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

K The essential Texts


Displaying posts 31 - 43 of 43 in total
Sun, 22 Sep 2019 #31
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

TRUTH AND REALITY

First K Dialogue with David Bohm, 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 'reality'? I thought that 'reality' comes from "res", thing, and anything that thought operates on, or fabricates, or reflects about, is 'reality'. And thought, thinking in a distorted, conditioned manner is illusion, is deception, is distortion. I left it there, because I wanted to let it come rather than my pursuing it.

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

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

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

K: Are the contents of consciousness 'reality' ?

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

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

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

K: Yes. And how do they answer it?

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

K: Yes...

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

K: It is, yes.

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

K: No, obviously not.

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

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

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

K: To him it is real.

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

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

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

K: Say, for instance: is 'Christ' real?

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

K: Who created him .

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

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

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

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

Dr Parchure  : It is wrote out in literature as 'Maya'

K: Maya ? Maya means 'illusion' !

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

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

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'

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

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

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

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

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... ?

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

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

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

K: Quite right.

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

K: Thought is real...

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

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

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

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

DB: Yes, of a mutual interaction and reaction.

K: And all his illusions are also his product ?

DB: Yes, they are all mixed together.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...

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

K: Of course...

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

K: It includes 'all that is'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Yes...

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

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

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

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

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

K: I do not hold to anything !

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

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

DB : That means that Truth is absolute ?

K: Absolute, that's right !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DB: Yes...

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

DB: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Yes !

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

Dr P : Of what ?

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

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

DB: No, it can't.

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

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

K: Yes, It's contradictory.

DB: It muddles things up.

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

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

K: Yes.

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

K: Yes...

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

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

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

K: From where does it come?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Yes...

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

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

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

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

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

K: ...the other way it cannot.

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

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

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 that I am ( inwardly ) blind, that 'is' the truth - to realise that from knowledge & all that, I canot come to That ! To see , to feel it, to realise it...

Dr P : So you negate that ?

K : Not 'negate'...

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

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

DB: Move from one reality to another...

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

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

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 14 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Sep 2019 #32
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

Second K-Bohm Dialogue TRUTH & REALITY

K: Sir, if 'truth' is someting different from 'reality', then what place has 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 'truth of reality', but that Truth which is unrelated to reality – this reality being what we said last time, a process of thought thinking about something, or reflected upon, or distorted -which is illusion- and so on... So, what is action in truth ? If it is not related to reality, if it is not an action of time, then what is this action ? Is there such action ? Can my mind 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 now. That is, the seeing 'is' the doing. Perceiving 'is' the acting - in the present ! And is the 'present' a continuous movement of the past, through the present to the future, or is the 'present' a thing that is whole, that's complete, that is sane, healthy, holy  ? I think this is rather important to find out. For the man who wants to live in truth , this is his first demand.
So, what is action in relation to truth ? I know the action in relation to reality – which is based on memory, which is based on environment, circumstances, adaptation, or an action 'I will do something in the future'

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

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

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

K: As we said, perceiving is the doing.

DB : Yes, I mean, 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 habit to say that reality is 'what is', you see ?

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

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

K: Neither do I...

DB :...because the word 'illusion' implies that there is another 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 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 movement by which we invest everything we see with the shapes of thought. And this seems to be part of reality.

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

DB : That's the point I was trying to get at : if we say that the tree is 'that which is', is truth, then we are coming to a point of view to say that reality is not a substance – but here we are saying that truth is substance. That is the role of the substance in what we were previously assigning that which 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 'substance' – 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 seeing and that tree's growing ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: I speak of truth in the 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 'fact' acts.

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

K: Yes, of course it is !

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

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

DB : Somehow, from beyond it...

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

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

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

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

K: Holistic...

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

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

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

K: Yes.

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

K: Quite, sir. You live in truth and your actions in 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 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' are 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 the distortion ? Is the 'seeing' of the distortion a rational, thoughtful, reasoned process or is it...

DB : It is without time.

K: That's right !

DB : Later we may express it rationally...

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

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

K: Can it come come gradually ?

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

K: Ah, that's it !

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

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

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

K: That's right !

DB : We can't say it's either...

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

DB : Yes, you're slipping back into the notions of reality, like explaining any information about reality. So, when you're seeing the distortion, the action comes in, but I think here 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 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' 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 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 between love and truth ? Is truth, love ? 'Love' -that word again - what it means ?

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

K : That is all 'reality'.

DB The nearest thing I could get was...

K; Compassion ?

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

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

DB ; Well, it seems it is.

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

DB ; What we could say about 'enjoyment' ?

K: Is enjoyment pleasure ?

DB ; It depends on how we use this word – if we want to establish a 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'. 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 : Are 'you' and 'I' realities -is that what you mean ?

K: Of course !

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

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

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

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

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

K: Of course...So, what is a man who lives in 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 reality he has created an image of God, or of whatever it is, and that is distortion ! He won't see that …

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

K: Yes, you can, but...

DB : ...there is a resistance ?

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

DB : Yes, or with anybody...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DB : You're not what... ?

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

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

K: Or, can you bring a new quality to the consciousness ?
Look Sir, Stalin, Lenin, the priests in the name of Jesus, the 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 prejudice and 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 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, and 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 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 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 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 'empty'

DB : Yes.

K: Right ...This reality is nothing !

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

K: No thing, right...

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

K: Out of that field, yes...

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

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

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

K: ( laughs) Yes...

DB : Which means that in this no-thingness there is a certain form, which is reality.

K: Reality, yes !

DB : But a form which is nothing

K: Yes sir but that presuposes that 'there is nothing'...

DB ; Which is only an 'image' …

K: That's right !

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

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

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

K; Sir, isn't there 'space' when the observer 'is' the observed ?

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

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

DB : Yes but before you said...

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

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

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

DB ; So, we can say that the second is including – this 'space' includes everything

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

DB : Well, everything 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' I create when I dislike you , or 'like' you, is different from the freedom of this Space …

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

K: Yes...

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

K: Without space I couldn't exist.... I wonder if we're talking of the same thing...

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

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

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

K : Space in the mind.

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

K: I can artificially create it...

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

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

DB : Yes...

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

DB : Yes...So this ''nothingness'' is the same as freedom … ?

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

DB : Right...

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

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

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

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

K: Yes...

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

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

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

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

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

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

DB : Yes...

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

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

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

DB : It may have no place...

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

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

K That's right.

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

K: Yes ; one way...

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

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

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

K: Are you saying 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 'space' can also act within thought so as to make it parallel.

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

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

K: Yes.

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

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

DB : Yes...

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

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

K: I see a distortion outside of me or inside me, and to perceive that there must be freedom, freedom implies energy and therefore the 'seeing' pushes it away, 'clears' it .
Now, 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, they're all in the same 'space' within the mind. Therefore there is no division as 'thought' and 'truth'.

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

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

DB : Yes...

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

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

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

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

K: Yes, that's right

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

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

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

K: Yes, it divides itself !

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

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

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

K: And therefore it is all divided...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DB : Yes...

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

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

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

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

K: Of course, occupation means corruption !

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

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

DB : One more thing : it occured to me that the thing that comes closest to the essence of this 'distortion' is the feeling that 'reality' is all there is- and 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 thought itself is a distorting factor - if truth is not operating.

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

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

DB : But you see, there are two ways to look at it : without truth is thought creating distortions, or 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 distorting factor

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

K: Quite, quite...

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

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

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

K: To measure...

DB : And measurement by itself is a function, which as we said, it can be rational or...

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 .

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 14 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Sep 2019 #33
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

3-RD K Discussion with DAVID BOHM

K: What do we start off ?

DB : We could 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 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: Alright, by 'thinking' we mean the response of memory, of our conditioning, of verbal associations...

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

K: But that is thinking, isn't it ?

DB : Well, I think a part of our question is how we assign the use of words, which is the clearest way in which we are trying to use words in an 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 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' and not merely the association of the word. Ordinarily, this 'imagination' is stimulated by the word...

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

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

K: Is insight imagination ?

DB : Not in itself, but 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 imagination?

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

K: I question that !

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

K: Yes, sir...

DB : Now, therefore the '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, through 'imagination', but is insight different from the word, from the 'image' ?

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

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

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

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

DB : No, that is not a verbal process, but I was saying something else. Let me give you an example : at a certain time I had a student in the field of technology who had some problems with mathematics. Now, one way to work it out is going through many 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 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 isprimarily from that insight, from another movement of thought which comes from mechanical...And I would call that 'non-verbal' thought, in the sense that...

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

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

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

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

K: Words, yes...

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

K: A-ha, I understand it ! Yes...

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

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

DB : What do you mean by 'separate' ?

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

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

K: Yes.

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

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

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

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

DB : Yes, alright...

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 expression might be itself action. So we could say that one form of insight imediately expresses itself in words...

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

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

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

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

K: I am not sure...

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

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

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

K: Of course...

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

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

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

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

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

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

DB: Yes, and therefore false.

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

DB: Or into falseness...

K: Or into falseness, and that action is complete, it's over and done with. 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.

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

K: But the man speaks from an insight.

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

K: Yes, to convey something...

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

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

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

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

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

K: Yes...

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

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

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

K: Can 'you' give an insight?

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

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

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

K: No, of course not.

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

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

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

K: Is the insight the product of thought?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DB : I just said : the expression of thought 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Yes.

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

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

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

K: That's right.

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

K: That's clear...

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

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

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

K: Yes, necessity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DB: It's very rigid...

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

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

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

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

K: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DB: The insight into the falseness of it ?

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

DB: Yes...

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

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

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

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

K: Yes.Now I want to make it practical to myself.I see this
whole thing that you have described to me. I have got a fairly good mind, I can argue, explain it, all the rest of it, but this quality of energy doesn't come. And you want me to have this quality, out of your compassion, out of your understanding, out of your perception of truth. You say, "Please, 'see' that !". And I can't see it, because I'm always living in the realm of reality. You are living in the realm of truth and 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 problem, sir : you come here and talk to these children but the weight of their conditioning, of their desires of their 'youthfullness'...you follow ?

DB : Yes...

K: And you say, "For God's sake !"... !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Of course...

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

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

DB : I understand that...

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

DB : ...and of the great Masters...

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

DB : Yes, like the Buddha...

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

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

K: Life after life, after life...

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

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

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

K: What word would you use ?

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

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

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

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

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

K: Yes, truth is no-thing.

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

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

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

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

DB: Yes, that's clear...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DB: It must be …

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

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

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

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

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

DB : That's all we need, you see ...?

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

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

K: Right...

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

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

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

K: Is an actuality, yes...

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

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

DB : Well, it acts in reality

K: Acts in reality, lives in reality – but its actions must be different – it'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' reality...

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

K: That's right .

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

K: You see, sir, one is seeking complete security- that's all one wants- and one is seeking security 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 '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 !

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

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

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

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

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

K: Of course.

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

K: No, in 'no-thingness' there is security.

DB: 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 secure in the world of reality?

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

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

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

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

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

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

DB: Well, according to what you said, there is a certain
implication that in 'no-thingness' we will be completely secure in every way.

K: That is so, absolutely !

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

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

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

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

DB: But not necessarily 'physically' ?

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

DB: It makes you do the right thing.

K: The right thing in the world of reality.

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

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

DB: You have to do everything right...

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

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

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

DB: Yes, I understand that.

K: Therefore there is no security...

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

K: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

K: Of course.

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

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

DB : I would say that this notion is present in many people, but they have so many bad experiences that it gets lost, you see ? Implicitly there is a feeling that 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, but I'd say there is a sort of idea...

K: Ah, an 'idea'...

DB : There's a notion of that...

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

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

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 14 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Sep 2019 #34
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

4-th K DISCUSSION WITH DAVID BOHM 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 desire become such an important thing in life ?

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

K, Something missing...

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

K: What is the meaning of the words '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' ; but 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 perception.

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

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

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

DB : But sensation is also part of perception ;

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

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

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

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

K: So '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 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 Karl Marx 

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

DB : Which is very ugly !

K: Yes.

DB : As the sensation is unpleasant. ..

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

DB : It is an intense desire for an imagined state...

K: Or, is it perception ?

DB : Perception ? How is that ?

K: I perceive the rottenness and the corruption, or the 'malaise' of this society : I 'see' it ! That perception drives me, not my desire to change society. My perception says : this is ugly ! And that very perception is the 'action' of the movement to change it . I don't know if I'm making it clear ?

DB : Yes, but in that perception there is the longing to change it .

K : Is there a longing ?

DB : You see, this is what desire is implying...I mean if you go back to the root meaning of that word, it means 'something is missing' – there's a longing for something that's missing...

K: Or, sir, I 'perceive' and as we said, that very perception 'is' action. The perception of the society as it is, - it is ugly' -let's use that word for the moment, and that very perception demands action !

DB : Yes, but now we can't act immediately...

K: No, but the perception will formulate what action can take place.

DB : And that comes by 'thinking' about it …

K: Yes, of course !

DB : The perception formulates a demand 'for' or 'against' – through sensation

K: Yes, so is perception part of desire ?

DB : Well, I should say, not in the beginning ; but as soon as it reaches the sense of 'ugliness' or of 'beauty'. If you 'see' the actual state of society without the sense of 'ugliness' or beauty...

K; No, perception is action. The ugliness of society is 'perceived'
And that 'perception' – I wouldn' use the word 'ugly' because than we'll have to go into conflict & so on. Perception is the root of action, and that action meets the time and all the rest of it. But where does desire come into this – I don't see it !

DB : Well, but it does seem to come in, doesn't it ?

K: As far as I am concerned, it doesn't...

DB : Why do you say that ? I mean, what do you say to those people who want to change society ?

K: I would say : is it your pereption that's acting, or your prejudice 'against' ?

DB : But that's still a desire, isn't it ?

K: That's a desire. Is perception part of desire ?

DB : I don't think it is...But you have frequently said that perception contacted sensation and sensation gives rise to desire...

K: Yes that is quite right but once there is perception, where does desire come in in carrying out that perception ?

DB : Well, in principle, if you could immediately carry it out, there would be no need for desire...

K: Yes, of course ; that's one thing... But I can't carry it out immediately.

DB : Yes and then 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 perception ! You 'perceive' society is rotten. Let's put it this way : the 'actuality' is perceived. In that perception of actuality...where does desire come in ?

DB : But we'll have to find out why it comes in...

K: That's it !

DB : If I perceive something very simple – like an apple and I'd like to eat it, then I just eat it and there's no problem of desire. On the other 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: ...it may arise, because 'I' want that apple. So that' s one thing ; but I perceive the 'actuality' of society ; and I ask : where does desire come in ?

DB : If you do act, desire doesn't come in, but you may feel that you don't know how to act...

K: I may not know how to act, therefore I will consult, talk...

DB : But then you might become discouraged, you see ?

K: Ah ! My perception is so clear – it cannot be discouraged...

