divided. We are trying to divide( split ?) the 'psyche': and the psyche cannot be divided into violence and non-violence - right?

JK: It is 'what it is'.

DB: So if it is violent it can't be divided into a violent and a non-violent part.

JK: That's right. So can we remain ( inwardly with the fact of ?) 'what is', not invent ideals and all the rest of it?

DB: Could we return to the question of the 'mind' and the 'brain' ?Now we are saying that is not a division.

JK: Oh no, that is not a division.

DB: ( Because somehow ?) 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 we are saying that although they are in contact and not divided at all, the 'mind' can still have a certain independence of the conditioning of the brain.

JK: Now careful Sir ! Suppose my brain is conditioned, being programmed as a Hindu, and I function, act, my whole life is conditioned by the idea that I am a Hindu. 'Mind' obviously has no relationship with ( the content of ?) that conditioning.

DB: You are using the word "mind", it means it is not 'my' mind .

JK: Oh, the "mind", it is not mine.

DB: It is universal or 'general' ?

JK: Yes. It is not 'my' brain either.

DB: No, but as there is a 'particular' 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 word.

DB: Unlimited and undivided ?

JK: It is unpolluted, not polluted by thought.

DB: But I think most people will be asking : " How do we know anything about this (non-personal ) mind ?" The first feeling is that it is 'my mind' - 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 my psyche 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 different, what is going on inside me as a human being and you as another human being, we both go through all kinds of problems, suffering, fear, anxiety, loneliness, suffer, and so on and so on. We have our 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 ( our self-centred ?) thought. My thought has created ( the concept ) that I am different from you, because my body is different from you, my face is different from you, so we extend that same (self-divisive mentality ?) into the psychological area.

DB: We have discussed that. But now if we said all right that division is an illusion perhaps.

JK: No, not 'perhaps', it is...

DB: It is an illusion, all right. Although it is not (at all) obvious when a person first looks at it.

JK: Of course, of course.

DB: Now then, we say mind - in reality even brain is not divided because we are saying that we are all not only basically similar but ( consciousness-wise ?) really connected - right? And then we say that beyond all that is a "Mind" which has no division at all.

JK: It is unconditioned.

DB: This would almost seem to imply then that in so far as a person feels he is a 'separate' being he has very little contact with ( an universal ?) Mind - right?

JK: Quite right. That is why it is very important to understand not the ( Universal) Mind but whether my human conditioning can ever be dissolved. That is the real issue.

DB: Yes. But I think that any (decent ?) human being would like to consider what is the meaning of this Mind ? I think we all want to understand the meaning of what is being said. You see, we have a Mind that is universal, that is in some kind of (inner) 'space' you say, or is it its own space?

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

DB: But it has (its own ?) space.

JK: It lives in space and silence.

DB: It lives in a space and silence, but it is the (inward ?) space of the mind. It is not a space like this space?

JK: No. That is why we said that this (inner) 'space' is not invented by thought.

DB: Now, is it possible then to ( meditatively access or ?) perceive this (inward ?) 'space' when the mind is silent, to be in contact with it?

JK: You are asking whether the ( Universal ?) Mind can be perceived by the brain ?

DB: Or at least to have an awareness, a sense (of it)

JK: We are saying "yes", through meditation. And that is the (main experiential ?) difficulty: 'meditation' it is generally understood there is always a "meditator" meditating. ( While the authentic ?) Meditation is not a ('self-) conscious' process.

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

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

DB: Well, by 'self- consciousness' you mean all the movement of ( our self-centred) thought.

JK: The movement of thought.

DB: Including (the self-centred ?) feeling, desire, will and all that goes with it, right?

JK: Yes.

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

JK: Oh yes. Depends what you call 'awareness'.

DB: The 'awareness' of something deeper ?

JK: You see again, when you use the word 'deeper' it is (already implying someone making ?) a 'measurement'. I wouldn't use that.

DB: Well let's not use that. But you see, there is a kind of (wide spread) 'unconsciousness' which we are simply not aware of at all. A person may be 'unconscious' of some of his inner problems, conflicts.

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

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

JK: Yes, it is the ( thinker-controlled ?) activity of thought. So, if I "consciously" try to meditate, practise, do all this kind of (commercial ?) nonsense, then 'you' (the Club Med 'meditator' ?) are making the brain conform to another series of ( self-rewarding ?) patterns.

DB: Yes, it is more ( self-) becoming (involved) : you are trying to become inwardly better.

JK: There is no 'illumination' by becoming - if I can use that word.

DB: But now, it seems very difficult to communicate about something which is not ( 'self-)conscious', you see.

JK: That's it. That's the difficulty.

DB: Still it is not just being (psychologically ?) knocked out - a person is getting 'unconscious' if he is 'knocked out' or under anaesthetic , but you don't mean that.

JK: Of course not, good Lord! Let's put it that way: ( a self-) conscious meditation, ( a self-) conscious activity to control thought, to free oneself from conditioning, is not (a true inner ?) freedom.

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

JK: Wait a minute. How can I tell you what lies beyond (the limitations of self-centred ?) thought.

DB: Or when my (self-centred) thinking is silent.

JK: Quite, silent. So, what words would you use?

DB: Well I suggested the word 'awareness'. Or...what about using the word 'attention'?

JK: 'Attention' is better for me.

DB: Yes.

JK: Would you say that in this 'attention' there is no ( controlling ?) centre as the 'me'?

DB: Well, not in the kind of attention you are discussing. There is a kind, which is the usual kind, where we pay attention because of what interests us.

JK: This attention is not 'concentration'.

DB: So, we are discussing a (non-personal ?) kind of attention without this (all controlling ?) 'me' present, which is not the activity of (our man-made ) conditioning.

JK: Not the activity of ( our self-centred ?) thinking.

DB: Yes...

JK: In (this total ?) 'attention' thought has no place.

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

JK: No, no. Would it help if we say concentration is not attention - right? Effort is not attention. When I make an effort ( 'stretching my mind' ?) to 'attend' it is not attention. Attention can only come into being when the 'self (-identification' process ?) is not (it is 'off' ?) .

DB: Yes but that is going to get us in a 'circular logic' because we are starting from a position when the 'self' is ('on' ?) . A person who says ( some serious ) meditation is necessary, begins with the 'self', he says, "I am here".

JK: No, I used the word ( by defining it negatively since ?) - the root meaning of the word "Meditation" means measure (pondering over ?) .

DB: Yes...

JK: As long as there is a 'measurement' (comparison, weighting ?), which is ( involving 'self'-) becoming, there is no meditation. Let's put it that way.

DB: So, we can discuss only what ( an authentic ?) meditation is not ?

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

DB: So, if we succeed in negating the whole ( set of false ) activities of what is not meditation the "meditation" will be there.

JK: Yes, that's right. That is very clear. As long as there is 'measurement', which is (part of ) the ('self-) becoming', which is the (self-sustained ?) process of thought, ( an authentic ?) Meditation, or Silence, cannot be.

DB: So, this 'undirected attention' is it of the Mind ?

JK: Attention is of the Mind.

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

JK: Yes. As long as the brain is (inwardly integrated and ?) silent, the "other" has contact.

DB: This true attention has contact with the brain when the brain is silent.

JK: Silent and has (an inwardly open ?) space.

DB: What is this "space"?

JK: The brain has no (free inner) space (as it is ?) now because it is (constantly keeping itself 'busy' ?) concerned with itself, it is ( self-) programmed, self-centred and ...(self-) limited.

DB: Now the Mind is in its Space, but doesn't the brain have its space too?

JK: Limited.

DB: Limited space?

JK: Of course. Thought has a limited space.

DB: But when ( the self-centred) thought is absent does the brain have its (own inner ?) space?

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

DB: Unlimited?

JK: No. It is only the ( Universal ?) Mind that has unlimited Space.

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 ( free inner) space. In that 'space' you solve the problem.

DB: Yes, now if the human mind is silent, is not thinking of a problem, then still the space is limited, but it is (inwardly ?) open to...

JK: ...to the 'other'.

DB: ...to the "attention". Would you say that through this "attention", or in attention, the Mind is contacting the brain?

JK: When the brain is not 'inattentive'.

DB: So what happens then to the brain?

JK: What happens to the brain? That (universal ?) Intelligence born out of compassion and love, (acts or ?) 'operates' when the brain is quiet.

DB: Yes, does it operate through "attention"?

JK: Of course, of course.

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

JK: Contact, naturally. ( But this) "attention" can only be when the 'self' (identified entity) is not (around ?).

DB: Yes. Now you say that Love and Compassion are the Ground (of all Creation ?) , and out of this Ground comes the Intelligence through "attention".

JK: Yes, (It) functions through the brain.

DB: Now, there are two questions regarding this Intelligence : one is about the nature of this intelligence, and the second is what does it do to the brain, you see?

JK: Yes. We must again approach it 'negatively' (in a roundabout way ?) . Love is not jealousy and all that. Love is not personal, but it can be personal.
Love is not for 'my' country, 'your' country, 'I love my God', it is not that.

DB: Well, if it is ( coming) from an Universal Mind...

JK: (In a nutshell ?) this Love has no relationship to ( the self-centred process of ?) thought.

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

JK: Yes, and when there is that Love, out of that there is Compassion and there is Intelligence.

DB: Now, this Intelligence is able to understand deeply ?

JK: No, not 'understand'.

DB: But what does it do? Does it perceive?

JK: Through (direct ?) perception it 'acts'.

DB: Yes. Perception of what?

JK: Now let's discuss ( this direct ?) perception. There can be ( a pure) perception only when there is no interference from the movement of thought Then there is ( a holistic ?) perception, which is ( having a ?) direct insight into a problem, or into the human (psychological) complex.

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

JK: Yes. When the brain is "quiet".

DB: Yes, but here we used both words 'perception' and 'intelligence', what is their difference?

JK: Between (an insightful ?) perception and (the action of universal ?) intelligence? None.

DB: So we can say that intelligence 'is' perception.

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: ( The action of ) Intelligence is the perception of 'what is' - right? And through attention there is a ( 2-way ) contact (with the brain)

JK: Sir, ( for instance ) let's take the problem of suffering, it is probably easier to understand. Human beings have suffered endlessly, through wars, through every kind of disease, and through wrong relationship with each other. Man has suffered a great deal. Now can that ( momentum of suffering) end?

DB: Well, I would say that the (experiential) difficulty of ending that is that it is on the programme. We are conditioned to (accept ) this whole thing - right?

JK: Yes, to this whole thing. And this has been going on for centuries.

DB: Yes, so it is very 'deep' ?

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

DB: It cannot end by a (voluntary) action of thought. Because the brain is caught in ( the causality of this) suffering and it cannot take an action to end its own suffering.

JK: Of course, that is why ( the self-centred action of ?) thought cannot end it. Thought has created it.

DB: Yes, thought has created it and anyway it is unable to get hold of it.

JK: Yes, ( the self-centred activity of ) thought has created the wars, the misery, the confusion, and thought has become prominent in all (inter) human relationship.

DB: Yes, many people might agree with that and still think that as thought can do bad things, it can do good things.

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

DB: Thought cannot get hold of this suffering. That is this suffering being in the physical conditioning of the brain, and chemical, thought has no way of knowing what it is even.

JK: I mean, I lose my son and I am...

DB: Yes but I mean just by thinking (about it) I don't (necessarily) know what is going on inside me. I can't (operate on) the suffering inside because my thinking will not show me what it is. Now you are saying it is ( the compassionate action of ?) Intelligence...

JK: After all, we are asking can ( the causation behind this ?) suffering end? That is the problem.

DB: Yes, and it is clear that our thinking cannot do it.

JK: Thought cannot do it. That is the point. But if I have an insight into it...

DB: Yes, now this Insight will be (coming ?) through the ( joint ?) action of the mind, intelligence, and attention.

JK: When there is that ( illuminating) insight, intelligence wipes away ( the very causation of ?) suffering.

DB: Yes, now you are saying therefore there is a contact from Mind to Matter which removes ( deletes ?) the whole physical chemical (self-centred ?) structure which keeps us going on with suffering.

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

DB: Yes and that mutation just wipes out the whole (psychologically active ?) 'structure' that makes you suffer.

JK: Yes. Therefore it is like I have been going along a certain tradition, I suddenly change that tradition there is a 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: Mind is after all... would you put it that Mind is pure energy?

DB: Well we could put it that way, but then... matter is energy too.

JK: Therefore matter is limited, as thought is limited.

DB: But we are saying that the 'pure energy' of the Mind is able to reach into the limited energy of (the human brain)

JK: Yes, that's right. And change the 'limitation'.

DB: Yes, to remove (or delete ?) some of the limitations.

JK: ...when there is a deep issue, or a problem, or a challenge which you are facing (directly ?)
.
DB: Yes, so we could also add that all the traditional (thought-controlled ?) ways of trying doing this cannot work because...

JK: It hasn't worked.

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

JK: It cannot.

DB: Because ( the 'thinker' controlled process of ?) thought cannot get at the basis of its own physio-chemical (engramming ?) basis in the cells, and do anything about those cells.

JK: Yes Sir, we have said that very (holistically ?) clear: thought cannot bring about a (radical) change in itself.

DB: And yet practically everything that mankind has been trying to do was based on thought. There is a limited area (of physical existence) where that is all right but we cannot do anything about the future of mankind from the usual approach.

JK: Sir, when you listen to the politicians who are so very active in the (modern) world, they are creating problem after problem and to them thought is the most important thing -their ideals...

DB: Well generally speaking they don't know of anything else...

JK: Exactly. We are saying the old instrument which is thought is worn out (redundant ?) , except in certain areas (of our material existence) .

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

JK: Of course, of course.

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

JK: Yes Sir, man has always lived in turmoil, fear. 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 (seriously) talking about it, and perhaps meditating and so on, but how is that going to affect this vast current of mankind?

JK: Probably very little.

DB: It might or it might not...

JK: But then one puts that question: then what is the use of it?

DB: Yes, that's the point. I think there is an instinctive feeling that makes one put the question.

JK: Yes. I think that is the 'wrong' question. But if whoever listens, sees the truth that ( the self-centred mentality of our ?) thinking 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? If thought cannot end it what will? What is the new instrument that will put an end to all this misery? You see there is a new instrument which is Intelligence. But you see the difficulty is also people won't listen to all this. They have come to definite conclusions, both the scientists and the ordinary layman they won't listen.

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

JK: Of course, of course. But after all these 'few' people have changed the world....

DB: Do you think it is possible that say a certain number of brains coming in contact with Mind in this way will be able to have an affect on mankind which is beyond just 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 and 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, how do you convey all this 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, like an absolute block or else there would be no way out at all. But the human 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. But who will listen? Perhaps , someone not highly educated and conditioned in his professional career, money, the (average ?) person who says, "I am suffering, please let's end that."
We have been through all this for the last sixty years. The poor man won't listen, the rich man won't listen, the learned won't listen and the deeply dogmatic religious believers don't listen. So perhaps it is like an (invisible ?) wave in the (consciousness of the ?) world - it might catch somebody. But I think it is a wrong question to say, 'how does it affect'?

DB: Yes all right, because that brings the (human) 'psyche' in the same process of ( an elitistic kind of ?) becoming. So, what you are proposing is that it affects ( the consciousness of ?) mankind through the Mind directly rather than through...

JK: Yes, yes. It may not show immediately in ( the everyday) action.

DB: Yes. So, you are taking very seriously what you said that the Mind is universal and is not located in our ordinary space, is not separate and the question is we have to come directly in contact with 'this' to make it real - right?

JK: Of course, that's it. They can only come into contact with 'it' when the 'self' (- consciousness ?) is not (active) . To put it very simply, when the 'self (-consciousness ) is not, there is beauty, there is silence, space, and that ( iwardly open space ?) an Intelligence which is born of compassion operates through the brain.

DB: Yes. Would it be worth discussing this 'self' (centred consciousness) - which is very active widely...

JK: I know, but that 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 am caught in this 'self' (- consciousness) but I want to get out. I'd want to know what shall I do ?"

JK: Ah! You see that is...

DB: What do you say?

JK: That is very simple. Is the 'observer' different from the 'observed'?

DB: Well, suppose we say, "Yes, it appears to be different", ordinarily one feels the observer is different from the observed. I say we begin there.

JK: We begin there. Look at it (non-personally ?) . Are 'you' (really ?) different from your anger, from your envy, from your suffering? You are not.

DB: At first sight it appears that I am, and I might try to control it.

JK: You 'are' that.

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

JK: You 'are' (mentally identified with ?) your name. You are ( psycho-somatically identified ?) your physical body. You 'are' all the reactions and actions. You are the belief, you are the fear, you are the suffering and pleasure. You 'are' ( subliminally identified with ?) all that.

DB: Yes but the first experience is that I am here first and that those are my 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: Contradictory (tendencies ?) . You are all that.

DB: But you see it is not (self-) obvious. When you say I 'am' that, do you mean that I 'am' ( just ) that and I cannot be otherwise?

JK: No. At present you 'are' (temporarily identified with all ?) that (psychological stuff) . It can be totally otherwise.

DB: Yes, OK. So I 'am' all that. But what if I feel like an unbiased observer who is looking at anger ? Are you telling me that this unbiased observer is the same as the anger he is looking at?

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

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

JK: Of course.

DB: So if I watch my anger for a while I can see that I am very biased by the anger, so at some stage I say that I am one with that anger - right?

JK: No, not 'I am one with it', but "you 'are' it".

DB: ( You mean that ) the ( reaction of) anger and I ( who am feeling angry ?) are ( part of ) the same (psychological process ?) , right?

JK: Yes. The observer 'is' ( not separate from) the (reaction) observed. And when that (non-divided) 'actuality' exists, you have really eliminated altogether (the "observer vs observed") conflict. Conflict exists when 'I' ( consider myself as being) separate from my 'qualities'.

DB: Yes that is because if I believe myself to be separate then I can try to change it but since I 'am' that, it is not trying to change itself and remain itself at the same time, right?

JK: Yes, that's right. When the ( supervised) quality 'is' (not separated from) 'me', the (psychological ) division has ended. Right?

DB: Yes, well when I see that the quality 'is' me then there is no point to ( fighting ?) the whole thing.

JK: What happened before ( when) the quality 'is not' me, in that ( controller- controlling attitude) there is ( an ongoing hidden ?) conflict, which is (resulting in ) a wastage of (intelligent ?) energy. When that quality 'is' me, all that ( smart ?) energy which has been wasted is there ( free ) to look, to observe.

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

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

DB: Yes, well then there is no perception of a difference and the mind does not try to fight itself.

JK: Yes, yes. It is so.

DB: While if there is the illusion of a difference ( between 'me' and 'my anger') the brain feels be compelled to fight against (another part of ?) itself.

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: On the other hand when there is no illusion of a difference the brain just stops fighting.

JK: Fighting, and therefore you have ( gathered together a ) tremendous energy.

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

JK: Yes, yes. And the (action of this unified ) energy means 'attention' - for that thing to dissolve.

DB: Well, wait a minute, we said before that "attention" was a contact of the mind and the brain.

JK: Yes Sir.

DB: ( Therefore) the brain must be in a state of 'high energy' to allow that (illuminating ?) contact.

JK: That's right.

DB: And a brain which is ( in a condition of ?) low energy cannot allow that contact.

JK: Of course. But most of us are (indulging in ?) 'low energy' because we are so ( comfortably ?) conditioned.

DB: Well essentially you are saying that this is the way to start.

JK: Yes Sir. Start 'simply'. Start with 'what is', with what I (actually) am. That is why ( a non-accumulative ?) self knowing is so important - a constant learning about oneself.

DB: Yes, it is not the knowledge we talked about before, which is conditioning.

JK: That's right. Knowledge conditions.

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

JK: Yes, yes. Self knowing is to know and to comprehend oneself, which is such a subtle complex thing, it is 'living'.

DB: So, essentially this 'knowing yourself' in happening the very moment in which things are happening, rather than store it up in memory.

JK: Of course. Through ( becoming aware of my ) reactions I begin to discover what I am, and so on and so on. Right?

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 08 Nov 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Dec 2014 #20
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

Uncovering the Inner Source of Creation (experientially friendly edited)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Sir, most of our lives are so futile. And unless one discovers within oneself the capacity to leap out of this ( materialistic ?) 'futility', one will never be able to have (access to ?) a creative spring. You see, sir, when the mind has a creative spring, whatever be the circumstances, one seems to go beyond them. And that happens when the mind is not dependent on anything, and when it has some inner space, some clear perception. I have been wondering for the last few months—what is the ground of a creative mind?

K: Would you call the activity of a poet, of a thinker, or even of a scientist who makes a new discovery creative activity?

PJ: Perhaps...

K: But it is limited, or ( to be 'psychologically correct' ?) let’s use the word 'partial' (in the sense that such creativity ?) it is not related to their everyday life. Even the greatest scientist may lead a very mediocre life.

PJ: You see, that’s why I did not speak of a 'creative action'...

K: ...but of a 'creative mind'?

PJ: Of a mind which rests in the creative (dimension of existence) .

K: I think you should make the question a little more clear.

PJ: ( Here it is:) You have never answered any questions on the ground of Creation, on the ‘coming into being’ of anything.

K: Are you asking what the Source of all Life—both the manifest and the non-manifest—is?

PJ: Yes. If it is possible, I would like to probe into what you have said just now: the manifest and the pre-manifest... (I won’t even use the word 'unmanifest').

K: Are we ( aware that we are ?) probing into something which you and I don’t know? We know ( all that can be known ?) about the birth of a baby. We know how it comes into being.

PJ: One may know the 'how it comes into being', but one still does not know the quality of life which pervades it. You see, sir, the actuality of birth is very different from the description of birth.

K: Yes. Can we talk about what is the origin, the beginning, of all life or of all existence, by trying ( experientially ?) to come upon ( that mysterious ?) 'Something' which is the beginning of all things? You see, all religious people say, ‘God is the origin of everything’. But ‘God’ is just a word, and a word doesn’t convey (the real thing?)

PJ: Yes...

K: We are concerned right now about ( uncovering ?) the origin of all life. Man has asked this question (for ages): what is the meaning and the origin of all this ( existence) is, what is the "ground" from which arises all existence, all life, all action?
Now, to investigate into that 'something' it demands an extraordinary freedom (and the very word freedom means (or implies ?) love) and a quality of mind which is both practical and sensitive and which has the quality of great compassion.

PJ: Sir, if you put it that way, I am ( gettinig) stuck. I'm just saying that this question arises in my mind and I would like to 'move' with this question. But if I say that the mind can question only when it is free and, therefore, has love, what do I do?

K: But how do you inquire into a question, that man has asked for millions of years? How does a mind inquire into something that must be extra-ordinary, that must have a quality of not only the universal, but one of of supreme order? How does one’s inquiry begin? If you inquire with ( our standardised thinking brain- aka ?) 'thought', that doesn’t lead very far.

PJ: So, how does the inquiry begin? Obviously by becoming aware of the (ongoing) disorder within oneself.

K: You see, Pupul, ( experientially-wise ?) I am after all the 'manifest'. I have been born. I am a human being.

PJ: Yes, but obviously, sir, there can be no other starting point.

K: ( By observing ?) the world outside, the world inside. If I have a measure of what actually is happening in the world outside of me, if I can observe all that without any bias, and if I can relate what is happening outside to what is happening inside (myself) , then I will see that it is only one "movement" - not two separate movements.

PJ: Sir, I am in the midst of life and I move into that.

K: You 'are' it.

PJ: Yes, I 'am' it. But you see, it is easier to see that ‘I 'am' it’ with regard to the interior movement. To see that with regard to an exterior movement is much more difficult. If you tell me that I 'am' (personally responsible for ?) all the wars which are taking place in the world, that’s very difficult for me to see.

K: Pupul, (consciousness-wise ?) we 'are' responsible—in the deepest (non-personal ?) sense of that word—for all the wars that are taking place.

PJ: Yes, but that’s a distant responsibility. Perhaps I might say ‘Yes, I am responsible’, if I take ‘responsibility’ to the very end, to the ultimate meaning of it all, but I can’t relate to it in the same way to what is within me.

K: I hope my question won’t deviate from what we are discussing: Why don’t we feel total responsibility for the wars, the brutality, the terrible things that are happening in the world?

PJ: In what sense is one 'totally responsible'? By being born?

K: My entire way of living, my entire way of thinking and of acting—as a nationalist, this or that—has contributed to the present state of the world.

PJ: Sir, when you take it to that extent, it is impossible for me to feel the reality of it.

K: Let’s leave that (aside) for the moment.

PJ: Yes, I think it’s better to leave that. We were probing into the (Creative) ground of existence which is the ‘is'-ness of life. And the only ( experiential ?) way to probe is to 'move into oneself'.

K: All right. Now, I can’t enter into it (dualistically ?) as an 'observer' coming from the outside, for I 'am' all that.

PJ: Yes, it’s not necessary to state what I am. I uncover what I am. And in uncovering what I am, I comprehend that one is uncovering the whole existence of man.

K: Yes.

PJ: That’s possible to see.

K: Yes, that’s very simple.

PJ: Yes, if in this journey of uncovering, the superficial things are swept clean.

K: That’s fairly simple.

PJ: But once the superficial (cleaning-up ) is over, the (inner ?) room has been swept.

K: Is this 'sweeping', or cleansing, or uncovering, a complete moving away from all the superficial reactions, superficial conditionings, and a trying to enter into the nature of the movement that conditions the mind?

PJ: Obviously, sir, you can’t say that you have swept the room and it is over...

