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

K The essential Texts


Displaying posts 31 - 59 of 59 in total
Thu, 08 Aug 2019 #31
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

EASY EXPERIENTIAL STEPS TOWARDS THE HOLISTIC TRANSFORMATION OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS

( first 'experientially -friendly' K CONVERSATION WITH DR BOHM & DR SHAINBERG cca 1976)

Krishnamurti: What do you think is the most important thing that we three can talk about?

Dr. Bohm: Well, I would like to talk about the question of 'wholeness' (of our inner life?)

K: I wonder how we can approach this question knowing that most people are ( self-centred ?) 'fragmented' and not (inwardly?) whole.

S: Through direct awareness of ( one's own inner?) fragmentation ?

K: Or by taking ourselves as we are and examining what we mean by a 'fragmented' (consciousness ) and then ( experientially?) work from there to what is the 'whole' (of human consciousness?) ? Then I think that has vitality, that has some ( holistic) meaning.
( For starters?) Can one become conscious of these various fragments, by examining one by one by one by one? And who is the examiner? Is he not also a ( thought-controlling?) fragment who has assumed an authority? So when we talk about being aware of fragments, socially, morally, ethically, religiously - business, art, you know, the whole human activity is fragmented. Can one (become) aware of the actual 'movement' (of the inward dynamic ? ) of these fragments ?

B: Generally, they presents themselves first as one fragment with a background of all the other fragments perhaps dimly present in it. I mean, in the beginning one fragment seems to take pre-eminence in one's awareness.

S: Isn't that one fragment fragments out quickly into many little fragments ? I mean, my identity is fragmented, my relationship is fragmented, my very substance of movement is a feeling of fragmentation.

K: I am not at all sure that there is no ( self-identified?) 'centre' when you are fragmented.

B: Right, definitely there is a 'centre'. That is the major 'fragment' that one is aware of.

S: Let us go into that more.

B: Well, I just think that there is a (thought-controlling?) centre which you may sense anywhere, say here, and that seems to be the 'centre' of everything that is connected to everything.

S: I see what you are saying, but I feel that when the fragmentation is going on it is like the centre is looking for itself, it feels like it has a centre.

K: Are you aware of this fragmentation? Not, (just saying intellectually that ?) 'fragmentation is going on'.

S: No, I am not.

K: Then what are we aware of?

S: I think we are aware of a movement ( directed) towards more fragmentation- it is like (the thought-driven thread of ) pleasure is pulling us forward into more fragments: this would give me pleasure, that would give me more pleasure. And it is that feeling of pieces.

K: Before we go into the question of ( the inward fragmentation produced by?) pleasure are we aware actually, from a (self-conscious?) centre, which ( glibly ) says, "I am fragmented"?

B: We are both aware 'of a centre', and 'from a centre'. And this ( self-conscious?) 'centre' seems to be, as you say, the fragment that is dominating, or constantly attempting to dominate.

K: That 'centre' is the dominating factor, but in itself it is a fragment ( of our total consciousness consciousness ?)

B: Well, it seems to be the 'centre' of your whole being, or as it were the centre of the self, which one might think is the whole (of one's inward being ) .

K: Quite, quite.

B: Because it is in ( a cvasi-permanent mental ) contact with everything...

K: Would you say having this 'centre' (of one's 'self'-identified consciousness ?) is the very cause of fragmentation?

B: Yes, I would say that, although at first sight it seems that the centre is what is organizing everything into a whole.

K: Yes, always trying to bring about an inward integration, a sense of wholeness, and all that. But I am asking whether when there is a ( self-identified) centre doesn't it make for fragments?

S: I see what you are saying. But in the common experience there doesn't seem to be a centre.

K: Sir, when there are fragments, I am aware of the ( existence of) many other fragments because of (a state of inward conflict or ) contradiction.

B: By 'contradiction' you also mean 'conflict' ?

K: Conflict. Out of the contradiction ( between various personal & collective needs ?) there is conflict. Then I am aware that there are fragments. I am (a self-identified fragment?) working in an area of ( collateral?) fragments.

S: Yes, but I am not aware of the fact that I have got a 'centre'. That is the self deception, right there.

K: Where there is ( a personal) conflict then only you are aware of a conflict of contradiction. The next movement is the conflict arises out of fragmentation; opposing elements, opposing desires, opposing wishes, opposing thoughts.

B: Are you saying that these oppose first, before one is aware; and then suddenly you are aware through the unpleasantness or the pain of the opposition that the conflict is unpleasant?

K: Yes, conflict is unpleasant and therefore one is becoming aware that...

B: ...that something is wrong - not just simply wrong but wrong with the whole thing.

K: The whole thing, of course. You are aware of yourself only when there is pain, or intense pleasure. Otherwise you are not aware of yourself. So (a subliminal inner ) fragmentation with its ( collateral) conflicts brings this (pretty sad?) sense of 'I am aware I am in conflict' - otherwise there is no self-awareness.

B: Then would you say that ( one's self-centred) thought in itself, even before there is (a focussing into) a centre breeds conflict? I mean one view is to say that the 'centre' and thought are always co-existent and that one breeds the other ?

K: One breeds the other, quite.

B: And the other view is to say that there might be thought first and that produces conflict and then that produces a centre.

K: Let's go into that a little bit. Does thought (the thinking brain?) exists before conflict?

B: Yes, because that comes in apparently to try to bring about wholeness again,( in its attempt?) to take charge of everything.

K: The 'centre' tries to take charge, or tries to create ( the sense of an integrated) wholeness.

B: Yes, to bring all the factors together.

K: Yes, but ( ignoring that?) this (self-identified) 'centre' itself is a fragment.

B: Yes, but it doesn't know that.

K: Of course, it doesn't know but it ( like to ?) think that it can bring all the fragments together and make it a whole. So Dr Bohm is asking the (ages old 'chicken or the egg'?) question: did thought exist before the centre, or the centre existed before the thought.

B: Or are the two together?

S: But he is also asking: does thought create the centre?

K: Thought creates the centre.

S: That would be a sort of after effect of thought. In other words is the organism - is the production of thought the very cause of a centre?

K: Are we asking: did thought create the centre?

B: And was there a kind of thought (natural thinking) before a centre?
I mean people think the centre is 'me' who was there first and then I began to think!

K: Yes. I think 'thought' (brain's thinking capacity?) exists before the centre.

S: Yes, then we have to ask the question - what is thought?

K: Oh, that is a different matter. We will go into that (eventually?) .

B: That might be a long story...

S: OK, That's not for now. But we'll eventually have to get at that.

K: We started out asking: can we talk about the wholeness of life. How can one be aware of that wholeness if one is ( inwardly) fragmented? That is the next question. You can't be aware of the whole (of life) if I am only looking through a small ( personalised ?) hole.

S: Right. But on the other hand in actuality you 'are' the whole.

K: Ah! That is a (very convenient) theory. When you are fragmented how can you assume that you are the whole?

S: Well, that is an issue because how am I to know I am ( inwardly?) fragmented?

K: When are you aware that you are fragmented? Only when there is conflict.
When the two opposing desires, opposing elements of ( thought's) movement, then there is conflict, then you have pain, or whatever it is, and then you (suddenly?) become ( self-) conscious.
What we are asking ( for homework meditation?) is: can the fragment dissolve itself, and then only it is possible to see the whole. You cannot be fragmented and then wish for the whole.

S: Right. All you really know is your ( ongoing multilevel inner) fragmentation.

K: That is all we know, therefore let's stick to that and not beat round the bush and say, let's talk about the whole and all the rest of it.

B: So, the supposition that there is a whole may be reasonable but as long as you are fragmented you could never see it. It would be just an assumption. You may think you have experienced it once, but that is also an assumption, that is gone.

K: Absolutely. Quite right.

S: I wonder if there is not a tremendous ( existential) pain that goes on when I am becoming aware of my fragmentation. That is the (sense of your?) 'loneliness' somehow.

K: Look sir: can you become aware of your fragments? That you are an American, that I am a Hindu, you are a Jew or whatever, - you just live in that ( inner comfort zone?) . You don't say, "Well, I know I am a Hindu" - it is only when you are (feeling personally) challenged, it is only when it is said, "What are you?", then you say, "I am an Indian", or a Hindu, or an Arab.

B: Or, when your country is challenged then you have got to worry.

K: Of course.

S: So you are saying that ( inwardly?) I am living totally reactively ?

K: No, you are totally living in a kind of (psychological) miasma, confusion.

S: From one piece to the next, from one reaction to the next reaction.

K: Reward and punishment in that movement. So can we be aware, actually now, now, of the ( existence of the?) various fragments? That I am a Hindu, that I am a Jew, that I am an Arab, that I am a Communist, that I am a Catholic, that I am a businessman, I am married, I have responsibilities, I am an artist, I am a scientist -of all this various sociological fragmentation, As well as of my psychological fragmentation.

S: That is exactly what I started with. This feeling that I am a fragment, this feeling that that is where I get absorbed, being a fragment.

K: Which you call the individual(ity?) .

S: That I call 'important', not just my individuality . That I have to work (for earning a living?) .

K: Quite. So can we now in talking over together, be aware that I 'am' that? I am a fragment and therefore creating more fragments, more conflict, more misery, more confusion, more sorrow, because when there is ( an internal) conflict ( of interests?) it affects everything else.

S: Right....

K: Can you be aware of it ( in real time?) as we are discussing it ?

S: I can be aware as we are discussing it a little.

K: Not a little.

S: That's the trouble. Why can't I be ( fully?) aware of it?

K: Look sir. You are only aware of it when there is ( a major personal) conflict. It is not a conflict in you now.

B: But is it possible to become aware of it without conflict?

K: That requires quite a different approach.

B: How will we consider this different approach?

S: This movement (of seeking psychological security) into ( the field of) fragmentation seems to be caused by something. It seems to be...

K: Is this what you are asking: what is the cause of this fragmentation?

S: What is the cause of the fragmentation? When the child separates from the mother ?

K: Biologically.

S: No, but also psychologically. The child starts able to walk, and the child can walk away, then he runs back and then he runs back and he looks back, he says, is she still there. Gradually moves away. Now the mother that is not able to let go says, "Come back here".

K: Quite. But we are asking something very important, which is: what is the cause of this ( inner) fragmentation?

S: That is what I was getting into. It begins with ''I have got to hold on to something''.

K: No, much deeper than that...

S: Fear ?

K: No, no, much more. Why am I ( identifying myself as) a Hindu? What makes me a Hindu?

S: Well, ( your cultural) conditioning makes you a 'Hindu'.

K: But behind that, what is it?

S: Well that gives me a place, an identity, I know who I am then, I am. I have my little niche.

K: So what made you? The great great grandparent made, created this environment, this culture, this whole structure of human existence, with all its misery and with all the mess it is in, what has brought it about? Which is this (mentality of) fragmentation, all the conflict. The Babylonians, the Egyptians, we are exactly the same now.

K: Let's find out why man has bred, or brought about this ( divisive mentality?) state, which we ( blindly?) accept - gladly or unwillingly. Is it the desire for security, biological as well as psychological security?

S: You could say yes.

K: If I belong to something, to some organization, to some group, to some sect, to some ideological community, I am ( feeling) safe there.

B: You may only 'feel safe'...

K: But it may not be ( a real) safety.

B: Yes, and it is essential that I shouldn't enquire too far to feel secure, isn't it? In other words, I must stop my enquiry at a certain point.

K: If I begin to ask questions about my community and my relation to that community, my relationship to the world, my relation to my neighbour, I am finished. I am getting out of (touch with?) the community. I am feeling lost.

B: It is still not clear why I should go on with it. You see in other words as long as I don't ask questions I can feel comfortable. But I feel uncomfortable when I do ask questions, very deeply uncomfortable. Because my whole of my situation is challenged. But then if I look at it more broadly I see the whole thing has no foundation, it is all dangerous. In other words this community itself is in a mess, it may collapse. Everything is changing so fast that you don't know where you are. So why should I go on with not asking questions?

K: Why don't I ask questions? Because of fear. So is it the beginning of this ( our inward?) fragmentation takes place when one is seeking security - primarily psychologically, then physically.

B: But isn't the tendency to seek security physically built into the ( psychosomatic?) organism?

K: Yes, that's right. It is. And I must have food, clothes, shelter. It is absolutely necessary. (In a nutshell:) insecurity takes place when psychologically I want security. I don't know if I am making myself clear ; if I don't psychologically belong to a group, then I am out of that group.

S: Then I am really insecure.

K: And because the group gives me security, physical security, I accept everything they say to me. But the moment I object psychologically to the structure of the society or the community I am lost.
But we were asking: why does this fragmentation take place? What is the source of it? Is it ( our functioning exclusively in the field of?) knowledge?

S: What do you mean here by 'knowledge'?

K: Knowing, to 'know' is the ( processed & recycled memory of the ) past. Would you say that?

B: Yes, I mean what we know is the ( result of all mankind's ) past (experience) . So, if we acknowledge that what we 'know' is the past, then that would not introduce fragmentation ?

K: No, it wouldn't, quite right.

B: But if we say what we know is also present now, then we are introducing fragmentation - because we are imposing this partial knowledge on the whole.

K: Sir, would you say that knowledge is one of the factors of fragmentation? A large pill to swallow!

B: And also there are plenty of other factors.

K: Or, that may be the only factor.

B: Wouldn't it be better to say that the confusion about the role of knowledge is because of fragmentation?

K: Sir, that is what we said yesterday in our ( prep) talk; art is putting things in its right place. So I will put knowledge in its right place.

B: Yes, so we are not confused about it.

K: We are saying that knowledge has its right place. Like in driving a car, learning a language and so on. But when knowledge is used psychologically..

.
B: One should see more clearly what the difference is. When we say ''I am so and so'', I mean the whole of me. And therefore I am trying to cover the whole by the part.

K: When knowledge assumes it understands the whole then begins the mischief.

B: But it is often very tricky because I am not explicitly spelling out that I understand the whole, but it is implicit by saying I 'am' this way.

K: Quite, quite.

B: It implies that the whole is this way, you see. The whole of me, the whole of life, the whole of the world. Then I shouldn't say 'I know all' because you are not a limited part like a machine is. You see the machine is fairly limited and we can know all that is relevant about it, or most of it anyway. But when it comes to another person that is immensely beyond what you could really know. The past experience doesn't tell you the essence.

K: Are you saying, Dr Bohm, that when knowledge spills over into the psychological field...

B: Well, also in another field which I call the whole in general. You see sometimes it spills over into the philosophical field and man tries to make it metaphysical, the whole universe.

K: That is of course. I mean that is purely theoretical and that has no (experiential ) meaning to me personally.

B: Some people may feel that when they are discussing metaphysics of the whole universe that is not psychological - probably is the motives behind it are psychological- but some people may feel that they are making a theory of the universe, not discussing 'psychology'.

S: Well, what you are saying, can be extended to the way people are in real life . They have a 'metaphysics' about other people: ''I know all other people are not to be trusted''.

K: Of course.

B: Or you may have a metaphysics about yourself saying, I am such and such a person.

S: Right. I have a metaphysics that life is hopeless and I must depend on these things.

K: So, ( to recap:) I said, what is the source of this conflict. The source is fragmentation, obviously. What brings about fragmentation? What is the cause of it, behind it? We said, perhaps 'knowledge' – when I use knowledge 'psychologically', I know myself, when I really don't know, because I am changing, moving. So is it that fragmentation takes place when there is a desire for security, psychological security, which prevents biological security?

S: Right.

K: And therefore this ( illusory?) security may be one of the factors: security in knowledge used wrongly.

B: Or could you say that some sort of (honest?) mistake has been made, that man feels insecure biologically, and he tries to obtain a psychological sense of security by knowledge?

K: By knowledge, yes. One feels secure in having an ideal.

B: But somewhere one asks why a person makes this mistake. You see in other words if thought, if the mind had been absolutely clear, let's say, it would never have done that. Would you say if the man were clear, what would be his response?

K: You would never ( wait to) be put in that position.

B: But suppose he finds himself without money, you see.

K: He would do something...

B: But he won't go into this well of confusion.

K: No, absolutely. (To re-recap:) We are trying to stick to one point: what is the cause of this fragmentation? And we said knowledge spilling over into the field where it should not enter.

B: But why does it always do so ? Why doesn't ( one's natural) intelligence show that there is no security, you see?

K: Can a fragmented mind be ( holistically?) intelligent?

B: So, are you saying that once the mind fragments then the intelligence is gone?

K: Yes.

B: But now you are creating a serious problem, because you are also saying that there can be an end to this (inward) fragmentation.

K: That's right. Let's stick to it and see if it can end. Is our 'psychological' security more important than the biological security?

S: It isn't but it sounds like it is.

K: But what is the 'fact' to you?

S: Biological security is more important. But... I think psychological security is what I actually worry about most.

K: Psychological security.

S: That is what I worry about most.

K: Which prevents biological security. Because I am seeking psychological security, in ideas, in knowledge, in pictures, in images, in conclusions, and all the rest of it, which prevents me from having biological, physical security for me, for my son, for my children, for my brothers. I can't have it.

S: No question. I sit in on meetings every week. Each man thinks his territory is the most important.

K: So man has given more importance to psychological security than to biological, physical security.

B: But it is not clear why he should delude himself in this way.

S: Images, power ?

K: No, sir, they are much deeper. The 'me' is the most important thing - me my position, my happiness, my money, my house, my wife – me.

B: Yes. And isn't it that each person feels he is the essence of the whole. The 'me' is the very essence of the whole. I would feel that if the 'me' were gone the rest wouldn't mean anything.

K: That is the whole point. The 'me' gives me ( the illusion of?) complete security, psychologically.

B: It seems all important, because people say, ''if I am sad then the whole world has no meaning''. Right?

K: So, we are saying that in the 'me' is the greatest security.

B: That is what is happening. But it is still a delusion.

K: We will come to that later.

S: I think that is a good point. That the ( temporal continuity of the?) 'me' is what is important. That is all it is.

K: Psychologically. Me, my country, me, my god, my house, and so on.

S: It is very important to let that sink in, but we have got your point.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Aug 2019 #32
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

2ND ( 'experientially-friendly' edited ) CONVERSATION WITH DR BOHM & DR SHAINBERG ON THE HOLISTIC TRANSFORMATION OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS (1976)

Krishnamurti: Do we go on where we left off yesterday?

Dr Bohm: I felt there was a (major existential) point that wasn't entirely clear in what we were discussing yesterday : Which is that we rather accepted that security, psychological security was an illusion; but in general I don't think we made it very clear why we think it is a delusion. You see most people feel that their 'psychological' security is a very real thing and quite necessary and when it is disturbed, or when a person is frightened, or sorrowful, or even so disturbed that he might get psychologically disturbed and require treatment, he feels that his psychological security is necessary before he can even begin to do anything.

K: Yes, right.

B: So, it isn't at all clear why one should say that it is not really as important as physical security.

K: I think we have made it fairly clear , but let's go into it. Is there really a 'psychological' security at all?

B: Well, I don't think we discussed that fully last time.

K: Nobody accepts that. But we are enquiring into it, going into the problem of it.

Dr Shainberg: But we said something even deeper yesterday - that our cultural conditioning sets the importance of psychological security, and that in turn creates insecurity. And it is the conditioning that creates the psychological security as a focus? Would you agree that?

K: I think that we two mean something different.

S: What do you mean?

K: First of all, sir, we take it for granted that there is an (ego-related ?) 'psychological' security .

B: I think that if you told somebody who was feeling very disturbed mentally that there is no psychological security he would just feel worse.

K: Collapse. Of course. But here we are talking of fairly sane, rational people. And we are questioning whether there is any (egocentric ?) psychological security at all; permanency, stability, the sense of a deep-rooted existence psychologically.

S: Maybe if we could say more then, what ( exactly ) you mean by 'psychological' security?

K: Suppose that I believe (very strongly) in something. It may be the most foolish belief (but for the time being?) that gives me a tremendous sense of vitality and stability.

B: We could think of two examples: one is that if I could really believe that after dying I would go to 'heaven', and be quite sure of it, then I could be very secure anywhere, not matter what happens. I'd say, I don't really have to worry, because it is all just a temporary trouble and then I am pretty sure that in time it is all going to be very good. Do you see?

K: That is the whole Asiatic attitude, more or less.

B: Or if I am a Communist, then I say, in time Communism is going to solve everything and we are going through a lot of troubles now but you know it is all going to be worthwhile and it will work out, and in the end it will be all right. So, if I could be ( 100%) sure of that then I would say I feel very secure inside, even if the present conditions are hard.

K: So we are questioning, though one has these strong beliefs which gives them a sense of security, permanency, whether there is such a thing (as psychological security) in actuality...

S: The question is: is it really possible to question it outside the ( comfort zone provided by meditation?) ?

K: Is it possible.

S: Yes, yes. ... But I want to ask David something. Do you think that, for instance take a scientist, a guy who is going to his laboratory everyday, or take a doctor, he is getting security. He takes security from the very 'routinization' of his life. In the case of this scientist , where from does he get his (inward) security?

B: Well, he has ( a strong ) belief that he is learning the permanent laws of Nature, really getting to something that means something. And also getting a position in society, by being well known and respected and financially secure.

S: He believes that these things will give him the thing. But the mother also believes that the child will give her security.

K: Don't you 'psychologically' have (an inner sense of temporal ) security?

S: I get a security out of my knowledge, out of my routine, out of my patients, out of seeing my patients, out of my position.

B: But if I think it over a little bit, if I question it. I say, it doesn't look all that secure, because anything may happen - there may be a war, there may be a depression, there may be a flood. So I say there is ( a potential) conflict and confusion in this ( psychological) security because I am not ( 100%) sure about it.

S: You are not sure about it.

B: But if I had an absolute belief in God and Heaven (in the 'after-life') …

K: This is so obvious!

S: I agree with you it is 'obvious', but I think it has to be really felt through.

K: But, sir, you, Dr Shainberg, you are the ( psychological) victim, for this (in class example) . Don't you have a strong belief?

S: Well, I wouldn't say 'strong'.

K: Don't you have a sense of ( psychological) permanency somewhere inside you?

S: I think I have a sense of permanency about my work, my social status, about the continuity of my interest. You know what I mean ?

K: Yes.

S: There is a sense of security in the feeling that I can help someone and I can do my work OK.

K: That gives you the 'psychological' security.

S: There is something ( implicit ) about it that is (feeling) secure. What am I saying when I say 'security'? I am saying that I won't be lonely.

K: Or, feeling secure that you have something that is impenetrable.

S: I don't feel it that way. I feel it more in the sense of what is going to happen in time, am I going to have to depend, what is my time going to be, am I going to be lonely, is my life going to be empty?

K: No, sir.

S: Isn't that (psychological) security?

K: As Dr Bohm pointed out, if one has a strong belief in reincarnation, as the whole Asiatic world has, then it doesn't ( really) matter what happens, as in the next life you have a better chance. So that gives you a great sense of "this is unimportant, but that is important". And that gives me a sense of great comfort, great - as though this is a transient world anyhow and eventually I will 'get ther'e, to something permanent.

S: This may be true in the Asiatic world; but in the western world you don't have that.

K: Oh, yes you have it.

B: It is different but we have always had the search for security.

S: Right, right. But what do you think ( the psychological) security is? I mean for instance if you became a scientist, you went to the laboratory, you picked up the books all the time. Right? You may not go to the laboratory, but you have had your own laboratory. What the hell do you call 'security'?

K: Having something to which you can cling to and which is not perishable. It may perish eventually but for the time being it is there to hold on to.

B: You can feel that it is permanent. Like in the past, people used to accumulate gold because gold is the symbol of the imperishable.

S: We still have people who accumulate gold - we have business men, they have got money.

B: You feel it is really there. It will never corrode, it will never vanish and you can count on it, you know...

S: So it is something ( projected by thought?) that I can count on.

K: Count on, hold on to, cling to, be attached to.

S: The 'me' ?

K: Exactly.

S: I know that I am a doctor. I can depend on that...
K: ...( professional) knowledge & experience. And on the other hand (your cultural) tradition.

B: Yes, it is clear enough that we all have that (inbuilt in our everyday mentality?) , it is part ( the mentality?) of our society that we want something secure and permanent. Wouldn't you say that in so far as thought can project (its own inner ) time, that it wants to be able to projectthat everything is going all right in the future as far as possible.

S: That is what I meant when I said loneliness: if I don't have to have to face my existential loneliness...

B: In other words the anticipation of what is coming is already in the present feeling. You see, if you can anticipate that something bad may come, you already feel bad.

K: That's right.

B: I would say that (the psychological) security would be ( thought's) anticipation that everything will ( eventually) be good in the future.
Even if it is not so good now it will become better with certainty.

S: So then security is ( transfered to the process of self-) becoming.

K: Yes, becoming, perfecting...

S: I see ( mentally disturbed) patients all the time. Their projected belief is I will become (happier?) - I will find somebody to love me. I see patients who say, "I will become the chief of the department", "I will become the most famous doctor", "I will become..." and his whole life goes like that. Because it is also focussed on being the best tennis player, the 'best'.

K: Of course, of course.

B: Well it seems it is all focussed on anticipating that your life is going to be good, when you say that. But it seems to me you wouldn't raise the question unless you had a lot of ( real-life) experience that life is not so good, in other words, it is a reaction to having had to much experience of disappointment, of suffering.

K: Would you say that we are not conscious of the whole ( time-binding?) movement (subliminal activities of ?) of thought?

B: No, what I mean is that most people they would say that it is only very natural - if I have had a lot of experience of suffering and disappointment and danger, and that is unpleasant - that I would like to be able to anticipate that ( at least from now on?) everything is going to be good.

K: Yes.

B: At first sight it would seem that that is really quite natural. But you are saying that there is something wrong with it.

K: We are saying there is no such thing as ( thought-projected) psychological security.

B: Yes, but is it clear for eeverybody now that these hopes are really vain hopes ?

S: That is a good question. You see, Krishnaji is raising a good ( meditation related) question : is it meaningful to look for this 'psychological' security. Is there such a thing?

K: Sir, after all, there is death at the end of everything. You want to be secure for the next ten years, that is all, or fifty years. Afterwards it doesn't matter. Or it if does matter then you believe in something. That there is God, or whatever it is you believe. So I am trying to find out, that there is no (temporal) permanency 'psychologically', which means 'no tomorrow' psychologically (speaking) .

B: That ( insight ) hasn't yet come out. But we can say empirically that we (kind of?) know these hopes for security are false because first of all, as you say there is death, secondly you can't count on anything (forever) since materially everything changes. And even mentally everything in your head is changing all the time. You can't count on ( the permanency of) your feelings, you can't count on enjoying tomorrow a certain thing that you enjoy now, you can't count on being healthy, you can't count on money.

K: You can't rely on your wife, you can rely on nothing.

B: So that is an (obvious) fact. But I am saying that you are suggesting something deeper ; we don't base ourselves only on that observation.

K: That is very superficial. So ( to consider in the meditation homework?) if there is no real security, basic deep, then is there a 'tomorrow', psychologically? And if there is not (a psychologically-projected) 'tomorrow' you take away all ( thought-projected?) hope.

B: What you mean here by 'tomorrow', is it the 'tomorrow' in which things will get better ?

K: Better, greater success, greater understanding, more love, you know the whole business.

S: I think that is a little quick. I think that there is a jump there because as I hear you, I hear you saying there is no security.

K: But it is so.

S: It is so. But for me to really say, "Look, I know there is no security"...

B: Well, isn't it just an observed fact, that there isn't anything you can count on psychologically?

S: Right. But you see I think there is a (hidden point of) action there. Krishnaji is saying, why don't you ( inwardly realise?) there is no such security? Why don't I?

K: When you hear there is no security, is it an abstracted idea? Or an actual fact (to be checked first in the field of Meditation?) , like that table, like your hand there, or those flowers?

S: I think it mostly becomes an idea.

K: That is just it.

B: Why should it become an idea?

S: That I think is the ( implicit) question. Why does it become an idea?

K: Is it part of your professional training?

S: Partly yes. Part of my cultural conditioning.

K: Part of a real objection to see things as they are.

B: Even if (intellectually ) one can see that there is no ( long term psychological) security, it seems that there is something which seems to be there which is trying to protect itself ; it seems to be a actual fact that the 'self' is there. And if the 'self' is there it requires security and therefore this creates a resistance to accepting that as a fact and puts it as an idea only. It seems that the factuality of the 'self' has not been denied. The 'apparent' factuality.

S: Right. But why do you think it hasn't been? What happens?

K: Is it that you refuse to 'see' things as they are? Is it that one refuses to see that one is 'stupid' (or...inwardly blind?) - To acknowledge that one is ( inwardly blind or ?) 'stupid' is already - you follow?

S: When you say to me ''you refuse to acknowledge that you are stupid'' - let us say it is me – this implies means then I have got to do something.

K: Not yet. ( At the deeper levels of huma consciousness?) Action comes through direct perception, not through ideation.

S: I am glad you are ( finally?) getting into this.

S: Is this what you mean when you talk about the rôle of destruction in creation? In other words, is there something here about the destruction (negation of what ?) I am not.

K: You must destroy (negate?) that (illusion of self-centred mental entity ?) .

S: Now what makes it so ( impossibly) hard for me to destroy it ? I mean destroy this ( irrational?) need for security, why can't I do it?

K: You see you are already entering into the realm of action. I say first 'see' (the truth about?) it. And from that global perception the (inward) action is inevitable.

S: All right. Now about seeing this insecurity, what do you actually 'see' ?

K: That you are clinging to something, belief and all the rest of it, which gives you ( a sense of your temporal) security. I cling to this where house I am feeling safe. it gives me a sense of physical and therefore of psychological security.

S: Right, you have a place to go.

K: A place to go. But there might be an earthquake (or...hurrycane?) and everything is gone. If you ask a poor man, he says, of course I have no ( long term material) security, but he wants it. His security is, give me a good job, and a house, and a good wife and children; that's my security. And that movement of ( seeking physical) security ( subliminally) enters into the psychological field. The ( direct?) perception of that is ( bringing its own?) total action with regard to security.

B: Yes, but you see why does (this psychological security ?) presents itself as so real? There is like a thought process which is driving on, continually.

K: Are you asking why has all this has becomes so fantastically real?

B: Yes. Abstractly you can see the whole thing as no security at all, I mean, just looking at it professionally and abstractly.

S: That is putting the cart before the horse.

B: No, I am just saying that if it were some simple matter, giving that much proof you would have already accepted it, you see. But when it comes to this, no proof seems to work. Here I am presented with the solid reality of myself and my security, which seems to deny - there is a sort of reaction which seems to say, well, that may be possible but it really is only words. The real thing is 'me'. Do you see?

S: There is no question about it. Me, me, me, is important.

K: Which is an idea.

B: We can say ( glibly or?) abstractly 'it is just an idea'. But the (experiential) question is, how do you break into this process?

K: I think we can break into it, or break through it, or get beyond it, only through (an 'observer'-free inward ) perception.

B: The trouble is that all that we have been talking about is in the form of ideas. They may be correct ideas but they won't break into this. Because this ( subliminal self-centredness?) dominates the whole of thought.

K: Look sir: if I feel my security lies in some ( self-identified ) image I have, a picture, a symbol, a great personal ideal and so on, I would put it not as an abstraction but bring it down (to be examined ?) .

B: Well, have you actually done that?

K: No, I haven't because ( for 'unknown' reasons?) I have no ( personal) beliefs. I have no (self-) image , I don't go in for all those kind of ( mind) games. I said, 'if' (I would have them?) Then I would bring the abstracted thing into ( the field of meditation?) as a perceptive reality.

S: To see ( my personal dependency to?) my belief, is that it?

K: See it.

S: Right. To see the 'me' in operation.

K: Yes, if you like to put it that way. Take a simple thing, not complicated, like the concept that I am an 'Englishman'.

B: Probably don't anymore feel attached to those concepts.

S: Let's take one that is real for me: take the one about me being a ( psy-) doctor. That is a very realistic conclusion based on training, based on experience, based on the enjoyment of the work and I get a kind of ( positive) feed back, I get a whole community of feed in. Books I've written, papers, positions and I continually act to continue that.

K: Yes, sir, that is understood. The concept that you are a doctor is based on ( your professional?) knowledge, experience, everyday activity. So what is factual in that? Your training, your knowledge, your daily operation. That's all. The rest is a conclusion.

B: But... what is the rest?

K: The rest: I am very much better than somebody else.

B: Or that this ( well paid) profession is going to keep me occupied in a good way.

K: A good way. I will never feel lonely.

B: But isn't there also a certain (subliminal) fear that if I don't ( continue to) have this, then things could be pretty bad?

K: Of course. What if the patients don't turn up?

B: Then I have no money; fear.

K: So ( I'll have to face my existential?) loneliness. So...better go back (again to being) occupied.

S: Be occupied doing this, completing this 'concept'.

K: Be occupied.

S: Right. Do you realize how important that is to all people, to be occupied?
I can see them running around.

K: Sir, a housewife is occupied. Remove that occupation, she says, please what shall I do?

S: We know that as a fact. Since we put electrical equipment into the houses the women are going crazy, they have nothing to do with their time (except going to Starbucks & Pilates, tweeting, etc, etc)

K: But the result of this, neglect of their children.

S: OK. Let's go on. Now we have got this fact, 'occupied'.

K: Occupied. Is this ( constant need for?) occupation an abstraction, or an actuality?

S: It is an actuality. I am actually occupied.

K: You are actually occupied?

S: Yes.

K: Daily ?

S: Daily.

B: Well, what do you really mean by occupied? I can say I am actually doing all the operations. That is clear. But being occupied it seems to me has a psychological meaning, further than that, that my mind is ( floating) in that thing in a relatively harmonious way. There was something I saw on television once of a woman who was highly disturbed, it showed on the graph, but when you was occupied doing her mathematics, the graph went beautifully smooth. She stopped doing the sums and it went all over the place. Therefore, she had to keep on doing something to keep the brain working right.

K: Which means what? ( Relying inwardly on?) a mechanical process. So you have reduced yourself to a (non-stop thinking?) machine.

B: But why does the brain begin to go so wild when it is not occupied? That seems to be a very common experience.

K: Because in ( a constant) occupation there is security.

B: Right. So we feel our (need for psychological) security really means we that want order. Is that right?

K: That's it.

B: We want order inside the brain. And we want to be able to project order into the future, for ever.

S: But would you say that you can get it by mechanical order?

B: Then we get dissatisfied with it, you see, you say, "I am getting sick, bored with it, I am sick of this mechanical life, I want something more interesting".

K: That is where the gurus come in!

B: Then the thing goes wild again. Do you see the mechanical order won't satisfy it because it works only for a little while. After a while I begin to feel it is too repetitious, I am getting bored.

S: OK. But suppose that doesn't happen. Suppose some people become satisfied with their job?

B: Well, they don't really. I mean then they become dull...

K: Quite. Mechanical; and if you stop that mechanism, the brain goes wild.

B: Right. So they feel they are a bit dull and they would like some entertainment, or something more interesting and exciting. And therefore there is a ( a subliminal) contradiction, there is conflict and confusion in the whole thing.

K: Sir, he (S) is asking what is disturbing him. He feels he hasn't put his teeth into it. What is disturbing you?

S: Well, it is this feeling that you see people will say that I can do something I like and it gets boring, let's say, or it might get repetitious, but then I will find new parts of it. And then I'll do that some more because that gives me a pleasure, you see. I mean I get a satisfaction out of it.

B: Right.

S: So I keep doing more of that. It is like an accumulative process.

K: No, you move from one mechanical process to another mechanical process, get bored with it and keep going. And you call that 'living' !

B: Even if I accept all that, the trouble is that I now try to be sure that I can keep on doing this, because I can always anticipate a future when I won't be able to do it. You see? I will be a bit too old for the job, or else I'll fail. I'll lose the job, or something. In other words, I still have insecurity in that ( self-projected temporal) order.

K: Essentially, essentially it is a mechanical disorder. Do you see this?

S: I see that, yes. I feel that, I think. I see it is very much like Piaget's theory. Right? In other words, there is assimilation, an accommodation and then there is seeing what doesn't fit and going on with it. And then there is more assimilation, and accommodation, and then going on with it. The French psychologist, describes this as the 'enormity' of human brains.

K: Yes, yes.

S: You know this ?

K: I don't have to read Piaget, I can observe it.

B: Right. So we are driven to this because we are frightened of the instability of the brain. Do you see? That would mean being occupied with this. And it seems then that is disorder. If you are doing something because you are trying to run away from instability of the brain, that will merely be masking disorder.

S: Yes. Well, then you are suggesting that this is being the natural disorder of the ( temporal) brain. Are you suggesting a natural disorder?

B: No, I am saying that the ( reflective?) brain seems to be disordered. This seems to be a fact. That the brain without occupation goes, tends to go, into disorder. And it is dangerous actually because if it keeps doing this because of what is going to happen . I mean it may do all sorts of crazy things.

K: Yes. All the ('stable genius'?) neurotics, you know all that ( ongoing) business.

B: In other words, I feel that the main danger comes from within, you see.

K: Absolutely. Now, if, when you see (the whole truth about?) it, observe it (non-personally?) there is ( a holistically-friendly) action which is not fragmented.

B: But you kow, one can feel that you do not know whether (or when?) this disorder can stop. In other words if you were sure that it could stop, that religion, that God will take care of it, or something, then you will have security. ( But apparently?) nothing can control that ( snowballing?) disorder. You see that this really seems to be the thing that there is nothing that can control that disorder. You may take pills, or do various things, but it is always (going on) there in the background.

K: Quite right.

B: I don't know whether we should say, one question is, why do we have this disorder? If it were in built into the structure of the brain,like this is human nature, then there would be no way out.

K: I think the disorder arises, doesn't it, first when there are ( multiple threads of ) mechanical processes going on. And ( falling asleep?) in that mechanical process the brain feels secure, but when the mechanical process is disturbed it becomes insecure.

S: Then it does it again.

K: Again, and again, and again, and again.

S: It never stays with ( contemplating?) that insecurity.

B: The ( 64.000 $) question is, why does the brain is constantly getting caught in mechanism? Do you see. In other words, it seems in the situation the brain gets caught in mechanical process.

K: Because it is the most (psychologically?) secure way of living.

B: Well, it appears that way, but in the long run it is not.

S: Are you saying (our brains are?) are conditioned to be time bound?

K: Conditioned to be time bound. Conditioned by our tradition, by our education, by the culture we live in and so on and so on, to operate mechanically (in a safe temporal sequence?)

S: We take the easy way ?

K: The easy way.

B: But it is also a kind of mistake to say in the beginning the mechanical way shows signs of being safer, and at the beginning the brain makes a mistake let's say, and says, "This is safer", but somehow it fails to be able to see that it has made a mistake, it holds to this mistake. Like in the beginning you might call it an innocent mistake to say, "This look safer and I will follow it". But then after a while you are getting evidence that it is not so safe, the brain begins to reject it, keep away from it.

S: Well, I think you could raise the issue whether there are certain given facts in child rearing. I mean when the mother feels the baby is crying and jams a nipple in its mouth, that is teaching the baby that you shut up and take the easy way out.

B: Well there is a lot of cultural conditioning that explains how it is propagated. But you see it still doesn't explain why the brain doesn't see at some stage that it is wrong. In other words, it continues in this mechanical process rather than seeing that it is wrong.

K: You are asking: why doesn't it see that ( the inward truth that) this mechanical process is essentially (generating inner & outer?) disorder.

S: Why isn't there some sort of feedback? In other words, I do something and it comes out wrong. At some point I ought to realize that. Why don't I? For instance, I have seen my life is mechanical.

K: You really see it? Why is it mechanical?

S: Well, it is mechanical because it goes like this: it is all action and reaction.

K: Why is it mechanical?

S: I want it to be easy. That is also mechanical. I want it to be easy. I feel that that gives me the most security, to keep it mechanical. I get a (self-protective?) boundary. I have got my house, my mechanical life, that gives me security, it is mechanical because it is repetitious.

K: You haven't answered my question.

S: Your question is why...

K: ...has it become mechanical.

B: And why does it remain mechanical?

K: What has caused us to accept this mechanical way of living?

S: I am not sure I can answer that. But I would see the (impending?) insecurity.

K: Wouldn't you be frightened? If the mechanistic ( continuity ) of the life that one lives suddenly stopped, wouldn't you be frightened?

B: Wouldn't there be some genuine danger?

K: That, of course. There is a danger that things might...

B: ...go to pieces.

S: It is deeper than that. It feels like that things take on a terribly 'moment-by moment' effect.

K: No, sir. Look: the human brain wants total order - would ( the sense of total (inner) order give it complete security? Wouldn't it?

B: Could you say that perhaps in the beginning that the brain accepted this just simply not knowing that this mechanism would bring disorder and it just went into it in an innocent state?

K: Yes.

B: Yes, but it is caught in a trap, you see. And somehow it maintains this disorder, it doesn't want to get out of it.

K: Because it is frightened of greater disorder.

B: Yes. It says, all that I've built up may go to pieces. In other words, I am not in the same situation as when I first went in the trap because now I have built up a great structure. I think that the whole structure will go to pieces.

K: What I am trying to get it is, the brain needs this order, otherwise it can't function. It finds order in mechanical process because it is trained from childhood; do as you are told, etc., etc., etc. There is a conditioning going on right away: to live a mechanical life.

B: Also a (subliminal) fear is induced of giving up this mechanism at the same time. I mean that in other words you are thinking all the time that without this everything will go to pieces, including especially the brain.

K: Which means (To recap) the brain must have ( an inward sense of harmony & ) order. And finds order in a mechanical way. Now, do you see actually the mechanical way of living leads to disorder? Which is (the way of) tradition. If I live entirely in the past, which is very orderly, I think it is very orderly, and what takes place? I am already 'dead' (stuck in time?) and I can't meet anything. So please don't disturb my tradition! And every human being says, "Please, I have found something which gives me ( a sense of inner) order; a belief, a hope, this, or that; so...please leave me alone."

S: Right.

K: But (the tribulations of modern life?) life are not going to leave them alone. So he gets frightened and establishes another mechanical habit. Now do you see ( the inward truth of) this whole thing? And therefore there is an instant (insightful) action breaking it all away and therefore the brain finds an order which is absolutely indestructible.

B: Well, for us it doesn't really follow from what you said that this would necessarily happen. In other words, it is you (Mr K who ) are saying this.

K: I am saying this.

B: I mean but it doesn't follow logically.

K: It would follow logically if you go (meditating?) into it.

B: Go into it.... But here can we reach a point where it really follows necessarily?

K: I think we can only go into it if you perceive the (inward truth about ) mechanical structure which the brain has developed, attached and cultivated.

S: I can see the mechanicalness. And I was flashing through my mind various kinds of interchanges between people. And the way they talk, they way I talk to them at a party, at a cocktail party, and it is all about what happened before, you can see them telling you who they are, in terms of their past. I can see what they will be. This guy who said, "I have published my thirteenth book", has got in his head that I am going to think this about him, and then he is going to go to his university and he is going to be thought that. He is always living like that and the whole structure is elaborate. Right?

K: But do you see that fragmentary action is mechanical action.

S: That's right. It is there, where we are.

K: And therefore political action can never solve any problems, human problems; or the scientist, he is another fragment.

S: But do you realize that this is the way our life is. Years and years and years.

K: Therefore, why don't you change it?

S: Change it. That's right. But we live in terms of our (cultural) structures. We live in terms of history. We live in terms of our mechanics. We live in terms of our form. This is the way we live.

K: Which means, that when the past meets the present and ends there, there is a totally different thing takes place.

S: Yes. But the past doesn't meet the present so often.

K: I mean it is taking place now (in the silent inner space of meditation?) .

S: Right. We are seeing it now.

K: Therefore can you stop (the mechanistic process of thought-time?) there?

S: Probably because we must see it totally ?

K: No. **The fact, simple fact: the "past meets the present". That is a fact.
B: Well, I think just briefly thatwwhen the (thought streaming of the?) past meets the present , it stops, while the past generally is active in the present & moving towards the future. Now when the ( thought-streaming of the ?) past meets the ( meditating mind in?) present then the (memory streaming of the ?) 'past' stops acting. And what it means is that thought stops acting so that (an authentic inner) order comes about.

S: Do you think that the past meets the present, or the present meets the past?

K: How do you meet me? With all the memories, all the images, the reputation, the words, the pictures, the symbol, all that, with that, which is the past, you meet me now.

S: That's right. That's right. I come to you with a...

K: So, the (thought-streaming memory of the ) past is meeting the present.

B: Aren't you saying that the past should stop meeting the present?

K: What I am trying to say is that the past meets the present and end there. Not 'move forward'.

S: Why should it stop?

K: I will show it to you. I meet you with the past, my memories, but you might have changed all that in the meantime. So I never meet you. I meet you with the past.

S: Right. That is fact.

K: That is a fact. Now if I don't have that (thought-streaming mental ) movement going on...

S: But I do have it .

K: Of course you do. But I say that that is disorder. I can't meet you then.

S: Right. How do you know that?

K: I only know the fact that when the ( memory streaming of the?) past meets the present and continues, it is one of the factors of time, mental movement, bondage, all the fear, and so on. If, ( in the context of an authentic meditation ?) when there is the past meeting the present, and one 'see' this, and one is fully aware of this, completely aware of this ( ongoing memory) movement, then it stops. Then I meet you as though for the first time, there is something fresh, it is like a new flower coming out.**

S: Yes, I understand.

K: I think we will go on tomorrow. We haven't really tackled the root of all this, the root, the cause or the root of all this disturbance, this turmoil, travail, anxiety - you follow.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Aug 2019 #33
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

3RD ( 'experientially friendly' edited ) K CONVERSATION WITH DR BOHM & DR SHAINBERG ON THE HOLISTIC TRANSFORMATION OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF MAN

Krishnamurti: Shall we start where we left off? We were asking, weren't we, why do human beings live this ( ego-centric & mechanistic?) way? Nothing seems to have succeeded to make man live in order, happily & intelligently, without any of this chaotic activity going on. Why do we human beings live this way, in this appalling (psychological) misery?

B: I think people just get used to it. I mean, whatever happens you get used to it, and you come to miss it after a while just because you are used to it.

K: Is it that we like (the possible benefits of?) it?

S: It is not that we like it; it is a kind of orientation, a kind of, ''I know my state of inner conflict, I know what I am at''.

K: Have we all become neurotic?

S: I think so. I mean this is the argument we have all the time: is the society sick? And then if you say the society is sick, what is the value you are using for comparison?

K: Which is yourself, who is neurotic. So when you are faced with that, that human beings live this way and have accepted it for millennia; there have been 'saviours', there have been gurus, there have been teachers, and I come along and say, why?

S: Why do we keep it up ? I have it with my children. I say to my children, they spend fifty hours a week in front of the television box. That is their whole life. My children, they laugh at me, all their friends are doing it.

K: No, beyond that, why?

B: That is very secondary.

K: So looking at all this panorama of (man's psychological ) misery I say why do people live this way, accept these things, read history and, you follow, it is no longer conceived. They have become cynical. It is all there.

B: Nobody believes anything can be done about it.

K: That's it. Is it that we feel that we cannot do anything about it?

B: That's been an old story. People say human nature...

K: ...can never be altered.

S: But that's certainly true that people feel, or we feel this is the way it is, this is the way we live.

K: I know, but why don't you (endeavour to?) change it?

S: Many people have said that we don't accept that human nature is this way, we will try to change it, and it didn't work. You know, so many people tried doing the 'right' thing. The communists tried it, the socialists tried it, some others tried it.

K: The utopians...

B: The utopians, and there has been so much bad experience, it all adds up to the idea that human nature doesn't change.

S: Right. So let's say that we know all these ( psychological) facts about people and we also know the fact of the matter is they don't even try to change (inwardly) .

K: Some do - they go to ashramas, a dozen ways they have tried to change, but essentially they are (inwardly remaining ) the same.

B: I think people cannot find out how to change ( the inward) human nature.

S: Or is it the fact that the very nature of the way they want to change it is part of the (ongoing) process itself?

B: My first point is that whatever people have tried has not been guided by a correct understanding of human nature.

S: So it is guided by the old (ongoing) process itself. Right? The incorrectness?

B: Yes, let's take the Marxists who say that human nature can be improved, but only when the whole economic and politician structure has altered. But they can't alter it, you see, because human nature is such that they can't really alter it.

S: But they are using a mechanical way to make a mechanical change.

K: Sir, take yourself - sorry to be personal, if you don't mind. Why don't you change?

S: Well, the immediate feel of it is that there is still some sort of false security in the ongoing the fragmentation, the immediate pleasures that are gotten from the fragmentation; in other words there is still that movement of fragmentation. That's how come there is not the change. There is not a seeing the whole thing. I mean we keep getting something back from it, we get these immediate pleasure and failures, frustrations from...

K: There is (probably?) a much deeper issue than that.

S: I keep coming up with a kind of feeling that I am getting something from not changing.

K: No. Is it because the ( self-conscious) entity that wishes to change sets the ( a temporal agenda) pattern of change, and therefore the pattern is always the same (self-centredness?) under a different colour?

S: Can you say it another way?

K: I want to change. And I plan out what to change, how to bring about this change, but the 'planner' (the 'thinker-in -control' ?) is always the same.

S: That's right. I have an image of what I want to achieve .

K: The ( projected) patterns change, but 'I' create the patterns of change.
Therefore I am (constantly impersonating the?) old and even if the patterns (of change) are new, eventually the old (time-bound psychological structure?) is always conquering the ( timeless intelligence of the?) new.

B: But when I do that I don't really feel that I am the 'old', but I am the 'new'.
I really don't feel that I am (personally) involved in that old stuff that I want to change.

B: And each person who does it feels that it has never happened before.

K: My new experience ( acquired) through this or that book is entirely different, but the 'experiencer' (in command) is the same. I think that ( subliminal self-identification?) is one of the root causes of it.

B: It is a kind of sleight of hand trick whereby the thing which is causing the trouble is put into position as if it were the thing that is trying to make the change. You see, it is a deception.

K: I am deceiving myself all the time by saying, I am (ASAP) going to change that, become that; then if it doesn't, and so on and so on. Is that it?

S: That begins to get at it.

K: Look at yourself – suppose you read a Hindu, or some (other sacred) book.
And say, ''yes, how true that is, I am going to live according to that''. But the 'me' that is going to live according to that is the same old me.

S: Right, yes. You are really getting at the issue that the fact that the root is this belief that something can help 'you'.

K: The root ( of self-interest?) remains the same. Right? And we trim the branches.

B: I think the root (of our ages old selfishness) is something we don't see (clearly) because we put it in the position of the one who is supposed to be seeing.

S: It is like that Sufi story: I am looking for the key - you know the story? - I am looking for the key over here because the gate door it is locked. The Sufi, the guy comes along and the guy is crawling around under the lamppost, and another guy comes along and says, "What are you doing there?" "I am looking for my key". And he said, "Did you lose it here?" "No, I lost it over there but there is more light over here".

K: Yes, sir. So (in a nutshell:) if I really want to change, because I don't want to live forever that way, I don't want to follow anybody because they are all like the rest of the gang. I don't accept anybody's spiritual authority in all this.

S: Yes...

K: Authority arises only when I am (inwardly & ) confused.

S: Right...

K: When I am ( living inwardly) in (psychological) disorder.

S: That's right.

K: So I say, can one completely change at the very root?

B: Let's look at that because you say, "I am going to change", and it is not clear what is meant here by 'I'.

K: The 'I' (the self-identified consciousness?) is the root.

B: So, if the 'I' is the root... how can I change?

K: That is the whole point (that has to be clarified?) .

B: You see, (your 'holistic' ) language is confusing because you say, I have got to change at the root, you see, but I am the root. So what is going to happen?

S: Let's role it back a second. You state you are not going to accept any (psychological) authority, and then what ?

K: It is a miraculous change. So how do I proceed? What is the correct (way of) action?

S: What is the correct action to live properly?

K: That's all. So if everybody said, "I can't help you'', you'll have to do it yourself, look at yourself, then the 'whole thing' is beginning to act.

S: But the 'whole thing' doesn't work like that. There are a lot of people who will be willing to deceive themselves for two dollars.

K: Here is a man who says, "I am neurotic. I won't go to any other of neurotic actions to become sane". What does he do? He doesn't accept any authority, because I have created out of my disorder the authority.

B: Yes, well that is merely the hope that somebody knows what to do.
Because I feel this chaos is too much for me and I just assume that somebody else can tell me what to do. But that comes out of this confusion.

K: So let's start from there. In the rejection of ( anybody's psychological) authority I am beginning to become sane. So I say can I free the mind from being neurotic, is it possible? I am deadly serious because that is my life.

B: But I am saying that one will feel at this juncture that there will probably be an intense pressure towards escape, saying this is too much.

K: No. No, sir. When I reject authority I have much more (free intelligent?) energy. I am now concentrated to find out.

S: That's right. In other words then I have to be really open to 'what is' ( going on inwardly) as that is all I have got.

K: So I come to you as a friend and say, let's find out. Because you are serious and I am serious. So, can I look at my neuroticism? Is it possible to see my neuroticism? What is neuroticism? What makes me neurotic? All the things that are put into me - into me in the (egotistic) sense of the 'me' that has collected all this, which makes the me. Can my ( awakening?) consciousness empty all that?

S: Your consciousness is that though.

K: Of course.

B: Is it only that?

K: For the moment I am limiting it to that (for educational purposes?) .
Can the consciousness of man, which began five, ten million years ago, with all the things that have been put into it, generation after generation, generation after generation, from the beginning until now; all that is a fragmented collection: can you take one at a time and look at it? Or can you take the 'whole of it' and look at it?

S: Well, that's not clear. How can you take the whole of it and look at it?

B: It seems a language problem there because you say you are that, how are 'you' going to look at it?

K: I'll show you in a minute. We'll go into it.

B: Could we say that the words can be used flexibly?

K: The word is not the thing. It may be the big thing or the little thing but the word is not that.

B: No, here but we are using words and the question is how are we to understand them. You see they are in some way a clue to what we are talking about. It seems to me that one trouble with the words is the way we take them. We take them to mean something very fixed, like say this is exactly a chair. My consciousness is just so, you see. I am the neurosis, therefore we take it very fixed.

K: It is moving.

B: Yes, it is moving. It is changing, therefore you can't just exactly say I am the neurosis or I am not the neurosis.

K: It is constantly in flux.

B: Right.
S: But he is saying something bigger which is that the very act of the word being 'seen as the (real) thing' by consciousness, that very movement is the thing we must investigate.

B: Yes.

K: Now, can't you look at it without the word? Is that possible? The word is not the thing. The word is a ( creation of) thought. And as a human being I realize I am neurotic - neurotic in the sense that I believe, I live in conclusions, in memories, which are all neurotic processes.

S: In ( a space of the known filled by?) words.

K: In words, pictures and reality (in which I strongly?) believe.
My belief may be illusory - but because I believe so strongly they are real to me.

S: Right. They are very real to you.

K: Very. So ( for instance ) can I look at the nature of the belief, how it arose, look at it?

S: Look at the belief that the word 'is' the thing ?

K: You have got such a belief, haven't you?

S: Oh,yes....

K: Now look at it. Can you look at it?

S: This morning we were talking about the fact that my 'belief' is ( being ) doctor...

K: Can you look at that fact that you have a belief?

S: But how am I going to look at it if I really believe it? In other words, look: I say there is a God. Now you are telling me to look at my belief in God.

K: Why do you believe? What is the necessity of God? Not that I am an atheist, but I am asking you (for experiential purposes?) .

S: God is real for me, if I believe.

K: Then there is no more investigation, you have shut the door.

S: That's right. But we have got such strong beliefs.

K: We have tried hundreds of times to show somebody who has a very strong belief, and he says, what are you talking about? This is a reality.

B: That's right. That is how our word becomes reality. Can we investigate that? I think a deeper question is, how the (thinking) mind sets up a 'sense of reality', I mean even with objects you can say a word and it seems 'real' when you describe it that way. And therefore in some way the words sets up in the brain a 'construction of reality'. Then everything is referred to that construction of reality.

S: How are we to investigate that?

K: What created that 'reality'? Would you say everything that thought has created is a reality, except nature? Can we say thought, whatever it has put together is ( the human) reality? The chair, the table, all these electric lights; nature it hasn't created but it can describe it.

B: And also make theories about it.

K: Make theories and all the rest of it. And also the illusions it has created are a reality.

B: But to a certain extent, this 'construction of reality' has its place because you see if I feel that the table is real although the brain has constructed it, it is OK. But at some stage we construct realities that are not there, you see. We can see this sometimes in the shadows on a dark night, constructing realities that are not there. And also tricks and illusions are possible by conjurors and so on. But then it goes further and we say that mentally we construct a psychological reality, which seems intensely real, and very (realistically) strong. But it seems to me the question is: what is it that thought does to give that sense of reality, to construct reality? Can we watch that?

K: What does thought do to bring about, to create that reality?

S: Yes. You mean like if you talk to someone who believes in god, they say to you that is real, that it is really there, it is not a construction. And if you talk to somebody who really believes in their (own) 'self', I mean I have talked to many people and you have been talking to the psychotherapists, they say the 'self' is real, that it exists, it is a 'thing'. I mean you heard a man once say, a psychotherapist say to Krishnaji, "We know the ego exists. We have got a (fact-proven) theory, it exists".

B: Well, what happens is that this (psychological) illusion builds up very fast; once you construct its 'reality', all its events are referred to it as if they were coming from that 'reality'. You see, and it builds up a tremendous structure, a cloud of support around it.

S: Right. So how am I to investigate my 'reality making' mechanism of it?

K: Now we are asking very simply: can thought become aware of its own movement?

B: That's the question. A 'self reference' of thought - thought understanding its own structure.

S: And its own movement. But is thought that is aware of itself? Or is it something else?

K: Try it now! (And/ or for meditation homework?) Whether thought can be aware of itself, of its movement.

(Long experiential pause...)

B: It stops.

K: What does that mean?

S: It means what it says: with the sense of the observation of thought, thought stops.

K: No, don't put it that way.

S: How would you put it?

K: It is undergoing a radical (qualitative) change.

B: So even the word 'thought' is not a fixed thing.

K: No.

B: The word 'thought' does not mean a fixed ( a static process) thing. But it can change.

K: That's right.

B: In ( the context of a direct inward?) perception.

K: You have told me that in the very observation through an (e-) microscope of the object, the object of observation undergoes a change.

B: Well, in the quantum theory the (observed) object cannot be fixed apart from the act of observation.

S: This is also true with patients in psychoanalysis. Being with the patient they change automatically.

K: Forget the patient, 'you' are the patient!

S: I am the patient, right. It changes.

K: What takes place when thought is ( non-personally ) aware of itself? You know, sir, this is an extraordinarily important thing. That is, can the 'doer' be aware (in real time?) of his 'doing'?
( For example) When I move this vase from here to there, can I be aware of that moving?

S: Yes.

K: I can physically. That is fairly simple. I stretch out the arm and so on and so on.

S: Yes.

K: But is there also an (holistic ) awareness of thought – of its movement, its (time-binding) activity, its structure, its nature, what it has created, what it has done in the (real?) world, the misery, and all the rest of it?

S: Is this an awareness of the 'doing of the brain'? I'd want to save this question for tomorrow : when you are aware of your movement of the vase, it doesn't stop. But when you are aware of the movement of the brain it does stop. Isn't that interesting?

B: (Perhaps only) the irrelevant thoughts stop.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Aug 2019 #34
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

4-TH ( 'experientially-friendly' edited ) K CONVERSATION WITH DR BOHM & DR SHAINBERG (1976)

Krishnamurti: I don't think we fully answered yesterday the (anguishing existential ?) question: why human beings live the way the are living ? I don't think we went into it sufficiently deeply.

Dr Shainberg: We got to the point, but we never answered that question.

K: I was thinking about it this morning rather, and it struck me that we hadn't answered it fully. We just went into the question of can thought observe itself.

Dr Bohm: Right, but I think that what we said was relevant to the answer.

S: No, it's not complete, it doesn't really get hold of that issue: why do people live the way they do, and why don't they change? Well, my immediate answer to that question was that they like (enjoying the existential irresponsability of ?) it.

K: I think it is much deeper than that : if one actually transformed (deleted?p one's (psychological) conditioning, the whole way one lives, economically, you might find yourself in a very difficult position.

S: Right...

K: And also it is going against the current.

B: Are you saying that it might lead to a certain objective insecurity ?

K: Objective insecurity.

B: Is it not merely a matter of the imagination ?

K: No, no, actual insecurity. Doesn't it imply you have to stand alone ?

S: Definitely, you would be in a totally different position.

K: No, because it is like completely away from the 'stream' (of collective selfishness?) . And that means you have to be inwardly alone, psychologically alone; can the (average) human being can that ?

S: Well certainly the other option is completely to be together.

K: That is herd instinct, which all these totalitarian people (but not only...) use (& manipulate?) , and also everything is together: be together, with people, don't be alone.

S: Be like them, be with them – but it is all based on competition in some way: I am better than you.

B: Well, it is unclear because in some sense we should be together but (the ongoing fragmentation of ) society is giving us some false sense of togetherness. But it is called 'being together' (or...thinking together?) at makes you feel that way.

K: So (to recap:) one of the main reasons why (99.99%) human beings don't want to radically transform themselves ( psychologically?) is that they are really frightened not to belong to a group, to a herd, to something definite, which implies standing completely alone (as 'all-one'?) ? But I think that only from ( properly integrating) this (inward) 'all-oneness' you can really co-operate; not the other way round.

B: Well, I think that even anthropologists find that in the more primitive people, the sense of belonging to the tribe is even stronger, they feel completely lost, their entire psychological structure depends on being in the tribe.
K: And I think that is one of the reasons why we are (subliminally?) frightened. Better cling to the (psychological) misery that you already know, than come into another kind of misery that you don't know.

B: There is something deeper in the sense that people feel this togetherness, this sense of belonging to a group : they just feel it is safe, they will be taken care of, like their mother may have taken care of them, and that you are sort of gently supported, and that fundamentally it will be all right because the group is large, it is wise, it knows what to do. I think there is a feeling like that, rather deep. The church may also give that feeling.
Now, isn't it possible that we are discussing an (inward state of) all-oneness in which you have a certain security? You see, that people are seeking in the group a kind of security, it seems to me, that sense of inner security can arise actually in ( facing holistically this sense of ?) all-oneness.

K: Yes, that is right. In all-oneness you can be completely secure.

B: I wonder if we could discuss that because it seems there is an illusion there: most people sense you should have a sense of security inner, but they are looking for it in a group, the group being representative of something universal.

K: The group is not the universal.

B: It isn't, but it is the way we think of it. The little child thinks the (family) tribe is the whole world, you know.

K: I mean a human being as he lives this way, if he transforms himself he becomes alone, he is 'all-one'. That (inwardly integrated?) 'all-oneness' is not isolation and therefore it is a form of supreme intelligence.

B: Yes, but could we go a little further about it not being isolation, because at first when you say 'alone', the feeling that I am here, entirely apart (from anybody else?)

K: I thought we dealt with that fairly (academically?) thoroughly the other day : after all when one realizes the appalling state of the world, and oneself, the disorder, the confusion, the misery and all the rest of it, and when one says there must be a total change, a total transformation, he has already begun (or, not?) to move away from all that.

S: Right. But here he is altogether, being together.

K: Identifying oneself with the group, and remain with the group, what does it mean? Apart from all that superficiality, what is involved in it? The group 'is' me and I 'am' the ( impersonating the collective consciousness of the ) group.

B: Well, I think you could say like Descartes ''I think, therefore I am''. You say I am in the group, therefore I am. You see if I am not in the group where am I? In other words, I have no being at all. That is really the condition of the primitive tribe, for most of the members anyway. And there is something deep there because I feel that my very existence, my being psychologically, is implied in being first in the group. The group has made me, everything about me has come from the group. I say I am nothing without the group.

K: Yes, quite right. I 'am' the (collective consciousness of the ) group, in fact.

B: The more striking thing that happens when a person is taken out of the group is that he feels lost, you see. In other words, all the other stuff seems unimportant because he doesn't know ( who & ) where he is. And therefore you see that might be the greatest punishment that the group could make, to banish him.

K: I think that is where it is, that fear of being alone. Alone is translated as being isolated from all this.

B: But you are implying that if you (inwardly) genuinely alone, then you are not isolated from the ( holistic consciousness of the ) universe.

K: Absolutely. On the contrary.

B: And therefore we have to be free from treating the group as if it were the universal support of my being, or something.

S: Right, right. Now what is being said is that by the localised identification that I am the group, that me, that false security is dropped, then one is opened up to the participation in...

K: No, there is no question of participation; you 'are' the universe.

S: You are That.

B: You see as a child I felt that, I was in a certain town, and I felt that was the whole universe, then I heard of another town beyond that which felt almost beyond the universe. That must be the ultimate limit of all reality, you see. So that the idea of going beyond that would not have occurred to me. (Laughter) And I think that is the way that the group is treated, you see. We know abstractly it is not so but the (inward) feeling you have, it is like the little child.

K: Therefore is it that human beings love, or hold on to their own misery, confusion, and all the rest of it because they don't ( want to ) know (of) anything else?

B: Yes.

K: The known is so far, then the unknown. Now to be all-one implies, doesn't it, to step out of the stream of this utter ( selfishness & ) confusion, disorder, sorrow and despair, hope, travail, all that, to step out of all that. And if you want to go much deeper into that: to be (inwardly) all-one implies, doesn't it, not to carry the burden of tradition with you at all.

B: Tradition being ( carried by ) the ( collective consciousness of the?) group, then. Knowledge is basically collective, it is collected by everybody.

K: So to be all-one implies ( an inner sense of) total freedom. And when there is that great freedom it (one's mind ?) is ( integrated with the Universal Intelligence of ? ) the universe.

B: Could we go into that further because to a person who hasn't seen (the inward truth of) this, you know, it doesn't look obvious.

S: I think David is right there. To a person, to most people, I think, and I have tested this out recently, that the idea, or even the deep feeling, that you are the universe, that you don't have to do anything, that seems to be so...

K: Ah, sir, that is ( potentially?) a most dangerous (slippery ?) thing. When you are unhappy, miserable, anxious, greedy, envious, all that, how can you say you are the universe? Universe implies total order.

B: Yes, the word 'cosmos' in Greek meant 'order'.

K: Order, of course.

B: And 'chaos' was the opposite, you see.

K: Chaos is what we live with. How can I think I have (already the ) universal order in me? That is the good old trick of the mind which says, disorder is out there, but inside you there is perfect order, old boy. That is a concept which thought has put there and it gives me a certain hope, and therefore it has no reality. What has actual reality is my (ongoing state of inner) confusion.
So I must start with (seeing the inward truth of?) the 'fact' of what I am. Which is I am in a chaos.

S: I belong to a group.

K: Chaos; chaos is in the group (consciousness?) They have political leaders, religious, you follow, the whole thing is a chaos. So to move away from that into Cosmos, which is (the sense of) 'total order' means not that I am alone, there is a total order which is not associated with disorder, chaos. That is 'all-one'.

B: Well can we go ( speculatively?) into that. Suppose several people are doing that, in that state, moving into Order out of the chaos of society. Now then, are they all feeling alone?

K: No, they don't feel alone there. There is only ( the holistic sense of) cosmic (order) , not 'you', 'Dr Bohm', 'Dr Shainberg' and 'me'.

B: Therefore we are still all-one.

K: Which is, order is all-one.

B: Because I looked up the word 'alone' in the dictionary; basically it is 'all one'. In other words there is no inward fragmentation.

K: Therefore there is no three; and that is marvellous, sir.

S: But you 'jumped away' there. We actually have got ( a state of inner) chaos and confusion. That is what we have got.

K: So, as we said, to move away from that most people are afraid, which is to have total order. Alone, as he pointed out, is all-one. Therefore there is no fragmentation, then there is Cosmos.