DB : That may be so but I am describing what it generally happens : I perceive the falseness & rottenness of society and I consider how to change it, I talk to people and after a while I begin to see that it doesn't change that easily...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And at some stage I may begin to feel that it may be not possible at all...
But then, there may come a longing to change it, nevertheless...

K: No. If I see that it's not possible to change, then it's finished !

DB : It is finished, yes, but then why is it that people don't accept that ? You see, I'm just describing the general experience : on seeing that it's not possible there is still the longing for that change...

K: Yes, the longing for that which is not possible...

DB : That is the sort of desire that always gets frustrated and it creates all these problems

K: Yes, yes...

DB : Now on the other hand I cannot just accept that society will go on falsely forever...

K: Of course ! But I still don't see the connection between desire and perception !

DB : Well, there may not be any...but then, why does it seem to be one ?

K: Is it perception that is driving them, or they have never perceived and only desire is driving them ?

DB : Well, that may well be that their perception was born of desire – or what they think it's 'perception'...

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 that car with pleasure …

DB : But couldn't it be possible that at some stage the perception fails to be caught in that...You see, if you want to own the car, then there is no problem, unless it becomes an intense longing which is the desire which is driving you. But you also could say : I'd like to own that car, but if it's not possible...then I won't

K: Ah, I see ...Then there is no problem !

DB : No problem, but you see, that's what is usually meant by 'desire' : longing for what you cannot get – and if you cannot get it you still long for it...

K: Aha ! I don't function that way !

DB : Yes, but we still have to understand this function since it seems to be a general function...

K: That is the general function, I agree.

DB : First of all, it is not clear why it should be there – not clear to me, anyway...

K: Which is, desire ?

DB : Desire, yes...I mean, rationally there is no reason for it, but as far as one can see, it's still there and it's very powerful all over the world...

K: Is desire based on sensation ?

DB : That's what we're exploring – I think that it's not entirely based on sensation...

K: Sensation, imagination...An imagined pleasure one is going to get...

DB : Yes, I think it's based on imagination – not necessarily of pleasure, but also of beauty, of what is 'good' ...You see, almost all the things that are missing is 'imagined' ; and this gives a tremendous energy- you see, people generally desire what is beautiful...And in fact, take things like gold or precious stones, which have very little value in themselves, but people are attached to it because of the eternal beauty of it- and therefore they are ready to do anything for it...

K: It is the same as the desire for power, or for anything... How does it arise ? Is that it ?

DB : Yes, how does it arise and what is the meaning of it ?

K: How does it arise ? I see you driving a big car – you the politician in a big position- and I like that, I want that...

DB : Yes but it's not clear why I drive myself go to that length ?

K: It gives me a tremendous pleasure...

DB : Yes, but then, why do I want the pleasure - unless, there would have been tremendous confusion of values

K: Or...'pleasure' is the only thing I know ; I live such a superficial life, this is the only thing I know...

DB : But I know a lot of other things...

K: I live such a superficial life – my education is superficial and pleasure is superficial...And so, I long for that !

DB : But if one may feel it is not superficial, then it must be something worth striving for ...I mean, 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 emptiness ?

DB ; Well, it may be, but I think that pleasure helps create the impression of a
full, harmonious life...

K: Ah, I see, is pleasure associated with beauty ?

DB : I think it is : in general people expect that pleasure will give them 'beautiful' experiences...

K: I understand that... I see something very beautiful – where does the pleasure arise in that ? I'd like to own it, I like to possess it....

DB : I like to have it forever – I'd like that experience to be repeated somehow -not necessarily to own it but to look at it forever …

K: Yes...to be there. Why do I do this ?

DB : Because of the fear that I'd be inwardly poorer without it ?

K: Is it because in myself I I am not 'beautiful' ?

DB : That may be part of it...This sense of not having contact with beauty in myself and therefore wanting something

K: So, is beauty 'out there' - and therefore 'I want it' ?

DB : Yes, even in the dictionary it says that 'beauty' is not only in the quality of the thing but also it is in oneself – they are the same thing : the quality of the 'thing' and the quality of sensation – and in some sense there is no division of the 'observer' and the 'observed'...I mean this idea is recognised in the Dictionary – that it belongs both to the 'observer' & to the 'observed' ...

K: Yes...

DB : But the way I look at this is : suppose I have no contact with – and seeing this I create 'beauty' in me...And then when the thing is gone, then I'm back in the previous state and I begin to long for that experience again...

K: Yes... So, what is the problem, sir ?

DB : Well, I think the question really is to understand this process of desire – because without understanding it, the confusion of thought will never end... I mean we can be on one side of desire or on the other side – like when we've been discussing – sometimes desire may be on the side of the 'feeling' and at other times on the side of 'truth and actuality' ...and once this confusion arises, then it drives the whole mind into 'falseness'

K: Would you say that desire is in the field of 'reality ?

DB : Yes, it is in the field of reality but sometimes it seems to divide itself. In other words, once desire is in the 'feeling' , once this confusion arises, then it drives the whole mind into falseness

K : Can I desire truth ?

DB : You see, it is accepted in the general structure of the laguage that you can desire beauty, or goodness of truth – Now, I understand you're questioning that ?

K: Yes, I'm questioning that...Is beauty in the realm of reality ?

DB : ...or is the good in the realm of reality ? I should say that most people regard them as synonimous...In Latin they have the same root : 'bene' and 'beatus' - which also means 'blessed' …

K: As we said : '' beauty, truth and goodness'' : is that in the field of reality, created by thought and something I long to get at ?

DB : If it were in the field of thought, then I would reasonably long to have it – but I don't know exactly where to look for it because I'm separated from it.

K: And is that 'good, beauty and love' in the field of reality ?

DB : No, that is something we discussed – it goes along with Creation...

K: Now, desire is in the field of reality...

DB : It is a movement in the field of reality but it's a movement which can project something outside the field of reality – which it creates an almost impossible since what is projected by such desire can never be satisfied...

K: That which is projected is part of reality...But one does not recognise that !

DB : That's right, but the same time, there is also the feeling that 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 a contradiction – the field of reality gets broken in two : the part that you have and the part that you haven't got..

K: But it's still in the field of reality.

DB : Yes...

K: So, is the 'good' in the field of reality ?

DB : No, I think it's clear it's not...

K: Obviously not ! Therefore longing for beauty, as it is in the field of reality, is a movement of thought- projecting beauty and longing for it

DB: Yes, or at least remembering beauty as it is perceived and longing to continue it, or for a new one...

K: Yes ; so could we say: what is the 'beauty' which is not in the field of reality ? What is the 'goodness' which is not in the field of reality ?

Dr P : Wouldn't you say that there is goodness in the field of reality ?

K Of course there, is but we are talking about the 'goodness' which is not induced by thought...I can induce myself to be good, I can cultivate, practice 'goodness' , but that is not the goodness of Truth !

DB : Goodness can act in the field of reality, but I'm a little puzzled by Beauty – which is rather mysterious in some way...if you say there's an object in the field of reality like a tree that is beautiful ? But that is not Beauty- as Beauty is the essence 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 Goodness is not in the field of reality...

DB : It may act there, but its essence is not in the field of reality .

K: Its essence is not in the field of reality. Good works, good behaviour, good taste, good food, good thoughts - all that is in the field of reality. But Goodness-
the essence of it, is not in the field of reality. This wallpaper, created by thought is quite beautiful – the colours, the birds, the whole pattern of movement on the wallpaper is beautiful ; it is created by thought and therefore it is in the world of reality...

DB : Yes, and many ideas may be beautiful...

K: Of course, many ideas and all the rest of it...So, where does desire...

DB : But we haven't finished with Beauty...We said that the tree is beautiful...

K: That which 'is' is beautiful.

DB : And we said that the wall paper is also 'beautiful' …

K:That's quite different, I see it...

DB : So how do we get it clear ? You see, even that which is created by thought is also 'what is' . Now which is it ? Is it just matter of language ?

K: Ah, I see...Go slowly. That which is created by thought -like the car or the wallpaper...

DB : And which may be beautiful...

K: There is a difference between 'what is' created by thought – which may be 'good' and 'beautiful' – like good ideas, good food, good clothes , and we say, because that 'goodness' is created by thought it is in the field of reality. Now what's the difference between - the movement of birds and the movement of the tree ? Both 'are' part of the world of reality and both are 'destructible' as is the tree...Both are 'beautiful' as is that tree in the field and we're saying : it 'is'.

DB : Now, are we discussing their 'actuality' ?

K: That's also actual...

DB : So is that what you mean by the word 'is' ?

K: Yes, both are actual...

DB : Yes and therefore both have their own 'activity' …

K: Both are 'actuality'. And we say : Beauty is not in the field of reality.

DB : Yes, but is it in the field of 'actuality' ?

K: Beauty is 'actual' but we're saying : Beauty -its 'essence' -is not in the field of reality.

DB : Though it may act in the field of reality ?

K: Yes, it may act...Now, what is the difference, sir, between these two 'actualities' – one of which is in the field of reality and the other which is not in that field ? Is there an 'actuality' in the field of truth ?

DB : We were saying that truth 'acts'  , but we were raising the question whether there is an 'actuality' in the Essence ?

K: Both are 'actualities'...

DB : Yes, but they are of a different order of actuality, or two different kinds of actuality ? You see, the wallpaper was created by the thought of mankind, although it has some kind of 'actuality' - the actual paper of which it was made

K: Yes, but that wallpaper and the tree are the same...
Therefore why do we say : truth is not in the field of reality ?

DB : Well , I think this goes back to the way we use the words- we said that 'real' means to be a 'thing' – what we think about, while 'truth' is unconditioned
it is 'no-thing'

K: Yes, 'no - thing'

DB : As beauty is 'no-thing', goodness is 'no-thing'...

K: That's right !

DB : But they are 'actual'  - that is what we're implying, right ?

K: Let's go slowly into this...If it is 'no-thing' , is there an actuality ?

DB : You see, that's the question...In the conference with the scientists you've mentioned some sort of energy which was self-sustainable, non-contradictory, a self sustaining energy which is of a 'cosmic' sort...

K: Yes...

DB : And of which we could say it's the energy of 'that which is'...is this what you mean to say ?

K: That's why we have to go into this carefully !

DB : Yes...You have mentioned that several times, but also in Physics there is this idea that there is energy in the '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 truth is 'no-thing'. Now, the 'things' of reality create their own energy...

DB : A limited kind of energy?

K: Yes, and the 'no thing' is unlimited...

DB : And you're implying that that unlimited energy is self-sustaining and therefore it does not depend on anything ?

K: Yes, it is independent ; this depends, the other doesn't !

DB : Yes, the 'thing' ultimately depends on That...

K: That's right, that why I said that we may get caught in that trap
that 'God is in us', that that supreme intelligent energy is present in man

DB : But man depends on it...

K: Because one doesn't depend on it, does it mean that one becomes 'evil' ?

DB : Let's try to put it differently : It is all related to whether the energy of thought is one thing, or there is a energy which has been used wrongly... ?

K; Yes we have talked about this !

DB : Yes, but we never quite settled it...

K: Yes, we have never worked it out...

DB : I think it is similar to asking: is there only one energy which makes both the 'emptiness' and the 'things' or are there two energies ?

K: We are just discussing  whether there is only one energy which is misused in reality and the same energy is 'no-thingness' ...( long silence)
'Nothingness' being 'death' ! Right, Sir ?

DB : Right....

K: I'm just hesitating to put it forward : I think that energy born of 'no-thingness' is different for the other...

DB : Yes, but there is no interaction ?

K: I think there is a 'one-way' connexion, that is from 'nothingness' to the 'thing'
but not from the 'thing' to 'nothingness'.
Now I want to go into this very carefully : is the energy of 'nothingness' 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 to 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 proposal, and the other 'proposal' is that there is no relationship from the 'thing' to the...

DB : Yes, but that is the same as the first proposal : the infinite includes the finite, but not the other way around.

K: I see it for being different : as we said, nothingness is death - which means 'total ending', right, sir ? In the word of 'reality' thought has never an ending -right, sir ? Thought creates its own energy. Hmm ? Or are both the same and one degenerates – the 'source of water' is polluted in the field of reality, but it's the same 'water' as the energy of truth ?

DB : 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- dissimilar ? Let's put it this way ; from the 'field of reality' can there be a 'movement' to 'truth' ?

DB : No...

K: Why ?

DB : Because the field of reality is conditioned, as being made of 'things'...

K: So, as truth has no connection to the field of reality then it has no connexion to the field of reality …

DB ; But, there is still a 'one-way' connexion... ?

K: A one-way connexion, yes ...but not an interacting relationship

DB : Not a 'mutual' connexion...Perhaps you could say that truth acts in the world of reality through death – like in ending the false ?

K: Yes, so we go back to the same thing : can thought be 'ended' ? One can see that...so is that 'ending of thought' the same the 'not-a- thing' ? No sir...I think the two energies are totaly different

DB : What ?

K: The energy of 'no-thing' is totally different from the other.

DB : But then, you haven't explained why there can be the relationship in which the energy of nothingness can act in the field of reality.. ?

K: It can operate because it 'is' everything !

DB : What do you mean by 'being everything' ?

K; Because in no-thingness ….one must be very careful here!
We're saying 'no-thingness' means 'ending' - that is, 'not- a-thing' ! In the world of reality 'ending' means the modified continuation of thought. 'This' has no continuity, 'that' has continuity....

DB...in the world of reality.

K: 'This' has a movement in time, 'that' has no movement in time. Are they the same movement ?

DB : The small movement is contained in the larger.

K: That's it !

DB : In the conference with scientists you used the analogy of a small area inside a big Space ; maybe we can look at time that way ?

K:Let us put it this way, sir : In the field of reality 'love' has a very definite meaning - jealousy and all that...

DB : But love can act in the field of reality in a 'clear' way, you see ?

K: Love can act in the field of reality, but the 'love' in reality is not Love.

DB : That is desire .

K; So the Love in 'no-thingness', can act in the world of reality. But 'this' can never be polluted in the field of reality. Therefore it is something 'entirely original' !

DB : Hmmm... ?

K: Sir, can it be expressed the other way around ? We said 'death' is ending ; and that which has a movement in the (reality) sense, has no 'ending' and we said this inward death is the ending of everything  - of every 'thing' !
There is no relationship between the two ! I would like to think that I can use the world of Truth in 'reality'

DB : All we've been saying so far that truth acts in reality...

K: Is that so ? Can it ? Can the 'not-a thing' – which has no movement ...How can 'not-a- thing' act in reality ? Reality is a 'thing'...

DB : You see, there is another (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 the measure !

DB : In the world of 'measure'. Now, suppose I make a measure and then I see it's 'false '

K: Then I can correct it !

DB : Yes, but before I can do that, I have to 'see' that as false …
Now, isn't that the operation of truth ?

K: Ah, no ; because I can measure the table and then I see that it doesn't fit in the room...

DB : But how do I see that ? If the mind were operating clearly I could see , but if it becomes confused ...I may not see it....