K: Yes.

PJ: The (psychological ?) 'dust' gathers again.

K: Yes.

PJ: You see, sir, it is possible to sweep away the more obvious things, but the subtler things survive in corners which you have not been able to get to.

K: Yes, that’s right. But, let’s go a little more into the 'obvious' things...

PJ: For instance, ambition, or envy...?

K: Yes, and also 'hatred' . To be free of 'hatred', to be (inwardly ?) free of all sense of (enmity and ?) aggressivity?

PJ: But isn't hatred different from the quality of aggression ?

K: Aggressivity is related to hatred, because it’s part of the same movement (of the inherited human violence) . An aggressive person inevitably hurts another, and that hurt breeds hatred.

PJ: Yes, that’s why I say that there are the grosser things and there are the subtler things. Anyone who has known hatred knows that hatred is a very powerful and a very destructive thing. But the aggressivity ( involved in self-comparison and competitivity ?) may, to some extent, be part of one’s nature.

K: Yes, of course, it’s part (of the instinct ?) to survive, and all the rest.

PJ: That’s why I made the distinction between the grosser things which can be swept clean and the...

K: But how does one know what is gross and what is subtle? (Anyways ?) let’s move on.

PJ: That’s why I think the only way to move into this is to see that nothing is trivial.

K: Yes, nothing is (really ?) trivial and all ( 'gut ?) reactions', have their source in one’s ( evolutionary ?) conditioning.

PJ: Please let us pursue this, since I may think that I can live a futile life, a trivial life. I may think that it just doesn’t matter; I may think that nothing (really) matters.

K: You see, Pupul, the very word (inner ?) ‘freedom’, means ( implies ?) affection, love...

PJ: And a tremendous 'discipline’ as an (inner) watchfulness that the trivial (stuff ?) does not, at any time, creep in.

K: You see, the point is: does this (inner) 'watchfulness', which is ( synonimous to ?) 'awareness', need training?

PJ: Sir, we commonly mean by 'discipline' some kind of ( mental or physical) regimentation. But I mean by ‘discipline’ the mind awakening to the (truth of the ?) fact that it must be aware of every movement within itself. Sir, that also is a ( self-) 'discipline'.
Sir, without such 'diligence' ( learning discipline ?) nothing is possible.

K: Go slowly. To be (inwardly) 'diligent’ means to be aware of what you are doing, to be aware of what you are thinking, to be aware of your reactions. And from those reactions, to observe the actions taking place. Now, the (100 $ ) question is: In that awareness, is the action controlled, is the action put into a certain framework?

PJ: No, obviously not.

K: What I am objecting to altogether is (the compulsory connotation of ?) the word ‘discipline’.

PJ: YAre you not restricting the use of that word ( discipline) to mean merely the putting of something into a ( thought controlled ?) framework ?

K: Yes, but I also hold that the very act of learning is its own discipline.

PJ: Yes. But how does this 'act of learning' come to be? Can we take it one step back? From where does the need for observation arise? Why should I observe?

K: For a very simple reason, namely, to see whether it’s possible for a human mind to change itself, to change the ( global consciousness of the ?) world which is entering into such a catastrophic (zone) .

PJ: All right. If I start there, or if I start with my own sorrow—which is very often the real ground from which one starts...

K: Yes.

PJ: The ground is really sorrow. But I think we have moved away.

K: Yes, what we started out with was an inquiry into the Origin, the ground, of all life.
And to inquire into that, you have to inquire into 'yourself', because you are the expression of that. You 'are' life.

PJ: Yes.

K: Now we are trying to discuss the Origin of that (life) , and I can only do that ( experientially ?) by understanding 'myself' - a messy, disordered (yet ?) living 'entity'. How do we approach it ? I said ( one can start by observing that ) the (outer) world is in disorder. I begin with that. (Then I can also observe that ?) there is also disorder inside myself . Now, how do I comprehend or become aware of the origin of this (tide of ?) disorder? If I can begin to understand the origin of disorder, I can move more and more deeply into something which is total order.

PJ: Isn’t it done by being as simple as possible?

K: Yes, that’s what I am trying to say.

PJ: And I have certain instruments of inquiry: eyes, ears, the other senses.

K: Yes, but you don’t inquire with your (outer ?) ears or eyes.

PJ: Don’t you?

K: A little bit, yes. I inquire when I look around at the world outside, or when I read something. The question is: I can’t see the psychological complexity of myself with my (optical ) eyes. I must be (inwardly) aware, sensitively, without any choice, of this ( disordered inner ?) condition.

PJ: Why do you say, sir, that you cannot be aware with your eyes?

K: Do you mean the "inward" eye?

PJ: Is there any other way?

K: Yes, I think there is. Hearing, seeing, feeling: those are actually sensory responses, right?

PJ: Yes. But is there not an inward seeing or listening to a 'psychological' reaction of anger?

K: Do you listen to it with your ears or do you (inwardly ?) "observe" anger?

PJ: How do you "observe" anger?

K: When you are (getting) angry, you look at the cause and the effect of that anger.

PJ: When you are ( really getting ?) angry, you can’t...

K: Yes, you can’t at that moment. So, later on...

PJ: But Sir, the word you just used is ‘look’. You 'see' the nature of the mind...

K: You are asking: do we see, do we hear—inwardly—with our optical eyes, and with our sensory ears?

PJ: If you put it that way, then you never get to the point, because the sensory ear is so used to listening to the outer that it can never comprehend what it is to listen to the within.

K: Would it help if we talked about (an inwardly integrated ?) perception?
I hear you make a statement. I’ve understood the words and see the (verbal) meaning of what you are saying. A verbal communication has obviously taken place. But the deeper significance...

PJ: But while I am listening to you and seeing you, I am also listening and seeing my own mind, the ground of the mind.

K: 'Who' is listening?

PJ: There is listening. Take an act where you are totally attentive. What is the state of the mind in that act of being totally attentive?

K: To answer that question, one must first understand what we mean by 'complete attention'. Attention is not concentration. I think that’s clear.

PJ: Of course, sir, attention is not concentration.

K: Attention means that there is no 'centre' from which 'you' are attending.

PJ: Sir, I would like to ask you one thing. Are we still 'dusting the periphery'?

K: No, no; I don’t want to dust the periphery.

PJ: Unless I understand what attention is, I can’t even take the first step.

K: So, what does attention—to attend completely—mean?

PJ: You see, ‘to attend completely’ is for the ‘I’ not to be there.

K: Yes, that is the real thing. When there is attention, there is no ‘I’. It isn’t a state of I am attending, but only a state of mind which is wholly attentive.

PJ: With all the senses...

K: With all the senses and the whole body.

PJ: The whole being is awake, if I may say so.

K: Yes, you can use that word.

PJ: And if you are in that state when your being is awake, then you can listen, you can observe; you can proceed from there.

K: Because I myself am life and if I am to inquire into what I am, my inquiry has to be correct, accurate, not distorted. It is only then that I may come upon the Ground, the Beginning of all life. It is only then that the origin may be uncovered.

PJ: If we start from there, we will find that the ‘I’ is there in the first step. There’s the observer...

K: I know that there is the ( duality between the ) 'observer' and the 'observed'. But I am inquiring whether that ( duality?) is actually true. So far I have taken it for granted.

PJ: Obviously, sir, when I first start inquiring, I start with the 'observer'. Now you have placed that doubt, in my mind and I ask, ‘Is there really an observer?’

K: Is there an 'observer' separate from the 'observed'?

PJ: Having that statement within me, I look for the 'observer'.

K: Yes. Who is the observer? Let’s look into this slowly. Because if I understand the ( nature of the ?) observer, then perhaps I may see the falseness of the division between the observer and the observed.

PJ: Who will see?

K: The point is not 'who' will see, but the ( insightful ?) perception of what is true. You see, what is of importance is the 'perception', not 'who' sees.

PJ: So, the seeing of what the truth of the observer is, will end the state of division.

K: Yes, that is what I have said a thousand times.

PJ: Yes, for this instant it is so. But I say that I cannot expect to have an understanding of what you say unless the mind is awake and is diligent about being awake. You cannot deny this.

K: No. It has to be diligent; it has to be watchful; it has to be attentive, subtle, hesitant. It has to be all that. I can only inquire into myself through my reactions—the way I think, the way I act, the way I respond to the environment, the way I observe my relationship to another.

PJ: And as I first observe myself, I find that these responses and reactions are rapid, confused, continuous.

K: I know; they are contradictory, and so on.

PJ: So, in the very observing, some (inner) space comes into being.

K: Yes, some (inner) space, some order.

PJ: That’s just the beginning, sir.

K: I know. But I would like to ask a question. Is it necessary to go through all this? Is it necessary to watch my actions, to watch my reactions, my responses? Is it necessary to observe, diligently, my relationship with another? Must I go through all this? Or...?

PJ: The fact is, sir, one has gone through all this.

K: You may have gone through it because you have accepted that (traditional ?) pattern.
That is what we have all done—the thinkers, the sannyasis, the monks, and...

PJ: And Krishnamurti ?

K: I’m not sure.

PJ: Either you have, in the past thirty years, taken a jump or...

K: Wait a minute. We have accepted ( traditionally the validity of ?) this pattern of ( self-) examination, analysis and investigation. We have also accepted these ( self-centred ?) reactions, we have watched the ‘self’ and so on. Now, there is something in it which rings a 'false note'—at least to me.

PJ: You mean to say that a person caught in the whole confusion of existence...

K: Pupul, he won’t even listen to all this.

PJ: So, there has to be ( some free inner) space in order to listen.

K: Yes.

PJ: How does that (inner ?) 'space' arise?

K: You suffer. Now, you can either say, ‘I must find out (the cause of this ?) ’ or you merely say, ‘God exists, and I am comforted by that’ (or .... 'try to make the best of that life' ?)

PJ: Now, sir, you ask: Is it necessary to go through all this?

K: Yes, for I think that it may not be necessary.

PJ: Then show me how ( would you do it ?)

K: I’ll show it to you. We shall call, for the moment, your diligent watching of your reactions, the 'analytical' process of inquiry. Now, this self-investigative process, this constant watching, ( the religiously inclined ?) man has done for thousands of years.

PJ: He has not. He has looked at his mind and tried to suppress...

K: Ah, you see, that’s part of the same pattern (mentality ?) . Suppress, (optimise ?) escape, substitute, transcend—all that is within that (linear cause-effect ) framework.

PJ: Agreed, it’s not the same thing as to observe without doing anything about the observation.

K: But Pupul, if I may point out, you are not answering my question: Must I go through all this? Is it necessary, is it essential, that I go through all this?

PJ: No, but are you trying to say that out of the middle of ( the ongoing inner ?) chaos you can leap to a state of total non-chaos?

K: No, I won’t put it that way.

PJ: Then what are you saying?

K: I am saying that ( the mind of) humanity has already gone through this process. It has been the ( evolutionary moral ?) pattern of our existence—of course, some have gone through the process more diligently, sacrificing everything (they had) , inquiring, analysing, searching, and ...at the end of it all you may be just a 'dead' (stuck in time ?) entity.

PJ: But it may not necessarily be so.

K: May not be. You see, Pupul, very few—very, very, few—have got out of it.

PJ: So, sir, you are saying that all this whole ( evolutionary ?) process is not necessary ?

K: ....and if it is not necessary, then show me the other ?

PJ: Yes, show me the other.

K: I’ll show it to you. But first, step out of this (temporal mentality ?) .

PJ: If I ( manage to ?) 'step out' of the other, it’s already there ?

K: Of course. ( Just 'do it' ?) Step out. Don’t take time to go through all this.

PJ: But then, what is exactly meant by ‘stepping out' of it?

K: I’ll tell you what I mean: (One can have an insight ?) that man has tried this process of introspective observation, diligence and so on, for a million years in different ways, and somehow his mind is not clear at the end of it and (anyway) this (psycho-evolutionary ?) movement is very, very shallow. Now, can you 'listen' to this statement—that the whole process is shallow—and actually see the truth of it? If you do, it means that your (self-centred and ?) disordered mind is now quiet; it is 'listening' to find (the way ?) out. Once you (get to ?) see the truth of this, you are 'out of it'. It’s like putting away something (that for inner purposes proved to be ? ) utterly meaningless.

Let me put it another way. My mind is disorderly. My life is disorderly. You ( the traditional 'Master' ?) come along and say, ‘Be diligent; be watchful of your actions, of your thoughts, of your relationship’. You say, ‘Be watchful all the time’. And I say that that’s impossible because my ( chaotical ?) mind won’t allow me to be diligent all the time. It is not diligent; it is negligent, and I constantly struggle between these two.

PJ: Do you mean to say that a mind which is not capable of observing itself...

K: No. I am saying this to a mind that’s willing to 'listen'...

PJ: Do you really think an ordinary mind can be in that state of listening?

K: That’s very simple.

PJ: Is it?

K: Yes (if approached adequately ?) I say: just listen to a story that I am telling you. ( And if you are really ?) interested, your mind is quiet; you are eager to see what the story is about and so on.

PJ: I’m sorry, sir, but it doesn’t seem to happen that way.

K: I am going to explain what I mean by "listening": not only the listening with the sensory ear, but the listening with the ( mind's ?) 'ear' that has no movement. That is really listening. Now, when you listen so completely, without any movement, to a man who comes along and says, ‘Don’t go through all this diligent process, because it is false, because it is superficial’, what takes place? If you 'hear the truth' of his statement, what takes place? What actually takes place when you see something really true?

( To recap:) this diligent process ( of self-introspection ?) is time-consuming. And my ( earthly ?) life is so short. I’ve got so many ( material ?) problems, and you are adding another; "be diligent". So this (K) man says, ‘I know you have got many problems which are all interrelated. Forget your problems for the moment and "listen" to me’.

PJ: But you are talking of a mind which is already "mature". Such a mind, while listening to a statement like this...

K: You see, Pupul, ( the educational problem is that ?) we have made our minds so immature that we are incapable of listening (with all our being ?) to anything.

PJ: But you see, Krishnaji, you start by making things ( look) 'impossible'...

K: Of course. ( To) see the truth. It has a tremendous...

PJ: Where can I find the energy to deal with an 'impossible' thing?

K: It’s very simple. Can we both, you and I, agree—even temporarily—that this 'diligent process' has really led nowhere? (It has led to various activities—some of which may be beneficial) but in this ( experiential ?) inquiry which says ‘I must go to the very Source of things’ , it is not the way?

PJ: Yes, obviously. I would accept that.

K: That’s all. If you accept that it’s not through a diligent awareness, what has happened to a mind that says 'that this is too trivial, too superficial'? What is the quality of your mind?

PJ: I know what you are trying to say, sir.

K: What is the quality of a mind which has been caught ( for ages ?) in the process of ( the traditionally ?) diligent ( self-) inquiry when it sees that this diligent process will not help it come upon or uncover the Origin ? This process is time-consuming. The other may have no time at all.

PJ: But, the danger is that I will not be concerned with 'sweeping the room'.

K: That very ( honest ?) inquiry demands that the mind and the heart—my whole existence—is orderly.

PJ: Again, you start with the 'impossible' ( with the 'exceptional' case ?)

K: (With great energy) Of course, I start with the 'impossible', Pupul, you have done all that’s possible.

PJ: No, sir.

K: Man has done everything that’s 'possible' (along this line ?) . Man has fasted, sacrificed; man has done everything to find the Origin of things. Man has done all that has been possible, and that has him to led to certain (ethical) benefits—social, and so on. It has also led to ( the accumulation of ?) a great deal of misery for mankind. So, this (K) man tells me that this diligent process is time-consuming and also time-binding. He tells me that as long as I am doing this, I am just 'scratching the surface' (of Creation ?) . The surface (superficial creation ?) may be the most pleasant and ennobling thing—but it’s just the surface. If you actually see, actually fee (in your blood, as it were) that this is ( time-binding approach is not adequate or ?) 'false', you will have already 'stepped out' the ordinary into something that is extra-ordinary.

But ( for the time being ...?) we are not willing to do that. We treat it like learning a (foreign) language - where discipline, diligence & attention are necessary. We carry the same mentality into the ' Other'. That’s what I object to.

PJ: So, I put aside this ( occasionally diligent ?) seeing & listening...

K: Which means what? That the movement of ( that subliminal self-centred ?) diligence has stopped—right? Of course. If ( I see that it was ?) false, it has gone. So what has happened to the ( total quality of ?) the mind that has been caught in diligent inquiry and so on, all of which is time-bound, and has been seen by me to be utterly superficial? What is the state of my mind? It is a totally "new" mind. Such a mind is necessary to inquire into, to uncover the Origin. Now, such a mind has no bondage to time. You see, the diligent process is (based on the subliminal desire ?) to become something; to clarify, to understand, to go beyond. This (new ?) mind has no 'beyond'—it is not becoming something.
Would you go as far as to see the fact that such a mind cannot have any kind of dependence, any kind of attachment?

PJ: Yes, I see that all which you have talked about is the movement of becoming.

K: That’s right. All that ( dilligence) is the perpetuation of the 'self' in a different form, in a different network of words. And when there is that "uncovering of origins", then my life, my actions—everything—is different.

( In a nutshell:) The diligent process ( of self-undersanding) is a time-consuming act which is destructive. It may be necessary in order to learn a technique, but this is not a technique to be learnt. (Long pause)

PJ: Sir, you have an "antique mind", in the sense that it contains the whole of human...

K: You see, Pupul, that’s why it’s important to understand that "I am the world".

PJ: No one else would (sincerely ?) make that kind of statement but you.

K: And one must make it. When you see all the destruction, the brutality, the killing, the wars—every form of violence (and/or vulgarity ?) that has never stopped—where are you? A man who loved couldn’t kill another. I see this process has been going on for thousands and thousands of years—everybody trying to become something. And all the diligent, religious workers are helping man to become something—to achieve illumination, to achieve enlightenment. It’s so absurd.

PJ: With you, sir, the whole movement of the 'dormant' has ended.

K: That is, ‘diligence’ has ended. Becoming has ended. Pupul, let us not make this into some 'elitist' understanding. Any person who pays attention, who wants to hear, who is passionate and not just casual about it and who, really, says, ‘I must find the (inward ?) source of life’, will listen. He will listen—not to me; he will just listen. It’s in the air.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 03 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Jan 2015 #21
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

The Nature of God (an experientially friendly edited K dialogue)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Can we discuss and investigate into what is 'God'?

J. KRISHNAMURTI (K): Are you asking what is ( the Ground of ) Creation is or whether 'God' is ( synonimous with ?) Reality or Truth?

PJ: Behind this word ‘God’ lies millennia of man’s quest for something that is "absolute", for something that is untouched...

K: Yes, for something that is Universal.

PJ: So, is it possible to inquire into the nature of ‘That’—call it 'God' or 'Creation' or the 'Ground of Being' ?

K: I think it is possible if one can free the mind of all the traditional implications and consequences of the word ‘God’. Can the brain and mind be free to investigate That which the Israelis call the ‘Nameless’ and the Hindus call ‘Brahman’ or the ‘Highest Principle’? The whole world 'believes in God', but can we put away all beliefs? For only then will it be possible to investigate.

PJ: Whatdoes exactly mean to be 'free of belief '?

K: A ( religious ?) person says, ‘I believe in God; God is omnipotent and omnipresent. He exists in all things’. That is the traditional acceptance of that word with all its content. Can one, consciously as well as un-consciously, be free of (the psychological connotations of ?) that word—that word which has played such a tremendous part in the Islamic and Christian world?

PJ: At (the intellectual ) level it is possible to say that one is free, as, for example, if you were to ask me whether I believed in Krishna, Rama or Siva. But that is not the final thing.
There is an ( archetypal ?) 'feeling for God' that goes much beyond all this. It seems to be integral to the fact of human life itself. You see, there is a sense that without ‘this’ nothing could exist, the sense that ‘this’ is the ground.

K: Shall we then discuss the Ground from which everything originates? How does one find out about that Ground (of all Creation ?) As I said, one can only find out when one is
absolutely free (of the traditional connotations ?) . Now, our un-conscious being is loaded with all this...

PJ: There is a possibility of a state of being where any belief in any particular 'God' is negated.

K: Does one negate it verbally or deeply, that is, at the very root of one’s being? Can one say, ‘I know nothing (about God ?) ’ and stop there?

PJ: How does one proceed from there ?

K: Can one negate, completely, the whole (psychological) movement of knowledge, the ( subliminal ?) feeling that one 'knows'? There is deep within one's (consciousness) the whole accumulated experience of man which says "there is God". Of course there have been prophets and seers who have said that there is no such thing as ( a personified ?) God, but their words just add to man's ( cultural ?) knowledge. The question is: Can one negate the ( psychological component of ?) knowledge, of all that one (thinks that he) 'knows'?

PJ: This ( accumulation of ) thousands of years (of human experience ) that forms the matrix of one’s being—how does one touch all that?

K: That is what one has to do (in the context of an authentic meditation ?) .

PJ: Yes, but how does one touch it?

K: Could we begin by inquiring (negatively ?) into why the human mind has struggled in becoming (someone or something ?) — the ( psychological ) becoming that is based on knowledge, on constant movement—not only outwardly but also inwardly?

PJ: We started with an investigation into the nature of God and then you went on to speak of becoming—are they related?

K: I think they are. You see, one’s (inner) being is essentially based on the feeling that lies deep in one that there is something enormous, something incredibly immense—I am talking about that (matrix of ?) knowledge, that that is the (inner) ground on which one stands. So long as that (matrix of the known ?) is there, one is not actually free (to go deeper ?) . Can one investigate into that?

QUESTIONER (Q): Isn't there an inherent (aspiration ?) in every human being towards something 'unknown', something that is beyond what one is taught, beyond what one picks up through one’s (cultural ) heritage?

K: Even if it is an inherent thing, can one totally empty oneself of that which may be ( subliminally ?) implanted from childhood? Can one empty one’s (consciousness) of the centuries of belief that there is 'something' beyond all this? I think that that is the most deep-rooted belief. It is something that is in the (collective ?) unconscious—deep things always are. And I think that if we (really) want to investigate, that 'belief' (collective root assumption ?) must go too.

PJ: Sir, how is it possible, without this ( collective ?) unconscious being exposed, for it to end? How does one ( have the direct ?) experience of that which lies beyond the total particulars of any one person’s knowledge? I can go through the whole of my knowledge, and yet it will not contain it.

K: No. But aren’t you getting a (starting ?) insight into this, namely, that there must be the total negating of everything man has put together?

PJ: I can comprehend the negation of all that arises in the brain. But the layers of the ( collective ?) unconscious, the ground ( of the human consciousness ?) on which one stands, how can one negate that?

K: Just a minute. Man has tried in several ways to negate everything. He has fasted, he has (self-disciplined ?) himself, but he has always remained anchored to something. Like the Christian mystics; they were anchored in (their belief in ) Jesus, and they moved from (that psychological anchorage ?)

PJ: May I ask you a ( personal) question? Do you think we are anchored to you?

K: Maybe, but that’s irrelevant (for this discussion) .

Q: Are we not more anchored to our few (personal) perceptions?

K: If you are, then put them away; weigh the anchor...

Q: In other words, all the answers about God, Reality, etc., are deep in us. That perhaps can be negated, but...

K: I wouldn’t even ( bother to ?) ask that question: "What is God?" For then my brain would start spinning a lot of words.

Q: It seems to me that we have already put the question and gone beyond the (traditional) replies. But behind all that remains the inquiry.

K: What do you mean ‘remains the inquiry’?

Q: I mean that the ( existential ) question whether there is 'something else' seems to be innate in us.

K: If my investigation is a ( self-centred ?) movement (directed ?) towards the understanding of what is called 'God', that mental movement itself is a bondage.

Q: Why?

K: Obviously because ( any self-motivated ?) 'movement' means a motion towards something. And such a movement, implies time. ( The self-centred mind ) going towards something, trying to find something, implies ( distance and ?) time—and that (mental movement ?) must stop.

Q: Then how can Pupul ask that question about what id God ?

K: That is the whole point: whether one can do such a thing in the first place. Is that possible—to be (inwardly ?) in 'non-movement'?
( So, back to square one:) Why do we want to find the meaning of God? Why do we want to find the meaning behind all this?

PJ: There is a part of us which is still...

K: ...still seeking, searching, demanding ?

PJ: There is a part of us which feels that there is...

K: Yes, that’s it. We never ( really) say, ‘I don’t know’. I think that that is one of our difficulties. We all want to know (more ?) so we bring 'God' into the realm of knowledge. To ( honestly ?) say, ‘I don’t know’ is a state of mind that is absolutely motionless.

PJ: Is it not necessary to wipe out this matrix (of the known ?) ?

K: Oh yes. (But...) can 'you' wipe out the matrix?

PJ: I don’t know...

K: Which is what? When you use the word ‘matrix’ (of the known ?) what do you mean by that?

PJ: I only know that beyond the horizons of my mind, behind the obvious beliefs, there are depths and depths and depths in me. You used a very significant phrase somewhere: ‘Play around with the deep’. So you also point to depths which lie below the surface. Is this depth within the matrix (of the known ?) ?

K: No, it can’t be. But I wonder what you call the 'matrix'?

PJ: I mean by it this ( unconscious ?) depth which I cannot bring to the surface, into the daylight of direct perception, of attention. I mean by ‘matrix’ that which does not come within the purview of my (inner) eyes and ears, but is still there. I know it is there. It is ( the essence of ?) ‘me’. Even though I am not able to see it, to touch it, I have a feeling that perhaps, if there is a right listening to the truth...