S: Right. But most people are in confusion and chaos. That is all they know.

K: So how do you move away from that? That is the whole (64,000 $ experiential ?) question.

S: That is the question. Here we are in chaos and confusion, we are not over there.

K: No, because you may be frightened of the idea of being alone.

S: How can you be frightened of an idea?

K: Aren't you frightened of ( whet might happen to you) tomorrow? Which is an idea.

S: OK. That is a (self-projected) idea.

K: So they are frightened of an idea which they have projected, which says, my god, I am alone, which means I have nobody to rely on.

B: But you have said to a certain extent it is genuinely so. You are not being supported by society and all that. You do have a certain genuine danger because you have withdrawn from the nub of society.

S: Now let me say that most people are let's say unaware or don't know anything about this (inwardly integrated state of being ) 'all- one'.

K: Therefore they say, "I would rather stay where I am, in my little pond, rather than face total isolation". And that may be one of the reasons that human beings don't radically change.

B: That's like this primitive tribe: the worst punishment is to be banished, you see, or isolated.

S: You don't have to go to a primitive tribe: I see people and talk to people all the time; patients come to me and say, "Look, Saturday came, I couldn't stand to be alone, I called up fifty people looking for somebody to be with."

B: Yes, that is much the same. But I think it comes in a more simple and pure form there, when people just frankly admit it and they know that is the case, you see.

K: So that may be one of the reasons why human beings don't (really want to ) change (their psychological condition?) . The other is we are so heavily conditioned to accept things as they are. We don't say to ourselves, "Why should I live this way?"

B: Well, that is important - we are conditioned to believe that is all that is possible, you see. But this word 'all' is one of the traps. If you say "this is all that can be", then what can you do?

K: Nothing, nothing.
B: You see that is the (limitation of the ) use of language. You see this way of using language may be changed, you see.

K: Quite right, sir. When you say, "This is all I ( need to) know", you have already stopped (learning?) .

B: Because what does the word 'all' does is that it closes.

K: It closes it.

B: Not only that it turns the idea into a 'reality' because apparently it gives that sense of reality to the idea, because if you say that is all there is, then that has to be real, do you see? You get me?

K: So ( to recap:) shall we say human beings don't radically transform themselves,(a) because they are (subliminally?) frightened of being isolated from the group, banished from the group. And (b) because traditionally we are so conditioned that we would rather accept things as they are; our misery, our chaos, all the rest of it, and not say, "For god's sake, let me change this".

B: So, we have to get out of this conviction that the way things are is all that can be, you see.

K: Yes, that's right. You see all the religions have pointed this out by saying there is another world: aspire to that. This is a transient world, it doesn't matter, live as best as you can in your sorrow, but hand over your sorrow to Jesus, or Christ, or somebody, and then you will be perfectly happy in the next world. So... what will make human beings (to inwardly) change radically?

S: I don't know...

K: May I ask you a ( personal) question? Why don't you change? What is preventing you?

S: Oh, it's a tough question! I suppose the answer would be that - I don't have any answer!

K: Because you have never asked yourself that question. Right?

S: Not radically.

K: Here we are asking the 'basic' (essential?) questions.

S: Right, but I don't really know the answer to the question.

K: Now sir, move away from (the personal aspect of) that, sir. Is because all our ( mental?) structure, as that of our whole society, all religions, all culture, is based on thought, and thought says, "I can't do this, therefore an outside agency is necessary to change me"? Whether the outside agency is the environment, the ( spiritual) leader, or 'God'. ( Hint : this) 'God' is your own ( but 1000 times larger?) projection of yourself, obviously. And even if you believe in God, you are still the same.

S: That's right....

K: So is it that thought doesn't see its own (dualistic?) limit? And realize it cannot change itself? Realize it !

B: Well, I think that something more subtle happens: somehow thought loses track of its doings and it doesn't see that itself is behind all this.

K: Of course. We said that thought has produced all this (inward) chaos.

B: But thought doesn't really 'see', you know, it sees abstractly. But I think you see it 'in the bones'.

S: What thought does in fact is that it communicates it through gradual change

K: That is all invention of thought.

S: Yes, but that is where I think the hook is.

K: Please sir, just listen : Thought has put this (reality ) world together.
Technologically as well as psychologically. And the technological world is all right, we won't even discuss that. But psychologically thought has built all ( a virtual image of) this world in me and outside me - the churches, society and so on. And does thought realize it has made this mess, this chaos?

B: I would say that it doesn't. It tends to look on this chaos as independently existent, do you see.

K: But it is its (double?) bogey!

B: It is, but it is very hard for it to see that. You see we were discussing at the end of the hour yesterday this question of how thought gives a sense of reality. You see we were saying that technology deals with something that thought made but it is actually an independent reality once it is made. But you could say that thought also creates a ( virtual) reality which it calls independent but isn't, you see. I thought of a good example, that is: the ( multi-national) Corporation, you see the people working for the Corporation, it makes money, it loses money, they strike against the Corporation and so on. But actually you could say, where is the Corporation? It is not in the buildings because if all the buildings all burnt down the Corporation would still exist, as long as people think it exists.

S: Right. And it pays taxes, the Corporation pays taxes, not the individuals.

K: So, does thought realize, see, aware that it has created this chaos?

S: No.

K: But you, sir, do you realize it?

S: I realize that...

K: Not 'you' (the self-identified thinker?) but does thought (the thinking brain?) ? You see! I have asked you a different question: does thought, which is does your thinking realize that the chaos it has created?

B: You see, thinking always tends to attribute the chaos to something else; either to something outside, or to a 'me' who is inside. I mean at most I would say that I have done it, but then the same thinking is saying that I am doing the thinking. I was going to say that our thinking has invented a sort of a ( virtual) Corporation who is supposed to be responsible for thinking. We could call it 'Thinking Inc.'! And you see, this Corporation is supposed to be thinking. So we we give credit for thought to this ( virtual?) Corporation called 'me'.

K: Thought has created the (temporal?) 'me'.

B: But also thought has said that (the thinking ) 'me' is not just ( another thread of) thought, but in reality it 'is'.

K: Of course, of course....

B: You see thought treats the (virtual 'me') Corporation as if it were there, just standing like the buildings. So it is important to keep clear whether it is a reality that is dependent on this whole thought movement, or whether it stands independent. Thought is treating the 'me' (the 'thinker' mental entity?) as an independent reality.

K: To me thought has created the 'me'. And so the me is not separate from thought. It is ( the self-identified core of) the structure of thought.
Now: does your thought (the thinking brain?) realize this?

S: I would say, that in flashes it does.

K: No, not (just) in flashes. You don't see this table in a flash, it is always there. We asked a question yesterday, we stopped there: does thought see itself in ( its self-centred ?) movement? This (self-projected) movement (of one's past memoriy) has created the 'me', created the chaos, created the division, created the conflict, jealousy, anxiety, fear and all that.

S: Right. Now yesterday we came to a moment where we said 'thought stops'.
What I am trying to get at is what is the actuality of ( what happens when ) thought is seeing itself.

K: You want me to describe it?

S: No, no, I don't want you to describe it. I mean what is the actuality that thought 'sees' ? Because it seems that thought sees and then it forgets.

K: I was asking a very ( holistically?) simple question. Don't complicate it. Does thought see the ( inward & outward ) chaos it has created? That's all. Which means, is thought aware of itself as a ( global) movement? Not 'I' (the observer?) am aware of my thought. The 'I' has been created by thought.

B: I think the question that is relevant here is: why does thought keep on going? You see how does it sustain itself? Because as long as it sustains itself it does produce something like an independent reality, an illusion of one. Which is to say, like General Motors says, "I am the Corporation which is producing automobiles". What is sustaining this whole thing, at this very moment, was the question I was trying to get at.

S: Yes, that's the question.

B: In other words, say we have a certain insight, but something happens to sustain the old process nevertheless right now.

K: That's right. Dr Bohm asks a very good question which we haven't answered : why does thought move?

B: When it is irrelevant to moving.

K: Why is it always moving?

S; That's right.

K: So what is ( the basis of) this movement? Movement is ( its self-projection in?) time. Right?

S: That's a little too quick. ''Movement is time''....
K: Obviously, ( physically) from here to there (or from 'now' to 'tomorrow'?) And also psychologically from 'I am this' to 'I must be that'.

S: Right. But thought is not necessarily only all that.

K: Thought is the ( memory's virtual ?) movement. We are examining ( this self-centred mental) movement, which is thought. Look: if thought stopped there is no movement.

S: Yes, I know, but this has to be made very clear.

B: I think there is an (intermediary?) step that might help : To ask myself what is it that makes me go on thinking or talking. In other words, I often can watch people and see they 'stuck are in a hole' just because they keep on talking: if they would stop talking their whole problem would vanish. I mean it is just this flow of words, because what they say then comes out as if it were reality in them, and then they say, yrs, that is my problem, it is real, and I have got to think about it some more. Suppose I say, 'Well, I have got a problem, I am suffering'. I think that and therefore I have a sense I am real. I am thinking of my suffering but in that it is implicit that it is 'I' who is there, and that my suffering is real because 'I' am real.

S: Right....

B: And then comes the next thought, which is: since that is real I must think about it some more.

S: Right. It feeds on itself.
B: Yes. And then one of the things I must think about is that I am suffering. And I am compelled to keep on thinking that thought all the time. Do you see? And ( surreptitiously) maintaining myself in existence. Do you see what I am driving at? That there is a (thinker-thought) feedback.

K: Which means that as thought is movement, which is time, as there is no movement I am dead!

B: Yes, if that movement stops, then the sense that 'I' am there being real must go, because that sense that I am real is the result of thinking.

K: Do you 'see' this is extraordinary.

S: Of course it is.

K: No, no, in actuality, not in theory. One realizes thought as ( a self-sustained mental ?) movement. Right?

S: Right.

K: There is not, "' I' realize thought as a movement", but thought itself realizes it is a (mental) movement (along a self-projected time-line?) . It is in movement.

B: And in this movement it creates a (virtual) image of 'me' that is supposed to be moving.

K: Yes, yes. Now when that ( time-thought) movement stops there is no 'me'. The 'me' is the ( creator of) time, it is put together by ( mankind's ego-centric evolution in) time, which is ( the identitary product of) thought.

S: Right....

K: So do you realize the truth of it? Not the verbal logical truth, logical statement, but the truth of such an amazing thing? If yes, there is a (holistically friendly ?) action entirely different from that. The action of thought as movement brings about a fragmentary action, a contradictory action. When the movement as thought comes to an end there is a total action.

B: But this doesn't mean that thought is permanently gone.

K: No, no.

S: It can still be a movement in its proper place. In its fitting order. Right and proper. I mean the human brain can still do that thing.

K: So why is as a human being afraid of all this? Unconsciously, deeply, he must realize the (possible) ending of 'me' - a most frightening thing: my knowledge, my books, my wife - the ending of all which thought has put together (for psychological purposes ?) . And you are asking me to end all that ?

B: I mean, can't you say it is the ending of everything I know ? Because everything that I know is in there.

K: Absolutely. So you see really the human being is frightened of his (psychological) death - not the biological death.

S: To die now....

K: Death of all this ( self-centred psychological package?) coming to an end. But when thought realizes itself as ( a survival-oriented mental) movement and sees that this movement has created the me, the divisions, the quarrels, the political - the follow - the whole structure of the chaotic world, when (the self-centred process of) thought ''sees the truth of it'', it ends. Then there is ( born an unversally intelligent order ) Cosmos. Now you listen to this: how do you 'receive' it?

S: Do you want me to answer?

K: No. How do you 'receive' it? How does the public, who listens to all this, say what is he trying to tell me ?

S: How?

K: He says I am not telling you anything (about how to meditate?) . He says listen to what I am saying and find out for yourself whether thought as movement (can come to an end?) , in that movement it has created all this, both the technological world which is useful, which is necessary, and this chaotic ( psychological) world.

S: Right...

K: What takes place in you when you listen to it?

S: There is an (irrational?) panic about the ( ego's?) death, a sort of fear of the death. There is a sense of seeing and then there is a fear of that death.

K: Which means you have listened to the words, the words have awakened the fear. But not the (inward ) actuality of the fact.

S: I think that is a little unfair. They awaken the actuality of the fact, and then there seems to be a very quick mental process. There is an actuality of the fact and there seems to be a silence, a moment of great clarity that gives way to a kind of feeling in the pit of the stomach where things are dropping out and then there is a kind of...

K: Withholding ?

S: ...withholding, right. I think there is a whole movement there.

K: So you are describing humanity.

S: Yes and no ; I am describing what is happening in me.

K: You 'are' (part of the collective consciousness of) humanity. You are the viewer, the people who are listening.

S: That's right. So there is a sense of ''what will happen to me tomorrow ?''.
That is this irrational fear.

K: When thought realizes that as ( a self-centred) movement it has created all this total chaos, not just patchy, but complete disorder, when it realizes that, what takes place, actually? Listen to it carefully: there is no fear (of its ending) . Fear is ( created by ) the idea brought about by an abstraction. You understand? You have made a ( mental) image of thought's ending, and are frightened of that ending.

S: You are right. There's no fear, and then ?

K: There is no fear when the ( direct perception of that) actuality takes place.

S: That's right. When the actuality takes place there is silence.

K: With the fact there is no fear.

B: But then, as soon as the thought comes in...

K: Then it is no longer a fact. (Therefore) you don't 't remain with the ( inward truth of the ) fact.

B: Well that is the same as to say that you 'keep on thinking'. I mean as soon as you bring thought in that is an imagination which is felt to be real, but it is not so.

K: We have discovered something extraordinary: when you are ( directly) faced with 'facts' there is no fear.

B: So all fear is created by thought, is that it?

K: That's right. All thought is ( generating ) fear, all thought is sorrow.

B: Except the kind of thought that arises with the fact alone.

S: It seems to me that we have discovered something quite important right here, and that is at the actual seeing, then the instant of attention is at its peak.

K: Something new takes place, sir.

S: Yes … ?

K: Something totally that you have never looked at, it has never been understood or experienced. There is a totally different thing happens.

B: But isn't it important that we acknowledge this in our thought, I mean in our language?

K: Yes.

B: As we are doing now. In other words, that if it happened and we didn't acknowledge it then we are liable to fall back.

K: (To recap :) What ( K) is saying is very simple. He is saying, does this ( insightful perception of the ) 'fact' take place ? If yes, can you remain with that, can thought not 'move in' (interfere) but remain (passively ?) only with that fact. Sir, it is like saying: remain totally with sorrow, not move away, just totally remain with that thing, with the (inward truth of the ) fact. Then you have a ( newly born quality of intelligent ? ) energy which is extra-ordinary.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Aug 2019 #35
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

5TH ( 'experientially-friendly' edited) K CONVERSATION WITH DR BOHM & DR SHAINBERG on the 'HOLISTIC TRANSFORMATION OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF MAN'

Krishnamurti: Talking why most human beings don't (have any intention to) change (inwardly) and why they accept these intolerable conditions of the (time-bound) human psyche, I think we ought to approach the same thing from a different angle: ( of psychological hurts ?) and who who has invented the dualistic concept of the 'unconscious'?

S: Well, the history of thinking about the 'unconscious' is a long convoluted process. I think it began...

K: May we ask (you a personal question?) are you aware of your unconscious? Do you know if you have an unconscious that is operating differently, or trying to give you hints, you know, all that, are you aware of all that?

S: I look at it a little differently: it is an aspect of myself of which I am aware incompletely. Now, it uses symbols and different modes of telling, of understanding, in other words a dream where I am discovering a ( professional) jealousy that I wasn't aware of.

K: Do you also give importance, Dr Bohm, to the (general) feeling that there is such a thing as the unconscious ?

Bohm: Well, I think we can say that there are some things ( in our total consciousness?) whose origin we are not aware of. You see, we react, we use words in an habitual way.

K: I am going to question all that because I am not sure...

S: You are not questioning that we have dreams?

K: No. But I wanted to ask the experts, if there is such a thing as the unconscious. For me somehow I don't think it has played any important part in my life at all.

S: Well, it depends on what you mean by the 'unconscious'

K: I will tell you what I mean. Something hidden that I have to go after consciously or unconsciously, you know, go after and discover, unearth it, explore it and expose it. See the hidden motives, see the hidden intentions.

B: Well, could we make it clear? There are some things people do where you can see they are not aware of what they are doing, but also some things of the nature of thought. For example, somebody makes a slip of the tongue which expresses his (hidden) will.

K: I mean, the collective unconscious, the racial unconscious. And what I am trying to find out is why we have divided it, the conscious and the unconscious. Isn't it one unitary total process, moving? Not hidden, not concealed but moving as a whole current (of thought & time) . And these clever brainy birds come along and split it up and say there is the unconscious and the conscious, the hidden, the incomplete, the storehouse of racial memories, family memories and all that.

S: The reason that happened, is the fact that Freud and Jung and these (psy) people that were seeing mental patients, people who had already fragmented off this movement which you are talking about.

K: That's what I want to get at. Is it due to a ( mentality?) that divides everything, that says, there is the unconscious, conscious? It is a process of fragmentation also.

B: Well, wouldn't you say that certain material is made, even Freud has said it, that certain material is made 'unconscious' by the brain because it is too (potentially) disturbing ?

K: That is what I want to get at.

B: But would one say that the brain itself is on purpose in some sense holding it separate to avoid facing it?

K: Yes, avoid facing the fact.

B: Yes. So that it is not really separate from ( man's everyday) consciousness.

K: That is what I want to get at.

B: To say there are two layers, for example, the deep unconscious and the surface consciousness, that structure is implied. But this other notion is to say that certain material is simply avoided.

K: I don't want to think about somebody because he has hurt me. That is not the unconscious, it's I don't want to think about him.

B: But there is a kind of paradoxical situation arise, because eventually you would become so good at it that you don't realize you are doing it. I mean that seems to happen, you see. People become so proficient at avoiding these things that they cease to realize they are doing it.

S: That is right. I think this is what happens. That these kinds of things, the hurts, the wounds remain and we forget that we have forgotten.

K: Do you feel that you have been hurt in the past ?

S: Yes.

K: And wanting to avoid it you withdraw, isolate, the whole cause being the image of yourself being hurt and withdrawing, and all that - do you feel that when you are hurt?

S: Yes, I feel there is definitely a move not to be hurt, not to have that image, not to have that whole thing changed because if it is changed it seems to catapult into that same experience that was creating the hurt.

K: Is it possile that the 'psychological' brain can have a shock but not carry over the memory of that hurt? Can this psychological (personal part of the ?) brain never be hurt under any circumstances? You know, family life, husband, wife, bad friends, so-called enemies, all that is going on around you and never get hurt? Because apparently this is one of the major wounds in human existence, to get hurt; the more sensitive you are, the more aware, you get more and more hurt, more and more withdrawn. Is this inevitable?

S: I don't think it is inevitable, but... it happens frequently, I mean more often than not. And it seems to happen when there is that a (personal) attachment is formed and then the loss of the attachment. You become important to me, I like you, or I am getting involved with you, then it becomes important to me that you don't do anything that disturbs that image.

K: That is, in that relationship between two people the picture that we have of each other, the image, that is the cause of hurt.

B: Well, it also goes the other way: that we hold those images because of hurt, I mean.

K: Of course, of course. Now is this ( pdychological) wound in the 'unconscious' - is it really hidden?

S: Well, I think you are being a little simplistic about that, because what is hidden is the fact that I have had the event happening many times, it happened with my mother, it happened with my friends, it happened in school, where I cared about somebody and then the image - it's like you form the attachment and then the hurt.

K: I am not at all sure through attachment it comes.

S: May be it is not attachment but there is something there that happens. What happens is that I form a relationship with you where an image becomes important? What you do to me becomes important.

K: You have an image about yourself.

S: That's right. And I like you because you are confirming my image?

K: Apart from your like and dislike you have created an image about yourself. I come along and put a pin in that image.

B: The hurt will be greater if you first come along and be very friendly to me and confirm the image, and then suddenly you put a pin in me. But even somebody who didn't confirm it, if he puts the pin in properly he can produce that hurt.

S: That's right. But why did I have the image to begin with? That is 'unconscious'.

K: Is it (really?) unconscious? Or it is so obvious (hidden in plain sight?) that we don't look at it ? I question whether it is hidden at all; it is so blatantly obvious.

S: I tell you, I don't feel all the parts of (this self-protecting) are so obvious.

B: I think we hide this thing that is obvious by saying it is 'unimportant', so that we don't notice it.

S: Yes, we don't notice it, but I ask myself what is it that kind of generates this image, what is that hurt?

K: Ah, we will come to that. We are enquiring, aren't we, into the whole structure of human consciousness. We have broken it up into the hidden and the open, but may be the fragmented (self-centred) mind is doing that, and therefore strengthening the division which grows greater and greater and greater. ( But for starters?) most people have an image about themselves, practically everybody.

S: Right. Practically everybody.

K: It is that image that gets hurt. And that image is you, and you say, "Well, I am hurt".

B: You see, if I have a pleasant self image, then I attribute the pleasure to me and say, that's real. When somebody hurts me then the pain is attributed to me and I say, that's real too. It seems that if you have an image that can give you pleasure then it must be able to give you pain.

K: Pain, yes.

B: There is no way out of that.

S: Well, the image seems to be self perpetuating, like you were saying.

B: I think people hope that ( perfecting?) the (self-) image will give them pleasure, but the very mechanism that makes pleasure possible makes pain possible because you see the pleasure comes if I say, "I think I am good", and that I is also sensed to be real, which makes that goodness real; but then if somebody comes along and says, "You are no good, you are stupid", and so on then that too is real, and therefore very significant. I mean it makes it hurt. Right?

K: The ( subliminal identification with a self-protective ?) image brings both pleasure and pain. To put it very, very simply.

B: But I think that if you make this self image and you get what is implied in that; that is to say everything depends on having the self image right, you see. In other words the ( psychological) value of everything depends on this self image being right. So if somebody, you know, shows it's wrong, therefore everything, you know, is no good, everything is wrong.

K: But we are always giving new shape to this (self-) image.

B: I think that this image means everything, so this gives it tremendous power. : The entire personality is directed to the achievement of this image. Everything else takes second place.

K: Are you aware of this?

S: Yes, I am aware of it.

K: What is the beginning of this?

S: Well...

K: Please, just let me summarize first. Every human being practically has an image of themself, of which he is (generally) unconscious, or not aware.

B: I think one feels one's whole life depends on the ( validity of this) image.

K: Yes, that's right. The next question is: how does it come into being?

S: Well, I think it comes into being when as children there is this hurt and there is the feeling that there is no other way in which this hurt can be assuaged. Really it works in the family in some way. You are my father and I understand through my watching you that if I am smart you will like me. Right?

K: It is all very simple. But I am asking: the beginning of it? The origin of making images about oneself.

B: Suppose there were a child who didn't make an image of himself so he didn't depend on that image for everything. You see the child you talk about depended on the image that his father loves him. And therefore everything goes when his father doesn't love him, everything has gone. Right?

S: But let's look at it a little more pragmatically: here is the child and he is actually hurt.

B: Well wait, he can't be hurt without the image.

K: It is like putting a pin into the air.

S: Now wait a second, I am not going to let you guys get away with this! Here you have got this child, very vulnerable in the sense that he needs physiological support. He has enormous psycholgical tensions.

K: Sir, agreed to all that. Such a child has a (self-protective) image.

S: Maybe he is simply not being biologically supported.

B: Well, he may make an image of the fact that he is not biologically supported. You see you have to get the difference between the actual fact that happens biologically and what he thinks of it. I have seen a child sometimes really going to pieces but because that sense of insecurity from his mother was gone. It seemed as if everything had gone. Right? And he was totally disorganized and screaming, but he dropped only about this far, you see. But the point is he had ( subliminally ?) made an image of the kind of security he was going to get from his mother. Right?

S: That is the way the nervous systems works.

B: Well, that is the question, is it necessary to work that way? Or is this the result of an (immemorial cultural?) conditioning?

S: Yes, I would say yes.

K: This is an important question. Because whether in America or in this (insulary) country, children are running away from their parents, thousands are running away. The parents seem to have no control over them. They don't obey, they don't listen, they don't - you follow? They are going wild. And the parents feel terribly hurt. I saw on the TV what is happening in America. And the woman was in tears - you follow? She said, "I am his mother, he doesn't treat me as a mother, he just orders me, give me a bottle of milk", and all the rest of it. And he has run away half a dozen times. And this is growing, this separation between the parents and the children is growing all over the world. They have no relationship between themselves, between each other. So what is the cause of all this, apart from sociological, economic pressures and all that, which makes the mother go and work and leave the child alone, and he plays, you know, all that, we take that for granted, but much deeper than that? Is it the parents have an image about themselves and the parents insist in creating a (similar) image in the children and the child refuses to have that image but he has his own image. So the battle is on.

S: Well, what I am trying to get; what is in that initial relationship? What is the initial relationship between child...

K: I doubt if they have any ( authentic) relations. That is what I am trying to get at.

S: I agree with you. There is something wrong with the relationship. They have a relationship but it is a wrong relationship.

K: Look: young people get married, or not. They have a child by mistake, or intentionally they have a child. The young people, they are children themselves, they haven't understood the universe, Cosmos or chaos, they just have this child. And they play with it for a year or two and then say, "For god's sake, I am fed up with this child", and look elsewhere. And the child feels left, lost.

S: That's right.

K: And he needs security, from the beginning he needs (the sense of an authentic ) security, which the parents are incapable of giving, psychological security, the sense of "you are my child, I love you, I'll look after you, I'll see that throughout life you will behave properly, care". They haven't got that feeling. They are bored with it after a couple of years.

S: That's right.

K: Is it that they have no relationship right from the beginning, neither the husband, nor the wife, boy or girl? It is only a pleasure-based relationship; in accepting that, they won't accept the pain principle involved with the pleasure principle. What I am trying to see is that there is actually no authentic relationship at all, except biological, sexual, sensual relationship.

S: Now we will have to understand their actual relationship. But I think that most parents have a ( blood ?) relationship with their child.

B: Wouldn't you say it is the ( self-centred) image that is related? You see, suppose the parent and child have images of each other, and the relationship is governed by those images, the question is whether that is actually a relationship or not, or whether it is some sort of fantasy of relationship.

K: Sir, you have children. Have you any ( authentic) relationship with them in the real sense of that word ?

S: In the real sense, yes.

K: That means you have no 'image' about yourself and you are not imposing an image on them ?

S: That's right.

K: And the society is not ( surreptitiously) imposing an image on them ?

S: There are moments like that.

K: That is not good enough.

B: If it is for moments, it is not ( 100%) so. It is like saying a person who is hurt has moments when he is not hurt, but the hurt is sitting there waiting to explode when something happens. You see. So he can't go very far. It is like somebody who is tied to a rope, and as soon as he reaches the limits of that rope he is stuck.

S: That is right...

B: So you could say, I am related as long as certain things are all right, but then beyond that point it just sort of blows up. You see what I am driving at? That ( self-image) mechanism is inside there, buried, so it dominates it potentially.

S: That does seem to be what happens, in fact, that there is a reverberation in which there is a 'yank-back'.

B: Either I come to the end of the cord, or else something yanks the cord and then - but the person who is on the cord is really not free ever.

S: Well, I think that is true.

B: You see in the same sense the person who has the ( self-) image is not really related ever, you see ?

K: Yes, that is just the whole point. You can play with it verbally, but the actual is you have no authentic relationship.

S: You have no relationship as long as it is the image ?

K: As long as you have an image about yourself you have no relationship with another. This is a tremendous revelation (to be integrated?) . You follow? It is not just an intellectual statement.

S: Yes. You can say you have a (good) relationship with somebody but it will go just so far.

B: But then really the image controls it all the time because you see the image is the dominant factor. If you once pass that point, no matter what happens, the ( safety features of that self-protective) image takes over.

K: So, the image gets hurt. And because you have an image about yourself you are bound to ( subliminally) create an image in the child. And ( the collective mentality of) society is doing this to all of us.

B: So you say the child is picking up an image just naturally, as it were, quietly and then suddenly it gets hurt. But this psychological hurt has been prepared and preceded by this steady process of building an image.

S: That's right....
B: You see if the steady process of building an image didn't occur then there would be no basis, no structure to get hurt. In other words, the pain is due entirely to some psychological factor, some thought which is attributed to me in saying, "I am suffering this pain". Whereas I was previously enjoying the pleasure of saying, "My father loves me, I am doing what he wants." Now comes the pain: "I am not doing what he wants, he doesn't love me".

S: But what about the initial hurts?

B: I think we have gone beyond that point.

S: I don't think we touched on the biological situation of the baby child feeling neglected.

B: Well if the child is neglected, he must pick up an image in that very process.

K: Of course. Once you see the reality that as long as the parents have an image about themselves they are bound to give that image to the child, an image.

B: It is their own images that make the parents neglect the child.

S: Well you are right there. There is no question as long as the parent is an image-maker and has an image, then he can't 'see' the ( actual needs of the ) child.

K: And therefore gives an image to the child.

S: Right. He will condition the child to be into something.

B: Yes. And at first perhaps through pleasure he will get hurt. But if he begins by neglecting him, you see the process of neglect is also the result of an image and he must communicate an image to the child as he neglects the child.

S: Which is neglect.

K: That's right. And also the ( self-centred) parents are bound to neglect the child if they have an image about themselves. It is inevitable. But at the same time society is doing this to every human being. ( From the next door neighbours to) churches, schools & religions, every culture around us is creating this (strongly recommended self-) image.

S: That is right.

K: And ( the psychological identification with?) that image gets hurt, and all the rest of it. Now, the next question is: is one aware of all this (image making process?) , which is part of our ( peronal & collective?) consciousness?
One of (its active ) contents is the image making, or may be the major machinery that is operating, the major dynamo, the major movement. Being hurt, which every human being is, can that hurt be healed and never be hurt again? That is, can a human mind put away the image completely and never be hurt ? And therefore (if this dropping is doable?) in consciousness a great part of it is empty, it has no (psychologically active egotistic ) content.

S: Can it? I really don't know the answer to that.

K: Who is the image maker? What is the (mental) machinery or the process that is making images? I may get rid of one ( uncomfortable self-) image and take on another: I am a Catholic, I am a Protestant, I am a Hindu, I am a Zen monk, I am this, I am that. You follow? They are all images.

S: That's right. We have got a lot of images. I know about image making and I see it. And I see it even when you are talking about it. I can see it there and the feeling is one of, it is like a map, you know, you know where you are at because if I don't make this image I will make another.

K: Is it possible to stop (thought's image-making?) machinery that is producing & updating these images? And what is ( behind this psychological ) machinery? Is it (the survivalistic desire of) wanting to be somebody?

S: Yes. It is wanting to be somebody, or wanting to handle the feeling that if I don't have it, I don't know where I am at.

K: Being at a loss?

S: Yes.

K: You follow? The feeling that you are at a loss, not to rely on anything, not to have any support, breeds more disorder. You follow?

B: Well, that is one of the images because communicated to it as a child to say that if you don't have a (knowledgeable?) image of yourself you don't know what to do at all. You don't know what your parents are going to do if you start acting without an image. I mean you may do something and they may just simply be horrified.

K: The ( self-) image is the ( identitary?) product of thought. It may go through various forms of pressures and all the rest of it, a great deal of conveyor belt, and at the end produces an image.

S: I agree with you there, yes. It is definitely the product of ( our self-centred) thought and that thought seems to be like, you know, the immediate action of knowing where you are at; or in trying to know where you are at.

K: Can the machinery stop? Can thought which produces these images, which destroys all relationship, and therefore no (authentic) love, just sentiment, romantic, fanciful emotionalism.

S: Right....

K: As it is now there is no ( authentic) love ( selless empathy) in the world. There is no sense of real caring for somebody.

S: That is true. People don't.

K: The more affluent the worse it becomes. Not that the poor have this either - they are after filling their stomachs, and clothes and work, work, work.

B: But still they have got lots of images.

K: Of course. I said both the rich and the poor have these images, whoever it is.

S: Right.
K: And so are are the people who are directing the world. Right? Who say, this must... you follow? They are the ordering of the universe. So I ask myself, can this image making stop: stop, not occasionally, stop it. Because I don't know what love means, I don't know how to care for somebody. And I think that is what is happening in the world because children are really lost souls, lost human beings, I have met so many, hundreds of them now, all over the world. They are really a lost generation, as the older people were a lost generation. So what is a ( holistically minded) human being to do? What is the right action in relationship? Can there be right action in relationship as long as you have an image? Sir, this is a tremendous (challenge?) , you follow.

S: It seemed to me you made a jump there. You said all we know is images, and image making. That is all we know.

K: But we have never said, can it (thought's image making mechanism ) stop.

S: We have never said, can it stop. That is right.

K: We have never said, for god's sake, if it doesn't stop we are going to destroy each other.

B: You see, the notion that we might stop is something that we didn't know before. You see, in other words...

K: ...it becomes another pieces of knowledge.

B: But when you say this is all we know I feel that a block comes in. If you say, it is all we know, then it can never stop.

S: Well, what do we do with that question, can it stop? I mean there we are, we have got this question.

K: I put that question to you. Do you 'listen' to it?

S: I listen to it. Right.

K: Ah, do you?

S: It ( thought's image making) stops.

K: No, no. I am not interested in whether it stops. Do you listen to this statement, ''can it stop?'' If that doesn't stop, you are going to have such a chaotic world - you follow? I see this, not as an abstraction, but as an actuality, as that flower.

S: Right...

K: And as a human being, what am I to do? Because I personally I have no image about myself: a mental conclusion, a concept, an ideal, all these are images. I have none. And I say to myself, what can I do ( educationally?) when everybody around me is building images, and so destroying this lovely earth where we are meant to live happily, you know, in human relationship, and look at the heavens and be happy about it. What is the right action for a man who has an image?

S: Let me turn it back. What happens I ask you: can it stop?

K: I say, of course. It is very simple to me. Of course it can stop. But you don't ask me the next question: how do you do it? How does it come about?

S: No, I just want to listen for a minute to your "Yes, of course". OK, Now, how do you think it (thought's image making mechanism?) can be stopped ?

K: I say it can: definitely. To me this is tremendously important.

S: Well I think we all agree that it is tremendously important, but 'how'?

K: Not 'how'. Then you enter into the question of (meditation) systems, mechanical process, which is part of our image making. If I tell you how, then you say, tell me the system, the method, and I'll do it every day and I'll get a new ( spirtually upgraded?) image.

S: Yes....
K: It is a fact that as long as there are (self-identified ? ) images there is not going to be peace in the world, no love in the world. I see it as a fact. Right? I remain (abide?) with the fact. You follow? As we said if one remains ( meditatively with the truth of ) the fact there is a ( qualitative inward ) transformation. Which is, not to let thought begin to interfere with the fact.

B: When you say, ''remain with the ( inward truth of the ) fact'', one of the ( mental) images that may come in that it is impossible, it can never be done.

K: Yes, that is another image.

B: In other words the mind should stay with that fact with no (mental) comment whatsoever.

S: Well, the thing that comes through to me when you say 'remain with the fact', you are really calling for an action right there. To really remain with it is that the action or perception is there.

K: Sir, why do you make it so much? It is on you. You are involved in it.

S: To really see it. You know how that feels? It feels like something carries forward because we are always running away.

K: So our ( time-bound?) consciousness, sir, is ( driven by) this image (making mechanism?) : conclusions, ideas, all that. Filling, filling and that is the essence of the ( self-) image. If there is no image making then what is one's consciousness? That is ( becoming ) quite a different thing.

B: Do you think we could discuss that next time?

K: Tomorrow.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Aug 2019 #36
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

6TH ('experientially-friendly' edited) K CONVERSATION WITH DR BOHM & DR SHAINBERG ON THE HOLISTIC TRANSFORMATION OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS (1976)

K: As a (thoughtful ?) viewer, totally outside, listening to you for the first time, I would say, "Look how does it touch my life? It is all (looking) so vague and uncertain and it needs a great deal of (experiential) thinking, which I am unwilling to do". You follow? "So please tell me in a few words, or at length, what am I to do with my real life. Could we bring it down to brass tacks, as it were, where I can grapple with it as an ordinary human being?

B: Well, could we consider as a starting point ( man's psychological) problems arising in daily relationship ?

K: That is the essence, isn't it. I was going to begin with that. You see my relationship with human beings is in the office, in the factory, the constant ( survivalistic) battle, battle, battle all my life. Insulted, wounded, hurt, everything is going on in me and around me.

B: Yes, there is an (existential?) disappointment.

K: Continual disappointment, continual hope, desire to be more successful, more money, more, more, more of everything. Now how am I to (qualitatively) change my (everyday?) relationships? If we could consider again this point which isreally very important, which is not to have an (self-identified) 'image' at all.

B: Yes. But as we were discussing yesterday, we tend to be related almost always through the 'image'. I have already an ( idealised) image of myself and of you as you should be in relation to me. And then that ( psychological image ) gets disappointed and hurt and so on.

K: But how am I to break it down? I see very well I have got (fully identified with this self- protective mental ?) image which has been culturally put together, constructed through generations. And (assuming that I?) am a fairly intelligent person , how am I to break it down (and do I really want to do this?) ?

B: Well the (experiential) point that I have got to be aware ( in real time ) of that 'image', to watch it as it moves.

K: So I have to watch it (non-personally) all the time, in fact. Now am I capable of it? Have I got the energy because my wife wants sex, I don't want it, or I enjoy sex, I go through all kinds of miseries, and at the end of the day I crawl into bed. And you say I must have ( gather all my intelligent ?) energy. Therefore I am willing to give up certain wastages of energy.

B: What kind of wastage?

K: Drink. Smoke, useless chatter.

B: That would be just the beginning, anyway.

K: That would be the beginning. So I must, as a (holistically minded?) human being, I must realize the greatest importance is to have right relationship.

B: Yes, but could you say what happens when we don't have it ?

K: Oh, if I don't have it, of course. I create such havoc around me. So by putting aside ( bad habits such as smoke?) drink, pubs and you know the endless chatter about this or that, will I gather that ( intelligent mind ) energy which will help me to face the (self-protective) image which I have?

Shainberg: Well, let me just stop you here. Suppose that my real image is that I can't do it for myself.

K: That is one of our favourite (cultural) conditionings, that I can't do it myself therefore I must go to somebody to help me.

S: That's right. May be you (the certified psy?) can do it for me.

K: I think we don't actually realize the utter importance of having a right relationship( both with people & with the Universe?) . Having a mutual

relationship which is easy quiet, full, rich, happy, the beauty of it, the harmony of it. We don't realize (the existential) importance of) that.

B: I think it should be very clear that nobody can do it for me. You see whatever somebody else does it won't affect my relationship.

S: Can we say that right relationship begins with the realization that I have to do something for myself in this regard ? The human responsibility I have for myself.

K: Because you 'are' (an integral part of the consciousness of the) world. And the world 'is' you. You can't shirk that (inward fact) .

B: Perhaps we could discuss that a bit because it may seem strange to the casual viewer, for someone to say, "You are the world".

K: All that you are thinking, is the result of the culture, the climate, the food, the environment, the economic conditions, your grandparents, you 'are' the (compounded?) result of all that.

S: I think you can see that (even if only intellectually?) .

B: So, that's what you mean by saying 'you are the world' ?

K: Of course, of course. This is a fact. You go to India, you see the same suffering, the same anxiety, and you come to Europe, to America, it, in essence, is the same.

B: Each person has the same basic structure of suffering and confusion, and self-deception and so on. Therefore if I say, I am the world, I mean that there is an universal (psychological) structure and it is part of me and I am part of that.

K: Part of that, quite. So now let's proceed from that : you cannot have (an authentic?) relationship if you have a (self-protective ?) image about yourself, or if you create a ('trump-like'?) pleasurable image and stick to that. (as a holistic 'rule of thumb:) Moreover, any form of image you have about another, or about yourself prevents the beauty of relationship.

B: Yes. Even the (mental) image that I am secure in such and such a situation, for example, and not secure in a different situation, that prevents relationship. Because I will I demand of the other person that he put me in the situation that I think is secure, and he may not want to do it. Or I may say that I have ( a righteous self-) image of what is just and right. So in other words it is not that it is personally so but I would say that would be the right way for everybody to behave.

S: Right. Now, I think we have to be very specific about this. (self-identified image ?) Each little piece of this ( coming with) is with its own energy.

K: So, you ( the holistically responsible person?) come along and tell me: look, relationship is the greatest thing - what will make a human being listen to ( the inward truth of) this, even seriously for two minutes?

S: Right...

K: The big experts on psychology, or whatever it is, they won't take time to listen to it. They have got their plans, their pictures, their images, you follow, they are surrounded by all this. So to whom are we talking to?

B: Well to whoever is able to listen.

K: That means somebody who is somewhat serious.

B: Yes...

K: So let's move from there. We say as long as you have an image, pleasant or unpleasant, created, etc., etc., put together by thought and so on, there is no right relationship. That is an obvious fact.

B: Yes, and life ceases to have any value without right relationship.

K: Yes, but as of now my consciousness is filled with these images.

S: Right.

K: Right? And the images make my (ego-centric ?) consciousness. Now you are asking me to have no images at all. That means no (self-centred) consciousness, as I know it now. Right sir?

B: Yes, could we say anyway that the major part of consciousness is the self image? We are mostly occupied with (optimising the survival of this ) self image.

S: What more can we say about the self image and the whole way it generates itself?

B: Well, I think we discussed that before, that it gets caught on thinking of the self as real, and that is always implicit, you know, to say that for example the image may be that I am suffering in a certain way, and you see I must get rid of this suffering. You see there is always the implicit meaning in that that I am there, real, and therefore I must keep on thinking about this reality. And it gets caught in that feedback we were talking about. You see the thought feeds back and builds up.

S: Builds up more images.

B: More images, yes.

S: So that is (creating ) the (self-) consciousness.

K: The content of my (self-centred) consciousness is a vast series of images, interrelated, not separated, but interrelated.

B: But they are all centred on the 'self'.

K: On the self, of course. The self is the centre.

B: Yes, because they are all created for the self in order to make the self right, you know, correct. And the self is regarded as all important.

K: Yes.

B: That gives it tremendous energy.

K: Now what I am getting at is: you are asking me, who am fairly serious, fairly intelligent, as an ordinary human being, you are asking me to (meditatively) empty that consciousness (of its psychological content?) .

S: Right. I am asking you to stop this constant image making (& upgrading?) .

K: Not only the image making, the images that I have, and prevent further image making. Both are involved. (To recap:) You are asking me, ( providing I really?) want to understand ( what you are talking about?) you because I really want to live a different way of living because I see it is necessary to be free of the 'self', which is the maker of images, and to prevent further image making.

S: Right...

K: And I say, please tell me how to do it. And you tell me, the moment when you ask me how to do it, you have already built an (authoritarian) image, the system, the method. So you tell me, don't ever ask 'how to do it', because the 'how' involves the (same old ) 'me' doing it.Therefore I am creating another picture.

B: So that shows the way you 'slip' into it, because you ask 'how to do it', the word 'me' is not there but it is there implicitly. It usually slips in because it is there implicitly and not explicitly. That is the (mental) trick, I mean.

K: So now you stop me ( from asking 'how' ) and say, proceed from there. How am I to free this consciousness, even a corner of it, a limited part of it, what is the action that will do it? I want to discuss it with you. Don't tell me how to do it. I have understood. I have understood, I will never again ask, how to do it. The 'how', as he explained, implies implicitly the me wanting to do it, and therefore the me is the factor of the image maker. Then I say to you, I realize this, what am I to do?
S: Do you realize it?

K: Yes. I know I am making images all the time. I am very well aware of it. My wife calls me an idiot; already registered in the brain, thought takes it over, it becomes the image which I have about myself and is hurt. So of this process I know, I am very well aware of this.
One can see that every flattery, and every insult is registered (personally?) in the brain. And thought then takes it over as (psychologically sensitive?) memory and creates an image, and the image gets hurt. So the image 'is' (responsible for the ) the hurt because the image is the pleasure and with the new content, you know, of insult, when the content is flattery the image is pleasure, and when the content is insult the image is hurt.

S: That's right...

K: So Dr Bohm, what is one to do (for meditation homework?) ? There are two things involved in it: one to prevent further hurts and to be free of all the hurts that I have had.

B: But they are both built on the same principle.

K: How am I, a fairly intelligent man, who has read a great deal - an ordinary man I am talking about - I have discussed this and I see how extraordinarily ( psychological?) important all this is. And I say, I realize that the two sides are the same coin. The brain registers the ( psychological) hurt and the whole thing begins. Now how am I to end that? Not the 'how', asking for the ( fail-safe ) method, don't tell me what to do. I won't accept it because it means nothing to me.

B: Well, if you take the hurt that is to come, my brain is already set up in order to respond with an image.

K: So, you are telling me, don't divide the past hurt or the future hurts because the image is the same.

B: Yes. The process is the same.It really doesn't matter because I may just be reminded of the past hurt, that is the same as somebody else insulting me.

K: Yes, yes. So you are saying to me, don't divide the past or the future hurt; there is only (a self-protective process of ) hurt; there is only pleasure: so look at that. Look at the image, not in terms of the past hurts and the future hurts, but just look at that image which is both the past and the future.

B: So, we are saying look at the ( self-identified?) image, not at its particular content but at its general structure.

K: Now then my next question is: how am I to look at it (objectively ?) ? Because I have already an image, with which I am (instinctively?) going to look. May we proceed now? Is the 'observer' different from 'that which he is observing' (inwardly) ?

B: ...that is the (holistic solution of this whole ?) question, yes. You could say that is the root of the power of the image.

K: You see, sir, what happens? If there is an (actual ?) difference between the observer and the observed there is that interval of time in which other activities go on ?

B: Well, yes, in which the brain sort of eases itself into something more pleasant.

K: And where there is this (subliminal) division (btw the all controlling 'observer' and the thing observed) there is conflict. So you are telling me to observe in a different way, to learn this art of (non-dualistic) observing, which is ( being constantly aware that?) that the observer 'is' ( not separate from the inward things which are being ? ) observed.

B: Yes, but I think we could look first at our whole tradition, our whole conditioning, which is the (self-identified) 'observer' is different from the observed. Because that is what everybody feels.

K: Yes, a (virtual) reality sustained by thought.

B: And the self is (acting in safe mode as a separate?) 'observer', which seems to be a reality which is independent of thought .

K: But it is the product of thought.

B: Yes, but that is ( a wide-spread) confusion.

K: Yes, quite, quite, quite. Are you telling me that the observer is the result of the past? My memories, my experiences, all the rest of it, the past.

B: Yes, but I think if we think of the (hapless?) viewer, he might find it a little hard to follow that, if he hasn't gone into it.

K: It's fairly simple.

S: What do you mean?

K: Don't you live in the past? Your (psychological) life is (made of) )ast memories, past experiences. And from the past you project the future.
I hope it will be better, hope that I will be good, I will be different. It's always ( a time-binding movement of thought) from the past to the future.

S: That's right. That's how it is lived.

K: Now I want to see, that ( active memory of the ) past is the me, of course.

B: But it does look as if it is something independent, just that you are looking at.

K: Is it really independent?

B: It isn't but to see that may ( may require some serious meditation)
At the first sight, it looks as if the 'me' is ( mentally present) here looking at the past.

K: Yes, of course, quite. The me is in a ( water-tight ?) jar. But (the bottom line is that?) the me is the product of the past.

S: Right. I can see ( intellectually?) that I am the product of the past. I can see that.

K: How do you see it?

B: Intellectually.

K: Then you don't ( actually?) see it. Why isn't there an immediacy of perception of a imeless?) truth which is, that (ppsychologically-speaking?à you 'are' the (product of the ) past?

S: Because thought's (self-) projection in time comes in. I have an image of myself at three, I have an image of myself at ten and I have an image of myself at seventeen, and I say that they followed in sequence in time, and I see myself having developed over time. I am different now than I was five years ago.

K: Are you?

S: I am telling you that is how I have got that image. That (self-) image is of a developmental sequence in time. And I exist as a storehouse of memories of a bunch accumulated incidents.

K: That is, ( thought & ) time has produced that.

S: I see that.

K: What is this 'time'?

S: I have just described it to you. Time is (generated by) a (mental) movement in...

K: It is a (thought projected ) movement. The movement from the past.

S: That's right. I have moved from the time I was three, then from three to ten, seventeen.

K: Now, is that movement an 'actuality'?

S: What do you mean by 'actuality'?

B: ... or is it just a (thought created mental ) image? The whole point about thought's images ( mental representations?) , is that it imitates an actual fact - you get the feeling that it is real. In other words, 'I' feel that I am really there, looking at my own past, all the implications of how I have developed in time are correct ?

S: Not really . I can see the incorrectness of my memory which constructs 'me' ( the self-consciousness?) in time. I mean obviously I was much more at three than I can remember, I was more at ten than I can remember, and there was much more going on obviously in actuality at seventeen than I have in my memory.

B: Yes, but the 'me' who is here now is looking ( retrospectively?) at all that.

S: That's right.

B: But is he ( actually) there and is he ( really) looking? That is the question.

S: What is an actuality is this mental image of a developmental sequence.

B: And the me who is looking at it?

S: And the me who is looking at it, that's right.

B: You see, that is one of the things we 'slip up' on, because when we say, there is objectively a developmental sequence it is ( subliminally) implying a 'me' who is looking at it, like I am looking at the ( growth of a ) plant.
S: Right...
B: But it may be that the me who is looking at it is ( also?) a (stronger mental ) image as is his 'developmental sequence'.
S: Right.So, you are saying then that this image of me is...

K: ...is a non-reality, is has no reality.

B: Well, the only reality is that it is ( a dualistic process of ) thought. It is not a reality independent of thinking.

K: So we must go back to (square one & ?) find out what is 'reality'.

S: Right...

K: Reality, we said, is everything that (man's self-centred) thinking has put together: the table, the illusions, the churches, the nations, everything that thought has contrived, put together, is reality. However, ( the world of) nature is not put together by thought, but it is ( nervertheless ) a reality.

B: It is a reality independent of thought. But you see, is the me, who is looking, an objective reality that is independent of thought like nature?

K: That is the whole point. Have you understood?

S: Yes, I am beginning to see. Let me ask you a question: is there any difference for you between the perception of this and your perception of the me?

K: This is real: me is not real.

S: Me is not real, what is your perception of the 'self' image?

K: If I have no ( self-protective mental ) image, where is the 'me'?

S: But I have an image of me.

B: Well, could I put it another way? Suppose you are watching a conjuring trick and you perceive a woman being sawn in half, you see. And then when you see the actual trick you say, what is your perception of this woman who is being sawn in half. I am trying to say that as long as you don't see through the trick, what you see is apparently real : somebody being actually cut in half. But you have missed certain ( hidden) points and when you see these (hidden) points that you have missed you don't see anybody being cut in half. You just see it as a ( cheap ?) trick.

S: Right. So I have missed the essence of it.

K: Sir, just let's keep it (experientially) simple. We said we have ( self-identified mental) images; and you tell me to look at it, to be aware of it, to perceive the image. Is the perceiver different from the perceived? That is all my question is. If he is ( considering itself) different then the whole process of ( his psychological) conflict will go on endlessly. And if there is no division between the observer is the observed, then the ( nature of the ) whole problem changes.

S: Right.

K: Right? So ( for further home study?) is the observer different from the observed? Obviously not. So can one look at this ( self-identified mental) image without the observer? And is there an image (left) when there is no observer? Because ( for obscure reasons?) the observer makes the ( mental) image, because the 'observer' is the ( safety provider for the whole ?) movement of thought.

B: But then, we shouldn't call it the 'observer' then because it is not actually looking. I think ( the choice of experiential) language is confusing.

K: The ( 'holistic'?) language, yes...

B: Because if you say it is an 'observer', that implies that something is looking, but what you are really meaning is that thought is moving (on its own ) and creating an (virtual self-) image as if it were looking but nothing is being seen.

K: Yes...

B: Therefore there is no ( actual) 'observer'.

K: Quite right. Or, to put it in a ( roundabout?) way: is there a 'thinker' without thought?

B: No.

K: Exactly. Or, if there is no ( self-identified) 'experiencer' is there a (personal?) experience?
So ( to recap:) you (K) have asked me to look at my images, and you said to actually look at it, is a very serious and very penetrating ( meditative) demand. You say, if there is no (all controlling) 'thinker' there is no ( self-centred activity of?) thought. So you have shown me something enormously significant.

S: As you said, the whole question changes completely.

K: Completely. I have no (self-identified mental) image.

S: It feels completely different. It's like then there is an (inner space of) silence...

K: So, as my consciousness 'is' (an integral part of ) the consciousness of the world - ( presently) filled with all the 'things' of thought, sorrow, fear, pleasure, despair, anxiety, attachment, detachment, hope, it is ( trapped in?) a turmoil of confusion, there is a (subliminal) sense of a deep (existential) agony involved in it all. And in that state you cannot have any ( authentic) relationship with any human being.

S: Right.

K: So you ( K) say to me: to have the greatest and the most responsible relationship is to have no ( self-protective?) image.

S: That is to be responsive to 'all that is'. I mean it means to be ( inwardly) responsive and to open it up (Pandora's Box ?) .

K: Now the next question is: is ( the identification with?) this self- image deep, hidden? Are there hidden imageswhich I can't get hold of? Are they in the cave, in the underground, somewhere hidden, which all the (psy) experts have told me there are there are dozens of underground images. And how am I to unearth them, expose them, out? You see you have put me, the ordinary (time-bound) man, into a terrible position.

S: You don't have to 'unearth' them if all that ( we have discussed ) is clear to you .. Once it is clear to you that the observer 'is' the observed...

K: Therefore you are saying there is no unconscious. You, the psy who talk endlessly about unconscious with your patients !

S: I don't.

K: Therefore you say there is no 'unconscious'?

S: Right.

K: I agree with you! The moment when you see the observer 'is' (undivided from) the observed, and that the observer is the maker of images, it is finished.

S: Finished. If you really 'see' (the inward truth of?) that.

K: That's it. So the ( fragmented) consciousness which I know, in which we have lived (for ages?) , has undergone a tremendous transformation: has it? Has it to you?

S: Mm...

K: And if I may ask Dr Bohm, & all of us, realizing that the observer 'is' the observed, and therefore the 'image making (mechanism) is no longer in existence, and so the content of consciousness, which makes up consciousness, is not as we know it. Right? What then?

S: I don't know...

K: I am asking this ( challenging) question because it involves ( lots of homework?) meditation. I am asking this question because all religious people, the really serious ones, ( will eventually?) have to go into this question : what happens when there is no movement of ( self-centred) thought, which is (directly responsible for?) the image making, what then takes place? When ( thought's projection of 'psychological) time' ends, then what is there? Because you have led me (only) up to this point. I hear you and I say, "By Jove, this is something extraordinary these people are saying. They say the moment when there is no image maker, the ( psychological ? ) 'content' of one's consciousness undergoes such a radical transformation and ( the ego-centric mental activity of) thought comes to an end, except when objective thinking absolutely has its place (when dealing with technological & scientific ) knowledge and all the rest of it." So ( to make a long story short?) when ( the psychological continuity of) thought comes to an end, time has a stop. What then? Is that ( the psychological counterpart of ?) death?

S: It is actually the death of the 'self' (-centred mental entity) .

K: No, sir. ( Meditation-wise?) it is much more than that. When ( the egotistic activity of ) thought stops, there is a complete (inward ?) transformation in one's consciousness because there is no anxiety, there is no fear, there is no pursuit of pleasure, there is none of the ( psychologically motivated?) 'things' that create turmoil, division . And what comes into being, or what happens then (inwardly) ? Not as a ('personal') experience because that is out. But what takes place in that (silent mind ) ? I'll have to find it out (for optional meditation homework?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Aug 2019 #37
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

7TH ('experientially-friendly' edited) K CONVERSATION WITH DR BOHM & DR SHAINBERG ON THE HOLISTIC TRANSFORMATION OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF MANKIND (1976)

K: After ( our discussion) this morning you have left me (with a ) completely empty (but meditatively open ?) mind , without any (psychological ?) ?) image. So where am I ?

S: Hm-m... ?

K: You see, as a (holistically minded ?) outsider who has actually listened to all this, I have been left as with a sense of ( facing) a 'blank wall'. Have I solved the problem of sorrow, do I know what it means to love? Do I understand what is compassion? Do I have this sense of astonishing energy which is compassion, the end of my sorrow, do I know what it means to (have) love (for) a human being? And you haven't shown me what ( the psychological significance of?) death is. So there are all these things we should cover before we have finished this evening - a lot of ground to cover.

B: Could we begin on the question of death ? Essentially what you said this morning when we had come to the ( experientially critical) point where we see that the observer 'is' the observed then that is (the psychological counterpart of physical ? ) death ?

K: Yes.

B: Now, this raises a deeper question : if the self is nothing but a ( composite mental) image, then what is it that dies? You see if the (psychological) self- image 'dies', is there something real that dies?

K: : I was trying to point out that if there is no ( self) image at all in my consciousness, there is ( a psychological counterpart of?) death.

B: Well that's the point exactly. What is it that has 'died'? You see death implies that something which was actually alive has died.

K: The (pack of self-identified ) images have died, the 'me' is dead.

B: But is that a genuine death ? More deeply is there something that has to die? You see, I'm trying to say, something real. In other words, if the living organism dies, I see that, up to a point. Something real has died, but when the 'self' (identified consciousness?) dies... ?

K: Ah, but so far I have accepted the 'self' has been an astonishingly real thing. You come along and tell me that that image is fictitious, and I understand it, and I'm a little frightened that when that dies, when there is no (self-identified ) 'image', there is a (psychological) ending of something.

B. Yes, but what exactly is it that 'ends'? Is it something real that ends? You see, you could say an ending of a (mental) image, ther's nothing much that ends if it's only an image.

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

B: Or is there something deeper that 'dies'?

K: I would say it is not only the self-image which is dead, but something much deeper than that.

B But it's still not the death of the organism, you see.

K: Still not the death of organism, because the physical organism will go on, up till it's diseased, old age, senility and so on. But here ( in the psychological field) it is like a very shallow pool. You have taken away a little water and there is nothing but mud left behind. That is nothing. So is there something much more deep regarding the psychological meaning of death ?

S: You mean, does ( the psychological) death have a meaning beyond the death of the ( self-identified ) image?

K: Of course, that's what we are asking.

B Is there something about (the fact of) death that is bigger than the death of the ( self-) image?

K: Obviously. It must be.

B: Will this wider meaning include the death of the organism ?

K: Yes. I mean the physical organism might go on, but eventually it will come to an end.

B: If we were to see what death means as a whole, universally, then we would also see what the death of the organism means, right? But is there some meaning also to the death of the self image, the same meaning?

K: I should say, that's only a very small part.

B: But then one could think there might be a process or a structure beyond the self-image that might die, that creates the self-image.

K: Yes, that is thought.

B: So, are you discussing the death of thought?

K: Yes, but that's is also again superficial.

B: But is there something beyond thought itself that should...

K: Just look. The ( self-identified) image dies, that's fairly simple (to grasp but) it is a very shallow affair. Then there's the ending of (the time-binding continuity of) thought, which is the 'ending of thought'.

B: Right. So, you would say thought is deeper than the ( self-) image but still not very deep.

K: Not very deep. So we have removed the maker of the image and the image itself. Now, is there something more?

B: In what sense ? Something more that exists or something more that has to die ? I mean your ( sybillinic?) question is not clear when you say, "Is there something more?"

K: Is that all ( regarding the holistic significance of) death?

B: I see. Is that all that death is.

S: Is there a (transcendental?) meaning that's bigger?

K: Death must have something enormously significant for the whole of (one's) life.

B: Yes, but thinking of the viewer, in the way we live now, (the transition of) death is at the end and you just try to forget about it, you know, and try to make it unobtrusive, and so on.

K: But as you have pointed out, my life has been ( entangled in) a constant conflict, anxiety, all the rest of it.

B: Right.

K: That's been all my (temporal) life. I have come to the limits of the known, and therefore death is the (transition into the) Unknown. So I am afraid of that. And we come along and say, look death is partly the ending of the image nd of the maker of the image, but death must have much more, greater significance, than merely this empty saucer.

B: Well, if you could make more clear why it must have...

K: Is life just a shallow empty pool? With mud at the end of it?

S: Well, why would you assume that it's anything else?

B: I mean, even if it's something else, we have to ask why is it that death is the key to understanding that ?

K: Because it's the ending of everything ( one 'knows') . Of all my concepts, images - end of all the memories.

B: But that's in the ending of thought, right?

K: Ending of thought. And also it means, ending of ( thought's projected continuity in) time. ( The 'psychological' thread of) time coming to a stop totally. And there is no ( thought projected) 'future' in the sense of past meeting the present and carrying on.

B: 'Psychologically' speaking ?

K: Yes, the 'psychological' ending of everything.

B: Right. But when the physical organism dies then everything ends with that organism?

K: But wait a minute. If I don't end the (self-identified) image, the ( collective) stream(ing ) of image-making still goes on.

B: Well again it's not too clear 'where' it goes on...

K: It manifests itself in other people. That is: the physical organism dies, and at the last moment I'm still ( subliminally identified ) with the image I have.

B: Yes, what happens to that?

K: That's what I'm saying. That (self-identified) image has its continuity with the ( stream of the) rest of the images - your image, my image. Your image is not different from mine. It may have a little bit more colour, but essentially the image, my image 'is' ( not different from?) your image. So there is this constant flow of ( collective) image-making.

B: But where does it take place?

K: It is ( constantly active up ?) there, and it 'manifests' itself in people.

B: So you feel that in some ways it's something more 'universal' ?

K: Yes, much more universal.

B: That's rather strange to think of .So, in other words, you're saying the (self-) image does not originate only in one brain, but in some sense it is universal ?

K: Universal. Quite right.

B: So, you're not only saying that it's just the ( compounded?) sum of the effects of all the brains, but are you implying something more?

K: Is the effect of all the brains, and it manifests itself in ( ordinary) people, as they're born; genes and all the rest of it.

B: Yes...

K: Now. Is that all (to the meaning of death ?) Or does (the psychological) 'death' bring about this sense of an enormous, endless (intelligent ) energy which has no beginning and no end?
( To recap:) I have got rid of my images and the image-maker ; it is ( meditation-wise?) very simple, it can be stopped, but I haven't touched the much deeper things - life must have an infinite depth.

B: You mean that's death opens that up ?

K: Death opens that up.

B: But is there something real which is blocking that from realizing itself?

K: Yes, ( the temporal mind ) is blocking itself through ( its protective self ) image and thought's image making

S: Yes, that's what's blocking the greater (vision) .

B: Yes.

K: Wait, wait, there are still other blocks, deeper blocks.

B: That's what I was trying to get at. That there are deeper blocks that are real. And they really have to 'die' (be dissolved?) ?

K: That's just it.

S: Would that be ( the karmic effects of the collective ) stream that you're talking about, that's there?

K: There is a Stream of Sorrow, isn't there?

B: So, is this 'Stream of Sorrow' deeper than (thought's image making?) ?

K: Yes.

B: Well, that's important to ( be ended) then.

K: It is. But be careful, it is a very serious thing.

B: I mean, would you say sorrow and suffering are essential the same or just different words?

K: Oh, (just) different words...

B: All right, just to clear it up.

S: So, deeper than thought's image-making is the Stream of Collective Sorrow

K: Isn't it? Man has lived with sorrow for a million years.

B: Well, then could we say a little more about what is this 'sorrow'. It's more than pain you see.

K: Oh, much more than pain; much more than loss; much more than losing my son and my parent or this or that.n It's much deeper than that.

B: Right. Right. It goes beyond the self-image, beyond thought and beyond what we would ordinarily call 'feeling'.

K: Oh, of course. Now can that ( Collective Stream of Sorrow ?) end?

S: Well, are you saying that this Stream of Sorrow, is a different stream from the Stream of image-making? Are there two different streams, or..?

K: No, it's part of the same stream (of human consciousness ) but ( a current that is) much deeper.

B: Are you saying, then, that the image-making is on the surface of this Stream. (of human Consciousness)

K: That's all. But I want to penetrate ( immerse meditatively still ?) deeper .

B: Well, could you say we've understood the waves on the surface of this Stream which ( on the surface) we call 'image making', so whatever (the deeper ) disturbances and sorrow, they come out on the surface as image-making.

K: That's right.

S: So now we have got to go deep sea diving ?

K: River diving.

B: But what really is this 'stream of sorrow'? Is it not merely that the sum of all the sorrow of different people (accumulated through eons of time ) ?

K: No, no...Could we put it this ( experientially-friendly way – (just ending) the surface waves on the river doesn't bring (into one's life the Intelligence of) Compassion. Then, what will? Since, without ( this universal Intelligence of ) compassion human beings are destroying themselves. So, does compassion come with the ending of sorrow which is not ( just the personal) sorrow created by ( one's self-centred) thought.

B: So, let's say in ( the 'known' field of) thought you have mainly the sorrow for the (mishaps of the ) self – right?

K: Yes, sorrow for the 'self'.

B: Which is self-pity, and then there's a deeper sorrow which is universal, not merely the total sum but rather something universal.

K: That's right.

S: Can we spell that out, go into it?

K: Aren't you aware of a much deeper sorrow than the sorrow of thought, self pity, the sorrow of the image ?

B: Well, does this sorrow have an (deeper existential) content? I mean to say it's sorrow for the fact that man is in this state of affairs which he can't get out of.

K: That's partly it. That means the 'sorrow of ignorance'.

B: Yes. That man is ignorant (of what is going on inwardly) and cannot get out of it.

K: Cannot get out - you follow? And the ( holistic) perception of that sorrow is (awakening the universal intelligence of) compassion.

B: Right, so, the non perception of it is ( man's existential) sorrow then.

K: Yes, yes. Are we saying the same thing? Say for instance, you see me in ignorance.

B: I see the whole of mankind in ignorance.

K: And after living for millennia, they are still ignorant - ignorant in the sense we are talking that is, the maker of the ( egocentric) 'image' and all that.

B: Now, if my mind is really good & clear, that (global perception) should have a deep effect on me? Right?

S: What would have a deep effect?

B: To see this tremendous ignorance, this tremendous destruction.

K: We are getting at it.

B: Right. But then if I don't fully perceive, if I start to escape the (human responsability of this) perception of it, then I'm in it too?

K: Yes, you are in it too.

B: But the feeling of that universal sorrow is still something that I can feel, I mean, is that what you mean to say?

K: Yes.

B: Although I am not very perceptive as to what it means (experientially ) .

K: ( For starters ) You can feel the sorrow of ( self-centred) thought.

B: But I can somehow be aware of the universal sorrow ?

K: Yes. You can feel the orrow of ( the inner condition of a ) man living like this.

B: Is that the essence of it?

K: I'm just moving into it.

B: Is there more to it?

K: Oh, much more to it.

B: Well, then perhaps we should try to bring that out.

K: I live the ordinary life: ( a strongly identified self-) image, sorrow, fear, anxiety, all that. I have the sorrow of self-pity, all that. And you who are 'enlightened' , look at me - aren't you full of sorrow for me? Which is compassion.

B: I would say that is a kind of (a compassionate & intelligent) energy which is tremendously aroused because of (seeing) this ( sad existential ) situation.
But that, what do you call it, sorrow, or you'd call it compassion ?

K: Compassion, which is the outcome of ( a holistic perception of) sorrow.

B: But has the 'enlightened' person first felt sorrow and then ( felt the inward awakening of ?) compassion?

K: No. You see, sir, you are saying that one must have (some experience of) sorrow first (in order ) to have compassion.

B: I'm not saying it, just exploring it.

K: Yes, we are exploring. Through sorrow you come to compassion ?

B: That's what you seem to be saying.

K: Yes, but does it implies that I must go through all the horrors of mankind in order to...