K: If I measure it properly I would get it right. But it is still in the world of measurement !

DB : So, measurement operates only in the field of the measurable...
But it's important that thought should be clear and free of confusion and 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...Sir can we say it this way- the world of 'reality' is measurement, and that 'measurement' may be false or correct... Now in 'nothingness' – there is no measurement! Now, what is the relationship between the two ? This has measurement, that is not measurement

DB : Yes, but what is it that sees that the measurement is 'false' ? You see, if it is false, it brings contradictions – now, what is it that 'sees' the contradiction ?

K: Pain !

DB : Yes, but it doesn't always work...You see, thought's measurement has no criteria within itself which can guarantee its correctness...There's something 'beyond' that is needed !

K: Quite...But if my measurement is incorrect, there is a disturbance ...

DB : Yes, but then I might suppress the awareness of that disturbance...

K: Yes, but it is still in that area !

DB : But what is it that perceives that disturbance ?

K: I perceive that I am disturbed !

DB : Yes, but many people don't perceive that …

K: Because they are insensitive ; they are not aware, they are not conscious  ! But the pain of that contradiction is still there !

DB : Yes, but then, why are they not 'conscious' of it ?

K: Because of my education...I can give you ten different reasons...

Dr Parchure : It may be that '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 be false at the next step...

K: Of course..

DB : But then, there seems to be some meaning to it because...

K: Because it's suitable, convenient, etc, but it is still...

DB : But in that field there is no way to guarantee pure correctness...

K: Agreed.

DB : Now we can see that in some people there may be more ability or less ability...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 nothingness ! Now is that 'nothingness' a verbal structure, or the world of truth ? If it is a verbal structure, a theory, hypothesis and all that sort of things...then it is still in the world of reality. Here there is no 'entrance' for thought...Therefore it is nothing ! And we were saying : is there a relationship between the two ? That is the central point we're trying to find out.... Now, there is no relationship between this and 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 something that is permanent, that can never be hurt...So I project -as an idea, as an imagination or as a hope that there is that. When I project from 'this' to 'that', whatever the projection is, it is unreal, imaginary ; a fantasy ! Now if there is actually that 'nothingness' , what is the connexion between the two ? In dying to 'reality' , only then there is 'nothingness' ! Which means, 'dying' to all the 'things' thought has created. Which means dying to all the things of measurement, the movement of time...
I know nothing about this 'nothingness' ! I can't even imagine it – I simply don't know what it is ! I am not even concerned with it...but I'm only concerned with 'this' as I live in this...And here I am always caught between the 'false' and the 'correct' - between the false measurement and the correct measurement
Or pursuing the one and rejecting the other, but it is still here.
And do I see this 'totally' ? That desire has no end, hope has no end, struggle has no end if I live here... I shut my eyes to all your inventions, etc ; my central desire is to 'see' all this !

DB : Yes, but it's still a desire  for 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 thinking- I can end it ! But is that 'ending' different from this ?

DB : What do you mean, what is the difference ?

K: I can 'end' it by persuasion, by 'practice'...

DB : But that is not ending it...

K : Of course but I can 'feel' that I have ended it ! Therefore you'd still be there.
Is there an 'ending' here without a motive ?

DB ; It seems that you've brought in 'nothingness' implicitly by saying : no motive...

K: Yes...so if I see the thing completely, there is an ending...Then, that 'is' this ! Then it's nothing ! I think it was a wrong question from my part ''Is there a relationship between the two ?'' I won't even ask it because I only know 'this' ! All the priests have said (…) but I say '' I know only this !' And all my energy is limited to this corrupted, distorted, pathological ... And there is this man who says there is a (state of inner) 'nothingness'...He just says it , he doesn't relate 'this' and 'that' ; he said : there is nothingness. How do you catch him ? He doesn't say ''In this 'nothingness' everything is'' - becauses he sees the 'danger' . I won't give him nothing
And the ( 'reality' ) man says '' What is the use of that ?'' It is not marketable, it doesn't relieve my pain, my 'agony' ...Keep it to yourself !
But for someone living in the field of reality, this statement means something - I will keep to this !

DB : So, basically you are saying that we got to approach something this with a feeling that you've got somethin wrong – because whatever you're saying about this is still in the field of reality...

K: Right, Sir ... The energy of nothingness is 'quite' different from the energy of this, but he (K ) says don't bother about it, just look at this and get out of it ! Don't try to bring in the Cosmos into the limited …

DB : 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 …You come along and say: Look, there is a state of nothingness ! And it is tremendously true to you – it means 'dying', not a 'thing' in his mind. And I have a feeling that it is true – because he has said it so passionately, because his very presence, his very saying has that (quality) …
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 trap : 'God is here'...
Does this answer your original question , sir ? That beauty, goodness, truth – the purity of it are all in here ?...I think that's right .

DB : I think one has an expectation that a man who lives in nothingness would not produce an 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 in the Jewish world, the 'Nameless' ...but I live here and name Him all the time. And He doesn't even recognise the name ! I think that's true, so my only concern is 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 But it's not the same ( experiential) content of that word...

DB : You were usually describing 'love' as the movement in relationship , but if you're not using the same word...it's not clear...

K: Sir, 'no-thingness' 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 division between the 'perceiver' and the 'perceived'  when they are 'one', then you can ask. Do that first and then you can answer !

DB : That's right …

K; Dr Bohm has climbed the Everest – he can describe the beauty of all that , but I'm still in the valley and I long to have that vision of what he has seen. My desire is to 'that' or for the description ? In the actual climbing there is no desire, but in achieving the descriptions of what he has seen, there is 'desire' . Right, Sir ? I think that holds it...We are caught in 'description' , not in the actual climbing...
Should we go and...

DB : I think it's five thirty – an hour and a half...

K: So, we'd better go and shake hands - in the world of 'reality' ! (laughter...)

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 14 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Oct 2019 #35
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

5-th 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 energy which will carry out these functions without becoming 'crooked' ?

DB : Yes, because unless we can find that we must turn to thought …

K: Quite. How does one investigate it, or how does one discover – after realising the intrinsic nature of thought - what is the new instrument which will discover that energy ?

DB : Yes, we started looking at that last time and we discovered there is a very serious trap, because thought is always projecting itself into anything.

K: Yes. So we are asking whether thought can ever be an instrument that can discover something which is not 'crooked' ?

DB : There is one more point we might discuss: you have often talked about the 'negative thinking' which is really the discovery of contradictions within one's thought …

K: Yes...

DB : And I've been studied this : people have known this as 'dialectic' – according to the dictionary 'the art of discussion through questions and answers'

K: I know, but it also means offering opinions …

DB : Not exactly ; it starts with accepting something which people thinks 'reasonable' – which may be an opinion and to move from there to discover thought's inevitable contradiction. Now there are two ways to look at this : one is to simply 'drop it'...

K: Isn't there in contradiction a synthesis ?

DB : That depends...one of the exponents of dialectic I've studied is Hegel, who has carried it quite far. He says that at a certain stage thought reveals its contradiction, then it 'suspends' itself and one sees the emptiness of the forms of contradiction ; but then he goes on to a new idea which will resolve the contradiction...

K: A-ha.. 

DB : And then it moves on & on. Now in order to stop it moving on & on, he introduces the concept of the 'absolute idea'...which he didn't notice that it could be another idea...

K: (laughing) These clever people get caught in their own web...

DB : Yes...and if we pursue that we can see that there's no much point in pursuing the contradiction on & on and we see that thought is inherently creating contradictions and we come to the point which you raised – that thought should find its right place which again you can't . So we've carried the dialectic further than Hegel did and this inevitably leads to the point that thought might end itself.

K: End itself, quite !

DB : I was told by Narayan that Buddha was a great master of dialectic and perhaps he did use it that way, but in general it has not been used that way...

K: I don't know Buddhism very well – I don't know it at all – except at the superficial mutterings of Buddhist priests and so on. I was told that a Buddhist scholar – Nagarjuna- went much further saying that in ending thought there is 'nothingness'.
So, we've come to the point where thought being contradictory, through 'dialectics' thought can resolve it, hoping that by a certain point thought can see its 'absurdity'...

DB : Yes...

K: But when thought conceives a new pattern...It is still thought !

DB : Still thought, yes...

K: So, we've reached that point, and we see that the movement of thought must always be contradictory, self-centred and so on...Can that thought end and a new 'energy' operate in the field of reality and not bring about contradictions in the field of reality ? That's it , we got it !

DB : 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 desire. It comes to the same thing...

K: Exactly ! If you talk about thought it is useless to talk about desire ! Right ? Or should we go into desire ?

DB : If we can say a few things about it, that may help...

K: Sir, when you used the word 'desire' you used it in the sense of feeling, demand, and also in the meaning of this word, 'longing' .

DB : Longing, yes...

K Clinging to, seeking the ultimate pleasure in different forms – the highest, the lowest and so on & on...Surely, all that is in the field of thought ! Desire is one of the 'arms of thought' !

DB : Yes, it starts producing feelings...

K: Would there be that 'feeling' if thought didn't enter into that area ?

DB : Now that's the question : in our general culture it is accepted that there would be one...

K: I know...

DB : But on the other hand if we were not identified with thought as a second kind of feeling, it's hard to say what it would be …

K: Yes, quite...I desire this house – in that desire is included the longing for what thought has created...and I want the 'image' of what thought has created as pleasurable...and wanting that pleasure. I don't think there is a difference between desire & thought !

DB : Yes, and the contradiction in desire comes in the same way – just as there is an inherent contradiction in thought, there is an inherent contradiction in desire.

K: Yes...inherent ! But just a minute : when I am young I desire a woman, I desire a house – I change the objects of desire, but desire remains !

DB : Desire remains, but its objects are always contradictory...You see, it won't stay with an object – if you get the object it will move to another one...just the same as thought would not stay there but move from one thing to another..

K: That's it ! That's clear...

Dr P : Now this continuous movement of thought is a continuous 'projection' and the person doesn't come to know of this movement so there is a continuous 'chasing' there...and his life is between the projection and himself...

K: Quite..

Dr P : This is a process of conditioning that starts from feeling, to the 'image' formation...

K: What do you mean by 'conditioning' ?

Dr Parchure  : If you have a young child he has no 'thinking' process stated but a 'feeling' process...

K : I wonder if that is not 'thinking' - so it is a 'dangerous' thing to say that the child has no thought but only feeling …

DB : Yes...Some psychologists have sudied that and they say that the young child has a 'non-verbal' form of thinking - a 'motor thought' , like an animal...And he thinks that through his 'images' and through his 'motor activity'
the child is still 'thinking' in terms of pleasure & all that...

K: Non-verbal...

Dr P : But it seem the child doesn't think in terms of the 'I'

K: I cling to this toy and another child comes and takes it I hold it  : That is the origin of the 'I' 

DB : Or the child clinging to his mother ; when the mother goes away...

K: Of course ! What problem is that... ! So sir, we said : desire in its very nature is contradictory, though the objects may change ; but in its essence desire is contradictory, as thought is contradictory. Now we're saying ; is there an energy wich operates in the field of reality without becoming crooked ?
You see, when I have discussed in India with all the pundits & others, they have said : this 'energy' is divine – I'm using their words- and therefore it can never operate in the field of reality – but if it does, it can never go contradictory – they 'invent', they presuppose, or they 'imagine' an energy which is unconditioned – which is Brahman, or Soul, or God.
Now, if we can 'erase' from our mind that process of invention or 'imagining' -and one must if one really find out, then what have we ? We have only the process of 'thought & desire' – which in its essence is 'crooked' in operation and ...we know nothing else. Right sir ?

DB : Yeah...

K: I think that would be the 'sane' position. I'd like to start that way, otherwise this 'crooked' nature of thought and its desire which constantly changes its longing...And I 'am' my consciousness in which all movement is thought & desire. Right sir ?

DB : Yeah...

K: That consciousness – because it is all the time in movement - has never found an energy which is not contradictory, an energy which is not produced by desire & thought. So, what shall I do ?
Then my problem is : can 'thought' see its own movement and the futility of its own movement ?  Futility in the sense of being contradictory, conflicting...

DB : Yeah, 'seeing the totality' of it. We'd have to see it 'totally' !

K: Totally, that's what I mean ! Of course …Can thought see the totality of its movement in consciousness- see it as a whole ?

DB : Well, there is here a difficulty which perhaps makes it look impossible : when we ordinarily look at something, that very thought separate itself from what we look at ; so when you say ''I 'am' that thing that thought thinks about'', this thought is not sustained...

K: Let's move from there : my consciousness is myself ; there is no separation between myself and the content of my consciousness which is 'me'...

DB : Yeah...

K: That I see. Is this 'seeing' withing the content of the consciousness or outside ? When I say ''I see the contradictory' nature of thought '' Is that 'seeing' an intellectual perception, a verbal comprehension, or is it an actual perception ? Or I imagine that I see I desire ? Is 'seeing' a movement of thought ? If it is, then I don't 'see' -there is no 'seeing'. Then when does the mind say 'I see' ?

DB : Only when the movement of thought stops ?

K: That's it ! And what made it stop ? How has that come about ?

DB : Seeing the contradiction or the absurdity...

K; But does thought 'see' it ?

DB : No, it's the attention to what thought is doing …

K: There is attention to the actuality – the 'actual' is being seen.

DB : Yes...

K: The 'actual' which is the creation of thought – desire, the movement of  thought – that's the actual. And 'who' is it that 'sees' it- how does it happen ?

DB ; Well there's nobody that 'sees' it...

K: That's what I want to get at...

DrP : I think 'attention' is the thing that sees !

K: I don't want to go back ! I don't operate that way, I want to start anew ! I've got a problem : somebody tells me that thought is everlastingly moving from pattern to pattern, in contradictory patterns, contradictory desires- when thought does that, there can be no solution there is no solution to ending sorrow, confusion , conflict & all that. And I listen to him because he's telling me something that is very serious: I respect what he's saying and I say : Give me a moment and I will see it ! What do I see ? The verbal pattern, the verbal description – and therefore I've got the 'colour' of the painting of his description, or  is it an intellectual grasp of what he's saying or it has nothing to do with all that but only perception ? I'm just asking : how does that perception happen ? I 'listen' to him, I respect what he's saying : to me it seems logical, sane and actual – and then at the moment I see the whole of it ! Not the fragments put together, but the 'whole' movement of desire, thought, contradiction, the whole movement from pattern to pattern, the excuses & so on- I see it completely as a whole ; and my action of 'seeing as a whole' is totally different from thought's action...How does it happen ?

DB : Well, it is not clear what you mean by 'how' ?

K: I'm sorry, I shouldn't say 'how' !

DB : Let me just say something : when I looked at it and saw that thought cannot be made straight, I couldn't describe it, but at that moment I was no longer interested to 'make it staight'. I thought that was the direct action of 'seeing'.

K: Are you saying : does thought see itself in its movement in contradiction ?Is that what you're saying ?

DB : I'm saying that when there is 'seeing' the whole movement no longer continues...