K: Then why do you use the word ‘depth’?

PJ: I am using the word ‘depth’ to connote something that is beyond my (available ?) knowledge. You see, if it is available to ( the perception of ) my senses, then it is measurable. But if it is not available, I can do nothing about it. I do not have the instruments to reach it.

K: How do you know that it is all not imagination? Do you know it as a (direct) experience?

PJ: If you say ‘yes’ it is a trap, and even if you say ‘no’ it is a trap.

K: I want to be quite clear, Pupul, that we both understand the meaning of the word (matrix) . I am talking of a feeling.

PJ: Surely, sir, a word can be uttered lightly, from the surface of the mind, and it can also be uttered with great depth (of feeling) behind it. I am saying that there is this "ground" (matrix of the human consciousness ) that contains the whole history of man. There is life in that utterance; it has great weight and depth. Can’t you feel that depth? So, can I not go ( meditatively ?) into it ? If it is possible, then there is nothing to be done, but to just look and listen. There is no question that one can ask oneself.

K: I understand Pupul, but you see that depth —is it the depth of silence? Silence means that the mind, the brain, is utterly still; it is not something that 'comes and goes'.

PJ: How can I answer that?

K: I think one can if there is no sense of ( personal) attachment to it, no sense of memory involved in it.

Let’s begin again (from squre one ?) The whole world 'believes' in God, but unfortunately, I don’t know what 'God' is. Probably I will never find out, and I am not interested in finding out. But what I am concerned with is whether the mind, the brain, can be totally, completely, free from all its accumulated (psychological ?) knowledge & experience. Because if it is not free, it will function always within that field. It might expand enormously, but it will always be confined to that ( 'known' ?) area. And even if the mind moves from that area and says ‘I must find out (God) ’, it will still be carrying on the ( knowledge confined ?) movement.
My ( experiential ?) concern is whether the brain, the mind, can be completely free from all taint of knowledge. To me that is tremendously significant, because if it is not, it will never be out of that area. Never.
Any movement of the mind out of that area is still a movement that is anchored in ( a central 'knower' and its ?) knowledge; it will then only be a seeking (a higher level of ) knowledge about 'God'. So my concern ( meditationally-wise ?) is with whether the brain, is capable of being completely "immovable" (with nowhere to go ?) .

Then what is left? Could one have the depth of insight into the ( whole ) movement of knowledge, so that the insight stops the movement? The ( inner light of that ?) insight stops the movement, not 'I' or my brain. The stopping of the ( directional ?) movement is the ending of knowledge and the beginning of something else. So I am concerned only with that (indepth) ending of ( 'me' & my ?) knowledge .
There is this enormous feeling that comes when we realize that we are (inwardly) "all- one". The feeling that comes from "oneness", from a harmonious unity, is extraordinary, (but) if it is ( intellectually ?) simulated it is worthless, for then you will only be perpetuating 'yourself' (the 'great holistic thinker' ?) . Right?

Q: Could we talk a little more about this (inner) questioning which seems so complete? Could we discuss having no anchorage (in the known ?) ?

K: Don’t you see the importance of it? And, if you do, ask yourself whether it (the seeing) is merely intellectual.

Q: I do see the importance of it; but apparently that is not enough.

PJ: Somehow there is something we are missing...

K: Look, Pupul, suppose this 'K' person were not here (therefore) each one of us is totally responsible to answer this question. You have to answer.

PJ: Why should I have to answer?

K: I will tell you why. You have to answer because you are part of ( the total consciousness of ?) humanity, and ( that consciousness of ) humanity is asking this question. Every saint, every philosopher, every human being somewhere in his depths is asking this question.

Q: Sir, is not this question ( about what is 'God' ?) somewhere, in a sense, wrong?

K: I said so. But you have to answer it without any reference to what K has said or not said. I come to you with this kind of questions. To me, as a human being, these questions are tremendously important.

PJ: May I ask you something? How does one take a question like this and "leave it" (to abide ?) in one's consciousness? You seem to have a way of taking a question, asking it and, then, "remaining" with it (in silence) .

K: Yes, that is right.

PJ: Now, when we ask such a question, there is a movement of the mind towards it. With you, when such a question is put, there is no ( directional) movement.

K: You’re right. Are you asking ‘how’ to achieve this state?

PJ: I know that I can’t...

K: No, but you are right to ask that question. Do you understand what Pupul said? I am asking you as a human being, just as human beings have for a million years: What is God? I come and put this question to you. Are you ready to answer it or do you 'hold the question' quietly? Hold it—do you understand? For out of that very holding, that holding where there is no reaction, no response, comes the answer.

Q: Could you say something about the nature of that (silent ?) 'holding'?

K: I am talking of a 'holding' that is without any wave, without any motive or movement, a holding that is without any trace of ( a desire ?) to find an answer.

Q: With most of us, we may not try to find an answer either ; we may first remain quietly with an unanswered question, but sooner or later an answer comes that may be something from the deep wells of the unconscious, and that answer rises up to fill that space.

K: I know. Now, just a minute.( In class practice: ) I ask you a question: Do you believe in God? Can you say, ‘I don’t know’? Or do you immediately say, ‘Maybe there is’ and so on? Can you just look at the question without saying a single thing? Can you? If you ask a devout Christian that question, he will immediately say, ‘Of course I believe in God’. You will also get an immediate reaction if you were to ask a Hindu—it’s like pressing a button. But I really don’t know whether there is God or not.

Q: Are you saying, sir, that (silent) ‘holding’ is takes place outside the ( 'known' ?) area?

K: Of course.

Q: In that holding isn’t there an inquiry?

K: No, you see, unless you understand this it can lead to a great deal of misunderstanding. We have been (culturally ) programmed for thousands of years, and the brain replies immediately. If the brain is not ( pre-) programmed, it is watching, looking. Now, can our brains be (inwardly) without a programme?

Q: But this activity of looking is not the holding—right? You have spoken ( metaphorically ?) of "the cup that holds water", and of "the earth that holds the pond". Is there something ( within us ?) that holds like the cup and the earth hold?

K: Pupulji asked me a question that had great depth. You also heard that question, you received that question—what was your response to it?

Q: Which question, sir?

K: She was speaking about the depth, the ground. What was your reaction to that?

Q: I was just listening; I was just trying to understand.

PJ: You see, sir, when a question is normally put to (our knowledgeable ?) mind, it is like a grain of sugar being dropped on the ground—'ants' from all over come towards it.
Similarly, when a question is posed, all the movements, all the responses are awakened, and gravitate towards the question. Now the ($$$ ?) question is: Can the question be asked without the ( directed ?) movements?

K: Without the "ants", yes. We are talking of the brain that is in constant ( mentally agitated ?) movement, the energy of which is thought. To quieten thought is the ( first experiential ?) problem. How will you deal with this question? Can you 'question' ( the psychological validity of ?) thought completely? Can you have a (quality of ) mind that is capable of not reacting immediately to a question? Can there be a "delaying" reaction, perhaps even a holding of the question ( on the backburner ?) indefinitely?

Let’s go back, Pupulji. Can I have no ( psychological ?) anchors at all—either in my knowledge or in my beliefs? Can I see that they have no ( spiritual ?) meaning whatsoever? I think it is absolutely essential not to give meaning (an added psychological significance ?) to anything.
Isn't that a state of mind that is out of time? Isn't that a state of real profound meditation—a meditation in which there is no sense of (personal) achievement; nothing? The state in which there is no "meditator" is the ground, the origin, of all things.

PJ: So are you saying that the ( self-conscious ?) 'meditator' is not the ground?

K: Obviously, he is not. If the 'meditator' is there , the Ground (of Creation) is not.

PJ: So, can there be meditation without the 'meditator'?

K: I am speaking of a "meditation without the meditator".

PJ: Let us investigate this: you may ( be right to) say that the "meditator" is not the ground, but...

K: Just a minute. As long as "I" am trying to 'meditate', Meditation is not.

PJ: Yes...

K: Therefore there is only a "mind" that is in a state of meditation.

PJ: Yes.

K: Now that is the Ground. The ( Mind of the ?) Universe is in a state of meditation. And that is the Ground (of all Creation ?) , that is the origin of everything; and that is only possible when the "meditator" is not.

PJ: And that is only possible when there are no "anchors"...

K: Absolutely. That is (happening) when there is absolute freedom from sorrow. That state of meditation comes with the complete ending of the self (- centred consciousness ?) .
You know, Pupul, "beginning" may be the eternal process, it (Creation ?) may be an "eternal beginning".

( In a nutshell:) The real ( meditational ?) question is whether it is at all possible to be completely, utterly, free of the ( all controlling ?) "meditator". This "meditator" (mental entity - aka the 'thinker', the 'experiencer' etc ?) tries to meditate in order to get somewhere, in order to hide ( or delete ?) something, in order to put his life in order. Whichever way you put it around —you meditate to put your life in order or you put your life in order and then meditate—it is still (a self-conscious ?) "meditator" in operation. Now, if it is possible to be free of this (very ressourceful ?) "meditator", then there would be no question of whether there is God or no God for then that ( meditator-free ?) Meditation "is" (integrated in ?) the Meditation of the Universe.

( Parting question: ) Is it possible to be so utterly free? I am asking that question. Don’t ( bother to ?) reply; hold it. Let it operate. In the holding of it, ( mind's ?) energy is being accumulated and that ( Intelligent ?) energy will act—not you. Do you understand? (Long pause)
So, have we understood the ( experiential approach to the ?) "nature of God"?

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 03 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Jan 2015 #22
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

A K CONVERSATION WITH PROF.BOHM AND TWO BUDDHIST SCHOLARS (BROCKWOOD 1978) -experientially friendly edited-

THE NOBLE TRUTH OF NON-IDENTIFICATION

Rahula: This morning I want to ask you one or two things to clarify. In the Buddhist terminology there are three levels of knowledge: one is that we get wisdom, self-knowledge through learning, the books, the teacher; then there is further development, the wisdom that you get by thinking, meditating according to that, your knowledge, still within words, it is still within language; but the highest wisdom goes beyond words, it has no words, it has no name, it has no terminology. That means that you see the thing without a word. I think that is what you meant when you said, "when you see the thing, all our reflections, accumulated meanings disappear". I don't know whether that is what you meant.

K: You would like to ask some other questions?

R: Sir, you know the word 'arhat' - in Buddhist terminology the 'arhat' is the one who realized the truth, who is liberated, who is free, and that is a very well known term. And the question was put to the Buddha, very often, by his disciples, what happens to an 'arhat' after his death? "Does he (continue to ?) exist after his death?" The Buddha said, "No." "Then he does not exist." The Buddha said, "No." "Then he exists and does not exist." Buddha said, "No." "Then he does not exist, nor not exist ?". He said, " None of those (tempora) terms 'exist' or 'does not exist', can be applied to that (timeless ?) state." All those terms, relative, dualistic terms, are used only within our (earthly) knowledge, within our experience, within the empirical world. But this ("arhat" consciousness ?) is beyond that, therefore you can't apply any of those words. Now, what do you say to this?

K: Could we talk over together, sir, what is 'living' and what is 'dying', and what is the state of the mind that is dead (on the side of death ?), or in the process of dying?
Human beings right throughout the world, as far as one can make out, are always enquiring or believing into what is death, is there life after death, is there a continuity, and if there is no continuity what is the point of this living at all? Could we approach your question from that point of view? Or do you want to ask what is the state of a mind that has no 'self' whatsoever?

R: I think that is a good approach, because that is an 'arhat' who has no 'self' (identification ?) whatsoever.

K: So what is the 'self'? The ( subliminal identification with ?) name, the form, the body, the organism, certain characteristics identified by thought as the 'me'. The (inherited ?) tendencies , the experiences, the accumulated knowledge is identified by thought as the 'me', and the 'me' is (also the subliminal indentification with ?) that which I possess - my property, my house, my furniture, my wife, my books. All that, the violence, the pleasure, the fear, the agonies, all that with the name, with the form, constitutes the 'self'. So is the root of the self the ( subliminal identification with all one's ) acquired experiences ? So this whole (self-energising ?) process of (mental ?) identification - my house, my name, my possessions, what I will be, the success, the power, the position, the prestige, is the essence of the 'self'. If there is no identification is there a 'self' (-consciousness ?) ? You understand sir?

R: Yes, I follow.

K: So can this (self-sustained process of ?) identification come to an end? Which is, the identification is the movement of (the the self-centred process of ?) thought. So the root of the 'self' is the ( identity core - ?) movement of thought. And 'death' is the ending of that movement. Or is death a continuity of that ( self-conscious ?) movement into the next life? You understand?

R: Quite.

K: Now, the 'Arhat', or the 'liberated man', why should he wait until the end, till he reaches that ( final event ?) which is called death? When (and if ?) we realize the very root of the self is the ( identitary core of the ?) movement of thought in time, and all the conflicts, miseries, confusions, created by thought - right sir - is the self. So when ( the self-continuing movement of ?) thought comes to an end that is a form of ( psychological ) 'death' while living.

R: Yes.

K: Now, how can ( this subliminal continuity of ?) thought come to an end? Every human being has identified himself and so conditioned himself with something or other, with (the search for ?) God, with (reaching) Nirvana, with Moksha, with Heaven, with Paradise and so on. Now while living can that (psychological form of ?) death, which is the ending of ( the self-centred ?) thought, take place? Not at the very end of one's life which then is a 'graveyard renunciation'.

R: I agree when you said it is not necessary to wait until the end of your life, at the death, and Buddha pointed out the same thing. When this question was put to him, the question was asked also what will happen to the Buddha after his death. He asked the disciple, "What is Buddha? Is it this body?" And the disciple said, "No". "Then if you can't pin-point the Buddha even now, living, then how can you say (anything about his ?) after death?"
So, that is my question: What happens to the person who has realized the truth, who has become liberated ?

K: I would never ask (anybody ?) that question, because he might say this happens, or he might say that happens, or nothing happens (or that he doesn't know ?). Then it becomes a theory to me, which is an idea.

R: I wanted from you a little more than that (verbal diversion ?) .

K: If you want it from this person who is talking you have to enquire as he is enquiring. And therefore he asks, is it possible to live in daily life, not at the end of one's existence, in daily life without this (self- sustaining ?) identification process which brings about the structure and the nature of the 'self', which is the result of thought? Can the (identification with this core - ?) movement of thought end while I am living? That is the ( direct experiential) question, rather than 'what happens when I die'.
The 'me' is merely an (identitary ?) movement of thought. ( This self-centred ?) Thought itself is very limited. Right? It is a piece in a vast Movement (of an Universal Mind?) , it is a small piece, broken up and whatever (identitary mental structures ?) it creates (they) will still be limited, broken up, fragmentary. Right? So can a ( meditatively inclined ?) human being, you or I or any of us, can we live without ( getting identified with ?) this movement of (self-centred ?) thought, which is the essence of the 'self' ? Suppose I say, yes, it can be done - what value has it to you?

Schoegel: Well, once that (subliminal ?) identification is really broken - once that identification of thought and 'me' is really broken...

K: Ah, no, not 'broken', but 'end'. When you 'break' something it can continue (in another form ?) . It is an 'ending'. Now, suppose this person says, yes, it is possible, then what? What value has it to you?

S: That is what personally I hoped we can discuss.

K: I am coming to that.

Narayan: Dr.Rahula, you have been talking in this context of the value of Buddhist meditation, of mindfulness. What is the value of all those things in relation to the ending of thought?

R: Satybhatana or the 'presence of awareness' has many aspects, but the most important thing is the "mindfulness", awareness in everything. Even now what we do here is the deepest sort of meditation, (this is called 'dharmapassana'), to see, or to follow, or to observe, or to be aware of various subjects, topics, thins, doctrines, things like that, various things, that is the intellectual side of it. Then there is also meditation as 'being mindful of everything you do', whatever you do, eating, drinking, or going about, talking, everything is mindfulness. And all that leads to what he says.

N: It leads to ... ?

R: To ending the thought process of self.

K: Sir, I personally haven't read all these things. They may be correct, or not correct, they may have been put together by disciples, and what the disciples do with (the teachings of ?) their gurus is appalling - twist everything.
So I have no authority. So I say, look, as a human being, suffering, going through agonies, sex and mischief, and terror, and all the rest of it, in enquiring into all that I come to the point, which is ( the self-sustained continuity of my?) thought. That's all. I don't have to know all the literature in the world, which will only condition further thinking. So forgive me for putting it that way: I brush all that aside.

R: I fully agree with you and that is my attitude as well. I am talking to examine it.

K: You see I can only start with what is a fact, for me - ( I am psychologically fragmented, frustrated plus... ?) I suffer, I have (various forms of ) fear, I have sexual demands. How am I to deal with all these tremendously complex things which make my life and I am so utterly miserable, unhappy ? From there I start, with something which is (inwardly) common to all of us. If I suffer, I want to find out how to end it, or must I carry on for the rest of my life - this agony, this confusion, uncertainty, insecurity, travail, effort - and the root of this is the 'self' (isolated consciousness ?) , the 'me'.
Now is it possible to be free of this 'me' (identification ?) which produces all this outer chaos, and also inwardly, this constant struggle, constant battle, constant effort? So I am asking, can ( this self-centred process of ?) thought end? That (mind & heart ) which ends (its self-centred continuity ?) then has a totally different beginning. Right sir?

So,( how or ?) in what manner can ( the continuity of self-centred ?) thought end? That's the (1000$ ?) problem. The Buddha must have talked about it. I don't think Christianity has touched this point. They said, give your 'self' to God, abandon yourself to him. But the 'self' still goes on. So can this ( continuity of our self-centred?) thought end?
So here I am, an ordinary human being, fairly educated who has observed what the world is going through and he says, "I have created this monstrous world, my parents, my grandparents, everybody's parents, created this". Right sir? So how is it possible for thought to end? So somebody like me comes along and says, (making an) effort (to end it ?) is the very essence of the self.

S: You mean that the very effort that I make to (end) it, that in itself is already contributing to my delusion?

K: The ( self -centred desire who is ?) the 'maker of the effort', who has already identified itself with something greater, is making an effort to reach it. It is still the movement of thought.

S: And it is still a bargaining - if I do this, or if this happens, then I will get that.

K: So ( it is all coming down to ?) how do you 'listen'?

S: Listen?

K: A person like me says, "effort of any kind only strengthens the (continuity thread of the ?) self". Now how do you 'receive' that statement?

S: I am entirely in agreement.

K: No, not agreement, or disagreement. How do you listen to it?

Bohm: You mean, do we listen in the same ( self-conscious ?) way we have made identifications, that is in general we listen through the past, through our previous ideas, through what we 'know'?

S: One can 'open out' and just listen.

K: Can you listen without the ( self-rewarding ?) idea of receiving, or accepting, or denying, or arguing, but just listen to a statement? It may be false, it may be true, but just listen to it. Can you do it?

S: I would say 'yes'.

K: Then if you so 'listen', what takes place?

S: Nothing ?

K: No, madam, don't say immediately, nothing. I listen to a statement that ( my self-centred ?) thinking is the root of the self. After carefully explaining its identification with the form, with the name, with this and that, it is said that (the temporal continuity of this ?) thought is the very root of the 'self'. Now how do we listen to the truth of that fact, that ( living in the area of ?) thought is the root of the self? Is it an idea, a conclusion, or is it an absolute, irrevocable fact?

R: If you ask me, it is a 'fact'. I listen to it, receive it, I see it. (Veni, vidi, vinci ?)

K: Aren't you listening to it as an (expert ) Buddhist (scholar?) - forgive me for putting it that way?

R: I am not identifying with anything at all. I am not listening to you as a Buddhist or a non-Buddhist.

K: Just a minute - aren't you listening as a person who has read a great deal about the Buddha, and what the Buddha has said and (subliminally ?) comparing and so you have gone away from ( an innocent ?) listening. Right? So are you listening to the (logical sequence of ?) ideas, to the words and the implications of those words, or are you listening without any sense of 'verbal comprehension', which you have gone through quickly, and you say, yes, I see the absolute truth of that?

R: That is what I said.

K: Do you?

R: Yes.

K: Then it is finished. It is like seeing ( this self-identification as ?) something tremendously dangerous, it is over, you don't touch it.

S: Why not touch it?

B: It seems to me there is a tendency to listen through the (firewall of ?) words, and the ('self') identification still goes on (subliminally ?) while one (honestly ?) thinks one is listening. It is very subtle...

R: In other words, you are using 'listening' in the sense of (an insightful ?) 'seeing'

K: No. Sir, I listen (holistically ?) . I was listening to what you were saying about Buddha. Just listening (non-verbally) . Probably you were quoting correctly and so on, but you are not revealing (the true nature of ?) yourself to me, while here I am revealing myself to you. Therefore we have a relationship through (the mutual appreciation of the wisdom of the ?) Buddha, not direct relationship.

S: So, what you are looking for is our personal experiential response.

K: This personal experience is also the experience of everybody else, it is not (really ?) 'personal'.

S: Though it is individually rendered.

K: If you and I suffer it is suffering, not my suffering and your suffering. But when there is ( a subliminal ?) identification with suffering there is 'my' suffering. And I say, 'I must be free of it'. But as human beings in the world we suffer.

B: It seems to me this question of "identification" is the main one, it is very subtle, since in spite of all that you have said, the ( subliminal continuity of this ?) identification still goes on. It (the sense of 'my' continuity ?) seems to be built into us.

S: And this raises a question whether that identification can be ended - if I understood rightly.

B: Identification prevented listening freely, openly, because one listens through the (self- protective screen of one's) identification.

K: What does 'identification' mean? Why do human beings identify themselves with something - my car, my house, my wife, my children, my country, my god ? Why?

S: To 'be something', perhaps ?

K: Let's enquire why. Not only identify with outward things, but also inwardly identify with (their ) experience and say, this is 'my' experience. Why do human beings go through this all the time?

B: At one stage you said we identify (psycho-somatically ?) with our sensations, (with the responses of ?) our senses, and this seems a very powerful (engramming ?) . What would it be not to identify with our sensations?

K: Am I hearing with the ears of my (sensory) hearing, or am I hearing with a total attention? Or, my (fragmented ?) mind is wandering off and says, "Oh my goodness, this is rather boring, and what is she talking about?" - and so I am off. But can one 'attend' so completely that there is only the act of listening and nothing else, no identification, no saying, yes, that is a good idea, bad idea, that's true, that's false, which are all processes of identification, but without any of those movements can I listen? When I do so listen, then what? ( One sees the ?) the truth that ( the ages old craving for continuity of human ) thought is the essence of the self, and the self creates all this misery, is finished. I don't have to meditate (about it ?) , I don't have to practise, it is over when I see the (hidden ?) 'danger' of these things. So can we listen so completely (attentive ?) that there is the absence ( non-interference ?) of the 'self'?
And ( for homework ?) can I see, observe something without the ( verbalising interference of the ?) self ? "This is my country, I love that sky, it is a beautiful sky" - and all the rest of that.

So the "ending of thought" (of the thought-time process ?) , which is the cutting at the very, very root of the self ( can take place ?) when there is such active, non-identifying attention - then does the 'self' (consciousness ?) exist? This active listening implies listening to the (identification with activity of the ?) senses. I mean you can't stop the senses, then you would be paralysed. But the moment I say, "That was marvellous taste, I must have more of that", there begins the whole identification.

B: It seems to me that that is a general (psychological) condition of mankind, to be identified with the ( activity of the ?) senses. Now how are we going to change that?

K: That is the whole problem sir. Mankind had been conditioned for millenia to identify with everything - my guru, my house, my god, my country, my king, my queen, and all the horror that goes on.

B: You see with each one of those there is a sensation.

K: It is a ( global ?) sensation, which you call experience.

R: So we should come to our point.

K: When the 'self' (identifying process ?) ends - it can end, obviously, when there is the (psychological ?) ending of the 'self', what takes place?
There is a totally different a different (inner) world altogether, a different dimension (of being) not an intellectualy projected dimension, but something totally different. Can I, as a human being, living in this tremendously violent world, economically, socially, morally and all the rest of it, live without the (psychological interface of the ?) 'self'? I want to find out. Then I begin to (meditatively ?) enquire, why is there identification with the form, with the name . So you examine this very, very carefully (the possibility of ?) not identify yourself with anything, with sensation, with ideas, with a country, with an experience. That means I must put everything in its right place. Right? Because I have to live, to have food, I don't have to identify myself with that ( house) or with that food, I eat the correct food, and it's finished, therefore it has its right place. Also there are all the bodily demands, sex, put it in its right place. How shall I find out what is the right place for severything ? I have got the key to it. Right? Which is, "non-identification with sensation", that is the key of it. The (subliminal ?) identification with sensation makes the (psychosomatic bases of the ?) self. So is it possible not to identify with sensations? So I have got the key to it, the truth of it: non-identification, that is the truth of it. If I really see the truth of it then sex, money, everything has its right place.

R: In other words, you can see without the 'self'.

K: There is this (insightful ?) truth that identification with sensation, with this, or that, builds the structure of the self. Right? Is that an absolute, irrevocable, passionate, lasting truth?

B: And doesn't that means the end of desire for anything ?

K: No, ( but then ) desire has very little meaning.

B: Are you saying identification gives desire excessive meaning?

K: Of course. So having put everything in its right place - I don't put it, it happens because I have seen the truth of this thing, and so ( hopefully ?) everything falls in its right place.

R: Right.