B: But let's say that the 'enlightened' man, sees this sorrow, sees this destruction, you know - sees this - and he feels something, he senses something which is a tremendous energy which we call compassion. Now can he really understand these people who are ( struggling in the stream of) sorrow when he is not himself in sorrow ?

K: That's right.

B: So, he just feels a tremendous energy to do something.

K: Yes. The tremendous energy of ( Universal) Compassion.

B: Feeling compassion for them ?

K: Compassion.

S: Would you then say that the 'enlightened' man perceives or is aware of the conflict, of the awkwardness, the blundering, the loss of life...

K: Doctor Shainberg just listen : suppose you have been through all this- (egocentric) images, thought, the sorrow of thought, the fears, anxiety, and you say. I have understood that. It's over in me. But you have left very little: you have energy, but it is a very shallow business.

S: Right...

K: And is ( the wholeness of) life so shallow as all that? Or has it an immense depth?

B: Has inwardness..?

K: A great inwardness. And to find that out don't you have to die to everything ( you have psychologically?) 'known'?

B: Yes, but how does this relate to sorrow at the same time?

K: I am coming to that. You might feel I am ignorant, my anxieties, all the rest of it. You are beyond it, you are on 'the other side of the Stream' as it were. Don't you have compassion?

S: Yes, yes, I do.

K: Isn't that the result of ending the universal sorrow.

B: So, you're talking about a person who was is in sorrow to begin with. And in him this universal sorrow ends. Is that what you're saying?

K: No, it is more than that.

B: Then we'll have to go slowly, because if you say the ending of universal sorrow the thing that is puzzling is to say it still exists, you see.

K: What?

B: You see if the universal sorrow ends, then it's all gone ?
K: Ah! It's still there.

B: It's still there. So in some ( individualised ) sense the universal sorrow ends but in another sense it persists ?

K: Yes. Yes, that's right.

B: But if you have an insight into the essence of sorrow – of the universal sorrow - then in that sense ( for that individual) sorrow ends in that insight. Is that what you mean? Although you know it still goes on.

K: Yes, yes, although it still goes on.

S: I think I understood that one, but my question comes before: which is that here is 'me' & thought's 'image-making' has died. Right, that's the waves. Now, I come into the universal sorrow ?

K: You've lost the sorrow of thought.

S: Right. The sorrow of thought has gone, but there's a deeper sorrow ?

K: Are you assuming that there is a deeper sorrow?

S: I'm just trying to understand what you are saying.

K: I am saying, is there a compassion which is not related to thought, or is that compassion born of sorrow?

S: Born of sorrow?

K: Born in the sense when the sorrow ends there is ( the birth of Universal ?) compassion.

S: OK. That makes it a little clearer. When the sorrow of thought...

K: Not ( just ) the 'personal' sorrow! Is there not a deeper sorrow than the sorrow of thought?

S: David was just saying there's the sorrow ( of mankind's collective) ignorance is deeper than the sorrow thought. The sorrow for the universal calamity of mankind trapped in this sorrow; the sorrow of a continual repetition of wars and history and poverty and people mistreating each other, that's a deeper sorrow.

K: I understand all that.

S: That's deeper than the sorrow of thought.

K: Can we ask this ( holistic ?) question: what is compassion which is ( the intelligence of Universal?) Love . What is ( the source of this) compassion? Can a man who is in sorrow, thought, image, can he have that? He can't. Absolutely he cannot. Right?

B: Yes.

K: Then how does that come into being? Without That man's life has no (truly universal) meaning. You have left me without that. So if all that you have taken away from me is superficial sorrow, thought and image, and I feel there's something much more (to come?) .

B: You see, when we haveseen thought producing sorrow and self pity, but also the realization of the sorrow of mankind and could you say that the energy which is deeper is being in some way..

K: Moved (on?) .

B: But you see, first of all in this sorrow energy is caught up in whirlpools.

K: Yes, that's right, in small fields.

B: It's deeper than thought but there is some sort of very deep disturbance of the ( life-sustaining) energy which we call deep sorrow.

K: Deep sorrow.

B: Ultimately it's origin is the blockage of thought ( functioning within the field of the known?) , isn't it?

K: Yes, yes. That is the deep sorrow of mankind (accumulated) for centuries upon centuries - a vast reservoir of sorrow.

B: It's sort of moving around in, in some way that's disorderly and preventing clarity and so on. I mean perpetuating ignorance.

K: Perpetuating ignorance, right.

B: So, that's ( the karmic causation of) it. Because, if it were not for that then man's natural capacity to learn would solve all these problems.

K: That's right. But... unless you three or show me, or ( help me) have an insight into something much greater, I say, "Yes that's very nice", and I go off ( back into the Stream) - you follow?

B: Yes...

K: So, what we're trying to do, as far as I can see, is to penetrate into something (Universally Intelligent & Compassionate) beyond death.

B: Beyond death... ?

K: Death we say's not only the ending of the organism, but the ending of all the ( psychologically active) content of the consciousness which we know as it is now.

B: Is it also the ending of sorrow?

K: Ending of sorrow of that kind, of the superficial kind. That's clear.

B: Yes.

K: But the man who has listened to all that says, that isn't good enough, you haven't given me the flower, the perfume. You've just given me the ashes of it. And, now, we three are trying to find out that which is beyond the ashes.

B: Right. You mean 'that' ( dimension of consciousness?) which is beyond death?

K: Absolutely!

B: I mean, would you say that is 'eternal' or..?

K: I don't want to use this ( banalised?) word.

B: That 'something' which is beyond time ?

K: Beyond time. Therefore, there is 'something' (to be inwardly awakened) beyond this superficial death, an (inner) movement that has no beginning and no ending.

B: But it is a movement?

K: It's a movement, but not in (terms of material) time.

S: What is the difference between a movement in time and a movement out of time?

K: That ( inward Spring) which is constantly renewing, constantly - 'new' isn't the word - constantly fresh, flowering, endlessly flowering, that is timeless.

B: Well I think we can see the point.

S: I think we get that. The feel of renewal in creation and in coming and going without transition, without duration, without linearity, that has...

K: You see, let me ( recap it?) in a different way. Being a fairly intelligent man, who has read various books, tried various meditations - at one glance I have an insight into all that (thought-time process?) , at one glance it is finished, I won't touch it! There an (authentic) meditation must take place to delve, to have an insight, into something which the human mind has never touched before.

B: Right. I mean even if you do touch it, then it doesn't mean the next time it will be 'known'.

K: Ah! It can never be 'known' in the (knowledgeable?) sense..

B: It can never be 'known', it's always new in some sense.

K: Yes it's always new. It is not an ( upgraded projection of) memory stored up and altered, changed and call it 'new'. It has never been old. I don't know if I can put it that way.

B: I think I understand that, you see. Could you say a ( newly born ) mind that has never known sorrow ?

K: Yes.

B: Now, to say that it might seem puzzling at first but it's a moving out from the state which has known sorrow into to a state which has not know sorrow.

K: Not yet, that's quite right.

B: In other words, there's no 'you'.

K: That's right. That's right.

S: Right. Isn't there a different kind of ( meditative) action.

K: To penetrate deeper into this, the ( meditating) mind must be completely silent. Otherwise you are projecting something into it.

B: Right.

K: An absolute silence which is not brought about through will (power) .
Now, in that silence there is the sense of something beyond all time, all death, all thought. A mind which is (as) nothing! And therefore empty. And therefore with a tremendous ( inflow of an universally intelligent ?) energy.

B: Is this also the source of compassion?

K: That's right. This energy 'is' ( the timeless intelligence of?) Compassion And beyond that there is something more.

B: What could it be that's 'more'?

K: Sir, let's approach it differently. Everything thought has created is not sacred, is not holy.

B: That ( Ground of All Being) which is sacred is without limit.

K: That's it. So, there is something beyond compassion which is 'sacred'.

B: Well then, what is our relation to the 'sacred' ?

K: To the man who is ignorant there is no relationship. Right? To the man who has removed the self-protecting ) image, all that, who is free of the image and the image-maker, it has no ( existential) meaning yet. Right?
It has meaning only when (the meditating mind) goes beyond everything, beyond – it dies to everything. 'Dying' (in real time) means, in the sense, never for a single second accumulating anything 'psychologically'.

S: Would you say that is there ever a relationship to the sacred or is the sacred..?

K: No, he was asking what is the relationship between that which is sacred, holy, and the world of reality.

B: Yes, well, it's implicit anyway.

K: We talked about this question some time ago, which is: That may have a relationship with this, but the relationship comes through insight, intelligence and compassion.

S: What is this relationship?

K: ( For instance?) you have had an insight into the ( self-identified) image. You have had an insight into the movement of thought, moment of thought which is self-pity, creates sorrow, and all that. You have had a real insight into it. Now, isn't that insight intelligence? Now move with that intelligence, which is not yours or mine, intelligence of that insight. Now, move a step further into it. Have an insight into sorrow, which is not the sorrow of thought, and all that, the enormous sorrow of mankind, of ignorance, you follow, and out of that insight compassion. Now, insight into compassion: is compassion the end of all life, end of all death? It seems so because you have thrown away, mind has thrown away all the burden which man has imposed upon himself. Right? So we have that tremendous feeling, a tremendous thing inside you. Now, that Compassion - delve into it. And there is something sacred, untouched by man - man in the sense, untouched by his mind, by his cravings, by his demands, by his prayers, by his everlasting chicanery, tricks. And that may be the 'Origin of Everything' - which man has misused.

B: Would you say it's the origin of all matter, all nature ?

K: Of everything, of all matter, of all nature.

B: Of all mankind ?

K: That's right. I'll stick by it! So, at the end of these seven dialogues, what have you, what has the viewer got? What has he captured? Has his bowl been filled ?

S: Filled with the 'sacred'.

K: He has come to you wanting to find out how to transform my (inner) life, because I feel it is absolutely necessary. Have I got anything out of all this? Have you given me the perfume of 'that' thing?

S: Can I give you the perfume?

K: Or, yes sir, you can share it with me. Have you, have you two shared this thing with this ( nowhere?) man? If not, then what, what? A clever dialogue, that we have fed up. So, you can only share It when you are really hungry, burning with hunger. Otherwise you share words. So I have come to the point, we have come to the point when we see life has an extraordinary meaning.

B: Well, let's say it has a meaning far beyond what we usually think of.
But would you say the (sense of the ) Sacred is also ( becoming part of man's inner ) life?

K: Yes, that what I was getting at. Life is sacred. So, we mustn't waste it because our life is so short. You follow?

B: You mean you feel that each of our lives has a part to play in this sacred that you talk about. And to use it rightly has a tremendous ( existential) significance.

K: Yes. Quite right. All these dialogues have been (knowingly or not ?) a process of ( live?) Meditation. Not a clever argument. A real penetrating meditation which brings ( the perceptive quality of) insight into everything that's been said.

B: I should say that we have been doing that.

K: I think that we have been doing that.

S: But has it actually been a Meditation?

K: In sharing the truth of every statement, in seeing the falseness of every statement, or in seeing the truth in the false. Seeing it all, therefore we are in a state of Meditation. And whatever we say must then lead to this ultimate (Sacred ) thing. Then there is only ( the Living Presence of?) That.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Aug 2019 #38
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

Can we discuss the relation between Krishnamurti's teaching and Truth?

( An 'experientially-friendly' edited K small group dialogue, Ojai 1977)

KRISHNAMURTI: Is it the expression of truth? The 'speaker' is either talking out of the silence of truth, or he is talking out of the ( mental) noise of an illusion which he considers to be the truth.

Q: There could be a ( subtle mental) confusion between the word (the verbal expression ) and ( the actual perception of ?) Truth.

K: The 'word' (the verbal expression) is ( obviously?) not the (living spirit of?) truth. So, either he is talking out of the 'silence of truth' or out of the noise of illusion.

Q: One does feel that K is speaking out of the silence of truth , but ( for the average listener?) there is a greater possibility for K's words to be taken as (the ultimate expression of ?) truth.

K: What is the criterion, the measure that you apply so you can say: "Yes, that is it." Or you (honestly acknowledge that you?) don't know but you are examining, investigating by watching (within yourself) the truth of what he is saying. I am going to listen to what he is saying and see ( within myself) if it is true (or not ?)

Q: But what sees it as 'true'?

K: Say, one is fairly alive to (these inward) things. My ( whole ) life is concerned with this problem and I want to know the ( ultimate?) truth of this matter. Is he speaking out of ( the well-rounded memory of his past ?) experience & knowledge, or not out of any of these things?
I don't know how you would find out, but I'll tell you what I would do (if I were in your shoes?) . I would put his (very charismatic & dynamic ?) personality, his ( open or subliminal psychical ?) influence completely aside. I would just listen to him (non-verbally) and being 'sceptical' - in the sense that I don't accept everything that is being said (unless they are seen as facts?) .

P: But this is not just 'doubting'. It is a ( total) negation.

K: I would rather use the word 'doubt', in the sense of questioning. So, I would put aside all (K's ) personal reputation, charm, looks, this and that - I am not going to 'accept' or 'reject', but I am going to 'listen' very carefully to what he has to say. And if I am not comparing, judging or evaluating I can find out ( for myself?) whether what he is saying is the truth. Now am I capable of ( transpersonally?) listening to what he is saying with complete abandonment of ( my knowledgeable memories of ) the past? Then I am listening out of silence.
So, I have answered ( this question ) for myself, but...how would you answer it?

Q: I think that first of all you can become sensitive to what is 'false'. In other words, to see if there is ( in what K is saying) something false, or something incoherent.

K: If I were a (total?) stranger I might say: You have listened to this man for a long time, how do you know he is telling the truth? How do you know anything about it?

Q: I could say that I have looked at ( the inward validity of) what you have said, and each time I was able to test it to see if it was right. I have not found anything which was contradictory.

K: The ( gist of the ) question is: one's own sensitivity, one's own investigation, one's own delving - is that enough?

Q: In the moments when one is really listening one feels there is a ( qualitative à change in oneself. It may not be a total revolution, but there is a change.

K: That can (also) happen when you go for a walk and look at the mountains and are quiet, and when you come back to your home certain things (within yourself) have taken place.

Q: I have listened to scores of people and I listen to K. It is totally different - there is a 'ring of truth' in it.

Q(1): I think that for thought it is not at all possible to be sure about this matter. It is typical of thought that it wants to be sure that it is not deceiving itself, whether it is really 'listening to truth'. Thought will never give up that question, and it is right for thought never to give up questioning, but thought cannot touch it, cannot know about it.

K: Dr Bohm and I had a discussion of this kind in a different way. If I remember rightly we said: Is there such a ( quality of inner) silence which is not the word, which is not imagined or induced? Is there such a silence, and is it possible to speak out of that silence?

Q: The question was whether the words are coming from ( a direct insightful?) perception, from an ( inwardly open ) 'silence', or from the memory. As we used to say: like the drum which vibrates to the emptiness within.

K: Yes. Are you satisfied by this answer?

Q: Not really....The very words you are using deny the possibility of being satisfied and to work at it intellectually. It is ( an experiential challenge?) that has nothing to do with those things.

K: Look, suppose I love you and trust you. There is a relationship of trust, confidence, affection, love; like a man and a woman when they are married, they trust each other. Now is that possible here?

Q: Can we say that Truth is ( to be found ) in the ( loving quality of) silence out of which the Teachings come?

K: But I want to know how this 'silence' comes! I might have worked to have a silent mind for years, conditioned it, kept it in a cage, and then say, "Marvellous, I am silent". That is a ( very realistic ?) danger.

Q: Are we saying that perception has to be pure and in the 'realm of silence '- the real realm of silence, not a fantasy - in order to be able to even come close to this question?

K: Dr Bohm is a scientist, a physicist, he is clear-thinking, logical; suppose someone goes to him and asks, "Is what Krishnamurti says the truth?" How is he going to answer?

Q: The other day when that man said you may be caught in a groove, and you looked at it first, what happened then?

K: I looked at it in several different ways and I don't think I am caught in a groove, but yet I might be. So after examining it very carefully, I left it. Something takes place when you leave it alone after an examination, something new comes into it.

Q: For me it is a reality. I can't communicate it to you. This is what I have found out and you have to find it out for yourself. You have to test it in your own mind.

K: How do you in your heart of hearts, as a human being, know that he is speaking the truth? I want to 'feel' (the truth of) it. Dr Bohm has known Krishnamurti for several years. He has a good, trained mind so I go to him and ask him.

Q: I think I could say to him that when we did discuss these things it was from the emptiness, and that I felt it was a direct perception

K: So you are telling me: I have found out that man is telling the truth because I had a direct perception, an insight into what he is saying.

Q: Yes.

K: Now be careful, because I have heard a disciple of some guru saying exactly the same thing.

Q: I have also heard a guru say this but a little later by looking at it logically I saw the thing was nonsense. When I was looking at the fact and the logic I saw that it did not fit. So I would say that in addition to direct perception I have constantly examined this logically.

K: So you are saying that perception has not blinded you and with that perception goes logic also.

Q: Yes, logic and fact.

K: So perception first, then logic. Not first logic, then perception.

Q: Yes. That is what it always has to be.

K: So I have learned from talking to him that this is a very 'dangerous' (slippery?) thing. He has said you can only understand whether Krishnamurti is speaking the truth if you are really prepared to walk on the razor's edge path. Are you prepared to do that when one's whole being says "Be secure" ? Can the ( holistically friendly) mind - which has been conditioned for centuries to be ( 200%) secure - abandon this (fail-safe attitude?) , and say, "( Meditation-wise?) I will ( be inwardly ready to ?) walk into 'danger' (very slippery zone) "?

Q: In principle that is the way all new discovery in science works. But the word ( psychological) 'danger' has to be explained too. From one point it is dangerous, and from another it isn't. I have to investigate. My conditioning is very dangerous.

K: So we're saying: " Through the perception of the ( potential ) dangers (of self-delusion?) I have found ( experientially?) the truth of what Krishnamurti is saying. ( Hint:) There is no ( psychological) safety in this. Whereas all the others give me ( a very realistic illusion of protection & ) safety.

Q: What you have just described is actually the (authentic) scientific approach. They say every statement must be in danger of being false; it has been put that way.

K: That is perfectly right. So (to recap :) A man comes from Seattle and is told (by the K-correct host?) : "I have found that what he( K) says is the truth because I have had an (insightful) perception and that perception stands (even when examined) logically". (However) in that ( insightful) perception I see that ( the inner terrain ) where I walk is full of ( psychological ) dangers. Therefore I have to be tremendously aware. This 'danger' (of self-delusion) always exists when there is no (mental guarantee of ) security. And the gurus, the priests; all offer ( the very realistic illusion of everlasting ?) security.
Are we saying (as a holistic conclusion?) that a direct perception ( of the truth or falseness of anything also known as ?) 'insight' and the working out of it demands a great capacity to think clearly? But ( conversely?) the capacity to think clearly will not ( necessarily) bring about insight.

Q: Then what does the logical thinking it do exactly?

K: It sharpens the mind. Logic makes the (temporal) mind sharp, clear, objective and sane, but... it won't give you the 'other'. Your question ( for homework meditation?) is: How does the 'other' ( holistically friendly perception) come about?

Q: If the ( insight-based) perception is a real perception and so the 'truth', why does it then need the discipline of logic to examine it?

K: We said that ( the insightful) perception 'works out logically' (afterwards?) . It does not need ( the scaffold of?) logic. But whatever it does is reasonable, logical, sane, objective.

Q: It is like saying that if you see what is in this room correctly, you will not find anything illogical in what you see.

K: All right. Will the ( insightful) perception keep the confusion, the debris away all the time so that the mind never accumulates it and doesn't have to keep clearing it away? That was your question, wasn't it?

Q: I think ( one's inward?) perception can reach the stage at which it is continually keeping the field clear.

K: At a certain moment I have ( a timeless flash of insightful ?) perception. But ( unfortunately?) during the ( time gap or ) interval between the perceptions there is a lot of ( psychological) debris being gathered. Our question is: Is perception continuous so that there is no collection of the debris? Put it round the other way: Does one perception keep the field clear?

Q: Can one make a difference between insight and ( holistic) perception?

K: Take those two words as synonymous We are asking: Is perception from time to time, with ( inherent ) intervals (of inattention?) . During those intervals a lot of ( personal & collective 'psycho-) debris' collects and therefore the field (of one's inward house) has to be swept again. Or does perception in itself bring about ( a timeless state of) tremendous clarity in which there is no (further accumulation of psycho-) debris?

Q: Are you saying that once it happens it will be there 'for ever'?

K: Don't use the ( time-binding) words "forever " or "never again". Keep to the ( suggested homework meditation ?) question; Once ( an insightful) perception has taken place, can the ( holistically awakened?) mind ( refuse to?) collect further ( psycho-) debris & confusion? It is only when that perception becomes darkened by the debris, that the (time-binding) process of ( trying to) get rid of them begins. But if there is ( a time-free enlightened) perception, why should there be a gathering ( of 'psycho-debris') ?

Q: There are a lot of 'difficult' ( sensitive ?) points involved in this ( holistic ?) question ...(to be continued)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Aug 2019 #39
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

DEMANDING THE ESSENCE OF GOODNESS

( An 'experientially-friendly' edited continuation of the previous K SMALL GROUP DIALOGUE 1977)

KRISHNAMURTI: We were discussing how one can know what Krishnamurti is saying is true and Dr Bohm said that when one has an insight, a direct perception into ( the truth of?) what is being said, having that insight you can work it out logically to show that the perception is true.
And (we ended the discussion with an open question : ) is that perception brief, only to be had at intervals and therefore gathering a lot of ( psycho-) debris or is one perception enough? Does it 'open the door' (the inward door of Perception?) so that there is (the inward clarity of ) insight all the time?

Q: You also said that the mind tries to find security in all this.

K: The ( temporal?) mind has always been seeking security and when that security is threatened it tries to find security in insight, in direct perception.

Q: In (rather in) the illusion of insight ?

K: Yes, it makes the ( assumption of having total) insight into ( an instrument of psychological) security. The next question is: Must there be a constant breaking of perception? That is, one day one sees very clearly, one has direct perception, then that fades away and there is confusion. Or is there no further confusion after these deep insights?

Q: Are you saying this perception is whole?

K: Yes, if the perception is complete, whole, then there is no confusion at any time. Or (optionally?) one may deceive oneself that it is whole and act upon it, which brings confusion.

Q: There is also a possible danger that one has a genuine perception, an insight, and out of that comes a certain action. But then one could fall into making whatever that action was into a (fool-proof?)formula and stop having the insight.

K: That is what generally happens.

Q: I am trying to find out what we are driving at. Perhaps you are saying that there may be an insight which never goes back into confusion. But we are not saying there is one.

K: Yes, that's right. Now would you say, when there is a 'complete perception' - not an illusory perception - there is no confusion at all.

Q: Are we seeing this as an insight now? - that when there is an insight of that kind there is no further confusion? But we may deceive ourselves nevertheless.

K: Yes. Therefore we must be watchful. (Suppose ) you have a deep insight, complete, whole. Someone comes along and says: "Look, you are deceiving yourself". Do you instantly say, "No, I am not deceiving myself because my perception was complete"? Or do you listen and look at it all afresh? It doesn't mean that you are denying the complete perception, you are again watching if it is real or illusory.

Q: That is not necessarily an intellectual process?

K: No, no. I would say both. It is intellectual as well as non-verbal.

Q: Is ( the potential for a totally insightful ) perception something that is always there and it is only that we...

K: That leads to 'dangerous' (very slippery?) ground. The Hindus say that God is always there inside you - the abiding deep divinity, or soul, or Atman, and it is covered up. Remove the confusion, the debris and it is found inside. Most people 'believe' that. I think that is a ( thought-projected ?) 'conclusion'. You conclude that there is something (of a ) divine (nature) inside, a Soul, the Atman or whatever you like to call it. But, (experientially-wise?) from a conclusion you can never have a total, complete perception.

Q: But this leads to another problem, because if you deny that, then what makes one step out of the Stream (of collective time-thought?) ? Does it mean that the stepping out is for certain individuals only?

K: When you say "certain individuals" I think you are putting the ( 'holistically?) wrong' question, aren't you?

Q: Then, the possibility exists for everyone ?

K: Yes, the possibility exists for 'human beings' ( for the human consciousness ?) .

Q: Then there is ( already) some ( time-free intelligent?) energy which...

K: Which is ( located ) outside of them or which is in them.

Q: Yes. We really don't know.

K: Therefore don't come to any conclusion. If from a conclusion you think you perceive, then that perception is conditioned (by one's wishful thinking) , therefore it is not whole .

Q: Does that mean that there would not be the possibility of a deepening of perception?

K: You can't 'deepen' insight. You perceive the whole (truth?) - that's all.

Q : You mentioned ( the necessity of a ) watchfulness even after ( a totlly insightful) perception ?

K: What happened was: A man came up to me and said, "You are getting old, you are stuck in a groove." And I listened to it. For a couple of days I thought about it. I looked at it and said to myself, "He may be right."

Q: You are almost suggesting that it could be possible ?

K: I wanted to examine it. Don't say it could, or could not.

Q: I was going to ask: to be caught in a (mental) habit after a perception, could that not ever happen again, at certain levels?

K: There is partial perception and total perception - let's divide it into those two. When there is total perception there is no further ( psychological?) confusion.

Q: You don't get caught in habit?

K: There is no further confusion. Because ( you see that ) it 'is' so.

Q: What if something happens to the brain physically?

K: Of course, ( we are imlicitly) assuming that the whole (psychosomatic) organism is healthy. If there is an accident, your brain suffers concussion and something is injured, then it is finished ('game over'?)

Q: But it still means that it is "here". You are not tapping it from "out there". That ( timeless source of intelligent?) energy is within you, isn't it?

K: One has to ( take an experiential detour and) go into this question of what is perception. How do you come to it? You cannot have perception if your daily life is in disorder, confused, contradictory. That is obvious. Can I have ( a transcendental ?) perception if I am 'attached' ( 100% identified with?) to my position, to my wife, to my property?
So (in a holistic nutshell ) we are saying that a total ( insightful) perception can only take place when in your daily life there is no confusion (no psychological conflicts of interests?)

Q: Can we look more closely into that, because a total perception can take place in spite of all that (inner confusion?) and wipe it away?

K: If (mind's perceptive) 'windows' are not clean my view is confused.
(for instance ) if I am in (a condition of psychological) fear my perception will be very partial. That is a fact.

Q: But don't you need ( an insightful) perception to end fear?

K: In investigating, observing, going into fear, understanding it profoundly, in delving into it I have 'perception'.

Q: Are you implying that there are certain things you can do which will make for perceptions?

K: I realize I am distorting perception through ( my personal) fears.

Q: That's right, then I begin to look at fear.

K: Investigate it, look into it.

Q: In the beginning I am also distorting it.

K: Therefore I am watching every distortion. I am ( becoming?) aware of every distortion that is going on.

Q: But you see, I think the difficulty lies there. How can I investigate when I am ( unconsciously?) distorting?

K: Wait, just listen. I am afraid and ( afterwards?) I can see that my fear has made me do something which is a distortion. That means that you become ( inwardly ) aware of the fact that there is fear. And you observe also what that fear has done. And ( in your 'meditation homework' ?) you look more and more into it. In looking very deeply into it you have an insight.

Q: What you are saying implies that this confusion due to fear is not complete, that it is always open to mankind to have insight.

K: To one who is investigating, who is observing.

Q: If you try to investigate something else while you are afraid you get lost in fear. But it is still open to you to investigate fear.

K: Yes, quite right. (Another quick example:) One suffers and you see what it does. In observing it, investigating it, opening it up, in the very 'unrolling' of it you have a certain insight. That is all we are saying. That insight may be partial. Therefore one has to become (responsibly) aware that it is partial. Its action is partial and it may appear complete, so watch it.

Q: Very often it looks as if it is totally impossible to have an insight, since you say: "If you are distorting how will you look?" But you are also saying, that as a matter of fact, when you have a distortion, the one thing you can look at is the distortion.

K: That's right.

Q: That factually you have that capacity.

K: One has that capacity (to observe) without any choosing – jost being aware (of what is going on) . And ( eventually?) you see what fear does. In looking at it more extensively, deeply, widely, suddenly you have an insight into the whole structure of ( the thought-generated) fear.

Q: But there is still the question: in that moment of fear, I 'am' fear.

K: How you observe 'fear' matters - whether you observe it as an ( independent?) 'observer', or the observer 'is' (immersed in?) that. You perceive the observer is ( not separate from ) the observed but in this action there is distortion, confusion. And you examine that confusion, which is born of fear and in the very process of examination you have an insight. Do it (for homework?) and you will see it – (providing that ) you don't 'limit' yourself by saying, "I am too frightened, I can't look" & you run away from ( facing) it.
That is, ( a totally insightful) perception can only take place when there is no division between the 'observer' and the 'observed'. Perception can only take place in the very act of exploring: to explore implies there is no division between the observer and the observed. Therefore you are watching the movement of fear and in the very watching of it there is an insight. I think that is clear.

And yet... you see, Krishnamurti says: "I have never done this."

Q: Then how do you know somebody else can do it ?

K: Suppose you have not gone through all this, but you see (the totality of) it instantly. Because you see it instantly your capacity to reason explains all this. Another listens and says, "I'd like to get that, I don't have to go through that whole process."

Q: Are you saying that all we have been discussing just now is merely a pointer to something else? Are you saying there is a short cut?

K: Must you go through ( examining sequentially) fear, jealousy, anxiety, attachment? Or can you clear the whole thing instantly? Must one go through all this process? First put the question and see what comes out of it.
Is it possible through investigating, through awareness and discovering that the observer is the observed and that there is no division, in the very process of investigation - in which we are observing without the 'observer' and see the totality of it - to free all the rest? ( Experiential Hint:) I think that is the only way.

Q: Is it possible not to have ( to examine) certain fears, jealousy, attachment?

K: But (still) there may be deeper layers. You may not be totally conscious of them, you may not be totally aware of the deeper fears, etc. You may say, superficially I am all right, I have none of these things.

Q: Couldn't we remove from the problem the personal aspect? We are discussing what is open to man rather than to any individual.

K: Yes. Is it open to any human being without going through alI this process?

Q: By "this process" do you mean involvement with the fear?

K: With fear, sorrow, jealousy, attachment, you go through all that, step by step. Or can an (inwardly awakened?) human being see the whole thing at a glance? And that very glance is the investigation and the complete, total perception.

Q: Which is what you mean when you say ''the first step is the last'' ?

K: Yes, a totally (illuminating?) perception.

Q: Then what would one's responsibility be towards someone who is (entangled in his personal) in sorrow?

K: The response to that human being is the ( intelligent?) response of compassion. That's all. Nothing else.

Q: For instance, if you see an injured bird it is very easy to deal with that because it really doesn't require very much of you. But when you come in contact with a human being, he has a much more complex set of needs.

K: What can you do actually? Somebody comes to you and says, "I am in deep sorrow". Do you talk to him out of compassion, or out of your own particular experience of sorrow which has (already ) conditioned you, and you answer him according to your conditioning? Because a man who is suffering wants some sort of solace, someone on whose lap he can put his head. So what he is seeking is comfort and avoidance of this terrible pain. Will you offer him any of those escapes? Whatever comes out of ( the universal Intelligence of) compassion will help him.

Q: Are you saying that the energy of Compassion itself may be of help?

K: That's right; that's all.

Q: But many such wounded spirits will come to the Centre here and I think it is going to be a problem to know how to deal with them.

K: There is no problem if you are compassionate. Compassion doesn't create problems. It has no problems, therefore it is ( intelligently?) compassionate.

Q: You are saying that total compassion is the highest intelligence?

K: Of course. If there is compassion, that compassion has its own intelligence and that intelligence acts. But if you have no compassion and no intelligence, then your conditioning makes you reply whatever he wants. I think that is fairly simple. To go back to the other question: Must a human being go through the whole process? Has no human being said, "I won't go through all this. So something does take place when reject the whole thing.

Q: But Krishnaji, if you are saying that ( the young ) Krishnamurti never had the need to say it, we can only conclude that you are some kind of 'freak'.

K: You can say he is a 'freak' but it doesn't answer the question. If somebody says to you, "I have never been through all this", what do you do? Do you say he is a freak? Or would you say: "How extraordinary, is he telling the truth? Has he deceived himself"? You discuss with him. Then your question is: "How does it happen?" You are a human being, he is a human being: you want to find out.

Q: You ask: "In what way are we different?" He is a human being that has never been through all that, and yet he points out.

K: No, he has never been through it, but don't you ( stop to ) ask that question: "How does it happen, must I go through all this?" Do you ask that?

Q: Krishnaji, you are taking two widely separate things. One is the uncontaminated person, who never had to go through the process because 'he was never in the soup'.

K: Leave out why he didn't go through it (or...see the K bios?)

Q: But most other people, apparently, are in some form of ( psychological) contamination, it may be fear, or something else. Therefore the person who has already got this sickness - let's call it that - says "This man has never been sick for a day in his life." What good is it to examine that, because one is already sick in some form.

K: Can we put the whole thing differently? Do you seek ( the spiritual?) excellence, not excellence for instance in a building, but the essence of excellence? Then everything falls away, and the essence (of the demand for excellence?) would meet all this. I wonder if I am conveying something? Listen carefully first. That very demand for excellence - 'how' you demand it - brings ( into manifestation) the essence of it. You demand it passionately. You demand the highest intelligence, the highest excellence, the essence of it...

Q: Where does this demand come from?

K: Demand it! There may be a (personal) motive, but the very ( passion of the) demand washes it all away. I wonder if I am conveying anything?

Q: You are saying: Demand this ( holistic) 'excellence' – of which we don't know .

K: I don't know what is beyond it, but ( for starters ) I want to be morally excellent.

Q: Does that mean ''goodness''?

K: I demand the ''excellence of goodness'', I demand the excellent flower of goodness. In that very demand there is a ( transcendental) demand for the essence.

Q: Does ( the holistic ) perception come from this demand?

K: Yes, that's right.

Q: Could you go into what you call this 'demand'?

K: It is not a demand which means asking, a demand that means imploring, wanting - cut out all those.

Q: It doesn't mean those?

K: No, no.

Q: But then... you are back to prayer !

K: Oh, no. Leave out all that.

Q: You are really saying that the impossible is possible to the average intelligent human being?

K: We are saying that, yes. Which is not a conclusion, which is not a hope. I say it is possible for the average human being, who is fairly clean, who is fairly decent, fairly kind, who is not a ( psychologically settled?) bourgeois.
K says to you: "Please listen first, don't bring in all the (intellectual) objections. Just listen to what he is saying : that what is important in life is the supreme excellence which has its own essence." That's all. And to 'demand' it, it does not mean begging or praying, getting something from somebody.

Q: The point is, we find we may confuse this demand with desire.

K: Would the word "passion" be suitable? There is this passion for excellence.
Burning passion - not for something. The Christians have ( had?) passion for missionary work - that passion is born of the love of Jesus. That again is very narrow. So, putting all that aside, I say: "Passion".

Q: As you were just saying, people have had some vision, or a dream of something and that has developed a great energy. But you are saying it is not a dream, it is not a vision; but it is nevertheless some perception of this excellence.

K: All those (time-binding ?) passions feed the ego, feed the me, make me important, consciously or unconsciously. We are cutting out all that. There is a young boy who has a passion to grow up into an extraordinary human being, into something original.

Q: He sees that it is possible and therefore he has the passion.

K: Yes, that's right. It is possible. Is that what is missing in most human beings? This passion who demands the supreme excellence, not in what he writes in his books, but the ( holistic) feeling of it. That may shatter everything else. Again, that human being didn't demand it. He says: "I never even asked for it."

Q: Perhaps that we are conditioned to ( the inner comforts of) mediocrity.

K: Yes, of course. Mediocrity is lack of great passion.

K: So does 'total insight' bring this passion? Total insight 'is' the passion.
Total insight is the flame of passion which wipes away all confusion. It burns away everything else. Don't you then act as a magnet? The bees go towards the nectar. In the same way don't you act as a magnet when you are passionate to create? Is it that there is this lack of ( inner) fire? That may be the thing that is missing. If there is something missing I would ask for it.
(Hint) There is no relationship from the conditioned (mind) to the unconditioned (one) . But the unconditioned (mind) has a relationship to the other. When ''the world is me and I am the world'', there is no 'me'. Can that state, that quality operate in all directions? It must operate in all directions. When you say, "I am the world and the world is me", and there is no me, there is no (self-centred) conditioning.
I am the essence of the world. When there is a deep perception of that, not intellectual, but profound, there is no 'you' or 'me'.

Q: But there is still another question. Is the unconditioned mind also a product of all this? Then we come to a contradiction.

K: No, there is no contradiction. Without using the word "I" it can be said: the result of the world is this. The result of the world is that also. We are two human beings, which means the result has created the 'I' and the 'you'. When there is an insight into the result there is no "result". Therefore 'you' and 'I' don't exist. That is an actual fact for a man who says, "I am not the result (of time?) ". You see what it means? There is no causation in the mind and therefore there is no effect. Therefore it is whole, and any action born of it is causeless and without effect.

Q: You have to make that clear, in the sense that you still use cause and effect concerning ordinary, mechanical things...

K: Quite. This human being, X, is a result. And Y is a result. X says I see this and investigates, goes into it and he has an insight. In that insight the two results cease. Therefore in that state there is no cause.

Q: There is no cause and no effect although it may leave a residue in the mind.

K: Let's go into it. In that state there is no result, no cause, no effect. That mind acts out of Compassion. Therefore there is no ( expectation of a ) result.
Compassion has no result. A is suffering, he says to X, "Please help me to get out of my suffering." If X really has compassion his words have no 'result'.

Q: Something happens, but there is no result ?

K: That's it.

Q: But I think people generally are seeking a result.

K: Yes. Let's put it another way. Does compassion have a result? When your compassion has a cause then you are no longer compassionate.

Q: But Compassion also acts.

K: Compassion is compassion, it doesn't 'act' (in time?) . If it acts because there is a cause and an effect, then it is not compassion: it wants a result.
(To recap) When I say 'me', 'you' also exist: both of us are there. The you and the I are the results of man's misery, of selfishness, and so on - it is a result. When one looks into the ( temporal) result, goes into it very, very deeply, the insight brings about a quality in which 'you' and 'I' - who are the results (of time) - don't exist - there is no you and no me. Therefore there is no result - which means compassion. The person upon whom that compassion acts wants a result. We say, "Sorry, there is no (temporal) result." But the man who suffers says, "Help me to get out of this", or, "Help me to bring back my son, my wife", or whatever it is. He is demanding a result. This ( 'compassion') thing has no result. The result is the world.

Q: But does compassion affect the (total) consciousness of man?

K: Yes. It affects the deep layers of consciousness. To the man who sees this deeply with a profound insight, there is no 'you' or 'I'. Therefore that profound insight is ( the timeless action of) compassion - which is Intelligence. And the ( Mind's) Intelligence says: If you want a ( specific temporal) result I can't give it to you, I am not the product of a result. Compassion says: This state is not a result, therefore there is no cause.

Q: Does that mean there is no time either?

K: No cause, no result, no time.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Aug 2019 #40
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

Brain's temporal consciousness & the Consciousness of the Universal Mind

( an experientially-friendly edited K Dialogue, cca 1973 )

P: Shall we discuss (experientially?) the nature of human consciousness and its relationship to the brain cells? Is there something which gives them separate identities?

K: That's a good question. You begin.

P: The traditional Hindu concept of 'Consciousness' would
include 'that' which lies beyond the horizon.

A: Quite correct. The brain is only a conglomeration of cells, a
forest of cells and yet each cell is dependent on the other although
in fact every brain cell can act by itself. So we may ask: Is
there a co-ordinating factor? Is the brain merely a result? Does
consciousness come first and then the brain, or does the brain come
first and then consciousness?

K: Let us start from the beginning: What is generally meant by
'consciousness'? What does it mean 'to be conscious of? One is conscious, for instance, of this microphone. I am conscious of it and then I use the word 'microphone'. So, when
you are becoming conscious of something, (the process of recognising & ) naming begins; ( followed by personal reactions of) like and dislike. So ( on the physical level) 'consciousness', means to be aware of, to be cognizant of sensation, cognition, contact.

A: I feel that consciousness is prior to sensation. It is an (intelligent energy ) field and at any one time I am aware of some part of it through
( my physical) sensations; I feel ( the total human) Consciousness is much more vast, but I am aware of only a part of a very wide thing. That whole field is not in my awareness. So, I do not want to restrict consciousness to something that exists at any given moment. My awareness may not be extensive, but consciousness can be seen to be much more vast.

K: So, what is the relationship between that consciousness and the
brain's cells?

P: When K says that the content of one's consciousness 'is' ( displayed in one's) consciousness, it would imply that the content of the brain cells is ( generating its own) consciousness.
If there is a field which is outside the brain cells and which is also consciousness, then you have to say all that is Consciousness.

K: Is that clear? I have said ''the content of consciousness is
consciousness''.

A: This a ( holistic) statement irrespective of the perceiver. It is
a statement about consciousness, not your consciousness, or my
consciousness.

K: That is right. Therefore what is outside the field of (the temporal)
consciousness is not ( generated by) its content.

P: The major difference between K's position and the Vedantic
position is that K uses the word 'consciousness' in a very special
sense (of self-consciousness) . The Vedantic position is: Consciousness is that which exists before anything exists.

A: Basically, the source of existence is a vast incomprehensible
energy which they call 'Chaitanya' the source (of all consciousness) . They say that there is this (timeless) Source of (Intelligent ) Energy, which they speak of as 'Chit'. The Buddhist position refuses to say a word about it. The Buddhist will say: 'Don't talk about it; any talk about it will be speculative and speculative processes are not meant for actual
practice.'

K: (Quoting from memory :) ''Ignorance has no beginning, but has an end. Don't enquire into the beginning of ignorance but find out how to end it''.

A: We have immediately come upon something.

K: Right, sir, that's a good point.

A: The Vedantins will say that the Source which you refer to
as 'ignorance' is of the same nature as Sat, Chit and Anand. It is
constantly renewing itself, it is constantly 'coming into being'; and
the entire process of birth, death, decay is a movement in it. I feel
that a man who does not accept the Buddhist position, will not
immediately accept what you say, that the beginning is ignorance
and that it is a self-sustaining process. You cannot trace the
beginning, but it can be brought to an end.

K: We (K) simply say that ignorance has no beginning; one can see
it in oneself, see it within one's consciousness, within that field.

P: The scientific position is: whereas the brain cells and their operation are measurable, ( man's ) consciousness is not measurable and therefore the two are not synonymous.

K: Wait a minute. What you are saying is that the brain cells
and their movement are measurable, but consciousness (aka : Mind) is not measurable.

A: May I suggest something? Consciousness is 'immeasurable' in the sense that there is no (physical) instrument to which it
can be related. Consciousness is something about which one cannot
say that it is measurable or immeasurable. Therefore, consciousness is something about which one cannot make any statement.

K: That is right. Consciousness is not measurable. But what Pupul
is asking is: Is there outside ( the self-centred) consciousness as we know it, a ( time-free?) state which is not pertinent to this consciousness?

P: Is there a state which is not knowable, not available, within the (memory of the brain cells?

K: Have you got it Achyutji? Not 'knowable', in the sense, not
'recognizable' (by brain's recorded memory?) ; something totally new.

A: I am coming to that. I say that ( the self-centred) consciousness as we know it is the ( compounded) source of all the recent memories and all the memories mankind has had. The brain cells will recognize everything that comes out of its racial memories; everything that comes out of that which has been known.

P: The millions of years of ( living trapped within the sphere of ?) the known.

K: Keep it very simple. We said the known is (generating its own)
consciousness - the content of consciousness 'is' the known. Now, is
there something outside this, something which is not 'known', something
totally new which does not already exist in the (memory of the ) brain cells? And if it is outside the ( field of the?) known, is it 'recognizable'? - (Clue:) if it is recognizable its (residual memory?) is still in the field of the known.
( Now, the good news is that) it is (experientially ) available only when the ( time-inding) recognizing and experiencing process (of thought?) comes to an end.
(To make a very long story short ) Outside the brain, is there anything else? I say there is. ( But the meditation-related difficulty is that) every (mental) process of recognition & experience, is always within the field of the known and any movement of the brain cells moving away from the known, trying to investigate into the 'other' (dimension of consciousness?) is still the known.

M: Then...how do you know that there is 'something'?

K: You cannot 'know' it.But there is a ( meditating?) state where the mind does not recognize anything - a ( blissful?) state in which recognition and experience, which are the movement of the known, totally come to an end.

A: In what way is it differentiated from thought's process of
recognition & experiencing?

K: You see, when the ( physical) organism (including) the brain cells, comes to an end, when the whole thing collapses; there is a different state ( dimension of consciousness?) altogether.

P: When you say that the processes of recognition come to an end, and yet it is a living state, is there a sense of existence, of being?

K: The words, 'existence' and 'being' do not apply.

A: How is it different from the state of deep sleep, where the same processes of recognition and recording are for the time being put in total abeyance.

K: That is quite a different thing.

P: What has happened to the senses in the state you mentioned
earlier?

K: The senses are in abeyance.

P: Are they not operating?

K: In that state, there is (some) action of the senses, but it does not affect That. To be quite clear : when the ( previously known) content of (one's) consciousness with its experiences & demands has completely come to an end, then only does the 'other' (timeless?) quality come into being. (Hint : ) The ( meditating?) mind cannot come to that through ( a personal?) motive. Motive is the known. When that ( time-bound?) mind comes to an end, then the 'other thing' is there.

M: In the situation in which we are now, do you know that?

K: Of course, the physical senses are in operation. Recognition is in operation normally. The 'other' is there.

A: Even trying to translate what you are saying is preventing
one from getting at it because that would immediately be duality.
When you say something, any movement in the mind is again
preventing one from it.

K: Achyutji, what are you trying to get at?

A: I am pointing out the difficulty that arises in (any transcendental) communication. I think ( a verbal) communication about the 'other' is not possible. So, I am trying to understand the state of the mind of the man who talks to me. On what basis does he tell me that there is something?

K: The basis for that is: when there is no ( mental) movement of
recognition, of experiencing, of motive, ( a natural) 'freedom from the known' takes place.

M: That is pure cognition without recognition.

K: You are translating it differently. This movement has come
to an end for the time being; that is all.

M: Where does the time element come in? Is there another ( inward dimension of ) time?

K: Let us begin again. The brain functions within the field of
the known; in that ( physical) functioning there is recognition. But when your mind is completely still, there is no knowing that your mind is still. The (inward) stillness of which we are talking about is non-recognizable, non-experienceable. Something (timeless ) comes out of it. It is (freely available ) there for the man who understands the ( serious limitations of the ) known. ( For K) it is there and it never leaves; and though he communicates it, he feels that it is never gone, it is there.
M: But who communicates? You talked to me just now.

K: Just now? The brain cells have acquired the knowledge of
the language. It is the brain cells that are communicating.

M: The brain contains its own 'observer'.

K: The brain itself is both the 'observer' and the 'operator'.

M: Now what is the relationship between 'that' and 'this'?

K: Tentatively, I say there is no relationship. This is the fact: the
brain cells hold the known and when the brain is completely stable,
completely still, what is the relationship between the brain and that?

M: By what magic, by what means, does the state of a still mind
make a bridge? How do you manage to keep a permanent bridge
between the brain and that, and maintain that bridge?

K: If one says 'I don't know', what will you answer?

M: That you have inherited it through some good karma or somebody has given it to you.

K: Is it by chance that this ( miraculous?) event can happen to us, is it an exception? (And even if for K) it is a miracle, can it happen to you?

M: But then, what can we do?

K: I say ''you can do nothing'' - which does not actually mean ''doing
nothing''!

M: What are these two meanings of 'nothing'?

K: I will tell you the two meanings of nothing: the one refers to (self's inborn?) desire to experience 'That', to recognize 'That' and yet to do
nothing about 'That'. The other meaning of doing nothing, it is to ( passively ) see or become aware, not theoretically but actually, of the
known.

M: You say, 'Do nothing, just observe (in the freedom from the known) .'

K: Put it that way if you want.

M: It brings down the 'enlightenment' to action.

K: You must touch this thing, very very lightly. You must touch it very lightly - food, talk - and as the body and the senses become very light the days and nights move easily. You ( come to ) see that there is a 'dying' ( of thought?) every minute. Have I answered, or very nearly answered, the question?

P: You have not answered specifically.

K: To put the whole thing differently: We will call 'That', for
the moment, infinite energy ( of the Universal Mind ?) while thought's energy is created by strife and conflict - it is entirely ( qualitatively) different from 'That'. When there is no inner
conflict at all, That infinite ( Mind) energy is always renewing itself. The energy that peters out is what we know. So, what is the relationship of the ( thought-generated?) energy that peters out to 'That'? There is none.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Aug 2019 #41
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

Insights into the nature of thought

(A 'reader friendly' edited K-Bohm Dialogue, cca 1975) )

Bohm: I had a letter from David Shainberg , and he raised one question : “ If thought is fragmented , inherently fragmented and yet thought has to be consciously aware of its own fragmentation, then how could we ask this question whether the thought which is aware of its own fragmentation, is also fragmented?"

Krishnamurti: Sir, start with this: Why is thought limited
broken up?

B: Well one point about thought is, that it may be a combination, beginning as a reaction and becoming a reflection, now thought on the basis of memory,
creates a certain imitation of certain things that happen independently of thought. For example it may imitate in your imagination a feeling, or a sound, or something else. Now, it is not possible in a reflection to captures the whole of what is reflected as there is always an abstraction

K. Yes, there is always an 'abstraction', I see that

B: Abstraction actually means 'to take out'.

K: But you haven’t answered my question yet : why is it 'fragmented'?

B: Any abstraction is bound to be a part, to be a fragment...

K: So, your're saying thought reflects (on the content of ) memory and therefore as it reflects it is creating an abstraction.

B: It doesn’t reflect all.

K: All, therefore it is fragmentary.

B: Yes, see it likes somethings to reflect upon, while others are not reflected.

K: Would you put the question this way : “Can thought see the whole?”

B: Well, does thought 'see', that's another question that David Shainberg raised, does thought actually see anything (directly) ? : We discussed the other time in Brockwood that thought can be consciously aware of something, let's say there is an awareness which involves perception, but everything we’re aware of may go on into memory, is that right?

K: Yes

B: So, as I see it 'conscious awareness' is an awareness recorded in memory and then reflected, right.

K: So ( the activity of) memory is fragmented.

B: Memory is inherently fragmented because it 'selects' something ( it makes a personal choice while discarding other elements)

K: Yes. that's it, memory is fragmented therefore its ( post-facto?) reflection as thought, is fragmented.

B: Its not the whole experience, so the essences may be left out.

K: Now, let's dig deeper into it. Why is thought fragmented?

B: Partly because its an abstraction as you’ve just said. I think there is another possible reason : , in some sense thought is not fully aware of its own operation. Perhaps we can the brain has no inside ( awareness) to tell itself it is thinking.

K: Quite...

B: You see if you move your hand there is a sense organ that tells you that it is moving.
if you move your head, the image moves but it is corrected so that the world doesn’t spin unless something is wrong with your balance. On the other hand there are no such sense organs in the brain. You see, if you do an operation on the brain once you pass through the skull, there is no ( brain) sensation- people may be conscious while they are operated, but does not disturb them. And now, so lets say thought is recorded, its held in memory, in the cells of the brain, and the cells of the brain react to produce some image, an imitation. And while they first react, there is no sensation that they are reacting, see a little
later they may sense the result of the reaction.

K: Yes yes, that's it !

B:: But then, when thought becomes conscious of that result it may not realise that it has produced that result. And therefore it will atribute to that result an independent existence.

K: So, thought is a reflection of memory, that's one point. The brain has no (internal) feeling apart for the sensory organs of the body, and therefore the brain ( indiscriminately) stores up memory, and memory is partial, and therefore thought is partial.

B: Yes and also thought is not fully aware of itself.

K: Now, is all that the complete answer?

B: Well I don’t know.

K: I don’t know we’re investigating (experientially?) .

B: But to finish what I was saying, that there is an inherent fragmentation
here, because thought not being aware of itself, and then suddenly becoming aware of
its result further down the line, it attributes that to something which is independent, and
also it fragments ( splits?) itself because one part of thought has produced this result and another part of thought comes along and says ''this is something else''.

K: its like this, quite.

B: And therefore, thought has broken up into two parts which are contradicting each other.

K: Yes, but I think there is something more involved. Why is thought fragmented? You can
see what thought has done, all what it has reflected upon, what it has thought about,
what it has put together are all ( isolated) fragments.

B: Well, also if we reflect upon our personal experience we can see the fragmentary nature of the activity of thought.

K: Yes. Is there any deeper reason for why is thought fragmented? I was thinking about the other day walking, why is it fragmentary? What is
the nature of thought? What is actually the substance of thought? Ins't it a
material process, a biochemical process...?

B: Well, I would say yes...

K: Alright, if it is chemical material process, why should it be fragmented? Isn't ( the thought assisted?) perception a fragmentary process?

B: Well why should it be fragmentary?

K: If the perception is ( controlled by) the activity of thought, then ( this knowledge assisted) perception cannot see the whole.

B: Yes, but thought contains some kind of 'imitation of perception', you see which we call reflection.

K: Yes, so thought imagines it that perceives ( & knows all that matters) .

B: It contains, yes...

K: It supposes (assumes that ) it sees (the totality?) .

B: It produces a certain ( virtual) result (the 'observer'?) which supposes that it 'sees'.

K: But yet, why is it broken up? I understand all these, but there must be a deeper thing, isn’t there? Isn't thought always seeking a result?

B: Well it may be ( openly or subliminally?) seeking a result.

K: An 'end' to be achieved, to be gained, something which can fulfil itself
in and feel satisfied...Why has mankind given such terrific importance to thought?

B: Well yesterday, you pointed out the issue of (preserving his physical) security. I mean, security not only in the sense of psychological security, but also of material security.

K: Yes. But thought in itself is not secure

B: Well thought cannot be secure – it is a mirrored reflection..

K: Therefore as it cannot be secure in itself, and seek security outside.

B: But, why does it seek security, you see?

K: Oh, because in itself it is fragmentary.

B: Yes but, it is not well explained why something which is fragmentary should seek security ; we'll have to go more slowly...

K: Go slowly, yes. Why does thought seek security? Because thought is constantly changing. Constantly moving.

B: Well nature is always moving too.

K: Ah , but, nature is different.

B: I know, but we have to see the difference – why nature doesn’t seek (temporal) security as far as we can tell.

K: Nature doesn’t, but why does thought seek security? Is it because in itself it is uncertain, insecure, in itself is in a constant ( self-preserving) movement.

B: But that doesn’t explain why its not satisfied to just be that.

K: Why, because it sees its own perishable nature.

B: But why should it want to be imperishable ?

K: Because that which is imperishable (in time) gives it security.

B: So if thought were content just to say 'I’m impermanent', then it would be like nature. It would say : well I’m here today, and tomorrow I'll be something different, right ?

K: Ah, but, it am not satisfied with that.

B: Well why not?

K: Is it because there is ( a subliminal identification?) or 'attachment'?

B: But then, , what is there ( identification & ) attachment, you see? I mean, why should thought 'attach itself' to anything? Why shouldn’t it say ''well I’m just (transient) thought'' I’m just a reflection...

K: But your're giving to thought, a considerable (objective) intelligence if you say ''I’m like nature I just come & go in a constant (state of) flux, you follow.

B: So, now your saying thought is (essentially) mechanical and thats why its doing this, but then we have to see why the mechanical process should necessarily seek security? I mean a machinery doesn’t seek anything in particular, you see, we can set up (program) the machinery and it just goes on ( until it breaks?) , you see.

K: Of course, as long as there is ( a supply of) energy it goes on working.

B: And then it breaks down and that's the end of it.

K: And that's the end of it. Quite, So, why does thought seek security?

B: Why should any (living?) mechanism want to be secure?

K: But does thought realise that it is mechanical ?

B: No, but you see, now then comes the point that thought has made a mistake, you see,
something incorrect, in its (core) content, which is, thought does not know it is mechanical ; thought even thinks that it is not mechanical...

K: Now wait a minute, lets come back (to our own thinking process?) . Do I think I’m mechanical?

B: I think in general thought does not think its mechanical, but the other thing is,
does it definitely think it is not mechanical, do you see, that it is beyond the mechanism, does it think it is intelligent in other words.

K: Sir, a mechanical thing doesn’t get hurt (psychologically) . It just functions.
It may stop working, that doesn’t mean it is hurt.

B: No...

K: Whereas thought gets hurt.

B: And thought has the factor of pleasure, pain and all the rest of it.

K: It gets hurt, lets stick to one thing. It gets hurt. Why does it get hurt? Because of the
(getting identified with its self-protective ) 'image' and all the rest of it. It has created the a (socially respectable self-) image and in ( preserving its temporal) continuity it is seeking security, isn’t it.

B: Yes but it's not clear why it ever began to seek that kind of security, you see.
If it began as a ( survival oriented mental ) mechanism there was no reason.

K: Ah, but it never realised that it was mechanical.
B: Yes alright, but a mechanism doesn’t know that it is mechanical either, you see ?
I mean like a tape recorder just functions mechanically, you see, it doesn’t want to be hurt you know.

K: Quite, rather interesting. Why does thought not realise that it is mechanical?

B: Yes...

K: Why does it suppose that it's something different from a machine?

B: Yes, it may in some sense suppose it (the animal brain) has (a certain native ) intelligence, and it is feeling and that it is a living thing, rather than 'mechanical'.

K: Mechanical, I think that's the root of it isn’t it ? It 'thinks' it is a s living (entity)
and therefore it attributes to itself, the quality of non-mechanical (temporal) existence.

B: Now , if you can imagine that a computer has been programmed, say to… with the
information that it was living.

K: Yes, it would say that 'I’m living'.

B: And then it might try to react, respond accordingly, but why thought doesn’t do that ?

K: Thought is clever, ah, giving itself qualities, which it basically has not.

DB : To some extent you did not consider David’s question, you were saying that
thought somehow can realises it's mechanical, which would imply that it had some (native animal) intelligence, you see.

K: Now let's see, does thought realise that it is mechanical, or ( an insightful inward ) perception sees that it is mechanical?

B: All right, but then that would seem to be a change from what you said the other
day.

K: I’m just investigating.

B: I understand, if we say there is ( an insightful) perception which sees the mechanical fragmentary nature of thought, I could say that any (thinking) machine is in some sense
fragmentary, its not alive... It's made of parts which are put together and so on, now, if there is a perception which admits it is, that thought is mechanical, then that means that ( some superior ?) intelligence is (involved ) in the (insightful) perception.

K: Are we saying, sir, lets get this clear, that thought ( the natural thinking of the animal brain?) has in itself the quality of (universal) intelligence, perception, and therefore it perceives itself mechanical.

B: Yes, that would seem strange...

K: Or, there is ( a flash of insightful) perception and that perception says thought is mechanical.

B: Yes, and we can call that 'truth', isn't it ?

K: Yes, um, there are two things involved, isn’t there ? Either the thought in itself has the sense of perception, sense of intelligence and therefore realises it is mechanical.
Or, there is a (direct inward) perception, which is, (seeing the ) truth. And that perception says thought is mechanical.

B: Yes. Now the first idea seems to be a contradiction.

K: Yes, but does this answer ( experientially our question ) why thought is fragmentary?

B: Well, if thought is mechanical then, it would have to be fragmentary.

K: Can thought realise that it is mechanical?

B: Well that's the question. But its not clear, you see. The other time you were saying
there would be a choiceless awareness of the nature of thought and thought would then come to realise.

K: I want to go back to something else : the 'things' that contains (the self-centred) consciousness, are put together there by thought. In fact all the content of that consciousness is the product of thought, (or in a holistic nutshell) consciousness 'is' thought.

B; Yes, it's the whole process.

K: Does thought see all this, or there is a pure (insightful) perception
without thought which then says (sees nonverbally that?) thought is mechanical.

B: We were discussing also the other day that when there is a perception of truth...

K: ...action takes place.

B: Action takes place, and thought becomes aware of that action.

K: Yes, thats right, thats right. Lets get at it.

B: But in becoming aware of that action, is thought still mechanical ?

K: No, thought then is not mechanical.

B; You’d have to say then that thought changes its (mechanistic) nature.

K: Its nature, yes.

B: Well thats the point we have to get hold of : to say thought does not have a fixed nature, is that the point?

K: Yes sir.

B: Because much of our discussion if you use one tends to imply that the word 'thought'
has a fixed nature, but now thought (brain's thinking process) can change.

K: Yes thought does change.

B: But I mean can it change fundamentally ?

K: Lets get at it. I’m beginning to see something. We both begin to see something. We
say that total perception is (revealing the innermost) truth, and that perception operates in the field of reality, and therefore...

B: Well, we didn’t say that the perception of truth operates directly in the field of
reality, we said the other day, it operates in 'actuality'.

K: Wait a minute, there is (an insightful) perception which is (revealing the whole ) truth, but that can only act in ( the field of) that which is 'actual'

B: Yes...

K: Actual (involving?) care, isn’t it? While the action, in the field of reality, isn’t.
Look sir, put it on the other way : (suppose that) I perceive something totally, which is not the act of thought.

B: Yes, that is a direct act.

K: Yes, that is a direct perception, then that 'perception' (itself) acts.

B: Acts directly ?

K: Directly.

B: Without ( the distorting intervention of) thought ?

K: Thats what I want to find out.

B: Well, it begins without thought, and that perception acts directly, as we said in the perception of a physical danger

K: Yes of danger

B: And it acts immediately without thought. But then thought may become aware of the act

K: Thought then becomes aware of the act and translates it into words...

B: And into further mental structures.

K: Right, were getting at it slowly, that is , there is a total perception which is truth, that
perception acts, acts in the field of reality, but that action is not the product of thought..

B: Yes.

K: But because this is an acton of the whole (natural intelligence of the brain?) , thought has undergone a ( qualitative?) change.

B: Alright, now we have it : if there is an action in the (context of the) whole (of the Greater Mind ?) , thought is ( becoming an integrated) part of the whole, thought is contained within the whole, and therefore it is changed, is that what you're saying ?

K: No, no... I must go back, when it sees the whole, that's the (liberating action of ?) truth.

B: So, thought's (perception of the ) whole is (qualitatively) different.

K: Because that perception is not fragmented.

B: No, no it's one whole,

K: One whole, yes, and it acts. But that action it's not put together by thought ; so then what is the relationship of thought to that action?

B: Well, there are several points, you see, one thing is to say that thought is a material process, based on ( material experience of ) the brain cells. Now, the action of (the insight-based ) perception will somehow act on the brain cells won’t it?

K: That's the point, it does.

B: Therefore thought must be different ?

K: Different, quite right. When there is total perception and action it must affect the (traditional functioning of the ) brain cells.

B: Right, and in affecting the brain cells it may change the nature of thought ?

K: It is like a shock, do you follow ? It's something totally new to the brain.

B: Yes. And therefore that perception as being total, penetrates the physical structure of
the brain ?

K: Let's be simple about it, if you see, that division, or fragmentation is tremendous danger, doesn’t it affect your whole way of thinking?

B: Yes, but I think that brings us to the next question, that thought has developed a (self-protecting) a way of preventing this 'affect' from taking place.

K: That's it. That’s what I’m wanting to get at : thought resists.

B: But you see, a thinking machine would not resist....

K: No, because ( thought' s resistence) it's ( a self-protective) habit. It remains in that groove, and ( the insightful ) perceptioncomes along and shakes that.

B: Yes and then thought tries to stabilises itself - it holds to a fixed point.

K: To greed or to whatever it is.

B: If we look at it this way, that thought hasn’t got a fixed nature, it may be mechanical, or it may be intelligent and err…

K: No I wouldn’t give that word 'intelligence' to thought, for the moment.

B: But we were saying before, that thought may not have a fixed nature and needn’t be mechanical.

K: ( The self-identified ) thought is mechanical, functions in ( self-projected temporal) grooves, it lives in ( comfort zone of ) habits, memories...

B; Yes...

K: And a total perception does affect this whole structure…..

B: Yes that's right, but after, as a result of this (insightful) perception, thought is different, right ?

K: Yes, thought is thought different because...

B: ... the perception has penetrated the physical structure of thought and made it
different.

K: That's right

B: Now, you don’t want to say it's intelligent but let us say that if thought were just a machine, it would not cause trouble, but for some odd reason thought its trying to do more than behave like a machine

(to be continued...)

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 12 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Aug 2019 #42
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

(...)K: Yes, thought is trying to do more than a ( pre-programmed thinking) machine.

B; And now, if we could look at it again, if there’s ( an insightful) perception and
awareness and this may be recorded in ( the experiential memory of ) thought, there are two things, one is, if perception affects the physical structure
of the brain, and this affect is somehow recoded in the content of memory and the memory takes...

K: Thats right, memory takes charge...

B: Yes it holds it, and now, you see, any such recording, is a kind of (virtual) 'imitation', you see, every recording (thinking) machine is a kind of imitation you see, it's not mainly that thought is mechanical, but it contains a process of imitation, to record information you see,
like a tape recorder records some sort of 'imitation' like the structure of sound in a magnetic form, which again is recreated as sound as imitating the original sound.
Now you see thought has the capacity to imitate (simulate) whatever happens, because of this recording, right ?

K: Yes that's right. Just a minute sir, I want to go back a little bit. Suppose that you
perceive totally something -like this total perception of greed, let's take this for the
moment, and because of that total perception, your activity is non-mechanical - the mechanical being the pursuing of greed as thought.

B: But isn’t there another part of thought which is mechanical, which is necessary, you
see for example, the practical information contained by thought ?

K: I’m just coming, wait a minute. You perceive totally, the nature and the structure
of greed and because you perceive it there is the 'ending' of it.

B: Hmm..

K: What place has thought then?

B: Well it still has a mechanical place.

K: But you're finished (with greed ?) - you're not greedy anymore. That (survivalistic) reaction, that 'momentum', that mechanical (thiking habit) is over, Then, what place has thought?

B: Well thought has some place – like if you want to find your way home ?

K: I use it when I need a ( fashionable new) coat, I get it, but theres no greed involved.

B: So thought has not identified itself with (the momentum of) greed, so you have a thought which is rational.

K: I don’t quite follow.

B: Well you see greed is a form of irrational thought.

K: Yes greed is irrational.

B: But now there’s rational thinking, for example if you want to figure out something, you
know....

K: But when you perceived the totally of greed, something has also happened to you.

B: Yes. Are you saying there is no more thought?

K: But (in the 'psychological' field) thought is not necessary.

B: Well how do you find your way home? How do you use (your practical) memory?

K: ( Inwardly) I’m no longer greedy.

B: Right..

K: I’ve no need for thought in the field of (inward ) perception and therefore thought doesn’t enter into it at all.

B: Not into perception, but it still has its place apparently. For example if you want to know the way from here to where ever you want to go…

K: No... I’m taking of greed, greed.

B: Yes, it has no place in (dealing with) greed. Where there is a total (insightful) perception thought has no place

B: In that perception ?

K: No, only in that perception, thought doesn’t exist any more with regard to that.
You perceive that all belief is irrational , there is a perception of this total structure of
belief, and its out. Belief has no place in your thought, in your brain, so why do you
want thought there?

B: I’ll not say I want it, but I say there is a tendency that thought may interfere...

K: No it wont, if I perceive the total (time-binding) nature of belief, then its over. Then
where does thought come into that (psychological structure) which ( mankind's survival oriented) thought has created? I wonder if I am
conveying something to you. Look sir, I perceive, for the moment I am using that, I
perceive totally the nature of belief, with (its subliminal) fear, all the rest of it involved, and because there is total perception, 'belief' as such doesn’t exist in my thought, in my brain, nothing ! - so, where does thought come into it ?

B: Well not at that part.