K: Does thought 'see itself' ?

DB : No, no...It seems to me that there is a bigger movement...

K: That may be imagined by thought, or it is what scientists say , but I don't know anything about it....All that I know is this : that in listening with attention & respect I see this ; I understand the whole of it ! You don't have to talk anymore about it -I see the whole of it ! What brought this about ? If you say 'attention' – this attention implies that there is no 'center' -center as thought which has created the 'me' and the 'not-me', and therefore I receive eveything he says without twisting it !

DB : But isn't there a thought without the 'centre ? In other words, can there be thought before the centre ? The weakness of thought is that it separates itself from what it thinks about – the imaginary 'other' which it calls the object, but which is still thought...

K: Yes, I see all that...

DB : Now, does that take place before the creation of the 'center', or the 'center' is something else ?

K: I don't quite follow this...

DB : You see, if I say the essential function of thought is to 'reflect' – to create an 'image'...

K: Which becomes the 'centre'...

DB : Yes, let's get this straight...You said ''The image becomes the 'centre' – this is not quite clear to me ...Let's say I'm thinking of a tree - that which I'm thinking about becomes separate from 'me' Therefore it seems that I have created two 'images' – one is the 'tree' and the other is 'me'...

K: That's right : the 'me' is the image that thought has created …

DB : And the 'tree' also ...but it seems that thought presents these two as separate ... Now it would seem from what you're saying that thought cannot exist without a 'centre' ?

K: Yes, that's right...

DB : But if 'something' could awaken, then we wouldn't have the 'centre'...

K: That's right ! Pupul raised this question ; Is the seeing
within the field of consciousness ? That means 'seeing' must have space, and is there in our consciousness a 'space' which is not touched by thought ? And therefore from that space arises the total comprehension ?

DB : Yeah...But is it part of consciousness ?

K: That's it ! It's part of the content of consciousness which has been conditioned ? In that case, where from where does that perception come ?

DB : When that free inner space is part of consciousness ?

K: Yes...I see that this space is still within the space of consciousness, still within the field desire -still within the field of reality that thought has created...Is there a 'seeing' , a 'perception of the whole' outside of it ? And if there is an 'outside seeing' – if I can use that word-
then thought with its movement between 'centre' & perifery, comes to an end....'Seeing' is the ending of thought...Would you say that ?

DB : Yeah...

K: Perception is not the movement of thought...

DB : Yes, that is, when you perceive a contradiction thought stops...

K: You see the truth outside the field of consciousness. Truth is not within the consciousness- if it was in the field of reality, then it will be a contradiction...
If it is not in that field, then it is 'truth' . Then you see it ; and because you see it, thought' action in the field of 'reality' is never 'crooked' Right ?

DB : Yes but it raises a question here : Is it possible that you 'see' it and yet...you fall back in it ?

K: Into the field of 'reality' ? Never...if you 'see' it !

DB : I mean, just once is enough?

K: Absolutely !

DB : Hmm. .. ?

K: If I see, if there is a perception of that ; how can I get back into something which is not 'true' ?

DB : But then, how do you come to make mistakes ?

K: Let's look at it ! ...For the moment I am just exploring : all action is in the field of reality. And we're saying that truth's action in the field of reality is never contradictory. And you say : there can be mistakes made by truth, right ?

DB : I don't know who is doing them...there might be mistakes which I wish to understand

K Right...As there is a perception of truth, that perception operates in the field of reality. Would it be a mistake when you take the wrong direction of the road ? The wrong road ?

DB : Well, it depends on how you use the language...or you simply by lack of information you chose one way of the road...

K: This lacking information – the way you look at it ; you say I'm making a mistake . So, truth operating in the field of reality & not having sufficient information can take the 'wrong' direction...

DB : Yes ...

K And you looking at him from 'out there' say : ''He's mistaken, therefore he's never seeen 'truth'''

DB : That is one way of looking at it ...but you can also say : What is the sign of a man who has not seen truth ? I mean, not merely that he makes mistakes ...?

K: That's very simple to see that he lives a very contradictory life.

DB : As he lives in self contradiction, you should be able to distinguish from a mistake and having the wrong information...

K: Yes, that's it : wrong information ! Now what am I to do ? There is a perception of truth and I have to act in the field of reality- do you make a 'mistake' – mistake being 'that which is not truthful ' ?

DB : So we'll have to be very clear about what is 'truth' …

K: Exactly...Truth being something that thought cannot perceive, realise or express it. Reality can't. The logic that thought spins it out becomes illogical

DB : I'd like to put it this way : there is an 'actuality' which is independent on though and an 'actuality' which is being created by thought – like that microphone- and also there is a feeling behing these images. Now thought loses track that it has created those images and then recognises it again as something that it has not created. And that mistake can't be corrected – because thought lacks the information. Now we could say that truth makes no such 'mistakes'.

K: Once you have seen something dangerous, it's finished ! But thought can create a danger by creating an 'image' which is unreal and hold on to that image
which becomes a danger...

DB : Yeah, because thought has lost track of the fact that it has made it...

K: That's right...So, we are saying 'Truth cannot make a mistake'...

DB : And if it makes mistakes it's because of wrong information – it is like a computer- if you give it wrong information...

K: That's it ! you see that 'organised' religions has no truth in it. You 'see' it totally ! You can't go back & organise their religious stuff : it's finished ! And your action will be totally 'logical' – never contradictory , right ?

DB : Yeah...Now several people asked me that most human beings are not capable of such perfection...

K: It is not 'perfection' !

DB ; In one sense it is not, but in anther sense it is....

K: I don't see it as 'perfection' !

DB : I realise that...

K: I see it as a man who is sensitive, attentive and 'sees' the danger - and therefore doesn't touch it !

DB : Well, I've talked with a few of the scientists – and especially with one of them- I think he's got some idea of what you mean, but he's rather dubious that he's ready to drop all his attachments...

K: Why ?

Db : I don't know...

K: Why should it be 'inhuman' to see truth?

DB : You're right, there is no reason, it's merely a tradition...

K: That's it ! The thickness of the 'wall' that thought has created...

DB : I mean it has been a tradition to be 'modest' – ''It's only human to err...''

K: There's no question of modesty about it ! But I think that one has to have a great sense of humility to see truth  ! And I think the expression of this is still humility...

DB : Yes, I understand that...

K: Let's go back to the question of Pupul : Is there a 'space' in consciousness – which is not created by thought ? Is there any part of one's consciousness which thought has not touched ?

DB : I should think it's impossible, because thought is a 'structure' and every part of thought touches any other part...

K: All fragments in consciousness are related...

DB : And the connexions are quite amazing ...for instance you can see that a certain word is not part of our language – and that's connected immediately to the whole of your memory …

K: Right, take the word 'oak treee ' – it doesn't exist in sanscrit...

DB : I mean, anybody can tell immediately that a word doesn't exist in the language....

K: Right, all words are inter-related ...So all the fragments of one's consciousness are inter-related...and so there is no space, no corner, no hidden spot where thought hasn't touched...

DB : Or has the potentiality of touching.

K: Yes, as we said, all thoughts are related, all fragments are related...

DB : And this the cause of one of the main contradictions of thought – to treat them as 'unrelated' .

K: Yes...So, that being so, what brings about the 'act' of perception ?

DB : You frequently ask this kind of questions for which the answers are not clear...

K: I think the answer is clear when thought comes to an end...

DB : Yes that's what you said before . But then one asks : what brings it to an end ?

K: My first question is : does thought see the futility of all its movement -and 'stops' !

DB : Well I shouldn't think that thought has that 'power'. Or, it might see the 'futility' in a fragmentary way...

K: So you're saying that thought cannot see itself in its totality . So, how does this happen ? You say it is 'attention' ? Not quite....

DB : I shouldn't think that thought has that power

K ; There must be a sense of 'no-thingness'...

DB : But what is 'attention' ?

K: Attention is the summation of all energy. But that's not quite enough. So is it happening when the mind that has gone through all this, comes to an absolute no-thingness  - not a 'thing' in it - and that is more than the summation of all one's energy – a 'super' energy !

DB : So we're saying that attention is the summation of all the human energy - which would be 'wrong' to call 'cosmic', but there is an energy beyond that.

K: There's a 'danger' of self - delusion in this because I can 'imagine' that... So the mind has seen through all that...

DB : Now I would like to ask you a question : you were like this all your life ?

K: I'm afraid so...

DB : But that brings up another question- which is what we're doing now - you're communicating it. Now for some odd reason – you were this way and the rest of us are not...

K : I wouldn't like to sound conceited...

DB : But the combination of all tendencies and environment – generally makes one 'conditioned'...

K: 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 tremendous...

DB : Too difficult ?

K: Not difficult but we'll have to go into something entirely different...Let's keep it simple ; there are two human beings – one is being conditioned and the other one isn't. How does it happen that the other doesn't get conditioned ? Is it a lack of good health at the beginning ? He was ill and therefore he didn't listen to the influences, or they didn't penetrate because the mind wasn't healthy ?

DB : Hmm... ?

K: The body wasn't healthy, therefore it didn't receive anything...

DB : And by the time it could receive, it was stronger ?

K: Yes...and therefore it never entered it

DB : It didn't took hold. Now there is this stage in the young children's development where they go through a stage of tremendous opening, but then it closes down.

K: There are several theories about this : One theory is that this has had previous lives and the other theory - but....let's put it down the other way : Would you say there is Goodness in the world, and there is also 'evil' in the world ?

DB : Well, that point has not been very clear...Perhaps we could discusses it, because I'm not clear...

K: I mean, there are these two - the 'evil' and the Good.

DB : Yes but there is a certain feeling that the 'evil' doesn't have the same reality as the Good...The 'evil' is based on falseness …

K: So there are these two 'forces' and the asiatics believe that the Good is with those who are advancing spiritually . Can that Goodness penetrate into a person who isn't selfish ? See, I have talked with those people who knew him as a child – he had a sense of 'vague', moronic. And when he got in the west...It didn't penetrate either. So, what brings this about : there must be a 'natural awareness' and sensitivity- and no choice...

DB : Would you say that 'choice' is the real root of the movement of thought ?

K: Yes...From there 'attention' – there is affection, care and a sense of deep communication. And this is still not enough : the love that exists in attention is different from the 'love' of reality. I love you, therefore I receive you profoundly...Therefore our communication is not verbal...And that is still not enough...

DB : It is in the depths of the human individual...

K: We can go through all this, but it is not enough.
Therefore can this consciousness be completely empty ? Which means, there is nothing inside it ?

DB : But that still includes an awareness of the environment ?

K: Yes, of course ! Is that possible? Then there is this which didn't exist in awareness, nor in concentration...Attention has in itself this quality of Love.

DB : Yes...

K: And that is not enough still -can this consciousness be totally empty ? And therefore, a consciousness which is totally different ?

DB : Then why would you call it 'consciousness' ?

K: That's just it ! We said that consciousness – as we knowing it now - 'is' its content : the movement, wide or narrow of thought. In 'no-thingness' there is no 'movement' at all – but it has its movement which can operate in the field of reality...

DB : We'll have to clarify what is this 'movement '?

K: The 'movement' which we know now is 'time'... Can we use 'emptiness' in the sense where a cup is empty ?

DB : That will imply that it can take content...

K: No, it's not that....Therefore let's begin again from
'nothingness' - it  has a movement which is not the movement of thought, which is, not a movement of time.

DB : It occures to me about 'time' that when thought reaches a contradiction, then it jumps to another thought and that 'jump' is time.

K: Right !

DB : It seems to me that the very essence of psychological time is contradiction...

K: Contradiction, I see that... Sir, we are asking : is there an energy which is not contradictory, which is not jumping from a pattern to another pattern ; a movement which is not related to that energy of time ?

DB : Yes...Let's get another point clear : 'that' energy reveals itself in the world of time. Is that right ?

K: Could you repeat ?

DB : This is a view which I heard : that energy does not exist in time, but it manifests in time, or reveals itself...

K: A-ha.. ! Which is the same thing I 'm saying only put differently...

DB : Yes ; I mean, several different people have said that – some of the ancient Indians in America...

K: Yes, yes ! And in India too they say that it manifests itself in the field of reality …

DB : Is that view acceptable to you ?

K: Let's look at it ! Are we saying that the human being who pursues truth can function in the field of reality and therefore his perceptions are never distorted. 

DB : Yes, but other people watching him would call him a 'manifestation'...

K: Yes, the 'avatar' -a sanscrit word...Now, would that be right ? Would that be true ? That is, you as a human being perceive truth and you manifest that truth in the field of reality. Therefore that manifestation is the operation of an Intelligence which can never be distorted...
May I put a question : why should Truth operate in the field of reality ?

DB : Well, that question was in the back of my mind...

K: (laughing) I caught you ! Why should it operate in the field of reality ?

DB : Let's just put it that generally people accept it – perhaps it doesn't …

K: That's it! Why should we it take for granted that it will operate ?

DB : We take it for granted because we hope that we will have something from it – to keep us 'straight' (both are laughing )

K: Have a string of 'hope' ….Now I'm getting it at last : we have accepted as part of our tradition, as part of our hope & desire that the man who perceives truth can and does operate in the field of reality. And you & I come along and say ; why should he ?

DB : Well, perhaps he shouldn't...

K: He shouldn't ! I think this will be more true – the actuality rather than the desire which creates the actuality ….

DB : Yes, so perhaps we'll have to change it : this man operates in 'actuality'. Would you accept that ?

K: Of course ! But there is a danger in that : that in man there is the highest principle and that it operates... I question that !
So we were asking : why should Truth enter in the field of reality at all ? Why should the Highest Principle manifest itself in the field of reality ?
We want it to operate...so we cling to that idea.

DB : Yes because we want some deeper sense of order...

K : But if we do not cling to it, how is one who lives in the world of reality, to bring order to it ?

DB : But then, are you living in the field of reality ?

K: I suppose a human being living in this mess, sees it and says : How do I bring in order ?

DB : Well it almost follows from what you say that it cannot be done !

K: That's just it ! In the world of reality thought cannot bring order there …

DB : No, because thought itself is disorder...

K: So people say ; get away from that – join a monastery or join a 'community of the equal' …

DB : Well, the whole thing is relative because it seems to me that this 'reality' is real but it is false...

K; Quite, quite …

DB : And therefore, as we said, truth cannot operate in the false...

K: Yes, but you follow sir ; I am 'false' ! Because 'psychologically' thought has created this 'false' ...

DB : Yes...

K: And how can Truth operate in the 'false' ?

DB : Well, it doesn't...

K: Obviously it cannot ! But yet, in the field of thought can there be order ? Because that's what we need : I need that...

DB : We can have some relative order...

K: So you're saying this order is relative ?

DB : Yes...

K: But there is an order of truth which is 'supreme order'...

DB : But we said that couldn't be found in the field of reality...

K: Yes...

DB : I mean, we could bring a 'relative' order into the field of reality...