K: Then what place has thought? Obviously when I am talking I am using words, the words are associated with memory and so there is some thinking (required) there - so thought has a place - to catch a train, when I have to go to the dentist, when I go to do something, thought has its place. But it has no place psychologically when there is the identifying process taking place.

N: Are you implying that because there is no thought the identifying process has lost its strength?

K: No, it hasn't 'lost its strength'. We said just now, that having the key, or living with the truth that identification brings about the structure and the nature of the self, which creates all the innumerable problems, seeing the truth, living that truth - living, it's in my brain, in my throat, in my gullet, it's part of my blood - seeing the truth of that, that ( inner light of ?) truth is there. And so ( in that light ?) thought falls into its place.

B: So, you are saying ( that it is this subliminal process of ) identification that makes ( our objective) thinking do all the wrong things.

K: That's right. ( the self-interst based ?) identification has made thought do the 'wrong' things.

B: It would be all right otherwise.

K: Otherwise thought has its place.

B: But when you say no identification, you mean the 'self' is empty, that it has no content, doesn't it?

K: There are only sensations.

B: They are just going on, do you mean?

K: Yes, sensations are going on.

B: Outside or inside ?

K: Inside.

N: And you are also implying there is no 'slipping back' (to the self-centred mode ?) .

K: Of course not. When you see something most dangerous (or redundant ?) , you don't slip back or go forward, it is "dangerous".
Then is that (ending of self-identification the 'psychological' ) death? Now is there a ( holistic quality of ?) living with the senses fully awakened - they are awakened, they are alive, but the non-identifying with ( the pleasant or unpleasant ?) sensation deprives, wipes away the self. Now is it possible to live a daily life with 'death', which is the ending of the self?

R: Yes. Once you see it, finished.

K: ( If ?) I have an insight into the whole nature of the self.

B: Would you say this insight transforms the person?
K: That insight transforms not only the state of the mind but the brain cells themselves undergo a change.

B: Therefore the brain cells being in a different state behave differently, it is not necessary to repeat the insight.

K: So I am left with this now: I am left with the question of what is ( the true meaning of ?) death. Is the ending of the self death? Being (as) nothing ? This 'no-thingness', is quite a different state of mind. Now that is ( entering the house of?) Death while there is living, sensations, the heart beating, the blood circulating, breathing, the brain active, undamaged (by the passing of time) .
Therefore there is no identification, complete and total. And then is that (an Open Door to ?) Love? This 'dying while living' is ( accessing that quality of intelligent ?) love in which there is no attachment. When there is that love, it is a global love. Sir, does one love without identification, which implies no self, no attachment?

B: But would there be love if there were no suffering? You know if mankind were to be free of it.

K: Are you saying, a human being must go through suffering to have love?

B: Well, you could say that there could be love whether there is suffering or not. And the other is compassion, the way the Buddhists use it, is that is only for the suffering

K: I question that.

R: There are four 'supreme qualities' - 'maitri', 'karuna', 'mudita', 'upekkha'. 'Maitri' embraces the suffering and the not suffering; 'karuna' embraces only the suffering, 'mudita' is directed towards the happy people, and 'upekkha' is equanimity. These four qualities are called the Brahma Viharas, the supreme, divine qualities. But when you use the word ( Universal) 'love' it is much bigger.

K: No, I haven't come to (the Universal ?) Compassion yet, sir. I just want to know as a human being, do I 'love' somebody - the dog, the chimney, the clouds, that beautiful sky, without identifying? Not as a theory but fact. I don't want to delude myself in theories, or in ideas .

S: As long as I feel the 'I' is acting as self, I cannot do it.

K: Madam, we said the truth is: "the identification breeds the self which causes all the trouble, miseries".

S: But only if that (truth ?) is seen.

K: I said that (for K?) , it is an absolute, irrevocable reality, it is in my blood, I can't get rid of my blood, it is there.

S: Then I cannot help but 'love'.

K: No, no. You are all too quick.

S: I beg your pardon ?

K: Do you see the truth that ( this subliminal process of ?) identification is the root of the self, with thought and all the rest of it? That is an absolute fact, like a cobra, like a dangerous animal, like a precipice, like a deadly ( time-released ?) poison ? So there is no ( desire for self-) identification, absolutely, when you see the "danger". Then what is my relationship to the world, to nature, to my woman, man, child? Is there indifference, callousness, brutality - saying "I don't identify" and put your nose in the air?

R: That would be very selfish.

K: Is this what is going to happen if (the seeing of it ?) is intellectual.

R: That is what I said, you have not seen (the truth of it ?) then.

K: I am asking, sir, is this 'non-identification' becoming an ideal which I am going to live with and therefore my relationship to the dog, to the wife, to the husband, to the girl, or whatever it is becomes very superficial, casual. It is only when the truth (is seen about ?) that ( this self-centred ?) identification is absolutely 'cut out' of one's life, there is no callousness then - because that is real

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 02 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Jan 2015 #23
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

REALITY AND TRUTH

1ST K CONVERSATION WITH A BUDDHIST SCHOLAR & FRIENDS - BROCKWOOD 1979 ('experientially friendly' edited )

R: Sir, I want to ask you one thing today. You see we all talk of truth, absolute truth, ultimate truth; and seeing it and realizing it; always we talk about it. And of course in Buddhism, according to Buddha's teachings, these are very important central points, that is the essence really. And Buddha says there is only one truth, there is no second. But this is never defined in positive term.
Sometimes the word 'truth' is used in place of Nirvana, ultimate truth, absolute truth, but then againNirvana is never defined; except mostly in negative terms. If it is described in positive terms it is mostly metaphorically, in a symbolic way. So, I ask you today: what is truth, what is the absolute truth, what is ultimate truth and what is 'non-duality' as you see it?

K: Is truth measurable (to be described ?) by words? If we could distinguish between what is 'reality' and what is 'truth', then perhaps we could penetrate more deeply into this question.
What is our 'reality' (made of ?) ? The latin root word 'res', means 'things'. Could we say that everything that thought has created is 'reality' - including the illusions, the gods, the cathedrals, the temples, the mosques, and their content? That is ( as much a) reality like this microphone - it's made by human thinking, it is there, actual. Nature is not created by thought but we human beings have used nature to produce 'things', like houses, chairs, and so on and so on.
So could we say then that anything that the human thinking has created, brought about, put together, is 'reality'? This reality (the 'real' world ?) is including the illusions it has created, as well as the material things it has created through technological knowledge and so on.

R: Yes. According to Buddhas's teaching, there is relative truth or reality.
So, let us say this 'reality' is relative.

K: Of course. Everything that thought has created is reality. All the technological world of knowledge, all the things that thought has put together as literature, poem, painting, illusions, gods, symbols - all that is "reality". Would you accept that, sir?

F: Yes, but through the centuries people have tended to talk of Reality more in terms of one of its connotations of Ultimate Reality.

K: I know, but I would like to separate the two - truth and reality. Otherwise we mix these terms all the time.

S: Are you also including nature in this 'reality'?

K: No. That tree is not created by thought. But out of that tree man can produce chairs and so on.

R: That means, you don't take the tree as a 'reality' ?

K: I take is as a reality, of course it's a reality, but it's not created by thought.

R: That's true. Then you include in this concept of 'reality' only the things created by thought,

K: Yes.

R: Of course that is your own definition.

K: Let us look at our (everyday) reality - the world is reality. These lamps are reality. You sitting there, this person sitting there, are realities. The illusions that one has are also an actual reality.

M: But sir, the people sitting there are not created by thought.

K: No.

M: So the 'reality' of which you are speaking is man-made, in a sense.

K: Man-made. Like war is a (man-made) reality.

F: Could we regard all that is apprehended through the senses, and then interpreted by the (thinking ) brain, as 'reality'.

K: That's right, sir.

S: At one time you made a distinction between 'reality', which was anything that was created by the human mind, and 'actuality', which is anything which existed in time and space. And then there was 'truth'. Now, reality was part of actuality. In other words, the tree was an actuality not a reality.

K: You want to separate actuality, reality and truth. Would we say the 'actuality' is what is happening now?

F: Yes, that's a good way of putting it. The point which arises there is: are we capable of apprehending the totality of 'what is happening now' ? We apprehend only a portion of it.

K: Yes, but that's a different point, we can go into that. (But for starters) what is happening is the actual.

F: Yes. That is the 'fact'.

K: That is a fact. So, what do you say to all this, sir?

R: I am still hesitating, I'm waiting to see more...

K: So can a mind see the 'actual' ? As you pointed out, sir, all the sensory responses are the beginning of thought. And thought, with all its complex movements, is 'what is happening now' when we're talking.

F: Yes...

K: And what is happening is the actual, and the interpretation or the understanding of what is happening depends on thought. All that, including illusions and the whole business of it, is reality.

F: Yes, that is so.

K: Then the question arises: can the mind, which is the network of all the senses, actualities and so on, can that apprehend, see, observe what is truth?

F: Provided the mind can be free of all its conditioning.

K: I'll come to that a little later. But to find out what the 'absolute truth' is, the whole ( self-centred ?) movement and the nature of thought must have been gone into, observed. And when that (movement finds ?) its right place, the mind then becomes absolutely still and perhaps out of that, in that stillness, truth is perceived, which is not to be measured by words.

F: Yes, there I'd agree, completely, fully.

K: So our question is then, sir, can the (thiking) mind cease to 'measure'?
Measurement is our whole educational, social conditioning. I measure a piece of cloth, or measure the height of the house, measure the distance from here to a certain place and so on. Measurement means comparison. Right?

SS: Well, there's also a 'psychological' measurement in all this.

K: Yes, one measures oneself, psychologically against somebody. So there is this constant measurement of comparison, both externally and inwardly.

R: Well, so what is non-duality? What is truth?

K: As long as thought is ( engaged in ?) 'measuring' there must be duality.

R: Absolutely, that is a fact. That is so.

K: Now, how has this (mental) conditioning come about -this constant measurement, comparison imitation - you know, the whole movement of measurement, why has man been caught in it?

R: The whole measurement is based on 'self (-interest' ?)
K: Yes, but how has it come about ? One wants to find out what is the source of this measurement.

P: It seems the thought needs a static (central) point to measure, as itself is moving constantly, and in a state of continuous flux or movement, it can't measure, so it creates a static point which is immovable, which is taken as the centre of the self. From there only you can measure.

K: Yes, sir. I mean, the very word 'better', 'greater', is (implying some subliminal ?) measurement. So the language itself is involved in (this mentality of ?) measurement. Now, I'm just asking, what is the source of this measurement, has man employed this as a means of living? You follow my question, sir?

F: Yes...

K: One sees the high mountains, low valleys, the tall man, short man, woman, man, child, old age - physically there are all these states of measurement. There is also 'psychological' measurement, that's what I'm talking about, why has man been held in this measurement?

SS: Probably man thinks it's the way (to move) forward, to some extent, because, if you're a farmer and you plant to crop in a certain way, and you get this kind of result, the next year you plant in a different way, and you get that better result.

K: Yes, so it is (his thinking in terms of ?) time. Go on, sir, a bit more.

SS: It includes the ability to reflect and to produce something better out of ur past experience in terms of what is the better thing to have, or what is the right situation of things.

K: That is, of course, but I want to go a little further than that. Which is, why has man used time as a means of progress? I'm talking psychologically, not time which is necessary to learn a language, time is necessary to develop a certain technology and so on.

P: Perhaps because the need of ( a long term ?) security of thought for itself ?
F: Do you think that our tendency of that starting with the physical facts of difference, in size, in quantity, and so forth we apply that analogically to the psychological process also.

K: Yes. without measurement there would have been no technology.
But why has man used (psychologicaly the same mentality of ?) time as a means of self growth, self aggrandisement, 'getting better', getting more noble, achieving enlightenment? That's what we're discussing. Whether there is any 'psychological' evolution at all.

S: Could we say that we began to apply measurement to the psychological field, one out of habit, because that's what we've been using for the physical field, but also could we have made that transfer because it's very comfortable to think that I might be in a mess now but later I'll be fine.

K: We're asking something else, which is, do we need time at all psychologically?

SN: Doesn't thought have something to do with it?

K: Which is what we're saying: time is ( a thought-projected ?) movement, isn't it ? One is now greedy, envious, I need (some) time to be free of it. And we are questioning whether that ( projection of a psychologically related action in time ?) is not a (wide spread form of ?) illusion - the 'psychological' distance. To put it very succinctly, is there 'psychologically' a tomorrow?

F: Only in terms of anticipation.

K: Ah, in terms, because thought says, "I hope to".

F: But in addition to ( this anticipative way of ?) thinking, there is the fact of the physical experience, of day and night, and the actual today and tomorrow

K: We said that very clearly (in previous talks ?) . There is (the chronological time of ?) yesterday, today and tomorrow; that is a reality, that is a time measurement also. But we are asking, is there 'psychological' time at all, or thought has invented (generated its own continuity in ?) time, psychological time, in order to live in some kind of (comfortable inner ?) security?

R: What is this (inner) movement of time? Time is nothing but the unbroken continuity of cause and effect.

K: We said (that is the 'wheel of time' ?) Cause becoming effect, effect becomes the (new) cause, and so on, and so on.

R: That is time. We give a word called 'time' for that ( cyclic causal ?) movement. The continuous (self-sustained ) movement of cause and effect.

K: Yes, that's one (psycho-) aspect of time. And also the aspect of time which is (chronologically required to go ?) from here to London and it takes ( a certain) time to get there (by foot, by car or by train).

R: Yes, that is another conception of time.

K: We are looking at the various facets of time.

M: Sir, would you say that thought in itself implies time, because the action of the mind going through the thinking process , even if in a very short amount of time, it is still time.

K: Surely, because thought is response of memory, memory 'is' (recorded and remembered in ?) time.
( To recap:) There is the chronological time. Time is also (involved in covering a physical ?) distance. Time also (is required) for a (living) cause (to become the ) effect - acorn becoming the oak tree. To climb a mountain, time. So we are saying this (chronological) time, exists physically. The baby grows into man and so on. So this (kind of) time exists. That's an actuality, that is a reality. However we are questioning here whether 'psychologically' (inwardly) there is time at all. Or ( our self-centred ?) thought has invented (projected its personal ) time (line ?) as a means of either achieving (or optimising its ?) security, or, ( as a means to postpone action since ?) it is too lazy (or unwilling ?) to completely transform itself immediately. So it says, "Give me time to become stronger, to get rid of my anger, my jealousy or whatever it is, and (eventually ?) I'll be free of it". So thought is (generating and) using ( a chronological ?) time (-line ?) as a means of achieving something 'psychologically'.

M: But then one must ask you about the use of the word 'psychological' in this instance because if time is implicit in thought, how can you be without thought psychologically? Or is the psychological realm in this discussion outside of thought, part of thought, or could be either one?

K: Isn't the whole 'psyche' (the 'me') put together by thought?

SS: There seems to be a question here, whether it is or not.

K: Isn't the whole self-centred movement of the 'me' put together by thought - what I think, what I want, what I don't want, what I wish, I wish, and so on ?

M: If that is (all there is to the 'me') , then how would it be possible for there not to be any time involved in any psychological movement?

K: We're going to go into that. I want first to be clear that the questions are understood.

R: What we discuss is, whether you can see truth without thinking (in terms of time), whether the seeing of truth is now, in this moment, or whether you postpone it till you become better. Now the question is, it is true, you see it now ?

K: No, I don't want to enter the 'world of truth' yet. One wants to be clear that one's thinking, is logical, sane, rational, or (else) it will comes to a (convenient ?) conclusion which is illusory. And so one wants to examine this whole (illusory) nature of 'time', psychologically. If there is no (postponement for ?) 'tomorrow' our whole psychological action (now) is very different .

N: You would say then, any (spiritual ) 'aspiration', however noble it is, is in the field of reality.

K: In the field of thought, yes.

F: Yes, because it is a (mental) formulation.

K: Formulation, by thought.
F: Exactly. So you are concerned with being free of the 'time factor' totally,(inwardly) in 'psychological' terms.

K: Yes, sir. Otherwise I am caught, our mind is living always in a (cause-effect ?) circle: the past modifying the present and going off (towards the future). This "past modifying itself into the future" is (thepsychological component of ?) time. So I quesion whether it's merely an invention of thought for its own ( self-continuity ?) reason, and so it is illusory, and so there is no 'tomorrow'.

F: In 'psychological' terms.

K: Of course, we said that very clearly. So if one is now envious, which is a sensory response - (the self-centred ?) thought has created this envy - generally we say, 'give me time' to be free (get rid ?) of that envy . So is it possible to be free of it instantly, and not allow time to intervene? That is the whole (experiential) point.

S: Yes, sir, didn't we just come to the fact that anything that is involved in measurement and thought cannot get rid of measurement and thought ?

K: First it must realize the actuality of it.

S: Does it realize that with thought?

K: No. We're coming to that, slowly, wait. Do we see ( the actual fact ?) that we've used time psychologically and so that psychological usage of time is an (self-projected mental ?) illusion ? I will become enlightened. I will eventually achieve Nirvana, Moksha, all this. All that is 'psychological' (thinking in terms of ?) time. We are questioning whether that ( wishful thinking ?) is an illusion. It if is an illusion it is part of thought.

S: Right. Now we can't use thought in order to see all this.

K; Now do we see - see that thought has created this psychological time as a ( devious ?) means of achieving something ?

M: Is that the (insightful ?) seeing you're talking about?

K: I'm coming to that slowly, I want to lead up to it, otherwise it won't be clear. Is this accurate, sir?

R: Still I can't tell you. Because I don't know where we are going.

K: I don't know where I'm going either, but this is a 'fact'. Do we understand clearly, even intellectually, that we have used time as a psychological catalyst to bring about change? And I'm questioning that catalyst.

F: Sir: what precisely do you mean when you say, "Do we see that psychological time is an illusion", what do you mean by the word 'see'?

K: See, I mean by that word 'see', to observe without the interference of thought.

F: That means, to be completely aware of time being an illusion as a fact.

K: Yes, like I see a snake, and I don't mistake it for a rope.

F: So you would agree that that involves - would you agree, that that involves a complete transformation of your mode of awareness ? When you're becoming really conscious of something, you don't have to go on analysing.
In other words, to 'see' is a whole (holistic) seeing almost in the sense of your being ( one with ?) what you see.

K: Sir, to observe - as it is generally understood - implies that when I observe a tree, I name it, or I like it or don't like it. And so on, so on. But we mean by (a holistic) 'observation', or seeing, to listen first and not make an abstraction of it and then (through the screen of that ?) idea sees. Say for instance - I said a little earlier that "psychologically there is no time", that the 'psychological' time is the invention of thought, and may be an illusion. Now to listen to that without (mentally ?) interpreting it, asking 'what do you mean', or saying, "I don't understand", "I do understand", just to listen to that statement and not make an idea of it, but just to 'listen'. As one listen that way in the same way observe, see (the truth or falseness of those statements ?) . What do you say, sir?

R: What are you trying to tell us (in this roundabout way ) ?

K: I'm trying to say, sir, that truth cannot possibly be perceived, seen, through ( thinking in terms of ?) time.

R: Right. I see it.

K: I'm saying that man through (the mental habit of ?) comparison (currently used ?) in the outer world has created an (illusory agenda of ?) 'psychological' time as a means of achieving a desired & rewarding end.

R: I agree.

K: No, do you see that as a 'fact' - fact in the sense 'it's so' ?

SS: I would like to suggest that the various things which it has devised in order to create some kind of inner freedom or liberation or salvation or redemption, that there may be some driving factor which is part of thought, or there may be a driving factor which accounts for this, which may be sorrow ?

K: Yes, sir, escape from ( the actual) pain through ( projecting a compensating ?) reward.

SS: It seems to apply to the most sophisticated and the more primitive civilizations, all of them.

K: Obviously. Because all our (self-centred ?) thinking is based on these two principles, reward and punishment. Our reward is ( the expectations for happiness ?) enlightenment, God, Nirvana, away from anxiety, guilt, all the pain of existence, you know, all the misery of it all.

F: Is it not possible to be free from the idea of reward or punishment?
K: That's what I'm saying. As long as our minds are thinking in terms of reward and punishment, that (instinctual mentality ) is (projecting its own agenda in ?) time.

F: How is it that our minds think that way?

K: Because we're educated that way, conditioned (to think in this terms ?) from childhood, from the time of the Greeks in the West, because there measurement was important, otherwise you couldn't have got all this technological knowledge.

F: But wouldn't you say that this is tied to the idea of a separate 'me', a separate 'I' ? Supposing one sees, hears, touches, etc., all in terms of a wholeness, an awareness of wholeness.

K: You can't be aware of the Wholeness (of Life) , unless one has understood ( what is wrong with ?) this ( self-centred ?) movement of thought. Because thought is in itself limited (and self-limiting ?)

F: Yes, of course, which means the intrusion of the self-consciousness as a separate something. Otherwise it won't be there.

K: Sir, how did this 'self - separative' consciousness come into being?

F: ( Through an ages old biological & cultural ?) conditioning in the first instance ? I, you, me.

K: Of course, measurement . So you (K) make an (insightful ?) statement "that ( creating the realistic illusion of a ?) psychological time has been used by man as a means of achieving his reward". And that reward is away from the pain which he's had. So we are saying, this search for ( a sorrow-compensating ?) reward is a (thought) movement (projecting its own ?) time. And is there such a thing at all? We have invented it, it may be illuson. And from this illusion I can't go to truth. So the mind must be totally, completely free of this ( self-centred ?) movement of (psycho-) measurement. Is that possible?

F: As a short answer, I would simply say "yes" - an 'of-courseness', is there.

K: Or I just assume it is so, but I go on the rest of my life moving in the other direction ?

F: If one really sees (the truth of it ) then one doesn't go in the other direction.

K: So that's what we're saying, do we see it, or is it, we (like to) think we see it ?

M: Can we go back for a moment? You said you observe, you hear the statement, you observe it. Actually what does the mind do in that observation?

K: Observation in this (holistic ?) sense implies a "seeing" without naming, without measuring, without a motive, without (a personal goal ?) . Obviously that is actually seeing.

M: Sir, we would probably all agree with that. And what is 'acting' at that moment? I think, in most people it is a kind of (mental ?) logic.

K: ( Holistic ?) observation implies silence and not forming any conclusion, just to observe silently, without any psychological responses of memory.

R: Without any value judgements ?

K: Yes.

F: Would you say, sir, that implies without any reaction from the brain or the senses or...

K: That means, thought is absolutely quiet in observation.

F: Scientists, for example, who have really new remarkable inspirations, or again great artists when they create wonderful things, this happens when everything is quiet inside, which allows this 'new' to emerge, the pulse of creation.

K: Yes, sir, but that insight is partial. The scientist's insight or perception is partial. ( A total) insight implies a whole transformation of his daily life, it isn't just, "I'm a scientist and I have an insight into matter, into the atom". Insight implies the whole way the man lives.

R: That is perfectly so. What we talk of is the 'wholeness of existence'.

K: Of course, of man's existence.

F: So in that state of pure observation which you're talking of, there is no reaction whatsoever ?

K: Of course, obviously. It isn't a 'cause-effect' reaction.

F: Quite. It's free of causality...

K: Of course, obviously, otherwise we are back in the old (field of ?) causation - having a ( personal ?) motive and so on.

R: And that (insightful ) seeing is beyond time, that seeing is not limited or caught in time.

K: That 'insight' is not involved in time.

R: That's right. And naturally it is neither cause or effect.

K: Yes. But, wait a minute: have we got this insight into this psychological invention of time by thought, as achieving some result? Have you got (this ?) insight, do you see (the truth of ?) it, or it is just (perceived) at a verbal, ideological level?

( In a nutshell:) Man has invented ( projected a 'future' ?) time , psychologically, to achieve a desired end, purpose, reward. Does one see this as an idea, or it is so? It's so obvious it is so. Then how is man - this is the point - how is the human mind to totally move away from that concept or idea of time? I say it's only possible when you have a ( thought-free flash of ?) 'insight' into this whole thing. This is (the true role of ?) meditation.

F: In fact, it just happens.

K: It's (part of ) the "real" meditation. Listening without analysis, without interpretation, without like or dislike, just listen. And if you so listen you have absorbed (the truth of ?) the fact that ( the self-centred ?) thought is the response of ( a subliminally self-centred ?) memory. Then you can proceed: can thought ever free itself from its source? Obviously not.

SS: But thought can be aware of its own activity.

K: Of course, we went through all that.

M: Sir, even if an insight 'comes into being' at that moment, doesn't that insight fall back (or gets absorbed ?) into the same "time-thought" mechanism ?

K: Oh no, of course not. Insight means action, instantly, not have an insight and later act. That very insight implies action. And you act. And that (illumined ?) action is always right, right being accurate, precise, without any regret, without any effort, without any reward or punishment, it is so.

SS: That action is not necessarily doing anything, though. It may be 'non-action' in terms of doing things externally.

K: You may have to act both externally and inwardly. (EG:) If I have an insight into 'attachment', (my obvious or subliminal ?) attachment to ideas, to (personal) conclusions, attachment to persons, to my knowledge, experience. If I have an insight into ( the inner nature of ?) that, the whole thing (the 'personal attachment' file ?) is abandoned.

R: May I put it, sir, in another way - to see this illusion, to see the (illusory value of psychological attachment ?) .

K: Yes. But one must be sure that it is an illusion.

R: Whether you call it 'illusion' or whatever name you give to it, to see...

K: ...'what is'.

R: Yes, to 'see what is', is to see the truth.