K: It's finished ; so thought has no place when there’s a totally (insightful) perception, Same thing with greed, same thing with fear, while thought operates only when there’s a necessity for ( the proverbial?) 'food, clothes, shelter'. What do you say to that?

B: Yes, well that, that may be right... But let's look at what we started with , which was to understand why thought has done what it has done. You see, in other words, when there is a total perception then there's no place for thought. You just 'see' now. But when we come to practical affairs you could say that we don’t have a total
perception ( of what was actually going on) we depend on information which has been accumulated, and so on, right, and therefore we need thought.

K: There, yes. I need it to build a house, I need to…

B: So, you depend on the (previously) accumulated information, you see, you cannot dir
ectly 'perceive' how to build a house, right ? But for psychological matters...

K: That's it, that's it. Psychologically when there is total perception, thought doesn’t enter
into the psychological process.

B: Yes, it has no place in the psychological domain . Now, I’d like to come back to answer
the question raised by David Shainberg, which is: “Why has thought gone wrong, why has it done all these strange, why has it pushed itself where it has no place”?

K: Could we say that thought creates (very realistic?) illusions?

B: Why would it want to do this ? But even more deeply what makes (thoght's illusion making process ) happen, you see?

K: Because ( the self-identified) thought has taken the place of ( direct) perception.

B: Why should thought assume that it see the whole, or even that it sees anything?

K: Rather interesting….. does it happen sir that ( the direct) perception having no movement of thought as time and so on, such an ( inwardly transparent ? ) mind uses thought only where necessary and other wise it's empty ?

B: I wonder if we could put it differently, such a mind when it uses thought, it realises that
this is just thought, it never supposes it is not thought, is that right?

K: Yes, that's right, that's right, that it is thought and nothing else

B: The (psychological) danger is that there is a mind in which it does not realise that this is
( just) thought you see, suppose there is an experience of joy and enjoyment, but slightly later there comes thought which 'imitates' (revive?) it by remembering it, and then, it's a very subtle imitation, and therefore it treats it as the same (experience) , you see what I
mean, therefore it begins to get caught in is own pleasure which it mistakes it for joy and
enjoyment.

K: Quite.

B: Now after a while, when it becomes a habit and when the pleasure is
not there there's a reaction of ( frustration ) fear and so on, and all this psychological trouble starts. So at some (obscure?) stage , you see there is this mechanical process which thought does not acknowledge, not knowing that it is mechanical.

K: Yes, would you say also, that man never realised until recently, that
thought is a physical and bio-chemical process and therefore it (has blindly) assumed a tremendous importance?

B: Well, in general that's s certainly true, it's only recently that science has shown the physio-chemical properties of thought. Now, if we go back to the past, would you say, that nobody, or perhaps some people understood this, but in general most people did not.

K: Did not. Take the so called Saviours & all the 'saints' (holy people) function on thought.

B: Well what about the Buddha?

K: Again according to the tradition, there’s the 'eight fold noble path', there’s 'right thinking'...

B: Ah, but he may have meant thinking non- mechanically…

K: That's just it, you can’t take (the example of) anybody in the past.

B: Why, because we can’t be sure?

K: Can't be sure of what they meant.

B: That was interpreted and so on and we can’t ask him what he meant.

K: Laughing… No. Is that the reason, because ( the self-centred ) thought said I’m the
only important thing.

B: Yes but how did it come to say that, you see?

K: Because there was no ( direct inward ) perception.

B: No but, why wasn’t there?

K: Man didn’t realise or thought wasn’t told that it was just a physio-chemical process.

B: Yes, well thought does not know it's a material process therefore thought when thought mistook itself for the actual intelligence. But suppose when there's enjoyment, but thought creates from memory a (very realistic) imitation of all that

K: But it didn’t think it was imitating

B: No, that's what I’m trying to say, it didn’t know it was imitating.

K: That's just it.

B: Perhaps was too subtle for thought to realise it was just an imitation.

K: That's it, and also because thought from the beginning said I’m the only 'god'.

B: I wonder if that come a little later, you see ? The first thought mistook itself was for joy and intelligence , goodness and so on

K: Yes, yes

B: Then it realised its impermanence and then it took the idea that there is a (timeless) self, which is always there, which produces thought, and truth, and perception and so on, you see that, you see ? You can give as examples, enjoying the sunset and there
may be a small accompaniment of thought, you know, which is harmless in itself.

K: Yes, it flutters round, quite...

B: Flutters round, but now by habit, by repetition , it getstronger, and it becomes comparable in intensity to the original experience , and then thought does
not see this as an imitation and it treats it as the genuine (as the real thing)

K: Are we saying sir, that man has never been told or realised, that thought is just a physio chemical (process in the brain?) ?

B: That is not enough, because science has been saying long ago that thought is
physical and mechanical, but that in itself hasn’t changed anything.

K: No, no, but if you perceive that…

B: Yes, but it was not enough for science to know that thought is a just a (physio-chemical) mechanical process...

K: That's right, so (man's socio-cultural) conditioning and the ( inertial forces of?) habit has been thought is the primary thing in life.

B: Yes, even when it was called 'non thought' it was still ( a self-sublimated) thought, you see. There was some indication that, thought created 'imitations' of the primary thing in life
and then it said that's the primary thing.

K: That's right, yes.

B: So, thought never knew that it was just a mechanical process and therefore never had any reason to suspect that what it created was not the primary thing in life, because even if it could see itself creating it, it would not know there was anything wrong with it.

K: Quite, quite. So what are we saying now?

B: Thought never realised it was limited. Thought never realised that which it created
was a chemical and physical thing. Is that what we are saying?

K: Part of it, and we are saying also, where there is a total perception, a change in thought
takes place.

B: Right, and what happens to thought then ?

K: Thought doesn’t interfere, there is no ( self-identified) psychological entity which thought can use.

B: Let's tryto clear this up a little bit. Lets say there is a new invention.
you see, now, which we discussed before, and something new comes into ( the field of) thought and into the field of reality, but we say that might be ( originating as ) a perception
And because of that perception thought is functioning differently, it remains mechanical but different.

K: Yes, that's exactly what we are saying.

B: Yes, but it just changes the order of its operation through that perception

K: Yes.

B: Therefore the creativity is not in the (process of) thought itself, but in the ( insightful) perception.

K: Lets get it clear, thought has created the 'me' (aka : the 'thinker'?) and this 'me' has become independent of thought, apparently.

B: Well apparently. Yes.

K: And the 'me' being still part of the thought, is the (core of the) psychological structure, while (the totally insightful) perception can only take place when there is no 'me'.

B: Well we could try to go into that to make it more clear. You see the me, this imaginary structure, we know well it's 'real', as the 'me' involves some sort of 'centre' doesn’t it ?
This ( self-identified) centre (of self-interest?) is a very old form of thought, its one of the most fundamental forms, right it probably goes all the way to the behaviour of the animals, most probably.

K: Yes sir, the family centre and so on

B: Yes, also the geometric centre, when people use the centre with the rays emanating
out, it's a very powerful symbol, you see the sun with its rays, it had a tremendous effect.
So the concept of a centre has a tremendous affect on thought, you see.

K: Yes sir...

B: And this centre has the meaning of totality, you see, one point touches everything, In
other words the centre is a symbol of the contact with the whole, you see, and I think
that's how the self is considered in thought. It perceives , the self is perceiving
everything. The self is determining everything...

K: So there is a centre, and is this centre independent of thought?

B: Well I would seem, the centre 'is' thought, its a basic structure in thought, we think in
terms of the centre, you see ? In physics for example each atom is a 'centre'.

K: Thats why thought is fragmented.

B: Because we think through the centre ?

K: We think through the centre. Ah, we're ( finally?) getting at it.

B: Well lets get it more clear, you see lets say one of the basic theories of physics is to
think that the world is made of atoms, each atom is a centre, a force which connects to
all the other atoms, right and of course the opposite view is that theres a continuous
field, you see and no centre, those are the two views studied and as pursued in two
different forms. Now, if you think through the centre there is going to
be fragmentation. You say the atomic view is fragmentary, then ?

K: Must be, you see sir, what were getting at, the basic reason of fragmentation is that
we function from a 'centre' (of self-interest?) .

B: Yes, we must think in terms of centres because the sun is at the centre to the solar system. But psychologically we also function from a centre. You see, physically
we are forced to function from a centre, because the body is the centre of our field of sensory perception. But psychologically we form an imitation of that, we have the thought at the centre which is probably I think Yung called it an 'archetype', it may be millions of years old, going back to the animals.

K: Yes, to the animals quite....

B; Now that form is useful physically, but then it was extended psychologically, to
think...

K: That's right, that's why thought is fragmentary

B: Well is there a thought which does not function from the centre? It always has to.

K: Has to. Cause thought is ( originating) from a centre of memory.

B: Well lets explore why does thought have to be from a centre, you see, why couldn’t
there be a memory without a centre.

K: How can there be, just memory like a computer?

B: Why couldn’t there be like…

K: If it was, but here there is the 'psychological' centre (the 'thinker' entity )

B: Its not clear to me why there cannot be just memory, you see, just as
information. You see, its not clear yet to me, why thought had to form a centre you see, we psychologically and why did it have to give this (identitary?) centre such importance?

K: Because thought never aknowledged to itself that its mechanical.

B: Thought was unable to acknowledge that it's mechanical and now why does that call for a centre?

K: But thought has created this centre (for its own temporal continuity) .

B: Yes, but the centre was there just for practical purposes any way, but thought used that idea, psychologically for itself, now, why was it doing that?

K: Because for very simple reasons : thought said I can't be mechanical I must be
something much more.

B: How does the centre make it 'more' then?

K: Because that gives itself a (sense of temporal) permanency, as the 'me'

B: Well we should make that more clear why this (self-identified) centre gives thought a sense of permanency.

K: Why? Thought has created this microphone, that is apparently permanent,
relatively, and in here thought created the 'me' as a permanent entity.

B: Yes, but why did it pick up the centre to be permanent?

K: Perhaps it picked it up because cause the Sun is the centre of the universe, and if there is such a centre, as you said, it joins everything (keeps everything together) ,

B: Yes joins everything and gives it a sense of unity.

K: Unity, the family and so on and so on, but (inwardly) that centre becomes totally unnecessary when there is a complete (insightful) perception.

B: But it is necessary, when there is not such complete perception.

K: That's what's happening. It is not 'necessary' but that's what's happening in the world...

B: ( To recap:) Not being able to realise it is mechanical, thought began
to create its own products and seeing their instability, knowing their
impermanence, it tried to establish something permanent and it found the 'centre' useful
for trying to do that, because this 'centre' made a connection with everything.

K: Yes, that's right...

B: in other words, you see, if it's a 'form' (a mental core) around which everything can be put, hung together, so therefore if everything is falling apart, if left to itself, thought will falll apart, but then it establishes a stable 'centre' which holds it all together ?

K: That' s right, my family, my house, my country...

B: And that's (really) permanent right, so you say I have a permanent centre, in other words
thought has hit on the idea of a permanent centre to hold everything together and in fact
that's what we do all the time to organise (our temporal life) to have a centre around which everything can be organised.

K: That's right, like a company executive...

B: That's what we do all the time to have a permanent centre to hold it all together

K: So when you perceive something totally, the 'centre' is non existent and doesn’t it bring in something, when you perceive something that includes everything?

B: Right, lets go slowly here.

K: Isn’t that the central thing that holds, that (controls &) connects everything?

B: I see it differently : that the act of (direct) perception unites everything. And thought is imitates that by creating (self-conscious mental ? ) 'centre' that ( tries to) unites everything.

K: That's right.

B: And thought attributes the perception to this 'centre'

K: That's right, to the 'observer' and so on..

B: And also the 'thinker' attributes its own origin to that centre and attributes truth
to itself.

K: That's right. Is there sir, an (observer-free ?) perception of greed, of fear, a total perception which includes everything ? So it isn’t just the perception of greed, perception of belief, perception of all these things.

B: Let's say there’s a perception of 'what is', right ? And right now there is this question which we might clear up, because as we said Truth is 'that which is', right?

K: There is only ( a direct, non-dualistic ) perception, not the 'perceiver'.

B: There is no 'perceiver', but only the perception of 'that which is', isn’t it?

K: Yes, and the 'perceiver' is the centre.

B: Well thought attributes to the centre the quality of being a 'perceiver', as well as a
'thinker' or an 'actor'. So, I think that and it might be helpful to see that one of the functions of thought is to attribute and thought can attribute anything to any thing.

K: Yes quite right.

B: Therefore when thought has invented the 'centre', then began to attribute various ( personal?) qualities to that 'centre', such as thinking, feeling , pain or
pleasure, ans it becomes alive. Could we say that suffering also arises there, when pain is attributes to the centre?

K: Of course, as long as there is a 'centre', there must be (personal of) suffering.

B: Because when there no 'centre' the pain is merely physical.

B: But if the memory of pain is attributed to the centre then it becomes real, it becomes
something big.

K: So, (to recap:) we’ve 'seen' something : if there is a total perception, thought has no place in that perception. There is a total perception, and that perception 'is' action.

B: Yes and that will change the quality of thought, by changing the brain cells.

K: And so on, we’ve seen that thought has only a mechanical function.

B: By mechanical you mean more or less, 'not intelligent' ? It’s not creative, it's not intelligent.

K: So why are we giving such tremendous importance to thought?

B: Well, (the self-identified core of ?) thought is giving importance to itself ?

K: Thought is giving to itself tremendous importance, but when (a direct) perception takes place, and thought is seen (for what it actually is:) mechanical.

B: Well when thought acknowledges it is….

K: ...mechanical then there is no problem. Yes, sir, I can see hw the 'centre' it's gone on the wrong track...

B: Well, I think even from the beginning, thought mistook itself for something living and creative, and then it established ( its identification with the 'centre' ) in order to make that permanent. And then what gave it tremendous importance is the combination of the
two. One, that thought mistook itself for something intelligent and higher and then seeing this was impermanent, it naturally wanted to make it permanent,
and therefore it founded the 'centre' as the way to try to do it , because the centre was the
actually the practical way of trying to organise things permanently.

K: Quite right sir, so now we’ve answered why thought is fragmentary.

B: Yes, well let's make it more clear, why is it fragmentary? I mean in a way it's gone
wrong, but we'll have to spell it out ?

K: Because thought created the centre as a permanent entity and that centre forms itself as a unit to whoever put it together.

B: Everything in the whole world, the whole world is is held together by the 'centre',
because if somebody feels the centre goes he feels the the whole world is...

K: Going to pieces, that's right.

B: Now, it's not quite clear why its 'fragmentary' ?.

K: No, because it has separated itself from the thing it has created.

B: Yes, now that's the point, but let's now make that very clear that thought has
attributed to itself a 'centre' which is separate from itself, whereas in fact it 'is' has created the centre and it is the centre.

K: It 'is' the centre.

B: But it thinks of itself, attributes to that centre, the property ( of objective?) thought : I am real and so on, and that is ( creating the whole ) fragmentation.

K: That's the basic thing.

B: And from there follows the necessity for the rest of the fragmentation of life, because in
order to maintain that those two are different, thought must then break up everything to
fit that, do you see.

K: Of course.

B: It only introduces confusion, you see, either it separates things that are not separate
or it puts together things that are different in order to maintain that fiction. that the centre
is separate from thought everything else has to be cut to fit that.

K: To fit that , the whole human existence is cut ( in pieces?) to fit that centre. (to be continued)

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 12 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Aug 2019 #43
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

(...)

B: You see for example, if somebody attributes to the 'centre' the quality of being from
a certain nation, he must then distinguish another nation, not belonging to the centre, he fragments the (whole consciousness of) mankind in order to hold the centre together.

K: Quite right sir, that's very clear now.

B: And therefore the entire world is fragmented, indefinitely shattered into fragments.

K: I want to get to something else to. Is there an (insightful) perception only from time to time, or is there a total perception of the whole ?

B: Well if there’s a total perception (a total insight?) of the whole thing then what would there be left to do inwardly ?

K: That's what I want to find out...

B: Now, this raises the second question that David Shainberg brought in : let us say you
went through - as it were- Columbus discovering America, so that someone else doesn’t have to discover it (the hard way?) . But then what does he do that is creative, that is corresponding to what you did, you see?

K: Now, just a minute, first let me answer this question. “Is ( that insightful) perception whole?

B: A whole, and there's only one perception.

K: ….therefore it has cleared the field (of the 'psychological' debris of time) .

B: The entire field is cleared. Then... what does he do ? Which brings up a question I wanted to ask you for some time : in the Indian book, Tradition and Revolution, you mention towards the end of it, that ( a totally insightful) perception 'distills' ( mind's spiritual?) essence, right, do you remember that?

K: No I don’t remember, sorry, but it doesn’t matter...

B: But I wanted to explore this notion, that if there is there is ( an insightful) perception, total perception being intelligence, out of that came the ( spiritual) essence, distilled like the ( perfume of the ) flowers. Now, is this 'essence' anything like the 'whole'?

K: That's what that is, of course. Now wait a minute, I want to get this clear. Would you say there's is ( a holistic) perception of fear, greed, envy, belief, a total perception of everything that thought has put together including the 'centre'?

B: Well it's 'total', there is a phrase that people sometimes use, essence and
totality, you see, to perceive.

K: Ah ha, to perceive the essence and totality ?

B: Does that seem appropriate ?

K: Um… I’m hesitating on the word 'essence'. Leave the word 'essence' for the moment.
There is no partial traces of greed left , envy and all that, there is total perception. Therefore total perception means ( having an insight into) all the things that thought has put together, and making itself separate, the 'centre'.

B: Well now, we have to talk about total perception, we have to make it more clear, now,
because 'total' may mean all these things, or it may mean something else.

K: To me it means a total perception of thought thought attributing to itself certain qualities, thought creating the centre and giving to that centre certain
attributes, and all the things from that psychological centre.

B: Well that's thought's structure which is universal - not just this thought or that
thought or this problem or that problem or …

K: Its universal, quite, but now is such a perception possible? You tell (convey it to ) me and I see the truth of what your saying, the truth which not mine or yours, it is the truth.

B: Yes, now if you say its the truth, it is 'that which is'.

K: That which is, the actual.

B: Yes, well its both, but I’m trying to get it a little more clear, when we say there is
'truth' and there is 'actuality', now you see, the way we ordinarily use the word, the 'actual',
is really the right way we use the word individual, it would seem to me the word individual, actuality is individual, you see, 'undivided'.

K: Ah yes, quite, individual is (means) undivided, quite.

B: Actuality is 'undivided' but, there is one moment of actuality and there may be another moment of actuality and so on, but now, when we 'see' the essence, when we see the
totality of the universal, then that includes all that, right ?

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

B: So that, the (perception of ) truth goes beyond that individual actual fact because it sees what is universal and necessary, the totality of the nature of thought.

K: The totality of the nature of thought, that's it.

B: Right, so that every individual example of thought is in there.

K: That's right, and when thought is seen as merely mechanical.

B: Does thought acknowledge that it is mechanical ?

K: No, no thought doesn’t have to 'acknowledge' it ; it 'is' (mechanical) .

B: So, thought ceases to attribute to itself the non 'mechanical' (character) ?

K: That's right....

K: I think that's what actually took place from the beginning of this (K) boy it (the total clarity of insight?) was there.

B: It was implicit ?

K: Implicit, or whatever you’d like to say,

B: Well alright, perhaps it was implicit in everybody when he’s born but …then it gets the position it takes...

K: No, I question whether it was implicit with everybody

B: Well now lets get this clear, there are two views and we have to get it clarified : one view is, that it is is implicit in everybody, but then the ( survivalistic constraints of) conditioning takes hold in most people, and then it's lost, right ?

K: That's a very 'dangerous' ( statement)

B: Why is it 'dangerous' ?

K: Dangerous, because then you then assume there is something in you, which is unconditioned...

B: But then we can say it may (have been) conditioned by now, you see ?

K: No. From childhood…

B: Yes, well somebody was born (having it) that's the very point ? But that is an assumption,

K: Its an assumption,

B: Alright, and you say that ( assumption) may be 'false' .

K: I think it is false...

B: Alright. So, you are suggesting that the average child is born with some…conditioning, perhaps hereditary ?

K: The genes and the hereditary, and the ( collective mentality of the ) society, it's already there.

B: And then it gets added to ?

K: Added to, encrusted, and it thickens

B: Alright so that's one view which you feel it is wrong ?

K: I wouldn’t accept it, because, that's a (very convenient?) theory

B: Now, let's take the other view : right now you said that this ( K) boy...

K: It sounds personal but it's not...

B: I know, yes, and you were saying last week, right, that there was some 'destiny', some hidden mysterious Order...

K: Something much more, than reincarnation, than what the theosophists said about the Maitreya, the Brahmanical tradition of mustn’t do harm, karma, etc...

B: Yes...

K: I think it's much more, ( or rather?) something else

B: Yes, you say there was 'something else', now of course this idea has also occurred to people in the past, you see there are people who felt that they were, that some
mysterious force was working in them, and they may have been fooling themselves...

K: Absolutely.

B: Like, if you take Alexander the Great, he thought he was a God and many people felt his energy so much, that they were ready to do anything for him

K: But his energy was spent in conquering

B: That's right in conquering, so, it was obviously false

K: False, obviously, Napoleon felt that (too)

B: Yes, Napoleon felt it, and perhaps Hitler felt it...

K: Exactly, Mussolini and Stalin...

B: Yes and I wanted to put it, just to try to make it clear, that that feeling may liberate a tremendous energy either 'falsely' or not.

K: Yes...

B: So, therefore, ( that assumption) has ( an actual) danger in it, which we must recognise, right ?

K: That's right, that's right !

B: But nevertheless you cannot discard that ( possibility ) because this energy may still be necessary in spite of the (potential) 'danger' in it. In other words if we recognise that there is danger in this notion, but it doesn’t prove the notion is false.

K: Oh no, no , of course not....

B: It doesn’t prove its true of false.

K: It may be misused, quite

B: But if we look at it from the other side, when you say that something mysterious happened (to the young K) , which cannot be explained, which is beyond the order of...

K: ...all (rational) explanation

B: It may be that thought cannot grasp it...

K: ( His ) thought did not create a ( self-identified) 'centre'

B: Yes it did not create a centre but thought is ordinarily conditioned to create an (identitary) 'centre' , over the ages

K: Yes, perfectly (true)

B: A person may be born according to you with the tendency to create the centre. But in this case thought did not create the 'centre', is that what you're saying?

K: Yes, that's right...

B: And you cannot say why it did not , beyond this 'mysterious' action ?

K: No, I wouldn’t know...

B: Now in some sense you say the ( K) boy was protected, it's what you said last time...

K: Protected, guarded, 'they' did everything to guard him, first of all...

B: Yes well there was a combination of circumstances which helped, which were conducive to that...

K: Conducive but it still doesn’t explain.

B: It doesn’t explain... Now there are several points that we could go on from there. You see, one point is to say that if man is born conditioned then there is no way out of it, if that's all there is to it, in other words, from this conditioned mind there can be no way out.

K: Quite...

B: Therefore the only way out is if somebody to come into existence who is not conditioned...

K: Yes, proceed, yes...

B: Now if there is such a person, we could say he does not have any 'personal' significance, if you see what I mean ?

K: Yes, yes.

B: Its just part of the universal order.

K: Yes that's right.

B: And if I can give you an example in physics, in order to crystallise something, let's say something is in ( super saturated) solution, that may be cooled far beyond the point
of crystallisation, or solidification, unless there is a small 'nucleus', around which it can crystallise, otherwise it may remain uncrystallised, indefinitely.

K: Yes...

B: But the, that particular nucleus has no special significance other than, it was the place
around which the (process of) crystallisation took place.

K: Quite, absolutely...

B: Now, if you were to argue this for the sake of our discussion, ( could it be) that ( the total consciousness of) mankind has reached a stage where it is ready for a (qualitative) change, right?

K: Yes, that's what 'they' (say?) There must be a catalyst, somebody, a nucleus...

B: A 'nucleus', which is unconditioned ?

K: A nucleus, which is unconditioned

B: That's the idea that occurred to me anyway...

K: Yes quite, quite...

B: I mean whether its true or not we'll have to discuss. Now see, another question arose,
a number of people began to ask it which is, you see, until now, until recently, you have not been talking in these terms, you see, but rather emphasising ( a choiceless?) awareness of the conditioning and so on, and it seems now you are saying, something more ?

K: Yes.

B: And different ; could you say why ?

K: Oh, I wouldn’t know, Sir...

B: I mean, why didn’t you discuss this point before ?

K: See, I am just going back : if there is total perception of the nature of thought and all its activities, and therefore the total perception of the content of consciousness that this content makes the (self-centred) consciousness and this content used to be the centre...

B: Well, I think that the 'centre' is the form around which all these things are placed, you see ?

K: Yes...

B: They are all attributed to the centre.

K: Now, when the centre is not, in ( the occurrence of a ) total perception – a total perception which can only exist when the 'centre' is not, then (the quality of one's) consciousness must be totally different.

B: Alright, now what would you say about its nature then?

K: What would be its nature? See sir, that 'centre' (of animal selfishness) as you pointed out, is ( thought's) factor of unification...

B: What's attempted

K: Napoleon, you follow, the ( egotistic) centre...

B: This is the the way people have always tried to unite.

K: But it hasn’t succeeded never ; now when the centre is not, which is ( occurring in an insightful ) perception of the totality of thought, one's consciousness must be something quite different.

B: But does it still involve thought ? You see the word consciousness would ordinarily involve the idea that it is still thought...

K: There’s no ( self-centred) thinking, can’t be...

B: Well, then why do you still call it 'consciousness' ?

K: I said it must be something totally different. The consciousness which we have is with the centre with all the content, with all the thought, with all that movement, and when there is a total perception of that, that ( self-centred consciousness ) is not.

B: The 'centre' is not, and the whole order (of the Mind?) is different.

K: Different...

B: Yes, and there's something else I was going to ask : you were also mentioning many times that it might involve the brain cells starting to work in a different way?

K: In a different way, I think so...

B: Perhaps different brain cells will work differently....

K: Sir, may we ask what is Compassion? Is the 'centre' capable of Compassion?

B: Well I’d say the 'centre' is not capable of anything real.

K: No, but can the 'centre' attribute it to itself and be 'compassionate'?

B: It certainly can do that, yes.

K: It can ( laughs...) yes, but if there is no attribution at all, then what is compassion? Is this total perception ( an act of) Compassion?

B: Well it includes the feeling for all (that is) .

K: I should think one of the ( holistic) qualities of total perception, is Compassion

B: Hmm... If the 'centre' can only have feelings which are attributed to it, so it would have
compassion for whatever it emphasised with.

K: Of course. I love you but ... I don’t love others.

B: Yes

K: Quite , or I love others but I don’t love you.

B: (laughs) Anyway it would have no understanding and therefore it would have no meaning

K: Very interesting this. Ahh... we have got somewhere

K: How would you convey all this to somebody (attending the Saanen) camp? He’s sentimental, romantic, wanting illusions, myths, fanciful imaginations, problems of sex , of fear, this, and your telling him something, you follow sir, and he won’t even....Here we’ve got the leisure, we want to go into it, we want to find out, because we're totally objective of what one sees….

B: I’d say yes...

K: I think that's where ( the universal intelligence of?) compassion operates.

B: That's why, it's necessary to see if we are considering what your saying yesterday that about the (collective) stream of human thought...

K: Yes...

B: Whatever it is, it is 'universal', it belongs to everybody, so as you may see something going wrong, thought attributes it to somebody else, but whenever something is going wrong, it's going wrong in thought (in the first place?) .

K: Yes that's right...

B: And therefore it's ( going wrong) in ( the minds of) everybody, right ?

K: Yes...

B: There is no such thing as "my" thought, "your" thought, it is ( the stream of collective ) thought ; and it cannot stop in the ordinary communication. The structure of your thought is communicated to me, and if it's the wrong structure, then I’m (caught ) in the wrong structure of thought and then my (thinking) brain, my thought attributes the wrong structure to you, another centre...

K: Quite...

B: This 'centre' is alright, or we’ll try to make it alright, and the other centre is wrong ; so there can be no compassion, then I’m becoming hostile and think that I must fight the other 'centre'...

K: That's right sir.

B: Or that I must resist the other centre, right. this centre is resisting the other centre, (the assumption being that) the 'good' is in this centre, and the 'bad' is in the other centre...

K: (laughs)

B: And therefore there can be no ( action of intelligent?) compassion.

K: Yes sir.

B: But you see, if its all one (collectively shared?) thought process, one Stream, then one cannot attribute this to one particular person and therefore, it seems you understand the nature of that thought and that is Compassion.

K: Exactly. We’re going to talk , to discuss rather, about the 'mystery'? What is the 'mysterious'? Perhaps it's too late now, you see sir, all religions, have made the cathedrals dark, the temples are dark implying that God is ( something) "mysterious".

B: Yes...

K: That there is something so mysterious that you cannot understand, and there have been secret societies, special initiations, you know all that, trying through (sacred) rituals in order to come upon the 'mysterious'. But all that (stuff?) is not mysterious.

B: Well, that is just an imitation

K: An imitation which is done by thought, etc,etc, but if there was no such invention of the 'mysteriousness' created by thought, is there an (actual) Mystery?

B: Well if you say in one sense the mystery is that cannot be explained, or grasped by thought, then…

K: (We have all ) the myths (of mankind) …

B: Well these 'myths' are an attempt to grasp it by thought, by applying thought...

K: And apparently man has lived (for ages ?) with those myths.

B: Yes well again its the same point we were discussing before that thought, is attributing to itself, something 'mysterious'and ultimately it produces something which then says it's not just thought but, the ultimate Mystery.

K: Quite....

B: And people have said that myths were poetic means by which people grasped something true – and maybe if you use this once as a metaphor, then it would be helpful but when you repeat it then it becomes (a half-truth?). Now would it remain true in saying, that (the mysterious?) cannot be grasped in thought ?

K: That's right, but the ( Source of the ) Mystery of it (is still alive ?) We must discuss that some other time.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 12 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Sep 2019 #44
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

An experiential approach to understanding the nature of 'God'

( A 'reader-friendly' edited K Dialogue, cca 1981)

Q: Is it possible to inquire (experientially) into the nature of 'God', ( the timeless source of Universal?) Creation, or the Ground of Being?

K: I think it is possible if one's mind can be free from all the traditional acceptance of the word ‘God’ and the implications and the consequences of that word. Can the brain and mind be totally free '( of the known) to investigate the ‘Nameless,’ or the ‘Highest Principle?’

Q: If you were to ask me 'do I believe in God, do I believe in Krishna, Rama, or Shiva ? I would say no. But that is not the final thing. There is a feeling that God goes far beyond all words, that it is an integral part to life itself, the sense that without ‘It’ nothing could exist.

K: Shall we discuss the ( Creative?) Ground from which everything originates? One can only find it out when one is absolutely free (of the 'known'?) , otherwise one cannot. Unfortunately , our consciousness is so crowded with (all forms of highly educated ) self-interest...

Q: Isn't there a possibility of a (meditative) state of being in which any movement of the ( temporal ) mind as 'belief' is negated?

K: But...does one negate it verbally or deeply at the very root of one’s being? Can one honestly say ''I know nothing'' and stop right there?

Q: I can’t say I know that (blissful ?) state of ‘I know nothing'...

K: Then, how does one proceed to negate completely the whole movement of knowledge? Negate everything except the knowledge of driving a car and all technological knowledge? Could one negate the ( self-delusive ) feeling that one 'knows'? Can one negate the knowledge of all that one knows?

Q: One has comprehended the way of negating the rising movement of thought as belief? But the depths, the dormant, the million years that form the matrix of one’s being, how does one touch that?

K: Could we begin (the other way around ?) by enquiring why the human mind has worked, struggled with ( its own psychological) becoming? Becoming not only outwardly, but inwardly. A becoming that is based on knowledge, on constant movement, an uprising movement—the being somebody.

Q: How are these two related? We started with an investigation into the nature of God and now you spoke of 'becoming'.

K: Aren’t they related? My (whole inward) being is essentially based on the feeling that there is in me something enormous, something incredibly immense. That is the matrix of tradition, the common ground on which one stands. Now, as long as that is there, one is not actually free. Can one investigate into that?

Q: Isn't there an inherent movement in every human being towards some 'unknown' (dimension of one's ) being, something that is beyond what one is taught, beyond what one picks up through one’s cultural heritage?

K: Now, ( for optional homework?) can one totally empty all that, the accumulation of a million years? I am speaking of the most deep-rooted, something that is ( hidden in the collective ) unconscious ? I think that if we want to investigate, that must go too...

Q: How is it possible, without the 'unconscious' being exposed, for it to end? How does one experience that which one cannot formulate? That which lies beyond the total particulars of any one person’s knowledge?

K: By having the ( fundamental ) insight that there must be the total negating of all 'things', or of the beginning of all 'things'.

Q: I can comprehend the negation of all that arises in the brain. But the layers of the unconscious, the ground on which one stands, how can one negate that?

K: Man has tried in several ways to find this. He has fasted, he has (meditated earnestly?) , but he was always anchored to something (within the field of the known ?) . Is it possible to be so totally (mentally -wise in?) ‘non-movement’? Otherwise ( any mental ) 'movement' is (the result of one's self-centred thinking constantly projecting its own continuity in ?) time, thought, and all that. (Also, some other ) complicated things are involved in this. Why do we want to find the meaning of God?

Q: There is a part of us which is still seeking (to transcend man's temporal condition?)

K: Yes, that is it. So, we never get to say ‘I don’t know.’ That’s a state of mind that is absolutely motionless. To say ‘I don’t know.’ I think that is one of our ( major experiential) difficulties. We all want to 'know'—which means, to bring God into the field of ( our past) knowledge...

Q: Look Sir, isn’t there in the ear's (sensory) listening and in the eye's (sensory) seeing—in the word itself—the whole content of what 'God' is? Is it not necessary to wipe out this matrix (of mankind's collective knowledge?) ? You used (in the past) a very significant phrase ‘to play around with the deep.’ So you also point to depths which lie beyond the surface arising. Is this depth within the matrix?

K: That is why I am asking, ''why do I want to find out whether there is something beyond all this?'' I wonder what you call 'matrix' (of the known?)

Q: This depth which I cannot bring to the surface, into the daylight of consciousness, of perception, of attention. This depth which does not come within the purview of my physical eyes and ears, but still is there. I know it is there. It is ‘me.’ Not being able to see it, touch it, I have a feeling that perhaps if there is a 'right listening' to the Truth...

K: Is that 'depth' measurable?

Q: No...

K: Then why do you use the word ‘depth’?

Q: I am using the word 'depth' to connote something that is beyond my ( everyday) knowledge—and I can do nothing about it. I do not even have the instruments to reach it.

K: How do you know that there is this 'depth'? Do you know it as a direct experience?

Q: If I say yes, it is a trap. If I say no, it is another trap. What I am saying is that this 'ground' (of man's collective consciousness?) contains the whole history of man. It has great weight and depth. Can’t you feel that depth?

K: I understand, Pupulji, but ( when stripped of its temporal content?) isn't (it also the ) depth of silence? Which means the mind, the brain is utterly still—not something that comes and goes.

Q: How can I answer to that?

K: I think one can—if there is no sense of ( personal) attachment to it. No sense of (past) memory involved in it.

Pupulji, I don’t know what 'God' (really) is and I am not interested in finding out. But what I am concerned with is whether the human mind, the brain, can be totally, completely free from all ( its past) accumulated of knowledge, experience? If it is not, it will function always within its ( good-old) field, expanding or contracting but always within that area (of the known) . It does not matter how much one accumulates, it will still be within that area. And even if the ( temporal) mind says, ‘I must find out', it is still carrying with it the same mental movement... So my ( educational) 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.

Q: You speak of any movement of the ( self-centred ) mind ?

K: Yes. Any movement out of that area is still anchored in knowledge and seeks (to acquire further ( & higher ) knowledge ( like ?) about God. So I say my concern is whether the mind, the brain is capable of being completely immovable? When you put a question of that kind either you say, ‘It is not possible’ or ‘It is possible.’ But if you deny the possibility and the impossibility of it, then what is left? Do you follow? Can I have insight, the depth of insight into the movement of knowledge so that the insight stops the movement? Not I who stop the movement nor the brain that stops the movement. That ending of knowledge is ( allowing) the beginning of something else.

So I am concerned only with the ending of knowledge, consciously, deeply. There is this enormous feeling of (all-) oneness, a harmonious unity, and if it is simulated there is no point, then you perpetuate yourself—right?
(In a nutshell:) The ‘me’ is the essence of knowledge; and if I doubt everything man has put together, that is a very cleansing attitude. So we start with the extraordinary feeling of 'not knowing' anything. If we could say, ‘I know nothing,’ in the deepest sense of the word, It is there, 'you' don’t have to do anything.
Let us move from there. Each one of us is totally responsible to answer this question. You have to answer it.

Q: Why should I have to answer it?

K: I will tell you why. You are part of humanity and humanity is asking this question. Every saint, every philosopher, every human being, somewhere in his depths, is asking this question.

Q: May I ask you something? How does one take a question like this and 'leave it' (to gestate ) in (one's total ) consciousness? .
You have a special way of taking a question, asking it, and then, without any movement of the mind, remaining with it.

K: Yes, that would be right...

Q: That is what I want to know. Generally, one asks the question and there is movement of the mind towards it. With you, when such a question is put, there is no movement of the mind towards the question.

K: You are right. Are you asking how to get it?

Q: I know 'I' can’t get it...

K: You are right to ask the question. I come to you and put this question—are you ready to answer or do you 'hold the question' quietly? And out of that very holding without any ( mental) reaction, any response, comes the ( experiential) answer. Unless you understand this, it can lead to a great deal of misunderstanding.

Sirs, computers can be programmed by ten different ( top of the line) professors, with a great deal of knowledge and they can hold tremendous information. Our brains are also trained that way, they have been programmed for thousands of years, and that (old) brain replies immediately to a question. If the brain is not programmed, it is free to watching, looking. Now can our brains be 'not programmed'?

Q : You see, Sir, when such a (difficult experiential) question is normally put, it is like tiny grains of sugar being dropped on the ground—the ants from all over the place come towards it. It is the same with the ( temporal) mind; when such a question is put, a lot of ( knowledge direted ) responses are awakened that gravitate toward the question. Now the question is can the question be put without these ( mental) movements?

K: Without the 'ants', yes. When the brain is not operating (in the field of knowledge and) —is (really) quiet—it has a ( natural) movement of its own. But here we are talking of the brain that is in constant movement, the ( driving) energy of which is (man's self-centred) thought. Is ( the time-binding activity of ) thought the problem? And how will you deal ( experientially?) with this question? Can you 'question' ( the self-centred activities of) thought completely? Don’t answer immediately. Can one have a mind that is capable of not reacting immediately to such a question? Can there be a delaying reaction, perhaps 'holding the question' indefinitely?

Back (to our 'God' related question ) Pupulji. Is there a state ( an inward dimension ?) of ( the human mind that is out of time? Isn' that a state of profound Meditation, in which there is no (trace of personal) achievement, 'not-a- thing'. That may be the ( Creative) Ground, the Origin of All Things, a state in which the ( all-controlling) 'meditator' is not (anywhere around ?)

Q: May I ask, without the 'meditator', can the Ground be?

K: If the 'meditator' is there the Ground is not.

Q: But without the 'meditator', can there be meditation?

K: I speak of a ( ego-free?) meditation without the 'meditator'. So long as 'I' am trying to meditate, Meditation is not. Therefore there is only a mind, that is in a state of meditation.
The ( Cosmic Consciousness of the?) Universe is in a state of Meditation and that is the Ground, that is the Origin of everything. ( However, joining) 'That' is only possible when the ( all controlling entity - the) 'meditator' is not (anywhere around) .

Q : And that is only possible when there are no anchors (in the field of the known) ?

K: Absolutely. In that there is an absolutely freedom from sorrow. That (Cosmic ) state of Meditation has come with the complete ending of the ( temporal ?) 'self'. Beginning may be the eternal ( spiritual) process, an eternal beginning.
(To re-recap:) Is it at all possible for a ( holistically minded) human being to be so completely, utterly free of the (self-identified entity of the ) 'meditator' (aka the 'thinker', or the'observer'?) ? Then there is no ( need to ask the) question whether there is God or no God. Then that Meditation is ( joining ?) the Meditation of the Universe.

(For optional meditation homework?) Is it possible to be so utterly free? I am asking that question. Don’t reply, hold it. Let it operate. In the 'holding' of it, (a lot of intelligent?) energy is being accumulated and that (universal Mind-) energy will act, not 'you' (the self-identified mental entity ?) acting. So, have we understood the 'nature of God'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Sep 2019 #45
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

Understanding experientially the 'psychological' significance of death

( A 'reader-friendly' edited K Dialogue, cca 1981)

Q: At the physical level we can all understand birth and death. But it is only the superficial part of the mind that understands. It is therefore imperative for us to understand at depth the meaning of existence, that which is held between birth and death and the fears, the darkness that lie in the ending of anything. How can the human mind look at death with simplicity and observe it for what it is?

K: Are you including in your question the whole process of living, with its confusion, complexities, and the ending of that? Are you concerned to find out what means this long period of struggle, misery, etc., to which we cling? Are you asking a question regarding the whole movement of life and death?

Q: Of course, there is the whole movement of human existence which includes life and death, but if you make the field too wide, we cannot get to the depth of sorrow, of ending. There is such anguish in something that 'is' and 'ceases to be', and the sorrow that lurks behind....

K: Now, what is this ending?

Q: Something that exists, ceases to be eternally...

K: Why do you use the word ‘eternally’?

Q Because there is no 'tomorrow' in this ending ?

K: Now, just a minute. Ending what?

Q: Ending of that which sustains life. Let me be more direct. Now you are her alive (& well) , and there is the tremendous anguish of Krishnaji ceasing to be...

K: Are you speaking of the anguish of Krishnaji ending ? To him it does not matter. There is no fear, no anguish. I have lost that person, he has been dear to me, my companion, and he comes to an end. I think it is really important to understand ( the psychological significance of ) ending, because there is something totally new when there is an ending to everything...
My ( beloved) brother dies, and it is tremendous sorrow. It is as though the whole of existence has been uprooted, a marvelous tree torn down in an instant. But I am asking myself, why does man carry ( the psychological burden of) this sorrow with him?
Simply because he has never understood deeply the ( deeper ) meaning of 'ending', of putting an end to something he (got strongly attached?) . The total ending of it—not the ending of it, to continue it in another direction...

Q: What makes the ( time-bound) mind incapable of ending? What comes in the way?

K: It is (a subliminal) fear, of course. After all death is an ending of what one is clinging to—the knowledge that I have looked after him, cherished him—in that all conflict is involved. Can't one end ( as optional meditation homework) totally, absolutely to the ( psychological) memory of that? That is (the deeper significance of) death.

Q: Is this what you mean by ‘living to enter the house of death’?

K: Yes.

Q: And what does it exactly mean?

K: To invite ( the spiritually redeeming experience ) of ending every day, everything that you have gathered 'psychologically'

Q: All your psychological 'attachments' coming to an end?

K: That is (the spiritual significance of) death.

Q: You seem to reduce it to the ending of a self-projected image, but death is much more than that.

K: There is much more than that. But this mind cannot enter into a totally new dimension if there is a shadow of ( psychological) memory lurking. If the mind has to enter the timeless, the eternal (dimension of Existence?) , it must not have an element of time in it.

Q: Man's inner life is not always so logical or rational...

K: Of course it is not. But in the ending of everything that you have gathered (for psychological reasons) , which is 'time', you understand that which is everlasting, without time. ( At the end of the day?) the mind must be free of time, and therefore there must be ending.

Q: Can there be an experiential exploration into this ending?

K: Oh, yes, there is : deeper down in that great interval between man's birth and dying there is deeper (Stream of psychic) ) continuity. It is like a vast River (of thought & Time) , but if we live only on the surface of this vast river of life, we cannot see the beauty of the depths. The ending of the ( thought's) continuity is the ending of the surface (of the temporal dimension of existence)

Q: So, ( psychologically-wise?) what 'dies' ?

K: ( The personal attachment to all) that I have accumulated, both outwardly and inwardly. A nice house, nice wife and children and my (daily superficial) life gives continuity to that. Can one 'end' that ?

Q: But with the physical death of Krishnamurti, the consciousness of Krishnamurti will also end?

K: The body will end, that is inevitable—disease, accident, and so on. But... what is the 'consciousness' of this (K) person?

Q: Suppose I say, an unending, abounding compassion.

K: I wouldn’t call that 'consciousness'.

Q: How about the 'mind' of Krishnamurti?

K: ( For educational purposes, let's? ) keep to the word ‘consciousness’ : the consciousness of a human being is (undissociable from) its ( psychologically active ) content - the whole movement of thought, the learning of language, beliefs, rituals, dogmas, loneliness, a desperate movement of fear, all that is consciousness. If the movement of ( self-centred) thought ends, the ( self-) consciousness as one knows it is not.

Q; But thought as a ( self-centred) movement in consciousness as we know it does not exist in the mind of Krishnaji. Yet there is a state of being that manifests itself when I am in contact with him.

K: The self-consciousness as we know, is (generated by the ) self-centred movement of thought. It is a movement of time. When thought comes to an end in the psychological world, the (self-) consciousness as we know it is not.

Q: But how about the state of being that manifests itself as Krishnamurti ?

K: Say, for example, that in 'real meditation' you come to a point that is absolute - a most extraordinary state. But it is not yours or mine. It is ( present) there.

Q: Where?

K: It has no place, but first of all, it is not yours or mine.

Q: Now it is clearly manifested in the person of Krishnamurti. Therefore when you say it has no place I cannot accept it...

K: Because you have identified Krishnamurti with That?

Q: But Krishnamurti is (the manifestation of) That.

K: Maybe, but it has nothing to do with Krishnamurti or anybody. It is ( just present) there. Beauty is not yours or mine. It is there, in the tree, in the flower.

Q: But, Sir, the healing and the compassion which is (now manifested through) Krishnamurti is not 'out there'. I am talking of that ( of K's mind?) !

K: But (pointing to his body) this is not Krishnamurti.

Q : ( That Compassionate Mind) is manifested in Krishnamurti and it will cease to be manifested. That is what I am talking about...

K: It may (indeed) manifest (itself) through X. But that which is manifesting does not belong to X. It has nothing to do with X

Q: It may not belong to Krishnamurti. But Krishnamurti and That are inseparable...

K: Yes. But you see, when you identify 'That' with the K person, we are entering into something very delicate.

Q: Take the Buddha (the Enlightened One) —whatever Buddha's consciousness was, it was manifested through him and it has ceased to be...

K: I question that the consciousness of Buddha ceased when he passed away. It was manifested through him, and now you say that it disappeared ?

Q: I have no knowledge to say it disappeared, but it certainly could no longer be contacted.

K: Naturally not. Because he was 'illumined'. Therefore It comes to him. There was no division. When he died his disciples said, ‘He is dead and with his death that whole thing is over.’ I say it is not. That which is 'Good' can never be over. As evil, it still continues in the ( collective consciousness of the ) world. The Good will always exist, as the evil—which is not the 'opposite' of the Good—continues.

Q: You say that a great illumined compassion does not disappear, but can I contact it?

K: Yes, you can contact It ( even ) when that person is not (present anymore) . That is the whole point : (the semi-transparent personality of ? ) Krishnamurti has nothing to do with It.

Q: So, when you say, ‘be a light to yourself,’ is it involved with contacting ‘that’ without (the intermediary of ) a person?

K: Not 'contacting' , but receiving, living it. It is there for you to reach out and receive. ( Except that the activity of) thought, as ( self-centred) consciousness, has to come to an end. Thought is really the enemy of compassion. And to have this flame, it demands not ( personal) sacrifice, but an awakened intelligence which sees the movement of thought and the very awareness ends it. That is what the real meditation is (all about?) .

K: Then, what significance has ( your physical) death?

K: It has no significance, because you are living with death all the time. Because you are ending everything all the time. I don’t think we see the beauty and importance of ( psychological ) ending. We see ( & enjoy, a self-centred temporal ) continuity with its waves of beauty, & superficiality.

Q : As I drive away tomorrow, do I cut myself completely from you?

K: No, but if you make me into an (idealised ) memory, you cut yourself away from that ( presence of?) eternity, with all its compassion...
( Suppose that ) I meet the Buddha. I have listened to him very deeply. In me the whole truth of what he says is abiding, and he goes away. He has told me very carefully, ‘Be a light to yourself.’ I may miss him, but what is really important is that seed of truth which he has planted—by my intense listening, that seed will flower. Otherwise, what is the point of somebody having it? If X has this extraordinary illumination, a sense of immensity, compassion, and all that, if only he has it and he dies, what is the point of it all?

Q: May I ask you one (bonus?) question? What is the reason, then, for his (K's) being?

K: What is the reason for K's existence? To manifest That? Why should there be any reason for the embodiment of That ? Love has no 'reason' : it exists.

So, ( to recap:) man's physical birth and death are ( traditionally considered to be ) far apart and (in between ) all the travail of ( self-centred) continuity is the misery of man. It is when (the psychological tread of this ) continuity 'ends' each day, that we are 'living with death'. That is ( allowing ) a total (spiritual) renewal. That is something which has no ( time-binding ) continuity. That is why it is important to understand the meaning of ending ( one's attachments to) anything totally. Can there be an ending of that which has been experienced and remains lingering in the mind as ( psychological) memory? Can a (holistically minded) human being live without time and knowledge apart from physical knowledge?

Q: Isn’t 'living with ending' the core 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.
So, there is this stream of collective knowledge. When I ask, ‘Can I be free of the stream?’ is it not one element of the stream of knowledge asking that question?

K: Of course, of course...

Q: So, the stream of (thought &) knowledge, because it is challenged, responds. The only possible ( experiential) answer is the 'listening' to ( its mechanical) response.

K: A throwing up, a listening, a flowering, and a subsiding... But are you really asking to ( experientially) understand ( the living spirit of) 'Goodness' ? Let us investigate together. Can one see the arising of anger, become aware of that, let it flower and come to (its natural) end? Can't one watch the movement of it, let it flower, and as it flowers it dies?

Q; How does anger arise at all in a mind that is capable of observing?

K: It may be that the mind has not understood the whole movement of violence ?

Q: And how does one observe it : without the 'observer' or with the 'observer'?

K: The ( temporal) mind has ( for obscure survivalistic reasons?) separated itself as the observer and the observed...

Q: So, I can just observe anger arising, watch its manifestations—not interfere with its manifestations—and watch it subside ?

K: Then you can do something about it.

Q: The mind we could call 'awakened', that is what it does ?

K: Only the ( meditating) mind that sees that it can do nothing is ( really) motionless. So, have we, in this dialogue, seen the ( psychological) significance of death?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Sep 2019 #46
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

Uncovering the Source

( A 'reader-frindly' edited K dialogue, cca 1982)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Sir, most of our lives are so futile....and unless one discovers within oneself the capacity to leap out of this futility, one will never be able to have (access to ) a creative spring. You see, when the mind has found this creative spring, whatever be the circumstances, one is able to go beyond them. And that happens when the mind is not dependent on anything, and when it has some inner space and a quality of insightful perception. I have been wondering for the last few months—what is the Ground of the Creative mind ?

K: I wonder what you mean by ‘creative’? A scientist may discover extraordinary things and ( outwardly) call his life creative. But even the greatest scientist may lead (inwardly) a very mediocre life.

PJ: You see, that’s why I did not speak of a creative action, but of a 'Ground', a Mind, a (source of timeless ?) perception, which rests in the creative.

K: I think you should make the question a little more clear.

PJ: You have never answered any questions on the 'Ground' of manifestation - the ‘coming to be’ of anything.

K: Are you asking what is the source of all life—both the manifest and the non-manifest ?

PJ: Yes. I would like to probe into what you have said just now: the manifest, the unmanifest and the pre-manifest... I won’t even use the word 'unmanifest'.

K: After all, we know all about the birth of a baby. We know how it comes into being.

PJ: One may know how it comes into being, but one still does not know the quality of life which pervades it. You see, sir, the 'actual' miracle of birth is very different from the description of birth.

K: Yes.

PJ: But you cannot live through life without going through this ‘coming into existence’.

K: Can we talk about experientially uncovering origin, the beginning, of all life or of all existence is, without having to move further and further back in time but by trying to come upon something which is the beginning of all things? You see, various religious people say, ‘God is the origin of everything’. But ‘God’ is just a (very convenient) word, which doesn’t convey...
( Any mindful?) man has asked what the meaning and the Origin of all this is.

PJ: From where does it arise?

K: That’s what you are asking, isn’t it? What is the Ground from which all this arises?
What is the ( Creative) Source of all existence, all Life, of all action? Now, how do we come to investigate into something that demands an extraordinary (inner) freedom (and the very word freedom means love) and an absolutely non-conditioned mind, if I can use that word? It requires that quality of mind which is both practical and sensitive and which has the quality of great Compassion.

PJ: I can’t start with that.

K: No... But I would like to move (inwardly ? ) with this ( major existential) question.

PJ: Now, if you say that the mind can question only when it is free ( of the known?) and, therefore has ( access to the universal intelligence ? ) Love, what do I do?

K: You can’t do anything. But how do you inquire into something, a question, that man has asked for millions of years? How do you inquire into something that he gave a name to and then was satisfied with? We are not doing that. We are asking, how does a mind inquire (experientially) into something that must be extraordinary, that must have a quality of not only the universal, the cosmic supreme order? How does one’s inquiry begin? Where does it begin? If you inquire with thought, that obviously doesn’t lead very far.

PJ: No. So, how does this inquiry begin? Obviously by being aware of the ongoing disorder within oneself.

K: You see, Pupul, 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: The world outside, the world inside myself . If I can observe all that without any bias, and if I can see and relate what is happening outside to what is happening inside, then I will see that it is only one movement and not two separate movements. And you are it.

PJ: You see it is easier to say, ‘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 all the wars which are taking place in the world, that’s very difficult for me to see.

K: No. Pupul, we are (all) responsible—in the deepest sense of that word—for all the wars that are taking place.

PJ: Yes, but that’s a distant responsibility. How is one totally responsible? By being born?

K: No; but 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: When you take it to that extent, it is impossible for me to feel the reality of it.

K: Let’s leave that for a moment. I have just asked the question. Leave it.

PJ: Yes, let’s proceed to probe into the Ground of all existence which is the ‘is'-ness of life

K: All right. Let’s take for the moment those words—to go, to move or to enter into the whole complex of oneself. Now, I can’t enter into it as an 'observer' coming from the outside, for I 'am' all that.

PJ: Yes, 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: So in this journey of uncovering, the superficial things are swept clean. The grosser elements can certainly be eliminated. You see, sir, it is possible to sweep away the more obvious things, but the subtler things may 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, like hatred. Can one really be free of hatred? To be free of ( resentments & ) hatred must mean something extraordinary. Can one be free of all sense of aggression, all sense of the 'enemy'?

PJ: Isn't hatred different from the quality of aggression ?

K: Aggression is related to hatred, because it’s part of the same movement. An aggressive nation or 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. Hatred—anyone who has known hatred—knows that hatred is a very powerful and a very destructive thing. But aggression may, to some extent, be part of one’s nature, part of your make-up as a human being.

K: Yes, ( the instinct ) to survive, and all the rest.

PJ: You may be more assertive than another, that is a more subtle form of aggression. To be assertive is not hatred. That’s why I made the distinction between the grosser things which can be swept clean and the...

K: But let’s move on. You see, Pupul, the very word ‘freedom’, as far as I understand, means ( is intrisically related to) affection, love...

PJ: And a tremendous discipline?

K: You see, the point is this: Does watchfulness, which is ( the inward) awareness, need training? Does it need (self-) discipline? We have to understand the meaning of that word ‘discipline’.

PJ: Sir, without (inward) diligence nothing is possible. So may we discard the word ‘discipline’, and put in the word ‘diligence’?

K: Go slowly. ‘To be 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 question is: In that observation, in that awareness, is the action controlled, is the action put into a certain ( known?) framework?
I hold that the very act of learning is ( generating) its own discipline.

PJ: Yes. But how does the act of learning come to be? From where does the need for (inward) observation arise?

K: For a very simple reason, namely, to see whether it’s possible for a human mind to to change itself, and also to change the world which is entering into such a catastrophic area.
But what we started out with was an inquiry into the origin, the ground, of all life.

PJ: Yes.

K: To inquire into that, you have to inquire into yourself, because you are the expression of that. Now, the ‘myself’ is so terribly complex. The self is a living complex; it is a messy, disordered entity. How do we approach a problem that is complex, a problem that is not to be easily diagnosed? Now, how do I comprehend or become aware of the origin of disorder? If I can begin to understand the origin of disorder, I can move more and more deeply into something which may be ( looking like?) total chaos but which is total order. Do you follow what I mean?

PJ: Isn’t it 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: The question is: Do I look into myself with my (physical) eyes? I can see myself in a mirror with my optic eyes. But I can’t see the complexity of myself with my (inward?) eyes. I must be aware, sensitively, without any choice, of this condition.
Hearing, seeing, feeling are actually sensory responses, right? I see that colour. I hear that noise. I taste something, and so on. All those are sensory responses.

PJ: Yes. But is there not a 'seeing' of a reaction of anger—a 'listening' to a reaction of anger?

K: Do you listen with your ears or do you 'observe' anger (with mind's eye?) ?

PJ: How do you 'observe' anger?

K: When you are angry, you look at the cause and the effect of anger.

PJ: But the word you use is ‘see’. You say that you 'see' the nature of the mind...

K: I understand what you are asking. That is, do we see, do we hear—inwardly—with our eyes, and with our sensory ears?

PJ: You see, sir, 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 ( the inward) perception? I hear you make that statement. I’ve understood the words and see the meaning of what you are saying. Right?

PJ: 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: Take an act where you are totally attentive. What is the state of the mind in that act of being totally attentive?

K: What is the state of action that’s born out of complete attention? I’ll answer it. But to answer that question, one must first understand what we mean by 'complete attention'. ( Such) attention means that there is no centre from which you are attending.

PJ: ‘To attend completely’ is for the ‘I’ not to be there.

K: Yes, that is the 'real thing'. When there is ( pure) 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. So, 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.

K: Yes. The first step is to see clearly, to hear clearly.

PJ: But the ‘I’ is there... There’s the 'observer'...

K: ...and the 'observed'. Now, wait a minute, Pupul, do not move away from that. I know that there is this (mental division between) observer and the observed. Now, I am inquiring whether that is actually so. So far I have taken it for granted.

PJ: Obviously, sir, when I first start inquiring, I start with the 'observer'.

K: Yes, I start with the 'observer'.

PJ: 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 listened to that statement within me, I look for the 'observer'.

K: Yes. Let’s look into this slowly. Because if I understand the 'observer', then perhaps the one 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 perception of what is true. You see, what is of importance is perception, not 'who' sees.

PJ: So, the (insightful) seeing the truth about 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 one can see that it is so. But I cannot expect to have an understanding of what you say unless the mind 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: I find that as I first observe myself, my (mental) responses and reactions are rapid, confused, continuous...

K: I know; they are contradictory, and so on.

PJ: But in this very observing, some (free inner) space comes into being.

K: Yes, some space, some order.

PJ: But that’s just the beginning, sir.

K: I know. But I would like to ask you a question, Pupul,. 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. I want to discuss this point seriously. We have accepted this pattern of of self-examination, analysis and investigation. We have accepted these reactions, we have paid attention to them. 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 ( temporal) existence...

K: Pupul, he won’t even listen to all this...

PJ: But There has to be (some free inner?) space in order to listen.

K: Yes.

PJ: How does that space arise?

K: You suffer. Now, you can either say, ‘I must find out’ or you merely say, ‘God exists, and I am comforted by that’.

PJ: But you have just) asked: Is it necessary to go through all this (self-introspection?) ?

K: Yes, for I think that it may not be necessary.

PJ: Then show me how.

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 analytical, self-investigative process, this constant watching, man has done for thousands of years. Must I go through all this?
Is it necessary, is it imperative, is it essential, that I go through all this?

PJ: No, but are you trying to say that out of the middle of chaos you can leap to a state of total non-chaos?

K: I won’t put it that way...

PJ: Then what are you saying?

K: I am saying, very clearly, that humanity has gone through this (time-binding) process. It has been the pattern of our existence—of course, some have gone through the process more diligently, sacrificing everything, inquiring, analysing, searching, and so on. You do this too, and at the end of it all you may be just a dead entity.

PJ: It may not be so.

K: May not be. You see, Pupul, very few—very, very, few—have got out of it.

PJ: So if it is not necessary, then show me the other way .

K: I’ll show it to you. But first 'step out' of this.

PJ: But look what you are asking. If I can step out of it, the 'other' is already there.

K: Of course. Step out. That’s what I am saying. Don’t take time to go through all this.

PJ: But what exactly is meant by ‘stepping out of it’?

K: I’ll tell you what I mean. I perceive that man has tried this process of introspective observation, diligence and so on, for a million years in different ways, and somehow the mind is not clear at the end of it. I see this very clearly. I see that somehow this movement is very, very shallow. Now, can you 'listen' to ( the inward truth of) that statement—that the whole process is shallow—and actually see the truth of it? If you do, it means that your disordered mind is now quiet; it is listening to find out. Once you 'see' the truth of this, you are out of it. It’s like putting away something utterly meaningless. To put it another way. My mind is disorderly. My life is disorderly. You 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 mind won’t allow me to be diligent all the time. It is not diligent; it is negligent, and I struggle between these two.

PJ: But do you mean to say, Krishnaji, that a mind which is not capable of observing...

K: No. I am talking about a mind that’s willing to listen (to the inward truth of all this?) ...

PJ: Do you think an average human mind can be in that state of listening?

K: That’s very simple. I say just listen to a story that I am telling you. You are 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 happen that way.

K: Wait, I am going to explain what I mean by 'listening'.

PJ: Yes.

K: I mean by ‘listening’ not only the listening with the sensory ear, but the listening with the ear that has no movement. That is really listening - something that is complete. Now, when you listen, 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 ( inward) truth of his statement, what takes place? What actually takes place when you see something really true?

PJ: You are talking of a mind which is already mature. Such a mind, while listening to a statement like this...

K: You see, Pupul, we have made our minds so immature that we are incapable of listening to ( the truth of?) anything.

PJ: But you see, Krishnaji, you start by making things (look) impossible.

K: Of course. To see the truth. See something 'impossible' that you have found. It has a tremendous...

PJ: Where can I find the energy which is needed to deal with such an impossible thing?
Where is that mind?

K: It’s very simple. That which is utterly impossible is non-existent. We like to think everything is possible. I am getting it.

PJ: See what you are getting at, sir. You are saying that it is non-existent. So with a non-existent mind...

K: Look, Pupulji, can we both, you and I, agree that this diligent process has really led nowhere? Can we see that this process has led to various activities—some of which beneficial—but that in this inquiry of going 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 what has happened to a mind that says that this is too trivial, too superficial? What is the quality of a mind which has been caught in the process of diligent inquiry when it sees that the process which it has been caught in has no deep, fundamental value? This process is time-consuming. The other may have no time at all.

PJ: But, look at the danger of what you are saying. The danger is that I will not be concerned with sweeping the room.

K: No, this very inquiry demands that the mind and the heart—my whole existence—is orderly.

PJ: So, you start with the impossible.

K: (With great energy) Of course, I start with the impossible, Pupul, otherwise... Pupul, what is possible? Man has done everything that’s possible. 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 led nowhere. That’s what I am saying—possibility has led nowhere. It has led to certain benefits—social, and so on. It has also led to a great deal of misery for mankind. So, this (K) man tells me that this diligent process is time-consuming and, therefore, time-binding. He tells me that as long as I am doing this, I am just scratching the surface. The surface may be the most extraordinary, pleasant and ennobling thing—but it’s just the surface. If you grant—no, not merely grant but actually see, actually feel—in your blood, as it were—that this is false, you will have already stepped out of something that is the ordinary into something that is extraordinary.

PJ: And if I put aside the other ?

K: Which means that the ( time-binding) movement of diligence has stopped—right? Of course. If that is false, it has gone. So what has happened to the mind—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. And such a mind is necessary to uncover the Origin. Now, such a mind has no bondage to time. This 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, that I see. Sir, all that which you have talked about is the movement of becoming.

K: That’s right. All that is the perpetuation of the self in a different form, in a different network of words. You see, if you tell me this, I will want to find the source. And when I start out to uncover the source—which is for me a passion—I will want to find out, I will want to uncover the Origin of all Life. When there is that uncovering of Origins, then my life, my actions—everything is different.
That’s why I see that the understanding of the diligent process is a time-consuming fact which is destructive. It may be necessary in order to learn a technique, but this is not a 'technique' to be learnt.

PJ: Sir, you have a mind of great antiquity —‘antique’ 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 make that kind of statement but you.

K: But one must make it. Otherwise, when you see all the destruction, the brutality, the killing, the wars—every form of violence 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, (Laughs) ‘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 Source of Life’, will 'listen'. He will 'listen'—not to me; he will just 'listen'. It’s in the air.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Sep 2019 #47
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

How Far Can One Travel Inwardly?

( An 'experientially-friendly' edited K Dialogue , cca 1983)

K: Pupul, could we discuss to the limits of thought and travel beyond?

Q: I had recently read of a space rocket that would travel to the outer reaches of the universe and ( at least theoretically?) there would be no end to its journey - no friction, no time, and so no ending. Now, is there in the human mind, in the human brain, a 'within' of things? Are there vast, immeasurable spaces that lie in 'within' (the inward space of) of nature?

K: Are we asking whether within the human brain there is or there can be a space without end, an eternity out of time? Are we we really enquiring whether there is such immensity, whether there is a (living inward) 'movement' that is not of time, a movement that is eternal?

Q: For our ( experiential) enquiry we must first pose the question. What comes out of it will determine whether the question is valid

K: We have posed the question whether the human brain can realize the truth, that there is 'eternity' or 'no eternity'. How do we begin to enquire into this question that has been asked by man for thousands of years? Is man bound to time forever? Or can there be within the brain itself a realization that there is a state of eternity?

Q: You generally start by drawing a distinction between the brain and mind. Would you elaborate?

K: The brain is ( heavily) conditioned (by many millenia of survival oriented existence ?) . That conditioning is brought about by ( indiscriminately acumulating) knowledge, memory & experience. The brain is limited. Now, the 'mind' is a totally different dimension ( of human consciousness?) that has no contact with thought. The (old) brain which has been functioning as an instrument of thought - that part of the brain which has been has been conditioned ( by man's evolution) has no entire communication with the ( wider energy field of the ) 'mind'. When there is no functioning of thought, there is ( a Mind?) communication of a totally different dimension; that can communicate with the brain using thought.

**Q : So, you are postulating a (timeless) state ( of Mind?) outside the realm of thought?

K: That’s it. Outside the realm of ( thought & ) time.**

Q: As 'time' and 'thought' seem to be the essential core of this ( transcendental?) problem, perhaps if we could go into thought's 'flow of time', and see at what instant an 'interception' is possible – in the sense of a direct contact which is amounting to the ending of time. Isn’t thought's 'time' coming from a past immemorial, and projecting itself into a future which is without end?

K: The 'future' is conditioned by the 'past'. So, unless the human brain ceases to be conditioned ( by this 'un-conscious' process)...

Q: ...thought's content will undergo changes, but the (time-projecting ) mechanism of thought will continue endlessly.

K: Now, thought is the chief instrument we have. After thousands of years of friction, wars, that instrument has been made dull. It cannot go beyond its own 'tether'. Thought is limited, it is conditioned and in a perpetual state of conflict.

Q: I had used the word ‘interception’ to signify a contact with thought's movement from the 'past', as the 'yesterday'...

K: As the 'today'...

Q: How do we contact the 'today'?