K: Ahh... but that is not good enough ! That's what the politicians are doing... Therefore the human beings introduced the element of 'divine order' and pray to receive the grace of that Divine Order... which will put more than a 'relative' order in my life... And that is not good enough, it's illogical  ! Even verbally this is inacceptable. But I want order here, in the world of reality, because order means safety, security, protection...I must have that !

DB : Hmm...

K: And thought cannot produce that . But if I don't invent 'God' or a Source of Energy which will help man to have that – I don't accept that ! But I need absolute order here ! Why can't one have it without invoking or looking for truth ?

DB : Well, let's go into that, because what determines 'reality' is thought …And thought is contradictory so....what is going to make it 'non-contradictory'. I don't see how you can bring about what you're aiming at ? Now let's try to look at this  : we see that the whole world is almost completely in disorder... People tried to bring in some order in countless ways, but as long as the world is ruled by thought, the disorder will continue...

K: I accept that, because you have explained everything rationally, thought itself says ''I will be orderly'' : I know how I jump from pattern to pattern, but I will be very watchful ! And that very 'self-recollected watchfullnes will have order without introducing 'outside agencies'...

DB : So, your view is that it can be done ?

Dr P : Is it some other form of awareness ?

K: No, sir : thought says 'I have created this whole mess'... And it realises 'I can't do anything about it'. Therefore it abstains to continue in that way : Therefore I will be intelligent ! Can that take place ?

DB : Well, we'll have to look at this. What is it in thought that will allow this to take place ? Somehow it implies that thought is somehow non-mechanical ?

K: (Laughs..) I know, I know....

Dr P : I think thought has in itself some elements which are not mechanical !

K; What ? Thought is not 'mechanical' ?

Dr P : There are some parts of it which are not 'dead mechanical'...So, it can produce some order in itself without appealing to truth...

K: So, you are saying that thought has some parts of it which are 'healthy'  and we're saying 'There's no healthy thought' !

Dr P : You are using the terms 'reality' and 'thought' Now in the field of reality there are some 'springs'...

K: In the field of reality 'suffering' says ''No more !''

Dr P : That's right …

K: Let's look at it : suffering which is brought about by thought , that feeling of intense suffering says 'No more !' But the 'No more' is the action of thought ! So...you're still in the field of contradiction... So if you said all human beings must be fed - without creating a tyrany obviously that's order …

DB : Yes, but that is only a hope !

K: ( Laughs) That's it !

DB : I mean, this has been achieved at certain times …

K: But not without imposing a central authority ! The incas they had a marvelous system but the authority was there … I don't want that kind of 'order' - my orderly intelligence says ' We've been there !' Therefore you introduce the order of truth – which may or may not be there. You say truth can come in the field of reality and someone else says : truth has nothing to do with the field of reality....therefore...I'm stuck with it. So I say ...to hell with truth ! If it cannot operate & bring order here... then what's the point of it ?
So now we deny the starting point of investigation whether truth has or not some relationship with the field of reality...

DB : I think that we explored that statement & seen its contradictions and therefore 'dropped' it..

Dr P : Do you say that in the field of reality there are not sufficient 'springs' to bring this ?

K: Maybe ! I don't know ... it may be that in the field of reality thought itself sees that it cannot act anymore ?

DB : But this implies that thought has the possibility of not being entirely mechanical ?

K: I don't accept this statement that the process of thought is not mechanical .

DB : Then how is this mechanism going to see this ?

K: Is the 'computer' seeing the mistakes it's making ?

DB : No, but then you can make a computer that will take all these mistakes into account …

K: Similarly can thought see that it has made a mistake ?

DB : It can but we have to introduce some new elements like awareness...

K: There's no solution for 'absolute' oder in the field of reality...

DB : Now if thought assumes it is the only 'energy', then it must come to this position : I abstain from operating …

K: Or something else must take place...

DB : What is it ?

K: I see the that thought is bringing its own disorder... Seeing the 'danger' of it ! So, when there is the perception of the 'real' danger, thought doesn't act !
The perception of the danger is a shock to thought !

DB : Hmm…

K: So thought 'holds' – and in that 'holding' of thought is order.

DB : Right...

K: Let's put it this way : we go to Gstaad to see all these marvelous mountains …

DB : Yeah...

K: And your thought is 'gone away'... The beauty of it drives away all the movement of thought... And therefore it is the same when thought sees the tremendous danger...

DB : That's with the aid of attention & awareness, but thought 'sees' it .

K: Thought sees it. Like when I see a car rushing towards me, I jump away This 'jumping away' is order

DB: Yes, but you see, the perception of danger may not be maintained...

K: Or one may not see the danger at all ! When thought does not see the danger of 'nationality' - most of us are neurotic - I mean, when you had ten wars and you still repeating it- it is a neurotic movement !

DB : Yes, but that's part of the problem that thought dulls perception...or prevents perception from operating...

K: Or.... is it because I'm conditioned ?

DB : I'm conditioned to do just that...

K: Now you come along and educate me to see the danger of all this …And as you 'educate' me I see the danger and I will do it ! So, why should truth enter into the field of reality ?

DB : But then what does truth do – what is its action ?

K: What is its function, what does it 'do', what is its value -not in the sense of merchandised or 'employable ? You see, truth is 'supreme ' intelligence – as we said. And we're asking, can that intelligence operate in the field of reality ? If it does, then it can bring about absolute order. And we're saying truth is not something to be achieved or gained or perceived through education, through culture – through the medium of thought...Right, sir ?

DB : Yes, but when you say truth does not operate in the field of reality, it becomes ambiguous...

K: Truth cannot enter in the field of reality...

DB : I don't know if this will help : we said that 'understand' means 'to stand under'.....So when we say that we understand something – I'm using a metaphor- truth is 'standing under' thought – it is 'the substance' of reality...

K: Truth is 'under reality'… ?

DB : I don't know where truth is, but in the act of understanding, the action is 'under' reality, rather than being in the field of reality.

K: Reality is a manifestation of thought, and truth 'stands under' the actuality of thought... What time is it ?

DB : It's six o'clock.

K: Oh my ! We're getting somewhere ! Sir, what has Goodness to do with 'evil' ?

DB : Nothing ?

K: Right ! So why should we want Goodness to operate on 'evil' – modify it, change it ?

DB : Would it be right to say that Goodness dissolves 'evil' ?

K: It is the same thing - operates, dissolves...Has Goodness a relationship to 'evil' ? Then it can do something. But if it has no relationship, then it can't do anything !

DB : But then we can ask the question ; what will bring 'evil' to an end ?

K: I don't believe it can come to an end...Evil being created by man...

DB : By his thought ?

K: By his thought & all the rest of it...So, you come back to the same question : when thought comes to an end !

DB : Yeah...

Dr P : Has goodness an impact on thought ?

K: Ahh ... we said that : Goodness has no relationship with thought ! Goodness has no relationship to evil . If it has a relation then it is an 'opposite' and all opposites are related to each other !
So evil will go on till one sees the contradiction of thought ...To show man that thought can never solve his problems. Right sir ?

DB : Yeah...You could put it like this : as long as thought is going on, there is no possibility to solve his problems...

K: As long as thought – which is time - goes on, evil will go on, misery will go on...It is a tremendous revelation to me when you state that. To me thought was tremendously important  and when I hear a statement like that …

DB : Right, because one may say : What will I do without that ?

K: Exactly ! It is a tremendous revelation : I listen and I live in that revelation and there is no action...

DB : And that's the movement which is beyond 'attention' ?

K: Beyond attention...Because I've paid attention to him, I have listened to him, he has shown me and I'm full of this extraordinary statement. I don't know how I will operate, I don't know how I will live, but I've 'seen' this thing ! And it will operate, it will do something – but I don't have to do anything . Because before I was accustomed to 'do' something – and he says : Don't ! - Yes, sir, quite right ! To 'hurt another is evil' – I'm taking it as an example- In the deep sense of that word to hurt someone 'psychologically' is evil ! And I receive it without any resistance - resistance is thought – It has entered into my 'womb', into my mind, into my whole being and it operates !

DB : Hmm...

K: It functions, it moves it has its own movement ...truth has its own vitality !

DB : Yeah....

K: It's a wrong question for me to ask :'' What place has Truth in the world of reality ?''

DB : The point is that we had to put it first and see that it's wrong, not merely to deny the question ...

K: I think it's enough...Can we get up ?

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 14 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 13 Oct 2019 #36
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

6-TH K-Dialogue with David Bohm

DB : One question that's worth discussing is what we started discussing last week : that Truth does not make direct contact with reality – perhaps we should discuss that...

K: If this 'reality' is the activity of thought , with the cessation of thought, will truth become apparent? I don't quite think so...First of all can thought be stopped or can it naturally cease ? And we're asking- if that can take place, can truth exist ?

DB : Would truth be 'actual' then ?

K: For the moment, I don't think it happens that way ; let's examine & go into it. Thought is so cunning- it can mesmerise itself, hypnotise itself and think it is very quiet....That's one point. And there are various systems into Zen, or the Hindu forms to quieten thought, control is still not ending thought, as one thought superimposes on the other. Then can thought ever be silent – if it's not through 'meditation' – in the accepted sense, or if it has not induced itself, very subtly, to be silent, or if there is anything that can silence the mind, then is truth actual ? No... I think something else should take place. What do you say ?

DB : Well, we have made a distinction between a thought which is inherently 'twisted' and the ability to make a mistake which is due to wrong information and correct it...So perhaps we could clarify the difference between thought making a simple mistake and the kind of confusion that thought gets into... Let's say that one is doing something foolish and he may not know exactly why he's done it. Perhaps eventually he sees it...

K: Something out of ignorance...

DB : Not necessarily ignorance but simply 'unawareness'.
Then one wonders where is the source of this 'unawareness' ; there are two kinds of unawareness - one is simply failing to be aware - and the one which is due to thought which has a systematic tendency to supress awareness. The 'ignorance' of thought is not merely lack of knowledge but it is 'ignoring' -it 'ignores' certain things in order to be more comfortable, to have more pleasure or not to disturb the equilibrium of its operation- because if it does, then everything will go to pieces...

K: Yes...

DB : Now that kind of 'positive ignorance' is thought positively ignoring. And there is the 'negative' form of ignorance, due to the lack of information. But then, it's sometimes hard to distinguish whether someone has done something foolish due to lack of information or due to the lack of some deeper & subtler information...

K: Are we trying to find out whether truth can make a mistake ?

DB : In a way, yes. In other words is there something more than the mere lack of information ? We said last time that giving the computer wrong information it will produce wrong answers – and now if we take a little further this analogy with the computer : can it give wrong answers for different reasons ?

K: Right...So what is it we're asking, sir ?

DB : Well, it seems that truth cannot become involved with any kind of deceptions....

K: Yes, truth cannot deceive itself, obviously !

DB : Now, is it possible – for instance in your case- that thought can go on for a certain time and then you see something and it will end ? Or is it happening 'instantly' ?

K: Sir, I think we have to consider when does truth manifest itself...

DB : Last time you said it didn't , you see ?

K: What ?

DB : Last time I think we said that truth does not manifest in reality …

K: No....let's get this clear ! We are saying there is reality and truth. We know the activities of thought in the field of reality and we are saying they have no connexion with truth.
And then we say : How does truth appear ? Is truth an abstraction ?

DB : It better not be ! Then it would be still thought...

K: So, it is not a term of thought calling itself 'truth'. It must be out of time, it must have no continuity. So it must have no relation to the 'past' or to the 'future'...

DB : Which implies, as we said last time, it has no relationship to thought. That seems fairly clear . Now if you
say there's an action of truth which is always clear....

K: Which is total...

DB : ...which is always right, etc. But this is not necessarily continuous, though...

K: Ha ! Cannot be !

DB : Of course not, but it may happen from moment to moment, right ?

K: Yes.

DB : But in between, there is a lack of complete attention? You see, I'm trying to get it clear...

K: Yes, I understand. Hmm...  we'll have to go into this...

DB : And there would be one more point : they say that sometimes thought is not present when truth operates...but nevertheless, at some stage you were saying that thought is entirely twisted...and here I have the question if we can ever do without it or whether we can do or not do without thought
Or is there another function which will do the function of thought without 'twisting'. And there is the possibility that thought works 'twisting' and truth comes in a flash …

K: Could we approach it this way : what is 'action' ?
We know the activities of thought : changing patterns, each pattern creating its own disorder, mischief, pain, and moving all this within the sama area. So, what is the action that is not in that field ? It must be without a motive, it must be without conformity, without imitation, folowing a pattern and so on. So, it must be totally free from memory.

DB : Well, that's the 'action of truth'.

K: Yes, I'll stick to that.

DB : But still, there is the 'action of memory'...

K: The action of truth is free from all memory.

DB : But it may use memory ? Or perhaps it doesn't ?

K: If it acts instantly, it has no memory...

DB : In other words, memory is another activity, of a different order...

K: Wait a minute, I see something : perceiving without the 'perceiver'- which is memory - and the action of this perception is instantaneous, and therefore it is truth. In that case, memory is not necessary.

DB ; Not at that moment...

K: Not at that moment. When is memory necessary ? To carry out that perception ?

DB : Well, it could be ; memory may be necessary in all these activities, for example moving around..

K:Yes, yes...

DB : Now, I'm not sure that the perception is carried out...

K: Ah, no... if it's not carried out, then it's not truth !

DB : It has to be, but is it carried out in the field of reality ?

K: Wait a minute, there is perception- which is to see things as they are, to see what is actual – without the interpretation of the 'perceiver' with its background and all that...

DB : So, it is seeing the 'actuality' and that actuality may include thought...

K: Yes, but for the moment we are considering what is the action of truth and what is its relationship with memory in carrying out the action. We say, truth is from moment to moment and the action of truth is from moment to moment
and that action is totally unrelated to memory. Finished !

DB : Now we can consider the action of memory...

K: That's quite different...

DB : Now, that action of memory is necessary in order to find your way around, in order to do the right job, etc. But that action of memory, insofar as thought is concerned, may become twisted, confused...

K: I don't think it can get twisted if there is total integrity.

DB ; But that again brings up the relationship between truth and reality...

K: If there is complete integrity in thought itself....

DB : But that is almost the same as talking about truth in thought...

K: Ah, no, no...

DB : Then what is the relationship between integrity and truth ?

K: What is integrity ?

DB : It really means oneness, not divided, not fragmented, not contradiction...it's 'integral'

K: Alright, sir, one can be totally integrated, living a life of non-fragmentation- is that man living a life of truth ?

DB : Well, I don't see how it can be truth without being integrity – unless he's deceiving himself...

K: What I'm trying to say is : can thought ever be totally integral ?

DB : That's the question I'm raising because you seemed to imply a minute ago that it could...

K: Can't it, sir ? Can't thought see its own fragmentation ?...

DB : Perhaps it could, but then why does it desintegrate ?

K: Because it is not aware of its fragmentary character.
When it becomes aware of its fragmentary character, is that truth ?