K: No, no, you see. you're bringing in 'truth' - I'm not yet ready for that.

R: I want to get it, before one o'clock! I don't want to postpone it -your main thesis is, 'don't bring in time' . To see 'what is' as it is, is to 'see the truth'. That's what I would like to put, to cut it short .

K: Sir. I don't know what it means to see (the truth ?) . I may only 'think' I see it.

R: Yes, then you are not seeing.

K: I must be very clear that I am not just 'thinking' that I'm seeing. Ordinary persons say, 'I see what you're saying'. But I may not see 'what actually is'. I just think I see 'what is'.

S: Krishnaji, you say that the ordinary person says, "I see, I see what you're saying," but in fact he doesn't.

K: Yes.

S: It's just that he see something intellectually. Could we say, what is going to bring about for the ordinary person this correct seeing, this "seeing without thought"?

K: I explained, sir. First I must "listen".

S: Yes...

K: Ah, do we ( purely?) "listen" or our mind is so filled (saturated ?) with conclusions, that it isn't capable of listening. You see me, you say, "Well, he's considered ( to be an illuminated?) person," this or that. You don't actually listen.

S: Well, then what could bring about that 'correct listening'?

K: It has been said through suffering. It is nonsense. It has been said, make effort (based on intelligent will-power ?) . Which is nonsense.
But you ( do ?) listen (with all your being ?) when 'somebody' says, "I love you." Don't you? So can you, (with the same openness of mind&heart ?) listen to what you think is unpleasant ?
So, sir, now come back to this question of "Truth". Do we have a discussion this afternoon? Can we then pursue truth?

R: No. I don't want to "wait for truth". (laughter)

K: You want it all in five minutes, sir?

R: Not even in five minutes.

K: One minute?

R: One minute. If you can't do it in one minute, you can't do it in five hours.

K: I quite agree. All right, sir, in one 'second' ( in five easy experiential steps ?) (One:) Truth is not perceivable through (thinking in terms of ?) time.
(Two :) Truth doesn't exist when the 'self' (centred consciousness ?) is (interfering ?) there. (Three:) ) Truth doesn't come into existence if thought is moving in any direction. (Four:) Truth is something that cannot be measured (or described verbally ?) . And (Five:) ) Without Love, Compassion, (coming ?) with their own Intelligence, Truth cannot be.

R: Yes, now again you have given it in 'negative' terms, in the real tradition of the Buddha. Yes.

K: You know what you have done (right now ?) , sir ? You (intellectually) have translated into terms of your (Buddhist) tradition, therefore you've moved away from the actual 'listening' of this.

R: I listened, I listened very well.

K: Then you've captured the perfume of it ?

R: Yes, and I captured the perfume of what you said. And that is why I wanted to have it in one minute.

K: So, sir, what is then is the relationship of Truth to (the man-made ?) 'reality'? Are these two everlastingly divided?

R: No. They are not divided.

K: How do you know?

R: I 'know' it.

K: Now what do you mean by that, sir?

R: That is what I said, to see (the ultimate truth that they are not ?) .

K: That means, our (reality oriented ?) thinking and Truth, are always (moving ?) together. If they are not divided, they are together, a unitary movement. No? ( The man-made ?) 'reality' is everything that human thought has put together, including our illusions. Truth has nothing whatsoever to do with this, it can't. And therefore the two cannot be together.

R: To see, that illusion, or whatever it may be, to see 'what is', is to 'see the truth'. 'What is' is the truth and 'what is not' is untrue. There is no truth apart from that.

K: No, sir... we said ( the man-made ) 'reality' is the movement of (time-) thought. And Truth is timeless. It's not your truth, my truth, his truth - it is something 'beyond time'. Thought is of time, the two cannot run together, that's what I'm...

R: Again you are dividing....

K: No, I may be mistaken but I'm just pointing out, that thought has created such illusion, and so many deceptions and it may (subliminally ?) deceive itself by saying, "Yes, I've seen the truth." Therefore here must be clarity that there is no deception whatsoever. And I'm saying that (such self-) deception will inevitably exist if I don't understand the nature of 'reality'.

R: I would like to take this afternoon another question. Because there will be no end to this question.

K: Yes, sir, what is the question?

R: The other question we wanted to talk about, whether there is a pre-existence, ( a spiritual ?) continuity, what people call generaly 'rebirth'.

K: Shall we do that after lunch, sir?

R: I think here we have come to (into the neighbourhood of ?) truth. I don't know whether you...

K: "I" can't go to truth.

R: No, you 'see' the truth.

K: There's a tremendous (non-dualistic ?) difference: The 'I' can't go to Truth, the 'I' can't see the Truth. ( The Presence of ?) Truth can only exist, can be, or 'is', only when the 'self' (- centred consciousness ?) is not ( present ?) .

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 02 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Jan 2015 #24
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

 2ND K CONVERSATION WITH BUDDHIST SCHOLARS AND FRIENDS (BROCKWOOD 1979)

PSYCHOLOGICAL AND METAPHYSICAL IMPLICATIONS OF 'DEATH' AND A BRIEF UPDATE ON BUDDHIST MEDITATION (experientially friendly edited text)

K: Sir, your question was, if there is ( a continuity of ?) life after death.

R: You see, I wanted to put this question to you because all religions, as far as I know, agree and accept a life after death. Now, Buddhism does not accept a 'self', or a 'soul' which is permanent, eternal, everlasting, unchanging. But Buddhism accepts man is composed of five physical aggregates, or if you put it in brief, the 'name' and the 'form'. 'Name' means the mental qualities and 'form' is the physical body. But according to Buddhism, these are all energies forces. And according to Buddhism, what you call death is non-functioning of the (physical) body. But this does not (necessarily ) mean the non-functioning of all other qualities and forces, like 'desire', the "will to become", and all that. So as long as man is imperfect, that means, if he had not seen the truth. Once one sees the truth, he is perfect and there is no desire for (self-) becoming, because there is nothing ( left to ?) to become. But when man is imperfect he has always the desire and the time to become more, to become more perfect and things like that. So 'rebirth' is there for him, because he is not perfect. But whatever it may be according to Buddhism, it is not one unchanging substance that goes on, but it is the cause and effect, just as Buddha says, every moment we are dead and reborn. And so in Buddhism it is wrong to say 'reincarnation', because there is nothing to incarnate.
Then 'transmigration' also is not a good term. And we use now 'rebirth', the Buddhist term it is 'punar janman', that means, a becoming again, an unbroken continuity of re-becoming, that is the Buddhist attitude.
The question is asked very often,, in Buddhism: is it the same person or another one? The traditional Buddhist answer is, "neither he nor another". That is, as a child grows up to be a man of fifty, is he the same child or another. It is neither the same child nor another one. In the same way, it is 'neither he nor another'. That is the ( non-committal ?) Buddhist attitude to rebirth. Now I would like to know what is your attitude and what is your interpretation?

K: Sir, could we take a journey investigating into this together a little bit?

R: Yes...

K: Would you say that ( the core-stream of the consciousness shared by ?) all humanity, whether the human being lives in America, Russia, India or Europe, is caught in sorrow, conflict, strife, loneliness, unhappiness, confussion; that is the common lot of all men, throughout the world? That is the (living content of the ?) ordinary consciousness of man. Outwardly they might differ, but psychologically they are greatly similar. So can we say, "you are the world and the world is you" ?

R: Yes. In a sense...

K: Not 'in a sense'. It is not 'partially so' , it 'is so'. Outwardly one's culture, one's tradition, one's climate, food, all that may vary. But inwardly we have the same feeling of (a deep existential ?) anxiety. Right?

R: Yes, I would agree with 'anxiety', not guilt.

K: All right, anxiety, loneliness, various (cyclic ?) forms of depression (plus an unconscious ?) sorrow and fear, this is (the psychological ) content of the consciousness of human beings. Right? So human beings throughout the world are (inwardly) more or less similar, apart from their physical name and form. Would you agree?

R: Yes.

K: So one can say, as a fact, that ( psychologicall-wise ?) we human beings are alike. And so deeply you 'are' me and I 'am' you.

R: Yes, we are inwardly similar.

K: And so the (consciousness of the ?) world, the (collective mind of ?) humanity is one. Would you agree?

F: ( The consciousness of ) Humanity is one.

K: If you see ( the inner truth of ?) that, then...'who' is it that dies? The name, the (physical) form, but the anxiety, the pain, the sorrow, the misery does it also die ? If this is the (psychic ?) stream in which man lives, psychologically, then what is it that dies? The body? The form, the name? The form and the name may die but this vast stream (of collective consciousness ?) is going on all the time. It's (like) a Great River. Let's discuss it.

M: Sir, are you saying that ( while being driven by that ?) stream , the whole notion of an 'individual' consciousness is a complete illusion?

K: I think so.

M: Why does all mankind have this (sense an isolated individuality ?) inevitably.

K: Because this whole idea that 'you' are an individual is part of our culture, both religiously and worldly. (Not to mention that ?) the word 'individual' is really misapplied, because 'individual' literally means "one who is indivisible". But we're (inwardly ?) all broken up . So we can hardly call ourselves 'individuals'.

F: You mean, we are (inwardly) fragmented ?

K: We are fragmented, broken up. So if we see that man's consciousness 'is' the (whole) consciousness of the world...

F: ...of all humanity ?

K: ...of all humanity, in that vast "river" which has no beginning, which is still going on, you and another are part of that stream. ( And when eventually ) I die, what happens to all my ( unfulfilled ?) desires, what happens to all my (pending ?) anxieties, fears, longings, aspirations, the enormous burden of ( personal frustration and ?) sorrow which I have carried for years - what happens to all that?

F: It co-mingles with the world stream ?

K: It 'is' ( and was all the time ?) part of that stream - which has manifested itself as 'K' , with his (name and ?) form. Sir, this is a very 'drastic' (statement ?) compared to ( the comforting promises offered by ?) all the religions.

R: Now this was my question: in that stream there is ( the mind of ?) 'K'...

K: Wait! There is no 'K'. That's the whole point. There is only that Stream (of human consciousness ?) - made up of ( countless hopes and ?) desire, anxieties, despair, loneliness, all the ( self-centred ?) 'travail' of mankind. That is the River.

F: As well as their opposites ?

K: My pleasures, which last for a few days, and then I cry if I can't get them, so it's all part of that vast river.

F: Would you say, sir, that that which we call the 'individual' (consciousness ?) is a misnomer.

K: Not only a 'misnomer', but I don't think it exists: because you have a separate name and a bank account, but ( at the deeper levels ?) your consciousness is like everybody else's.

M: Is there nothing apart from that (collective Stream of Self-interest ?) in the human consciousness ?

K: Wait, I'm coming to that. In that Stream, man has invented gods, rituals, the saviours, all that - they are all part of that stream. They've invented these.

M: But apart from the invention, the illusions, is there any other 'something'?

K: You mean, is there anything spiritual ?

M: Apart, other than that.

K: Is there anything that is not of ( the man-made thought & ) time ?
M: Of the Stream.

K: Is there in the stream anything which is not 'man-made', let's call it for the moment. Is that what you're asking?

M: Whether in the human mind, or consciousness there is something that is not of the stream ? I'm not asking if there's a something else in the river, I'm asking if there's something else in man's consciousness except the river.

K: Nothing (Not-a-'thing' ?) No 'atman', no 'soul', no 'god' - nothing. Don't accept it , please.

M: If that were so, there would be no end to the Stream.

K: But the ( consciousness of the ?) man who 'steps out' ... I want to go slowly, step by step...
(So, back to square one :) all human beings, their common consciousness is made up of ( the 'things' of ?) this vast river. Right, sir?

R: I am thinking about it, meditating. What Mary said was a very important point.

K: Yes. We'll answer that presently. But we were (experientially ?) considering 'death'. So that stream is common to all of us, our consciousness is of that Stream. I want this to be clear, that we are part of that Stream.

F: Yes, that is so.

K: And when the body dies, the desires, the anxieties, the tragedies and the (acummulated ?) misery goes on (in the same Stream) I die and that Stream, that River (of Time ?) is going on.

F: Yes...

K: Right, sir, I don't see how you can reject it... So that River (of Mankind's Time) manifests itself as 'K' (as a 'personal' consciousness ?) .
R: Not the whole river...

K: The river, which is 'desire', river is that.

F: One of its manifestations is K.

K: The river manifests itself as K. That's agreed ? K has certain (outward ?) capacities by ( his cultural ?) tradition, by education and so on, but we're talking (inwardly or ?) 'psychologically'.

R: I don't know...I fully agree that for the whole humanity without exception, all these ('things' that ?) you describe as 'suffering' and all that, are common to all humanity.

K: We are ( personalised manifestations of ?) of that Stream.

R: Yes, that's all right.

K: ( Holistically speaking ?) I 'am' the representative of all mankind. Because I'm of that stream.

R: Well, that I don't know...

N: It's a qualitative thing, all the qualities of the Stream are in me.

K: : Yes, that's right. ( I have inwardly ?) all the qualities of that stream.

N: Not that I'm the whole river. But (holistically speaking ?) the drop contains all the qualities of the river.

K: But the river 'is' that...

M: Would it be helpful to use the example of a 'wave' ? A wave is no different from the rest of the ocean.

K: Yes.

M: But it manifests as a 'wave' which disappears.

K: If you like to put it that way... But this must be clear. Each one of us is ( consciousness-wise ?) the representative of all mankind, the representative of the whole of that Stream.

R: That is better...

K: That stream manifests itself as K. Or as X, with a (physical) form, ( an ID ?) name, but in that Stream there is also art, every 'thing' (that man ever thought of ?) is in there. Now, as long as one manifestation of that Stream leaves the Stream , he's completely free of ( the man-made content of that ?) that Stream.

R: So if you leave the River, then you leave the whole humanity, then all humanity is away.

K: That Stream has manifested in X and if in ( the time-span of ?) that manifestation, X doesn't (endeavour to ?) free himself completely from ( the man-made 'qualities' of ?) this stream, (at his death ?) he's back in it.

M: But, sir, this is the moment that my earlier question referred to.

K: I'm coming to that.

M: So, what 'is' there? You said there was no 'thing' from the Stream.

K: I haven't yet explained it. There is that Stream. Right? It manifests itself as A. In that manifestation, with all the education and environmental influences and so on, if that A doesn't ( metaphorically speaking ?) 'step out' of that Stream, there is no ( much hope for the ?) salvation for mankind.

M: Sir, what is there ( in 'A' that allows him to ?) ) to 'step out'?

K: Leap ( the stepping out meaning ?) finish with your ( personal attachments ?) anxieties, sorrow, all the rest of it.

M: But you said there was nothing ( left in that consciousness ?) except the 'content' of the stream.

K: ( Correction: ?) As long as 'I' remain in the stream.

M: What is this 'I'?

K: I is the (self-identified ?) 'thing' that has manifested itself as 'A', and (s)he calls himself 'individual', which is not factual, which is illusory. So when 'A' dies, his ( "personalised" consciousness is ?) part of that Stream. That's clear ?

M: Yes, but if ( the particular consciousness of ?) 'A' is composed of the water of the stream, how can the ( same ?) water of the stream 'step out' of the stream?

K: Oh, yes (with enough 'attention' as distilling energy ?)

P: So there is some logical error in your...

K: In my ( holistic ?) explanation ?

P: Yes. Once you say this, that you are the representative of mankind, humanity, which is the...

K: Is that so or not ? Aren't you the 'representative' of whole of mankind, psychologically?

R: Yes, but I think that is both too general and too vague a statement.

K: No, ( meditation-wise ?) it's not vague. That Stream is this ( psychologically active 'things'?) 'content' of our consciousness, which is agony, pain, desire, strife, all that.

R: That is common to all. In that sense, all humanity is one. But I can't accept your position, that I 'am' humanity.

K: If I accept ( the existence of ?) that stream, I'm part of that stream, therefore I am like the rest of humanity.

R: 'Like' the rest...

K: I said that, therefore a 'representative' of all of that Stream.

R: That also I accept. But you can't say "I am the whole stream".

K: No, I 'am' (impersonating ?) that stream.

M: Sir, maybe we're being too literal, but there's a concept in this somewhere of a sort of a (wider Consciousness ) container which contains the stream.
Otherwise, what is it that can (step out and ?) individualise itself from the Stream if it is only made up of the water of the stream?

K: ( A central ?) part of that stream (of human consciousness ?) is this egotistic concept. That's all.

M: No, but how can water divide itself from the ocean (other than by evaporation ?)

K: You're missing my whole point.

R: Her point is this. What is it that 'steps out' of the river. That is the question.

K: Wait. If that is the question, I'll answer it presently. You see, in asking this question, "what is it that steps out ?", you're positing an 'otherness', something which is not of the stream. Right?

R: Or rather you are positing this...?

K: I'm not. I haven't posited anything at all. I've said, as long as (a holistically responsible ?) man does not step out of that Stream, there is no salvation to mankind. That's all.

F: Sir, may I add a word here. I think the question which the lady (Mary) asked implies an identifiable permanent entity.

K: There is no permanent entity.

M: A 'something' ? I'm not making it more definite than that.

K: I know what you're trying to say.

N: Some (innate ?) aspect of 'intelligence'.

M: 'Something' (intelligent enough ?) that can step out of the stream.

K: Yes, is there some (innate ?) aspect of intelligence in the stream?

N: Yes, which sees the...

K: Which sees the (whole situation ) ... yes, and therefore steps out?

N: Sees the futility of ( flowing with the ?) the stream.

K: Yes...

M: Then that quality, is in all the other human things, something that is able to separate (individualise ?) itself from all the rest of the stream.

K: (Recap:) A is part of that stream. That stream has manifested itself as ( the personal consciousness of ?) 'A'. So ( eventually ?) A perceives he's suffering and he says, "Why am I suffering? What is this?" And so he begins to reason, begins to 'see'. Why do you (have to ?) introduce some other factor?

R: According to Buddha's teaching, in that stream there is also (non-personal quality of ?) 'wisdom' which 'sees' the whole thing. And then is that 'stepping out', that 'seeing' is the stepping out.

M: Are you then saying that there is an action of 'stepping out' without a (self-conscious ?) 'actor'?

K: A is of that stream, with a name and a form. And as he lives he realizes what he's going through. Right? In that realization he says, "I'm suffering." Then he begins to enquire into the whole nature of his suffering, and 'ends' that suffering. And he is out of that stream. That ( spiritually purified ?) 'entity' is really unique, who is out of that stream.

S: So it's something (in him ?) that wasn't there before ?

K:(Re-re-recap ?) That (consciousness ?) stream has manifested itself in A. A living, realizes he's suffering, he doesn't escape from it, because he wants to know the whole nature of it, the nature and the structure and what is behind suffering. So he examines it, both logically, sanely and also (meditatively ?) non-verbally. Looks into it. And the very looking into it is the insight. It's not of the ( self-interest core of the ?) stream, the looking into the suffering.

R: That 'looking in', from where does it come?

K: He's concerned, he's studying, he's exploring, he's questioning the whole beastly thing: Why is there suffering? In the very enquiry of it - the ( integrity of this ?) enquiry depends on your capacity of not to escape and all the rest of it - in the very enquiry into the nature of suffering and the cause of it, and the effect of it and so on, in that very enquiry is insight, comes ( a Flash of ?) Insight. Insight isn't in the stream.

R: I say it is in the stream.

K: Why, sir?

R: You see, the Stream has in itself the capacity of producing and ceasing.
That insight is also part of that stream. Just as all that misery...

K: No, sir, I wouldn't...

R: Then where does that (Flash of ?) "insight" come from?

K: I'm telling you, sir. A begins to enquire, and in his enquiry he realizes (an authentic ?) enquiry can only exist when there's complete freedom from all escapes, su (no inner waste of energy ? ) and all the rest of it. : So in that ( integrated energy ?) moment of enquiry there is ( a flash of ?) insight.

N: You're implying that this 'insight' is just born, which is not of the stream ?

K: Don't introduce 'born', 'not of the stream'...

N: Then, where does it come from this insight?

K: I'm telling you. From the freedom to enquire.

N: Where does that 'freedom to enquire' come from?

K: From his own examination.You're missing the (integrated inner energy ?) point. He realises that that as long as he's not free from the blockages ( and from the energy wastage ?) that prevents exploration, and thereforeas he ( wisely ?) puts them aside, he's now free ( and able ?) to enquire. And in that freedom is insight.

P: There is missing ( a logical ?) link here.

K: There may be ten ( steps missing ?) , sir.

P: It appears that when the (self-) enquiry begins, freedom comes...

K: Be careful, sir, you are assuming so much.

P: I'm just repeating what you're saying.

K: Yes, all right, you're repeating what I said...

P: And the beginning of enquiry, the beginning of the capacity to explore without any of the things of the stream, are they also (originating ?) in the stream?

K: No.

P: Then, where do they come from?

K: That's very simple. Doctor, you're not 'listening'. Let's follow it step by step, sir.(Re-re-recap :) A is the manifestation of that stream. Part of ( flowing within ?) that stream (of self-interest ?) is ( that it does generate ?) suffering. A is suffering, so A says, "Why, should I suffer?" Man has given a dozen explanations - the Buddhist, the Hindu, the Christian and so on. The man who is suffering says, " I reject all that, because that doesn't leave me the (necessary inner space of ?) freedom to enquire.

F: So, the traditional (self-culpabilising ?) conditioned enquiry...

K: ...is part of the stream.

F: But the free enquiry ?

K: Look. A says, "Why am I suffering?" I'm going to find it out for myself." And he begins to enquire. And he realizes he can only explore if he's ( inwardly integrated and ?) free to look. Right? Free from fear, free from reward and punishment, free from any kind of motive, otherwise he can't enquire. The moment he's in that ( energetically integrated ?) state of examination, there is ( a Flash of ?) Insight. This is (logically ?) very clear.

F: And of course ( experientially it is ?) very difficult to do.

K: No, I won't even accept the word 'difficult'.( It seems to be so ?) because we have not given our energy ( of total attention ?) to this. We don't care, we have put up with so many things.

So leave ( the path-finder ?) A alone. But 'B' is part of that stream, and he suffers, he says, "Yes, that's human nature, there is no way out, no Jesus, nobody is going to save me, I'll put up with it." So he is contributing to the stream.

SS: So the stream becomes more intense.

K: Yes, has more volume. More pressure of a tremendous (volume of ?) water. So we come to the point: what is death?

R: So, now, A is out of the river ?

K: No, sir. A is not out of the river.

R: But he has seen,he had insight ?

K: He has insight.

R: Insight. So if all (the Consciousness of ?) humanity is one, and A is the (consciousness-representative of ?) humanity then humanity has seen it.

K: No, sir, no sir...The moment A is (becoming ) aware of his conditioned state and begins to enquire into it, he has got the energy to put aside.

F: Now the Buddha himself said, "Put aside with the right wisdom" - do you remember that phrase of the Buddha? "Put aside all shape and form, all sensation, all perceptions, all discriminative consciousness itself."

R: That's what I say. Put it aside with 'right wisdom'. That is what I said, that he (K) is making so complicated.

K: We're all making it complicated, it is very simple. One doesn't accept any (spiritual) authority. So in his enquiry into sorrow, A (the path-winner ?) rejects everything that anybody had said. Will you do that? Because otherwise he's a secondhand human being, examining through secondhand eye-glasses.

R: Or you can hear somebody who has seen it and still can see independently as he has seen.

K: Yes, Buddha said, "sorrow is the beginning of... whatever he said". But what 'he said' is not by me.

R: That is what I am telling you, that you also can see the same thing as he has seen. And still you know what he has said also.

K: Sir, the printed word or the hearsay, to a hungry man has no meaning.

R: That is so.It is not the menu but the food.

K: The food. The food is not cooked by anybody, I have to cook it, eat it.

R: You have prepared the food, you have eaten and there is food (left) . I also can eat it, and it is my food. Do you deny that?

K: No, of course not, sir. We are saying that, as long as I accept any (spiritual ?) authority, it doesn't matter whose it is, there is no (total ?) insight. Because if I am (even subliminally ?) tethered to a tradition, I'll go round in circles; so I must be free of the past and of the (invisible ?) 'rope' that ties me to the post.

Now, back to (the inwardly sloppy ?) B who (subliminally ?) accepts ( the condition of his self-centred ?) suffering. Right, sir? Miserable and unhappy. You know what human being is. So he's all the time contributing to the stream. And what is the state of the mind of the ('A') man, of the human who has had an insight into the whole nature of suffering, and therefore into the whole stream? Right? What is the nature of that mind? Is not ( its newly awakened ?) intelligence essentially part of Love and Compassion.
What do you say, sir? The love in the stream is not Love.

R: Agreed, as long as there is the 'me' there is no Love.

K: You see, sir, are we discussing intellectually all this? Or realizing, seeing the Stream ( of Self-interest ?) is you, and say, "Look, examine, end it ?"
The immediacy (of this 'ending) only takes place when there is insight. In that there is no regret, no saying, "I wish I hadn't done it."

See, sir, what is immortality? What is eternity? What is the immeasurable? All religions more or less touch on this, even the metaphysicists and the logicians and the monks have gone into this. What is immortality? . We have related immortality as something beyond death - mortal and the beyond mortality, beyond death. No?

F: That's the usual conception. But... what happened to our initial question?

K: About death and rebirth?

R: Yes, what happened there ?

K: I've told you. "Re-birth" is this constant Stream (of Time) , constantly manifesting itself into A, B, C, down the alphabet.