K: 'Today' is the movement of the past modified (by the ongoing challenges of the present ?) . ( Psychologically-speaking ?) we are a ( dynamic) 'bundle of memories', which is what? Our 'past', 'present', 'future' is a movement of 'time—thought'.
Now, how do you touch this thing? How does one have contact with the (inward truth of the ) fact that I am (impersonating) a whole series of ( personal & collective ) memories, which is ( the compounded result of the 'time—thought' ( mental process ) ?

Q: Let us be concrete. The thought that I go away this afternoon and I will be leaving you is a fact.

K: It is an actuality.

Q: Out of that is born a certain nostalgia of leaving you, which is 'psychological', and which covers up (or puts a personal spin on?) the fact. So, what has to be contacted, surely, is not the fact that I am going away, but the (psychological) 'pain' of my going.

K: The ( compounded ) pain a thousand centuries of loneliness & anxiety. Is that ( pain) separate from 'you' who feel it?

Q: It may not be separate, but how do I touch it? It is only in the ( living) present that I can contact the whole of this edifice.

K: The 'now' contains the past, future, and the (temporal) present.
This present is moving on (creating the 'future' ) .
( In a nutshell:) The ( temporal) present is ( the recycled memory of ) a thousand years of the past being modified, so the 'future' is ( unfolding?) ‘now,’ in the present.

Q: But the (temporal) present is also not static. The moment you try to see it, it is gone. So what is it that you actually observe?

K: The (inward truth of the ) fact that the present is the whole movement of time and thought. Can one have an insight, ( a direct inward?) perception into the fact that the (timeless?) Now 'is' (containing implicitly ?) all the process of 'time and thought'?

Q: Does this (holistic) perception emanate from the brain?

K: Either it emanates from (one's direct) perceiving, or the perception is a (timeless) insight that has nothing to do with time and thought.

Q: But Does it arise within the brain...?

K: …. Or does it arise outside the brain? Is it (occuring) within the ( (knowledgeable?) sphere of the brain, or is there ( a flash of ) insight that comes (spontaneously?) when there is freedom from ( brain's time-binding) conditioning? This 'insight', ( originating in ) the ( Greater?) mind, is the supreme intelligence.

Q: I don’t quite follow...

K: ( To recap:) The brain is conditioned by time and thought. So long as conditioning exists, ( a total) insight is not possible. You may have occasional insights ( authentic intuitions?) , but this ( global) insight we speak about is a perception of completeness. This insight is not bound by ( the mental process of) 'time—thought'. That insight is part of that ( New) brain which is a different dimension.

Q: The word ‘insight’ literally means the seeing into (the inward truth of something) ?

K: The seeing, or comprehending the totality, the vastness of something. Insight is possible only with the cessation of 'thought and time'. Thought and time are limited. Therefore in such limitation there cannot be insight...

Q: To understand what you say, I have to have an open (mind's) ear and a ( mind's) eyes that 'see'. But I cannot start with insight. I can only start with observation.

K: You can only start by seeing that (the process of) thought- time is always limited, and so whatever it does will be limited. Time and thought have brought havoc in the world. You can see that. The question is, Can that limitation ever end? Or is man to live forever in that condition?

Q: When I hear a ( 100% holistic) statement like this: that time & thought are limited? It is like telling me, ''Pupul is a psychological bundle consisting of the (collective memories of the ) past, of time and thought...

K: The (temporal) 'self' is part of the (collective ) psyche, and whatever it does is limited.

Q: And what is wrong with that?

K: Nothing... f you want to live in ( a state of) perpetual conflict.

Q: What is the nature of this ending of the time-thought process that you speak about?

K: To see that 'time and thought' cease psychologically,” said Krishnaji.

Q: There is a point of perception, which is a point of insight. But... in what time-space do I see it?

K: Look, Pupul, let us be simple. 'Time & thought' have divided the world. Can’t you see the fact of that?

Q: No, Sir. I don’t see the fact. The moment I see the fact, I would stop time and thought. If it is such a simple thing—but it is not. It has such devious ways.

K: Can you have an insight that the movement of thought and time, at whatever level, is a realm of endless conflict ?

Q: You can see it outside in the world.

K: If you see it outwardly, then inwardly can you see that the 'psyche' is ( an integral part of the same process of) 'time and thought'. The ( self-) divisive psychological movement has created the outer divisive fact. The feeling that I am a Hindu; I feel secure in the word, in belonging to something, this is the factor of division and conflict.

Q: All this can end. One can see it as a movement of time & thought, but within it all, there is a sense of ‘I exist.’ That is essentially the problem. Why don’t I see it?” I asked.

Q: Because I have thought of my 'psyche' (of my soul?) as other than the conditioned state. I have thought that there is something in me, which is timeless, and if I could reach that everything would be solved. That is part of my cultural conditioning. I feel God, or (Brahman) the Highest Principle, will protect me.

Q: What is the nature of the Ground from which insight springs?

K: ( A total) Insight can only take place when there is freedom from time and thought.

Q: But this is an unending process...

K: No, it is not. To 'live (inwardly) in peace' is to to understand the extraordinary world of peace. This (inner) peace cannot be brought about by thought.

Q: Is it the brain that listens to what you say?

K: Yes. Then watch what happens.

Q: It is not rattling, it is quiet...

K: When it is quiet and listens, then there is ( the inward clarity of) insight. I don’t have to explain in ten different ways the limitations of thought.

Q: Is there anything further?

K: Oh, yes, a great deal more. Is there a listening without the verbal sound? If you want to convey something more than words, then if there is sound in my hearing, I can’t understand the depth of what you are saying.

( To recap) ( In the timeless?) ‘now', the whole structure of time-thought ends. The ‘now’ then has a totally different meaning. ‘Now,’ then, is (being as?) ‘nothing.’ ( This ) no-thing contains all. But we are afraid to be (inwardly as?) nothing.

Q: When you say (that this inner state of 'being as ?) nothing' contains all , does it mean the whole cosmos?

K: Yes, yes. Do you see the fact that (deeply inwardly) there is nothing? The 'self' is a bundle of (personal & collective?) memories that are (lifeless ?) dead. They function, but they arise from a past that is over. If I have insight into that, it the (temporal self?) ends. I see that in the (timeless) ‘now’ there is ‘not-a-thing'...

Q: You said something about listening ( beyond the ) sound ?

K: Yes, it is possible to so listen, when the mind itself is totally still. When the brain is absolutely quiet, therefore there is no (reverberating) sound made by the words. This is the real listening. The words only tell you what I want to convey . I listen to what you say.

Q: The (quiet?) brain has no other action than listening?

K: When the brain is (mentally) active, it is ( generating its own?) noise. But the pure sound can only exist when there is ( free inner) space and silence. Otherwise it is just noise.

Back to your question : all our education (in the field of) knowledge, is a movement in becoming, psychologically as well as outwardly. This becoming is (resulting in) the accumulation of (outward?) knowledge. So long as that (outward) movement exists, there is (inwardly the ) fear of being nothing. But when one sees the ( psychological) illusion of becoming, and that this becoming is an endless (movement in) time, thought, and conflict, there is an ending of that. An ending of the movement of the 'psyche' which is time-thought. The ending of that is to be (inwardly) ‘not-a-thing.’
This ( being inwardly as ) ‘nothing’ then contains the ( non-material Intelligence of the ) whole universe, not my petty little fears, anxieties, sorrows. After all, Pupulji, ( being inwardly as ) ‘nothing’ means the entire world of compassion. Compassion is ‘not-a-hing,’ and therefore that ‘no-thingness’ is supreme intelligence. But (inwardly) we are frightened of being nothing. Do I see that I am nothing but a walking illusion, that I am nothing but dead memories? So can one see the fact that as long as there is this movement of becoming, there must be endless conflict, pain?
(K paused, as he was speaking from great depths)
Astrophysicists are trying to understand the (origins of the material ) universe. But they can only understand it in terms of the material world, in terms of their own limitations. But they cannot understand the immensity of it as a part of the human being; not only out there, but in here. Which means there must be no shadow of time and thought. That is the real meditation. That is what 'Sunya' (the Inner Void?) means in Sanskrit.
We can offer a hundred of clever commentaries, but the actual fact is, ( that inwardly) we are ‘nothing’ except a lot of words.
How do you listen to all this? Do you see the immensity of all this? This implies an ending of the psychological nature of the 'self'.

Q: One realizes that the most difficult thing in the world is to be totally simple (inwardly)

K: Yes. If one were really simple, from that one could understand the whole complexity of life. But we start with complexity and never ( get to) see the simplicity. We have trained our brain to see the complexity, and try to find an answer to the complexity. But we don’t see the extraordinary simplicity of (the true) facts (of life) .

Q: In the Indian tradition, out of sound were born all the elements, “A sound that reverberates and is yet not heard.”

K: That is it. But after all, in the Indian tradition the Buddha said man must deny this whole 'thing'. “Not denying the world, but the total negation of the ‘me.’ ”

Q: Renunciation is the negation of the ‘me'. Basically, renunciation is never in the outer world...

K: Renunciation is in the world within. Don’t be attached even to your loincloth. But I think we are caught in a ( safety?) net of words, we do not live in actualities. Why have human beings not faced the facts and changed the facts? Is it because we are living ( more comfortably?) with ideas & ideals? Actually, we are living with the whole history of mankind. Mankind 'is' me, and the ‘me’ is endless sorrow. And so if you want to end sorrow there has to be an ending of the ‘me.’

Q: It is really the ending of time, isn’t it?

K: Yes. The ending of the 'time-thought' (process) , that is, to listen to the ( Living Presence of the?) Universe without sound.
Q: What is the 'sound' to you, Sir?

K: Sound is the (living vibration of the ) tree.
( For homework just try to ?) listen to the sound of waves, of strong wind, the sound of a person you have lived with for many years, and if you don’t get used to it, then ( purely listening to the) sound has an extraordinary meaning. Then you hear everything afresh.
( Now, inwardly -wise?) You tell me that ( the process of) time and thought are (accaparating) the whole movement of man’s life. You have communicated a simple 'fact'. Can I listen to ( the inward truth of) it without the (mental ?) sound of the words? Then I have captured the depths of that statement, and I can’t lose (the living truth of) it. I have listened to it in its entirety. It has conveyed the 'fact' that it is so and what is so, is absolute always. In the Hebraic tradition it is only the Nameless One who can say ‘I Am,’ and that is ( the true meaning of the Sanscrit expression ) 'Tat Tvam Asi '( Thou Art That)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Sep 2019 #48
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

A HOLISTICALLY FRIENDLY VIEW OF 'TIME'

A very rare ('experientially-friendly' edited) K Dialogue in India, cca 1984)

GS: The question has been raised by our friend (Mrs Pupul Jayakar) on the functioning of different kinds (dimensions of) of time. That is, is there an (inner dimension of) time which functions even when ( the psychological process of ) becoming ceases to be? That is, when cause and effect have ceased, when the normal process of causation, of memory and expectation, anticipation—all the (psychological) background accumulated over one’s lifetime or even before that—have been given up, dropped off: Is there still a kind of ( different dimension of) time in which (the inward) events unfold?

PJ : Krishnaji also spoke of the arising of a perception which simultaneously negates that arising, a simultaneity of arising and negating; and what is the nature of time, in relationship to the ‘now’?

K: We have said, ‘The present, which is the (result of the ) past, is also the (creator of the?) future. We also said that ( the psychological process of ) time is not only becoming, anticipation, hope, but also that (the psychological aspect of ) 'time' is manifested as 'holding'— as the sense of possessing, the sense of accumulating knowledge and living (pretty safely ?) with that knowledge; that also is ( part of the psychological aspects of?) time. And we asked, Is there any other (dimension of the?) time movement? Is there a ( time of) 'non-movement' when one has stepped out of psychological time? Is there a movement which is totally different from the movement of time and thought?’

GS : Do you speak of the 'brain' ceasing to function, or the 'mind' ceasing to function?

K: I would like to separate the 'brain' and the 'mind'. The brain is conditioned( by its physical evolution in time) . The 'mind' is outside the (physical) brain. For me, the 'mind', is something (a dimension of man's consciousness?) totally unrelated to the conditioned brain and therefore something which is not measurable by words or by thought. Whereas the brain activity and the wastage of the brain activity is measurable and measure is time.
Now, any functioning arising from brain's accumulated knowledge is ( taking place within the field of ) the 'known'—as 'my' self-centered activity. Is it possible not to be self-centered? Can one ask ( oneself for homework ) this question: Can one be free of the (all-controlling entity of the ?) 'self', entirely? This 'self' (ego-centric entity) , the ‘me,’ is obviously the product of (mankind's difficult evolution in ) time. It is the ( result of the survival oriented ?) activity of the self-centered brain as my position, my power. It is the ‘me.’ And as long as there is this ‘me’ (mental entity) , there is the limitation of time.

JU : One may speak of time in whatever way one likes—time as thought, time as movement, etcetera. There is time as the coming into existence and time as ceasing to be, which is the natural process of becoming in which we live. But behind it, is there a 'mind', in which there is no arising and ending? If it is so, then it is outside us, one cannot do anything about it. We can’t act upon it or investigate it ?

K: No, we can’t. As long as the self-centred ‘me,’ is arising, dying, arising, ending, and again arising, this constant process of becoming is ( generating its own continuity in) time.

JU : Not only becoming but 'being'.

RB : When Mr Upadhyaya speaks of 'being', he means ‘I am.’ So, there is a ( psychological) becoming, but there is also the ( identitary) sense of ‘I am.’ We can see this process of thought arising, thought ending—but when this stops, what happens?

K: How do you know it stops?

RB : To put it simply, when 'becoming' comes to an end, is there a sense of 'being'?

K: What do you mean by 'being'?

AP : The sense that ‘I exist'.

K: The moment you acknowledge that 'you' are living, you set the whole process of the 'self' in operation.

PJ : No, I won’t accept that ! To most of us it is possible for thought's projection (in time) to end, which is for 'becoming' to end. But that state is a living state of 'existing'.

GS : When you talk about about 'living' or 'being', to the extent that there is no ( dualistic) separation of a 'knowing' person from the rest, to the extent that there is 'vyaapti', complete ( non-) identification, without claiming anything for yourself, there is no separation between 'you' and anything else.

PJ : Why do you (Buddhists) deny 'being'? Being in the sense that something ‘is.’ Do you say there is nothing?” I asked.

JU : There is no difference between (thought's desire of ?) 'being' and 'becoming'. When ( the desire for) 'becoming' ends, 'being' ends...

K: Yes.

JU : ( Thought's desire for ?) becoming and (for) being are the same. Where there is (thought's driving desire for?) becoming and being, there is the (time-surfing?) 'self' with all its activities, etcetera, and when it ends, that also ends.
Now, when there is the end of all this, of thought, etcetera, is there a 'something' (a 'mind') in which everything is sustained?

PJ : If I may ask, what is the distinction you draw between becoming and being?

RB : In Sanskrit they are not two words. Bhava means both being and becoming.

AP : Pandit (JU) says that what you call 'Intelligence' is unrelated to the intellect. Only when this (all-knowing) intellect recognizes that it is fragmented and is limited that it ceases and ( a holistic) Intelligence is born...

PJ : I would like to go into thought's 'becoming' and 'being' a little more. 'Being' is a state of non-differentiation.

K: Why do you differentiate between ( thought's) being and becoming?

PJ : Simply because there is a state from which things arise and into which things disappear. In a state of ( undivided) attention, or of choiceless awareness, what is there?

K: In ( this state of undivided) attention there is no 'self' (-consciousness)

PJ : Then what is the nature of this 'attention'?

RB : Are you asking what is the nature of attention or whether there is a 'ground' (of purely intelligent energy) from which attention springs?

K: Attention has no background.

GS : There are two kinds of functioning in the physical universe. One is a functioning which is defined by discrete events, in which you have a chronological sequence of things, and then you can construct (causal physical) laws connecting these events. And so you say the wind is caused by differences in temperature, and you find one event causing another event which is causing another event, and you are able to understand a number of things. On the other hand, a 'complete' system has no history, has no 'events' in it. Events come when you are putting this system which is functioning by itself, within the matrix of something else.

So, (to recap:) a chronological time of ( various events) unfolding takes place when you have an incomplete system, and then you talk about events taking place in chronology. But when the system is complete within itself, it is not 'featureless', but its functioning has no chronology, there are no ( separated) events within the system. We are so used to the idea of chronology that ( it is hard to conceive ) an evolution in which there are no ( discrete) happenings. So, whenever there is a motion to which we cannot put a definite cause and effect, we feel that we do not fully understand. We want to break it up, discretize it.
So, perhaps these two possible kinds of unfolding (temporal vs timeless?) may be useful as models for this discussion. There is one kind of time—the physical time in which events take place, in which the law of cause and effect takes place. And another kind of time in which you cannot say what is the cause and what is the effect, because there is no breaking up of events with regard to that.

K: When does that take place?

GS : When the system has no 'ideal' (behaviour) to compare itself with. We refer to it as a 'closed' system, but we mean it may be a 'complete' system.

K: In all systems—bureaucratic, scientific, religious—isn't there an inherent decay, an entropy?

GS : Yes.

K: So, as long as the ( thought matrix of the ) brain is 'collective', it forms an (entropic ?) system.

GS : Quite right.

K: So, inherently in the collective (Stream of Thought?) is a process of decay, in which degeneration takes place?

GS : Krishnaji, I am concerned about ( the impact of ) your (complete) 'attention' to the brain. The brain is also part of the physical system and I do not have to pay that much more attention to my brain than I do to trees or to birds...

K: No.

GS : So, why should I feel so attached to what happens in my brain—thought waves and the functioning of the various interconnections and so on? Why should I be so concerned about what the brain is doing?

K: ( Because?) as long as my brain is (very seriously) conditioned (by its survivalistic thinking ?) , the brain becomes very limited. The human brain has an infinite capacity, and that capacity is being denied by its own limitation. You are a scientist and I am not. You have acquired tremendous knowledge and have occasional insights into something. You keep moving & adding further knowledge . This (addiction for...) 'addition' is the factor of conditioning. Obviously. And therefore the brain becomes limited and that addition 'is' (constantly sustaining) the self. We won’t go into different terminologies. As long as the self is there, the self (centred consciousness) is an ( entropic) system, and a factor of deterioration.

GS: That is what we call this (temporal) 'self' with a little ‘s’ rather than the big ‘S'...

K: I am using it only in one context, the small ‘s.’ For me (personally?) , there is no big ‘S’...

RB : Going back to what you said : that attention has no background...

K: Here is a scientist. What is 'attention' to you, Sir? Be simple.

GS Well, I would say attention is when there is no separation, when there is no identification of anything else; including perception of any entity. Attention is one ( holistic action) , in which there are no anticipations and there are no memories.

K: Which means what? There is no ( cultural) background?

GS : No background. I feel that that is the simplest statement. In attention there is no background because a 'background' assumes a ( knowledge?) matrix, or a (personal) ideal. In attention there is no comparison. Attention is 'one without the second'.

K: We were discussing ( the 'timeless' dimension of?) time. I say Love has no time. Love has no reminiscences. ( Selfless) Love is not the activity of desire or pleasure. The activity of desire and pleasure involves time. ( For optional homework, just contemplate this ? ) Love has no time...

PJ : This is a mighty leap...

K: It is ( meditation-wise?) approachable...I don’t put something on a pinnacle and then say it is unapproachable.

JU : Has ( this Universal) Love an arising and an ending?

K: No. If there is an arising and ending, it is not Love.

JU : Then... it is beyond discussion.

K: What is (the spiritual purpose of) a dialogue? As you question and I answer (eventually the ?) 'you' and the 'I' are forgotten. We don’t exist, only the ( truth of te ) question remains. And if you leave the question alone , if it has vitality, it flowers and it provides (its own true) answer.

JU : I accept what you say— but...what has this to do with Love?

K: I make a ( holistic?) statement—‘Where love is, time is not.’ You listen, you question it, and I reply. There is a connection, both verbal and non-verbal, and the question remains, the fact remains. If you let it remain, it begins to 'move' (around in one's consciousness?) .

PJ : You say 'love has no time'...

K: See the ( inward ) beauty of it.

PJ : It is a fine question and no response arises to it, but there is still the question...

K: Then remain with that. Pupul, take a lotus flower and ( contemplate it?) 'look' at it...

RB : In this 'looking' there is no more question...

K: ( Or, one may also contemplate?) ''Death has no time''.

GS : Out of kindness for us, could you make these ( holistic) leaps a little shorter? Because already Pandit JU is saying that he is finding it difficult to respond to your statement, although he may completely identify with. How do we relate this particular statement to our original question of ‘being & becoming’?

Before we move to (the timeless aspect of) death, let us talk about love, and its relation to our time-related question, Panditji is saying that he does not know how to respond to your earlier question that the dialogue has a vitality of its own?

K: Have you understood it?

GS ; Yes.

K: Then explain it to Panditji.

GS : I think Krishnaji is saying that the purpose of the dialogue is not for a person to ask questions and for the other person to answer, but for the question and answer to 'come around', and move by itself between people. So it is the question itself answering itself, using people’s voices as the instrument. Krishnaji is saying that if there is a (silent interval of ) time when the question ceases, that too is in fact very natural.
In a sense, it shows is an echo of what he was talking about earlier—namely, is there a 'being' at this point or is there a 'becoming' or is there something else which is other than the two? Looked at from (the thinker's) point, there is a 'being'; but looked at from another point, when all questions cease, then 'who' is ( left ) there to ask any question, and 'who' is there to understand? That ( contemplative?) 'holding' of the question, is itself in a sense a ( timeless form of ) dialogue. It is a meditation in which no words are spoken because it is a ( transcendental) state where words do not reach.

K: Yes. So, let us talk about 'death'. What, according to the Buddhists is death?

JU : ''By whatever cause life came into being, by the same cause life comes to an end; and that is death''

K: I exist because my father and my mother met, and I was born. I live eighty-nine years and at the end I die. There is a causation and the end of causation. Is that what you call death?

JU : This causation at the biological level; but there is ( a deeper) one at the thought level. Nagarjuna says in that movement (of death) is contained past, present and future.

K: If you say that past & the present are contained in the ‘now,’ that 'now' is ( the moment of) death. Becoming and... dying. Is that death?

JU : Yes.

K: That is logical, but this is an intellectual concept that doesn’t interest me (when ) I'm actually dying.

JU : At every moment there is an ending; there is a death all the time...

K: But suppose that I have a son who is dying and you come along and speak of causation. But I am in pain. What are you going to do about it?

JU : Whatever comes into being ends from moment to moment...

K: I have heard all that before, but now I am ( engulfed ) in sorrow.

JU ; But what connects the moments together is ( your personal) memory...

K: All right. I come to you and you explain me that. I say, ‘Go to hell !’

PJ : Jagannath Upadhyaya says that none of the Buddhist teachings have dealt ( experientially) with death, except as a rising and ending.

K: ( Story time :) Some tears ago, I was with a person who was dying. His wife came and said, ‘He is asking for you.’ I went to him, sat next to him, and held his hand. And he said, ‘I am dying, don’t preach philosophy to me. I am dying, and I don’t want to die. I have lived a fairly good life, a fairly moral life, I have got my family, my memories, all the things that I have accumulated, and I don’t want to die. But I am dying.’ What is your answer to that?

JU : The answer is, that he has to die...

K: Oh, God! Is that what you say to your son, to your wife, to your husband? ‘He has to die’? Of course he has to die. He is quite young, and he says, ‘My god, help me to understand.’

JU : But death is part of life...

PJ : Panditji, are you saying there is no ending to sorrow?

JU : Unless the causation of sorrow is eliminated, it cannot end.

K: But the man who is dying hasn’t 'eliminated' it. You have to deal ( inreal time?) with this man who is dying. So I hold his hand and he has the feeling that there is Love. I do not talk to him about a beginning or ending...
What is the actual difficulty here? He may die or not die right now, but... he will die sometime. But if we are dying at this moment, is whether we are dying to this feeling of sorrow. The question is not whether our brother is dying. It is we who are in sorrow, and we are asking for help, for support. He wants consolation. But I am not able of giving him a thing. We cannot give him life. He who is dying is not dying outside of himself, he is dying within himself and ( ultimately...?) it is his problem.

GS : Is the question how you deal with that person?

K: No, it is how you deal ( 'Now'?) with ( the existential challenge of) death.

GS : In the process there are (involved) two things. One is my feeling that my friend is dying and that he is afraid, he is unhappy and unwilling to die. The other is : what can I do to give him help at this point. Which of the two aspects are we discussing?

K: Both. I want to know about death. I am going to die. I’ll be eighty-nine in May—probably I will live another two years. I am not frightened. I don’t want anybody’s help. I have lived with death and life together, all the time, all my life. Because I don’t possess anything inwardly, I am dying and living at the same time. There is no separation for me. But my friend is dying. Nobody has loved him and he has loved nobody. What the Buddha said, does that help? He wants somebody to ( have sympathy & ) love ( for) him, to 'be' with him. Somebody who ( compassionately) says ‘Look, we are together in this. You are ( inwardly) lonely and what does it mean when death comes?’ I can see him utterly lonely, separated from anybody else. And there is dreadful fear.

JU : Even if I (have compassion & ) love, can I give it to him? Is it something which can be given to another ?

K: He is ( sharing this?) with me, not that I give him love. It is not something I give.

JU : Because he is ill and is going to die, and he does not want to die, how do we give him love? Love cannot transcend ( his inner) causation; it cannot be outside cause and effect. However great or deep your compassion may be, it cannot be independent of causation.

K: Sir, he is not interested in your philosophy. He is not interested in what the Buddha said. He is dying. We go to the dying person with a lot of words and these words are like ashes to him, including Buddha’s words. He is dying and says, ‘My God! What of my life?’ Can one come with 'nothing' ( with an 'empty mind'?) and hold his hand? Can one say, ‘My friend, when you die, a part of me is also dying. I have never met you before. But your wife came to see me and she asked me to visit you. So, we both are going to die today. I know what it means to die. I have lived my life dying and living, never separating the two. Each day I (am born & ) die.’ So I say to my friend, ‘Let us die. I understand your fear (of the Great Unknown?)’ Then his death is not ( happening in sorrow & ) fear.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Sep 2019 #49
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

The Lineage of Compassion

( a 'reader-friendly' edited K Dialogue with Mrs Pupul Jayakar, 1984)

Q: What was the summation of your teaching? To me it integrates and includes the teachings of the Buddha and Vedanta. You may negate the super-Atman, the Brahman, but the very negation, emanates the energy which those words conveyed. So, who is Krishnamurti? What is his ( spiritual) lineage? Was he a breakthrough in man's evolution? It would (probably) take centuries to fully comprehend the challenge Krishnamurti had posed to the human brain and to the root of the human mind.

K: Keep K's challenge—work at it— (and) forget the (K) person. Look what ( the organised?) religions have done: concentrated on the Teacher and forgotten ( living in the spirit of?) the Teaching. Why do we give such importance to the person(ality ) of the teacher? The teacher may be necessary to manifest the Teaching, but beyond that, what? The vase contains water; you have to drink the water, not worship the vase. ( Up to now?) humanity ( has spent (considerable material means & energy in ?) worshipping the (Beauty of the?) 'Vase', forgeting about...the water.

Q: : Even to start a real enquiry into the Teaching is a breakthrough in consciousness.

K: Yes, that is so ; but the ( general?) human tendency is to center everything around the 'personality' of the teacher—not on the essence of what he says – and that is the great factor of corruption. Look at the great teachers of the world, look at what their followers have made of it? ( Even some?) Buddhist monks are violent, contrary to all that the Buddha had said.
The 'manifestation' (of the Teacher) has to take place, through a human body, naturally—but the (physical) manifestation is not the Teaching. We must be extraordinarily impersonal about all this. To see that we do not project ( an embelished image of the?) Teacher because of one’s ( personal) affection for that person, and forget the ( living spirit of the?) teaching. See the 'truth' in the teaching, the depth in it, go into it, live it, that is what is important. Does it matter if the world says of K, what a 'wonderful' person he was—who cares? And K is (indeed ) a breakthrough (in the evolution of human consciousness?) , the ( labelling) words are certainly his measure. If I were living in the time of the Buddha, I may be attracted to him as a human being, I may have great affection for him, but I would be far more concerned with (understanding the inward truth of ?) what he says.

Look Pupulji, our brains have become (inwardly) so 'small' by the words we have used. When one speaks to a group of specialists in various disciplines—one sees that their (inner) lives have become so 'small'. They are measuring (judging & evaluating?) everything in terms of words, ( & lab?) experiences. And it is not a matter of word or experience. Words are limited; all ( scientific lab) experiences are limited – as they cover only a very small area (of the human consciousness )

Let us start anew (from Experiential Square One:) . The ( temporal ?) 'self' is a ( proactive?) bundle of (personal & collective?) memories. The 'self' (centred consciousness) is the essence of ( all man's materialistic ?) knowledge. K is saying that the ( temporal?) self 'is' (made up of?) inherited and accumulated memory. When the 'self' is not, time is not. ( Brain's intelligent?) energy has no 'past'. But (the temporal) man has emphasized the past. When there is that ( intelligent?) energy, not bound by self (-interest?) , energy has no time. It is energy.

Q: But in all ( physical) manifestation, isn't there a time limitation ?

K: Yes. Any (physical) manifestation needs time. Therefore, having manifested itself as a flower or a tree, as a human being, that ( original life-) energy is limited. ( However?) when the 'self (identified' consciousness) is not (present ) , there is a state ( of consciousness?) totally out of time. I am questioning whether the evolution of the brain is (bound to) to continue as it is now, modifying, growing, gathering, more and more knowledge? I see something very interesting : is there a meditation that is not based on ( meditator's previous?) knowledge, which not deliberate? This meditation can only be when ( the self-centred temporal) consciousness, as we know it, 'ends'. Then, there is a state, not measurable by words, not in the field of knowledge, immense, totally out of time.

Q: That ( timeless intelligent energy?) must be totally altering the nature of the brain ?

K: Probably it does.

Q: Can it touch the brain of humanity ?

K: Yes, yes.... You who have read the ancient texts, who have discussed with pandits, what do you contact?

Q: You see, Krishnaji, I have read the ancient texts, but I bring to the texts the ( holistic quality of) listening which has come through listening to you. I so listen to the texts, and because there is that state, I can touch something, get close to it. But touching ‘That’ does not lie in the words. The (listening ) mind, because it is quiet, feels close to ‘That.’ Same thing when I read the ancient texts and the mind is quiet, or when I sit alone in the garden and hear birds sing, or the touch of the wind, I may feel a closeness to ‘that.’

K: Does the person of K become important?

Q: No. But the ( intelligent & compassionate ) energy emanating (from him) , certainly is important. You draw us in, the moment the mind is quiet. I am beginning to see something, the energy in my mind, as it is now, is not capable of touching ‘that’ (by itself) It can go only so far and no further. But also requires to allow the 'self' as little space as possible.

K: Yes...allow it as little play as possible.

Q: I see that there is very little of the 'personal' Krishnamurti left.

K: Yes.

Q: One can feel, the moment one touches the gateways of your mind; that the Ground is saturated with ‘That.’

K: Yes.

Q: In the last year or so, you have tried to bring people closer and closer to ‘That.’ But ( unfortunately?) then there is the ( subliminal) blockage of evolution, which is ( man's collective) karma - the ( sublimated?) 'essence' of what you were, so you are and so you will be. I see also that one has to let thought flow, let it be very fluid, not allow it crystalize (as the 'thinker') . One has to uproot thought, so that it sits lightly in the (empty space of the?) mind.

K: How would you communicate what you are saying to fifty people, or to five thousand?

Q: The key to ( any holistic) communication is observation. Nothing else is needed.

K: How do you answer (the trick question?) who is the 'observer'?

Q: The only (experiential) answer is 'to observe'. To be inwardly open, to discover. How extraordinary is this journey of self-discovery, the insights into the endless...

( PJ's final comment:) As I left the room, the question again arose in my mind: Who is Krishnamurti? What is his spiritual lineage? Out of the question, the answer arose: ( The total consciousness of) all humankind. Because in every human being there is the capacity to break through ( time's) bondage; to be in the lineage of impersonal compassion.
Later I asked K of what is (the transpersonal experience of?) samadhi. He said, “The brain is silent throughout the day; a word is said and the brain sees instantly the whole content of it. The brain does not accumulate. Whatever arises is full (whole?) . There is no movement within the brain as (thought projecting its own continuity in? )time, but there is an infinite movement, the natural rhythm of the brain. There is a sense of timeless, eternal protection.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 20 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Sep 2019 #50
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

TRUTH AND REALITY

( a reader-friendly edited K Dialogue with David Bohm, cca 1975)

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

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

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

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

K: Are the contents of consciousness 'reality' ?

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

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

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

K: Yes. And how do they answer it?

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

K: Yes...

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

K: It is, yes.

Dr B: And it is not just our own thought...

K: No, obviously not.

Dr B: The tree, the whole earth, the stars...

K: Of course, the cosmos....( But in the psychological field) pain is 'real'...

Dr B: Yes. I was thinking that illusion is (also) real, in the sense that it is really something going on, to a person who is in a state of illusion.

K: To him it is real.

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

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

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

K: Say, for instance: is 'Christ' real?

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

K: Who 'created' him .

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

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

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

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

Dr Parchure : There is...

K What is 'reality' in Sanscrit ?

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

K: Maya ? Maya means 'illusion' !

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

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

DrP : Truth is 'satyam'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr B: But to come back to reality- which is a 'thing', any 'thing' is necessarily conditioned. Any form of ( the man-made ) reality is necessarily conditioned

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

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

K: Quite right.

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

K: Thought is real...

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

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

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

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

Dr B: Yes, of a mutual interaction and reaction.

K: And all his illusions are also his product.

Dr B: Yes, they are all mixed together.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DB ; It is not (necessarily) a division – it is like when you say 'you see the whole truth'...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Of course.

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

K: It includes 'all that is'.

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

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

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

K: He ( who sees truth) 'comprehends' reality! He doesn't separate reality. I 'see 'it !

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

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

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

K: Yes...

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

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

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

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

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

K: I do not hold to anything !

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

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

DB That means that Truth is absolute ?

K Absolute, that's right !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr B: Yes...

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

Dr B: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

Dr B: Yes....But there is a point implied here, knowledge includes time and knowledge is itself time, therefore if I am ( functioning ) in (the field of) knowledge I'm 'moving' from one form of knowledge to another...

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

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

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

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

K: Yes !

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

Dr P : Of what ?

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

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

Dr B: No, it can't.

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

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

K: Yes, It's contradictory.

Dr B: It muddles things up.

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

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

K: Yes.

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

K: Yes.

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

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

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

K: From where does it come?

Dr B: We'd have to say that perhaps it comes from something
deeper ?

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

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

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

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

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

Dr B: Yes, but let's try to put it like this: reality may have many
levels of energy.

K: Yes...

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

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

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

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

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

K: ...he other way it cannot.

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

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

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

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

Dr P : So you negate that ?

K : Not 'negate'...

DB Because in ( an intellectual) negation you preserve that . The negation is independent, but the reality is still there...

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

Dr B: Move from one reality to another...

K: That's right. But ( the essence of an authentic) meditation is actually seeing 'what is'. …

We'll better stop, don't you?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Sep 2019 #51
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

Second 'reader-friendly' edited K-Bohm Dialogue TRUTH & REALITY (cca 1975)

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

DB : Yes...

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

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

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

DB : Perhaps we're going very fast ?

K : This is too fast perhaps...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: As we said, perceiving is the doing.

DB : Yes, I mean, truth is what establishes the fact.

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

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

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

DB ; Yes...

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

DB : There is a peculiar history of that, because some people have said that you have a moment of time between the truth and how it works – but that's wrong...

K: That's wrong. The moment you have a gap in it...

DB : So the truth is action itself.

K: Can a human being let truth operate ?

DB : You say that the operation of truth in reality is intelligence, right ?

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

DB ; Because in some sense, intelligence is the action of truth ?

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

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

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

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

K: Yes, 'that which is'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Of course !

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

K: Appearences, quite...

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

K: I don't get it...

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

K: I understand it, Sir .

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

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

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

K: Neither do I...

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

K: Yes, quite...

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

K: Quite...

DB... but appearence has its function, it's necessary, but man has always searched for that which underlies appearences – which are always changing, you can't trust them.

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

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

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

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

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

DB : It is not a fact. So I'm saying that there's an unconscious thought process – a sort of a deeper unconscious which is just that (subliminal ?) movement by which we invest everything we see with the shapes of thought...

K...form …

DB : And this seems to be part of reality.

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

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

K: Ah, we are getting at it !

DB : But truth is indivisible...

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Yes, yes...

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

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

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

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

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

K : Yes. The seeing is the action...

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

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

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

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

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

K: Ah... substance...

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

K: Of course, which I don't see

DB : So we should consider that.

K: Why should I consider it?

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

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

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

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

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

K Would you say that seeing 'is' action ?

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

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

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

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

DB : Yes...

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

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

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

DB : That's what I proposed : intelligence is truth acting in (the field of) reality,

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: I know...

DB : It's not very clear...

K: Sir, this is what I want to find out : is it possible to live entirely in truth ?
We could start from there and perhaps go more into it ; that he's, functioning only with 'what is'

DB : We could look at that...

K: He is not bringing into operation his memories, his rememberances, his personal reactions, but (the perception of the?) fact acts.

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

K: Yes, of course it is !

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

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

DB : Somehow, from beyond it...

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

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

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

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

K: Holistic...

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

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

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

K: Yes.

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

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

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

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

DB : Maybe by seeing that truth is indivisible...

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

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

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

Dr P : But observing is doing...

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

DB : But when you say that reality is distorted, to see that requires truth, you see ?

K: That's what I want to get at !

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

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

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

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

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

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

DB : It has to be truth.

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

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

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

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

DB : It is without time.

K: That's right !

DB : Later we may express it rationally...

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

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

K: No ; can it come come gradually ?

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

K: Ah, that's it !

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

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

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

K: That's right !

DB : We can't say it's either...

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

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

K: Then, he's not 'seeing' !

DB : Yes...

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

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

K: Yes, of course, put it this way...The seeing sir, is the (perception of the?) whole !

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

K: You ( as a separare observer?) cannot see the whole !

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

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

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

K: Yes

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

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

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

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

DB : I don't quite understand it...

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

DB : It is somewhat distorted...

K: Isn't it ?

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

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

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

K: Yes, quite …

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

K: Right !

DB ; That could be the key...

K; Sir, what place has love in truth ?

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

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

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

K: But we have reduced it to that ! So what is ( the relation of) love and truth ? Is truth love ?
'love' -that word again - what it means ?

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

K : That is all reality.

DB The nearest thing I could get was...

K; Compassion ?

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

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

DB ; Well, it seems it is.

K; It is ! Then, that (love translated in terms of) pleasure has no relation to truth

DB ; What we could say about enjoyment ?

K: Is enjoyment pleasure ?

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

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

DB : Yes...

K: Right ? Then what place has compassion in the field of reality ? We said, compassion is love, truth...

DB ; Yes, we could say that compassion is all in the action of truth

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

DB ; You see, if we say love is in the action of truth, the action of truth includes at its very least, benevolence, compassion...

K: It is all one : seeing, doing, compassion - it's all one, not 'seeing', then 'doing', then 'compasion'. ( To be continued)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Sep 2019 #52
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

(...)

K: (...) Seeing, as we said, and the doing is the whole ; and when there is that seeing of the whole, there is compassion...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DB : W.hat meaning do we give to different people or to different things in this wholeness ?

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

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

K: Yes.

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

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

DB : Yes ; are 'you' and 'I' realities -is that what you mean ?

K: Of course !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Yes, you can, but...

DB : ...there is a resistance ?

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

DB : Yes, or with anybody...

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Same thing, that's right ! I have (already) listened to the Buddha, I've listened to Jesus, I've listened to all kinds of things, and you come along and add some more to it. Because you are energetic, you got full of this thing, I absorb that and add another content to my consciousness ! And you said : Don't do it ! But I have already done it, because that's my habit, my conditioning, that I add, add, add...carry on burden after burden.
How do I receive you ? How do I 'listen' to you ?

How are you (DB) doing this thing ? Because you have this problem in your university...How are you to convey something to them, to a student who is -you know how they are  -this sense of truth ? And you are burning with it, you are full of it ! It must be a problem to you , like …beating your head against a wall ! Fortunately I don't have this problem because I don't care (laughing)

DB : You're not what ?

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

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

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

DB : But not in this fundamental way...

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

DB : There's a danger of that...

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

DB : Yes...

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

DB : But that raises the question that the lack of freedom is the lack of freedom - we have always circled it...you see, the lack of freedom is the instrument of reality...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DB : Yes...

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

DB : No...

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

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

K: No, no...the 'seeing' of the distortion 'is' energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K : Includes desire, includes...

DB : ...all other forms of (material?) energy _will...

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

DB : Yes...

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

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

K: Yes...

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

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

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

K: Yes, Sir, empty !

DB : Between this reality and...

K: This reality is ( inwardly?) 'empty'

DB : Yes.

K: Right ...This reality is (inwardly?) nothing !

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

K: No thing, right...

DB ; You see, reality is to be 'some thing', so when we say 'nothingness' it doesn't mean unreal -it is neither in or out there, it is out of that field...

K: Out of that field, yes...

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

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

DB : Yes, and energy...Now, the mind is nothing and reality is (inwardly speaking ?) nothing, although ultimately reality is 'thing' …

K: ( laughs) Yes...

DB : Which means that in this nothingness there is (enfolded?) a certain form, which is reality.

K: Reality, yes !

DB : But a form which ( on the inside ?) is nothing

K: Yes sir but that presuposes (the assumption ?) that 'there is nothing'...

DB ; Which is only an 'image' …

K: That's right !

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

K : There must be space between...there must be ( a contemplative inward) space...

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

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

DB ; Yes but we have to get it right, because ( logically ) it sounds wrong...

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

DB : Yes but before you said...

K:  : Ah, before I said ; people when say 'I see' there's a division ( created by the observer ?)

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

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

DB ; So, we can say that the second (kind of perceptive space) is including – this 'space' includes everything

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

DB : Yes, well, every thing is 'in space' – Space includes everything. We all know that space is not a division – you can amost call it 'the ground' of everything..

K : Yes.

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

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

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

K: Yes...

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

K: Without space I couldn't exist ! ( I wonder if we're talking of the same things...)

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

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

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

K : Space in the mind.

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

K: I can artificially create it...

DB : Yes... but I mean, we can see the whole reality is (contained) within ( an endless outer?) space, now is this 'whole of reality ( also contained?) within the space of the mind ?

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

DB : Yes...

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

DB : Yes...So this (inward ) nothingness is the same as freedom …

K: That's all what we're saying ; therefore truth is nothingness ; not-a-thing !

DB : Right...

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

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

K: Yes, controlled by (the pressures of the ) environment, distortions etc. So for a mind that is ( inwardly) empty,'no-thing', the seeing is the doing and the doing is truth & intelligence and so on... And is that space limited because of the mind ? Limited in the sense that this space is not created by thought, therefore it is not limited.

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

K: Yes...

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

K:Are you saying, Sir, that reality exists in this space of the mind ?

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

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

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

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

DB : Yes.

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

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

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

DB : It may have no place...

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

DB : We were saying at the end of the (discussion) last time, that truth can act in reality...

K That's right.

DB : Therefor this ( empty inner) 'space' can act in (the field of) reality, or in thought, although it's not the other way...

K: Yes ; one way...

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

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

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

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

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

K: That's right.

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

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

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

K: Yes.

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

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

DB : Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

DB : Harmony with that which is …

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

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

K: One way...

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

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

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

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

DB : Yes...

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

DB : Yes and that's the same as ( functioning in ) the field of reality...

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

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

K: Yes, that's right

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

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

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

K: Yes, it divides itself !

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

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

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

K: And therefore it is all divided.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Are we saying sir ; truth – when it operates in ( the fied of) reality, in that there is no division , so truth has............So you are telling me, don't be concerned with (pursuing the absolute?) truth – as you don't know what this means , be concerned with reality and its distortions. And you say to me : be free of distortions. And to be free of (thought's?) distortions, just observe the distortions. That 'observance' means freedom ! And therefore that freedom and that 'observance' will give you the energy to push away the distortions.
And the 'seeing' of the distortion is the truth

DB : Yes...

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

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

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

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

K: Of course, ( inwardly speaking ?) occupation means corruption !

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

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

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

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

DB : The rational function ?

K: Function, that's all !

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

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

DB ; Then truth is operating...

K: That's it ! Therefore (in meditation?) thought itself is a distorting factor.   If truth is not operating.

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

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

DB : But you see, there are two ways to look at it : without ( the inner light of) truth is thought creating distortions, or you can say that thought, whatever happens, is creating distortions.
I don't think you want to say that...

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

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

K: Quite, quite...

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

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

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

K: To measure...

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

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

DB : Yes, it's fine .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Sep 2019 #53
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

3RD ' reader-friendly edited K DISCUSSION WITH DAVID BOHM on 'Truth & Reality' 1975

K: What do we start off ?

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

K: Thought which is non-verbal...

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

K: ...to all the verbal associations.

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

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

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

K: What is that ?

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

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

DB : It depends on what you mean... ?

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

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

K: But that is (the common way of ) thinking, isn't it ?

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

K: Yes.

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

K: That is description...

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

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

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

K: Yes, quite...

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

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

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

K: Yes ; word, symbol and so on...

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

K: Is insight imagination ?

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

K: I see...You are saying that the insight is (the product of?) imagination?

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

K: I question that !

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

K: Yes, sir...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Obvious, right...

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

K: That insight, how does come about ?

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

K: I understand that...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K Words, yes...

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

K: Ahh, I understand it ! Yes...

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

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

DB : What do you mean by 'separate' ?

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

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

K: Yes.

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

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

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

K: That is, 'thought action' is ( qualitatively?) very different from 'insight action'

DB : Yes, allright...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: I am not sure...

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

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

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

K: Of course...

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

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

Dr Bohm: Perhaps one action that acts instantly is to see the
falseness.

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

Dr B: What is the nature of your insight, then?

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

Dr B: Yes, and therefore false.

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

Dr B: Or into falseness.

K: Or into falseness, and that action is complete, it's over and
done with. I don't know if I'm conveying it: that action is whole,
there is no regret, there is no personal advantage, there is no
emotion. It is an action that is complete. Whereas the action
brought about by thought, into the investigation and the analysis whether there is a God or no God, is always incomplete.

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

K: But the man speaks from an insight.

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

K: Yes, to convey something.

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

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

Dr B: And in doing that you may have to organise...

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

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

K: Yes...

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

K: No, but when conveying to another that insight verbally,
his action will be incomplete unless he has this insight.

Dr B: That's right. So you whatever you convey what will give someone
an insight.

K: Can you give an insight?

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

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

Dr B: But there is no guarantee that it will happen.

K: No, of course not.

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

K: So we come to this point: is there a thinking which is nonverbal?

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

K: Is the insight the product of thought?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr B: It could be considered as a cessation.

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

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

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

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

K: Yes.

Dr B.: But in some way, we said, truth can operate in thought,
in reality.

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

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

K: That's right.

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

K: That's clear.

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

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

Dr B: All right, then there is the necessity to operate.

K: Yes, necessity.

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

K: Most people have an insight, but habit is so strong they reject
it..
Dr B: I'm trying to get to the bottom of it, to see if we can break
through that rejection.

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

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

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

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

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

Dr B: It's very rigid.

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

Dr B: I don't do it purposely; it just happens.

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

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

K: Yes.

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

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

Dr B: It won't because thinking is 'what it is'.

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

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

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

Dr B: Yes, because then it's not solid.

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

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

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

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

K: No, the perception of that (inner truth ) is the ending of the conditioning.

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

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

Dr B: The insight into the falseness of it.

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

Dr B: Yes.

K: Now I don't know if I can convey something. I want to bring
this into action in my life. I have accepted reality as truth, I live in
that - my gods, my habits, everything - I live in that. You come
along and say "Look, truth is different from reality" and you
explain it to me. How will I put away that tremendous weight, or
break that tremendous conditioning? I need energy to break that
conditioning. Does the energy come when I see, "the observer 'is'
the observed"? I see the importance, rationally, that
the conditioning must break down, I see the necessity of it: I see
how it operates, the division, the conflict and all the rest of it
involved. Now when I realize that the observer 'is' the observed, there's a totally different kind of energy comes into being. That's all I want
to get at.

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

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

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

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

DB : Yes...

K: And you say, for God's sake... !
Dr B: It's only possible to communicate the intensity of this. We
already discussed all the other factors that are communicated.

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

Dr B: It seems nobody has really succeeded in it.

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

Dr B: Yes...everyone is expecting a path marked out in the field of
reality.

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

Dr B: It's not even refusal , it's something more unconscious perhaps...

K: Of course...

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

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

DB : I understand that...

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

DB : ...and of the great Masters...

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

DB : Yes, like the Buddha...

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

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

K: Life after life, after life...

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

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

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

K: What word would you use ?

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

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

Dr B: The material thing is vibrating to the emptiness.

K: The material thing is vibrating. Wait - is truth nothingness?

Dr B: Yes, because reality is some thing, perhaps every thing. Truth is no thing. That is what the word "nothing" deeply means. So truth is "no-thingness".

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

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

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

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

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

Dr B: Yes, that's clear...

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

Dr B: It's clear that every 'thing' is what we think about, therefore we
have to say the mind must not think about anything.

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

Dr B: That would make it into a 'thing'.

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

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

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

DB : It must be …

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

DB : Yes the (time-bound ?) consciousness is 'reality'. Not merely the 'consciousness of reality' ...

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

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

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

DB : That's all we need, you see ?

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

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

K: Right...

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

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

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

K: Is an actuality, yes...

DB : So there are two kinds of 'actualities' …(pause)

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

DB : Well, it acts in (the field of) reality

K: Acts in ( the field of) reality, lives in (this) reality – but its actions must be different – it's a 'one way' relationship as we said the other day...

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

K: Yes, of course...

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

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

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

K: We said consciousness 'is' (part of) reality...

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

K: That's right .

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

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

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

K: Yes. And you come along and say : Look : in 'no-thingness' there is complete security .

DB : Yes, now let's discuss that, because at first sight it seems very implausible - not only because 'no-thingness' is nothing, but also...

K: Just a minute, sir ! I say to you : in ( this inward) 'no-thingness' there is complete security and stability. You 'listen' and you get an insight into it – because you are attentive, there is this conversation going on between us, and you say, 'By Jove, that is so !'
But your mind -which is 'occupied' says : 'What the dickens is this ?'

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

K: Of course !

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

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

Dr B: Why is that? How do you make the connection?

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

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

K: Of course.

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

K: No, in no-thingness there is security.

Dr B: And this security must include physical security ?

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

Dr B: Yes, but then, the question almost immediately arises...

K: How am I to be ( physically) secure in the world of reality?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr B: Well, according to what you said, there is a certain
implication that in no-thingness we will be completely secure in
every way.

K: That is so, absolutely !

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

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

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

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

Dr B: But not necessarily physically.

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

Dr B: It makes you do the right thing.

K: The right thing in the world of reality.

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

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

Dr B: You have to do everything right.

K: Everything right according to that Intelligence, which is of
truth, of nothingness.

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

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

Dr B: Yes, I understand that.

K: Therefore there is no ( true inner) security (there)

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

K: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

K: Of course.

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

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

DB: I would say that this notion is present in many people, but they have so many bad experiences ( in the real world?) that it gets lost, you see ?
Implicitly there is a feeling that you are 'no-thing' inwardly, then nothing can harm you. I've seen many people express this thing, when I was younger, but then so many things happen and gradually it gets...

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

DB : I'm not sure people understand that ( inner state of no-thingness ) but I'd say there is a sort of idea...

K: Ah, an 'idea' !

DB : There's a notion of that...

K : Therefore I say, "Look, how are you going to give the beauty of that to me ? ...( Five to ten ?.... we'd better stop here )

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Oct 2019 #54
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

4-th ( reader- friendly edited) K-Bohm Dialogue on TRUTH & REALITY

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

K: Did they really like it ?

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

K: Why has ( the thought-sustained?) desire become such an important thing in life ?

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

K, Something missing...

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

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

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

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

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

K: I might long for that car...

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

K: Yes...

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

K: Is thought separate from desire ?

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

K: So would I...

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

K : Yes...

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

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

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

K: No...I see that car...

DB : That's a ( sensory) perception.

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

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

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

DB : But sensation is also part of perception ;

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

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

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

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

K: So 'I' play a tremendous part in perception.

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

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

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

K: Does imagination ( the image making?) come into it ?

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

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

DB : ...into something better, like ( the ideals of) Karl Marx 

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

DB : Which is very ugly !

K: Yes.

DB : As the sensation (of it) is unpleasant. ..

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

DB : It is an intense ( thought-sustained?) desire for an imagined state...

K: Or, is it ( the result of a direct ) perception ?

DB : Perception ? How is that ?

K: I perceive the ( ongoing?) rottenness and the corruption, or the (existential) 'malaise' of this society : I 'see' it ! That (direct) perception drives me, not my (personal) desire to change society. My perception says : this is ugly ! And that very perception is the 'action' of the movement to change it . I don't know if I'm making it clear ?

DB : Yes, but in that perception there is (included?) the ( personal) longing to change it .

K : Is there a longing ?

DB : You see, this is what desire is implying...I mean if you go back to the root meaning of that word, it means 'something is missing' – there's a longing for something that's missing...

K: Or, sir, I 'perceive' and as we said, that very perception 'is' action. The perception of the society as it is, - it is ugly' -let's use that word for the moment, and that very perception demands action !

DB : Yes, but now we can't act immediately...

K: No, but the ( intelligence of this) perception will formulate what action can take place.

DB : And that comes by 'thinking' about it …

K: Yes, of course !

DB : The perception formulates a demand 'for' or 'against' – through sensation

K: Yes, so is (the holistic?) perception part of desire ?

DB : Well, I should say, not in the beginning ; but as soon as it reaches the sense of 'ugliness' or of 'beauty'. If you 'see' the actual state of society without the sense of 'ugliness' or beauty...

K; No, perception is action. The ugliness of society is 'perceived'
And that 'perception' – I wouldn' use the word 'ugly' because than we'll have to go into conflict & so on. Perception is the root of action, and that action meets the time and all the rest of it. But where does desire come into this – I don't see it !

DB : Well, but it does seem to come in, doesn't it ?

K: As far as I am concerned, it doesn't...

DB : Why do you say that ? I mean, what do you say to those people who want to change society ?

K: I would say : is it your pereption that's acting, or your prejudice 'against' ?

DB : But that's still a desire, isn't it ?

K: That's a desire. Is perception part of desire ?

DB : I don't think it is...But you have frequently said that perception contacted sensation and sensation gives rise to desire...

K: Yes that is quite right but once there is ( a holistic?) perception, where does desire come in in carrying out that perception ?

DB : Well, in principle, if you could immediately carry it out, there would be no need for desire...

K: Yes, of course ; that's one thing... But (generally?) I can't carry it out immediately.

DB : Yes and then you see, something is missing : it should be this way what I see but...I can't carry it out immediately...

Dr P : Sir, desire is ultimately a motive power...

K: I don't accept that desire is ultimately the motive of ( a holistic) perception ! You 'perceive' ( the fact that?) society is rotten. Let's put it this way : the 'actuality' is perceived. In that ( holistic?) perception of actuality...where does desire come in ?

DB : But we'll have to find out why it comes in...

K: That's it !

DB : If I ( directly) perceive something very simple – like an apple and I'd like to eat it, then I just eat it and there's no problem of desire. On the other and, if I can't get the apple, there may come the problem of desire – I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but suppose I see something that I can't get immediately, or if I don't know how to get it...

K: Yes... ?

DB : And then desire may arise, although it doesn't have to...

K: May arise, because 'I' want that apple. So that' s one thing ; but (suppose ) I perceive ( or have a global perception of ?) the 'actuality' of society ; and I ask : where does desire come in ?

DB : If you do act, desire doesn't come in, but ( faced with a very complex problem?) you may feel that you don't know how to act...

K: I may not know how to act, therefore I will consult, talk...

DB:But then you might become discouraged, you see ?

K: Ah ! My perception is so clear – it cannot be discouraged...

DB : That may be so (for K?) but I am describing what it generally happens : I perceive the falseness & rottenness of society and I consider how to change it, I talk to people and after a while I begin to see that it doesn't change that easily...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And at some stage I may begin to feel that it may be not possible at all...
But then, there may come a longing to change it, nevertheless...

K: No. If I see that it's not possible to change, then it's finished !

DB : It is finished, yes, but then why is it that people don't accept that ? You see, I'm just describing the general experience : on seeing that it's not possible ( in a foreseeable future) there is still the longing for that change...

K: Yes, the longing for that which is not possible...

DB : That is the sort of desire that always gets frustrated and it creates all these problems

K: Yes, yes...

DB : Now on the other hand I cannot just accept that society will go on falsely forever...

K: Of course ! But I still don't see the connection between desire and (holistic) perception !

DB : Well, there may not be any...but then, why does it seem to be one ?

K: Is it ( a direct) perception that is driving them, or they have never perceived ( anything holistically?) and only desire is driving them ?

DB : Well, that may well be that their perception was born of desire – or what they think it's 'perception'...

K: Yes...

DB : But then the question is : where does desire originate ?

K: Oh, that is a different matter...

DB : I mean, this is something mysterious : why there should desire be there ?

K: No, I see that car, I'd like to own it – I associate ( the possession of ) that car with pleasure …

DB : But couldn't it be possible that at some stage the perception fails to be caught in that...You see, if you want to own the car, then there is no problem, unless it becomes an intense longing which is the desire which is driving you. But you also could say : I'd like to own that car, but if it's not possible...then I won't ( keep longing for it)

K: Ah, I see ...Then there is no problem !

DB : No problem, but you see, that's what is usually meant by (a time-binding?)
desire : longing for what you cannot get – and if you cannot get it you still long for it...

K: Aha ! I don't function that way !

DB : Yes, but we still have to understand this function ( of desire) since it seems to be a general function...

K: That is the general function, I agree.

DB : First of all, it is not clear why it should be there – not clear to me, anyway...

K: Which is, desire ?

DB : Desire, yes...I mean, rationally there is no reason for it, but as far as one can see, it's still there and it's very powerful all over the world...

K: Is desire based on sensation ?

DB : That's what we're exploring – I think that it's not entirely based on sensation...

K: Sensation, imagination...An imagined pleasure one is going to get...

DB : Yes, I think it's based on ( thought's?) imagination – not necessarily of pleasure, but also of beauty, of what is 'good' ...You see, almost all the things that are missing (in our modern existence) is 'imagined' ; and this gives a tremendous energy- you see, people generally desire what is beautiful...And in fact, take things like gold or precious stones, which have very little value in themselves, but people are attached to it because of the eternal beauty of it- and therefore they are ready to do anything for it...

K: It is the same as the desire for power, or for anything... How does it arise ? Is that it ?

DB : Yes, how does it arise and what is the meaning of it ?

K: How does it arise ? I see you driving a big car – you the politician in a big position- and I like that, I want that...

DB : Yes but it's not clear why I drive myself go to that length ?

K: It gives me a tremendous ( sense of?) pleasure...

DB : Yes, but then, why do I want the pleasure ?

K: I see...

DB : Unless, there would have been tremendous confusion of values

K: Or...'pleasure' is the only thing I know ; I live such a superficial life, this is the only ( rewarding ) thing I know...

DB : But I know a lot of other things...

K: I live such a superficial ( skin deep?) life – my education is superficial and pleasure is superficial...And so, I long for that !

DB : But if one may feel it is not superficial, then it must be something worth striving for ...I mean, if must at least appear not to be superficial, or else it's not worth longing for...

K: Of course, if I recognise pleasure to be superficial, I would not long for it.

DB : Yes, but somehow there is the feeling that pleasure is something is something else, something very significant, very deeper...

K: Is pleasure 'deep' ?

DB : No, although it may look that way...

K: Of course that it may look, but is it actually ?

DB : It isn't, but you see, why does it look that way ?

K: Why am I deceived by thinking that pleasure is very deep ?

DB : Yes … ?

K: What do you think ?

Dr P : The more lasting element in pleasure is demanding for its own continuity in the sensation of....

K: Sir, is pleasure one of the factors in covering my (inward) enptiness ?

DB ; Well, it may be, but I think that pleasure helps create the impression of a
full, harmonious life...

K: Ah, I see, is pleasure associated with beauty ?

DB : I think it is : in general people expect that pleasure will give them 'beautiful' experiences...

K: I understand that...( Suppose that ) I see something very beautiful – where does the pleasure arise in that ? I'd like to own it, I like to possess it....

DB : I like to have it forever – I'd like that (beautiful?) experience to be repeated somehow -not necessarily to own it but to look at it forever …

K: Yes...to be there. Why do I do this ?

DB : Because of the (obscure ?) fear that I'd be inwardly poorer without it ?

K: Is it because (deer down with)in myself I (may feel that) I am not 'beautiful' ?

DB : That may be part of it...This sense of not having contact with beauty in myself and therefore wanting something ( to compensate for that?)

K: So, is beauty 'out there' - and therefore 'I want it' ?

DB : Yes, even in the dictionary it says that 'beauty' is not only in the quality of the thing but also it is in oneself – they and the same thing : the quality of the 'thing' and the quality of (the inner ) sensation – and in some sense there is no division of the 'observer' and the (thing) 'observed'...I mean this idea is recognised in the Dictionary – that it belongs both to the 'observer' & to the (thing being ) 'observed' ...

K: Yes...

DB : But the way I look at this is : suppose I have no contact with (the outward thing of beauty) – and seeing this I (may try to) create 'beauty' in me...And then when the thing is gone, then I'm back in the previous state and (unfortunately enough?) I begin to long for that ( inward ) experience (of beauty again...

K: Yes... So, what is the problem, sir ?

DB : Well, I think the ( experiential) question really is to understand this process of desire – because without understanding it, the (time-binding) confusion of thought will never end... I mean we can be on one side of desire or on the other side – like when we've been discussing – sometimes desire may be on the side of the 'feeling' and at other times on the side of 'truth & actuality' ...and once this confusion arises, then it drives the whole mind into 'falseness'

K: Would you say that desire is in the field of 'reality ?

DB : Yes, it is in the field of reality but sometimes it seems to divide itself. In other words, once desire is in the (field of the ) 'feeling' , once this confusion arises, then it drives the whole mind into falseness

K : Can I desire truth ?

DB : You see, it is accepted in the general structure of the (philosophical) laguage that you can desire beauty, or goodness of truth – Now, I understand you're questioning that ?

K: Yes, I'm questioning that...Is ( the sense of inner) Beauty in the realm of reality ?

DB : ...or is Good in the realm of reality ? I should say that most ( mindful ?) people regard them as synonimous...In Latin they have the same root : 'bene (good) and 'beatus' (beauty) - which also means 'blessed' …

K: ( To recap:) as we said : '' Beauty, Truth & Goodness'' : is that ( holy combination to be found ) in the field of reality, ( a very noble concept?) created by thought and something I long to get at ?

DB : If it were in the field of thought, then I would reasonably long to have it – but I don't know exactly where to look for it because I'm ( karmically?) separated from it.

K: And is that ( universal sense of?) Good, Beauty and Love ( to be found ? ) in the field of reality ?

DB : No, that is something we discussed – it goes along with (the timelessneess of?) Creation...

K: Now, desire is in the field of reality...

DB : It is a movement in the field of reality but it's a (very tricky?) ... movement which can project something outside the field of reality – which (experientially- wise) it creates an almost impossible (situation) since such desire (for the 'absolute'?) can never be satisfied...

K: That which is projected ( by thought & desire) is part of reality...But one does not recognise that !

DB : That's right, but the same time, there is also the feeling that that is not all because even if you have achieved it, there's always the feeling that this is not all that I wanted …

K: But when it says this, it is still there !

DB : I know, this is an (intrinsical) contradiction – the field of reality gets broken in two : the part that you have and the part that you haven't got

K:
K: But it's still in the field of reality.

DB : Yes...

K: So, is Good(ness) in the field of reality ?

DB : No, I think it's clear it's not...

K: Obviously not ! Therefore longing for Beauty, as it is in the field of reality, is a movement of thought- projecting Beauty and longing for it

DB: Yes, or at least remembering beauty as it is perceived and longing to continue it, or for a new one...

K: Yes ; so could we say: what is the Beauty which is not in the field of reality ? What is Goodness which is not in the field of reality ?

Dr P : Wouldn't you say that there is goodness in the field of reality ?

K Of course there, is but we are talking about the Goodness which is not induced by thought...I can induce myself to be good, I can cultivate, practice ( the virtue of?) 'goodness' , but that is not the Goodness of Truth !

DB : Goodness can act in the field of reality, but I'm a little puzzled by Beauty – which is rather mysterious in some way...if you say there's an object in the field of reality like a tree that is beautiful ? But that is not Beauty- as Beauty is the essence is not in the field of reality …

K: I would say Beauty is not in the field of reality.

DB : Yes, but now the tree is in the field of reality...

K: The tree 'is' ; it 'is' !

DB : Right, but this point needs clarification because in the ordinary use of language, we say 'the tree is real'...

K: Quite, quite …

DB : So a lumberman would treat it as 'reality' …

K: I think that what 'is' is beautiful.

DB : Yes, but then we seem come into a difficulty of language : the tree is that which 'is' but..it is not 'real' ?

K; You are saying : we accept the tree as being part of reality, but that which 'is' we say is truth ; and I, looking at the tree bring it in the field of (the man-made )
reality by thinking about it...

DB : And also acting about it as a 'real' thing...

K: Of course, like the carpenter... Let me get this clear : we said ( the essence of) Goodness is not in the field of reality...

DB : It may act there, but its essence is not in the field of reality .

K: Its essence is not in the field of reality. Good works, good behaviour, good taste, good food, good thoughts - all that is in the field of reality. But Goodness-
the essence of it, is not in the field of reality. This wallpaper, created by thought is quite beautiful – the colours, the birds, the whole pattern of movement ( printed) on the wallpaper is beautiful ; it is created by thought and therefore it is in the world of (man-made) reality...

DB : Yes, and many ideas may be beautiful...

K: Of course, many (noble?) ideas and all the rest of it...So, where does desire...

DB : But we haven't finished with Beauty...We said that the tree is beautiful...

K: That which 'is' is (naturally?) beautiful.

DB : And we said that the ( design on the ) wall paper is also 'beautiful' …

K:That's quite different, I see it...

DB : So how do we get it clear ? You see, even that which is created by thought is also 'what is' . Now which is it ? Is it just matter of language ?

K: Ah, I see...Go slowly. That which is created by thought -like the car or the wallpaper...

DB : And which may be ( comparatively) beautiful...

K: There is a difference between 'what is' created by thought – which may be ( relatively?) 'good' and 'beautiful' – like good ideas, good food, good clothes , and we say, because that 'goodness' is created by thought it is in the field of reality. Now what's the difference between - the movement of (the painted) birds and the movement of the tree ? Both 'are' part of the world of reality and both are 'destructible' as is the tree...Both are 'beautiful' as is that tree in the field and we're saying : it 'is'.

DB : Now, are we discussing their 'actuality' ?

K: That's also actual...

DB : So is that what you mean by the word 'is' ?

K: Yes, both are actual...

DB : Yes and therefore both have their own 'activity' …

K: Both are 'actuality'. And we say : ( the timeless Essence of?) Beauty is not in the field of reality.

DB : Yes, but is it in the field of 'actuality' ?

K: Beauty is 'actual' but we're saying : Beauty -its essence -is not in the field of reality.

DB : Though it may act in the field of reality ?

K: Yes, it may act...Now, what is the difference, sir, between these two 'actualities' – one of which is in the field of reality and the other which is not in that field ? Is there an 'actuality' ( an 'is'-ness?) in the field of truth ?