DB : Well, that is the truth of the nature of thought...

K: Right...But that is not 'truth', is it ?

DB : There's the distinction between the 'truth of something' and 'truth', you see ?

K: Ah, I see ! The truth of the nature of thought- I can see my thought being fragmentary and thought then realises the 'actuality' of its movement. Is that 'truth' ?

DB : No, but...

K: It is seeing the truth in the false.

DB : Yeah...

K: But that truth is not 'the' truth !

DB : Well, 'truth' itself is beyond what we could describe...

K: Yes.

DB : But we're still in this area which isn't clear- in which apparently truth has a relationship with thought , in the sense of seeing the truth in the false, and that seems to establish a relationship again...

K: I see the truth in the false and also I see that 'truth' is not the Truth...

DB : But now, I am not very clear what the distinction is...

K: I'm trying to make it verbally clear...I see my thoughts are 'crooked'- that is the 'seeing' that thought is crooked.

DB ; But that is the 'truth'...

K: Ah no ...! It was seeing the truth in the false. There there is a division – the 'false' and the 'truth' .

DB : Yeah...

K: In Truth there is no division !

DB : You see, it has been suggested by some people that we should not use the words 'truth' and 'false' as opposites , but rather use 'correct' and 'incorrect' . So you could say that the 'correctness' of thought is 'incorrectness'...

K: Thought sees its 'incorrectness'...correctly ! (laughter)

DB : Yeah...

K: And the 'seeing correctly' of the incorrectness of thought , you're saying is 'truth ' ? Truth has nothing to do...

DB : Yes...I'm ready to drop that now because there's a difference in language. But I wanted to clear up one more thing : when you say 'thought sees', I'd like to put it like this way : thought has some sort of 'conscious awareness' -some kind of 'awareness' that goes with thought...

K: Yes, like a good businessman, quite.

DB : That conscious awareness which sees the properties of thought. So, in this case, it's not an inconsistency to say that thought 'sees something' . Thought is 'consciously aware' of the incorrectness of its mode of operation.

K: Right. That's simple enough...Then what's the question ?

DB : Then there's no question, because you say that Truth is something entirely different.

K: Entirely different !

DB : The word 'truth' has been used in so many different senses...

K: ... correct and incorrect. Then what is the problem ?

DB : I'll bring a few more points if you don't mind :
I've been reading Mary Lutyens book about you and I find it quite interesting...

K: Oh, Lord... Rajagopal asked Allan Watts and someone else if they would help him to write a biography, and knowing that it will be one sided, so I asked Mary.
Shiva Rao from India has collected through many years all the events that took place – and he was going to do it, but his eyesight failed. And then I asked him : could I ask Mary and he said 'Delighted !' And that's how it happened.

DB : I think it's a very well written book. Now, this book discusses some 'process' you went through in this transformation – which always raises the question of the difference between the state of truth and the ordinary state – and which will help us if we got it really clear. It's never clear whether this transformation is sudden or gradual – or whether it took place at all ?

K: I think sir, that several points are involved there : we talked about the last time : a mind that's unconditioned- it may be so before it was unhealthy at the beginning – weak, couldn't retain, couldn't be impressed upon...

DB: Yes, that was the theory we considered...

K: The theory of reincarnation and Goodness -personified or not as Maitreya, if you accept that and so on.
Then there is this whole idea which exists in the East- and serious people -not sharlatans have been through it. The Hindu tradition has called it the 'serpent fire'

DB : 'Kundalini' - it was refered in the book...

K: If they put that in the book I must take it out ! (laughs) And that 'kundalini' can be awakened and a different kind of energy comes into being. This is the second point.
And I'm beginning to question whether there was any transformation at all... Sir, I can tell you one thing : in that book, 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 Maitreya – who is the essence of Goodness and that Goodness has to manifest in the world when the world is in a state of collapse, in a state of 'evil', in a state of destroying itself- that's what the tradition says. But... what are we talking about?

DB : We're trying to get clear whether this young man was really attached and conditioned . Aside from the letters and the relationships which you say were superficial, wasn't there some deeper kind of suffering ?

K; No, no attachment...

DB : But you have any idea of what was involved there ?
You see, as I've been reading this , during some of the phenomenon were intense pain in the head or in the neck or 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...Alright, 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... I must go slowly...If I admit that is part of transformation, then every human being has to go through it, which is nonsense !
I think it releases a quality of energy...

DB : The suffering ?

K: Yes, the physical pain of that kind brings about a certain quality of energy .

DB : Yes, but that would imply that those who don't go through it may not have it !

K: No, no...I think I've got it, let's go slowly through this...
Sir, you're a scientist ; you discover something, you see something totally new – and you state that thing, verbally and actually. And another scientist picks it up from there and goes on...

DB : Yes...

K: Here, this man saw truth, he discovered something new and that 'new' thing enters into human consciousness...

DB : Would you say it's totally new - I mean, it had never been
seen before ?

K: I don't know.

DB : But for him, at least, it was totally new...

K: Of course ! Somebody else might have said it, but what he saw was something 'new' .

DB : So perhaps that particular thing has never been discovered before ?

K: Yes. So that discovery of something new, once stated, another can carry on and discover something more.

DB : Yes, but what was the role of suffering in this discovery ? Was it to release the energy ?

K: Probably...

DB: But others may release this energy in different ways...

K: Now, wait a minute, this energy is not the energy of thought !

DB : Can't it be called 'kundalini' ?

K: I am rather shy of that word- a lot of superstition is associated with it, a lot of sharlatans have been playing with it – doing lots of practices to awaken kundalini- I think it is absurd !

DB : But in the case of the young man it seemed it had a place...

K: Yes, that's what I am coming to : the release of that energy is something that must come out of suffering - I am just exploring sir...

DB ; Yes, but is that in general or for this particular case ?

K: I think, in general.

DB: In general it comes from suffering ?

K: Yes...

DB : But now are you implying there may be some other form of suffering ?

K: That's it ! We're slowly getting it... If, in the world of reality I don't escape from suffering through various means & so on, that very suffering brings about great energy. I think this is so ! Here, in this case, there was not the suffering of attachment, it was not the suffering of losing somebody, it was not the physical suffering- he was pretty healthy in these days. So there was no actual psychological suffering except when the brother died- and then he looked at it and finished with it. But the energy of another kind- if we can go into it a little bit – is different .

DB : Yes, but it doesn't necessarily being awakened in the same way as in this young man – going through the spine and so on ?

K: That's what I'm actually trying to convey : I think that energy is completely different.

DB : From what ?

K: From this kind of energy, from the ordinary kind. And we say, must everybody go through all this in order to get that energy ? I say, no.

DB : But you're implying that everybody must go through some kind of suffering...

K: No, no ! Everybody does suffer !

DB : But if he doesn't escape from this suffering...

K: Then he has got it !

DB : He has got the energy...

K: ...of that kind .

DB : Now, does it matter whether the suffering is the suffering of attachment or of another kind ?

K: No, that doesn't matter...Suffering of attachment, suffering of losing a wife, physical suffering, psychological suffering – there are many varieties of suffering and if you don't escape from it, there is the release of a certain kind of energy...

DB : But it wouldn't necessarily involve the spine …

K: No, no, obviously not...

DB : So, Kundalini may be a very special idea- I mean, a very limited approach...

K: Wait a minute... limited in what way ?

DB : Well, when somebody is purposefully trying to awaken kundalini, he obviously has in mind the spine in a certain order and all that...

K: I don't think it can be done purposefully ! That's what they are trying to do now through methods, purposefully : thought is trying to do it !

DB : Wouldn't it be better to say that there is an energy not escaping suffering which doesn't necessarily show itself in various sensations in the spine... ?

K: That's right. A man who faces suffering he has a quality in him. He's got that kind of physical drive, physical passion – not 'sexual' passion but 'psychological' passion

DB : Yes, now, that energy of course is not the whole...

K: No, that's not the whole...

DB : And we need this quality of energy to see truth.
With the ordinary sort energy we cannot actually have truth

K: No. We say truth is unrelated to reality...

DB: Reality is the ordinary energy...

K: That's right ! Like an ambtious man has got tremendous energy and his energy operates in 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 energy....Before perception can work, it would seem he needs the kind of energy we're talking about...

K: A-ha ! Yes, yes...

DB : Now, it almost seems from what you say that nobody is going to be transformed...In other words the issue of transformation seems irrelevant...

K: No...

DB : Then we have to say why, because in the case of that young man you seem to say that there was no transformation. Right ?

K: But sir, there must be a transformation, a radical or basic change in the field of reality.

DB : And what will become of the field of reality, then ?

K: Then there will be order in that field...

DB : So, transformation will bring order in the field of reality . It will still be thought, but not twisted...

K: Yes, that's right, sir, it will be correct thought -logical, sane , healthy and all the rest of it. But that has nothing to do with truth. Now, sir, I think there are the energy of truth and the energy of reality -two different things, unrelated to each other.

DB : Now, could we say that truth works in actuality, and in some sense, reality is also actuality...

K: Yes, that's right...

DB : Could we say that reality is a function within actuality - of a rather limited kind...

K: What are we trying to get at ?

DB : You see, if we want to get really clear what 'reality' means I think it helps to say that 'actuality' is a function within reality – a function which includes thought and consciousness...

K: In actuality ?

DB : In the actions which are taking place... That is, as you said, the energy of an ambitious man is all in the field of reality which is part of 'actuality' …

K: Yes, 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 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 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 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 Alright, so it's becoming more clear...

K; That's actually what took place, because he put it in words

DB : Yes, the action was to put it in words, but first there was an action before 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 was that the whole structure was dead...But ''truth is a pathless land'' is words...

K: The description.

DB : Alright so the whole thing was dead, then came a perception that truth is a pathless land .

K: 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 action and the conscious awareness enables thought to pick that up...

K: Truth has nothing whatsoever to do with thought.

DB : Yes, but thought can be aware of the action of truth …

K: Yes, yes...

DB : 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 which is not this ?

DB : Yeah, and this 'other' state includes awareness and attention. Hmm ?

K: No....I must go slowly... That boy must go back ; pathless land- he sees it non-verbally – that is the truth that acts and it's finished ! As far as 'truth' is concerned, it's over. Then the 'wave' takes on the words and describes it and the description is not that. Now, in the field of reality, there is this conscious awareness -which is limited- with its attention, with its awareness...So that perception of truth is limited...

DB : Yes, but would you say that it contains any awareness ? We said last time that it is 'nothingness' …

K: Nothingness. Perception is over !

DB : Which is beyond this attention & awareness, although we said they are non-verbal...So, could we say they are still part of the physiological process, although they are beyond thought. So thought is just part of the whole physiological processand there is attention & awareness beyond that, but truth is beyond all that ?

K: Beyond all that ! You see, it is said the awakening of kundalini …

DB : But wouldn't kundalini be part of the physiological process ?

K: According to them there's an 'energy' that is not physical.

DB : Yes, it is awakened in the physical …

K: No, no, we must go very carefully : it goes through various centers...

DB : But these are physical centers ?

K: Physical centers, like the solar plexus is the main center, and there is a center in the thorax, a center in the back of the head and a center in the middle of the forehead and ultimately it goes through the top of the head.

DB : Yeah...

K: They say that when it goes through the top of the head, that energy is entirely different- it's not physical anymore !

DB : Now, what do you feel about that explanation ?

K: I wouldn't say what I feel, I would say : the energy of truth is entirely different from the energy of reality.

DB : Yeah...But the kundalini might not be the energy of truth ?

K: No, no...let's be very careful ! We said that the ( 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 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 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...

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 different...( To himself : Sorry, my body is shaking with it! Let's calm down...) Thought can never touch that ; then what is it that is aware of that ? Why do you say there is a mystery ?

DB : That's hard to explain, but partly it's because I can see that the whole thing can be never be explained by thought – in other words...

K: ...thought cannot touch it !

DB : Yeah...

K Then what is it that says 'there is a mystery' ? You're following sir ? You see, the Christians say there is a mystery which you cannot go beyond ; which you cannot touch – the 'saints' have said this. I'm not sure they've touched that mystery because they were 'Christians', they were worshippers of certain forms...

DB : I mean, you may say there is a 'mystery' because you don't want to penetrated deeper...

K: Yes, sir that's right.

DB : I think that to a certain extent the 'ego' makes a parody of this mystery in order to protect itself . Now, in the way the ego tries to present itself as the 'ultimate myster y' and therefore if it's identifying itself with the 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 - would you admit that there is such thing as a 'mystery' ?

DB : Yes, thought can probe and extend itself in so many ways, but there is always a 'horizon'

K: I'm beginning again : the core of that (K) boy's existence was not conditioned, though at the peripheral levels it was...

DB : 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, one of Dr Besant suffering or mysery was  when she said to me : '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 ? You follow sir, it was a tremendous problem to her because she invested everything in that boy ! But the 'ordinary' conditioning goes very deep. Right ?

DB: Yes but it's not clear why it ges so deep ?

K: His education, his environment, his parents, his society – everything makes the 'ordinary' conditioning...

DB : So somehow....

K: ... this didn't happen to that boy

DB : Could I put it that way : it is a conditioning for self-deception, for falsification : If someone is conditioned to deceive himself in order to sit better in society -that is the thing we have in mind ?

K:Yes, alright...

DB : That's a really deep conditioning …

K: Deep conditioning !

DB : Deeper than anything else …

K: Yes...Deceiving himself in order to fit in society -that 's the deep conditioning we see for the moment – this didn't take in that young man, so there was never some self-deception .

DB : Yeah, neither was the false information which he accepted from that...

K: Yes, so there was never a conscious effort to see through this...

DB ; You skipped a few steps in this : that a person conditioned in self-deception may feel compelled to seek truth in order to compensate for this ?

K: A human being who is involved in self-deception in order to – which is a deep in this case . Why didn't it take place ?

DB : Because he wasn't absorbing it – the boy was somehow dulled by the environment...

K: By ill health...that's one of the reasons....So there was never a moment when he was overtaken by self-deception. And so he saw directly through that 'pathless land'. Right ?

DB : Yes...

K: He stated it in words – and words are not the 'thing' – so the word being thought , thought had been operating  as a function, but that perception is gone, finished ! So, truth is timeless – from moment to moment – it has no continuity.

DB : 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 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 expression of thought & words. But what he has seen is not the 'word' …

DB : Yes it is a perception – but there may be a 'resistance' to this perception in thought. Let's say that most people who heard this either didn't understand it, or rejected it...

K: Ah, of course ; because in him in that chap there was no resistance.

DB : Yes, but now we have to consider those who have this resistance...

K: They will reject it.

DB ; Yes, but now it seems that the whole world has 'resistance' …

K: So they reject it !

DB : Yes but the question is : is there a way to go beyond this resistance ?

K: If I resist (the truth of) what you are saying, then what can you do to me ? You say to me, 'truth is a pathless land' and I am attached to my Guru...

DB : You are attached to what is false …

K; To what is false, yes, but what you have said, which is truth, has entered my consciousness...