SS: Are you also suggesting therefore death is part of that stream?

K: You see, sir, to find out what 'death' is, one has to be with death. That means, to end one's (personal ?) attachments and beliefs, end to everything that one has ( psychologically ?) collected . Nobody seems to want to do that.

M: But this definition of death would not be part of the stream.

K: No. You see, in the man who has gone through this, he doesn't think even in "streams", it's something entirely different.

M: It's the action of the insight, is it not?

K: Yes, the action of insight. Action of insight, and you cannot have (access to ?) insight if there is no love, compassion, intelligence. And only then there is a relationship to Truth.

SS: You seem to be suggesting in some way that (the psychological ?) 'death' is the (experiential ?) key.

K: Yes, sir. Free investigation into this whole 'myself', which is that stream, myself 'is' that stream. Enquire into that, so that there isn't a shadow of the ( self-interest ?) stream left.
So have we answered the question? Is there reincarnation, a continuation of the 'me' in different forms? I say, no!

R: Of course not, of course not. As you say, I also say, there is not. First of all there is no 'me' to be reborn.

K: No, sir, (it is ?) the Stream that manifests (incarnates itself ?) and then B says, "I am ", therefore I'm frightened to die. But as long as B lives in that stream, his consciousness is part of that stream, he's only contributing more and more to the volume of that water. So there is no (individually integrated ?) 'me' to continue. Sir, nobody will ( readily ?) accept this, but it's the truth.

F: You would agree then, that what is necessary is to see in this profound (truth ?) ...

K: Yes, ( the insightful ?) 'seeing' is that.

F: ... and that 'truly seein'g is real action, creative action.

K: (That seeing ?) 'is' action, the moment I see, I drop anxiety. The moment I see I'm 'petty-minded', it's finished.

F: It is a complete transformation of the ordinary psychical process.

K: Yes.

M: Isn't it really the place where most people 'go wrong', that they do not 'see' in the sense you're talking about; they see verbally, intellectually, on various levels, but they don't really 'see' ?

K: I think mostly they don't mind being ( comfortably self-centred and ?) sorrowful, they say well why not? They don't see, one doesn't see one's own petty reactions.

M: Or they "don't see that they don't see", to put it perhaps childishly. They don't realize that what they think is (self-) understanding is not.

K: But Maria, I mean - even personally - have you dropped any opinion that one holds? One's prejudice; completely? Or one's (personal ?) experience? They they won't even listen to you.
So, if A's ( consciousness) is no longer of the stream, his consciousness is entirely different. It is a different dimension altogether. Let's put it round the other way: wars have created a great deal of misery. Right? And that misery remains in the air. It must. Goodness has been also part of (the consciousness of ?) man - there is also that enormous reservoir of both. So what? One doesn't contribute to that Goodness but one is always contributing to the other...

K: Sir, would you kindly explain, what is Buddhist meditation.

R: Buddhist meditation has taken many forms, many varieties, but the purest form of Buddhist meditation is this ( direct ?) insight into 'what is'.

K: You are using my words ?

R: No, not your words. Long before you, two thousand five hundred years ago these words were already used.

K: All right, then we are both two thousand years old.

R: Vipassana is the 'insightful vision', to see into the (inner) nature of things.

K: Have they a system?

R: A system ( to practice it ?) has been of course, developed (by his earnest fillowers ?) . But when you take the original teaching of the Buddha...

K: ...there is no system.

R: It is called "Satipa??h?na", the best discourse by the Buddha on this insight meditation. And the key point is to be mindful, aware, of all that happens, you are not expected to run away from life and live in a cave or in a forest. "Satipa??h?na" means the establishment of mindfulness, or rather, the presence of awareness. (A non-personal) awareness of every (thought ?) movement, every action, everything

K: Is this awareness to be cultivated? Because the modern systems of meditation, modern Zen, you know all the rest of it, they are trying to cultivate it.

R: There is no question of cultivation.

K: That is what I am trying to get at.

R: I have (recently) written an essay where I said that this teaching of the Buddha is for many centuries misunderstood and wrongly applied as a technique of meditation . And they have developed into such a (mechanistic ?) technique that the mind can be instead of liberating it can be...

K: I am asking: this 'awareness' (or mindfulness ?) , is it something to be cultivated in the sense of 'working at it' ?

R: No, no.

K: So how does it come into being?

R: There is no coming into being, you 'just do it'.

K: Is it something that takes place through (mental ?) concentration?

R: For anything we do in this world a certain amount of (attention) concentration is necessary, but don't mix it up with dhyani (meditation) and samadhi.

K: I don't like any of those words personally. Most of the meditations that have been propagated all over the world involve concentration.

R: In Zen and various other things, samadhi, dhyana, Hindu, Buddhist meditation, the concentration (of one's attention ?) is the centre.

K: ( For me ?) that is nonsense. I don't accept concentration.

R: However, in the Buddha's teaching, meditation is not (based on that kind of ?) concentration.

K: It is not concentration. Then what is, how does this (mindful ?) awareness come into being?

R: You see, you live (fully immersed ?) in the action in the present moment.
'satyabhatan' is to live in the present moment.

K: No, you are missing it. What is the (quality of the ?) mind that 'lives in the present'?

R: The mind that lives in the present is the mind which is free from the idea of "self". When you have the idea of 'self' either you live in the past or in the future.

K: The 'present' , as one sees it generally, is the (unbroken continuity of the self-centred thinking of the ?) past modifying itself in the present and going on.

R: That is the usual 'present'

K: Then what is the (other option of 'just living in the) present'? Being free of the past?

R: Yes.

K: That's it. Free of the past, which means free of time. So that is the only state of mind which 'is' now. Now I am just asking, sir, what is 'awareness'? How does it flower, how does it happen? You follow?

R: There is no technique for it.

K: I'll put it round the other way. In what manner does this awareness come into being? Suppose I am not aware. I am (safely ?) enclosed in my own petty little worries and problems. I live in that (stream of time ?) . And you come along and tell me, "Be aware of all that". And I say, "What do you mean by being aware?"

R: Be aware of that 'pettiness' ?

K: Yes, but...what (exactly ) do you mean by that?

R: (Just ?) "be aware" of that.

K: Yes, sir, but (experientially-wise ?) I don't know what it means. You tell me, 'be aware of your pettiness' , but (if ?) I am (inwardly) 'blind'. I may think that is a (pink ?) elephant. You follow? I am blind and I want to see light. And you say, "Be aware of that blindness". I say, "Yes, bur what exactly does it mean?" So I say, look, this (non-personal ?) 'awareness' is something in which 'choice' doesn't exist- (Eg:) to be aware of this hall, the curtains, the lights, the people sitting here, the shape of the walls, the windows, to be aware of it. Now, either I am aware of it part by part, or as I enter the room I am aware of the whole thing: the roof, the lamps, the curtains, the shape of the windows, the floor, the mottled roof, everything. Is that what you mean, sir?

R: That is a (holistic ?) awareness.

K: That 'is' awareness. Now what is the difference between that sense of (holistic ?) awareness and 'attention'?

R: Well, some concentration (of the inner energy ?) may be useful or helpful,
but it is not concentration on a simple point.

K: There must be a certain sense of (mental) concentration if I have to learn mathematics.

R: For anything, sir.

K: I am just putting that (quality of mental concentration ?) aside for the moment. What is to 'attend' ?

R: Well, how do you discriminate between these three (experiential categories ?) : awareness, mindfulness and attention?

K: I would say (in the authentic ?) 'awareness' there is no choice, just to be aware. The moment when ( a personal ?) choice enters into awareness there is no (pure ?) awareness. To say, " I like this room", all that (personal feedback ?) has ended.

R: Right.

K: Then, attention, in this (holistic ?) attention there is no (observer-observed ?) division.No (self-conscious ?) 'me' attending. And so it has no measurement and therefore no borders.

R: In attention...

K: In 'complete' attention.

R: In that sense it is equal to 'awareness'.

K: No.

R: Why not?

K: In 'awareness' there may be a (mental reference?) 'centre' from which 'you' are being aware.

SS: Are you saying this attention is a deeper process ?

K: Much more, a totally different quality. In it there is no attender, the 'one who attends', and so no division.

R: In awareness also you can say the same thing, there is no one who is aware.

K: Of course, that's right. But it has not the same quality as attention.

R: I don't want to go (quibbling ?) into these words, but the Buddha's teaching is that in this practise of meditation there is no discrimination, there is no value judgement, there is no like or dislike, you only 'see'. That's all. And what happens (next ) will happen when you see.

K: In that state of (total) attention what takes place?

R: That is another (mental ?) explanation ?

K: No, if you totally attend, with your ears, with your eyes, with your body, with your nerves, with all your mind, with your 'heart' -in the sense of affection, love, compassion- with a total attention, what takes place?

R: Of course what takes place is an absolute revolution internal and complete revolution.

K: No, what is the state of such a mind that is completely attentive?

F: It is free of the stream.

K: No, that's finished (long ago ?) .

R: The stream is dried now, don't talk about it! It is desert now!

K: I am asking what is the quality of the mind that is so supremely attentive? You see it has no quality, no centre, and having no centre no border. And this is an actuality, you can't just imagine this. That means has one ever given such complete attention.
( So, for an in-class...practice?) Give complete attention, if you can. Say for instance when I tell you that the meditation 'is' the meditator. Give your complete attention (in listening ?) to that, and see what happens. You don't make an abstraction of it into an idea, but you just 'hear' that statement. It has the quality of truth, it has the quality of great beauty, it has a sense of absoluteness about it. Now ( foryour homework meditation ?) give your whole attention to it and see what happens.

R: I think Buddhist meditation is just that.

K: I don't know, sir. I'll accept your word for it, but I don't know.

R: And I think this is not misleading : 'satyabhatana' is that. Now if you ask the people who practise it, there are many (Buddhist) meditation centres (& temples ?) , I openly say they are misleading. I have openly written it.

K: Yes, sir, that is nonsense.

R: But when you asked 'how it happens', that presupposes a method, a technique.

K: No, I am asking, "Can one give such (undivided) attention ?" Which means do we ever "attend" ? Will you "attend" without exercising (the self-centred ?) will(-power) ? Will you 'do it' ? If that ( quality of free ?) attention is not there ( the insightful perception of ?) truth cannot exist.

R: I don't think that is (semantically ?) appropriate. Truth exists but cannot be seen.

K: Ah, I don't know. You say truth exists but I don't know.

R: But that doesn't mean that truth does not exist.

K: I don't 'know', I said.

R: That is correct. But I don't think it is correct to say ( to make the absolute statement ?) that without that attention truth does not exist.

K: I (meant ?) without that attention (the perception of ) truth cannot come into being. Let me put it differently. Without that ( free integrated ?) attention the word 'truth' has no meaning.

R: That's better. I thank you on behalf of everybody.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 02 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Jan 2015 #25
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

The Brain,the Mind and the Inner State of No-thingness ( experientially friendly edited )

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Sir, my question is: Is there a space without ending within oneself, wthin the human mind—which is the mirror image of that vastness which exists (in the physical Universe ) ?

K: Are you asking whether there is or there can be a space without end, a (timeless ?) Eternity within the human ( mind or ?) brain? I’d like to distinguish between the (physical ) 'brain' and the 'mind' - can the (physical) brain realize the truth as to whether there is ( this time-free ) 'eternity' or not? How do you begin to feel, gently, hesitantly, your way into this really fundamental question: whether man's (consciousness ?) is bound to time forever or whether the brain can realize (find ?) itself in a state of eternity, is a question that has been asked for thousands of years. And that is the question we’re asking too.

PJ: Would you, please, elaborate on the distinction you are making between the brain and the mind ?

K: Yes. We are saying that the brain - or at least the active part of it is conditioned- . That conditioning is brought about through ( all our evolutionary ?) experience, (acquired) knowledge and memory. And as ( our evolutionary ?) experience, knowledge and memory are limited, the brain's ( activity of ) thinking is also limited. Therefore, to discover something new, there has to be, at least temporarily, a ( non-thinking ?) period when thought is not in movement, when thought is in abeyance.

PJ: The brain is a material thing and it has its own activity, but for centuries the main operation of the brain has been the operation of thought.

K: That is what we are saying, namely that the whole movement of the brain—at least that part of the brain which has been (routinely) used—is conditioned by ( this self-centred ?) thought, and thought is always limited and therefore it is conditioned to (accept life as an endless ) conflict. That which is limited must create division.

PJ: So, this is our (thinking) brain. What is the "mind" then?

K: The mind ( aka "intelligence" ?) is a wholly different dimension ( of human consciousness ?) which has no contact with thought. Let me explain. That part of the brain which has been functioning ( for ages ) as an instrument of thought—has been (heavily) 'conditioned', and as long as that part of the brain remains in that ( self-polarised ?) state there is no entire communication with the "mind". So, when that 'conditioning' is not (active ?) , then that mind which is in a totally different dimension (of Consciousness) , communicates with the brain and acts—using the thinking capacity of the brain .

PJ: But you’ve already posited state (of non-material intelligence) which is outside the realm of thought.

K: That’s right—outside. And, therefore, outside the realm of (matter and ?) time.

PJ: So, 'time' seems to be the essential core of this problem...

K: Time and thought.

PJ: Thought is a product of ( our physical evolution in ?) time. So, in a ( holistic ?) sense, thought 'is' time.

K: That’s it, that’s the real point.

PJ: Perhaps if we could go into this inner flow of (thought and ?) time, and at what instant an 'interception' is possible... you would perhaps use the word ‘ending’ ?

K: Let’s use simple words...

PJ: Now, this (inner) process of ("thought &) time" is flowing from a past immemorial, projecting itself into a 'future', which is also endless.

K: In terms of thought. ( Thought's real or imaginary continuity into ?) the 'future' is conditioned by the (whole experience of our ?) past—as a human "psyche".

PJ: Yes. So, unless the human brain ceases to be conditioned (by its own past), the content ( of its temporal continuity ?) will undergo a change, but the mechanism of thought will continue.

K: Let’s put it this way: ( our 'thinker-thinking' ?) thought is the chief instrument we have now. And thousands of years of various ( thinking ?) efforts and actions have not only made that instrument dull, but that instrument has also reached the end of its tether. Thought-time ( our 'self'-tethered thinking ?) is limited, conditioned, divided, and in a perpetual state of (conflict and/or inner ?) turmoil. Now, can (its self-projected continuity ?) end? That’s the question.

PJ: Now, ( as inwardly this process of time is ) the movement of the past as "yesterday - today - tomorrow" , how do we come in direct contact with it ? This contact with time, as a psychological process, is possible only in the present moment , isn’t it?

K: Let’s be very careful: don’t separate time as if it were something different from thought. It is "time-thought". Are you asking: What is the ‘now’?

PJ: It’s the ‘interception’ ( of this 'time-thought' process ?) that I’m talking about: the direct contact with the 'fact'.

K: May I put it in the way that I understand it? The past, the present and the future is a movement of "time-thought". How do you come to see the truth of it, the 'fact' of it?
How do you ( get in ?) touch this fact that "I" am a whole series of (personal and collective ?) ) memories which is "time-thought"?

PJ: Let us be more concrete. I am going away this afternoon, and that I may be leaving you (forever ?) , is a thought.

K: It’s not (just ?) a thought; it’s an actuality.

PJ: Actuality, yes; but out of that there is a certain ( personal) pain of leaving you, in which the emotional, psychological elements come to cover up the actual fact. So, what is to be contacted? Not the fact that I’m going away, but this pain.

K: I understand. Are you asking: The ( accumulated ?) pain of a thousand (days ?) years and centuries of loneliness, sorrow, grief, anxiety and all that—is that separate from the ‘me’ who feels it?

PJ: It may not be separate.

K: It 'is' me. (Emphatic)

PJ: And how do I touch it? Only in the present that the whole of this (psychological ?) edifice rests.

K: The ( what I am ?) ‘now’ contains the past, the future and the present. The (temporal ?) present is 'me' with all the memories of a thousand years, and those thousand years (old memories ?) are being modified (refreshed and updated by the brain?) all the time. All that is the ‘now’—the 'me' in present.

PJ: But this ('me' in the ?) present is not static. So what is it that you actually see, what is it that you actually observe?

K: You actually observe the fact that (my self-consciousness in the ?) present is ( the virtual projection of ?) the whole ( background brain activity ?) of time and thought. You, actually, see the truth of that. You have an insight into the fact that the ‘now’ is ( containing ?) all ( the continuous movement of ?) time and thought.

PJ: Does that ( insightful ?) perception emanate from the brain?

K: That perception is an (illuminating flash of ?) insight which has nothing to do with time and thought.

PJ: But it arises within the brain?

K: Or does it arise outside the brain? That is your question, right?

PJ: Yes, and it’s very important.

K: That’s why I want to be clear. Is it ( originating) within the sphere of the brain or is that insight comes ( into the brain only ?) when there is freedom from conditioning, which is the operation of the mind?—That is supreme intelligence, you follow?

PJ: No, I don’t quite follow. ..

K: Let’s be clear. The brain is ( subtly and grossly ?) conditioned by time and thought, ( in short:) "time-thought". As long as that ( mental) 'conditioning' remains (active) , ( the total) "insight" is not possible. You may have occasional insight into something, but not pure insight, which means the comprehension ( or sudden revelation ?) of the totality of things. That (illuminating ?) insight is not ( the result ?) of the 'time-thought' (process ) , and it is a "perception of the wholeness". Therefore that insight is part of that brain which is in a different dimension.

PJ: Let us take this word ‘insight’. It means ‘seeing into’ (or inner-sight ?)

K: Let’s look at that word (inward ?) ‘seeing’. Insight into or the comprehension of the totality, of the vastness of something, is possible only when there is the cessation of the "thought and time" (psychological process) . (Both) 'thought' and 'time' are limited (by their own past ?) ; therefore such 'limitation' cannot have insight.

PJ: Now, this ( illuminating ?) insight cannot arise without attention.

K: No, wait; don’t introduce the (extraneous ?) word ‘attention’. Stick to the same thing: ( the 100% pure ?) insight cannot exist as long as time-thought plays a ( supervising ?) part.

PJ: But which comes first? In my ( experiential) approach to this, I can’t start with insight.
I can only start with (an inner ?) 'observation'.

K: You can only start ( holistically ?) by realizing the truth regarding (this inner process of ?) "thought-time". Psychological ( activities of ?) 'time and thought' are always (perceptively ?) limited. That’s a "fact". (Emphatic) Start from that. Start from the realization that time-thought is always limited and, therefore, whatever it does will always be limited and therefore (self-) divisive and giving rise to endless conflicts. That’s all I’m saying. ( even without the 100% pure insight ?) you can see the fact of that.

PJ: You can see the 'fact' of that outside of yourself.

K: You can see it politically, religiously. All through the world it is a fact that time and thought, in their ( self-interested ?) activity, have wrought havoc in the world. That’s a fact.

PJ: Yes, yes.

K: So, now the (inward ) question is: Can this limitation ever end or is man condemned, forever, to live within the 'time-thought' area?

PJ: Do I see the fact that time-thought is limited? How does one see that? It’s like telling me that I am an illusion.

K: I didn’t say that.

PJ: But I’m saying that. Because the moment you say, ‘After all Pupul is a psychological bundle of the past, a psychological movement of 'time and thought' which is the psyche, and that psyche is limited’...

K: Yes, it is limited, and whatever it does is limited.

PJ: Then, I would ask: What’s wrong with it being limited?

K: There is nothing wrong if you want to live in ( an internal 'war zone' of ?) perpetual conflict.

PJ: Now, to end it is not only to feel that it is limited, but there must be an actual (action of ?) ending to it.

K: I say that there is.

PJ: What is ( experiential ?) the nature of this ending?

K: To end ( the psychological dependency or ?) attachment. The movement of thought and time stops—psychologically. What is your difficulty?

PJ: Shouldn't there be a point of ( clear inner ) perception, is a point of 'insight' ?

K: Yes.

PJ: What is that 'point of insight'? Where do I see it?

K: Look, Pupul, let’s be simple. Time-thought has divided the world: politically, geographically, religiously. That’s a ( the outer aspect of this ?) fact. Can’t you see the fact?

PJ: I look at it in the outside world but if I really saw the (inner ?) fact...

K: You would stop that kind of thing.

PJ: It would be all over.

K: That’s all I’m saying.

PJ: If it is such a simple thing—which I don’t think it is, because it (the inner fact of time-thought) has such devious ways...

K: If you have an insight into the fact that the ( mental) movement of 'thought-time' is divisive at whatever level, that it is a movement of endless conflict...

PJ: Yes, you can see it clearly when it’s a matter outside you.

K: Now, inwardly the (same) movement 'is' (generating ?) the ( self-centred consciousness) - the 'psyche' is a movement of time-thought. This inward movement has created the external fact. To feel secure in the Hindu world, I am ( inwardly getting attached to the idea of being ?) a Hindu. I feel secure in the ( comforting) feeling that I belong to something.

PJ: I would say that all these (superficial) things —being a 'Hindu' or being 'greedy'—one has seen as being the product of this movement of 'time-thought'.

K: That’s all I’m saying.

PJ: But it’s not quite enough: there is deeper down this sense of ‘I exist’.

K: That’s the whole point: you don’t realize that the 'psyche' is that.

PJ: Yes, that’s essentially the nature of the problem.

K: Why don’t you? Because you think that the 'psyche' ( the psychological individuality ?) is something other than a conditioned state. You think that there is something in you—in the brain or somewhere—which is timeless, which is ( potentially one with ?) God, and that if you could reach That (inwardly) , everything will be all right. That’s part of your ( cultural) conditioning. Because you are feeling inwardly uncertain, confused, ( the idea that God or the 'highest principle' (is always in there ?) gives you ( a superior sense of ?) safety, protection, certainty. That’s all.

PJ: What is the nature of the (inner) Ground from which insight springs?

K: Insight can only take place when there is freedom from "time and thought".

PJ: You see, it’s some sort of unending (circular logic )....

K: No. It is not. You are (over ?) complicating a very simple fact, as most of us do. To live in peace is to flower; it is to understand the extraordinary world of peace (the war is over ?) . (And this sense of inner ?) peace cannot be brought about by thought.

PJ: So, it is the brain itself which listens to this statement ?

K: Yes, it listens, and then what happens? If it (really) listens (non-personally ?) , it’s quiet.

PJ: Yes, it’s quiet.

K: And when there is a quietness that is not ( self-) induced, then there is insight. I don’t have to explain in ten different ways the limitation of thought. It is so.

PJ: I see what you are saying. Is there anything further than that?

K: Oh yes, there is. If the ( self-identified psychological ?) structure of "time and thought" ends, the ‘Now’ has a totally different meaning. The ‘now’ then is "no-thing". And that (inner presence of 'being?) nothing' contains all. Right?

PJ: Yes.

K: But we are (un-consciously ?) afraid to 'be nothing'.

PJ: When you say, ‘Being as nothing contains the all’, do you mean that it is the essence of all the Consciousness of humanity, of the nature and that of the Cosmos as such?

K: (Recap:) The 'psyche' is a ( dynamic) bundle of ( active ?) memories, but those memories are 'dead' (not 'alive' by themselves) . They operate, function in us, but they are the outcome of our past experiences, which are gone. I am a movement of memories. Now, when (and if ?) one has an insight that there is nothing, when one really sees the fallacy, the illusion of (self-) becoming—which an endless (continuity of ?) time-thought and conflict—then there is an ending of that. The 'ending' of that is 'to be nothing'. However, being nothing then contains (or shares ?) the (Mind of the ?) whole Universe— after all, Pupulji, ‘nothing’ means the entire world of compassion. Compassion is no-thing. And, therefore, that (inner) no-thingness is supreme intelligence. That’s all there is. I don’t know if I’m conveying this.

PJ: Yes.

K: So, why are intelligent human beings frightened of being nothing, frightened to see that they really are (identifying themselves with nice-sounding ?) verbal illusions, that they are nothing but ( a dynalic complex of ?) dead (past ?) memories? That’s a fact. I don’t like to think I’m just nothing but memories, but the truth is that I 'am' (my) memories.
Now if I have no ( psychological attachments to this ?) memory, I can understand the whole movement of memory, which is time-thought, and see the fact that as long as there is this movement, there must be endless conflict, struggle, pain. And when there is an insight into that, then 'being inwardly nothing' is the (timeless dimension of the ?) Present, and it’s not a ‘varying’ present.

PJ: Not a 'varying present'...?

K: It isn’t that one day it’s this, and the next day it is different. That no-thing is no time. Therefore it’s not ending one day, and being another day. You see, Pupul, that after all is real meditation. That’s what ??nya ( the inner Void ?) means in Sanskrit.
So, we have to grasp, to understand, that in ( inwardly being as ?) 'nothing' all the consciousness of the world contained—not the pain and the anxiety which are all so small. Of course I know that when I’m suffering, that’s the only thing I
have, or when there is fear, that’s the only thing. But unfortunately, you see, I don’t realize that it is such a petty little thing.

So, having listened to all this, what is your comprehension? What is it you realize? Do you say, ‘By Jove, I’ve got it. I’ve got the perfume of it’?

PJ: Sir, one realizes is that the most difficult thing in the world is to be (inwardly) totally simple.

K: Yes. To be simple—that’s right. If one is really simple, one can understand the enormous complexity of things. But we start with all the complexities and never see the simplicity. That’s our training. We have trained our brains to see the complexity, and then try to find an answer to the complexity. But we don’t see the extraordinary simplicity of life, of facts rather.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 03 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Jan 2015 #26
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

 Is there a time-free dimension of insightful perception ? ( an experientially friendly editing of K's last dialogue)

PJ: It seems to me that all (the major psychological ) problems of the human brain are born of time.