DB : We were saying that truth 'acts'  , but we were raising the question whether there is an 'actuality' in ( the timeless dimension of?) the Essence ?

K: Both are 'actualities'...

DB : Yes, but they are of a different order of actuality, or two different kinds of actuality ? You see, the wallpaper was created by the thought of mankind, although it has some kind of (substantial) 'actuality' - the actual paper of which it was made (and which was not created by the thought of mankind)

K: Yes, but (essentially?) that wallpaper and the tree are the same...
Therefore why do we say : truth is not in the field of reality 

DB : Well , I think this goes back to the way we use the words- we said that 'real' means to be a 'thing' – what we think about, while 'truth' is unconditioned
it is 'no-thing'

K: Yes, 'no - thing'

DB : As ( the Essence of) Beauty is 'no-thing', Goodness is 'no-thing'...

K: That's right !

DB : But they are 'actual'  - that is what we're implying, right ?

K: Let's go slowly into this...If it is 'no-thing' , is there an actuality ?

DB : You see, that's the question...In the conference with the scientists you've mentioned ( contacting?) some sort of energy which was self-sustainable, non-contradictory, a self sustaining energy which is of a 'cosmic' sort...

K: Yes...

DB : And of which we could say it's the ( Ground ?) energy of That Which Is...is this what you mean to say ?

K: That's why we have to go into this carefully !

DB : Yes...You have mentioned that several times, but also in ( my domain of quantum) Physics there is this idea that there is ( an inexhaustible) energy in the 'emptyness ' of Space …

K: Yes, I agree, and which is orderly !

DB : Orderly I agree, in perfect order …

K: Sir, reality is 'thing'

DB : The totality of all things...

K: And ( the timeless dimension of?) truth is no-thing (not a thing?)
Now, the 'things' of reality create their own energy...

DB : A limited kind of energy?

K: Yes, and (the energy of this ) 'not-a-thing' is unlimited...

DB : And you're implying that that 'unlimited' energy ( of inward no-thingness?) is self-sustaining and therefore it does not depend on anything ?

K: Yes, it is independent ; this ( energy of reality) depends, the other doesn't !

DB : Yes, the 'thing' ultimately depends on That...

K: That's right, that why I said that we may get caught in that (thought?) trap
that 'God is in us', that that Supreme Intelligent energy is (already present in the consciousness of the temporal ?) man

DB : No, but man depends on it...

K: Because one doesn't depend on it, does it mean that one becomes 'evil' ?

DB : Let's try to put it differently : It is all related to whether the enegy of thought is one thing, or there is a ( holistic ?) energy which has been used wrongly... ?

K; Yes we have talked about this !

DB : Yes, but we never quite settled it...

K: Yes, we have never 'work it out'...

DB : I think it is similar to asking: is there only One energy which makes both the 'emptiness' and the 'things' or are there two energies ?

K: We are just discussing  whether there is only one energy which is mis-used in ( the field of ) reality and the same energy is 'no-thingness' ...( Silence)
No-thingness being ( the non-material energy of?) 'death' ! Right, Sir ?

DB : Right....

K: I'm just hesitating to put it forward : I think 'That' energy born of 'no-thingness', 'is' (qualitatively?) different for the other...

DB : Yes, but there is no interaction ?

K: I think there is an 'one-way' connexion, that is from 'no-thingness' to 'thing'
but not from the 'thing' to 'no-thingness'.
Now I want to go into this very carefully : is the energy of 'no-thingness' (qualitatively?) different from the energy of the 'thing' ? For the moment I see that it is 'different' – in the sense of being 'dissimilar'

DB : Yes, that is one meaning of 'dissimilar' but that still allows for a one-way relationship.

K: Or are both the same, in the field of reality and therefore misused and all the rest of it...The 'other', it is endless.

DB : Well, let's try t put it this way : there is One energy which includes the 'finite', rather than saying that they are two : The 'infinite' includes the finite, but it does not exclude the other ; that is one proposal...

K Yes, that is one ( fine intellectual?) proposal, and the other 'proposal' is that there is no relationship from the 'thing' to the...

DB : Yes, but ( intellectually-wise?) that is the same as the first proposal : the infinite includes the finite, but not the other way around.

K: (silent pause) I see it for being different : 'no-thingness' is 'death' -as we said (the 'un-manifested' dimension of cosmic energy ?) – which means 'total ending', right, sir ? In the word of 'reality' thought ( brain's survival oriented process of thinking ) has never an ending -right, sir ? Thought creates its own energy. Hmm ? Or are both ( energies the same) one degenerates – (in other words?) the 'source of water' is polluted in the field of reality, but it's the same 'water' as the energy of truth ?

DB : Aha !

K: Is that it ? You misuse it and somebody else doesn't misuse it ! That's one view of it, or is the Energy of that 'Source of No-thingness' totally different- ( qualitatively?) dissimilar ?
Let's put it this (in a meditation -friendly?) way ; from the 'field of reality' can there be a ( deliberate?) 'movement' to 'truth' ?

DB : No...

K: Why ?

DB : because (thought's movement in) the field of reality is conditioned, as being made of things...

K: So, as truth has no connection to the field of reality then it has no ( automatic?) connexion to the field of reality …

DB ; But, there is still a ( potential?) 'one-way' connexion... ?

K: A one-way connexion, yes ...but not a (2-way) interacting relationship

DB : Not a 'mutual' connexion...Perhaps you could say that 'truth' acts in the world of reality through 'death' – like in 'ending' the false ?

Yes, so we go back to the same thing : ( the illusory continuity of) thought can
be 'ended'. One can see that...so is that 'ending of thought' the same (quality of energy as that of ?) the not-a- thing ? No Sir...I think the two energies are totaly different

DB : What ?

K: The energy of 'no-thing' is totally different from the other.

DB : But then, you haven't explained why there can be the relationship in which the energy of 'no-thingness' can act in the field of reality.. ?

K: It can oprate because it 'is ' everything !

DB : What do you mean by 'being everything' ?

K; Because in no-thingness ...( laughs ! one must be very careful here!)
We're saying 'no-thingness' means 'ending' -that is (inwardly being ?) 'not a thing' ! In the world of reality 'ending' means the modified continuation of thought. Now this has no continuity ( the ending of truth) that has continuity

DB...in the word of 'reality' .

K: 'This' has a movement in time, 'that' has no movement in time. Are they the same movement ?

DB The small movement is contained in the larger.

K: That's it !

DB : Because in the conference with scientists you used the analogy of a small area inside a Big Space ; maybe we can look at time that way ?

K :I can still feel in my blood -put it this way, sir : In the field of reality 'Love' has a very definite (personal?) meaning : jealousy and all that...

DB : But Love can act in the field of reality in a 'clear' way, you see ?

K: ( The compassionate intelligence of?) Love can act in the field of reality, but the 'love' in reality is not Love.

DB : That's ( the sentimentalism of?) desire

K; So the Love in no-thingness, can act in the world of reality. Buth 'this' can never be polluted in the field of reality. Therefore it is something 'entirely original' !

DB : Hmmm...

K: Sir, can it be expressed the other way around ? We say (that inwardly-wise the significance of ) 'death' is ending ; and that which has a movement in the (thought-time?) sense, has no (spiritually redeeming possibility of?) 'ending' and we said this 'inward' death is the ending of everything  - of every 'thing' !
There is no relationship between the two ! I would like to think that I can use the World of Truth ( in the field of ?) 'reality'

DB : But we've been saying so far that 'truth acts in the field of reality...

K: Is that so ? Can it ? Can the 'not-a thing' – which has no movement ...How can 'not-a- thing' act in the world of reality ?

Reality is a 'thing'

DB : You see, there is anothe (scientific) view that in the world of reality the 'thing' only appears to be solid...

K: Sir, would you put it this way : a mind that is not living in the 'world of 'measure';can that mind operate in the world of measure ?

DB ; But what does operate then ?

K: Only ( thought's objective?) measure !

DB : In the world of 'measure' Now, suppose I make a measure and then I see it's 'false '

K: Then I can correct it !

DB : Yes, but before I can do that, I have to 'see' that (its premises ) are false …
Now, isn't that the operation of truth ?

K: Ah, no ; because I can measure the table and then I see that it doesn't fit in the room...

DB : But how do I see that (inwardly?) If the mind were operating clearly I could see the (nature of the falseness ), but if it becomes confused ...I may not see it....

K: ( Now, back to our to our 'real life' example ) if I measure it properly I would get it right. But it is still in the world of measurement !

DB : So, measurement operates only in the field ( of what is) measurable...
But it's important that thought should be clear and free of confusion falseness
Now, what is the difference between the mind in which thought is 'false' and the mind in which thought is not false ?

K: Can't the falseness be seen in the world of reality ?

DB : Rather, it is the truth about it that can be seen...The truth of the world of reality is ...its falseness.

K: Yes, yes...Sir can we say it this way- the world of 'reality' is (based on?) measurement, and that 'measurement' may be false or correct...
Now (in the inward field of?) 'no-thingness' – there is no measurement!( no 'thing' to be measured since thought has ended...?)
Now, what is the relationship between the two ? This has measurement, that is not measurement

DB : Yes, but what is it that sees that the measurement is 'false' ? You see, if it is false, it brings contradictions – now, what is it that 'sees' the contradiction ?

K: Pain !

DB : Yes, but it doesn't always work...You see, (thought's process of comparison, evalution & ) measurement has no criteria within itself which can guarantee its correctness...There's something 'beyond' that is needed !

K: Quite...But if my 'measurement' (thinker's evaluation of the actual situation ?) is incorrect, there is an (inward or outward?) 'disturbance'...

DB : Yes, but then I might ( surreptitiously?) suppress the awareness of that disturbance...

K: Yes, but it (the false?) is still in that area !

DB : But what is it that perceives that disturbance ?

K; I perceive that I am disturbed !

DB : Yes, but many people don't perceive that …

K: Because they are insensitive ; they are not aware, they are not conscious (inwardly) ! But the ( residual) pain of that contradiction is still there !

DB : Yes, but then, why are they not 'conscious' of it ?

K: Because of my (lopsided) education...I can give you ten different reasons...

Dr P : It may be that 'reality' becomes part of our consiousness through attachment, and the mind which (is living in ) 'emptyness' has no attachment...

K: Let's stick to this : there is no measurement in nothingness ; there is measurement in the field of reality...false or correct. And Dr Bohm says : who is the entity that perceives the falseness ? It is the same mind which has 'measured' !

DB : Yes, but then there is no meaning to it because this may false at the next step...

K: Of course..

DB : But then there seems to be some meaning to it because...

K: Because it's suitable, convenient, etc...but it is still ( lingering there?)

DB : But in that field there is no way to guarantee pure correctness...

K: Agreed.

DB : Now we can see that in some people there may be more ability (in this regard) or less ability...Now it seems to me that there has to be some 'perception' beyond that field...

K: You can only say there is another perception when there is that ( inward) nothingness ! Now is that 'no-thingness' a verbal structure or ( the one way link with?) the world of truth ? If it is a verbal structure, a theory, a ( working?) hypothesis and all that sort of things...then it is still in the world of reality...
Here (in the inward nothingness ) there is no 'entrance' for thought...Therefore it is nothing !
And we were saying : is there a relationship between the two ? That is the central point we're trying to find out....
Now, there is no relationship between this & that but I make a endeavour, struggle to reach that I may imagine that I have a relationship to that – which is 'desire'. And why am I do this ? Because I want ( to reach) something ( a higher state of consciousness?) that is permanent, that can never be hurt...So I project -as an idea, as an imagination or as a hope that (within myself?) there is that. When I project from this to that, whatever the projection is, it is unreal, imaginary ; a fantasy ! Now if there is actually that 'nothingness' , what is the connexion between the two ?
In ( inwardly) dying to ( the psychological attachments to thought's) 'reality' , only then there is 'nothingness' ! Which means, 'dying' to ( one's attachment) to all the 'things' thought has created . Which means dying to all the things of measurement, the movement of time...
I know nothing about this 'nothingness' !( explosive laughter) I can't even imagine it – I simply don't know what it is ! ( Experiential clue :) I am not even concerned with it...but I'm only concerned with 'this' as I live in this...And here I am always caught between the 'false' and the correct...Between the false measurement ( false evaluation of my reality?) and the correct measurement
Or pursuing the one and rejecting the other, but ( my inner conflict?) is still here

And do I see this 'totally' ? That desire has no end, hope has no end, struggle has no end if I live ( time-bound?) here... I shut my eyes to all your inventions, etc ; and my ( existential) desire is to 'see' all this !

DB : Yes, but if is still a desire  is stll if this !

K My hope, my longing for this...But , I'm still exercising thought therefore I'm still caught in the trap of that. So you tell me end this ( linear?) thinking- I can end it ! But is that 'ending' different from this ?

DB : What do you mean, what is the difference ?

K: I can 'end' ( the time-thought process?) by persuasion, by 'practice'...

DB : But that is not (really ending it ) ?

K : Of course but I can 'feel' that I have ended it ! Therefore you'd still be there.
Is there an 'ending' here without a motive ?

DB ; It seems that you've brought in 'nothingness' implicitly by saying : no motive...

K: Yes...so if I see the thing completely, there is a (spontaneous?) ending...Then, that 'is' this ! Then it's nothing !
But I think there was a wrong (potentially confusing ?) question from my part ''Is there a relationship between the two ?'' I won't even ask it because I only know 'this' ! All the priests have said, all the...but I say '' As I know only this !' And (unfortunately?) all my energy is limited to this ( grim field of reality?) corrupted, distorted, pathological ... And there is this man who says there is a nothingness...He just says it , he doesn't relate 'this' and 'that' He said : There is no-thingness. How do you 'catch him' ? He doesn't say ''In this 'no-thingness' everything is'' (for obvious pedagogical reasons?) becauses he sees the 'danger' ( of self delusion?) . I won't give him nothing ( to cling to )
And the ( temporal?) man says '' What is the use of that ?'' It is not marketable, it doesn't relieve my (existential?) pain, my 'agony' ...Keep it to yourself !
But for for someone ( holistically incined ?) living in the field of reality, this ( spiritually uncompromising statement ) means something - I will keep to this !

DB : So, basically you are saying that we got to approach something this with a feeling that you've got somethin wrong – because whatever you're saying about this (inward nothingness) is still in the field of reality...

K: Right, Sir . The energy of nothingness is 'quite' different from the energy of this, but he (K ) says don't bother about it, just look at this ( field of reality) and get out of it ! Don't bring in Cosmos into the limited …

DB : Hmm, but you did bring it in the discussion with the scientists …

K: I brought it in because I wanted them to know that 'something' existed beyond this blasted little stuff …
( To recap:) You come along and say: Look : There is a state of (inward) nothingness You say that, and it is tremendously true to you – it means 'dying', not a thing in his mind. And I have a feeling – because he has said it so passionately - that it is 'true' -because his very presence, his very saying has ( the perfume of?) That …
And if I would want to 'pull him' into this he says : Go to hell ! You can't do it ! .Otherwise we get caught in the ancient ( very comforting ? ) trap : 'God is here'...Does this answer your original question , Sir ? That Beauty, Goodness, Truth – the purity of this in 'Nothingness' , But the 'good' the 'beautiful' 'love' and the (measurably ?) 'correct' are all in here ...I think that's right .

DB : I think one has an expectation that a man who lives (immersed) in nothingness would not produce and act which is 'evil'

K: You see, that's a wrong question...

DB : Yes but we have to look into this question since it is present in our cultural tradition all over the world- that a man who acts from 'nothingness' or from God...would not do 'evil' things...

K: Sir, there is in the Hindu and the Jewish world, the (sacred symbol of the ) 'Nameless' - and I live here and name Him all the time. And He doesn't even recognise the name ! I think that's true, so my only concern is – to bring some order?) here . Do I see the totality of this ? And if I see it I'm out !
That's right Sir, that holds truth- I'll stick to it !
Therefore there is no relationship between the two...

Sir, a man who experiences 'death'... I won't use the ( dualistic) word 'experience' ! A man who 'dies' – not under anesthesia or because he's ill- but he's here and he's 'ending' ( the 'thought-time' continuity?) The 'ending' in the field of reality is quite different !

Love, Sir, the love that exists in reality is one thing ; that same word cannot be applied here - you can call it compassion or something else (Divine Mercy or Grace?) But it's not the same ( experiential) content of that word...

DB : You were describing 'love' as the movement in relationship , but if you're not using the same word...it's not clear... ?

K: Sir, nothingness is someting entirely different thing – therefore my relationship here is a 'movement' in time, in change, in breaking down one 'image' and introduce another image and so on & on...That is when there is no more ( artificial) division between the 'perceiver & the'perceived'  when they are 'one', then you can (rightfully) ask : what is 'relationship' ?
And I say, do that (prep work?) first and then you can answer !

DB : That's right …

K; (Parting words ? ) Dr Bohm has climbed the Everest – he can describe the beauty of all that , but...I'm still in the valley and I long to have that vision of what he has seen. My desire is to (reach) that or for the description ? In the actual climbing there is no desire, but in achieving the descriptions of what he has seen, there is 'desire' . Right, Sir ? I think that holds it...We are caught in 'description' , not in the actual climbing...

DB I think it's five thirty – an hour and a half...

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 06 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 13 Oct 2019 #55
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

5-th ( 'reader-friendly' edited) K Dialogue with David Bohm on Truth & Reality

DB : When we discussed last time there were a few points and consequences which I think they are interesting . Briefly it is this : over the years we have seen that thought moves in inevitable contradictions -from one to another...

K: Yes...

DB : And then we said, let's try to kep thought in its place – where it is technically efficient in the field of reality, but then one discovers that thought cannot stay in its place...

K: It cannot...

DB : Because the moment it defines a place, it is already gone beyond that place – it is in a state of permanent contradictions. Until now the general tendency was to say : yes, there are certain things that are wrong with thought, but let us see if we can straighten them out – and the ultimate straightening out was to keep it in its place, but it won't stay in its place ; therefore it occurred to me the idea that perhaps thought cannot be strenghtened out. Perhaps by its very nature...

K: (laughs) ...it's crooked !

DB : Now if that's the case, it seems to me that we need some other energy, some other movement that will carry out our practical functions. There might be another movement which will carry out the same functions but without becoming crooked...

K: Yes...I see that

DB : And that would seem to me a good point to start.

K: Are we saying sir, that thought being in itself contradictory and when it tries to put order in that contradiction it creates further disorder and that thought can never have its right place ?

DB : Yes, even if we were to start out fresh, it would come to the same thing.

K: Yes...And we're asking : is there an (intelligent) energy which will carry out these functions without becoming crooked ?

DB : Yes, because unless we can find that (intelligent energy) we must turn to thought …

K: Quite. How does one investigate it, or how does one discover – after realising the intrinsic nature of thought - what is the new instrument which will discover that (new) energy ?

DB : Yes, we started looking at that last time and we discovered there is a very serious trap, because thought is always projecting itself into anything.

K: Yes. So we are asking whether thought can ever be an instrument that can discover something which is not 'crooked' ?

DB : There is one more point we might discuss: you have often talked about the 'negative thinking' which is really the discovery of contradictions within one's thought …

K: Yes...

DB : And I've been studied this : people have known this as 'dialectic' – according to the dictionary 'the art of discussion through questions and answers

K: I know, but it also means offering opinions …

DB : Not exactly ; it starts with accepting something which people thinks 'reasonable' – which may be an opinion and to move from there to discover thought's inevitable contradiction. Now there are two ways to look at this : one is to simply 'drop it'...

K: Isn't there in ( discovering the ) contradiction a synthesis ?

DB : That depends...one of the exponents of dialectic, I've studied is Hegel, who has carried it quite far. He says that at a certain stage thought reveals its contradiction, then it 'suspends' itself and one sees the emptiness of the forms of contradiction ; but then he goes on to a new idea which will resolve the contradiction...

K: Aha.. 

DB : And then it moves on & on. Now in order to stop it moving on & on, he introduces the concept of the 'absolute idea'...which he didn't notice that it could be another idea...

K: (laughing) These clever people get caught in their own web...

DB : Yes...and if we pursue that we can see that there's no much point in pursuing the contradiction on & on and we see that thought is inherently creating contradictions and we come to the point which you raised – that thought should find its right place which again you can't . So we've carried the dialectic further than Hegel did and this inevitably leads to the point that thought might end itself.

K: End itself, quite !

DB : I was told by Narayan that Buddha was a great master of dialectic and perhaps he did use it that way, but in general it has not been used that way...

K: I don't know Buddhism very well – I don't know it at all – except at the superficial mutterings of Buddhist ( monks & ) priests and so on. I was told that a Buddhist scholar – Nagarjuna- went much further saying that in ending thought there is 'nothingness'.
So, we've come to the point where thought being contradictory, through
'dialectics' thought can resolve it, hoping that by a certain point thought can see its 'absurdity'...

DB : Yes...

K: And thought conceives a new pattern...It is still (self-centred) thought !

DB : Still thought, yes...

K: So, we've reached that point, and we see that the movement of thought must always be contradictory, self-centred and so on...Can that (time-binding process of) thought end and a new 'energy' operate in the field of reality and not bring about contradictions in the field of reality ? That's it , we got it !

DB : Yes...one more point that can be added is that intelectually we can see the contradictions and on the side of 'feeling' we can see them through ( the frustrations of?) desire. It comes to the same thing...

K: Exactly ! If you talk about thought it is useless to talk about desire !
Right ? Or should we go into desire ?

DB : If we can say a few things about it, that may help ?

K: Sir, when you used the word 'desire' you used it in the sense of feeling, demand, and also in the ( original) meaning of this word : longing .

DB : Longing, yes...

K Clinging to, seeking the ultimate pleasure in different forms – the highest, the lowest and so on & on...Surely, all that is in the field of thought ! Desire is one of the 'arms of thought' !

DB : Yes, it starts producing feelings...

K: Would there be that 'feeling' if thought didn't enter into that area ?

DB : Now that's the question : in our general culture it is accepted that there would be one...

K: I know...

DB : But on the other hand if we were not identified with thought as a second kind of feeling, it's hard to say what it would be …

K: Yes, quite...I desire this house – in that desire is included the longing for what thought has created...and I want the 'image' of what thought has created as pleasurable...and wanting that pleasure. I don't think there is a difference between desire & thought !

DB : Yes, and the contradiction in desire comes in the same way – just as there is an inherent contradiction in thought, there is an inherent contradiction in desire.

K: Yes...inherent ! But just a minute : when I am young I desire a woman, (then) I desire a house – I change the objects of desire, but desire remains !

DB : Desire remains, but its objects are always contradictory...You see, it won't stay with an object – if you get the object it will move to another one...just the same as thought would not stay (put) but move from one thing to another..

K: That' it ! That's clear...

Dr P : Now this continuous movement of thought is a continuous 'projection' and the person doesn't come to know of this movement so there is a continuous 'chasing' there...and his life is between the projection and himself...

K: Quite..

Dr P : This is a process of conditioning that starts from feeling (moving) to the 'image' formation...

K: What do you mean by 'conditioning' ?

Dr P : If you have a young child he has no 'thinking' process stated but a 'feeling' process...

K : I wonder if that is not ( still an incipient form of) 'thinking' - so it is a 'dangerous' ( over-simplifying ?) thing to say that the child has no thought but only feeling …

DB : Yes...Some psychologists (like Piaget) have sudied that and they say that the young child has a 'non-verbal' form of thinking - a 'motor' thought , like an animal...And he thinks that through his 'images' and through his 'motor activity'
the child is still 'thinking' in terms of pleasure & all that...

K: Non-verbal...

Dr P : But it seem the child doesn't think in terms of the 'I'

K: I cling to this toy and another child comes and takes it I hold it  : That is the origin 'I' 

DB : Or the child clinging to his mother ; when the mother goes away...

K: Of course ! What problem is that !
So sir, we said : desire in its very nature is contradictory, though the objects may change ; but in its essence desire is contradictory, as thought is contradictory. Now we're saying ; is there an ( intelligent?) energy wich operates in the field of reality without becoming crooked ( corrupted?) ?
You see, when I have discussed in India with all the 'pundits' & others, they have said : this 'energy' is ( of a ) divine (nature) – I'm using their words- and therefore it can never operate in the field of reality – but if it does, it can never go contradictory ( 'personal') – they 'invent' ( a transcendental energy ?) -they presuppose, or they 'imagine' an energy which is unconditioned – which is (called) Brahman, or Soul, or God.
Now, if we can 'erase' (put aside?) from our mind that process of invention or 'imagining' -and one must if one really find out ( the actual truth?)
then what have we (to deal with?) We have only process of 'thought & desire' – which in its essence is 'crooked' in operation and ...we know nothing else Right Sir ?

DB : Yeah...

K: I think that would be the 'sane' ( rational ?) position. I'd like to start that way, otherwise this 'crooked' nature of thought and its desire which constantly changes its longing...And I am (becoming aware of?) my consciousness in which all movement is thought & desire. Right sir ?

DB : Yeah...

K: That consciousness – because it is all the time in movement, has never found ( the inward access to ) an energy which is not contradictory, an energy which is not produced by desire & thought. So, what shall I do ?
Then my (experiential) problem is : can 'thought' see its own movement and the futility of its own movement ?  Futility in the sense of being contradictory, conflicting...

DB : Yeah, 'seeing the totality' of it. We'd have to 'see it totally' !

K: Totally, that's what I mean ! Of course …Can thought see the totality of its movement in consciousness- see it as a whole ?

DB : Well, there is here a difficulty which perhaps makes it look impossible : when we ordinarily look at something, that very thought separate itself from what we look at ; so when you say ''I am that thing that thought thinks about', this thought is not sustained...

K: Let's move from there : my consciousness is myself ; there is no separation between myself and the content of my consciousness is 'me'...

DB : Yeah...

K: That I see. Is this 'seeing' withing the content of the consciousness or outside ? When I say ''I see the contradictory' nature of thought '' Is that 'seeing' an intellectual perception ( the result of a ) verbal comprehension, or is it an actual perception ? Or I imagine that I see, I desire ? Is 'seeing' a movement of thought ? If it is, then I don't 'see' -there is no ( direct) 'seeing'.
Then when does the mind say 'I see' ?

DB : Only when the movement of thought stops ?

K: That's it ! And what made it stop ? How has that come about ?

DB : Seeing the contradiction or the absurdity...

K; But does thought 'see' it ?

DB : No, it's the attention to what thought is doing …

K: There is attention to the actuality – the 'actual' is being seen.

DB : Yes...

K: The 'actual' which is the creation of thought – desire, the movement of  thought – that's the actual. And 'who' is it that 'sees' it- how does it happen ?

DB ; Well there's nobody that 'sees' it...

K: That's what I want to get at...

DrP : I think attention is the thing that sees !

K: I don't want to go back ! I don't operate that way, I want to start anew !
I've got a problem : somebody tells me that thought is everlastingly moving from pattern to pattern, in contradictory patterns, contradictory desires- when thought does that, there can be no solution there is no solution to ending sorrow, confusion , conflict & all that. And I listen to him because he's telling me something that is very serious: I respect what he's saying and I say : Give me a moment and I (will hopefully ) see (the totality of) it ! What do I see ? The verbal (intellectual) pattern ( of what he's saying?) The verbal description – and therefore I've got the 'colour' of the painting of his description ? Or  is it an intellectual grasp of what he's saying or it has nothing to do with all that but only ( direct?) perception ? I'm just asking : how does that (direct perception?) happen ? I 'listen' to him, I respect what he's saying : to me it seems logical, sane and actual – and then at the moment I see the whole of it ! Not the fragments put together, but the 'whole' movement of desire, thought, contradiction, the whole movement from pattern to pattern, the excuses & so on- I see it completely as a whole ; and my action of 'seeing as a whole' is totally different from thought's action...How does it happen ?

DB : Well, it is not clear what you mean by 'how' ?

K: I'm sorry, I shouldn't say 'how' !

DB : Let me just say something : when I looked at it and saw that thought cannot be made straight, I couldn't describe it, but at that moment I was no longer interested to 'make it staight'. I thought that was the direct action of 'seeing'.

K: Are you saying : does thought see itself in its movement in contradiction ?
Is that what you're saying ?

DB : I'm saying that when there is 'seeing' the whole movement no longer continues...

K: Does thought 'see itself' ?

DB : No, no...It seems to me that there is a bigger movement...

K: That may be imagined by thought, or it is what scientists say , but I don't know anything about it....All that I know is this : that in listening with attention & respect I see this ; I understand the whole of it ! You don't have to talk anymore about it -I see the whole of it ! What brought this about ?
If you say 'attention' – this attention implies that there is no 'center' -center as thought which has created the 'me' and the 'not-me', and therefore I receive eveything he says without 'twisting' it !

DB : But isn't there a thought without the 'centre ? In other words, can there be
thought before the centre ? The weakness of thought is that it separates itself from what it thinks about – the imaginary 'other' which it calls the object, but which is still thought...

K: Yes, I see all that...

DB : Now, does that take place before the creation of the 'center' or the 'center' is something else ?

K: I don't quite follow this...

DB : You see, if I say, the essential function of thought is to 'reflect' – to create an 'image'...

K: Which becomes the 'centre'...

DB : Yes, let's get this straight...You said ''The image becomes the 'centre' – this is not quite clear to me ...Let's say I'm thinking of a tree- that which I'm thinking about becomes separate from 'me' Therefore it seems that I have created two 'images' – one is the 'tree' and the other is 'me'...

K: That's right : the 'me' is the image that thought has created …

DB : And the 'tree' also ...but it seems that thought presents these two as separate ... Now it would seem from what you're saying that thought cannot exist without a 'centre' Hm ?

K: Yes, that's right...

DB : But if 'something' could awaken, then we wouldn't have the 'centre'...

K: That's right ! Pupul (Jayakar) raised this question ; Is the seeing
within the field of consciousness ? Hm ? That means 'seeing' must have ( free inward?) space, and is there in our consciousness a 'space' which is not touched by thought ? And therefore from that (free inner) space arises the total comprehension ?

DB : Yeah...But it's part of consciousness ?

K: That's it ! It's part of the content of consciousness which has been conditioned ? In that case, where from where does that perception come ?

DB : When that free inner space is part of consciousness ?

K: Yes...I see that this space is still within the space of consciousness, still within the field ( of thought & ) desire -still within the field of reality that thought has created...Is there a (possibility?) for a 'seeing' , a 'perception of the whole' outside of it ? And if there is an 'outside' seeing – if I can use that word-
then thought with its movement between 'centre' & perifery, comes to an end....'Seeing' is the ending of thought...Would you say that ?

DB : Yeah...

K: Perception is not the movement of thought...

DB : Yes, that is, when you perceive a contradiction thought stops...

K: You see the truth outside the field of consciousness. Truth is not within the consciousness- if it was in the field of reality, then it will be a contradiction...
If it is not in that field, then it is 'truth' . Then you see it ; and because you see it, thought' action in the field of 'reality' is never 'crooked' Right ?

DB : Yes but it raises a question here : Is it possible that you 'see' it and yet...you fall back in it ?

K: Into the field of 'reality' ? Never...if you 'see' it !

DB : I mean, just once is enough?

K: Absolutely !

DB : Hmm. ..

K: If I see, if there is a perception of that ; how can I get back into something which is not 'true' ?

DB : But then, how do you come to make mistakes ?

K: Let's look at it ! ...For the moment I am just exploring : all action is in the field of reality. And we're saying that truth's action in the field of reality is never contradictory. And you say : there can be mistakes made by truth, right ?

DB : I don't know who is doing them...there might be mistakes which I wish to understand

K Right...As there is a perception of truth, that perception operates in the field of reality. Would it be a mistake when you take the wrong direction of the road ? The wrong road ?

DB : Well, it depends on how you use the language...or you simply by lack of information you chose one way of the road...

K: This lacking information – the way you look at it ; you say I'm making a mistake . So, truth operating in the field of reality & not having sufficient information can take the 'wrong' direction

DB : Yes ...

K And you looking at him from 'out there' say : ''He's mistaken, therefore he's never seeen 'truth'''

DB : That is one way of looking at it ...but you also : can say : What is the sign of a man who has not seen truth ? I mean, not merely that he makes mistakes ?

K: That's very simple to see that he lives a very contradictory life.

DB : As he lives in self contradiction, you should be able to distinguish from a mistake and having the wrong information...

K:Yes, that's it : wrong information ! Now what am I to do ? There is a perception of truth and I have to act in the field of reality- do you make a 'mistake' – mistake being that which is not truthful ?

DB : So we'll have to be very clear about what is 'truth' …

K: Exactly...Truth being (something ) that thought cannot perceive, realise or express it. Reality can't. The logic that thought spins out becomes illogical

DB : I'd like to put it this way : there is an actuality which is independent on though and an actuality which is being created by thought – like that microphone- and also there is a feeling behing these images. Now thought looses track that it has created those images and then recognises it again as something that it has not created. And that mistake can't be corrected – because thought lacks the information. Now we could say that truth makes no such 'mistakes'.

K: Once you have seen something dangerous, it's finished ! But thought can create a danger by creating an 'image' which is unreal and hold on to that image
which becomes a danger...

DB : Yeah, because thought has lost track of the fact that it has made it...

K: That's right...So, we are saying 'Truth cannot make a mistake'...

DB : And if it makes mistakes it's because of wrong information – it is like a computer- if you give it wrong information...

K: That's it ! you see that 'organised' religions has no truth in it. You 'see' it totally ! You can't go back & organise their religious stuff : it's finished ! And your action will be totally 'logical' – never contradictory , right ?

DB : Yeah...Now several people asked me that most human beings are not capable of such perfection...

K: It is not 'perfection' !

DB ; In one sense it is not, but in anther sense it is....

K: I don't see it as 'perfection' !

DB : I realise that...

K: I see it as a man who is sensitive, attentive – and 'sees' the danger- and therefore doesn't touch it !

DB : Well, I've talked with a few of the scientists – and especially with one of them- I think he's got some idea of what you mean, but he's rather dubious that he's ready to drop all his ( personal) attachments...

K: Why ?

Db : I don't know...

K: Why should it be 'inhuman' to see truth?

DB : You're right, there is no reason, it's merely a tradition...

K: That's it ! The thickness of the 'wall' that thought has created...

DB : I mean it has been a tradition to be 'modest' – ''It's only human to err.''..

K: There's no question of modesty about it ! But I think that one has to have a great sense of ( inward) humility to see truth  ! And I think the expression of this is still humility...

DB : Yes, I understand that...

K: Let's go back to the question of Pupul : Is there a 'space' in consciousness – which is not created by thought ? Is there any part of one's consciousness which thought has not touched ?

DB : I should think it's impossible, because thought is an (interactive) 'structure' and every part of thought touches any other part...

K: All fragments in consciousness are related...

DB : And the connexions are quite amazing ...for instance you can see that a certain word is not part of our language – and that's connected immediately to the whole of your memory …

K: Right, take the word 'oak treee ' – it doesn't exist in sanscrit...

DB : I mean, anybody can tell immediately that a word doesn't exist in the language....

K: Right, all words are inter-related ...So all fragments of one's consciousness are inter-related...and so there is no space, no corner, no hidden spot where thought hasn't touched...

DB : Or has the potentiality of touching.

K: Yes, as we said, all thoughts are related, all fragments are related...

DB : And this the cause of one of the main contradiction of thought – to treat them as 'unrelated' .

K: Yes...So, that being so, what brings about the 'act' of perception ?

DB : You frequently ask this kind of questions for which the answers are not clear...

K: I think the (experiential) answer is clear when thought comes to an end...

DB : Yes that's what you said before . But then one asks : what brings it to an end ?

K: My first question is : does thought see the futility of all its movement -and 'stops' !

DB : Well I shouldn't think that thought has that 'power' ...Or it might see the 'futility' in a fragmentary way...

K: So you're saying that thought cannot see itself in its totality . So, how does this happen ? You say it is 'attention' ? Not quite....

DB : I shouldn't think that thought has that power

K ; There must be a sense of no-thingness

DB : But what is 'attention' ?

K: Attention is the summation of all (one's ) energy. But that's not quite enough. So is it happening when the mind that has gone through all this, comes to an absolute no-thingness  - not a 'thing' in it - and that is more than the summation of all one's energy – a 'super' energy !

DB : So we're saying that attention is the summation of all the human energy, - which would be 'wrong' to call 'cosmic', but there is an energy beyond that.

K: There's a 'danger' of self - delusion in this because I can 'imagine' that... So the mind has seen through all that...

DB : Now I would like to ask you a question : you were like this all your life ?

K: I'm afraid so.

DB : But that brings up another question- which is what we're doing now, - you're communicating ( about it) Now for some odd reason – you were (born) this way and the rest of us are not...

K : I wouldn't like to sound conceited...

DB : But the combination of all tendencies and environment – generally makes one 'conditioned'

K: Wait...one human being going through these conditiones is being conditioned , and another human being is not being conditioned...

DB : It's not clear why is there a difference ?

K: Now that becomes tremenduous...

DB : Too difficult ?

K: Not difficult but we'll have to go into something entirely different.
Let's keep it simple ; there are two human beings – one is being conditioned and the other one doesn't. How does it happen that the other doesn't get conditioned ? Is it a lack of good health at the beginning ? He was ill and therefore he didn't listen to the influences or they didn't penetrate because the mind wasn't healthy ?

DB : Hmm...

K: The body wasn't healthy, therefore it didn't receive anything...

DB : And by the time it could receive, it was stronger ?

K: Yes...and therefore it (the conditioning ) never entered it

DB : It didn't took hold. Now there is this stage in the yough children's development where they go through a stage of tremendous opening, but then it closes down.

K: There are several theories about this : One theory is that this has had ( a good set of previous ) lives and the other theory - but....let's put it down the other way : Would you say there is ( a reservoir of?) Goodness in the ( total consciousness of the?) world, and there is also 'evil' in the world ?

DB : Well, that point has not been very clear...Perhaps we could discusses it because I'm not clear ?

K: I mean, there are these two- the 'evil' and the Good.

DB : Yes but there is a certain feeling that the 'evil' doesn't have the same reality as the Good...The 'evil' is based on falseness …

K: So there are these two 'forces' and the asiatics believe that the Good
is with those who are advancing spiritually . Can that (Intelligence) of Goodness penetrate into a person who isn't selfish ?
See, I have talked with those people who knew him as a child had a sense of 'vague', moronic. And when he got in the west...It didn't penetrate either.
So, what brings this about : there must be a natural awareness' and sensitivity- and no choice...

DB : Would you say that 'choice' is the real root of the movement of thought ?

K: Yes...From there 'attention' – there is affection, care and a sense of deep communication. And this is still not enough : Love that exists in attention is different from the 'love' of reality. I 'love' you, therefore I receive ( listen to?) you profoundly...Therefore our communication is not verbal...And that is still not enough...

DB : It is still the depths of the human individual...

K: We can go through all this, but it is not enough.
Therefore can this consciousness be completely empty ? Which means, there is no-thing inside it ?

DB : But that still includes an awareness of the environment ?

K: Yes, of course ! Is that possible? Then there is this – which didn't exist in awareness, nor in concentration...Attention has in itself this quality of Love.

DB : Yes...

K: And that is not enough still -can this consciousness be totally empty ? And therefore a consciousness which is totally different ?

DB : Then why would you call it 'consciousness' ?

K: That's just it ! We said consciousness – as we knowing it now- 'is' its content : the movement, wide or narrow of thought. In 'no-thingness' there is no 'movement' (of thought?) at all – but it has its movement which can operate in the field of reality...

DB : We'll have to clarify what is this (timeless) 'movement '?

K: The 'movement' which we know now is 'time'.( pause) Can we use 'emptiness' in the sense where a cup is empty ?

DB : That will imply that it can take content...

K; No it's not that....Therefore let's begin again from
Nothingness  has a movement which is not the movement of thought, which is, not a movement of time.

DB : It occures to me about 'time' that when thought reaches a contradiction, then it jumps to another thought and that 'jump' is time.

K: Right !

DB : It seems to me that the very essence of psychological time is contradiction...

K: Contradiction, I see that... Sir, we are asking : is there an energy which is not contradictory, which is not jumping from a pattern to another pattern ; a movement which is not related to that energy of time ?

DB : Yes...Let's get another point clear : that 'energy' reveals itself in the world of time. Is that right ?

K: Could you repeat ?

DB : This is a view which I heard : that energy does not exist in time, but it manifests in time, or reveals itself...

K: Ahh ! Which is the same thing I 'm saying only put differently...

DB : Yes ; I mean, several different people have said that – some of the ancient
Indians in America...

K: Yes, yes ! And in India too they say that it manifests itself in the field of reality …

DB : Is that view acceptable to you ?

K: Let's look at it ! Are we saying that the human being who pursues truth can function in the field of reality and therefore his perceptions are never distorted 

DB : Yes, but other people watching him would call him a 'manifestation'...

K: Yes, the 'avatar' -a sanscrit word...Now, would that be right ? Would that be true ? That is you as human being, perceive truth? And you manifest that truth in the field of reality. Therefore that manifestation is the operation of an Intelligence which can never be distorted...
May I put a question : why should Truth operate in the field of reality ?

DB : Well, that question was in the back of my mind...

K: (laughing) I caught you ! Why should it operate in the field of reality ?

DB : Let's just put it that generally people accept it – perhaps it doesn't …

K: That's it! Why should we it take for granted that it will operate ?

DB : We take it for granted because we hope that we will have something from it – to keep us 'straight' (both laugh...)

K: Have a string of 'hope' ….Now I'm getting it at last : we have accepted as part of our tradition, as part of our hope & desire that the man who perceives truth can and does operate in the field of reality. And you & I come along and say ; why should he ?

DB : Well, perhaps he shouldn't...

K: He shouldn't ! I think this will be more true – the actuality rather than the desire which creates the actuality ….

DB : Yes, so perhaps we'll have to change it : this man operates in actuality. Would you accept that ?

K: Of course ! But there is a danger in that : that in man there is the highest principle (Brahman) and that it operates... I question that !
So we were asking : why should Truth enter in the field of reality at all ?
Why should the Highest Principle manifest itself in the field of reality ?
We want it to operate...so we cling to that idea.

DB : Yes because we want some deeper sense of order...

K : But if we do not cling to it, how is one to live in the world of reality to bring order to it ?

DB : But then, are you living in the field of reality ?

K: I suppose a human being living in this mess sees it and says ; How do I bring in order ?

DB : Well it almost follows from what you say that it cannot be done !

K: That's just it ! In the world of reality thought cannot bring order there …

DB : No, because thought itself is disorder...

K: So people say ; get away from that – join a monastery or join a community of the 'equal' …

DB : Well, the whole thing is relative because it seems to me that this 'reality' is real but it is false...

K; Quite, quite …

DB : And therefore, as we said, truth cannot operate in the false...

K: Yes, but you follow sir ; I am 'false' ! Because 'psychologically' thought has created this 'false' ...

DB : Yes...

K: And how can Truth operate in the 'false' ?

DB : Well, it doesn't...

K: Obviously it cannot ! But yet (laughs...) in the field of thought can there be order ? Because that's what we need : I need that...

DB : We can have some relative order...

K: So you're saying this order is relative ?

DB : Yes...

K: But there is an order of truth which is 'supreme order'...

DB : But we said that couldn't be found in the field of reality...

K: Yes...

DB : I mean, we could bring 'relative' order into the field of reality...

K: Ahh, but that is not good enough ! That's what the politicians are doing... Therefore the human beings introduced the element of 'divine order' and pray to receive the Grace of that Divine Order...
which will put more than a 'relative' order in my life...
And that is not good enough it's illogical  ! Even verbally this is inacceptable
But I want order here, in the world of reality, because order means safety, security, protection...I must have that !

DB : Hmmm...

K: And thought cannot produce that . But if I don't invent 'God' or a Source of Energy which will help man to have that – I don't accept that !
But I need absolute order here ! Why can't have it without invoking or looking for truth ?

DB : Well, let's go into that, because what determines reality is thought …And thought is contradictory so....what is going to make it 'non-contradictory'. I don't see how you can bring about what you're aiming at ? Now let's try to look at this  : we see that the whole world is almost completely in disorder... People tried to bring in some order in countless ways, but as long as the world is ruled by thought, the disorder will continue...

K: I accept that, because you have explained everything rationally, thought itself says ''I will be orderly'' : I know how I jump from pattern to pattern but I will be very watchful ! And that very 'self-recollected' watchfullness will have order without introducing 'outside agencies'...

DB : So, you view is that it can be done ?

Dr P : Is it some form of awareness ?

K: No, sir : thought says I have created this whole mess. And it realises 'I can't do anything about it...Therefore it abstains to continue in that way : Therefore I will be intelligent ! Can that take place ?

DB : Well, we'll have to look at this. What is it in thought that will allow this to take place ? Somehow it implies that thought is somehow non-mechanical ?

K: (Laughs..) I know, I know....

Dr P : I think thought has in itself some elements which are not mechanical !

K; What ? Thought is not 'mechanical' ?

Dr P : There are some parts of it which are not 'dead' mechanical...So, it can produce some order in itself without appealing to truth...

K: So, you are saying that thought has some parts of it which are 'healthy' !
And we're saying 'There's no healthy thought' !

DrP : You are using the terms 'reality' and 'thought Now in the field of reality there are some 'springs'...

K: In the field of reality 'suffering' says ''No more !''

Dr P : That's right …

K: Let's look at it : suffering which is brought about by thought , that feeling of intense suffering says 'No more !' But the 'No more' is the action of thought ! So...you're still in the field of contradiction...
( …) So if you said all human beind must be fed -without creating a tyrany obviously that's order …

DB : Yes, but that is only a hope !

K: ( Laughs) That's it !

DB : I mean this has been achieved at certain times …

K: But not without imposing a central authority ! The incas they had a marvelous system but the authority was there …
I don't want that kind of order- my orderly intelligence says '
We've been there !' Therefore you introduce the order of truth – which may or may not be there. You say truth can come in the field of reality and someone else says : truth has nothing to do with the field of reality....therefore...I'm stuck with it. So I say ...to hell with Truth ! If it cannot operate & bring order here... then what's the point of it ?
So now we deny the starting point of investigation whether truth has or not some relationship with the field of reality...

DB : I think that we explored that statement & seen its contradictions and therefore 'dropped' it

Dr P : Do you say that in the field of reality there are not sufficient 'springs' to bring this ?

K: Maybe ! I don't know , It may be that in the field of reality thought itself sees that it cannot act anymore ?

DB : But this implies that thought has the possibility of not being entirely mechanical ?

K: I don't accept this statement that the process of thought is not mechanical .

DB : Then how is this mechanism going to see this ?

K: Is the computer seeing the mistakes it's making ?

DB : No, but then you can make an (upgraded ) computer that will take all these mistakes into account …

K: Similarly can thought see that it has made a mistake ?

DB : It can but we have to introduce some new elements like awareness...

K: There's no solution for 'absolute' oder in the field of reality...

DB : Now if thought assumes it's the only 'energy', then it must come to this position – I abstain from operating …

K: Or something else must take place...

DB : What is it ?

K: I see the that thought is bringing its own disorder : Seeing the 'danger' of it ! So, when there is the perception of the 'real' danger, thought doesn't act !
The danger is a shock to thought !

DB : Hmmm …

K: So thought 'holds' – and in that 'holding' of thought is order

DB : Right...

K: Let's put it this way : we go to Gstaad -see all these marvelous mountains …

DB : Yeah...

K: And your thought is 'gone away'... The beauty of it drives away all the movement of thought... And therefore it is the same when thought sees the tramendous danger...

DB : That's with the aid of attention & awareness but thought 'sees' it .

K: Though sees it. Like when I see a car rushing towards me, I jump away This 'jumping away' is order

DB: Yes, but you see, the perception of danger may not be maintained...

K: Or one may not see the danger at all ! When thought does not see the danger of 'nationality' most of us are neurotic : I mean, when you had ten wars and you still repeating it- it is a neurotic movement !

DB : Yes, but that's part of the problem that thought dulls perception...or prevents perception from operating...

K: Or.... is it because I'm conditioned ?

DB : I'm conditioned to do just that...

K: Now you come along and educate me to see the danger of all this …And as you 'educate' me I see the danger and I will do it !
So.... ( I'm just going back to that?) why should truth enter into the field of reality ?

DB ; But then what does 'truth' do – what is its action ?

K: What is its function, what does it 'do', what is its value -not in the sense of merchandised or 'employable ? You see, one way ( to look at it is) truth is 'supreme ' intelligence – as we said. And we're asking, can that intelligence operate in the field of reality ? If it does, then it can bring about absolute order. And we're saying truth is not something to be achieved or gained or perceived through education, through culture – through the medium of thought...Right, sir ?

DB : Yeah, but when you say truth does not operate in the field of reality it becomes ambiguous...

K: Truth cannot enter in the field of reality...

DB : I don't know if this will help : we said that 'understand' means to 'stand under'.....So when we say that we understand something – I'm using a metaphor- truth is 'standing under' thought – it is 'the substance' of reality

K: 'Truth is under reality' …

DB : I don't know where truth is, but in the act of understanding the action is 'under' reality, rather than being in the field of reality.

K: Reality is a manifestation of thought, and truth 'stands under' the actuality of thought... What time is it ?

DB : It's six o'clock.

K: Oh my ! We're getting somewhere ! ( But) this (line of questioning ) is all wrong- totally wrong ! Sir, what has Goodness to do with 'evil' ?

DB : Nothing ?

K: Right ! So why should we want Goodness to operate on 'evil' – modify it, change it ?

DB : Would it be right to say that Goodness dissolves ( quenches ) 'evil' ?

K: It is the same thing -operates, dissolves...Has Goodness a relationship to 'evil' ? Then it can do something. But if it has no relationship, then it can't do anything !

DB : But then we can ask the question ; what will bring 'evil' to an end ?

K: I don't believe it can come to an end...Evil being created by man...

DB : By his thought ?

K: By his thought & all the rest of it...So, you come back to the same question : when thought comes to an end !

DB : Yeah...

Dr P : Has goodness an impact on thought ?

K: Ahh ; we said that : Goodness has no relationship with thought ! Goodness has no relationship to evil . If it has a relation then it is an 'opposite' and all oppsites are related to each other !
So evil will go on till one sees the contradiction of thought ...To show man thought can never solve his problems. Right sir ?

DB : Yeah...You could put it like this : as long as thought is going on, there 's no possibility to solve his problems...

K: As long as thought – which is ( projecting its own?) time- goes on, evil will go on, misery will go on...It is a tremendous revelation to me when you state that. To me thought was tremendously important  and when I hear a statement like that …

DB : Right, because one may say : What will I do without that ?

K: Exactly ! It is a tremendous revelation : I listen and I live in (the light of) that revelation and there is no action...

DB : And that 's the movement which is beyond 'attention' ?

K: Beyond attention...Because I've paid attention to him, I have listened to him, he has shown me and I'm full of (the truth of?) this extraordinary statement. I don't know how I will operate (in the real world) I don't know how I will live .
I've 'seen' this thing ! And It will operate, It will do something – but I don't have to do anything ( in this regard ) Because before I was accustomed to 'do' something – and he ( K ) says : Don't ! - Yes, sir, quite right !
To 'hurt another is evil' – I'm taking it as an example- I the deep sense of that word t hurt someone 'psychologically' is evil ! And I receive it without any resistance - resistance is thought – It has entered into my 'womb', into my mind, into my whole being and it operates !

DB : Hmm...

K: It functions, it moves it has its own movement ...truth has its own vitality !

DB : Yeah....

K It's a wrong question for me to ask : What place has Truth in the world of reality ?

DB : The point is that we had to put it first and see that it's wrong, not merely to deny the question ...

K: I think it's enough...Can we get up ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Oct 2019 #56
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

6TH (reader friendly edited) K DISCUSSION WITH PROF. DAVID BOHM on
TRUTH & REALITY (cca 1975)

DB : One question that's worth discussing is what we discussed last week : that Truth does not make direct contact with ( the world of) reality – perhaps we should discuss that...

K: If (the world of ) reality is the activity of thought , with the cessation of thought, will truth become apparent  ? I don't think so, quite ...First of all can thought be stopped or can it naturally cease ? And we're asking- if that can take place, can truth exist ?

DB : Would truth be actual then ?

K: For the moment, I don't think it happens that way ; let's examine & go into it.
Thought is so cunning- it can mesmerise itself, hypnotise itself and think it is very quiet....That's one point. And there are various (meditation) systems into Zen, or the Hindu forms to quieten thought, control is still not ending thought, as one thought superimposes on the other. Then can thought ever be silent – if it's not through 'meditation' – in the accepted sense, or if it has not induced itself, very subtly, to be silent, or if there is anything that can silence the mind, then is truth actual ? No. I think something else should take place ...What do you say ?

DB : Well, we have made a distinction between a ( process of) thought which is inherently 'twisted' and the ability to make a mistake which is due to wrong information and correct it...So perhaps we could clarify the difference between thought making a simple mistake and the kind of confusion that thought gets into...
Let's say that one is doing something foolish and he may not know exactly why he's done it. Perhaps eventually he sees it

K: Something out of ignorance...

DB : Not necessarily ignorance but simply unawareness
Then one wonders where is the source of unawareness ; there are two kinds of unawareness- one is simply failing to be aware - and the one which is due to thought which has a systematic tendency to supress awareness. The 'ignorance' of thought is not merely lack of knowledge but it's ignoring -it ignores certain things in order to be more comfortable, to have more pleasure ornot to disturb the equilibrium of its (usual ) operation- because if it does, then everything will go to pieces...

K: Yes...

DB : Now that kind of positive 'ignorance' is thought positively ignoring ( certain facts) And there is the 'negative' form of ignorance, due to the lack of information. But then it's sometimes hard to distinguish whether someone has done something foolish due to lack of (right) information or due to the lack of some deeper & subtler information...

K: Are we trying to find out whether ( a mind established in ? truth can make a mistake ?

DB : In a way, yes. In other words is there something more (involved ) than the mere lack of information ? We said last time that giving the computer wrong information it will produce wrong answers – and now if we take a little further this analogy with the computer : can it give wrong answers for different reasons ?

K: Right...So what is it we're asking, sir ?

DB : Well, it seems that truth cannot become involved with any kind of deceptions....

K: Yes, truth cannot deceive itself, obviously !

DB : Now, is it possible – for instance in your case- that thought can go on for a certain time and then you see something and it will end ? Or is it happening 'instantly' ?

K: Sir, I think we have to consider when does truth manifest itself...

DB : Last time you said it didn't , you see ?

K: What ?

DB : Last time I think we said that truth does not manifest in reality …

K: No....let's get this clear ! We are saying there is reality and truth . We know the activities of thought in the field of reality and we are saying they have no connexion with truth.
And then we say : How does truth appear ? (pause) Is truth an abstraction ?

DB : It better not be ! Then it would be still thought...

K: So, it is not an (abstract) term of thought calling itself 'truth'. It must be out of time, it must have no continuity. So it must have no relation to the past or to the future...

DB : Which implies, as we said last time, it has no relationship to thought. That seems fairly clear . Now if you
say there's an action of truth which is always clear....

K:....which is total...

DB : ...which is always right, etc. But this is not necessarily continuous, though...

K: Ha ! Cannot be !

DB : Of course not, but it may happen from moment to moment, right ?

K: Yes.

DB : But in between, there is a lack of complete attention? You see, I'm trying to get it clear...

K: Yes, I understand...Hm ! ( long pause) We'll have to go into this...

DB : And there would be one more point : they say that sometimes thought is not present when truth operates...but nevertheless, at some stage you were saying that thought is entirely twisted...and here I have the question if we can ever do without it or whether we can do or not do without thought
Or is there another function which will do the function of thought without 'twisting'. And there is the possibility that thought works 'twisting' (distorting) and truth comes in a flash …

K: Could we approach it this way : what is action ?
We know the activities of thought : changing patterns, each pattern creating its own disorder, mischief, pain, and moving all this within the sama area ( of the known?) . So what is the action that is not in that field ? It must be without a motive, it must be without conformity, without imitation, folowing a pattern and so on. So, it must be totally free from memory.

DB : Well, that's the action of truth.

K: Yes, I'll stick to that.

DB : But still, there is the action of memory...

K: The action of truth is free from all memory.

DB : But it may use memory ? Or perhaps it doesn't ?

K: If it acts instantly, it has no memory...

DB : In other words, memory is another activity, of a different order...

K: Wait a minute, I see something : perceiving without the 'perceiver'- which is memory, and the action of this perception is instantaneous, and therefore it is truth. In that case, memory is not necessary.

DB ; Not at that moment...

K: Not at that moment. When is memory necessary ? To carry out that perception ?

DB : Well, it could be... (the back up of) memory may be necessary in all these activities, for example moving around..

K:Yes, yes...

DB : Now, I'm not sure that the perception is carried out...

K: Ah, no ; if it's not carried out, then it's not truth !

DB : It has to be, but is it carried out in the field of reality ?

K: Wait a minute, there is perception- which is to see things as they are, to see what is actual – without the interpretation of the 'perceiver' with its background and all that...

DB : So, it is seeing the 'actuality' and that actuality may include thought...

K: Yes, but for the moment we are considering what is the action of truth and what is its relationship with memory in carrying out the action. We say, truth is from moment to moment and the action of truth is from moment to moment
and that action is totally unrelated to memory. Finished !

DB:Now we can consider the action of memory...

K: That's quite different...

DB : Now, that action of memory is necessary in order to find your way around, in order to do the right job, etc
Now, that action of memory, insofar as thought is concerned, may become twisted, confused...

K: I don't think it can get twisted if there is total integrity.

DB ; But that again brings up the relationship between truth and ( the thought-created) reality...

K: If there is complete integrity in thought itself....

DB : But that is almost the same as talking about truth in thought...

K: Ah, no, no...

DB : Then what is the relationship between integrity and truth ?

K: What is integrity ?

DB : It really means ( a state of inner) oneness, not divided, not fragmented, not contradiction...it's 'integral'

K: Allright, sir, one can be totally integrated, living a life of non-fragmentation- is that man living a life of truth ?

DB : Well, I don't see how it can be truth without being integrity – unless he's deceiving himself...

K: What I'm trying to say is : can thought ever be totally integral ?

DB : That's the question I'm raising because you seemed to imply a minute ago that it could...

K: Can't it, sir ? Can't thought see its own fragmentation ?...

DB : Perhaps it could, but then why does it desintegrate ?

K: Because it is not aware of its fragmentary character.
When it becomes aware of its fragmentary character, is that ( a perception of ?) truth ?

DB : Well, that is the truth of the nature of thought...

K: Right...But that is not 'truth', is it ?

DB : There's the distinction between the 'truth of something' and 'truth', you see ?

K: Ah, I see ! The truth of the nature of thought- I can see my thought being fragmentary and thought then realises the 'actuality' of its movement. Is that 'truth' ?

DB : No, but...

K: It is ( seeing ? ) the truth in the false.

DB : Yeah...

K: But that truth is not 'the' truth !

DB : Well, 'truth' itself is beyond what we could describe...

K: Yes.

DB : But we're still in this area which isn't clear- in which apparently truth has a relationship with thought , in the sense of (seeing) the truth in the false, and that seems to establish a relationship again...

K: I see the truth in the false and also I see that 'truth' is not 'the' truth...

DB : But now, I am not very clear what the distinction is...

K: I'm trying to make it verbally clear...I see my thoughts are 'crooked'- that is the 'seeing' ( of the fact) that thought is crooked.

DB ; But that is the 'truth'...

K: Ah no ...! It was ( seeing) the truth in the false. There there is a division – the 'false' and the 'truth' .

DB : Yeah...

K: In truth there is no division !

DB : You see, it has been suggested by some people that we should not use the words 'truth' and 'false' as opposites , but rather use 'correct' and 'incorrect' . So you could say that the 'correctness' of thought is 'incorrectness'...

K: Thought sees its 'incorrectedness'...correctly ! (laughter)

DB : Yeah...

K: And the 'seeing correctly' of the incorrectness of thought , you're saying is 'truth ' ? Truth has nothing to do...

DB : Yes...I'm ready to drop that now because there's a difference in language. But I wanted to clear up one more thing : when you say 'thought sees', I'd like to put it like this way : thought has some sort of 'conscious awareness' -some kind of 'awareness' that goes with thought...

K: Yes, like a good businessman, quite.

DB : That conscious awareness which sees the properties of thought. So, in this case, it's not an inconsistency to say that thought 'sees something' . Thought is 'consciously aware' of the incorrectness of its mode of operation.

K: Right. That's simple enough...Then what's the question ?

DB : Then there's no question, because you say that truth is something entirely different.

K: Entirely different !

DB : The word 'truth' has been used in so many different senses...

K: ... correct and incorrect. Then what is the problem ?

DB : I'll bring a few more points if you don't mind :
I've been reading Mary Lutyens book about you and I find it quite interesting...

K: Oh, Lord ! (laughs ) Rajagopal asked Allan Watts and someone else if they would help him to write a biography, and knowing that it will be one sided, so I asked Mary.
(But long before that) Shiva Rao from India has collected through many years all the events that took place – and he was going to do it, but his eyesight failed. And then I asked him : could I ask Mary and he said 'Delighted !' And that's how it happened.

DB : I think it's a very well written book.
Now, this book discusses some 'process' you went through in this transformation – which always raises the question of the difference between the state of truth and the ordinary state – and which will help us if we got it really clear. It's never clear whether this transformation is sudden or gradual – or whether it took place at all...

K: I think sir, that several points are involved there : we talked about the last time : a mind that's unconditioned- it may be so before it was unhealthy at the beginning – weak, couldn't retain, couldn't be impressed upon...

DB: Yes, that was the theory we considered...

K: The theory of reincarnation and Goodness -personified or not as Maitreya, if you accept that and so on. (pause)
Then there is this whole idea which exists in the East- and serious people -not sharlatans have been through it. The Hindu tradition has called it the 'serpent fire'

DB ; Kundalini -it was refered in the book...

K: If they put that in the book I must take it out ! (laughs)
And that kundalini can be awakened and a different kind of energy comes into being. This is the second point.
And I'm beginning to question whether there was any transformation at all... Sir, I can tell you one thing : in that book, ( it is mentioned that) the brother dies -actually I have no memory of that...Either he could have gone into cinicism, bitterness, unbelief and threw the whole thing out- which he didn't do, or he could have taken comfort in reincarnation, in meeting the brother 'elsewhere' – which he didn't do either.
So what actually took place ? If we could actually penetrate that, then we could understand that 'transformation' never took place.

DB : Yeah...And I think that's interesting is that finally he made the step to 'Truth is a pathless land' ...In other words, you were saying more or less the same things you are saying now...

K: That's right.

DB : I was struck by the similarity, almost identity...

K: I didn't know that...

DB ; You were not discussing 'reality' then, but 'truth' was the same...

K: I think then that if neither reincarnation, nor the disapperaing into worldliness – this being not money at all since that hasn't interesting him – but just disappearing into some kind of idiocy, all those did not take place...
I think what probably happened is facing the truth of death.

DB : Do you feel that was a crucial step then ?

K; I don't it was a crucial step -though others have said that it was crucial...

DB : Yeah, and in the book it doesn't appear as what you could call a 'crucial step'...

K: No, but facing the truth of death...

DB : But now we'll have to come back to this : would you say the 'truth' or the 'correctness' ?

K: Facing the 'actuality' of death freed him from the 'reality' of thought. Could we put this differently? Can the mind be completely detached ? From its body....( Wait a minute, I must go slowly!) Is there a state where the mind is free from all attachment ? Attachment is 'incorrect'...

DB : Yeah...

K: And thought can see the 'incorrectness' of attachment.

DB : Yeah, let's say it can be aware of this...

K: Thought can be consciously aware of all the implications of attachment, and thought cansay : I won't touch it anymore

DB : Yes, but now let's try to go slowly into this as you like to refer to that young man...let's say that he was attached to the Theosophical beliefs …

K: I question it !

DB : Well, was there any attachment at all ? At least it appears to be -for example there were letters where he was saying he accepts it all...

K: But it was making noise of that...Because he was just repeating...There was no conditioning but a dependful state in which he was repeating things which were told him. I think that would be accurate.

DB : The other point is this 'process' as Mary Lutyens called it, which took many years off and on and in which there was so much suffering and it's not clear what was happening there, you see ? I mean, did it had any part in the transformation or not ?

K: I don't think so.

DB ; Yes, but just for the sake of not making it discouraging for the peeople who might say : then how we can ever do it !

K: There are two answers to that : you know the Theosophical conception -whether you believe it or not, that's not the point- that there is a Maytreia (Boddhisatva) – who is the essence of Goodness and that Goodness has to manifest in the world when the world is in a state of collapse, in a state of 'evil', in a state of destroying itself- that's what the tradition says....(..... What are we talking about?)

DB : I'm trying to get back to it : we're trying to get clear whether this young man was really attached and conditioned . Aside from the letters and the relationships which you say were superficial, wasn't there some deeper kind of suffering ?

K; No, no attachment...

DB : But you have any idea of what was involved there ?
You see, as I've been reading this , during some of the phenomenon were intense pain in the head or in the neck or the spine there appears to be moments where he calls for his mother...

K: I think that's merely a physical reaction when there is intense pain...

DB : But do you have any idea of what the whole trouble was about , or is it something you know anything about...

K: I'm afraid I don't know anything about it...
But must everybody go through this ?

DB : Well, most people wouldn't have the time for it ! (laughter)

K: Columbus discovered America ; must everybody become 'Columbus' to discover America ?

DB : No...Allright, so this was the 'fortuitous' way in which this came about, for reasons that are peculiar to your own situation...

K: You see, if you have gone into this whole process of kundalini, the whole idea there – as far as I have been told by others and some who have been through it- is a way of releasing energy through various centers in the body, and those centers have been dormant or not fully in operation...

DB : Yes...

K: And when this energy is in movement, it passes through these 'centers' there is such amount of trouble, pain, disturbance...

DB : But that is not necessary for the transformation you described... ?

K: No, definitely not !

DB : But in that sense it was something of a side issue ?

K: No, I wouldn't put it this way....

DB : Then, how was it connected in this way ?

K: I haven't thought about this....let's go into it !
That young man, mentally not up to his age...

DB : He had suffered malaria, which is very disturbing...

K: Malaria, a great deal of it...so there was a little 'dullness' and into that dull mind nothing could enter – therefore we said that was one of the reasons he was unconditioned.

DB : Yes...Not deeply ?

K: Not deeply conditioned. The other point is why
had he go through all this suffering ? Has it any relation to transformation ?

DB : Yeah...

K: I say it hasn't...(but) I must go slowly...If I admit that is part of transformation, then every human being has to go through it, which is nonsense !
I think it releases a ( special) quality of energy...

DB : The suffering ?

K: Yes, the physical pain of that kind brings about a certain quality of energy .

DB : Yes, but that would imply that those who don't go through it may not have it !

K: No, no...I think I've got it, let's go slowly through this...
Sir, you're a scientist ; you discover something, you see something totally new – and you state that thing, verbally and actually. And another scientist picks it up from there and goes on...

DB : Yes...

K: Here, this man saw (the) truth, he discovered something new and that 'new' thing enters into human consciousness...

DB : Would you say it's totally new- I mean it had never been
seen before ?

K: I don't know.

DB : But for him, at least, it was totally new...

K: Of course ! Somebody else might have said it, but what he saw was something 'new' .

DB : So perhaps that particular thing has never been discovered before ?

K: Yes. So that discovery of something new, (once ) stated, another can carry on and discover something more.

DB : Yes, but what was the role of suffering in this discovery ? Was it to release the energy ?

K: Probably...

DB: But others may release this energy in different ways...

K: Now, wait a minute, this energy is not the energy of thought !

DB : Can't it be called kundalini ?

K: I am rather shy of that word- a lot of superstition is associated with it, a lot of sharlatans have been playing with it – doing lots of practices to awaken kundalini- I think it is absurd !

DB : But in the case of the young man it seemed it had a place...