DB : Yes...

K: It is a 'seed' that is operating in me ! And that 'seed' is going to do something !

DB : It may do something...

K: No !

DB : But I mean, everybody who is listening to this is going to do something ?

K: It 'must' ! Like Lenin said something and it affected the world.

DB : Yes but the effect was not exactly...

K: Of course, because he treated human beings as insects and so on... Now if the seed of truth is planted in me – 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 isn't dead. You can say something false and that also operates too .

DB: Yes, but now we have a struggle between those two and
we cannot foresee the outcome of this struggle; we can't be sure of its the outcome.

K: You plant in me the seed that, "Truth is a pathless land". 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?

DB: If you don't escape, then it's clear what will take place. Then you will have the energy to see what is true.

K: That's right.

DB: But now let's take the people who do escape, who seem to be a large number.

K: They are out, quite right, millions are out. But still, the struggle is going on.

DB: Yes, but it is creating confusion.

K: That is what they are all doing.

DB: Yes, but we don't know the outcome of that.

K: Oh yes, we do; dictatorship, deterioration.

DB: I know, it gets worse. But now we want to get it clear. In a few people who face the suffering, the energy comes to perceive the truth. And in a large number, who escape from suffering, things get worse.

K: And they rule the world...

DB: Now what is the way out of that?

K: They said there is no answer to that, get away from it.

DB: That also won't do.

K: They say you can't solve this problem, go away into the
mountains or join a monastery, become a monk - but that doesn't solve anything. All one can do is to go on shouting.

DB: Yes, then we have to say we don't know the outcome of
the 'shouting'.

K: If you shout in order to get an outcome, it is not the right kind of shouting.

DB: Yes, that is the situation.

K: You just talk, you point out. If nobody wants to pay attention, it's their business, you go on.
Now I want to go further. You see, there is a 'mystery'; thought cannot touch it... What is the point of it?

DB: Of the 'mystery'? I think you could see it like this: that if you look into the field of thought and reason and so on, you finally see it has no clear foundation. Therefore you see that "what Is" must be beyond that. "What Is" is the mystery.

K: Yes.

DB: I mean, you cannot live in this field of reality and
thought, because of all we said.

K: No, of course not. But I don't mind, I have no fears.

DB: You don't mind because you have psychological security. Even if something happens to you, it does not deeply affect you.

K: I live in the field of reality, that is my life. There I am consciously aware, and I struggle and keep going in that field. And I can never touch the other. I cannot say, "I can touch it; there is no "I" to touch it when you really touch it. You say to me, "There is a mystery which passes all understanding". Because I am caught in this, I would like to get 'that'. You say there is a mystery, because to you it is an actuality, not an invention, not a superstition, not a self-deception. It is truth to you. And what you say makes a tremendous impression on me,
because of your integrity. You point it out to me and I would like to get it. Somehow I must get it. What is your responsibility to me? You understand the position? You say : words cannot touch it, thought cannot touch it, no action can touch it, only the action of truth; perhaps it will give you a feeling of that. And I, because I am a 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... I realize, I am consciously aware of the limitation of thought, of
all the confusion, misery, and all the rest of it. Somehow I can't get out of it. Is your compassion going to help me? You are compassionate, because part of that extraordinary 'mystery' is compassion. Will your compassion help me? - obviously not. So what am I to do? I have a consuming desire for that, and you say, "Don't have any desire, you can't have that, it isn't your personal property". All you say to me is: put order in the field of reality.

DB: Yes, and not escape suffering.

K: If you actually put order into the field of reality then
something will take place. And also you say to me, it must be done instantly. Is that mystery something everybody knows? - knows in the sense that there is something mysterious. Not the desire that creates mysteries, but that there is something mysterious in life apart from my suffering, apart from my death, from my jealousy, my anxiety. Apart from all that, there is a feeling that there is a great mystery in life. Is that it? - that there is a mystery which each one knows?

DB: I should think that in some sense everybody knows it.
Probably one is born with that sense and it gradually gets dimmed through the conditioning.

K: And has he got the vitality, or the intensity, to put away all that? You see, that means "God is always within you" - that is the danger of it.

DB: Not exactly, but there is some sort of intimation of this. I think probably children have it more strongly when they are young.

K: Do you think that modern children have that?

DB: I don't know about them, probably less. You see, living ina modern city must have a bad effect. 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.

DB: If you look at the sky at night, for example.

K: But you see the scientists are explaining the stars.... Cousteau explains the ocean; everything is being explained away .

DB: Yes, the feeling has been created that in principle we could know everything.

K: So knowledge is becoming the curse. You see, perception
has nothing to do with knowledge. Truth and knowledge don't go together; knowledge cannot contain the immensity of mystery.

DB: Yes, I think if we start with a little child, he may place the mystery in some part that he doesn't know. He could put it at the bottom of the ocean, or somewhere else outside, far away from where he is, and then he learns that people have been everywhere. Therefore the whole thing is made to appear non-existent.

K: Yes. Everything becomes so superficial.

DB: That's the danger of our modern age, that it gives the
appearance that we know more or less everything. At least that we have a general idea of the scheme, if not of the details.

K: The other night I was listening to Bronowski, "The Ascent of Man". He explains everything.

DB: The original impulse was to penetrate into this mystery, that was the impulse of science. And somehow it has gone astray. It gives the appearance of explaining it.

K: May I ask, do you as a trained scientist get the feeling of this mystery ?

DB: I think so, yes. But I've always had some of that, you see.

K: But in talking now, do you get more intensity of it?
Not because I feel intense, that's a totally different thing, that then becomes influence and all that. But in talking about 'something' we open a door.

DB: Yes. I think that my particular conditioning has a great deal in it to resist this notion of mystery, although I think that science is now going in a wrong direction.

K: But even the scientists admit that there is a mystery.

DB: Yes, to some extent. The general view is that it could be eventually cleared up.

K: Cleared up in the sense of explained away.

DB: My own feeling is that every particular scientific
explanation will be a certain part of this field of reality, and therefore will not clear away the mystery.

K: No, but it clears it away because I listen to you explaining everything, and then I say, "There is nothing".

DB: That is the main point of distinguishing between truth and reality, because we could say, in the field of reality we may explain more and more broadly without limit.

K: That is what the present day Communists are doing.

DB: Not only the Communists...

K: Of course not, I'm taking that as an example.

DB: I think you could say, anything in the field of reality can be explained, we can penetrate more deeply and broadly, there is limitless progress possible. But the essence is not explained.

K: No, I am asking a different question, I'm asking you, in
talking like this, do you have an intimation of that mystery ? Being a scientist, a serious person, perhaps you had an intimation long ago. In talking now, do you feel it's no longer an intimation but a 'truth'?

DB: Yes, it is a truth.

K: So it's no longer an intimation?

DB: I think it's been a truth for some time now. Because it's implied in what we have been doing here.

K: Yes. You see there is something interesting: the truth of that mystery makes the mind completely empty, doesn't it ? It's completely silent. Or because it is silent, the truth of that mystery 'is'. I don't know if I'm conveying anything. When the mind is completely silent, not in use, not meditated upon, and because it has put order in reality it is free from that confusion, there is a certain silence, but it is not the real silence - the mind is just moving away from confusion.
Realizing that is not silence, not moving away from that realization but staying with it, means negating that which order has produced.

DB: You say, first you produce order. Why is it necessary to produce the order first and then negate it?

K: To negate is silence.

DB: Which is of that order. This is why it has to take place in that sequence.

K: Realizing that is not true silence I negate the false
silence, for the moment. So in the negation of that silence I don't want any other silence. There is no movement for greater silence. Then this total silence opens the door to That. That is, when the mind, with all the confusion, is 'no-thing' - not a thing – then perhaps there is the Other. So, you're coming to Silence, you'd better stop now....

DB : Yeah...

K: Could we continue by taking one actuality after the other  ? Suffering, death, fear and penetrate that as deeply as we can ? Would that be worthwhile ?

DB : It's worth the try...

K: You and I only, or with anybody else ?

DB : It's easier just you and I.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 14 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 27 Oct 2019 #37
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

7-th K-DB Dialogue, Truth & Reality

K: Where shall we start out ?

DB : Do you have some suggestions  ?

K: Where did we leave off ?

DB : Well, last time we began by discussing the action of truth and then you broke off for short and 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... 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...Because I've always felt there was 'something' so vast that all their mysteries, & initiations, had nothing to do with it. See, it can be either be so romantically idiotic, or it is something that ' is there'.... I don't know how to convey all this... Sir, how does science investigate this question of mystery  ?

DB : Well, I think that most scientists deny it...You see, it begins with some interest in something mysterious, with the hope of probing into the mystery, but gradually this slides over into another attitude in which people explain something and they begin gradually to replace the mystery by the structure they have explained, implying that that is all there is. All the scientists are always saying that a tremendous amount is unknown , but they generally imply that the unknown...

K: ... can be 'known' ?

DB : It can be known and set into the same kind of framework. But in the begining- I remember talking with Einstein and with other scientists that in the beginning there was something 'mysterious' . I mean, that was part of the energy that was behind our work...

K: Right....If as a scientist, you want to 'participate in it', how would you set about it ?

DB : You see, the ordinary way of going about it, - one way is to is to set up equipment which can probe the mystery- a telescope or a microscope... I know, I'm just explaining – like this tremendous magnet 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 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...

K: No... but that means a very sensitive neurological system and a 'psychological' clarity.

DB : Right...

K: Now, how does one have 'psychological' clarity? If we grant that these two are essential -a quick mind, a quick insight, a perception that is correct ; and suppose I haven't got it, then is there a method, a system, a practice, a way of washing out, purging all that ? Or there is no way at all ? Or, only the act of totally listening to what you say ?
For instance, when you say there is a mystery, to you it is the truth, the actuality, it 'is' . And if I haven't got the 'ears' to listen to you, I'll never capture it and I won't 'participate in it'...And my longing is to participate in it , because intellectually I see how important it is.

DB : But the longing is of no use...

K: Longing is of no use, but I 'perceive it', I 'see' with all my being how important it is to 'participate' in that mysterious thing which will give an enormous sense of beauty and all that. I see all this , but any effort I make will spoil it -any desire, any action, any volition is still within the field of reality. So, how am I to 'participate' into something which is so actual ? What would you as a scientist say to it ?

DB : Well, my science has not really confronted that...

K: I know...after all sir, they are looking at 'saucers', but that's not mysterious

DB : Well, they hope it is. It has been called a 'mysterious universe'...

K: Would you call that 'mysterious' ?

DB : Well, not as long as it's still part of the same structure of reality...

K: Reality, 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 question and find out whether division exists at all ?

DB : Yes, but in the beginning you insisted that they are 'separate' …

K: I know, but we are usually seeing them as two separate things...

DB : And what does the word 'separate' means ?

K: Divided.

DB : Can we say one is not related to another ?

K: We said that...

DB : Yes, which implies division and separation...and at a certain level that appears 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…

DB : Yes, I wonder why thought is trying to 'capture' the whole ?

K: Because it is aware of its own limited capacity as a 'fragmented' thing...

DB : Yes, but why does it want to go beyond that ?

K: Because of pain, suffering, or wanting greater experiences.

DB : But that's no explanation, because the suffering may be due to the desire to go beyond...My own feeling is that suffering comes when thought is trying to 'capture' the whole...

K: 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 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 prison with its ache and I cannot get out...all that I include.

DB : But also, perhaps thought has seen that 'wholeness' is good and has got into the habit of trying to 'achieve wholeness'...In other words, thought has seen it's not wholeness and it is looking for wholeness...

K: That too, when I use the word 'limited' I include all that...

DB : And we can see why thought is in fact limited- because it is limited to 'reaction' and 'reflexion' – and it cannot reflect on the 'mystery', it can only reflect on reality …

K: That's right ! Reflect what is going on in reality...

DB : Yes, it can reflect and define and determine and measure...

K: And if thought realises this, there is no movement within that field...

DB : Yes, well, but still it may be because a lot of lifetime unconscious movements...

K: 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 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' 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 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 an illusion. Thought then says 'there is no movement'.

DB : Yes, but when it says that, there is already a 'movement'

K: No....I mean, it realises, it knows, or it is aware 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 consciousness with its thought -all that we have discussed- can that 'empty' itself ?

DB : Now, what does that mean 'empty itself' ?

K: Empty itself of the 'things' that thought has created.

DB : What are these things ?

K: Like achievement, desire, will, attachment...

DB : ...the 'center' ?

K: The 'center'...

DB : ...and 'time' ?

K: That's it ! Can there be an 'emptying' of all that?

DB : But when you say 'emptying', what you mean by that ?

K: I mean by 'emptying', seeing the 'reality' of thought - thought which is fragmented, broken up and whatever it does it is still limiting & so on...That's my consciousness – that is the field of reality and thought is always active there.

DB : Yes, but I think that the traditional thought is always 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 'reality' as the mountain...

K: Of course...

DB : So, part of the confusion comes from our inability to make a clear distinction between that which is sustained independently of thought and that which is thought-sustained. And it occurred to me that when something happens, thought thinks something and the root of thought is not perceived, and suddenly the content appears as having a certain reality, which is then taken by the next thought as an existing independently...And we lose track of that, you see ?
Now I was going to say that if I didn't loose track of this, I would see that the whole of thought is one and there will be no illusion, no ?

K: That's right.

DB : So, as I've been watching all this for a while, I saw that I have a natural tendency of 'loosing track' and later it is built up systematically by the thought which goes beyond reality - the thought of the 'center'...

K: I think from what you said just now, that thought has created this...

DB : Yes, but it's still existing...

K: ...independent of thought. And the 'center' is created by thought...

DB ...But it doesn't exist independent of thought...

K: It is sustained by thought all the time. So, those are two factors.

DB : That's right. Now, I've asked myself how one could confuse one with the other and the answer is that thought -when it creates the 'center' - is not aware of itself creating the 'center' and suddenly the 'center' is there as is this microphone...

K: That's it...And takes that as reality !

DB : It takes that as independent reality. And after that it begins to atribute pleasure and pain to the 'center' and in the hope to maintain the pleasure it does not want to give up the 'reality' of the center. Because to give up the 'reality' of the center you would loose the possibility of pleasure from thought...

K: Quite. Let's get it clear : thought has created this...

DB : Yes, but I would like to make it complete : it measures and defines and determines, you see ? For example it might determine the mountain although it hasn't created the mountain ; it determines the mountain as an objective reality -which was there without thought ; the next step is that thought has made the microphone – which is put there with thought, but it still exists independently, then the third step is : thought has created a 'center' which does not exist independently of thought at all, but thought thinks that it does exist...

K: ...independently, and sustains that 'independence' through pleasure & so on...