K: Are born from the (psychological ?) process of time, the (virtual ?) time of becoming something. ‘I am this, I will be that.’ Now, my question is: Is there another (dimension of ?) time outside this ( outward ?) movement which we know and call time? That is, is there a time of non-movement?
Let us go slowly into this. Time as we know it is (associated with ?) movement. The gap between one action and another, between one understanding and another, is time.
The whole (mental ?) movement from the past to the present to the future is generally acknowledged as (psychological ) time. The interval between seeing something, thinking about it and acting is time. And I question whether there is a (different dimension of ?) time which doesn’t belong to this category at all.

PJ: This (dimension of ?) ‘time’ that does not belong to the category of movement, does it belong to the category of matter?

K: Matter as I understand it, is ( some kind of ?) solidified energy; matter is manifested energy. The body is manifested energy.

PJ: You see, sir, the brain is ( living ?) matter. Now, in that matterial (structure of the brain) evolution must exist.

K: Of course. We were monkeys at one time. Gradually, through a million years of evolution, we became Homo sapiens—what we are now.

PJ: You accept that the brain is matter. Therefore you must accept that evolution is inherent in the brain itself, because it is matter: there is the memory 'content' (of all our evolutionary past ?) stored in the brain cells.

K: Yes, and this gathering of memory, knowledge, experience (is manifested psychologically ) ?) as (self-) becoming, as accumulating more knowledge—( the whole mentality of ?) advancing more and more...

PJ: And becoming better. So we apply the (physical) process of evolution which exists in the brain to the (psychological) content in the brain. My question is: Is this content of the brain which is nothing but a gathering of experiences and knowledge, identical with the nature of the brain itself? You see, we all know that ( psychologically -wise ?) becoming is illusion. That is very simple to understand. But you asked : Is there another (dimension of ?) time which doesn’t belong to these (material) categories?

K: That’s what I want to inquire into. Is there an (inner dimension of ?) time which is not manifest?

PJ: When you say that it is not the outcome of (material)manifestation, why do you then use the word ‘time’?

K: I have no other word for the moment.

SP: Are you saying that the very Ground from which any manifestation arises is (has ?) another (dimension of ?) time?

K: I am inquiring into that, (since) Love is not of time.

PJ: You see, forgive me for saying so, sir, the moment you use the words ‘love is not of time ’, it is an absolute statement. And with absolute statements, no discussion is possible.

K: Pupul, that’s rather an unfair statement. We are trying to find out what ( the timeless dimension of ?) Eternity is. We are trying to find out an (inner dimension of ?) Reality which is not of time. We know that what is mortal grows and dies. We are asking whether there is a state (of consciousness ?) or an (inner) movement which is beyond time. Do you understand? Is there a Timeless activity (of Creation ?) which is infinite and measureless? You see, we are using words to measure (or describe ?) the immeasurable, but That which is not measurable is not of time.

PJ: We know 'time' as the (mental ) movement of the past projecting itself into the future. Now, what is the (nature of the ?) perception of that (Timeless ?) instant which is the only Reality?

K: Wait. Let us examine the ‘I must do’, ‘I will become’. That future is the past modifying itself, and that is the psychological time. Now, there is also a timeless action, a (time-free ?) action which is "perception-action". In this timeless action, there is no (time) interval. Do go slowly, if you want to understand it.

PJ: Before I can even go into this, I want to go into what this movement of the ‘past modifying itself in the present’ is.

K: ( The self-centred process of ?) thought modifies itself and going on (to meet its future ?) .
PJ: But can we examine that instant where this modification takes place?

K: Yes. ( Now ) I am afraid of what might happen tomorrow, but (my projection of ?) 'tomorrow' is (implicitey contained ?) both in the 'today' and in the 'yesterday'. (In short?) the 'present', the (temporal) ‘now’, contains the 'past' and the 'future'.

PJ: But an (insightful ?) perception in the present negates both the past and the future.

K: That’s what I am saying. But (such a timeless ) perception requires an inner state without the past. That’s it.

PJ: Yes, so an (insightful ?) perception is obviously the essential element of this perception of the ‘now’.

K: Yes, and that perception is not of ( thought's continuity in ?) time. Because that perception doesn’t contain the past.

PJ: What is this ( timeless ?) ‘now’?

K: The ‘now’ is all time: past time, future time and the present time.

PJ: Now, you see, you can experience (your) past time, and you can experience (your) future time because you project it , but what is the experiencing of the 'now' which (contains ?) ‘all time’?

K: 'You' can’t experience it. Experience implies an 'experiencer' who is experiencing. The experiencer is of time.

PJ: Therefore when you say that the ‘now’ contains the past and the future, how do you contact it? How do I come to this ‘now’ of existence?

K: 'You' cannot come to it. Your brain is conditioned to knowledge, is conditioned to measurement in words. But this cannot be approached that way. And this is where the religious inquiry begins.

PJ: Is it possible to probe into this time which is not of this...?

K: Yes, it is possible, but ( its experiential ?) perception means that there is no 'perceiver'. The 'perceiver' is the past and the future. But the 'perception' is now. Therefore it is timeless just as (its) action is timeless.

PJ: Therefore, in that (time-free ?) perception, the past and the future are totally annihilated.

K: Listening is not of time. If I listen, it is now. So attention has no time. And, therefore, there is no linear or horizontal time. I am saying that ( the totally insightful ?) perception is timeless.

PJ: Yes, then is it possible to probe into it ?

K: Yes. I say, yes. But, please, realize what has happened before we probe. The mind has rid itself of all concepts, all theories, all hopes, all desires. It is now in a state of clarity. Right? So in that state, you can inquire non-verbally. That’s what I want to get at.

AC: I don’t understand.

K: Look, sir, I tell you "love is not of time". Can you listen to the (inner ?) truth of it? Do you understand the simple truth of it? "Love is not of time".

PJ: How do you "listen" (to the truth of something ?) ? Without translating everything into memory. In a dialogue with Krishnaji you can listen without thought operating and, yet, comprehend fully what he is saying. It is in listening at such depths that it—the statement, the question, opens up the ‘what is, it tells you; there is no other action.

SP: Pupulji, what is the comprehension of the statement ‘Love is not of time’?

PJ: Like you take a perfume...

K: Wait, wait. Here is a statement K makes: "Love is not of time". Do you understand the beauty, the depth of it? We all have been trained to be highly intellectual. A man who is not so bright, who has not passed exams and secured professorships, will (perhaps easier ?) understand a simple statement like this. At least I think he will.

AC: Sir, how can there be an inquiry into the state of (a totally insightful ?) perception?

K: Sir, just listen, I will show it to you. I tell you, ‘Love is not of time’. To me that’s a tremendous fact; it is the truth. You say, ‘I really don’t understand you’. And I tell you, ‘You won’t understand it the way you want to understand it, because you want to understand it through the intellectual process’. You won’t understand it (in your familiar way ?) because you want to understand it through the intellectual process: through argument, through a reactionary process, a constant back and forth of words. I say that you won’t understand it that way. You might say that that is the only (available ?) instrument you have and I reply, ‘Look, there is a totally different instrument. I will tell you what that (new perceptive ) instrument is if you can put aside the enormous weight of knowledge which is of time’.
Is there a (global ?) comprehension, an insight, an immediate perception without the word, without analysis, without bringing all your knowledge into it? Oh yes, sir.

AC: I understand that, sir.

K: So, if you understand that there is a state ( of meditation ?) where words have lost their meaning, but that there is the pure perception of something, you will probe into that perception.

PJ: Can you discuss that?

K: You can’t discuss it.

AC: Yes. You cannot, for how does one inquire without the word? You see, this state, to me, is the end of inquiry.

K: All right, if it is the 'end of inquiry', do you stop there? The brain—does it see this? Then that’s finished. Do you ( experientially ?) get to the point where the brain says, ‘Yes, that’s finished’?

AC: No, the ( thinking ?) brain doesn’t (get to that perceptive stage ?) . The necessary energy lapses. The brain cannot maintain that (high) level of (integrated intelligent ) energy.

K: On the contrary.

AC: But as long as there is energy, there is no further (need for ) inquiry or question.

K: I agree.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 03 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Feb 2015 #27
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

A K dialogue on the 'psychological' significance of Death (experientially friendly edited )

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Krishnaji, one of the (great existential ?) questions which I feel is at the very depth of the human mind is ‘the coming to be’ and ‘the ceasing to be’. Life and death. The whole of (the modern ?) man’s life revolves around the wonder of birth and the fear of death. All his urges, his demands, his desires, his fears, his anxieties, rest between these two poles—birth and death.
At one level ( intellectual ?) we understand ( the concept of ?) birth and death, but I think that that understanding is only at the superficial level. And unless we understand, at depth, the whole problem of existence which is held between the two—the whole problem that lies in the ending of anything—fear, anxiety and the darkness and shadows which surround that one word ‘ending’ will always be with us.

K: Why do you make that interval between birth and death a 'problem' (to be solved ) ?

PJ: By themselves birth and death are 'facts' (of our life) , but the ( average ignorant ?) mind ( instinctively ) clings to one and rejects the other. There is the ( apparent ?) joy and splendour of what we see as 'life' and the demand to hold on to it at any cost and to evade that which means its ending. Out of it arises fear, sorrow, all the demands...

K: So what is the question?

PJ: How do we explore? How can we be free of the darkness that surrounds the word 'death' ? How can our minds look at death with simplicity and see it for what it is?

K: Are you really considering ( only the fact of ?) death or that great period (of temporal continuity ?) between life and death? That is, in your (metaphysical ?) consideration of the 'ending', are you including the whole process of living with all its complexity, misery, confusion? Are you not concerned to find out what death means (in the context of ?) this long (time-binding ?) process of struggle, conflict, misery, to which we cling ? Aren't you concerned with the whole movement of it?

PJ: You see, there is a whole movement of existence in which life and death are. But if you make the scope so (philosophically ?) wide, you (may skip ) the ( personal ?) anguish and the sorrow of (your life ?) ending. And I wanted to investigate into the sorrow of ending.

K: Are you inquiring into the sorrow of ending or are you inquiring into the whole process of living and of dying, which includes sorrow, fear, and all the rest of it?

PJ: What you say is ( 'holistically ?) correct'—it is the whole movement of living and dying which is existence. You usually talk of the 'ending of sorrow'; but I'd like talk of that ( latent ?) fear, of that anguish, which is the sorrow of ( our earthly life ?) ending. There is something which is marvellous (and/or psychologically rewarding ?) and there is always the knowledge that it must end which lurks behind it.

K: What is ‘ending’?

PJ: Ending is that process in which something that exists, that sustains (our physical life ?) , ceases to be; it is no longer available to our senses. In the very nature of that ‘isness’ there is the sense of the ending of that; there is the disappearance of that for eternity.

K: Why do you use that word ‘eternity’?

PJ: Because there is an absoluteness in that ( physical) ending. There is no tomorrow in it.

K: Now just a minute—ending what?

PJ: Ending that which sustains ( physically our life ?) . There is the sorrow of something so marvellous ending.

K: Is it so marvellous?

PJ: Let me come to something more personal . You ( K) are here. That you will not be ( around anymore) causes the anguish of K ceasing to be.

K: Death is inevitable. This person—K—is going to end some day. To him it doesn’t matter; there is no fear, no anguish. But you look at that person and say, ‘Oh my God, he is going to die’. So, it is 'your' anguish. I’ve loved that person. He dies, and I’m ( feeling lonely and ?) lost. Why am I in sorrow?
I think it is really important to understand the ( 'psychological' implications of ?) 'ending', because there is something totally new when there is an ending to everything.

PJ: My sorrow—is it not inevitable? He was the perfume of my existence.

K: Yes, I loved him. My brother dies. It is a tremendous sorrow. I shed tears. I am filled with anxiety. But I’m asking: Why does man carry the burden of this sorrow?
I’m in sorrow because I’ve never really understood deeply what is 'ending' ( the psychological attachments to anything ?). I’ve lived for forty, fifty, or eighty years (of self-fulfilment ?) and during that entire period I have never realized the meaning of putting an end to something which I hold dear. I have never totally ended my ( various ?) attachment, so that they do not continue in another direction.

PJ: What makes the mind incapable of ending (its everyday habits & attachments )?

K: It’s fear (of what might happen without them ?) of course.
Let’s take this ordinary example: can one end the attachment (or even identification ?) to one’s past experience, knowledge, memory -with all its complexity, and all its implications—without any (personal ?) motive or direction? Can one have no attachment (psychological dependence of ?) to anything ?
After all, the ending of knowledge—that’s what is going to happen when death comes. Knowledge is (ultimately) what one is clinging to. Now, to end totally, absolutely, the memory of all that, is ( the psychological challenge of ?) Death.

PJ: You have often said: ‘While living, to enter the house of death’.

K: Yes. I have done it.

PJ: What exactly is meant by that?

K: Let us say that there is (the constantly refreshed ?) memory of an experience that I cherish, that I hold on to because it has given me great delight, a sense of depth and well-being. I cling to that memory. I go to the office, I work, but the memory is so extraordinarily enduring and vital that I hold on to it; therefore I never find out what it means to end. I think there is a great deal in ending, every day, everything that one has psychologically gathered.

PJ: You can end ( your personal ?) attachment (to it) .

K: That is ( the psychological signification of ?) death.

PJ: That is not ( really my ?) death.

K: What would you call death? The ( life of the physical ?) organism coming to an end? Or the 'image' that I’ve built about (myself) ending?

PJ: When you reduce it to that, I’d say that it is the (ending of the self- ?) image which you have built (in order to protect yourself ?) ; but there is much more to it than that.

K: Of course, this image is deeply rooted in me. And it is the image that is living. I’m talking of the ending of that image. ( As an universal 'rule of thumb' ?) the mind cannot enter into a totally new dimension if there is a shadow of a memory of anything. Because that ‘Other’ ( dimension of Consciousness ?) is timeless. That other dimension is eternal and if the mind has to enter into that, it must not have any (sticky ?) element of time in it. I think this is ( Universally ?) logical & rational.

PJ: But ( the reality of our ?) life is not 'logical' or 'rational'...

K: Of course not. ( But if it actually wants ?) to understand "That Which is Everlasting", the mind must be free of all that it has gathered 'psychologically', which is, ( of its self-continuity in ?) time. Therefore, there must be an "ending".

PJ: Is there not ( a possible ?) exploration of this "ending"?

K: Oh yes, there is.

PJ: What is the exploration into ending?

K: What is ( the inward meaning of ?) "ending"—ending the continuity of a particular ( self-centred ?) thought, a particular desire; it is ( the identification with ?) these that give our life a (perfect illusion of ?) continuity.

But in that great interval between our (personal) birth and death there is a still deeper continuity, and we cannot see the beauty of that River (as long as ?) we live on the surface of this vast river of life . So, the ( deeper implication of our 'psychological?) ending' is the ending of (our living on ) the surface.

PJ: The ending of it is the ending of the surface...

K: Yes, the ending of ( being driven by ?) the surface (currents) .

PJ: Then, what dies?

K: All ( the sensate experience ?) that I’ve accumulated, both outwardly and inwardly. I have good taste, and I’ve built up a good business which brings me a lot of money—nice house, nice wife, nice children, nice garden. And my life has given (the perfect illusion of ?) a continuity to it all. To end ( the personal attachments to ?) that.

PJ: Sir, do you mind if I explore (your particular case ?) a little? You mean to tell me that with the death of the body of K, the consciousness of K will end?
.
K: You have said two things: The consciousness of K and the ending of the (physical consciousness of the ) body. The body will end through accident, disease. That is obvious. Now, what is the consciousness of that (K) person?

PJ: An enormous, unending, abounding compassion ?

K: Yes. But I would not call that 'consciousness'.

PJ: I cannot think of another word. Could say the 'mind' of K ?

K: Let’s keep to the word ‘consciousness’ and let’s look at it. The consciousness of a human being is ( the mental display of ?) its content - the whole movement of thought. Language, specialization, beliefs, dogmas, rituals, pain, loneliness, desperation, a sense of fear—all that is the (self- consciousness generated by the ?) movement of thought. If this ( self-centred ?) movement of thought ends, ( the self-?) consciousness -as we know it- is not.

PJ: But such a ( self-centred ) movement does not exist in the mind of K. Yet there is a state of being which manifests itself when I’m in contact with him. It manifests itself even if you do not reduce it to thought.

K: One must be very ( experientially ?) careful in pointing out something: our 'consciousness' - as we know it - is ( generated by the self-centred activity or ?) 'movement' of thought; it is a movement of time.

PJ: Yes.

K: Therefore, when ( this self-centred continuity of ?) thought, after investigating, comes to an end— in the 'psychological' world— (the self-centred ?) consciousness as we know it is not.

PJ: But Sir, there is a "state of being" which manifests itself as K.

K: Yes; you are perfectly right.

PJ: What word shall I use?

K: Let us say, that through a 'real' (authentic ?) meditation you’ve come to a point that is 'absolute'. To me this is a most extraordinary state (of universally integrated Consciousness ?) . Now, through my contact with 'you' (this K 'mind' ?) , I feel this immensity. You have it—but of course, it is not you (the K person ?) having it. It is not yours or mine; It "is" there.

PJ: But it is also there because of you.

K: It is there not because of me. It is there.

PJ: Where?

K: It has no 'place'.

PJ: I can only accept ( the non-local aspect of ?) what you say up to a point...

K: All right... First of all, it is not 'yours' or 'mine'.

PJ: But it is manifest in the person of K. Therefore when you say that 'it has no place', I cannot accept it.

K: Naturally, because ( in your mind ?) you have identified K with that.

PJ: But K is that.

K: May be... But it has nothing whatsoever to do with K or anybody else. "It" is there. Beauty is not yours or mine. It is there. In a tree, in a flower—it’s there.

PJ: But, sir, the healing and the compassion in K is not 'out there' (in the fields ?)
I’m talking about the healing and compassion (emanating from ?) of K.

K: But that is not K. That is not this ( body)

PJ: But it will 'cease to be manifest'; that is what I’m inquiring about.

K: I understand what you are trying to say, but I question that.

PJ: What do you mean ‘I question that’?

K: It may manifest ( at this point in time ?) through K, but "That" ( Mind ?) which is manifesting itself ( through K) has nothing to do with K.

PJ: I accept that it does not belong to K. But K and ‘That’ are inseparable.

K: All right, but when you identify ‘That’ with the person, we enter into a very delicate thing.

PJ: Take the (consciousness of ?) Buddha. Whatever the Buddha-consciousness was, or whatever was manifesting through him, has ceased to be.

K: I doubt it. You say that the consciousness of Buddha ceased when he passed away, right? It manifested through him and he was ‘that’ and when he died you say ‘that’ disappeared ?

PJ: I have no (insider ?) knowledge of saying that it disappeared. I only say that it could no longer be contacted.

K: Naturally not.

PJ: Why do you say ‘naturally not’?

K: Because he meditated, he was ( or got ?) illumined, and he came to it. Therefore between him and ‘that’ there was no division. Now his (ignorant ?) disciples, say, ‘My God, he is dead and with his death the whole thing is over’.

PJ: Yes, it is over.

K: I say it is not. That which is Good can never be over. Just as 'evil' continues in the world, right? The Good exists and has always existed, but not as the opposite of evil. The evil has in itself continued.

PJ: Aren't we moving away ?

K: I’m not quite sure, but it doesn’t matter; go ahead.

PJ: You say that It ( that "Good" Consciousness ?) does not disappear.

K: Good can never disappear.

PJ: I’m talking of that great (Presence of an ?) Illumined Compassion. Now I can contact it.

K: But you can contact It even if that ( K & B ?) 'person' is not. That’s the whole point. It has nothing to do with (the temporal existence of a physical ?) person.

PJ: Is what you say about "Being a Light to Yourself" connected with the contacting of ‘That’ without the ( K&B kind of ?) person?

K: Not ‘contacted’ (as a personal achievement ?) . It can be perceived, lived; It is (Present ?) there for you to reach out to and receive it, (providing that the self-centred continuity of ?) thought or ( 'self'-?) consciousness as we know it has to come to an end, for (the self-centred process of ?) thought is really the ( personal ?) "enemy" of That. Thought is the enemy of Compassion, obviously—right? And to have (free access to ?) that flame it demands, not a (material ?) sacrifice but an 'awakened' intelligence, an intelligence which sees the ( limits of the self-centred ?) movement of thought. And the very awareness of the movement of thought ends it. That’s what the Real meditation is.

PJ: What significance then has 'death'?

K: None. It has no ( 'deadly' ?) meaning because you are living with death all the time, you are ending (your psychological attachments to ?) everything all the time. I don’t think we see the importance and beauty of such 'ending'. We ( prefer to ?) see the (benefits of our temporal ?) continuity with its waves of beauty and all its ( trivial ?) superficiality.

PJ: I drive away tomorrow. Do I cut myself completely from you?

K: No, but you (may ?) cut yourself from that Eternity with all its compassion, and so on.
(In a nutshell ?) it’s simple: I meet the Buddha. He makes a tremendous impression on me and, then, he goes away. But (if I have 'listened' to him?) the truth of what he has said is abiding. He has told me ‘Be a Light to yourself so that the ( insight of ?) Truth is in you’. It is that ( tiny mustard ?) 'seed' that is flowering in me. He goes away, but the seed is flowering. That 'seed' (of living Truth ?) which has been planted by my awareness, alertness, and intense listening, that seed will ( eventually grow and ?) flower. Otherwise what is the point of somebody having this extraordinary illumination—I’m using that word as a sense of immense compassion, love, and all that—if only that person has it, and he dies—what then?

PJ: May I ask a ( parting ?) question, please? What, then, is the reason for his being?

K: What is the reason for his being, for his existence? To manifest ‘That’, to be the embodiment of ‘That’. But ( besides that ?) why should there be any ( particular ?) reason? A flower has no reason (to be) . Beauty has no reason (to be) ; it "exists". I am not trying to mystify all this, or to put it into a ( holistic ?) fog. As I said, It is there for anyone to reach and to hold.

So ( to recap: ?) death, like birth, is an extraordinary event. But birth and death are so far apart. The travail of ( his self-centred temporal ) continuity is the misery of man. And if this (artificial self- ?) 'continuity' can end each day, you will be living (on a daily basis ?) with death. That is ( bringing ?) a total (inner ) renewal; that is the renewal of 'something' which has no continuity. And that is why it is important to understand the meaning of ending—totally (the inner dependency ?) on that which has been experienced and remains in the mind as (residual ?) memory. (Pause)
Can a human being live inwardly , apart from physical knowledge, without time and knowledge?

PJ: Isn’t 'living with ending', the very nature of this question? That is, when the mind is capable of living with ending, it is capable of living with the ending of time and knowledge.

K: Yes. But all this may be just a lot of words.

PJ: No, sir. But I am getting to something which is rather different. Do you think that there can be a 'learning' to face the ultimate death?

K: What is there to learn, Pupul? There is nothing to 'learn'.

PJ: The mind must receive a statement like that without agitation. Then, perhaps, when death ultimately comes there will be no agitation.

K: Yes, that is right. And that is why (inwardly living with ?) death has an extraordinary beauty, an extraordinary vitality.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 03 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Feb 2015 #28
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

 INTEGRATING THE MIND AND THE HEART

Questioner P: We have talked several times, and so far the discussions have been related to the mind and its problems. What we have not discussed is the 'movement of the heart' : is it different movement from the movement of the mind? Are the two movements in fact one movement?

Krishnamurti: Let us begin. What do you mean by 'movement of the heart ' ?

P: Any kind of emotional response which we call love, affection, goodwill, compassion, seems to ripple, to move from a focal point which we identify as the ''region of the heart''. These ( emotionally charged ) ripples do affect the heart, make it physically beat faster.

Krishnamurti: Is't it a response of the nerves, the heart, the brain, the whole organism, the psychosomatic organism ? Now, is the ( mental) movement separate from the movement of the heart? We are not speaking of the physical heart, but of the emotions, the sentiments, the angers, the jealousy, the feeling of guilt - all the emotions that make the heart throb and beat faster. Are the movements of the mind and heart separate? Let us discuss it.

P: While we have been discussing with you, there has been a silencing of the brain cells, there has been tremendous clarity, yet there has been no ( emotional) response from the heart.

Krishnamurti: So you are separating the two, but can we question whether they are separate? And if they are not separate, then when the mind is empty of ( the active content of its self- centred ?) consciousness, what is the quality of the mind that is (has?) compassion - that is love, empathy?
Let us begin by asking whether the movement of the heart is separate (from the 'mental' activity?) . Is any ( inner) movement separate?

P: Separate from what?

Krishnamurti: Isn't all ( inner ,) movement unitary, like all ( life) energy is unitary, though we may divide it up, fragment it?
One has broken (split?) this (unitary?) movement up as the movement of the heart, the movement of different categories; but we are asking, "Is the movement of the heart separate from the movement of the mind?" The mind, the heart, the brain, aren't they one unit( a whole?) ? And from that unit (wholeness?) , movement flows; a movement which is unitary. But we divide emotions, sentiments, devotion, tenderness, compassion, enthusiasm from their opposites.

P: There is a purely intellectual movement which is neither one nor the other; the pure technological movement.

Krishnamurti: Is the technological movement different from the movement of the mind?