K: Yes, that's what I am coming to : the release of that energy is something that must come out of suffering -I am just exploring sir...

DB ; Yes, but is that in general or for this particular case ?

K: I think, in general.

DB: In general it comes from suffering ?

K: Yes...

DB : But now are you implying there may be some other form of suffering ?

K: That's it ! ( we're slowly getting it!) If, in the world of reality I don't escape from suffering through various means & so on, that very suffering brings about great energy. I think this is so ! Here, in this case, there was not the suffering of attachment, it was not the suffering of losing somebody, it was not the physical suffering- he was pretty healthy in these days. So there was no actual psychological suffering except when the brother died- and then he looked at it and finished with it. But the energy of another kind- if we can go into it a little bit – is different .

DB : Yes, but it doesn't necessarily being awakened in the same way as in this young man – going through the spine and so on ?

K: That's what I'm actually trying to convey : I think that energy is competely different.

DB : From what ?

K: From this kind of energy, from the ordinary kind. And we say, must everybody go through all this in order to get that energy ? I say, no.

DB : But you're implying that everybody must go through some kind of suffering...

K: No, no ! Everybody does suffer !

DB : But if he doesn't escape from this suffering...

K: Then he has got it !

DB : He has got the energy...

K: ...of that kind .

DB : Now, does it matter whether the suffering is the suffering of attachment or of another kind ?

K: No, that doesn't matter...Suffering of attachment, suffering of losing a wife, physical suffering, psychological suffering – there are many varieties of suffering and if you don't escape from it, there is the release of a certain kind of energy...

DB : But it wouldn't necessarily involve the spine …

K: No, no, obviously not...

DB : So, Kundalini may be a very special idea- I mean, a very limited approach...

K: Wait a minute ; limited in what way ?

DB : Well, when somebody is purposefully trying to awaken kundalini, he obviously has in mind the spine in a certain order and all that...

K: I don't think it can be done purposefully ! That's what they are trying to do now through methods, purposefully : thought is trying to do it !

DB : Wouldn't it be better to say that there is an energy (awakened by) not escaping suffering which doesn't necessarily show itself in various sensations in the spine... ?

K: That's right. A man who faces suffering he has a quality (of inner integrity?) in him. He's got that kind of physical drive, physical passion – not 'sexual' passion but 'psychological' passion

DB : Yes, now, that energy of course is not the whole...

K: No, that's not the whole...

DB : And we need this quality of energy to see truth.
With the ordinary sort energy we cannot actually have truth

K: No. We say truth is unrelated to reality...

DB ; Reality is the ordinary energy...

K: That's right ! Like an ambtious man has got tremendous energy and his energy operates in reality as correct and incorrect.

DB : Yeah...now let's say this man comes at a certain point where he sees the 'incorrectness' of the whole operation of thought ; but before anything more happens he needs a higher (level of) energy....Before perception can work, it would seem he needs the kind of energy we're talking about...

K: Aha ! Yes, yes...

DB : Now, it almost seems from what you say that nobody is going to be transformed...In other words the issue of transformation seems irrelevant...

K: No...

DB : Then we have to say why, because in the case of that young man (K) you seem to say that
there was no transformation. Right ?

K: But sir, there must be a transformation, a radical or basic change in the field of reality.

DB : And what will become of the field of reality, then ?

K: Then there will be order in that field...

DB : So, transformation will bring order in the field of reality . It will still be thought, but not twisted...

K: Yes, that's right, sir, it will be correct thought -logical, sane , healthy and all the rest of it. ( But still) that has nothing to do with truth.
Now, sir, I think there are the energy of truth and the energy of reality -two different things, unrelated to each other.

DB : Now, could we say that truth works in actuality, and in some sense, reality is also actuality...

K: Yes, that's right...

DB : Could we say that reality is a function within actuality - of a rather limited kind...

K: What are we trying to get at ?

DB : You see, if we want to get really clear what 'reality' means I think it helps to say that 'actuality' is a function within reality – a function which includes thought and consciousness...

K: In actuality ?

DB : In the actions which are taking place... That is, as you said, the energy of an ambitious man is all in the field of reality which is part of 'actuality' …

K: Yes, what is actually going on . That's clear : reality is the movement of actuality.

DB : It's part of the movement, because there is a much bigger movement in 'actuality'.

K: Yes, that's right...

DB : And one of our biggest mistakes is to take reality as the whole of actuality. Now we say truth also acts or operates in actuality...

K: Yes...

DB : And it seems to me – I'll just propose it- is that truth has no direct connexion to reality , but in some sense through 'actuality' ...Insofar as it acts in actuality, there may be a connexion. Reality is part of what is actually going on- and that includes consciousness and all that...

K: I'm sorry, I'm not following...

DB : You see, reality is a certain a part of what is going on- that part which we can think about …

K: Yes

DB ; But it is also an actuality because we take action on what we think about. That 'actuality' spreads out like a wave making objects or interacting with the environment …

K: The tree is actual .

DB And in addition there may be other aspects of the actuality of the tree of which we may not think about.
In general 'actuality' goes beyond what we think about.

K: I understand, but when it goes beyond reality is that truth ?

DB : We don't know that, but at least it seems that truth acts in that (field of ) total action...Or...doesn't it act at all ?

K: Sir, wait a minute, that young man saw 'Truth is a pathless land' and no organisation could lead to it. So, he dissolved the organisation- that's the action of truth. He talked with various people, naturally, but the perception and the realisation that truth is a pathless land dissolved it. Right ?

DB : Yes I see that : now let's look at it for a little while : that perception wasn't involving time and that was ( a complete) action. And from then on, he was taking actions talking to the people and finding a way to carry out what that meant. In other words, it took some time to dissolve the organisation...

K: That was simple enough – give back the land...

DB : But it took some time to carry it out- so it seems that in some way reality was affected by truth... ?

K: Aha ! No sir, he saw 'Truth is pathless land'. And as a whole organisation was formed around him and as he saw it he said 'Out !' But because he was founded by the organisation...

DB : But does thought become consciously aware of the implications of truth ? It's not very clear what happened to the young man : he's seen that (truth) and his actions have changed – so his thought has changed, because at one point he was thinking : I'm working together with these people and later he was thinking of dissolving the organisation …

K: No, not 'thinking' !

DB : But he has taken the steps in thought necessary for this.

K: Yes, but he 'saw' that truth is pathless and no organisation can lead man to it...That is finished.

DB : But to implement that …

K: The implementation of that took time.

DB ; Yes but I'm trying to understand how thought becomes aware that it has to implement this...

K: Ah...If you see something which is true, then you get rid of your things quickly- finished !

DB : Yes, but you still have to think how to do it...

K: No !

DB : But you did- you thought how not to hurt people...

K: Yes, but that's all irrelevant !

DB : It may be irrelevant to the main point, but in order to understand what we're trying to do now it may be relevant.

K: You're asking ; How did thought capture or become aware of that truth ?

DB : Yes, what were the implications.

K: He saw it, acted and for him that was over. But he was founded by an organisation, by all the implications of it...Dr Besant were beated up....

DB ; But he didn't want to hurt her, but that was part of her way of thinking...

K: Yes, he didn't want to hurt her, so he told her before, but he was founded by an organisation.
I understand the question very well, but what is the difficulty ?

DB ; Because previously you said that thought doesn't act at all in the field of reality – but in some way, consciousness becomes aware of the implications of truth...

K: Yes...I must go slowly in this ; he saw, acted – he's finished ! Finished means completely ending -no regrets, it has no meaning anymore ...But he was founded by all this.
How did truth give its intimations to thought ?
Was there an intimation ?

DB : Maybe not...But then what did happen ?

K: Logically, thought saw this ; thought saw correctly the action which he took...

DB : But what action did thought see ?

K: What happened !

DB : So the perception of truth was active and thought can be aware of that action

K: That's right

DB ; Truth takes a direct action in 'actuality' and that action now comes to consciousness through awareness.

K: That's right ! And sees the correctness of it.

DB : And then it goes on thinking what to do to implement it
Allright, so it's becoming more clear...

K; That's actually what took place, because he put it in words

DB : Yes, the action was to put it in words, but first there was an action (of truth) before that of it became aware and put into words

K: Truth put it into words...

DB : So truth can act directly, without words...

K: Careful ! The description is not the described, the word is not the thing...You used the word to describe that …

DB : Yes, but who used it ? Was it truth or was it thought ?

K: He saw...

DB ; He saw, but how did the word came out of that ?

K: He saw, and the seeing is the acting ;

DB : Yes and the action ( of truth) was that the whole structure was dead...But truth is a pathless land is words...

K: The description.

DB : Allright so the whole (false) thing was dead, then came a perception that truth is a pathless land .

K: That was perception but we are merely describing it, and...how did that come to the word ?

K: We said : the word is not the thing , the description is not the described ; so if I tell you : Look at that tree - you actually look – the word is not the tree, so you 'see' the tree.

DB : I see the tree, then I become aware of the tree -thought becomes consciously aware of what is described by the words. So, we have a perception that acts immediately and also contains something 'universal'- like in the perceptin that truth is a pathless land...

K: Therefore, you are saying : truth is universal, global...

DB : So seeing that 'truth is a pathless land' is a (direct) action and the conscious awareness enables thought to pick that up...

K: ( To recap:) Truth has nothing whatsoever to do with thought

DB : Yes, but thought can be aware of the action of truth …

K: Yes, yes...

DB : Allright, so we're coming at something...
Now it just occurred to me to ask a question about 'awareness'. We have discussed the conscious awareness ; now is there any 'awareness' that is not 'conscious' ?

K: Yes, there is another 'awareness ' that's not in the field of reality.

DB : Allright, so we are distinguishing 'conscious awareness' from awareness in general which is universal ?

K: Yes.

DB : In fact awareness would be hard to distinguish from attention ; I mean, these are very hard to define...

K: I know, I know...Sir, would you put it this way : the 'center' – which is really the 'observer'- can be aware of itself, conscious of itself and operate within that field ; that 'awareness', that consciousness is limited, is enclosed. But there is a consciousness, an awareness, some other state ( of mind?) which is not this ?

DB : Yeah, and this 'other' state includes awareness and attention. Hm ?

K: No....I must go slowly... That boy must go back ; pathless land- he sees it non-verbally – that is the truth that acts (and) it's finished ! As far as 'truth' is concerned, it's over. Then the 'wave' takes on the words and describes it and the description is not that.
Now, in the field of reality, there is this conscious awareness -which is limited- with its attention, with its awareness...So that perception of truth is limited...

DB : Yes, but would you say that it contains any awareness ? We said last time that it is 'nothingness' …

K: Nothingness. Perception (of truth) is over !

DB : Which is beyond this attention & awareness, although we said they are non-verbal...So, could we say they are still part of the physiological process, although they are beyond thought. So thought is just part of the whole physiological processand there is attention & awareness beyond that, but truth is beyond all that ?

K: Beyond all that ! You see, it is said the awakening of kundalini …

DB : But wouldn't kundalini be part of the physiological process ?

K: According to them there's an 'energy' that is not physical.

DB : Yes, it is awakened in the physical …

K: No, no, we must go very carefully : it goes through various centers...

DB : But these are physical centers ?

K: Physical centers, like the solar plexus is the main center, and there is a center in the thorax, a center in the back of the head and a center in the middle of the forehead and ultimately it goes through the top of the head.

DB : Yeah...

K: They say that when it goes through the top of the head, that energy is entirely different- it's not physical anymore !

DB : Now, what do you feel about that explanation ?

K: I wouldn't say what I feel, I would say : the energy of truth is entirely different from the energy of reality.

DB : Yeah...But the kundalini might not be the energy of truth ?

K: No, no...let's be very careful ! We said that the ( human) energy in (the field of) reality is both physiological and psychological. And we said truth is global – not personal and all the rest of it-

K: I mean, couldn't we cansider kundalini as a side effect of truth ? I mean, if you consider truth, kundalini must be something more limited...

K: Of course, of course !

DB : that cannot be the same as truth, but it might be a combination of physiological and psychological energy, which you say that for the young man (K) were helpful ?

K: Yes. I think that's right : truth is global and this is limited.

DB : Yeah...

K: And nobody need go through all that (k) bussiness to see this !

DB : Yeah...

K: ''Columbus discovered America'', that's a good example.

DB : Now, if we take the energy of truth, which is universal – not personal

K: I must take it easy...because I've 'never' talked about this ! And my body becomes a little tense...May I get up for a few minutes ?

DB : Of course...I may stretch my legs...( pause)

K: You see, sir, there's something much more than all this...

DB : Yes... ?

K: Would you accept the word 'mystery' ?

DB : Yes...

K: There's 'something' of which you cannot talk about – which doesn't mean that it doesn't exist ...(silent pause) I think 'truth' is that !

DB : Hmm...

K: Every religion has talked about that 'mystery'...Judaism said The Nameless, the Hindus have called it Brahman...and Christians haven't got very deeply into that matter and called it God...But there is something tremendously mysterious. And we are trying to articulate it in words...

DB : Well, not really – I think we're trying just to clear up some of the difficulties people may have when reading this...

K: If they'll read this book they'll go through a lot of difficulties !

DB : And I feel that anything we've done here clears up or touches this 'mystery' so that we can communicate it...

K: No...but if you as as scientist accepts that there is something 'mysterious'...

DB : Yes, but I should say that our reason can only go so far...

K: When you touch that mystery, things are totally differnent...( Sorry, my body is shaking with it! Let's calm down...)
Thought can never touch that ; then what is it that is aware of that ?
Why do you say there is a mystery ?

DB : That's hard to explain, but partly it's because I can see that the whole thing can be never be explained by thought – in other words...

K: ...thought cannot touch it !

DB : Yeah...

K Then what is it that says 'there is a mystery' ? You're following sir ?
You see, the Christians say there is a ( Holy?) mystery which you cannot go beyond ; which you cannot touch – the 'saints' have said this. I'm not sure they've touched that mystery because they were 'Christians', they were worshippers of certain forms...

DB : I mean, you may say there is a 'mystery' because you don't want to penetrated deeper...

K: Yes, sir that's right.

DB : think that to a certain extent the 'ego' makes a parody of this mystery in order to protect itself . Now, in the way the ego tries to present itself as the 'ultimate myster y' and therefore if it's identifying itself with ( for instance) the Cristian teachings, it wil make them 'mysterious' too, you see ? So the way I look at it is that thought has perhaps a hint of that mystery and then it tries to capture for itself by imitation …

K: Quite, quite . Now would you a scientist - logically trained, logically trained to use your words (accurately)- would you admit that ( in life?) there is such thing as a 'mystery' ?

DB : Yes, thought can probe and extend itself in so many ways, but there is always a 'horizon'

K: I'm beginning again : the core of that (K) boy's existence was not conditioned, though at the peripheral levels it was...

DB : Yeah...

K: But basically he was not.

DB : Can we go slowly here, as that raises the question of others who are conditioned ; could we understand a little what that means ?

K: 'Conditioned' means greed, envy...

DB : Yeah, so it's not clear what the difference is...

K: I think there is a difference. You see, if you read that (ML's Biography ) book - he wasn't able to read it until quite late, one of Dr Besant ( personal) suffering or mysery was  when she said to me : ( I don't know if it's put in the book) 'You're not interested in anything – not in women, in what I'm doing – you're only interested in clothes and cars

DB : (Laughs)

K: ...and what's going to happen ( to you?) You follow sir, it was a tremendous problem to her because she invested everything in that boy !
But the 'ordinary' conditioning goes very deep. Right ?

DB : Yes but it's not clear why it ges so deep ?

K: His education, his environment, his parents, his society – everything makes the 'ordinary' conditioning...

DB : So somehow....

K: ... this didn't happen to that boy

DB : Could I put it that way : it is (more) a conditioning for self-deception, for falsification : If someone is conditioned to deceive himself in order to sit better in society -that is the thing we have in mind ?

K:Yes, allright...

DB : That's a really deep conditioning …

K: Deep conditioning !

DB : Deeper than anything else …

K: Yes...Deceiving himself in order to fit in society -that 's the deep conditioning we see for the moment – this didn't take in that young man, so there was never some self-deception .

DB : Yeah, neither was the false information which he accepted from that ( TS environment)

K: Yes, so there was never a conscious effort to see through this...

DB ; You skipped a few steps in this : that a person conditioned in self-deception may feel compelled to seek truth in order to compensate for this ?

K: A human being who is involved in self-deception in order to (adapt to society) – which is a deep (form of psychological conditioning) in this case
Why didn't it take place ?

DB : Because he wasn't absorbing it – the boy was somehow dulled by the environment...

K: By ill health...that's one of the reasons....So there was never a moment when he was overtaken by self-deception. And so he saw directly through that 'pathless land'. Right ?

DB : Yes...

K: He stated it in words – and words are not the 'thing' – so the word being thought , thought had been operating  as a (communication) function, but that perception is gone, finished !
So, truth is timeless – from moment to moment – it has no (temporal) continuity.

DB : Yeah...

K: Then, suffering in the field of reality has a meaning in the sense that if he doesn't escape , if he faces that suffering and therefore doesn't deceive himself then there's a diffent kind of energy.

DB : Yes, let's come to why this young man would have suffering even if he didn't deceive himself ? My understanding is that only someone who deceives himself would suffer...

K: He suffered physically...

DB : For having been ill...

K: So all this suffering would be a 'physical' suffering. Hmm ? Then what's the question ?

DB : I'm trying to find what was at the origin of this suffering?And there fore the ( kundalini?) energy was released becaused he stayed with the physical suffering and didn't escape ?

K: That's right. (But... that's only a part of it!) So...what next ?
You see, sir , to me all this is so simple. Because if you see truth and act, everything becomes logical !

DB : But it raises the question : What is it that 'sees' ? If thought becoming consciously aware of its incorrectnes , then it will behave differently.

K: Yes...

DB : But what is it that sees ?

K; Wait a minute sir, he sees 'truth is a pathless land' and comes to tell you what he has seen- the ( poetical) expression of thought & words. But what he has seen is not the 'word' …

DB : Yes it is a ( genuine ) perception – but there may be a 'resistance' to this perception in ( the field of) thought. Let's say that most people who heard this ( truth is a pathless land) either didn't understand it, or rejected it...

K: Ah, of course ; because in him in that (K ) chap there was no resistance

DB : Yes, but now we have to consider those who have this (psychological) resistance...

K: They will reject it.

DB ; Yes, but now it seems that the whole world has 'resistance' …

K: So they reject it !

DB : Yes but the question is : is there a way to go beyond this resistance ?

K: If I resist (the truth of) what you are saying, then what can you do to me ? You say to me, 'truth is a pathless land' and I am attached to my Guru

DB : You are attached to what is false …

K; To what is false, yes, but what you have said, which is truth, has entered my consciousness...

DB : Yes...

K: It is a 'seed' that is operating in me ! And that 'seed' is going to do something !

DB : It may do something...

K; No !

DB : But I mean, everybody who is listening to this is going to do something ?

K: It 'must' (do) ! Like Lenin said something and it affected the world.

DB : Yes but the effect was not exactly ( good)

K: Of course, because he treated human beings as insects and so on...
Now if the seed of truth is planted in me – because you have said it, it must operate ! It must grow, it must function, it has a life of its own.

Dr Bohm:Well, many millions of people may have read or heard
what you say. It may seem that a large number of them haven't
understood. Do you feel that they are all going eventually to see it?

K: No, but it's going on, they are worried about it, they ask,
"What does he mean by this?" The seed is functioning, it's
growing, it isnt dead. You can say something false and that also
operates too .

Dr B: Yes, but now we have a struggle between those two and
we cannot foresee the outcome of this struggle; we can't be sure of its
the outcome.

K: You plant in me the seed that, "Truth is a pathless land".
He comes along and says "There is a way to truth, follow me". One is false, one is true. They are both embedded in my consciousness. So there is a struggle going on. Causing more confusuion, more suffering more confusion, more misery and a great deal of suffering, if I am
sensitive enough. If I don't escape from that suffering what takes
place?

Dr B: If you don't escape, then it's clear what will take place.
Then you will have the energy to see what is true.

K: That's right.

Dr B: But now let's take the people who do escape, who seem to be a large number.

K: They are out, quite right, millions are out. But still, the struggle is going on.

Dr B: Yes, but it is creating confusion.

K: That is what they are all doing.

Dr B: Yes, but we don't know the outcome of that.

K: Oh yes, we do; dictatorship, deterioration.

Dr B: I know, it gets worse. But now we want to get it clear. In
a few people who face the suffering, the energy comes to perceive
the truth. And in a large number, who escape from suffering, things
get worse.

K: And they rule the world.

Dr B: Now what is the way out of that?

K: They said there is no answer to that, get away from it.

Dr B: That also won't do.

K: They say you can't solve this problem, go away into the
mountains or join a monastery, become a monk - but that doesn't
solve anything. All one can do is to go on shouting.

Dr B: Yes, then we have to say we don't know the outcome of
the 'shouting'.

K: If you shout in order to get an outcome, it is not the right
kind of shouting.

Dr B: Yes, that is the situation.

K: You just talk, you point out. If nobody wants to pay attention it's
their business, you go on. Now I want to go further. You see,
there is a 'mystery'; thought cannot touch it... What is the point of it?

Dr B: Of the 'mystery'? I think you could see it like this: that if
you look into the field of thought and reason and so on, you finally
see it has no clear foundation. Therefore you see that "what Is"
must be beyond that. "What Is" is the mystery.

K: Yes.

Dr B: I mean, you cannot live in this field of reality and
thought, because of all we said.

K: No, of course not. But I don't mind, I have no fears.

Dr B: You don't mind because you have psychological security.
Even if something happens to you, it does not deeply affect you.

K: I live in the field of reality, that is my life. There I am
consciously aware, and I struggle and keep going in that field. And
I can never touch the other. I cannot say, "I can touch it; there is no
"I" to touch it when you really touch it. You say to me, "There is a mystery which passes all understanding". Because I am caught in this, I would like to get 'that'. You say there is a mystery, because to you it is an actuality, not an invention, not a superstition, not a self-deception. It is truth to you. And what you say makes a tremendous impression on me,
because of your integrity. You point it out to me and I would like
to get it. Somehow I must get it. What is your responsibility to me?
You understand the position? You say : words cannot touch it,
thought cannot touch it, no action can touch it, only the action of
truth; perhaps it will give you a feeling of that. And I, because I am
a (inwardly) miserable human being, would like to get some of that. But you say, "Truth is a pathless land, don't follow anybody" - and I am
left (on my own?)
I realize, I am consciously aware of the limitation of thought, of
all the confusion, misery, and all the rest of it. Somehow I can't get
out of it. Is your compassion going to help me? You are
compassionate, because part of that extraordinary 'mystery' is
compassion. Will your compassion help me? - obviously not.
So what am I to do? I have a consuming desire for that, and you
say, "Don't have any desire, you can't have that, it isn't your
personal property". All you say to me is: put order in the field of
reality.

Dr B: Yes, and not escape suffering.

K: If you actually put order into the field of reality then
something will take place. And also you say to me, it must be done
instantly.
Is that mystery something everybody knows? - knows in the
sense that there is something mysterious. Not the desire that creates
mysteries, but that there is something mysterious in life apart from
my suffering, apart from my death, from my jealousy, my anxiety.
Apart from all that, there is a feeling that there is a great mystery in
life. Is that it? - that there is a mystery which each one knows?

Dr B: I should think that in some sense everybody knows it.
Probably one is born with that sense and it gradually gets dimmed
through the conditioning.

K: And has he got the vitality, or the intensity, to put away all
that? You see, that means "God is always within you" - that is the danger
of it.

Dr B: Not exactly, but there is some sort of intimation of this. I
think probably children have it more strongly when they are young.

K: Do you think that modern children have that?

Dr B: I don't know about them, probably less. You see, living in
a modern city must have a bad effect.

Dr B: There are many causes. One is the lack of contact with nature; I think any contact with nature gives that sense of mystery.

K: Yes.

Dr B: If you look at the sky at night, for example.

K: But you see the scientists are explaining the stars.... Cousteau explains the ocean; everything is being explained away .

Dr B: Yes, the feeling has been created that in principle we
could know everything.

K: So knowledge is becoming the curse. You see, perception
has nothing to do with knowledge. Truth and knowledge don't go
together; knowledge cannot contain the immensity of mystery.

Dr B: Yes, I think if we start with a little child, he may place the
mystery in some part that he doesn't know. He could put it at the
bottom of the ocean, or somewhere else outside, far away from
where he is, and then he learns that people have been everywhere.
Therefore the whole thing is made to appear non-existent.

K: Yes. Everything becomes so superficial.

Dr B: That's the danger of our modern age, that it gives the
appearance that we know more or less everything. At least that we
have a general idea of the scheme, if not of the details.

K: The other night I was listening to Bronowski, "The Ascent of
Man". He explains everything.

Dr B: The original impulse was to penetrate into this mystery, that was the impulse of science. And somehow it has gone astray. It gives the appearance of explaining it.

K: May I ask, do you as a trained scientist get the feeling of this
mystery.

Dr B: I think so, yes. But I've always had some of that, you see.

K: But in talking now, do you get more intensity of it?
Not because I feel intense, that's a totally different thing, that then
becomes influence and all that. But in talking about 'something' we
open a door.

Dr B: Yes. I think that my particular conditioning has a great
deal in it to resist this notion of mystery, although I think that
science is now going in a wrong direction.

K: But even the scientists admit that there is a mystery.

Dr B: Yes, to some extent. The general view is that it could be
eventually cleared up.

K: Cleared up in the sense of explained away.

Dr B: My own feeling is that every particular scientific
explanation will be a certain part of this field of reality, and
therefore will not clear away the mystery.

K: No, but it clears it away because I listen to you explaining
everything, and then I say, "There is nothing".

Dr B: That is the main point of distinguishing between truth and
reality, because we could say, in the field of reality we may explain
more and more broadly without limit.

K: That is what the present day Communists are doing.

Dr B: Not only the Communists...

K: Of course not, I'm taking that as an example.

Dr B: I think you could say, anything in the field of reality can
be explained, we can penetrate more deeply and broadly, there is
limitless progress possible. But the essence is not explained.

K: No, I am asking a different question, I'm asking you, in
talking like this, do you have an intimation of that mystery ? Being a
scientist, a serious person, perhaps you had an intimation long ago.
In talking now, do you feel it's no longer an intimation but a 'truth'?

Dr B: Yes, it is a truth.

K: So it's no longer an intimation?

Dr B: I think it's been a truth for some time now. Because it's
implied in what we have been doing here.

K: Yes. You see there is something interesting: the truth of that
mystery makes the mind completely empty, doesn't it ? it's
completely silent. Or because it is silent, the truth of that mystery
'is'. I don't know if I'm conveying anything. When the mind is
completely silent, not in use, not meditated upon, and because it
has put order in reality it is free from that confusion, there is a
certain silence, but it is not the real silence - the mind is just moving away from confusion.
Realizing that is not silence, not moving away from that realization
but staying with it, means negating that which order has produced.

Dr B: You say, first you produce order. Why is it necessary to
produce the order first and then negate it?

K: To negate is silence.

Dr B: Which is of that order. This is why it has to take place in that sequence.

K: Realizing that is not true silence I negate the false
silence, for the moment. So in the negation of that silence I don't
want any other silence. There is no movement for greater
silence. Then this total silence opens the door to That. That is, when
the mind, with all the confusion, is 'no-thing' - not a thing - then
perhaps there is the Other.( pause) So, you're coming to Silence, you'd better stop now....

DB : Yeah...

K: Could we continue (our dialogues) by taking one actuality after the other  (actuality in the field of reality ) ? Suffering, death, fear and penetrate that as deeply as we can ? Would that be worthwhile ?

DB : It's worth the try...

K: You and I only, or with anybody else ?

DB : It's easier just you and I ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 27 Oct 2019 #57
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

7-th K-DB Dialogue, Truth & Reality ('reader-friendly' edited)

K: Where shall we start out ?

DB : Do you have some suggestions  ?

K: Where did we leave off ?

DB : Well, last time we began by discussing the action of truth and then you broke off for short and raise the question of 'mystery'...

K: Oh, yes...

DB : I told you yesterday about a quotation from Einstein : ''The most beautiful experience that we could have is the experience of mystery'' That's how he put it...

K: Right... (pause) All the religions – not the 'orthodox' saints or the 'orthodox' priests- they all said there is something mysterious -something so vast that the human mind can't grasp...

DB : And as I was saying last time, this quotation of Einstein shows this is behind the deepest part of the scientific research...I just remember that when I was in Berkley, California they were setting up a huge magnet to study the nucleus of the atom – in other words, they were probing something very mysterious, and a friend of mine came along and said : Every piece of iron of that must eventually turned into a battleship...( laughter) Which it did, as it became part of the Manhattan Project for the atomic bomb...

K: I wonder if there is anything mysterious -I'm just exploring, I don't say there is or there isn't... First of all, as a thing 'desirable', it is very inviting...

DB : I looked up at the word 'mystery', and it means basically hidden or secret – so some of the religions have some 'mysteries' at their center...

K: Yes, the Greeks had it, the Egyptians had it, and of course, the Hindus...

DB : Now the dictionary also says that 'mystery' is something beyond human understanding – which is not exactly the same. The first one was secret, but perhaps you could be initiated into the mystery- there was some understanding involved, but the Christians said : you can never understand it...

K: Understand it in the sense of 'experiencing ' it ?

DB : Well, to be comprehended rationally...

K: If one sets about to experience That, or to 'come into' That...

DB : I think that they used to say ' to participate in it'...

K: Participate in it. What is the nature of the mind that can 'participate' into something that is totally... mysterious ?

DB : And what is the nature of the participation ?

K: Yes, that's just it. You see, you were talking the other day, having read that Biography...I think we missed a point there...

DB : What was the point ?

K: The explanations which we gave, the reincarnation, the illness & all that ...I think that doesn't cover the ground totally...Cause I've always felt there was 'something' so vast that all their mysteries, & initiations, had nothing to do with it. See, it can be either be so romantically idiotic, or it is something that ' is there'.... I don't know how to convey all this... (pause)
Sir, how does science investigate this question of mystery  ?

DB : Well, I think that most scientists deny it...You see, it begins with some interest in something mysterious, with the hope of probing into the mystery, but gradually this slides over into another attitude in which people explain something and they begin gradually to replace the mystery by the structure they have explained, implying that that is all there is. All the scientists are always saying that a tremendous amount is unknown , but they generally imply that the unknown

K: ...it can be known.

DB : It can be known and set into the same kind of framework. But in the begining- I remember talking with Einstein and with other scientists that in the beginning there was something mysterious . I mean, that was part of the energy that was behind our work...

K: Right....If as a scientist, you want to 'participate in it', how would you set about it ?

DB : You see, the ordinary way of going about it, - one way is to is to set up equipment which can probe the mystery- a telescope or a microscope or a...( K laughs) I know, I'm just explaining – like this tremendous magnet which particles have very high energy – the idea was that with very high energy particles one can probe the mysterious structure beneath...

K: I can see that...

DB ; Of course there is also the theoretical probe – with the theoretical insight or the imagination, speculation....But it seems that essentially those are the instruments science has used. Now, it's not clear to me how Einstein thought of it, because on one hand he was looking for a total explanation- but it seems to me there's a contradiction here -that science is committed to a total explanation and at the same time , if there is an explanation...there's no mystery...

K: Right, what is explained is not mystery...

DB : And if Einstein says that ''the most beautiful experience is the mystery'', if it is explained, it seems to me that all beauty will vanish, you see ? Perhaps he didn't believe that it can be explained...

K: Suppose you 'have participated' in that mystery and you want to tell me about it, or you want to help me, or guide me or 'push me' towards it : what would you do ?
Would you say : settling all these things are necessary first ?

DB : Well, what are they ?

K: I don't want to use 'preparatory things' , but like ( having) a very sensitive body -not emotional, not sentimental, not mental, not neurotic, but 'sensitive', in the sense of having a quick insight and a quick comprehension – not a tremedous lot of explanations, auick grasp of something which is true. Would you say that would be necessary ?

DB : Well that would be necessary, but obviously it would be necessary for anything (of a creative nature)

K: No... but that means (having) a very sensitive neurological system and a 'psychological' clarity.

DB : Right...

K: Now, how does one have 'psychological' clarity? If we grant that these two are essential -a quick mind, a quick insight, a perception that is correct ; and suppose I haven't got it, then is there a method, a system, a practice, a way of washing out, purging all that ? Or there is no way at all ? Or, only the act of totally listening to what you say ?
For instance, when you say there is a mystery, to you it is the truth, the actuality, it 'is' . And if I haven't got the 'ears' to listen to you, I'll never capture it and I won't 'participate in it'...And my longing is to participate in it , because intellectually I see how important it is.

DB : But the longing is of no use...

K: Longing is of no use, but I 'perceive it', I 'see' with all my being how important it is to 'participate' in that mysterious thing which will give an enormous sense of beauty and all that. I see (all this) , but any effort I make ( to reach it) will spoil it -any desire, any action, any volition is still within the field of reality. So, how am I to participate into something which is so actual ? What would you as a scientist say to it ?

DB : Well, my science has not really confronted that...

K: I know...after all sir, they are looking at (flying) 'saucers', but that's not mysterious

DB : Well, they hope it is. It has been called a 'mysterious universe'...

K: Would you call that 'mysterious' ?

DB : Well, not as long as it's still part of the same structure of reality...

K: Reality, yes that's right.

DB : But when you say there is a 'mystery', we have truth and we have reality which don't mix, although reality can become aware of the action of truth...

K: Yes...Reality can bring about order into itself...

DB : ...so that it responds to the action of truth.

K: It might.

DB : Now something that occurred to me is that this cannot be the last word- they cannot be entirely separated, you see ? In other words that you could divide existence into two...

K: Reality and truth...Why not ?

DB : Well, I don't know why not, but simply, this division...

K: Ahh ! Is there a division ?

DB : Well, that's the question, but the way we put it it sounds like there is...

K: I know, but I'd like to questin and find out whether (this) division exists at all ?

DB : Yes, but in the beginning you insisted that they are 'separate' …

K: I know, but we are usually (seeing them as) two separate things...

DB : And what does the word 'separate' means ?

K: Divided.

DB : Can we say one is not related to another ?

K: We said that.

DB : Yes, which implies division and separation...and at a certain level that appears tho be the case...

K: Let's accept that for the moment.

DB : Once before, in a discussion on intelligence we raised the question whether there cannot be a source that underlies both, you see ?

K: Yes, yes, quite...

DB : And in that source there's no separation as truth and reality...

K: It's a common bed...

DB : A common ground or however you'd like to call that...

K: For the moment we're not talking about that...

DB : Now one could say that possibly this source is a mystery...because if you once once begin to characterise it, it either becomes truth or reality.
And another point where I was going wrong is that reality, although it is fragmented and incomplete, has a tendency to become complete, which in some ways is good, because it helps to organise reality in a more orderly way...
But then, in the attempt of thought to cover the whole...it goes wrong...

K: Of course...

DB : But thought is always trying to cover the whole – always trying to say 'this is the whole'- and in that way it is establishing a 'conclusion', a 'closure'...and that of course, becomes false... We were saying the other time that thought must acknowledge its own fragmentary nature, its limited nature, and at the same time it has the impulse to expand – and that's quite good as long as thought is not trying to 'capture' the whole...

K: Quite, quite...I understand all that …

DB : Now it occurred to me that thought, in trying to capture the whole, is a barrier in trying to seeing this mystery...

K: Would you say, if thought is aware of its own limitations – not expand, not trying to include the whole – sees its limitation and therefore moves beyond that limitation ?

DB : Yes and we were also saying the other time that thought doesn't stay within its limitations ordinarily – if it finds its limitation then it tends to be out of it already...

K: We are saying thought is aware, attentive, totally aware of its limitation...

DB : Let's put it this way, thought is aware that there is something beyond the limited …

K: Ah, I would question it...

DB : Thought knows that it is limited but it is already implied that...

K: No, I can't make it ; this room is full...

DB : In the very structure of the word 'limit' it is implied something beyond that...

K: Thought is aware that it is fragmented, broken, limited ; it cannot move beyond its frontiers.

DB : Yes, thought cannot capture the whole...

K: Let's put it this way, yes. And it stays there, it doesn't try to 'capture' the whole or say 'I am the whole'...

DB : Yes, but then there are so many subtle ways in which thought is trying to capture it, not only by concepts, but also by feelings...and we have to watch them all...

K: I watch them all- feeling, desire, thought...and I won't move from there , because the moment I move it is still the same thing (going on ) …

DB : Yes, I wonder why thought is trying to 'capture' the whole ?

K: Because it is aware of its own capacity as a 'fragmented' thing...

DB : Yes, but why does it want to go beyond that ?

K: Because of pain, suffering, or wanting greater experiences...

DB : But that's no explanation, because the suffering may be due to the desire to go beyond...My own feeling is that suffering comes when thought is trying to 'capture' the whole...

K: Aha ! I see what you're saying.

DB : Because that being impossible...

K...therefore it suffers ? No, I wouldn't put it that way....

DB : Why ?

K: Because suffering is produced by thought – not because it wants to capture something and therefore it suffers.

DB : Yeah...But that's one cause of suffering -if thought tries to achieve something which it cannot achieve.

K: But If thought cannot achieve why should it suffer ? If I can't become the Queen of England, then that's the end of it...
Is it possible for the thought (process ) that is (operating) in me – to say ''I am totally limited ? I'm limited, fragmented, broken up and any movement I make is still in the same area ''? Is that not possible ?

DB : Yes, well.... we'll have to be very clear...

K: 'I' am confined in this ( inner) prison with its ache and I cannot get out...all that I include.

DB : But also, perhaps thought has seen that 'wholeness' is good and has got into the habit of trying to 'achieve wholeness'...In other words, thought has seen it's not wholeness and it is looking for wholeness...

K: That too, when I use the word 'limited' I include all that...

DB : And we can see why thought is in fact limited- because it is limited to 'reaction' and 'reflexion' – and it cannot reflect on the 'mystery', it can only reflect on reality …

K: That's right ! Reflect what is going on in reality...

DB : Yes, it can reflect and define and determine and measure...

K: And (when?) thought realises this, there is no movement within that field...

DB : Yes, well, but still it may be because a lot of lifetime unconscious movements...

K: Allright...Let's go into that ! My unconscious desire for the whole - I watch it !
That's why I said I'm very sensitive to everything that is going on in me...conscious as well as unconscious.

DB : Now, being sensitive of the 'unconscious' – let's discuss that a little- because if you're totally unconscious you couldn't be sensitive to it. So we must be clear that it's 'relatively' unconscious. In other words, 'unconscious' may be only dimly aware of those movements...

K: Dimly aware.

DB : But not absolutely, totally unaware...

K: No, no...Dimly aware.

DB : And therefore by being sensitive to all the hints and implications...

K:...dreams, to everything. To me the 'unconscious' is not really important...

DB : I don't think it is important, except that it may do things that may make a bigger fact...

K: My mind is very aware of all this – aware of the intimations of the 'unconscious' of the hints, the hidden motives, which if one is ( inwardly) alert one can very easy to find out...

DB : All the various senses of pleasure and pain...

K: All that.

DB : But I think the 'unconscious' has the tendency to make the mind dull, to make itself less sensitive to all these things...

K: Quite, quite ! The 'unconscious' tries to make the 'conscious' ( mind) not so active.

DB : It tries to anesthetise, to tranquilise it...

K: That's right ; therefore when I see all that I'm fully aware of the whole movement – the hidden motives, the desires, will & all that. That is, thought totally realises its own boundaries, that it cannot go beyond it.
You see, that's what the 'orthodox' meditation people do - trying to control thought - they don't realise the 'controller' is the 'controlled'- they're trying to control thought so that it has no movement.

DB : Yes, we've discussed that, but that implies some movement in the field of reality to control thought which may usually involve concentration, contemplation...

K: But it's still a 'movement' of thought...

DB : Now they have the assumption that there are certain 'movements' of thought which will bring quietness...

K: From what I've understood, they say ''thought must be controlled''...

DB : I'm not even sure all of them say this- some, like Maharishi, say it must be quiet- he doesn't call it 'control' – by concentrating on a word, and then drop the word and so on...

K: But it's still the movement of thought !

DB : Yes, but I think his assumption is that there is a certain movement of thought that can make thought silent and then the 'mystery' might participate. I'm not saying I accept this...

K: From what I've heard – not from Maharishi & his disciples- is that sound has a peculiar effect on the brain. And those sounds ( 'mantras') are given only to people who have lived with the master for a number of years, and the master has studied them -seen their character, their tendency & all the rest of it. Then, they give a certain mantra....

DB : Yes, who would be suited to that person...

K: To that person and to nobody else !

DB : Yes ; now assuming they do that, that 'sound' is still thought...

K: Yes.

DB : That's because it's defined in some way...

K: No, there's something much deeper. At first you repeat it aloud, then you repeat it silently...

DB : Yeah...

K: Then, you listen to the sound only.

DB : Hmm...And they believe that would be beyond thought ?

K: Yes...

DB : And you say it's not beyond ?

K: It's not beyond.

DB : Because the sound is produced from memory...

K: Yes. It's all ( part of) the structure of thought – which is a desire to achieve tranquility.

DB : Yes, so in the whole process is implicit the desire to achieve – it would be there even if it's 'dimly aware' …

K; Yes !

DB : And that desire would produce a distortion, a self-deception...

K: An illusion. So, being aware of that, any desire of 'achievement' must always produce a (psychological) illusion. Thought then says 'there is no movement'.

DB : Yes, but when it says that, there is already a 'movement' ….

K: No....I mean, it realises, it knows, or it is aware (that) it 'is' so ! That is the truth.
Right ? The moment thought has said ' I cannot move' , that's the fact !

DB : Yes...that sounds a little troublesome, because you seem to be saying that thought has the truth...

K: No, no ! The moment it stops 'moving' then that is so !

DB : Truth 'is', right ?

K: Yes. It isn't that thought has created truth. Thought comes to an end – as a movement beyond its limits...I wonder if I'm making it clear...

DB : Yes...when thought comes to an end...

K: Not as a means of achieving something, not by volition, by desire for tranquility, or for experiencing peace...None of that !

DB : That is, when thought is 'consciously aware' of its own limitation  it comes to an end when there's no need for it.

K: Yes. That's all I am saying.

DB : And that is truth, or would you say that truth 'is' ?

K: Yes ! Then truth 'is'... Meditation is...can I put it the other way ? Can the mind, which is (self-) consciousness with its thought -all that we have discussed- can that (mind) 'empty' itself ?

DB : Now, what does that mean 'empty itself' ?

K: (Empty itself) of the 'things' that thought has created.

DB : What are these things ?

K: Like achievement, desire, will, attachment...

DB : ...the 'center' ?

K: The 'center'...

DB : ...and time ?

K: That's it ! Can there be an 'emptying' of all that?

DB : But when you say 'emptying', what you mean by that ?

K: I mean by 'emptying', seeing the 'reality' of thought - thought which is fragmented
broken up and whatever it does it is still limiting & so on...That's my consciousness – that is the field of reality and thought is always active there.

DB : Yes, but I think that the traditional thought is always seeks to go beyond the field of reality...We pick up this tradition from the society. Now do you say that your thought is entirely without a 'center' ?

K: Yes...'Center' being desire, achievement...

DB : But there is also the sensation of the 'center'...

K:...sensation as 'being', in the solar plexus or in the heart.... No 'center', that is definite !

DB : I can see that the concept of the 'center' produces a reaction, produces a feeling – in other words the feeling of the center is produced by the concept of the center, so it has no independent reality...

K: Quite...

DB : And it seems that that center is one of the basic causes of illusion, because once the 'center' is established, the next thought atributes itself to the center, therefore it becomes the 'truth'. In other words, thought then seems to achieve to have gotten itself beyond reality, into truth...

K: If I see very clearly the world of reality which thought has created...

DB : ...which includes the 'center', the concept...

K: Of course, and the concept feeding the center and the center feeding the concept...all that is the movement of thought.

DB : You see, just a matter of clarifying something : when I see something which is called 'objective reality'- is it correct to say that it is independent of thought ? For instance, the microphone, although made by thought is an objective reality. Now there is another 'reality' which is created and sustained by thought – the 'center'.

K: The 'center', that's right ! The 'center is created by thought...

DB : And sustained by thought. And it doesn't have the same kind of (objective) 'reality' as the mountain...

K: Of course...

DB : So, part of the confusion comes from our inability to make a clear distinction between that which is sustained independently of thought and that which is thought-sustained. And it occurred to me that when something happens, thought thinks something and the root of thought is not perceived, and suddenly the content appears as having a certain reality, which is then taken by the next thought as an existing independently...And we losoe track of that, you see ?
Now I was going to say that if I didn't loose track of this, I would see that the whole of thought is one and there will be no illusion, no ?

K: That's right.

DB : So, as I've been watching all this for a while, I saw that I have a natural tendency of 'loosing track' and later it is built up systematically by the thought which goes beyond (the field of) reality - the thought of the 'center'...

K: I think from what you said just now, that thought has created this...

DB : Yes, but it's still existing...

K: ...independent of thought. And the 'center' is created by thought...

DB ...But it doesn't exist independent of thought...

K: It is sustained by thought all the time. So, those are two factors.

DB : That's right. Now, I've asked myself how one could confuse one with the other and the answer is that thought -when it creates the 'center' - is not aware of itself creating the 'center' and suddenly the 'center' is there as is this microphone...

K: That's it...And takes that as reality !

DB : It takes that as independent reality. And after that it begins to atribute pleasure and pain to the 'center' and in the hope to maintain the pleasure it does not want to give up the 'reality' of the center. Because to give up the 'reality' of the center you would loose the possibility of pleasure from thought...

K: Quite. Let's get it clear : thought has created this...

DB : Yes, but I would like to make it complete : it measures and defines and determines, you see ? For example it might determine the mountain although it hasn't created the mountain ; it determines the mountain as an objective reality -which was there without thought ; the next step is that thought has made the microphone – which is put there with thought, but it still exists independently, then the third step is : thought has created a 'center' which does not exist independently of thought at all, but thought thinks that it does exist...

K: ...independently, and sustains that 'independence' through pleasure & so on...

DB : And then this becomes a trap, because the same mechanism that was thought to attribute reality to the 'center'- which then it seems to be something genuine and real, as if it were some objective reality, independent of thought. But then once thought has attributed pleasure to the 'center', it cannot avoid to attribute pain to the center and that creates suffering …

K: Quite, that's simple enough.... So we got the picture clear. Now, one is totally aware of this -and therefore no movement as time and measure outside this (field). Because thought, as we said, cannot comprehend or apprehend the whole, and it is not a verbal acceptance, but an 'actuality' – thought sees as objectively as that.

DB : Yes, I understand, but I think there is still a slight residue, almost a physical movement which thought seems still to (go on ?) ..

K: I don't quite understand...

DB : Well, I can't explain, but there are still waves...

K: Aha... ! No sir, that's what I want to (clarify) When there is the realisation, or the comprehension, that thought is a movement in time & measure, ( of how) thought creates the center and sustains the center – thought created this as something objective, independent of thought...

DB : Yes, and thought recognises the objective independence of the mountain...

K: I am 'aware' of all that ! And thought has no movement 'beyond' – in which is included consciousness, semi-conscious, dim-conscious – everything. Because you know, - we have talked a little bit of this yesterday : thought is movement in time, ( the insightful) action is without time...

DB : Yes, but that may be the point that remains to be looked at...

K: I don't want to bring it in yet, but when one is only living in 'acting' and not in the movement of time...

DB : And yet, the movement of time is going on. You see, this is the point which we ought to discuss and try to make it very clear, because many years ago in ( chalet) Tanegg we reached this point in our discussion – we were discussing the 'center' and being free of the 'center' and then came to the question of the 'timeless' - now one of the things that were puzzling me at that time came to the question of time. Now you see, the thing that puzzled me at the time was that as I'm talking to you in time, you say you're not in time. Probably then there was a feeling that everything exists in time ; you see, this is something which is in every tradition and is very deeply ingrained...

K: Yes ( that) everything is in time...

DB : Now suppose that one can reach the stage to see that the 'center' is nothing but a creation of thought ; but then there seems to be a movement – which almost seems to be an universal movement – the feeling that all over there's is a movement in which you exist. And that's probably communicated to us in a very subtle (way) by tradition – it's handed down...

K: Wait a minute ! I have no tradition …

DB : But suppose you have ?

K: I'll come to that lately....I have no tradition  - I'm not a sclave to society -psychologically- I have no burden of the thousand yesterdays – so there is no conscious or unconscious movement.

DB : I think tradition is the source of all this movement.

K: That's it !

DB : And the tradition – how it's handed down – I've looked up in the dictionary – that it's not only handed down verbally, but also by example, and that's much more difficult (to see). The point is that when the child sees the parents or the other children behaving in a certain way - which implies a certain way of thinking – the child begins to think that way...

K: Quite, quite, quite...

DB :...and it seems that he's picking it up as it were an independent reality, because it's not his thought, it's somebody else's thought – he doesn't see that all thought is one - it doesn't matter whose thought it is...But you see, when you learn from tradition somebody is guided by thought, but h's implying that it's not thought but it's the way things have always been necessarily & objectively so...

K: I don't know if you've seen that tradition has the same root as 'betrayal' …

DB : Yes, I was thinking that we need two words - there was something you were saying the other day- that you discovered something like Columbus, and that other people might learn and not start from the same experience- so in some sense you are also passing something over , but not in the same way...

K: N not in the same way...

DB : In science it's the same way : you shouldn't hand it over traditionally, but rather, from somebody else's discovery you move on -although unfortunately, this has aso become a tradition...

K: You see, sir, wait a minute ! Here there is no 'moving on' !

DB : Yes, but that's implied in what you said the other day : you are like Columbus- you discovered that ''truth is a pathless land'' and you went through all sorts of painful experiences, which you say are not necessary for other people to live. Now let's say that somebody else can learn from your discovery, then the question is : what happens ? So, you're saying ''no moving on''... ?

K; No ! There's no movement beyond that.

DB : Yes, allright...Let's try to make it clear ; in science – as it has been practised- if there is a discovery and it's done right, then one learns and discovers something else...And that makes a series of discoveries which make a kind of progress...

K: Progress and knowledge, accumulate all sorts of knowledge & all the rest of it...

DB : Yes ; now let's try to make it clear : how you propose to do it differently ?

K: Yes : here when you say 'truth is a pathless land' , it is final, it is so !

DB : Yes, alright , but you still said that when somebody may learn from your discovery , he can make his own discovery...

K; Someone says : 'Truth is a pathless land' , it is so ! There is nothing more to be said. There's no movement of somebody else coming over & saying 'Yes !'

DB : We'll have to make it clear : Let's say that in science someone makes a discovery- say : Einstein made a discovery; now somebody else may learn from that discovery -it doesn't mean that he'll repeat, but having learned from Einstein he may now discover something deeper...

K: Deeper, quite...

DB : Now is there any similarity ?

K: No !

DB : No similarity. Let's try to make it clear : there seems to be an intrinsic difference between science and what you're talking about, because I can't imagine science except by one discovery leading to another, otherwise it would be pointless...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : So here is not the case of one discovery leading to another – I learn that Truth is a pathless land because of what you said...

K: It is so !

DB Right, 'It is so !', and that acts ?

K: Right...

DB : But now you say there is a mystery and we're not going to discover deeper into the mystery ?

K: No. When thought has no movement beyond its limitations, beyond its 'reality'...

DB ; When you see there is no movement – this requires some clarification...
You say that you have no tradition, but I come from (a cultural) tradition …

K: Let's move that doesn't matter.

DB : Now, let's say that over many many years with my parents and friends and so on, I was communicated 'non-verbally' and by example, that I live in time, that time is the essence- in everything time is the most important and your life depends on time and time is flying and so on...

K: ...time is money...

DB : And you have only a limited time to live so make good use of it...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : So everybody has communicated in millions of ways how important time is from very early. And that ( subliminal?) communication was picked up as it were an objective reality, not what somebody told me as an idea, and therefore I experience it as an objective reality...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : It's the same as the 'center' which is experienced as an independent reality and theredore it is 'time'- because of that tradition...

K; Quite, quite...

DB : Now, that experience of the 'center' may not be so permanently strong, there is a sense of some movement going on all over - especially in the body- in other words, there is a 'stream of movement' in which I exist....Now, it seems to me that being free of that is much more than being free of the 'center'...

K; I see what you're leading at.

DB : Because I think this was the point, many years ago, when we had a discussion here in Gstaad, and now I think we've reached the bottom of that...

K: Aha ! Sir, forgive me if I talk about myself, I've never thought about time. Time has not entered into my being. I know there is time, I know that if I order something it would take 5 or 10 days...But the 'psychological' factor of time has never played any part ; that is, there was never been a question of 'becoming' something...

DB : Well, it's not maybe a question of 'becoming', but time comes under different forms, And I feel that through time one loses track of the oneness of thought. When you say 'All thought is one, and it's all limited', I understand that, but the 'actuality' of that gets lost...

K: Ah ! Quite, quite !

DB : And I can see at least one reason – it gets lost through time. Let's say that at one moment I am aware of what is taking place, the next moment comes along and suddenly it's another moment that is different – and therefore what appears the connexion between what is here and therefore the connexion what was done a moment before and what is done now is lost, you see ? Have I made it clear ?

K: Not quite...

DB : Let's try to make it clear : I think time introduces fragmentation, because time is one moment, and then another & another...Let's say that what is happening in thought now is one process and what has happened before is continuous and made us what we are now -in the whole of thought...

K; Yes, yes...

DB : Let's say that I have a sense of the 'center' now, but that was due to a concept I had a moment ago, and it takes a moment for the concept to produce a wave...

K; And also the 'ending' of it !

DB : Yes but there's a sudden feeling that the connexion between the 'center' which exists now and the concept which I had a moment ago is lost, you see ?
Lost to awareness, anyway...

K: I haven't got your meaning yet...

DB : Well, it's almost like saying : I understand certain things about thought, and there is a sudden feeling that this is a different moment when it is not really different, you see ?

K: Aha !

DB : For example if something surges up very fast and is very intense, there is an implicit thought- anything beyond a certain speed and a intensity is (part of ?) reality and not thought

K: So, what are you trying to say ?

DB : I'm only trying to say that this question of time is more than just 'becoming' – it includes this sense of becoming something better & so on – but it also for me it has a tendency to loose track of the connexion. If I could see that all thought is one I would not loose track of the connexion. You see, I've understood what you said that 'all thought is limited' but at one moment my brain looses track of that and says :
''OK, all thought is limited'', but this isn't ( coming from) thought- you see ?

K: Yes, quite !

DB : And therefore this is allowed to go on in a limited way...

K: I see, or I perceive that all thought is one. Therefore it is not my thought or your thought...

DB : Yes, but it has all sort of means by which thought is trying to present itself as
not-thought...

K: I know, that's delusion and all the rest of it.

DB : Yeah, and I think time isinvolved in all that.

K: Sir, wouldn't you say that if you perceived not verbally, if you really had an insight into thought – everything else in relation to thought is explained ? That is, desire, will, unconnected moments (intervals) of thought...

DB : ...suffering and also pleasure and fear. I'll have to see the whole thing, but my point is that all my sense of time -which includes the separation of moments of time
When I say 'now' this is also a moment of though and therefore thought introduces a separation which is false, because the moment before has flowed continuously into this moment...

K: So, the word separates...

DB : ...the sensation separates...

K: There are intervals between thoughts which separates...

DB : ...and also changes in thought that separate...

K: All that is (part of?) the movement of thought.

DB : Yes... But the point I was trying to make was that the movement of thought is very deceptive and has many aspects of which one has to be aware...

K: Of course, of course...

DB : Now, one of the things that arises is that when one is trying to do something, or when you're in relation with somebody, thought rises to such intensity that it will mistake itself for a reality that is independent of thought...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And therefore it looses track at that moments. You see, everything you say was understood, more or less, but at a certain stage thought looses track of what thought is

K: Quite...I understand this...

DB : And one has somehow to keep the awareness of the connexion...

K: I'm not sure, sir, that all these things arise when you are really experiencing an insight into thought as movement in time.

DB : Yes I am sure that is so, but I'm trying to say...

K: ( An insight) into the whole of that, of what is implied ! Do we really 'see' the whole movement of thought as a movement , have an insight into it and then describe all the details of it ? With me -I don't know if I am odd or peculiar - I 'see' and then explain ; not ( start with ) the explanation and then 'see'.

DB : Hmm...

K; Sir, are we saying there is always ( a stream of?) time, there is no ending to time ; it is a constant steady moving ?

DB : That's the way it appears...

K: ...in which we live ; which expresses itself as yesterday, today & tomorrow, which expresses itself as the 'center' and acting from the center and the intervals between thoughts and the thought changing from yesterday's thought...

DB : ... as gradual change...

K: All that is the movement of time : attachment, detachment, all that is the movement of time. Now, can thought see that and stop ? Can time, in the sense of ( mental?) movement stop ? Time must have a stop...(silent pause)
You see, if there is no ending for thought there is no radical revolution. Right ?
Then we just go on changing patterns and all the rest of it. That is, you see the truth (that) time must have a stop. Like 'truth is a pathless land', you see the truth that thought must have a stop. You are trying to convey to me, verbally, the movement of thought, 'center' and all that. And I listen to all your explanation and yet my mind is groping after the stopping of that time...

DB : Hmm...

K: Because (seeing ) the fact that 'time must have a stop' is an extraordinary thing and I'm grasping after that. Unconsciously I want it. I realise I am becoming totally conscious of the whole content of my consciousness.

DB : Yes, let's try to put it like this : one can see the necessity of this -that time must have a stop. Now once again we come back to the 'unconscious' to deal with, because I see there are layers and they move in time...

K: A tremendous block !

DB : You see, in our whole tradition there are instincts in that direction and you are implying there are not...

K: For me they never were a major factor...

DB : Hmm....yes

K: I'm not saying this with any...

DB : Yes... You also said that any explanations of you being ill and all we gave before were inadequate, so what else would you ask ?

K: You see, all those explanations did actually reveal something about that which was 'strange' -in the sense of mysterious...

DB : You mean, from the beginning ?

K: From the beginning...There are thousands of boys ( who are) frail, vague and then gat conditioned and drop off, millions of them : this (K) boy, why it didn't happen to him ? You follow, sir ?

DB : Yes...

K: I give you half a dozen explanations, but I say, all those explanations are satisfying at a certain level but it is not a complete explanation. There is something totally mysterious and totally 'sacred' in this -if I can use that word without too much sentimentality or religiosity - that was taking place in him.

DB ; Even before he was discovered by...( Leadbetter ?)

K: I think the 'seed' of it was already operating, because when I saw that picture of the two brothers -the taller one holding the hand of the other one – I felt that there was something uncontaminated, something extraordinay that was happening to him already... I don't want to create a mystery about all this – I have horror of it- but the explanations of what took place, I don't think they give a clue to it...

DB : Then could we say there were 'favorable' conditions to this thing, but they do not... ?

K: They were not favorable !

DB : They were not 'favorable', but the fact of being ill allowed him not to be affected by the conditioning...So you could say that a little later the mind was not so impressionable to be affected by it. But you say, that's not enough...

K: That's not enough ; there are millions of boys like that...

DB : But on the other hand, that tendency might have been fully favorable. So you can't just say, this is particularly good compared with that...

K: No, but I feel... Look there's something more simple : millions of boys go through this illness -malaria- recover, being conditioned and go off -in the sense that they become ordinary, become normal or whatever you'd like to call it. Here was a boy who had that illness, who had malaria – quinine, doctor & all the rest of it, so mentally he was retarded, therefore he was unconditioned.

DB : Yes...Until he was less impressionable. But I mean, beyond a certain age the conditioning doesn't hold ; for instance, children who don't learn a language until the age of seven may find it later, more difficult to learn ; they are very easily conditioned up to a certain age...

K: That's right.

DB : And beyond that age they are not so easily conditioned ; therefore if a boy can escape conditioning in the first number of years...

K: Till fourteen, fifteen...

DB : ...then beyond that point his brain is resistent to conditioning -it doesn't take it...

K: Doesn't take - not 'resist' !

DB : ...doesn't take the conditioning, whereas at an early age impressions are made much more easily and they hold...

K: Let's take that.

DB : I mean, that's just one explanation, but as you say that might be ( only) slightly favorable...Now, can you say anymore ?

K: (Laughs) Can we talk simply, frankly ?

DB : Yes...We'd better record it, unless you don't want to...

K: He felt that he was 'protected'.

DB: I see ; by what ?

K : Just a minute ; he felt always 'protected'.

DB : But I think many children feel protected...

K: Non, no, much later -I'm told

DB : How old ?

K: Oh, till age twenty, thirty...

DB : And would that feeling continue ?

K: Yes.

DB : But I mean, what sort of protection ?

K: ( silent pause)...'protected' in the sense you protect a tree to grow straight -against the wind and...

DB : Hmm...But why does this one ?

K: I don't know, but I wouldn't enquire into it...

DB : You think it's better not to ?

K: Yes ; I've gone into this very much with people like Lady Emily who's known me and others in India who know me and with Mrs Zimbalist & others - and for a certain number of years. When it comes to a certain point...I don't want to enquire – I feel I can't enquire. It sounds too damn silly to say there's something the mind, thought cannot penetrate. But the thing is there !

DB : Would you then say that somewhere within this 'mystery' there is an order which 'involves' all that ?

K: Yes !

DB : Which would imply the destiny of that which is coming to mankind ?

K: Yes.

DB : And you don't feel it is wise to enquire ?

K: No.

DB : But of course – I mean, I'm not questioning it - but say, many people may have that feeling and they can be wrong...

K: Oh, I've gone into that ; many people can have it, of course... You see, sir, take that boy – ill, discovered, trained -in the sense to be clean -in those days India at that time -not having a mother- the boys were trained to wash properly, all that - not 'psychologically' trained – because they said 'he is the vehicle of the Lord', therefore you can't interfere - psychologically.
You follow, sir ? Now, he never went through all the things he talks about...

DB : What do you mean ?

K: Jealousy, never attached to property, money & all that. Never, never ! thought of a position , a status, a hyerarchical outlook...except when I get into Mrs Simmons call and her 'roundover' I can look down and that is it, I have no feeling of looking up or looking down. Now, how does it all happen, without cultivating, or wanting it ?

DB : Yes, well, this idea has been common that there is such a destiny ; in fact the theosophists believed that this whole think didn't happen by accident, but there is a hidden order, a mysterious order...

K: They would say there is the whole hyerarchical principle and the highest principle is the Lord Maitreya, etc etc...

DB : Lets say we discard the idea that some principle is ruling, but having discarded that you're nevertheless proposing that there is an order and things don't happened by accident to this boy...

K: Yes, I'm trying to imply that, to be truthful (laughing) Truthful !

DB : Yes, and in some sense this order is a mystery...

K: Yes. I think not a mystery in the sense of a ' Great Mystery'...

DB : Not secret or anything ?

K: Not 'secret'...

DB : But something which you cannot penetrate – in other words, you couldn't find the ultimate explanation of it...

K: Yes.

DB : But I mean, even if you could, it would only lead to another mystery, I suppose

K: I can't. Let me put it a little more simply : neither I want to, or can I.

DB : But you see, this raises another question : if you don't want to, would that be enough to show that you couldn't...So it doesn't prove it can't be done – it only proves that you can't do it...

K: It proves : I can't do it and I don't want to.

DB ; But this may be the other way around : 's it you can't because you don't want to, or you don't want to because you can't ?

K: No. I think I can, but I don't want to.

DB : I see, that's it...And your feeling is you can't explain that ?

K; No. I think it is something 'mysterious' in the sense we are talking, which you cannot penetrate by thought.

DB : Yes, but does that mean it cannot be penetrated in some other way ?

K: Maybe...but I don't think so.

DB : Probably not .

K: After all, the Catholic church says 'there is a mystery and you cannot understand it and various religions have put it in different ways. But here we've come to a point : here is a man who sees all that and it's like picking up a flower, looking at the flower and tear it into pieces...And there is no flower at the end of it.

DB : I see ; so you're saying that thing of what we're talking about is not capable of analysis...

K: That's it !

DB : It is a whole which is not analysable...But are you implying that thought can only analyse ?

K: Of course !

DB : Yes...so if you don't analyse all you can do is to participate in it...

K: And also there is the enormous danger of deceiving oneself.

DB : Yes, because so many people had this idea...

K: I've been through all that !

DB : I mean you could argue that the fact that so many people had thought this way doesn't necessarily prove it's wrong ; it may be that people get a glimpse of it and then they go astray because desire gets hold of it and...

K; No ! If they go astray I question whether they 'see' it.

DB : I didn't say they see it- but that they can get a glimpse of it...

K: I don't think they can 'get a glimpse' of it ! They think they have a glimpse .

DB : Let's put it this way : that thought is not satisfied with the known and therefore projects the 'mysterious'.

K: That's it !

DB : And at the same time if some people have perhaps seen it, that becomes part of tradition and so on...

K: You see, sir, that's why, in a way, I'm glad that Mary has written that book, because while one is living, one can correct it- you know, answer these questions, that he wasn't neurotic, that he wasn't epileptic, mentally disturbed ot drugged- you know all that kind of things...But (the) 'fact' remains that there is 'something' which cannot be explained.

DB : Yes, let's try to put it this way : these explanations involve some kind of analysis and this will escape analysis, or else, it will be destroyed by analysis...

K: It cannot be destroyed ! Analysis can't touch it.

DB : It can't be touched bt analysis...So the 'flower' is destroyed, but all that is possible is to participate...

K: That's all I was going to say. If you (K) have ( access to?) this thing, this 'mystery'
I will participate when I listen to you completely. You follow ? When you say, for instance : 'Truth is a pathless land' - 'it is so' for me ! Therefore no guru, no...- the whole thing goes. The moment I 'hear' ( the inward truth of?) it, it's finished ! (long silence...) What time is it ?

DB : About five o'clock...

K: I have never gone into these things as deeply as we have done...
I have never told you that incident : I was staying in Bombay and I don't speak any Indian language. There's a knock on the door and Mrs Jarka, our servant opens the door, and there are three sannyasi ( wandering) monks who asked if they can come in, and Mrs Jarks brought them into the room- I was in my room- and she brought in the three sannyasi who want to meet you. One was a very old man, he had lived eleven years by himself in the Himalayas and he was making a pilgrimage going south to the various temples. And he was so...I held his hand and he began to cry – because probably nobody held his hand. And we sat around and he said in Hindi to her : 'We were passing by, and we felt that there was a great man here and we wanted to meet him'. Whether he had been totd or whether it was a fact, I don't know....I'm skeptical about this kind of things... So we spoke to the various people in the room telling them the truth about themselves. Then he said : May I wash my hands, please ? So they brought him a basin and a jug of cold water from the ice box and towel and he washes his hands. Then ofter cleaning his hands the same water he washed himself he poured it into his hands and passed it to the others – that's the Hindu tradition that when a sannyasi offers his blessings, he does it that way - who touched it with the tongue and it went all around. And then he said again, may I wash my hands and again he passed it around and I tasted it because I was the last. The first time it was tasting like water, but the second time it tasted sweet. I said, is he playing a trick on us ? I haven't seen anything. And he left- but before he said to Sunanda : ''you're not married, you have no children. You want children ? If you do, take this''. And he gave her something, a nut. And he left. And after he left I asked the others : ''Did you taste that water , because it tastes like coconut water, or some sweet water''
And the others said 'yes' and I said, this poor old man he couldn't have put in it some sacharine or sugar... You understand, sir ? How did it happen ? Probably he was unaware of it himself ! There are strange things in the world, sir …

DB : Yeah...

K: When I used to live in the theosophical society (compound) because I was one of the heads thera , there were several of us in the room and a man comes, a sannyasi, a so called 'religious' man comes along and talks to us of all kind of things and we were all sitting like this, and he suddenly levitates, flows across and sits over there. He had were no strings, no ropes...