P: I think thought has its own 'technology'. It has its own momentum, it has its own reason for existence, its own direction, its own speed at which it operates, its own motives and its own energy.

Krishnamurti: We said just now that compassion, love, tenderness, care, consideration and politeness are one movement. The opposite ( emotionally charged?) movement is contrary to that - it is violence and all that. So there is the movement of the mind, the movement of affection, love and compassion; and the movement of violence. So there are now three movements. Then there is another ( controlling?) movement which says ''this must be or this must not be''.

D: The movement of the 'coordinator' apart from the three.

Krishnamurti: Now we have the fourth (fragmentary?) movement - of the coordinator. So there are now four movements and every one of these movements has its own subdivisions (and own agendas?) .
See how complex it becomes, and each subdivision is in contradiction with its opposite. So this psychosomatic organism has got dozens of contradictions (conflicting interests ?)- simultaneous and contradictory movements and there is the 'coordinator' ( the coordinating entity ?) trying to arrange things so that it can operate.

F: Is there not a 'selective mechanism', which picks up and calls it thought, mind, heart and so on? Is that not the 'coordinator'?

Krishnamurti: Coordinator, chooser, integrater, selecter, call it what you will, these ( inner) fragments are all in contradiction with each other.

F: Why do you say they are in contradiction, because each one is an independent movement?

Krishnamurti: When one is (active) , the other is not. But the 'coordinator' weighs these two - 'I want this' and 'I do not want that'.

F: That is the whole movement of life...

P: So far we have gone into the 'movement of the mind'. Is there such a thing as the 'movement of the heart'?

B: Is it a nourishing movement? Is it a movement of sustenance - this which we call the movement of the heart? Is this not necessary so that the movement of the brain does not remain sterile?

D: We are not in the field of contradiction at all.

Krishnamurti: Contradiction is not when one is, and the other is not, but when the 'coordinator' says I would rather not have this but have that; then begins the contradiction, the ( corridor of opposites?) as 'choice'.

A: If I am full of anger, etc., I cannot take two steps beyond. The question is, is the movement of the heart really distinct from that of the mind? Or does it have its own quality?

P: Are these movements parallel to each other? Ultimately they are either the one movement or the other.

Krishnamurti: I am not sure.

P: Isn't the movement (activity?) of the brain that which excites emotions?

D: We have already agreed that the perception of the brain is (translated in terms of) thought.

Krishnamurti: Let us get the meaning of the words clear. The ( heart's ? ) response to various forms of stimuli we call 'emotion'.
Is perception an emotion?
Now what is the next question? Are there two movements (mind & heart?) with their subdivisions; are they parallel, or are they really (part of?) one ( movement) which we do not know?

P: Take desire. Which category would you put it in - emotion or thought? Take the arising of desire. After a while it becomes thought. The valid question is if they are two (time-delayed?) separate movements, is it impossible for them ever to 'come together'? Or is it the very cause of the misfortune that we have kept them separate?

F: That which perceives with the (mental) patterns is thought. That which perceives without the pattern is emotion.

Krishnamurti: I do not know. I know only these two (inner) 'movements' the one the thinking, the intellectual, the rational (mental) movement; the second the feeling of kindliness, gentleness, that is all. Are they two separate movements? Or because we have treated them as two separate movements, our whole misfortune, our confusion arises ? The whole religious tendency in the west as well as in the east has been this division of the 'soul' and the 'body' ; it is really a psycho-somatic state, not one or the other, but it is a 'psychosomatic' movement which invents the soul, etc. And so the question is, are they two movements or because we are so habit-ridden we have accepted that they are two separate movements? If they are not, what is the one unitary movement that includes thought as the movement of the brain and the (emotional) movement of the heart?
How do you investigate this question?
I can only investigate it from fact to fact. I see the fact of the movement of thought. And I ask when there is no movement of thought, is there a (deeper) movement which is non-verbal?
If there is complete cessation of thinking which is (a mental) movement, is there a movement which is an emotive movement as love, devotion, tenderness, care? Is there a movement separate from thought; thought being verbal meaning, explanation, description, etc? Or when the movement of thought comes to an end without any compulsion, is there not a totally different (a timeless?) 'movement' which is not that or this?

P: That is so, Sir, and I am saying this very very hesitantly. There is a state when it is as if an elixir is released, when one is overflowing; a state in which the 'heart' is the only thing that is there - I am using metaphors - and there can be action in that state, doing in it, thinking in it, and everything in it, and there is a state when thought has ceased and the mind is very clear and alert, but the elixir is not present.

Krishnamurti: Let us stick to what is the factor of this (inner) division? What is the factor in us that divides one as the emotive movement and the other as the intellectual-thought movement? Why is there the 'soul' and the 'body'?

D: Wouldn't you admit that there is a movement which emerges from thought and another that emerges from the heart ? It is observable.

Krishnamurti: I say, why is there a division (why are they comparmentalised?)?

D: There is the function of the brain and there is the function of the heart.

A: As far as my (inner) experience goes, when the verbal movement ceases, there is an awareness of the entire body in which emotional content is and it is pure feeling. It is no more thinking, but pure feeling.

P: In the tradition there is a word called Rasa - the essence, 'that' which permeates.

Krishnamurti: Keep to that word « essence », perfume. Essence means « what it is » (ethymologically from  latin 'Essentia' and Greek 'Ousia' = Being ) . Now what happens? In ( a non-dualistic ?) observing of the whole movement of thought, in observing the content of consciousness, the 'essence' comes out of it. And in observing the movement of the heart, in that perception, there is the 'essence'. Essence (the Being?) is the same whether it is this or that.

A: That is what the Buddhists also say.

Krishnamurti: It is the (distilled) 'essence' of all the flowers that makes the perfume and the quality (of Being?). In perceiving the whole movement of thought as (self-) consciousness - consciousness with its (active?) content, in that very observation is the external refinement which is (producing) the essence. Right? In the same way there is the perception of the whole movement of the body, love, joy. When you perceive all that, there is the essence and there are no two essences.
This (spiritual?) essence has to come into being. Now how do you produce it? Distil it? When the flowers are distilled, the essence of the flowers is the perfume.

F: What do you mean by 'distilling the essence'?

Krishnamurti: I have watched what we have been doing during these discussions. We have observed the movement of thought as 'consciousness'; the whole of it and the content of the movement is consciousness. This perception is the distillation of that which is pure intelligence. It is not my intelligence or your intelligence but it is intelligence, it is essence. And when we observe the movement of love-hate, pleasure, fear, which are all emotive movements , as you perceive (their truth or falseness?), the « essence » comes out of that. There are no two essences.

P: The great masters of alchemy were called 'rasa-siddhas'- they who are established in 'rasa', who have their being in that.

Krishnamurti: During these days and before, one has watched the movement of thought. One has watched it, and watched it without any choice and in that is the essence; out of that (clarity of?) 'choiceless' observation comes the essence of the one and the essence of the other. Therefore what is this « essence »? Is it a refinement of emotions, or is it totally unrelated? And yet it is related because it has been observed. Right?

P: So the energy which is (involved in this ) attention....

Krishnamurti: Is this 'essence' unrelated to consciousness? I am taking it that there has been a perception of this movement as (self-) consciousness, as thought and the (active process or ? ) content of that consciousness which is 'time' and the very flame of that (direct) observation distils. Right?
In the same way the flame of perception brings the essence of the 'emotive' movement. Now having ( distilled) this essence, what relationship has it to that and to this? None whatsoever. The distilled 'essence' ( the perfume) has ( qualitatively speaking?) nothing to do with the (original) flower. Though it is part of (obtained from?) the flower, the 'essence' is not of it.

F: Even grammatically it is not all right: ''although it is part of the flower it is not of the flower''.

Krishnamurti: Look, Sir, the other day I saw they were taking the bark of a tree to produce some kind of alcohol; that 'essence' (the distilled alcohol) is not the bark.

D: It is realised because of the heat.

Krishnamurti: So, the 'heat' of (our inner) perception produces the 'essence' ( the pure 'intelligent' energy?) . So is this 'essence' related to ( the previous 'psycho-somatic' ?) consciousness? Obviously not. So the whole point is in this « flame of perception » and the flame of perception 'is' ( in itself?) the essence.

D: It 'creates' the essence and it 'is' the essence ?

Krishnamurti: It 'is' the essence.

P: So (this insight- based?) perception is the movement of creation?

Krishnamurti: You are asking what is Creation? To create something which has not existed before. Now, is it bringing into being something 'new' or bringing into being in the mould of the known.

P: Creation must be bringing into being the new, not (a mere recycling of the?) the old.

Krishnamurti: Bringing into being something totally new. At what level? At the sensory level, at the intellectual level, at the memory level; where? Bringing into being something new; where? So that you see it, so that you can visualize it? The man who produced the jet engine was already familiar with the classical internal combustion engine, so, was that totally new? So when you say ''bringing into being something totally new'' it is at what level?

P: At the sensory level ?

Krishnamurti: At the sensory? Can you paint a new picture which is non-verbal? Can you paint something that is totally new? Which is, can you 'bring into being' something which is not ( the result of a?) self-expression? It is not new if it is self-expression.

P: If Creation is something entirely new which is unrelated to any self-expression, then probably all self-expression ceases, all manifestation ceases. I will say that ( in the man-made world) nothing exists which is not self-expression........

Krishnamurti: That is what I want to get at. The man who discovered the jet (-propulsion engine ) - at the moment when he discovered it, there was no self-expression ( no self-interest involved?) . He translated it into self-expression. It is something discovered, then it is put into a formula.
( Now, inwardly) the flame of perception has brought about the 'essence', and now the question is, has that ( intelligent?) essence any ( need for a material form of ?) 'expression'? Does it create anything new?

D: It creates a new perception ?

Krishnamurti: No. The flame 'is' the perception. This (timeless?) flame is 'aflame' all the time. One moment pure flame of perception, then forgotten (it 'dies'?) , and again pure flame of perception, then forgotten (it is again 'dying'?) . So, each time the flame ( of Creation is expressing itself it ?) is New.

D: Perception touches matter, and there is an explosion and there is mutation. Now that which emerges out of it, you cannot postulate. It is like in the discovery of the jet engine.

Krishnamurti: Let us put it this way. That ( intelligent?) 'essence' is not concerned with self-expression. It is concerned with action. Action then is 'total' (all now?) , not 'partial' ( 'spread' in time?) .

P: I want to ask you just one more question. The manifestation of this......( creative Intelligence?)

Krishnamurti: Which is 'action'....

P: ... has a 'contact' with matter ?

Krishnamurti: There is a perception which is ( the) 'flame', which has distilled the essence. You cannot say 'I' have got it. There is only ( an intelligent ?) essence. Now that 'essence' (pure intelligence?) may act or may not act (in the manifested world?) . If it acts, it has no frontiers at all. There is no "me" acting.

P: So that (distilled intelligence ?) itself is ( the movement of?) creation. Creation is not something apart from that.

Krishnamurti: The very expression of that (intelligent?) 'essence' is creation in action, not ( in terms of) new action or old action. The essence 'is' expression.

P: Then is perception also ( a purely creative?) action?

Krishnamurti: Of course. See the beauty of it ? Forget action. See what has taken place in you. Perception without any ( mental) 'qualification' is a flame, and it 'distils' whatever it perceives. ( However, this ?) is not a 'sensory' perception. When there is that ( compassionate & intelligent?) 'perception' (or 'insight'?) which distils at every minute, that 'essence' acts or it does not act, depending upon where it is; but in that action there is no "me", there is no ( personal?) motive at all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 Feb 2015 #29
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

THE OBSERVER AND 'WHAT IS'

Questioner P: The problem of duality and its ending cannot be understood (tackled?) unless we go into the nature of the 'thinker' and thought. Buddha says what exists is the "Solitude of Reality". While 'you' ( the 'thinker') are the result of your thoughts.
They have all talked about non-duality - the Buddha, Sankara, Nagarjuna. But (nowadays) 'non-duality' has become an (intellectual) concept. Why has non-duality not affected the mind of man? Can we go into it to see whether we can discover 'that' (missing link?) which will trigger the non-dual state?

B: All other developments - scientific, technological - have affected the minds of people. Man has discovered the non-dualistic state but it has not affected his mind nor his life. Why is a mutation not taking place in the relationship between the thinker and the thought?

P: Is the brain's mechanism which records the  'technological' aspects of our existence , the same mechanism which "sees, perceives"?

Krishnamurti: The 'technological' ( practical skills ?) cell, the 'recording' cell and the 'perceptive' cell...

P: And they seem to form the "ego".

Krishnamurti: The technological and the recording fragment - these two make up the 'ego'. Not the perceptive brain cells.

P: But nevertheless, the core of man's mind never seems to get affected. The basic essential duality between the 'thinker' and his 'thinking' continues.

Krishnamurti: Do you think ( that inwardly) there is (actually such ?) a duality or only "what is", the 'fact'?

P: When you, Sir, ask a question like that, the mind stands still and one says "yes, it is so". Then the query starts - ''am I not separate from S, from B?'' Though the mind says "yes", it also queries a split second later. The moment you asked the question, my mind became still.

Krishnamurti: Why not stay there? Is it habit, the very nature of the operation of the self, the conditioning? All that may be due to the 'cultural' ( 'reality' prompting?) imposition to survive, to function and so on. Why bring that (outward mentality?) in when we are looking at the ( inward truth ?) fact - whether there is duality which is basic?

P: You are suggesting duality may be just a reflex action of the brain cells?

Krishnamurti: We are ( mentally?) the result of our environment, of our society, of all our interactions. That is a fact also. I am asking myself is there a basic duality at the very core (of our being?) , or does duality arise when I move away from "what is"? When one does not move away from the basic (fundamental ?) non-dualistic quality of the mind, is there a duality? He thinks. Does the (mind) create a duality when it is completely with "what is"?
( Speaking personally ?) I never 'think' when I look at a tree. When I look at you, there is no ( mental) division as the "me" and "you". So, where does the 'thinker' arise as a self-conscious?) separate from thought? Where does duality arise? Duality arises when the mind says, "I must get rid of that pain. I have known states of non-pain and I want to be in a state of non-pain" (Pause). Is there basically a dualistic ( 'split' ?) state or only when the mind moves away from "what is"?
( Suppose?) I have a physical pain, or a 'psychological' grief. A movement away from it, is (triggering the?) duality. The 'thinker' is (created by?) the ( mental) movement away (from the 'fact'). The 'thinker' then says ''this should be or not be''.
First see the ( truth of the?) fact that the ( mental) movement away from "what is", is the movement ( originating) the 'thinker' ( attitude?) who brings in duality. ( If there is a direct?) observation of the 'fact' of pain, why should there be a 'thinker' in that observation? The 'thinker' (the 'observer'?) arises when there is a ( mental?) movement, either backwards or forwards (in time?) . The thought that I had no pain yesterday - in that (memory interference?) duality arises. Can the mind remain with the pain, without any movement away from it, which brings in the 'thinker'?
The mind is asking itself how this dualistic attitude towards life arises? I have had a pleasure (or a pain?) yesterday (or a minute ago?) . It is finished. (Pause). Is it not as simple as that?

P: Not really...

Krishnamurti: I think it is. You see, this implies (requires?) a non-comparative observation. ( The 'time' ) comparison is dualistic : there is pain today, there is the comparison with the non-pain of yesterday . But there is only one (actual) 'fact': the pain which the mind is going through now. Nothing else exists. Why have we complicated this? Is it that the mind does not know what to do (about the disturbing impacts of life ?) and therefore moves away from the fact and brings duality into being? If it knew, would it bring about duality? Isn't the "what to do" itself a dualistic process?
Let us look at it again. There is pain - physical or psychological. When the mind does not know what to do in the non-dualistic sense, it escapes. Can the mind caught in this ( time-) trap, the backward and the forward movement, can it deal with "what is" in a non-dualistic way? Can pain ( greed,sorrow etc?) , the "what is", be transformed without dualistic activity? Can there be a state of non-thinking, in which the ( controlling entity?) 'thinker' does not come into being at all; the thinker who says "I had no pain yesterday and I will not have it tomorrow"?
P: What you say is right. But there is a lack of something within us; it may be strength, energy. When there is a major crisis, the impact of that crisis is sufficient to plunge us into a state where there is no 'movement away' from the crisis; but in everyday life, we have "little" challenges.

Krishnamurti: If you really understood ( the practicality of?) this, you would meet these 'little' challenges.

P: In everyday life, we have the erratic movement of the thinker operating with its demands. What does one do with that?

Krishnamurti: I do not think you can do anything with it. That is the denial. It is irrelevant.

P: But that is what our minds are - the erratic part. One does not have the capacity to 'negate' that.

Krishnamurti: Listen, there is noise outside. I cannot do anything about it.

P: When there is a crisis, there is contact. In normal living there is no contact. I go out. I can look at a tree and there is no duality. I can see colour without duality. But there is the other, the non-stopping, erratic part (of the mind) that is continuously 'chattering'. The thinker starts operating on it when it sees it functioning. The great negation ( according to you?) is to let it alone ?

Krishnamurti: Settle the primary factor - to observe ( the inner) pain without moving away from it - that is the only non-dualistic state (attitude?) .

P: Let us speak of the fact of this 'chattering' mind instead of 'pain', because at this moment, that is "what is".

Krishnamurti: But the noise, the chattering which was the ( superficial) "what is", has faded away but the pain (of sorrow?) remains. This pain has not gone. To go beyond pain non-dualistically; that is the question. How is it to be done?
To observe "what is", without the dualistic movement (away) taking place, will that ( qualitatively?) transform "what is"?

P: One can see that when there is no 'movement away' from pain, there is a dissolution of pain.

Krishnamurti: How does this happen? Why has man he never understood or delved into pain without the dualistic movement? What happens when there is no movement away from pain? Not what happens ( in terms of) the dissolution of pain but what happens to the ( mental) mechanism that operates? It is simple. Pain 'is' (resulting from?) the movement away. There is no ( 'psychological'?) pain where there is only listening. There is (a mental continuity of?) pain only when I move from the fact and say « this is pleasurable , this is not pleasurable ».
( Suppose?) my son dies. That is an absolute, irrevocable fact. Why is there pain?

P: Because I loved him.

Krishnamurti: Look what has already happened 'unconsciously'. The pain is ( produced by ) the remembrance of my love for him. And he is no more. But the absolute fact is he is gone. Remain with that fact. There is ( psychological?) pain only when the 'thinker' comes into being and says, "my son is no longer there, he was my companion," and all the rest of it.

S: It is not merely the memory of my son who is dead which is pain. There is my loneliness now.

Krishnamurti: But I have only one fact : « my son is gone », while the loneliness, the lack of companionship, despair, are all the result of ( the comparative process of?) thought, which creates a movement away from "what is". It does not need 'strength' or 'determination' not to move. The very 'determination' is dualistic.
There is only the 'fact' and my movement away from the fact, from "what is" breeds bitterness, callousness, lack of love, indifference, which are all the product of thinking.
( To recap:) the non-perception of "what is" (of the 'fact') breeds the 'thinker' (split?) , which is dualistic action. But when the mind falls again into the trap of dualistic action, that is (the new )"what is''; remain with that - for any movement away from that is another dualistic action. Therefore, (if ?) the mind is always dealing with what is ( happening now ?) , the 'fact' needs no transformation because it is already (gone) beyond. (Suppose) anger is "what is". The dualistic movement ( towards a future state of?) 'non-anger' is the movement away from "what is". The ( state of ) non-movement from "what is", is no longer 'anger'. Therefore, the mind - once it has had a ''non-dualistic perception'' ( insight?) - when anger arises again, does not act from memory. The next time anger arises, that is "what is". The mind is always dealing with "what is".

P: This is a tremendous 'action'...

Krishnamurti: You have to be 'simple' ; it is a mind that is not (intellectually) 'clever' that can understand this. Our minds are not 'simple' enough, though we all talk of simplicity, that simplicity is of the 'cloths'.
This 'non-dual' (attitude?) means really the art of listening. The man who remains with "what is" and never moves away from it, has no 'marks'.

P: And ( even ) when ( such) 'marks' take place, to see that they take place. One act of ( insightful?) perception removes the mark.

Krishnamurti: Quite right. That is the way to live

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Mar 2015 #30
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

REVISITING THE AWAKENING OF ( A TIMELESS ?) ENERGY

Questioner P: You have said that
there is a way of awakening ( the 'intelligence'?) energy. What is
the practical way of awakening this energy?

Krishnamurti: Can 'that' energy be awakened without
( getting involved in?) a process of time?

P: Well, to bring our body and mind to a (dynamic ?) equilibrium, a process
of time seems inevitable.

Krishnamurti: There may be a totally different approach to this
problem. Tradition starts from the psychosomatic level- the posture, the
breath control- and gradually through various forms of
concentration to the full awakening of 'That' energy. They are beginning at 'this end' rather than at the
other - 'this end' being time, control, achieving a perfect
balance.
Now, in approaching it
entirely differently (starting from the 'other end' ?), it is necessary to throw out all that has been
said ( previously by the 'professionals' ?) . There is the (necessity of?) awakening ( the totality of our?) energy which has been dissipated so far.
To gather the whole of this energy , attention is
involved, and the elimination of time altogether.
I think there are these major factors - ( ending the inner process of becoming in ?) time, an attention which is
not forced, and the gathering of energy. I think these are the '(three?) fundamental
things one has to understand, because Enlightenment is
(encompassing ) the understanding of this vastness of our life - living, dying, loving; the whole travail and going beyond it.
Now, the traditional Masters would also agree that you have to have
(a self-controlled?)
attention to go beyond time. They use ( a process of self-becoming in?) time to go beyond time.

P: How is that, Sir ?

Krishnamurti: Is 'attention' the result of time?

P: You ask me a question and there is immediate attention. Is
this attention the product of time?

Krishnamurti: No, certainly not.

P: However, the self-knowing process
does involve time. My mind twenty
years ago would not have known the present ( listening?) quality. This state had
no existence then.

Krishnamurti: We are trying to understand
something which is out of time.
When you say through time you
perfect the instrument, is it so? To
me the traditional approach to perfect the instrument through
'( under the control of?) thought, cultivating intelligence
and going beyond time - all these are still in the area of
( the self-centred) thought. Therefore in that very ( process of) thought there is the
'thinker' (controlling entity?) . That 'thinker' says this must happen, that must not happen.
The will to
perfect the instrument is part of thought.

P: In the traditional approach is also implied the questioning of the very
instrument which is thought.

Krishnamurti: But the 'questioner' is part of thought; the whole
( controlling ?) structure is part of thought. 'You' can change, but
it is all within the field of thought, and that is time. Thought is
memory, thought is material; the material ( support of thought?) ) is memory. We are still
functioning within the area of the known.

P: If everything is thought, it must then be necessary to give
birth to a new instrument.

Krishnamurti: Thought
can create the most marvellous technological instruments - it can go to the moon,
to Venus; but thought can never possibly touch "the other" because
(our self centred process of?) thought is old, thought is conditioned.
Thought is the ( activity of the ? ) whole structure of the known.

P: What do you mean by "the other"?

Krishnamurti: 'That' ( which ) is within the field of Silence. Therefore find out
what life is, what
death means, what it means to end sorrow. If you have not come
upon this ( holistic understanding) , to awaken all the 'kundalinis' is within the bondage of
thought & time , going round in
circles. So I would not touch it. When there is the
( light of the?) marvellous (inner?) Sun, all the ( psychic ?) powers are like many candles.
Can the mind, listening to ( the truth of?) this, wipe it away? That very listening
is the wiping away. Then there is attention, love;
everything is there.
The ( right?) exercise of the brain is to find ( to discern?) the truth (from?) the false;
to see the false as the false. You see, when the young Krishnamurti
saw (that 'Truth is a pathless land') , it was over. He gave up all organizations, etc. He had
no training "to see".

P: But you were put through a vigorous
training of the body.

Krishnamurti: Because the body was neglected.
And so they said if he was not looked after he would fall ill.

P: But Sir, apart from physical discipline, there were
instructions (from the Masters?) as to how to bring up that boy.

Krishnamurti: It was doing asanas,
pranayama; it was all at that level.

B: I am not saying that what happened ( during the TS training?) had any
relationship to the illumination, but it is necessary to look after the
body.

Krishnamurti: Yes, it is necessary to keep the body healthy.

P: Sir, if I may say so, you have the way of the yogi, you look
like a yogi, your body takes the pose of a yogi. You have been
doing asanas, pranayama, every day for so many years. Why?

Krishnamurti: That is not important (on the spiritual level?) . It is like keeping my nails
clean. All that you have to do is "to look".

P: But if one is born 'blind' ? Most people would not
even understand what you are talking about.

Krishnamurti: Most people would not 'listen' to all this. They
would brush it aside.

B: The other (traditional approach?) is easier. It gives something whereas this gives
nothing.

Krishnamurti: This gives everything if you touch it.

B: But the other is easier.

Krishnamurti: You see I am terribly interested how has
the mind of Krishnamurti maintained this state of innocence?

P: You may have been be an
'exception'. Did you have an (ego-) centre to wipe away?

Krishnamurti: No.

P: So you are a « phenomenon », and so you cannot tell us how it happened. You can only tell us "This is not it" and
whether we 'drown' or not, no one else can tell us.

Krishnamurti: I think it is tremendously interesting to see that
anything that ( our self-centred process of ?) thought touches is not the Real. Thought is ( the result of our material evolution in ?) time and so, cannot touch the Real ( the Timeless Reality?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 75 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.)