DB : Well, there are a lot of people talking of strange things...but I think that our understanding of nature is limited anyway. But I think there are two kinds of 'mysterious' things : I mean, that ( levitation) thing may be a mysterious thing but it might be...

K: I don't think it is mysterious.

DB : ...something unknown to us now, but it might be understandable later.

K: They explain it by leading a certain kind of life, discipline...

DB : But I meant that it violates certain laws of nature - in that the laws of nature could be different. But that could still not be mysterious...

K: That's what I mean, that's not mysterious.

DB ; Although it's strange...

K: That's why I want to differentiate the 'mystery' from the 'strange' …
I have also seen, in front of the … a man sitting in the middle of a rose bed there and he asked for a newspaper , he said 'put it down at your feet' – he was sitting right across- and he said 'watch it, I'm not going to mesmerise you because you're a religious man, but watch it ' And you saw the paper smaller and smaller and disappear

DB : Hmm...

K: I don't see the point of it...

DB ; I mean, that's something strange, but which might be explained...

K: They explain it...

DB : But I meant there are different kinds of explanations...

K: I'm only saying this to show that 'strangeness' is not the other...

DB : You're saying that what happened to this boy was not of that nature ?

K; Yes, that's all ! I don't know what happened but it's not of that nature.

DB : Is it your feeling that whatever happened there was behind it some destiny or order which was aimed at the transformation of man ? Hmm ?

K: Probably...we'd better stop...

DB : Right...

K: I go for a walk now...

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 08 Nov 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 Nov 2019 #58
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

Eight 'Thought & Reality' ' reader friendly edited) dialogue between Krishnamurti and David Bohm 1975

Bohm: I had a letter from David Shainberg, and he raised one major question : “ If thought is fragmented , inherently fragmented and yet thought has to be consciously aware of its own fragmentation, then we could ask this question whether the thought which is aware of its own fragmentation, is also fragmented?''

Krishnamurti: Shall we start with that ?

DB : Yes...

K: Why do we accept it that is thought is fragmented ? Why do we say that thought is broken up, or has the faculty of breaking up ?

DB : I think that we'll have to go deeply into the nature of thought...

K: What is the real basic reason for thought to be fragmented ? Why is thought limited, broken up ?

DB: Yes, now I've been considering for some time the nature of thought and one point about thought is that it is beginning as a reaction and becoming a reflection. Now on the basis of memory thought creates an 'imitation' of certain actual things that happen independently of thought. For example it may imitate in your imagination the appearence of a feeling, or a sound, or something else. Now, it is not possible in a reflection to captures the whole of what is reflected, so there is always an abstraction...

K. Yes, there is always an 'abstraction', I see that, but you haven't answered my question : why is it fragmented ?

DB: Any abstraction is bound to be a fragment, you see ?

K: You're saying : thought reflects memory...

DB : Yeah...It reflects the content of memory...

K: And therefore, as it reflects, it's an abstraction

DB : It doesn't reflect all...

K: ...and therefore it's fragmentary.

DB : Yes, it selects some things to reflect , and other things are not reflected...

K: Would you put the question this way : “Can thought see the whole?”

DB: Well, ''Does thought 'see' ?'', that's another question that David Shainberg raised, does
thought actually 'see' anything ? We discussed the other time in Brockwood that thought can be 'consciously aware' of something, let's say there is an awareness which
involves perception, but everything we’re aware of may go on into memory, is that right?

K: Yes

DB : Now, when that memory responds we have thought...

K: Right

DB: So, as I see it, this 'conscious awareness' is awareness recorded in memory and then reflected, right ?

K: Right...So memory is fragmented therefore its reflexion as thought thought is fragmented.

DB: It's not the whole...the whole experience, for example, is not contained in memory - the essence of it may be left out...

K: Left out...I understand, now let's dig deeply into it : why is thought fragmented ?

DB: Partly because its an abstraction as you’ve just said. I think there is another reason : in some sense thought is not fully aware of its own operation. Perhaps we can begin this way : the brain has no sense organs to tell itself that it's thinking.

K: Quite...

DB: You see if you move your hand there is a sense organ that tells you that it is moving.
if you move your head, the image moves but it is corrected so that the world
doesn’t spin unless something is wrong with your balance. On the other hand there are no such sense organs in the brain. You see, if you do an operation on the brain once you pass through the skull, there is no ( brain) sensation- people may be conscious while they are operated, but it does not disturb them. And now, so lets say thought is recorded, it's held in memory, in the cells of the brain, and the cells of the brain react to produce some image, an imitation. And while they first react, there is no sensation that they are reacting, but a little
later you may sense the result of the reaction.

K: Yes, I understand that...

DB: But then, when thought becomes conscious of that result it may not realise that it has
produced that result. And therefore it will atribute to that result an independent existence.

K: So, thought is a reflection of memory, that's one point. The brain has no (internal) feeling apart for the sensory organs of the body, and therefore the brain stores up memory, and memory is partial, and therefore thought is partial.

DB: Yes and also thought is not fully aware of itself.

K: Now, is all that the complete answer?

DB: Well I don’t know...

K: I don’t know, we’re investigating .

DB: But to finish what I was saying, that there is an inherent fragmentation
here, because thought not being aware of itself, and then suddenly becoming aware of
its result further down the line, it attributes that to something which is independent, and
also it fragments itself because one part of thought has produced this result and another part of thought comes along and says ''this is something else''.

K: its like this, quite...

DB: And therefore, thought has broken up into two parts which are contradicting each
other.

K: Yes, but I think there is something more, isn't there ? Why is thought fragmented? You can see what thought has done, all what it has reflected upon, what it has thought about,
what it has put together, are all fragments.

DB: But that's from experience - if we reflect upon our personal experience we see the fragmentary nature of the activity of thought.

K: Yes. ...Is there any deeper reason for why is thought fragmented? I was thinking about the other day walking, why is it fragmented? What is the nature of thought ?
What is thought? Not words, symbols, reflexions of memory, but what is actually the substance of thought? Is it a material process, a chemical process...?

DB: Well, I would say yes...

K: Alright, if it is a material process, why should it be fragmented? Is perception a fragmentary process?

DB: No, perception is not...

K: Not. Why ?

DB : Why should it be fragmentary ?

K: If perception is the activity of thought, then perception cannot see the whole.

DB: No....I think thought contains some kind of imitation of perception, you see which we call 'reflection'...

K: Yes, so thought imagines it perceives .

DB: It contains, yes...

K: It contains, or it supposes it sees .

DB: It produces a certain result which it supposes it sees.

K: But yet, why is it broken up? I understand all these, but there must be a deeper thing,
isn’t there? Is thought seeking a result?

DB: Well, it may be seeking a result...

K: An 'end' to be achieved, to be gained, something which it can fulfil itself
in and feel satisfied...And why has civilisation, mankind given such terrific importance to thought?

DB: When you talked yesterday, you pointed out the issue of security.
I mean, the security that thought gives in many senses - not only in the sense of psychological security, but also of material security.

K: Yes. But thought in itself is not secure

DB: Well thought cannot be secure – it is a reflection..

K: Therefore as it cannot be secure in itself, and seek security outside.

DB: But, why does it seek security, you see?

K: Oh, because in itself it is fragmentary.

DB: Yes but it is not well explained why something which is fragmentary should seek security ; we'll have to go more slowly...

K: Go slowly, yes. Why does thought seek security? Because thought is constantly changing. Constantly moving.

DB: Well nature is moving too.

K: Ah , but, nature is different.

DB: I know, but we have to see the difference – why nature doesn’t seek security as far as we can tell.

K: Nature doesn’t, but why does thought seek security? Is it in itself uncertain, insecure, in itself is in constant movement.

DB: But that doesn’t explain why its not satisfied to just be that...

K: Why, because it sees its own perishable nature.

DB: But why should it want to be imperishable ?

K: Because that which is imperishable gives it security.

DB: So if thought were content just to say 'I’m impermanent', then it would be like nature. It would say : well I’m here today, and tomorrow I'll be something different, right ?

K: Ah, but, it am not satisfied with that.

DB: Well why not?

K: Is it because there is ( a subliminal identification?) or  'attachment'?

DB: But then, , what is there ( identification & ) attachment, you see? I mean, why should thought 'attach itself' to anything? Why shouldn’t it say ''well I’m just (transient) thought'' I’m just a reflection...

K: But your're giving to thought, considerable intelligence if you say ''I’m like nature I just come & go in a constant (state of) flux, you follow.

DB: So, now your saying thought is (essentially) mechanical and that's why its doing this, but then we have to see why the mechanical process should necessarily seek security? I mean a machinery doesn’t seek anything in particular, you see, we can set up (program) the machinery and it just goes on , you see.

K: Of course, as long as there is ( a supply of) energy it goes on working.

DB: And then it breaks down and that's the end of it.

K: And that's the end of it. Quite, So, why does thought seek security?

DB: Why should any (living?) mechanism want to be secure?

K: But does thought realise that it is mechanical ?

DB: No, but you see, now then comes the point that thought has made a mistake, you see,
something incorrect, in its (core) content, which is, thought does not know it is mechanical ; thought even thinks that it is not mechanical...

K: Now wait a minute, lets come back (to our own thinking process?) . Do I think I’m mechanical?

DB: I think in general thought does not think its mechanical, but the other thing is,
does it definitely think it is not mechanical, do you see, that it is beyond the mechanism, does it think it is intelligent in other words.

K: Sir, a mechanical thing doesn’t get hurt . It just functions.
It may stop working, that doesn’t mean it is hurt.

DB: No...

K: Whereas thought gets hurt.

DB: And thought has the factor of pleasure, pain and all the rest of it.

K: It gets hurt, lets stick to one thing. It gets hurt. Why does it get hurt? Because of the
'image' and all the rest of it. It has created the a image and in ( preserving its temporal) continuity it is seeking security, isn’t it.

DB: Yes but it's not clear why it ever began to seek that kind of security, you see.
If it began as a mechanism there was no reason.

K: Ah, but it never realised that it was mechanical.

DB: Yes alright, but a mechanism doesn’t know that it is mechanical either, you see ?
I mean like a tape recorder just functions mechanically, you see, it doesn’t want to be hurt you know.

K: Rather interesting. Why does thought not realise that it is mechanical?

DB: Yes...

K: Why does it suppose that it's something different from a machine?

DB: Yes, it may in some sense suppose it (the animal brain) has intelligence, and feeling and that it is a living thing, rather than 'mechanical'.

K: Mechanical, I think that's the root of it isn’t it ? It 'thinks' it is a s living (entity)
and therefore it attributes to itself, the quality of non-mechanical (temporal) existence.

DB: Now , if you can imagine that a computer has been programmed, with the
information that it was living.

K: Yes, it would say that 'I’m living'.

DB: And then it might try to react, respond accordingly, but why thought doesn’t do that ?

K: Thought is clever, giving itself qualities, which it basically has not.

DB : To some extent you did not consider David’s question, you were saying that
thought somehow can realises it's mechanical, which would imply that it had some (native animal) intelligence, you see.

K: Now let's see, does thought realise that it is mechanical, or perception sees that it is mechanical?

DB: All right, but then that would seem to be a change from what you said the other
day.

K: I’m just investigating.

DB: I understand, if we say there is perception which sees the mechanical fragmentary nature of thought, I could say that any machine is in some sense
fragmentary, its not alive... It's made of parts that are put together and so on, now, if there is a perception that thought is mechanical, then that means that intelligence is (involved ) in the perception.

K: Are we saying, sir, lets get this clear, that thought has in itself the quality of (universal) intelligence, perception, and therefore it perceives itself mechanical.

DB: Yes, that would seem strange...

K: Or, there is ( an intelligent ) perception and that perception says thought is mechanical.

DB: Yes, and we can call that 'truth', isn't it ?

K: Yes, there are two things involved, isn’t there ? Either thought in itself has the sense of perception, a sense of intelligence and therefore realises it is mechanical.
Or, there is a (direct inward) perception, which is truth. And that perception says thought is mechanical.

DB: Yes. Now the first idea seems to be a contradiction.

K: Yes, but does this answer why thought is fragmentary?

DB: Well, if thought is mechanical then, it would have to be fragmentary.

K: Can thought realise that it is mechanical?

DB: Well that's the question. But its not clear, you see. The other time you were saying
there would be a conscious awareness of the nature of thought and thought would then come to realise.

K: I want to go back to something that  : the 'things' that contains consciousness, are put together there by thought. All the content of that consciousness is the product of thought, in fact, consciousness 'is' thought.

DB; Yes, it's the whole process.

K: Does thought 'see' all this, or there is pure perception without thought which then says says : thought is mechanical.

DB:But then, how does thought know what to do ? We were discussing also the other day that when there is a perception of truth...

K: ...action takes place.

DB: Action takes place, and thought becomes aware of that action.

K: Yes, that's right, thats right. Lets get at it.

DB: But in becoming aware of that action, is thought still mechanical ?

K: No, thought then is not mechanical.

DB; You’d have to say then that thought changes its nature.

K: Its nature, yes.

DB: Well thats the point we have to get hold of : to say thought does not have a fixed nature, is that the point?

K: Yes sir.

DB: Because much of this discussion if you use one tends to imply that the word 'thought'
has a fixed nature, but now thought can change.

K: Yes thought does change.

DB: But I mean can it change fundamentally ?

K: Lets get at it. I’m beginning to see something. We both begin to see something. We
say that total perception is truth, and that perception operates in the field of reality, and therefore...

DB: Well, we didn’t say that the perception of truth operates directly in the field of
reality, we said the other day, it operates in 'actuality'.

K: Wait a minute, there is perception which is truth, and that can only act in ( the field of) that which is 'actual'

DB: Yes...

K: Actual being care, isn’t it? The action, in the field of reality, isn’t it ?
Look sir, put it on the other way : I see something, I perceive something totally, which is not the act of thought.

DB: Yes, that is a direct act.

K: Yes, that is direct perception, then that 'perception' acts.

DB: Acts directly ?

K: Directly.

DB: Without thought ?

K: That's what I want to find out.

DB: Well, it begins without thought, and that perception acts directly, as we said in the perception of danger acts immediately without thought. But then thought may become aware of the act

K: Thought then becomes aware of the act and translates it into words...

DB: And into further structures.

K: Right, we're getting at it slowly, that is , there is a total perception which is truth, that
perception acts in the field of reality ; that action is not the product of thought..
But because it is an acton of the whole, thought has undergone a change.

DB: Alright, now we have it : if there is an action in the whole , thought is part of the whole, thought is contained within the whole, and therefore it is changed, is that what you're saying ?

K: No, no... I must go back, when it sees the whole, that's the truth....

DB: So, thought's (action) whole is (qualitatively) different.

K: Because that perception is not fragmented.

DB: No, no it's one whole,

K: One whole, yes, and it acts. That action it's not put together by thought ; so then what is the relationship of thought to that action?

DB: Well, there are several points, you see, one thing is to say that thought is a material process, based on the brain cells. Now, the action of perception will somehow act on the brain cells won’t it?

K: That's the point, it does.

DB: Therefore thought must be different ?

K: Different, quite right. When there is a total perception and action it must affect the brain cells.

DB: Right, and in affecting the brain cells it may change the nature of thought ?

K: It is a shock, do you follow ? It's something totally new to the brain.

DB: Yes. And therefore perception as being total, penetrates the physical structure of
the brain ?

K: Let's be simple about it, if you see that division, fragmentation is a tremendous danger, doesn’t it affect your whole way of thinking?

DB: Yes, but I think that brings us to the next question, that thought has developed a a way of preventing this 'affect' from taking place.

K: That's it. That’s what I’m wanting to get at : thought resists.

DB: But you see, a machine would not resist....

K: No, because it's habit. It remains in that groove, and perception comes along and shakes that.

DB: Yes and then thought tries to stabilise itself - it holds to a fixed point.

K: To greed or to whatever it is.

DB: If we look at it this way, that thought hasn’t got a fixed nature, it may be mechanical, or it may be intelligent and…

K: No I wouldn’t give that word 'intelligence' to thought, for the moment.

DB: But we were saying before, that thought may not have a fixed nature and needn’t be mechanical.

K: But thought is mechanical, functions in grooves, it lives in habits, memories...

DB; Yes...

K: And a total perception does affect this whole structure…..

DB: Yes that's right, but after, as a result of this (insightful) perception, thought is different, right ?

K: Yes, thought is thought different because...

DB: ... the perception has penetrated the physical structure of thought and made it
different.

K: That's right

DB: Now, you don’t want to say it's intelligent but let us say that if thought were just a
machine, it would not cause trouble, but for some odd reason thought its trying to do
more than behave like a machine

K: Yes, thought is trying to do more than a machine.

DB : And now, if we could look at it again, if there’s perception and
awareness and this may be recorded in ( the psychological memory of ) thought, there are two things, one is, if perception affects the physical structure of the brain, and this affect is somehow recorded in the content of memory and the memory takes...

K: Thats right, memory takes charge...

DB: Yes it holds it, and now, you see, any such recording, is a kind of 'imitation', you see, every recording machine is a kind of imitation you see, it's not mainly that thought is mechanical, but it contains a process of imitation, to record information you see,
like a tape recorder records some sort of 'imitation' like the structure of sound in a magnetic form, which again is recreated as sound is imitating the original sound.
Now you see thought has the capacity to imitate whatever happens, because of this recording, right ?

K: Yes that's right. Just a minute sir, I want to go back a little bit. You
perceive totally something -like this total perception of greed, let's take this for the
moment, and because of that total perception, your activity is non-mechanical - the 'mechanical' being the pursuing of greed as thought.

DB: But isn’t there another part of thought which is mechanical, which is necessary, you
see for example, the practical information contained by thought ?

K: I’m just coming, wait a minute. You perceive the nature and the structure
of greed and because you perceive it, there is the 'ending' of it.

DB: Hmm..

K: What place has thought then?

DB: Well it still has a mechanical place.

K: But you're finished - you're not greedy anymore. That reaction, that 'momentum', that mechanical habit is over, Then, what place has thought?

DB: Well thought has some place – like if you want to find your way (home) ?

K: I use it when I need a coat, I get it, but there's no greed involved.

DB: So if thought has not identified itself with (the momentum of) greed, so you have a thought which is rational.

K: I don’t quite follow.

DB: Well, you see greed is a form of irrational thought.

K: Yes greed is irrational.

DB: But now there’s rational thinking, for example if you want to figure out something, you
know....

K: But when you perceived the totally of greed, something has also happened to you.

DB: Yes. Are you saying there is no more thought?

K: But thought is not necessary.

B: Well then how do you find your way (home)? How do you use memory?

K: ( Inwardly) I’m no longer greedy.

DB: Right..

K: I’ve no need for thought in the field of (inward ) perception and therefore thought doesn’t enter into it at all.

DB: Not into perception, but it still has its place apparently. For example if you want to know the way from here to where ever you want to go…

K: No... I’m taking greed, greed. it has no place in (dealing with) greed. Where there is a total perception thought has no place

DB: In the perception ?

K: No, only in that perception, thought doesn’t exist any more with regard to that.
You perceive that all belief is irrational , there is a perception of this total structure of
belief, and its out. Belief has no place in your thought, in your brain, so why do you
want thought there?

DB: I’ll not say I want it, but I say there is a tendency that thought may interfere...

K: No it won't, if I perceive the total nature of belief, then its over. Then
where does thought come into that which thought has created? I wonder if I am
conveying something to you. Look sir, I perceive, for the moment I am using that, I
perceive totally the nature of belief, with fear, all the rest of it involved, and because there is total perception, 'belief' as such doesn’t exist in my thought, in my brain, nothing ! - so, where does thought come into it ?

DB: Well not at that part.

K: It's finished ; so thought has no place when there’s a total perception, Same thing with greed, same thing with fear, while thought operates only when there’s a necessity for 'food, clothes, shelter'. What do you say to that?

DB: Yes, that may be right... But let's look at what we started with , which was to understand why thought has done what it has done. In other words, when there is a total perception then there's no place for thought. You just 'see'. But when we come to practical affairs you could say that we don’t have a total perception we depend on information which has been accumulated, and so on, right, and therefore we need thought.

K: There, yes. I need it to build a house, I need to…

DB: So, you depend on the accumulated information, you see, you cannot directly 'perceive' how to build a house, right ? But for psychological matters...

K: That's it. Psychologically when there is total perception, thought doesn’t enter
into the psychological process.

DB: Yes, it has no place in the psychological domain . Now, I’d like to come back to
the question raised by David Shainberg, which is: “Why has thought gone wrong, why has it done all these things, why has it pushed itself where it has no place”?

K: Could we say that thought creates illusions?

DB: Why would it want to do this ? But even more deeply what makes it happen, you see?

K: Because thought has taken the place of perception.

DB: Why should thought assume that it see the whole, or even that it sees anything?

K: Does it happen, sir, that when there is a total perception that perception having no thought and all that, such a mind uses thought only where necessary and otherwise it is empty ?

DB: I wonder if we could put it differently, such a mind when it uses thought, it realises that
this is thought, it never supposes it is not thought, is that right?

K: Yes, that's right, that it is thought and nothing else...

DB: But I think the danger is that there is a mind which does not realise that this is
( just) thought ; suppose someone has an experience of joy and enjoyment, but slightly later there comes thought which 'imitates' it by remembering it, and then, it's a very subtle imitation, and therefore it treats it as the same , you see what I mean, therefore it begins to get caught in is own pleasure which it mistakes it for joy and enjoyment.

K: Quite.

DB: Now after a while, it becomes a habit and when the pleasure is
not there there's a reaction of fear and so on, and all this psychological trouble starts. So at some stage , there is this mechanical process which thought does not acknowledge, not knowing that it is mechanical.

K: Yes, would you say also, that man never realised until recently, that
thought is a physical and (bio-)chemical process and therefore it assumed a tremendous importance?

DB: Well, in general that's s certainly true, it's only recently that science has shown the physical & chemical properties of thought. Now, suppose we go back to the past, would you say, that nobody, or perhaps some people understood this, but in general most people did not.

K: Did not. All the 'saints' functioned on thought....

B: Well what about Buddha?

K: Again according to the tradition, there’s the 'eightfold noble path', there’s 'right thinking'...

DB: Ah, but he may have meant thinking mechanically…

K: That's it, you can’t take anybody in the past.

DB: Why, because we can’t be sure...?

K: Can't be sure of what they meant.

DB: That was interpreted and so on and we can’t ask him what he meant.

K: (Laughing)… Is that the reason, because thought said I’m the
only important thing.

DB: Yes but how did it come to say that, you see?

K: Because there was no perception.

DB: No but, why wasn’t there?

K: Man didn’t realise or thought wasn’t told that it was just a physio-chemical process.

DB: Yes, well thought does not know it's a material process therefore thought when thought mistook itself for the actual intelligence. But suppose when there's enjoyment, but thought creates from memory an imitation of all that...

K: But it didn’t think it was imitating !

DB: No, that's what I’m trying to say, it didn’t know it was imitating.

K: That's just it.

DB: Perhaps was too subtle for thought to realise it was just an imitation.

K: That's it, and also because thought from the beginning said I’m the only 'god'.

DB: I wonder if that come a little later, you see ? At first thought mistook itself for joy and intelligence , goodness and so on

K: Yes, yes

DB: Then it realised its impermanence and then it took the idea that there is a self, which is always there, which produces thought, and truth, and perception and so on, you see that, you see ? You can give as examples, enjoying the sunset and there
may be a small accompaniment of thought, you know, which is harmless in itself.

K: Yes, it flutters round, quite...

DB: Flutters around, but now as it builds up, by habit, by repetition , it gets stronger, and it becomes comparable in intensity to the original experience , and then thought does
not see this as an imitation and it treats it as genuine.

K: Are we saying that man has never been told or realised, that thought is just a physio chemical ?

B: That is not enough, because science has been saying long ago that thought is
physical and mechanical, but that in itself hasn’t changed anything.

K: No, no, but if you 'perceive' that…

B: Yes, but it was not enough for science to know that thought is a just a (physio-chemical) mechanical process...

K: That's right, but it's only recently, so the conditioning and the habit has been thought is the primary thing in life.

DB: Yes, even when it was called 'non-thought' it was still thought, you see. There was some indication that, thought created 'imitations' of the primary thing in life
and then it said that's the primary thing.

K: That's right, yes.

DB: So, thought never knew that it was just a mechanical process and therefore never had any reason to suspect that what it created was not the primary thing in life, because even if it could see itself creating it, it would not know there was anything wrong with it.

K: Quite, quite. So what are we saying now? Thought never realised it was limited. Thought never realised that which it created was a chemical and physical thing. Is that what we are saying?

DB: Part of it, yes.

K: And we are saying also, where there is a total perception, a change in thought
takes place.

DB: And what happens to thought then ?

K: Thought being mechnical, it can operate only mechanically. Thought doesn’t interfere, there is no 'psychological' entity which thought can use.

DB: Let's try to clear this up a little bit. Let's say there is a new invention - which we discussed before, and something new comes into thought, into the field of reality, but we say that might be a perception. And because of that perception thought is functioning differently, it remains mechanical but different.

K: Yes, that's exactly what we are saying.

DB: Yes, therefore the creativity is not in thought itself but in the perception

K: Lets get it clear, thought has created the 'me' and this 'me' has become independent of thought, apparently.

B: Apparently ...

K: And the 'me' being still part of the thought, is the psychological structure, while perception can only take place when there is no 'me'.

B: Well we could try to go into that to make it more clear. You see the 'me', this imaginary structure, we know it's 'real', as the 'me' involves some sort of 'centre' doesn’t it ?
This 'centre' is a very old form of thought, its one of the most fundamental forms, right it probably goes to the behaviour of the animals, most probably.

K: Yes sir, the family centre and so on

DB: Yes, also the geometric centre, when people use the centre with the rays emanating
out, it's a very powerful symbol, you see the sun with its rays, it had a tremendous effect.
So the concept of a 'centre' has a tremendous affect on thought, you see.

K: Yes sir...

DB: And this centre has the meaning of totality, you see, one point touches everything, In
other words the centre is a symbol of the contact with the whole, you see, and I think
that's how the self is considered in thought. It perceives , the self is perceiving
everything. The self is determining everything...

K: So there is a 'centre', and is this centre independent of thought?

B: Well the centre 'is' thought, its a basic structure in thought, we think in
terms of 'centre', you see ? In physics for example each atom is a 'centre'.

K: That's why thought is fragmented.

B: Because we think through the 'centre' ?

K: We think through the centre. Ah, we're getting at it.

DB: Well let's get it more clear, you see one of the basic theories of physics is to
think that the world is made of atoms, each atom is a centre, a force which connects to
all the other atoms, and of course the opposite view is that theres a continuous
field, you see and no centre, those are the two views studied and as pursued in two
different forms. Now, if you think through the centre there is going to
be fragmentation. You say the atomic view is fragmentary, then ?

K: Must be ! You see what were getting at, the basic reason of fragmentation is that
we function from a 'centre' .

DB: Yes, we must think in terms of 'centre' because that may be useful the sun is at the centre to the solar system. But psychologically we also function from a centre. You see, physically we are forced to function from a centre, because the body is the centre of our field of sensory perception. But psychologically we form an imitation of that, we have the thought at the centre which is probably I think Jung called it an 'archetype', it may be millions of years old, going back to the animals.

K: Yes, to the animals quite....

DB; Now that form is useful physically, but then it was extended psychologically, right ?

K: That's right, that's why thought is fragmentary.

B: Well is there a thought which does not function from the centre?

K: Has to. Cause thought is from a centre of memory.

B: Well lets explore why does thought have to be from a centre, you see, why couldn’t
there be a memory without a centre.

K: How can there be, just memory like a computer?

B: Its not clear to me why there cannot be memory, you see, just as
information. You see, its not clear to me, why thought had to form a centre you see, we psychologically it gave this centre such importance?

K: Because thought never acknowledged to itself that its mechanical.

DB: Thought was unable to acknowledge that it's mechanical and now why does that call for a centre?

K: But thought has created the centre .

DB: Yes, but the centre was there just for practical purposes any way, but thought used that idea, psychologically for itself, now, why was it doing that?

K: Because for very simple reasons : thought said I can't be mechanical I must be
something much more.

B: How does the centre make it 'more' then?

K: Because that gives itself a permanency, as the 'me' ...

B: Well we should make that more clear why this centre give a sense of permanency.

K: Why? Thought has created this microphone, that is apparently permanent,
relatively, and in here thought created the 'me' as a permanent entity.

B: Yes, but why did it pick up the centre to be permanent?

K: Perhaps it picked it up because the Sun is the centre of the universe, and the centre, joins everything.

DB: Yes, it joins everything and gives a sense of unity.

K: Unity, the family and so on and so on, but that centre becomes totally unnecessary when there is 'complete' perception.

B: But it is necessary, when there is no complete perception.

K: That's what's happening. It is not 'necessary' but that's what's happening in the world...

DB: Not being able to realise it is mechanical, thought began
to create its own products and seeing their instability, knowing their
impermanence, it tried to establish something permanent and it found the 'centre' useful
for trying to do that, because this 'centre' made a connection with everything.

K: Yes, that's right...

DB: in other words, you see, if it's a 'form' around which everything can be put together, so therefore if everything is falling apart, if left to itself, thought falls apart, but then it establishes a stable 'centre' which holds it all together ?

K: That' s right, my family, my house, my country...

DB: And that's permanent, so you say, I have a permanent centre, in other words
thought has hit on the idea of a permanent centre to hold everything together and in fact
that's what we do all the time to organise to have a centre around which everything can be organised.

K: That's right, like a company executive...

DB: That's what we do all the time to have a permanent centre to hold it all together

K: So when you perceive something totally, the 'centre' is non existent and , when you perceive something doesn't that (perception) includes everything?

DB: Right, lets go slowly here...

K: Isn’t that the central thing that holds, that connects everything?

DB: To perceive, the 'act'...

K: The 'act'

DB : I see it differently : that the act of perception unites everything. And thought is imitating that by a 'centre' that unites everything.

K: That's right.

DB: And thought attributes the perception to this 'centre'

K: That's right, to the 'observer' and so on..

DB: And also the 'thinker' attributes its own origin to that centre and attributes truth
to itself.

K: That's right. Is there sir, a perception of greed, of fear, or a total perception which includes everything ? So it isn’t perception of greed, perception of belief, perception of all these things.

DB: Let's say there’s a perception of 'that which is', right ?
And right now there is the question which we might clear up, because we said truth is 'that which is', right?

K: Yes...there is only perception, not the 'perceiver'.

DB: There is no 'perceiver', but only the perception of 'that which is', isn’t it?

K: Yes, and the 'perceiver' is the centre.

DB: Yes, thought attributes to the 'centre' the quality of being a 'perceiver', as well as a
'thinker' or an 'actor'. So, I think that it might be helpful to see that one of the functions of thought is to reffer or attribute and thought can attribute anything to anything.

K: Yes, quite right.

DB: Therefore when thought has 'invented' the centre, then it may attribute various qualities to that 'centre', such as thinking, feeling , pain or pleasure, therefore it becomes alive. Could we say that suffering arises there, when pain is attributes to the centre?

K: Of course, as long as there is a 'centre', there must be suffering.

DB: Because when there no 'centre' the pain is merely in thought.

K: Merely physical...

DB : Either physical or in memory ...But if the memory of pain is attributed to the centre then it becomes something big.

K: So, we are 'seeing' something : if there is a total perception, thought has no place in that perception.

DB : And yet, that perception acts and thought might be its action. That's what we were saying the other day...

K: Yes...let's get this clear. When there is a total perception in that there is no thought and that perception 'is' action.

DB: Yes and that will change the quality of thought, by changing the brain cells.

K: And so on, we've been through all that. Thought has only a mechanical function.

B: By 'mechanical' you mean more or less, 'not intelligent' ? In the dictionary it's given more or less the opposite thing. It’s not creative, it's not intelligent ?

K: No : it's purely mechanical. So if it is merely mechanical, then it can operate mechanically in everything, without any 'psychological' centre.

DB: Yes. Well then it would be like this computer that...

K: Yes, but, the computer as we said too, if the computer is to hold all this as your 'bucket'? And later on we said its not your 'bucket', it has no emotional...

DB: Well its merely contradictory information.

K: Merely contradictory information ; similarly here. So we are giving tremendous importance to thought.

DB: Well, thought is giving importance to itself...

K: Thought is giving to itself tremendous importance ; when perception takes place, and
thought becomes mechanical.

DB: Well when thought acknowledges it is mechanical...

K: When it acknowledges it is mechanical, then there is no problem.

DB: Yes, this was one point ; and the other was to understand fully how thought went along the wrong track.

K: Yes sir, I can see how its gone on the wrong track : the 'centre'.

DB: Well, I think even from the beginning, there was in the beginning thought mistook
itself for something living and creative, and then it established the centre in order to
make that permanent....

K: Yes

DB: Right, and then that gave it tremendous importance, you see the combination of the
two.

K: The combination of… ?

DB: One, that thought mistook itself for something intelligent and higher.

K: That's right...

DB: And its own imitations, for enjoyment and for intelligence, and love and so on
and then seeing this was impermanent, seeing it naturally wanted to make it permanent,
and therefore it found the centre as the way to try to do it , because the centre was
actually the practical way of trying to organise things permanently.

K: Quite right sir, so now we have answered why thought is fragmentary.

DB: Yes, well let's make it more clear, why is it fragmentary? I mean it's gone
wrong, you have to finish it, I mean, why is it, I mean to make it spell it out...

K: Because of the centre, the centre thinks - thought created the centre as a permanency
and that centre forms as a unit to who ever put it together.

DB: Everything in the whole world, the whole world is is held together by the centre,
because if somebody feels the centre goes he feels the the whole world is going to break
*
K: Going to pieces, thats right.
DB: Now, so the 'centre' is the same as the whole world, right ?

K: Thats right, so thought is fragmentary.

DB: Well, thought is fragmentary , but it's not quite clear why its fragmentary ?

K: Because it has separated itself from the thing it has created.

DB: Yes, now that's the point, let's now make that very clear you see, that thought has
attributed to itself, it cannot separate itself. it has attributed to itself, a centre which is
separate from itself, whereas in fact it is the centre, it has created the centre and it is the
centre.

K: It 'is' the centre.

DB: Yes, that's right, but it thinks of itself, attributes to itself, that centre, the property thought, I am real and not, and so on, and that is a fragmentation.

K: That's the basic thing.

DB: And from there follows the necessity for the rest of the fragmentation of life, because in order to maintain that those two are different, thought must then break up everything to
fit that, do you see ?

K: Of course.

DB: It only introduces confusion, you see, either it separates things that are not separate
or it puts together things that are different in order to maintain that fiction that the centre
is separate from thought everything else has to be cut to fit that.

K: Fit that , well existence, cut to fit that centre.

DB: Yes you see for example, if somebody attributes to the 'centre' of being from
a certain nation, he must then distinguish another nation, not belonging to the centre, he
fragments something thats one mankind in order to hold the centre together.

K: Quite right sir, that's it very clear now.

DB: And therefore the entire world is fragmented, indefinitely shattered into fragments.

K: I want to get to something else to. Is perception from time to time, from moment to
moment.

DB: From moment to moment ?

K: No, I perceive the nature of belief, its finished, there’s a
total perception of fear, that's finished, and there is total perception of greed, that's
finished, is that perception one after the other, or is there total perception of the whole ?

DB: Well lets go into that slowly, you see, if there’s total perception of the whole thing then
what would there be left to do ? See this raises my second question that David
Shainberg brought in, you see. with raising this question he says: you, let us say you
went through, you put it in the last discussion at Brockwood, that it was like
Columbus discovering America, that someone else doesn’t have to discover it. But then
what does he do that is creative, that is corresponding to what you did, you see?

K: Now, just a minute , just wait a minute, first let me answer this question. “Is perception
whole”?

DB: A whole, theres only one perception.

K: ….therefore it's cleared the field.

DB: The entire field is cleared. Then what does he do ?

K: Wait, wait, let's see that is so, he hasn’t got to go through greed, belief, fear, pleasure,
the whole things cleared the deck.

DB: Well you're saying man may perceive the whole nature of thought, is that what you are
saying, or is it beyond that?

K: Beyond, a little more... Let's take that perception sees the nature of thought, and because it perceives the nature of thought, it sees all this, all the fragments.

DB: All the fragments are in there.

K: All the fragments.

DB: And that brings up the question I wanted to ask for some time, You see, in the
Indian book, Tradition and Revolution, you mention towards the end of it, the notion of
'essence', perception distills the essence, right, do you remember that?

K: No I don’t remember, sorry, it doesn’t matter...

DB: In some way there is a notion, there is perception, total perception being intelligence, out of that came the 'essence', distilled like the flower.

K: Yes, yes...

DB: Is that essence anything like this 'whole'?

K: That's what that is, of course. Now wait a minute, I want to get this clear. Would you say there's is no (individual) perception of fear, greed, envy, belief but a total perception, of everything that thought has put together, and of the 'centre'?

DB: Well there a phrase that people sometimes use, to perceive the essence and totality, you see ?

K: To perceive the essence and totality...

DB: Does that seem appropriate ?

K: Um… I’m hesitating on the word 'essence'.

DB: Well, let's say you perceive the totality ?

K: Leave the word essence for the moment. There is no partial ( perception of) greed, envy and all that, there is a 'total' perception of all the things that thought has put together, and made itself separate, the 'centre'.

DB: Well now, we have to talk about total perception, we have to make it more clear, now,
because 'total' may mean 'all these things', or it may mean something else.

K: To me is means something else.

DB: Yes , well let's make that more clear.

K: Would a 'total' perception mean (seeing) thought attributing to itself certain qualities, thought creating the centre and giving to that centre certain attributes, and all the things from the 'centre' – the psychological centre.

DB: Well that's the whole structure...

K: The whole structure.

DB: Yes that is part of total perception, ( seeing) the whole structure.

K: The whole of that.

DB: The entire structure, that's what we call the essence, the basic structure.

K: Yes, alright, if you call that 'essence', I say I agree.

DB: Yes, that structure which is universal, would you agree that its not just this thought or that thought or this problem or that problem or …

K: ...it's universal, quite. Now wait a minute, is such a perception possible?
You said that is 'perception' - nothing else - because you tell me I see that, I feel that, I see
the truth of what you're saying, it is the truth, not mine or yours, it is the truth.

B: Yes, now if you say it's the truth, it is 'that which is', you see.

K: That which is, the actual.

DB: Yes, well it's both, you see, I’m trying to get it a little more clear, when we say there is
truth and there is actuality, now you see, the way we ordinarily use the word, the actual,
is really the right way we use the word individual, it would seem to me the word
individual, actuality is individual, you see, undivided.

K: Ah yes, quite, 'individual' is undivided, quite...

DB: Actuality is undivided, but there is one moment of actuality and there may be another
moment of actuality and so on, but now, when we 'see the essence', when we see the
totality of the universal. So, what is necessary is (seeing) the universal, right, then that includes all that, right ?

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

DB: So that the truth goes beyond that individual actual fact because it 'sees the total', it
sees what is universal and the totality of the nature of thought.

K: The totality of the nature of thought, that's it.

DB: Right, so that every individual example of thought is in there.

K: That's right ; and when that is seen, thought is then ( seen as ) merely mechanical.

DB: Then thought acknowledges that it is mechanical ?

K: No, no thought doesn’t have to acknowledge - it 'is' mechanical !

DB: Thought has changed, so it is mechanical and thought no longer attributes to
itself, thought ceases to attribute to itself the 'non-mechanical'.

K: Yes, that's right. I think that's what actually took place...

DB: When ?

K: Probably from the beginning of this boy ….

DB: Yes... ?

K: It was there...

DB: It was implicit ?

K: Implicit, or what ever you’d like to say...

DB: Well alright, perhaps it was implicit in everybody when he’s born but …then it gets the
position it takes ?

K: No ! I question whether it was implicit with everybody...

DB: Well now lets get this clear ; that's what we were discussing the other day here ; so we could take the two views and consider them both : one view is, that it's implicit in everybody, and then the conditioning takes hold in most people, then it's lost, right ?

K: That's a very dangerous view !

DB: Why is it dangerous ?

K: Dangerous, because then you 'assume' there is something in you, which is
unconditioned. It is an assumption to say that somebody was born like that, from the very beginning...

DB: Alright, so to assume there is in the child something unconditioned, that may be false ?

K: I think that is false...

DB: Alright. You are suggesting that the child is born with some…conditioning, perhaps
hereditary...

K: ...the genes and the hereditary, and the society, its already there,

DB: And then it gets added to ?

K: Added to, encrusted, and it thickens.

DB: Alright so that's one view and you feel it is wrong ?

K: I wouldn’t accept it, because, that's a theory !

DB: Alright now, the other view is that this boy...

K: It sounds personal but it's not...

DB: I know... You were saying last week that there was some destiny, some hidden mysterious order ?

K: Something much more, much more than (the common explanations of) disease, of reincarnation, than what the theosophists… the Maitreya, and the Brahmanical
tradition of mustn’t kill, mustn’t do harm, karma...

DB: Yes... ?

K: I think it's much more, something else...

DB: Yes, you say there was something else, now of course this idea has also occurred to
people in the past, you see there are people who felt that they were, that some
mysterious force was working in them, and they may have been fooling themselves,
right ?

K: Absolutely...

DB: Yes, like, if you take Alexander the Great, you know, he thought he was a God and
many people felt his energy so much, that they were ready to do anything with him...

K: But his energy was spent in conquering !

DB: That's right, in conquering, it was obviously false...

K: False, obviously, Napoleon felt that.

DB: Yes, Napoleon felt it, perhaps Hitler felt it, you know...

K: Exactly, Mussolini and Stalin...

DB: Yes and first I wanted to put it, just to try to make it clear, that that
feeling may liberate tremendous energy either falsely or not.

K: Yes.

DB: Now it therefore has a danger in it, you see, which we must recognise, right ?

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

DB: Yes, but nevertheless you cannot discard that because this energy may still be
necessary inspite of the ( potential) danger in it. In other words if we recognise that there is danger in this notion, but it doesn’t prove the notion is false....

K: Oh no, no , of course not. It may be misused, quite...

DB: But suppose now that we look at it from the other side, when you say that something
mysterious happened, you know, which cannot be explained, which is beyond the order we can include in thought...

K: ( Beyond) all explanation...

DB: So, it may be that thought cannot grasp...

K: Thought did not create a 'centre'.

DB: Yes, it did not create a centre but let us say thought is ordinarily conditioned to create a 'centre', over the ages...

K: Yes perfectly...

DB: A person may be born according to you with the tendency to create the 'centre' ?

K: Yes...

DB: But now, in this case thought did not create the centre, is that what you say?

K: Yes, that's right.

DB: And you cannot say 'why' it did not, beyond this mysterious action ?

K: No, I wouldn’t know...

DB: Now in some sense you say the boy was protected, it's what you said last time...

K: Protected, guarded, they did everything to guard him, first of all...

DB: Yes well there was a combination of circumstances which helped, which were
conducive to that...

K: Conducive, but it doesn’t explain (the mystery) …

DB: Now, there are several points that we could go on from there. You see, one point is to say : it occurred to me during the week, let's say, if man is to transfer away from this conditioned instance and if he is born conditioned then there is no way out of it, if that's all there is to it, in other words, from this conditioned mind there can be no way out. Therefore the only way out is if somebody to come into existence who is not conditioned...

K: Yes, proceed...

DB: Therefore if there is such a person, we could say does not have any
'personal' significance - if you see what I mean...

K: Yes, yes...

DB: ...that it's just part of the universal order.

K: Yes, that's right.

DB: And if I can give you an example in physics, that is order to crystallise
something - let's say something that is in solution - it may be cooled far beyond the point
of crystallisation, or solidification, unless there is a small 'nucleus', around which it can
crystallise, otherwise it may remain uncrystallised, indefinitely.

K: Yes...

DB: But that particular nucleus has no special significance other than, it was the place
around which crystallisation took place.

K: Quite, absolutely !

DB: So you could say that perhaps, if you were to argue just for the sake of our
discussion, that mankind has reached a stage where it is ready, or has been ready for a
change, right?

K: Yes, that's what they say...

DB: Many people have said that. But then (this) would be necessary, you see, it cannot change from the conditioned state...

K: There must be a catalyst, somebody, a nucleus...

DB: A nucleus, which is unconditioned.

K: Nucleus, which is unconditioned...

DB: That's the idea that occurred to me anyway...

K: Yes quite, quite...

DB: I mean whether its true or not we'll have to discuss. Now another question arose,
a number of people began to ask it which is until now, until recently, you have
not been talking in these terms, you see, but rather emphasising 'awareness' of the
conditioning and so on, now it seems now you are saying something more and different ; could you say why is it this time ?

K: Oh, I wouldn’t know, sir...

DB: I mean, why didn’t you discuss this point before ? This is what I’m getting at...

K: Ah, ( laughing) 'No lo so'..... Sir, I am just going back, if there is total perception of the nature of thought and all it's activities, and therefore the total perception of the content of consciousness that used to be the 'centre'...

DB: Well, I think that the 'centre' is the form around which all these things are placed. You see ?

K: Yes...

DB: They are attributed to the 'centre'

K: Yes, attributed to the 'centre'... Now, when the centre is not, in a total perception – and total perception can only exist when the 'centre' is not, then consciousness must be totally different.

DB: Alright, now what would you say about its nature then?

K: What would be its nature... ? See sir, the 'centre' as you pointed out, is the factor of
unification...

DB: What's attempted...The way people have always tried to unite...

K: ...but it has never succeeded ; when the centre is not, which is ( the outcome of a?) perception of the totality of thought, consciousness must be something quite
different.

DB: But you see, the word 'consciousness' would ordinarily involve the idea
of thought, that is it still ( a part of) thought...

K: There’s no thought, can’t be !

DB: Then why do you call it consciousness ?

K: I said it must be 'something totally different'. The consciousness which we have is with
the centre with all the content, with all the thought, with all that movement, and when
there is a total perception of that, that (centre) is not !

DB: The 'centre' is not, and the whole order (of the mind?) is different ?

K: Different.

DB: Yes, and there is something I was going to ask  about what you were mentioning
many times about : that it might involve the brain cells working in a different way?

K: I don’t know, bu I think it works differently...

DB: Yes.

K: Sir, may we (discuss?) what is compassion? Is the 'centre' capable of compassion?

DB: Well I’d say the centre is not capable of anything real...

K: No, but can the centre attribute it to itself and 'be compassionate'?

DB: It certainly can do that, yes...

K: It can ( Laughs) Yes, but if there is no attribution at all, then what is compassion? Is (this) total perception compassion?

DB: Well is has to be, include the feeling for all...

K: I should think one of the qualities of total perception is compassion.

DB: Hmm... If the centre can only have feelings, which are attributed to it, so it would have
compassion for what ever it identified with...

K: Of course. I love you and I don’t love others...or, I love others but I don’t love you (both are laughing heartedly ) ..

DB: Anyway it would have no understanding and therefore it would have no meaning.

K: Very interesting this... Ahh we have got somewhere ! (pause) How would you convey all this to somebody in this (Saanen) camp? He’s sentimental, romantic, wanting illusions, myths, fanciful imaginations, has problems of sex , of fear, this, and you're
telling him something, and he won’t even (listen). Here we’ve got leisure, we want to go into it, we want to find out, because were totally objective of oneself…. I think thats where compassion operates.

DB: That's why it's necessary...

K: That's right...

DB: Now considering what we were saying yesterday about the 'stream' of human thought and whatever is wrong there, it is universal – it belongs to everybody, right?

K: Yes.

DB: So, you may see something going wrong and thought attributes it to somebody else, but whenever something is going wrong, its going wrong in ( mankind's) thought.

K: Yes, that's right...

DB: And therefore it's in everybody, right ?

K: Yes.

DB: But there is no such thing as 'my' thought, 'your' thought, it's thought, and it cannot
stop ; you see, the minute you are thinking, even if there is not by an extra sensory communication of thought, just by ordinary communication. The structure of your thought is communicated to me, and if it's the wrong structure, then I’m in the wrong structure, of thought...

K: Yes, of course !

DB: Then my brain, my thought attributes the wrong structure to you...

K: To me right !

DB: To 'you', another centre.

K: Quite !

DB: This centre is alright, or we’ll try to make it alright, and the other centre is wrong, there can be no compassion, then I’m hostile...

K: Quite.

DB: I must fight the other 'centre'...

K: That's right sir.

DB: I must the other centre, right ? This centre is resisting the other centre, the
good is in this centre, and the bad is in the other centre...

K; ( laughs)

DB: ...and therefore there can be no compassion.

K: Yes sir.

DB: But you see, if it's all one thought process, one stream, then one cannot
attribute this to a particular person and therefore, it seems you understand the nature
of that thought and that is compassion...

K: Exactly. Quite right.

DB: Because you must see anyone thinking that way must be suffering. (Silent pause)

K: Yes sir.... We were going to talk, or discuss rather, about the mystery? What is the
mysterious ? You see sir, all religions, have made the cathedrals dark, the temples are dark implying that God is mysterious, that there is something so mysterious that you cannot understand, and there have been secret societies, special initiations, you know all that which you went through in order to come upon the 'mysterious'. All that is not mysterious.

DB: No ; well that is just imitation.

K: Imitation which thought, etc,etc. If there was no invention of the 'mysteriousness'
created by thought, is there a mystery?

DB: Well, if you say one sense the mystery is that it cannot be explained, or grasped by
thought, then…

K: Yes and also the myths...

DB: Well, myths are an attempt to grasp it by thought, by poetic thought...

K: And apparently man has lived with those myths...

DB: Yes ; again it's the same point we were discussing before that thought is
attributing to itself, something 'mysterious'...

K: Mysterious …

DB: Not really 'like' but the ultimate mystery, it produces something which is then says its
not thought but, the ultimate mystery.

K: Quite...

DB: And so in some way, you see, people have said that myths were poetic means by
which people grasped something true but at the same time, maybe if you use this once
as a metaphor, then it would be helpful but when you repeat it then it become a (…) but
would it remain true in saying, that which is cannot be grasped in thought.

K: That's right, anything but but the mystery of it !

DB: Yes...

K: We must discuss that some other time.

DB: Well perhaps there isn’t (much) time, its quarter past five now...

K: We’d better stop (silent pause) we can go on this friday....

DB : It doesn't bother you as you have another discussion in the morning ?

K: Now, wait a minute, wait a minute...  discussions don't tire me so much as 'sustained talk'... May be leave it open ?

DB : Right, but we'll have to be leaving sunday or monday, you see ? So we should set a...

K: Allright, you fix your day !

DB : No, I wouldn't want to put any strain on you. The (public) discussions will end on sunday...

K: I can do it on sunday afternoon at 3 : 30. Bene !

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 17 Nov 2019 #59
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 472 posts in this forum Offline

9-th K-DB Dialogue on Truth & Reality ('reader friendly' edited)

K: I think your watch is a little bit fast...

DB : Oh...

K: Don't go on and check the punctual !

DB : Perhaps we should go on with what we wee discussing the other time and clarify some of these points. We were discusssing the action of truth and if I could sum up sum up: in one discussions we were discussing whether the thought process may – if it is straight & healthy may become aware of the action of truth and move in harmony with that ; and on the other hand, the thought process, when it is distorted and conditioned may not do that...

K : Yes, that's right...

DB : … but truth connects react physically in the brain cells to bring it back ....

K: Sir, would that be accurate ?

DB : I don't know ; you see, we're trying to go into it...

K: I think that would be accurate !

DB : I know you think so...

K: I 'feel' that way !

DB : Yes, but we should discuss it a little while...

K: Yes, I think that too...

DB : Because it's a quite important point and is quite contradictory to the traditional scientific knowledge...

K: Nowadays, after reading that article on...

DB : Perhaps not after reading psychology, because the scientific knowledge is changing too ; but anyway, we could say the brain is material and I think we're saying that matter 'exists' - it has an 'actuality' apart from thought, but we don't 'know' it ; you see, all we know is only some of it. In other words, the complete depths of matter are unknown to us and perhaps they'll never be known – you see, perhaps we can only know more & more. Now, as the brain is constituted of matter, we can never folow the depths from which thought arises, right ? But thought has become conditioned through the ages, part from heredity and part from tradition & culture...

K: ...tradition, culture, environment...

DB : ...environment & so on. And it has been conditioned to self-deception, to falsifying from the start. And this is in the material structure of the brain.
And I would like to add a point : one can say that this conditioning constitutes a subtle kind of brain damage...

K: That's right...

DB : And I'd like to go on with that. You see, if we take a piece of delicate electronic equipment – such as an amplifier or a computer - now if that is overloaded, there is distortion and if you keep overloading it, you may break down the parts, and therefore it will distort more. So we could say that the kind of conditioning we're talking about – the conditioning which gives the greatest importance to thought and to the 'center' - overloads & gradually damages the brain in a way that is perhaps too subtle to be detected by the scientific instruments – except when it's gone very far-

K: Ah, yes...

DB : ...but still it's there, you see ?

K: Yes . Are you saying, sir, that when the brain is 'overloaded' – by (the pressures of?) environment, by economic conditions, socially...

DB : And by fear & sorrow...

K: ...sorrow and all the things that are going on in human beings, it does damage the brain cells ?

DB : Yes...

K: I think that is so : that can be accepted (as fact?)

DB : Yes, there is a physical & chemical damage to the brain cells and those damaged brain cells produce a thought that is really distorted ; therefore, as thought tries to correct that damage, because it is distorted it must make it worse.

K: Right, it makes it worse. Now from there, can there be a total perception which heals completely  ?

DB : Yes, that heals the brain cells. Now, one point is that the brain doesn't recognise this brain damage primarily, but atributes it to something else – for exmple it may atribute it to feeling uneasy as to some external circumstances...

K: It blames...

DB : ...it on anything else ; and I think that this kind of brain damage occurs in ( following the?) tradition, you see ? It occured to me tradition is a form of brain damage...

K: Quite, quite...I agree.

DB : ...because any tradition – good or bad- what it does is gets people to accept a certain structure of ( the man-made?) reality, very subtly, without realising thay are doing it by imitation or by example, or just by (verbal) statements – so very subtly the child builds up an approach in which the brain atributes the things from the tradition to a 'reality' that is there independent of this tradition...

K: Certainly...

DB :... and gives it a tremendous importance.

K: Yes, you can see this in the oldest cultures, like in India, this distortion & damage due to tradition.

DB : I think that's (happening) in every culture ; I was just reading about the people who originally lived in Australia, the aborigenes, and they have a very different tradition, which they call 'dream time' , while in that dreaming there is also another time, which is also before being born or after dying...

K: I see...

DB : ...and they have a tradition of getting in the 'dream time' by means of a series of initiations and rituals at a certain age of adolescence ; and in that 'dream time' they can function very differently, like they can go into the desert and live there under conditions intolerable to ordinary people. So you see, it has a tremendous effect this tradition. It has real effects of all sorts, which may be valuable in some way, but at the same time it conditions the brain to a certain view of reality which is fixed. They say – I read somewhere- that people who don't share this 'dream time' are unreal – you see ?

K: Quite, quite...(both laugh)

DB : Now the same thing happens in our culture – and that is the point I want to come : we'll have to discuss culture at great lenght- now in our culture we get a conditioning which may be different, but it is basically similar in structure : what is to be real and necessary and right ; what you have to make of your life, what is the kind of person you should be, and so on, what's the right thing to do. And all this is picked up in tiny little indications that don't seem to be thought, but seem to be the perception of reality...

K: Quite...

DB : ...and therefore the brain is beginning to treat thought as some reality which is independent of thought and therefore it is becoming fragmented, so that a person may look at it and say 'that's reality, I've got to keep my feet on the ground', but this 'ground' is created by tradition, by thought...

K: ...by thought, quite !

DB : But you see, that's not 'ground' – it has nothing under it at all !

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And is sustained by this brain damage ; that is, it is nourished, sustained by this damaged brain which is unable to get out of this circle. But still, I think we have to go into culture, because culture also has valuable...

K: ...certain values...

DB : ...which cannot be discarded ; and one of the dangers that can arrive is an uncritical look at what you say : that somebody wants to discard culture because that is not clear...

K: Sir, what does that word 'culture' mean ? To cultivate...

DB : It's based on to cultivate, and also 'cult'...

K: That is, to grow...

DB : Yes, the basic meaning of 'cultivate' is 'to cause to grow'...

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

DB : So therefore we've got to be clear about the meaning of creation ; you see, there is a tendency to consider culture as 'creation'...And yet we cannot just discard culture and drop it.

K: No, you're quite right, I understand...

DB :...but there is some confusion around it.

K: So, what do we mean by 'culture' ? That which grows, that which is capable of growth...

DB : ...and which is passed on. You see, 'that which grows' is passed on from a generation to another. And the word 'nature' is the same root in Greek -the word is phisis, which means to grow ; so these are very deep concepts which were very general...

K: And (the evolution?) from the savage living in a cave to the modern man, is called 'growth'...

DB : Yes, but the savage himself has his own growth...

K: ...his own culture...

DB : And we impose our culture upon him and he breaks down...And some anthropologists say his culture is as valid as ours and so on...

K: Yes, yes...What benefit has culture ?

DB : That's what we have to look into...

K: That's why I asked : what benefit has culture ?

DB : Well, let's look at several aspects of culture – science, art, music, literature, technology...Art the very least every culture has a certain technology with which it approaches reality – certain methods have been developped to grow things, or to approach reality...

K: Has thought created culture ? Of course it has …

DB : It has, yes. And some (practical aspects of) culture might be necessary for man to survive...

K: Yes...I wonder if it's necessary.

DB : It isn't, but it appears to be.

K: It appears to be...Let's question it !

DB : Yes, but I wanted to go a little bit further ; you see, we take science as part of our culture, art is part of our culture, like music...You have often said that you enjoy listening to good music – and that is part of our culture ...

K: Yes, sir...But I think there's a danger of depending of it, or of using it as a means to 'go beyond' or achieve, or penetrate into something else.

DB : Let's try to make that clear, because lets take the example of music- Mozart or Bethoven, would you say that there was necessary some insight, or something beyond the mechanism of thought to create that ?

K: Yes, sir, I thought about it too...Now wait a minute ; (suppose that ) you're a musician...

DB : Well, let's say a composer, a person who creates new music.

K: A composer, and all the composition – putting (down) all the notes of music is the work of thought, isn't it ?

DB : Yes, anybody can do that...

K: That's what I meant- so that is the result of thought. And does he listen to that music before he puts it down ?

DB : Well , I don't know what kind of imagination he's got...Beethoven was deaf, but
I think he could imagine some of the music he wrote...

K: But he must have 'heard' it !

DB : He heard it when he was not deaf, but he also made new music when he was deaf – he never heard it...

K: So, you're saying the hearing is not necessary ?

DB : Perhaps in the beginning it was, but …

K: In the beginning he heard it. And when he became deaf, he no longer 'heard' it ?
Therefore, how did he capture it ?

DB : I don't know...( perhaps) it went through some kind of inner perception, which we usually call 'imagination'...

K: Wait a minute, sir...

DB : He may have heard it inwardly...

K: Wait a minute, let's go slowly...When you are speaking now, do you think it out and then speak ?

DB : No, you don't.

K: No. Why ?

DB : It's clear that there is a formation of the meaning first. In other words, whatever I mean to say comes first...

K: How does that happen ?

DB : Well, I don't know if we could say exactly how...

K: I mean, when I get on the platform, fortunately or unfortunately, I talk , I don't 'think' – if I thought it out it would all go wrong...I've done that before – write it down enormous notes and then make a resumé of it and then I would read it when they're down...

DB : But sometimes it's valuable to make very rough notes...

K: No, wait a minute, and Dr Besant said to me  : 'Why do you bother with it ? Just say what you want to say...' First time I got really (dithering) about it and then gradually...Is there actually a 'thinking' when one speaks ?

DB : No, as a rule, the speech comes before thought...

K: The speech comes first...Aha ! Let's see that- but the speech, the words...

DB : There is some scientific evidence of that as a matter of fact. People have watched what kind of mistakes they made : most mistakes are made when the whole paragraph or sentence is formulated at once...

K: Say for instance, Dr Besant was a great orator : she said she used to see the phrases in front of her.

DB : Well, that's one way, but...

K: Now I'm questioning whether the speech comes before thought. I use English to tell you something – the use of English is ( part of?) memory...

DB : Oh, yes, yes...

K: And I use that memory in talk...

DB : You see, it's the same as learning to walk – to a certain extent that learning becomes part of you ; so in the same way, the speech becomes part of you...

K: So, you're saying that speech comes before thought ?

DB : Well, there is some evidence that it may...or else thought itself may be different from what we know – it may have a different structure from what is generally attributed to it...

K: So, we are talking about culture ; culture is ( a gradual) growth – from childhood to manhood & so on. The expression of one's feeling must be (through) thought – putting down the words, notes & everything- and when you deliver a lecture you write it out or you express as you go along...

DB : Yeah...

K: That means it must have been stored up inside.

DB : Well, not necessarily...That particular order in which it appears may be the result of a perception which you have at that moment...

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

DB : I mean, some of the material must have been stored up, but the way it comes out depends on perception.

K: Perception of what ?

DB : That's what we want to find out...

K: If I may be a little personal, when I talk, I 'think' with talking from emptiness.
I have talked for so many years – it comes now through long practice, we can see that – that the thing flows out. But if I think about previously, it doesn't flow out.

DB : But you may think a little, for example : at a time you have told me about thinking about something this morning...

K: Yes, an idea happens – something you 'see' ; but if I think about it previously and store it then it goes somehow & messes up. But (if) I 'see' something, then let it walk out as I talk. So, is there not a state when thought is not in operation & all the rest of it where ( direct?) perception is going on -that's where action takes place. Now, what is perception there ? Would you call it 'perception' ? I don't know... it's not insight

DB : Insight is perception. When you understand something you 'perceive' the meaning?

K: Sir, is it possible to say something without the operation of thought -except the usage of words...Ah... I can't get at it...

DB : Wouldn't it be possible that the movement of words might be just another (form of mental) movement ? You see, when you perceive an object and you start to move toward or away from it, it needn't involve thought except the storing up of information about the object, but it needn't fundamentally to think about it...

K: No.

DB : Could we say that when we talk the vocal chords respond in a similar way as it might to perceive the object ?

K: But it (direct perception) must be much more than that...

DB : Yes, it's more than that, but the action...

K: Either ( like Mrs Besant) you 'see' the words and you read them...

DB : I don't do that...

K: You don't do that... Or, when you ave talked so long, as I have talked so long, it becomes a habit...

DB : It becomes a skill ; there's a certain skill in it. The whole thing takes place without conscious direction.

K: Yes, but that doesn't answer it...

DB : Yes...Is there something relevant if we come to the 'unconscious' mind as well, since a part of this process seems to be 'unconscious' ? I mean, it may be just that 'unconscious' mind which must be only dimly lit or suppressed ? Because sometimes that ( part of the mind) is regarded as more than this – for example, you said one time that you're 'sticking with the unconscious' …

K: Yes...

DB : ...which is a different kind of 'unconscious' ? And I just remind you something that perhaps you already know, that people studying the brain have found that the two sides- the left and the right- primarly one side is merely 'verbal' – I think it's the right hand side- and the other side is primarily 'non-verbal' - and they call that 'unconscious' ...When they are properly 'cut' (apart) one side doesn't know what the other side is doing and one person might say in words that he doesn't know anything about this while the other side might see something & respond to it, which is 'movement' – but if you ask him he would say that he doesn't know anything about it...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And so they have said that perhaps of the brain is 'unconscious' ( non self-conscious?) while the ther side- the verbal side - is 'conscious'. oBut then, obviously there is a deeper part of the brain, the 'base' , which is common to both ; that's the part where the 'feelings' are, and that's the center of attention and the center of emotion and so on, which probably connects both sides...

K: Right...

DB : Now, would you say that perhaps there is an 'unconscious' mind which is not really forgot or repressed and which works when you talk ?

K: I can't quite (follow?)... Look : you make notes and you read – that's one way- and if you have done that for a number of years, you get a certain ( oratoric?) skill – that's
one skill ; then, the skill in talking...but we said that is not the answer...What takes place ?

DB : You see, whatever you say does not purely come from the 'verbal' part of the brain...from the trivial ; now whatever may come, must come from the deeper part, of which you are not conscious...Fr instance there was this ( clinical) case when the brain was cut and they say that the perception of music is (taking place) in the other side – which is the opposite of the word or the perception of visual things & so on...and there seems to be a function of the brain which is non-verbal, and that may be still a 'thought' of some kind, which is much less defined, a 'non-verbal' thought, that can be conditioned and memory may be still in it...Now, what we are doing is to make a cnnexion of these two, so that the words can also express the 'non-verbal'

K: Sir, is there in the brain- a part untouched by culture, by anything ?

DB : Well, that is a question which science at present cannot consider and which is beyond what anybody could do, because we don't know what that would mean from the material point of view... In other words, in the present material structure of the brain there is no way in which we could tell – the present way of looking at it is too crude, you see ?

K: If I say something about it, would you 'listen' - not discard it, throw it out ?

DB : Yes...

K: We said consciousness is (generally undissociated from its psychological  ?) content and if that content be 'emptied' - in the sense of no longer conditioned- is there a part of the brain which nothing ( no tradition...) has touched – nothing has made an imprint on it ?

DB : You're talking of a particular part of the brain ?

K: Not only of a particular part of the brain, but of a particular part of the (human) consciousness which is not this ( egocentric ?) consciousness...

DB : Another (dimension of human ) consciousness ?

K: Another consciousness.

DB : Which may be another function or in another part of the brain ?

K: No ; let's look at it (this way?) : my brain is conditioned -tradition, culture, heredity...

DB : Would that mean it's damaged ?

K: Damaged, and it has healed itself completely...

DB : So, you're saying that it was damaged but it has 'healed' itself ?

K: I'm taking my brain ; healed itself, and is now 'unconditioned'.

DB : Yes, but the questin is : how can it heal itself ?

K: Healed itself through having an insight, a perception which is not a perception of the damaged (brain) …

DB : I understand ; so, you're saying that the brain is not damaged through & through that it 's not totally damaged, but there's still a function that is not damaged, right ?

K: That's right. And, is there a (dimension of human ?) consciousness which is totally different from this consciousness - which functions or operates when there is a great composure – and has that perception ?

DB : You see, let's discuss that 'composure' – for instance Beethoven has that perception although he is deaf- his brain is damaged , and also he's disturbed mentally...

K: Disturbed mentally, poor chap …

DB ; Yes, and we say that there is a part of his brain that could work anyway, despite that damage...

K: Despite that damage...If he was really damaged he couldn't have been a musician !

DB : Not damaged deeply. So you're saying that in general this (psychological) damage – even if cultural- is not that deep ? It may appear 'deep' but in fact it isn't ?

K: Yes, I think it is not too deep. Would you say that ?

DB : Yes, I mean it works only at a certain level...

K: Of course, if my brain is (psychologically ) damaged in tradition, I can 'step out' of it ! The brain says : rubbish !

DB : Yes...then the (psychological) damage is only in certain functions of the brain which are based on memory ?

K: Yes...and you can put it aside.

DB : So it is not in a really deep function of the brain ?

K: No.

DB : But it may appear or present itself as 'deep' ?

K: That's right !

DB : It attributes it to itself as 'deep' …

K: If I am ( culturally conditioned as?) a Catholic and you talk with me & show all the... it's finished, I'm out !

DB : Well, in principle, I think it's right, a person may see this, but then a part of the damage attributes it the property of (that conditioning) being very deep and therefore it escapes ( the direct action of) this 'insight', you see ?

K: Quite... right, right !

DB : You see, it doesn't mean that the damage is deep, but the damaged part attributes to itself that 'depth'...

K: Yes, quite...( to be continued)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 59 of 59 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.)