DB : And then this becomes a trap, because the same mechanism that was thought to attribute reality to the 'center'- which then it seems to be something genuine and real, as if it were some objective reality, independent of thought. But then once thought has attributed pleasure to the 'center', it cannot avoid to attribute pain to the center and that creates suffering …

K: Quite, that's simple enough.... So we got the picture clear. Now, one is totally aware of this -and therefore no movement as time and measure outside this. Because thought, as we said, cannot comprehend or apprehend the whole, and it is not a verbal acceptance, but an 'actuality' – thought sees as objectively as that.

DB : Yes, I understand, but I think there is still a slight residue, almost a physical movement which thought seems still to go on  ..

K: I don't quite understand...

DB : Well, I can't explain, but there are still waves...

K: Aha... ! No sir, that's what I want to get at : when there is the realisation, or the comprehension, that thought is a movement in time & measure, how thought creates the center and sustains the center – thought created this as something objective, independent of thought...

DB : Yes, and thought recognises the objective independence of the mountain...

K: I am 'aware' of all that ! And thought has no movement 'beyond' – in which is included consciousness, semi-conscious, dim-conscious – everything. Because you know, - we have talked a little bit of this yesterday : thought is movement in time, action is without time...

DB : Yes, but that may be the point that remains to be looked at...

K: I don't want to bring it in yet, but when one is only living in 'acting' and not in the movement of time...

DB : And yet, the movement of time is going on. You see, this is the point which we ought to discuss and try to make it very clear, because many years ago in chalet Tanegg we reached this point in our discussion – we were discussing the 'center' and being free of the 'center' and then came to the question of the 'timeless' - now one of the things that were puzzling me at that time came to the question of time. 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 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.... 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 tradition …

K: Let's move on, that doesn't matter.

DB : Now, let's say that over many many years with my parents and friends and so on, I was communicated 'non-verbally' and by example, that I live in time, that time is the essence- in everything time is the most important and your life depends on time and time is flying and so on...

K: ...time is money...

DB : And you have only a limited time to live so make good use of it...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : So everybody has communicated in millions of ways how important time is from very early. And that communication was picked up as it were an objective reality, not what somebody told me as an idea, and therefore I experience it as an objective reality...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : It's the same as the 'center' which is experienced as an independent reality and theredore it is 'time'- because of that tradition...

K; Quite, quite...

DB : Now, that experience of the 'center' may not be so permanently strong, there is a sense of some movement going on all over - especially in the body- in other words, there is a 'stream of movement' in which I exist....Now, it seems to me that being free of that is much more than being free of the 'center'...

K; I see what you're leading at.

DB : Because I think this was the point, many years ago, when we had a discussion here in Gstaad, and now I think we've reached the bottom of that...

K: 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 '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 thought- you see ?

K: Yes, quite...

DB : And therefore this is allowed to go on in a limited way...

K: I see, or I perceive that all thought is one. Therefore it is not 'my' thought or 'your' thought...

DB : Yes, but it has all sort of means by which thought is trying to present itself as non-thought...

K: I know, that's delusion and all the rest of it...

DB : 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 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 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 - what is implied ? Do we really 'see' the whole movement of thought as a movement , have an insight into it and then describe all the details of it ? With me -I don't know if I am odd or peculiar - I 'see' and then explain ; not the explanation and then 'see'.

DB : Hmm...

K; Sir, are we saying there is always time, there is no ending to time ; it is a constant steady moving...

DB : That's the way it appears...

K: ...in which we live ; which expresses itself as yesterday, today & tomorrow, which expresses itself as the 'center' and acting from the center and the intervals between thoughts and the thought changing from yesterday's thought...

DB : ... as gradual change ?

K: All that is the movement of 'time' : attachment, detachment, all that is the movement of time. Now, can thought see that and stop ? Can 'time', in the sense of movement stop ? Time must have a stop...
You see, if there is no ending for thought there is no radical revolution. Right ? Then we just go on changing patterns and all the rest of it. That is, you see the truth that 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 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 frail, vague and then gat conditioned and drop off, millions of them : this boy, why it didn't happen to him ? You follow, sir ?

DB : Yes...

K: I 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...

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 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 thing didn't happen by accident, but there is a hidden order, a mysterious order...

K: They would say there is the whole hyerarchical principle and the highest principle is the Lord Maitreya, etc etc...

DB : 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 : is it you can't because you don't want to, or you don't want to because you can't ?

K: I think I can, but I don't want to.

DB : I see, that's it...And your feeling is you can't explain that ?

K; No. I think it is something 'mysterious' in the sense we are talking, which you cannot penetrate by thought.

DB : Yes, but does that mean it cannot be penetrated in some other way ?

K: Maybe...but I don't think so.

DB : Probably not ...

K: After all, the Catholic church says there is a mystery and you cannot understand it and various religions have put it in different ways. But here we've come to a point : here is a man who sees all that and it's like picking up a flower, looking at the flower and tear it into pieces...And there is no flower at the end of it.

DB : I see... so you're saying that thing of what we're talking about is not capable of analysis...

K: That's it !

DB : It is a whole which is not analysable...But are you implying that thought can only analyse ?

K: Of course !

DB : Yes...so if you don't analyse all you can do is to participate in it...

K: And also there is the enormous danger of deceiving oneself.

DB : Yes, because so many people had this idea...

K: I've been through all that !

DB : I mean you could argue that the fact that so many people had thought this way doesn't necessarily prove it is wrong ; it may be that people get a glimpse of it and then they go astray because desire gets hold of it and...

K; No ! If they go astray I question whether they 'see' it.

DB : I didn't say they see 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 have this thing, this 'mystery', I will 'participate' when I listen to you completely. You follow ? When you say, for instance : 'Truth is a pathless land' - 'it is so' for me ! Therefore no guru, no...- the whole thing goes. The moment I 'hear' it, it's finished !
(Long silence...) What time is it ?

DB : About five o'clock...

K: I have never gone into these things as deeply as we have done... I have never told you that incident : I was staying in Bombay and I don't speak any Indian language. There's a knock on the door and Mrs Jayakar opens the door, and there are three sannyasi who asked if they can come in, and Mrs Jayakar brought them into the room- I was in my room- and she brought in the three sannyasi who want to meet you. One was a very old man, he had lived eleven years by himself in the Himalayas and he was making a pilgrimage going south to the various temples. And he was so...I held his hand and he began to cry – because probably nobody held his hand. And we sat around and he said in Hindi to her : 'We were passing by, and we felt that there was a great man here and we wanted to meet him'. Whether he had been 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. There were no strings, no ropes...

DB : Well, there are a lot of people talking of strange things... I think that our understanding of nature is limited anyway. But I think there are two kinds of 'mysterious' things : I mean, that ( levitation) thing may be a mysterious thing but it might be...

K: I don't think it is 'mysterious'...

DB : ...something unknown to us now, but it might be understandable later.

K: They explain 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 Wed, 15 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 Nov 2019 #38
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

8-th K dialogue with David Bohm

David 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 could we ask 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 sensation- people may be conscious while they are operated, but it does not disturb them. And now, let's say thought is recorded, it's held in memory, in the cells of the brain, and the cells of the brain react to produce some image, an 'imitation'. And while they first react, there is no sensation that they are reacting, but a little later you may sense the result of the reaction.

K: Yes, I understand that...

DB: But then, when thought becomes conscious of that result it may not realise that it has produced that result. And therefore it will atribute to that result an independent existence.

K: So, thought is a reflection of memory, that's one point. The brain has no feeling apart for the sensory organs of the body, and therefore the brain stores up memory, and memory is partial, and therefore thought is partial.

DB: Yes and also thought is not fully aware of itself.

K: Now, is all that the 'complete' answer?

DB: Well I don’t know...

K: I don’t know, we’re investigating .

DB: But to finish what I was saying, there is an inherent fragmentation here, because thought not being aware of itself, and then suddenly becoming aware of its result further down the line, it attributes that to something which is independent, and also it 'fragments' itself because one part of thought has produced this result and another part of thought comes along and says ''this is something else''.

K: It's like this, quite...

DB: And therefore, thought has broken up into two parts which are contradicting each other.

K: Yes, but I think there is something more, isn't there ? Why is thought fragmented? You can see what thought has done, all 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 that it perceives .

DB: It contains, yes...

K: It contains, or it supposes that it sees .

DB: It produces a certain result which it supposes it sees.

K: But yet, why is it broken up? I understand all these, but there must be a deeper thing, isn’t there? Is thought seeking a result?

DB: Well, it may be seeking a result...

K: An 'end' to be achieved, to be gained, something in which it can fulfil itself and feel satisfied...And why has civilisation, mankind given such terrific importance to thought?

DB: When you talked yesterday, you pointed out the issue of security. I mean, the security that thought gives in many senses - not only in the sense of psychological security, but also of material security.

K: Yes. But thought in itself is not secure

DB: Well thought cannot be secure – it is a reflection..

K: Therefore as it cannot be secure in itself, and 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 an   'attachment'?

DB: But then, , what is this attachment, you see? I mean, why should thought 'attach itself' to anything? Why shouldn’t it say ''well I’m just thought'' I’m just a reflection...

K: But your're giving to thought, considerable intelligence if you say ''I’m like nature I just come & go in a constant flux, you follow.

DB: So, now your saying thought is 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 the machinery and it just goes on , you see.

K: Of course, as long as there is energy it goes on working.

DB: And then it breaks down and that's the end of it.

K: Quite... so, why does thought seek security?

DB: Why should any mechanism want to be secure?

K: But does thought realise that it is mechanical ?

DB: No, but you see, now then comes the point that thought has made a mistake, you see, something incorrect, in its content, which is, thought does not know it is mechanical ; thought even thinks that it is not mechanical...

K: Now wait a minute, lets come back : 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 image and in continuity it is seeking security, isn’t it ?

DB: Yes, but it's not clear why it ever began to seek that kind of security, you see ? If it began as a mechanism there was no reason.

K: Ah, but it never realised that it was mechanical.

DB: Yes, 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'...

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 has intelligence, and feeling and that it is a living thing, rather than 'mechanical'.

K: Mechanical, I think that's the root of it isn’t it ? It 'thinks' it is a living thing and therefore it attributes to itself, the quality of non-mechanical existence.

DB: Now , if you can imagine that a computer has been programmed, with the information that it was living....

K: Yes, it would say that 'I’m living'.

DB: And then it might try to react, respond accordingly, but why thought doesn’t do that ?

K: Thought is clever, giving itself qualities, which it basically has not.

DB : To some extent you did not consider David’s question ; you were just saying that thought somehow can realises it's mechanical, which would imply that it had some intelligence, you see ?

K: Now let's see, does thought realise that it is mechanical, or perception sees that it is mechanical?

DB: All right, but then that would seem to be a change from what you said the other day.

K: I’m just investigating.

DB: I understand, if we say there is perception which sees the mechanical fragmentary nature of thought, I could say that any machine is in some sense fragmentary, its not alive... It's made of parts that are put together and so on, now, if there is a perception that thought is mechanical, then that means that intelligence is in the perception.

K: Are we saying, sir, lets get this clear, that thought has in itself the quality of intelligence, perception, and therefore it perceives itself mechanical ?

DB: Yes, that would seem strange...

K: Or, there is perception and that perception says thought is mechanical.

DB: Yes, and we can call that 'truth', isn't it ?

K: Yes, there are two things involved, aren’t there ? Either thought in itself has the sense of perception, a sense of intelligence and therefore realises it is mechanical. Or, there is a perception, which is truth. And that perception says 'thought is mechanical'.

DB: Yes.... Now the first idea seems to be a contradiction.

K: Yes, but does this answer why thought is fragmentary?

DB: Well, if thought is mechanical, then it would have to be fragmentary.

K: Can thought realise that it is mechanical?

DB: Well that's the question. But it's not clear, you see. The other time you were saying there would be a conscious awareness of the nature of thought and thought would then come to realise it.

K: I want to go back to something: the 'things' that contains consciousness, are put together there by thought. All the content of that consciousness is the product of thought, in fact, consciousness 'is' thought.

DB; Yes, it's the whole process.

K: Does thought 'see' all this, or there is a pure perception without thought which then says says : thought is mechanical.

DB : But then, how does thought know what to do ? We were discussing also the other day that when there is a perception of truth...

K: ...action takes place.

DB: Action takes place, and thought becomes aware of that action.

K: Yes, that's right, that's right. Lets get at it.

DB: But in becoming aware of that action, is thought still mechanical ?

K: No, thought then is not mechanical.

DB; You’d have to say then that thought changes its nature ?

K: Its nature, yes.

DB: Well 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: Let's get at it. I’m beginning to see something. We both begin to see something. We say that total perception is truth, and that perception operates in the field of reality, and therefore...

DB: Well, we didn’t say that the perception of truth operates directly in the field ofreality, we said the other day, it operates in 'actuality'.

K: Wait a minute, there is perception which is truth, and that can only act in that which is 'actual'

DB: Yes...

K: 'Actual' being care, isn’t it? The action in the field of reality, isn’t it ? Look sir, put it 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, 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 whole action is different ?

K: Because that perception is not fragmented.

DB: No, no... it's one whole,

K: One whole, yes, and it acts. That action is not put together by thought ; so then what is the relationship of thought to that action?

DB: Well, there are several points, you see, one thing is to say that thought is a material process, based in the brain cells. Now, the action of perception will somehow act on the brain cells won’t it?

K: That's the point, it does...

DB: Therefore thought must be different ?

K: Different, quite right. When there is a total perception and action, it must affect the brain cells.

DB: Right, and in affecting the brain cells it may change the nature of thought ?

K: It is a shock, do you follow ? It's something totally 'new' to the brain.

DB: Yes. And therefore perception as being total, penetrates the physical structure of the brain ?

K: Let's be simple about it : if you see that division, fragmentation is a tremendous danger, doesn’t it affect your whole way of thinking?

DB: Yes, but I think that brings us to the next question, that thought has developed a way of preventing this 'affect' from taking place.

K: That's it. That’s what I’m wanting to get at : thought resists.

DB: But you see, a machine would not resist....

K: No, because it's habit. It remains in that groove, and perception comes along and shakes that.

DB: Yes and then thought tries to stabilise itself - it holds to a fixed point.

K: To greed or to whatever it is.

DB: If we look at it this way, that thought hasn’t got a fixed nature, it may be mechanical, or it may be intelligent and…

K: No I wouldn’t give that word 'intelligence' to thought, for the moment.

DB: But we were saying before, that thought may not have a fixed nature and needn’t be mechanical...

K: But thought is mechanical, it functions in grooves, it lives in habits, memories...

DB : Yes...

K: And a total perception does affect this whole structure…..

DB: Yes that's right, but after, as a result of this perception, thought is different, right ?

K: Yes, thought is different because...

DB: ... the perception has penetrated the physical structure of thought and made it different ?

K: That's right

DB: Now, you don’t want to say it's 'intelligent' but let us say that if thought were just a machine, it would not cause trouble, but for some odd reason thought its trying to do
more than behave like a machine

K: Yes, thought is trying to do more than a machine.

DB : And now, if we could look at it again, if there’s perception and awareness and this may be recorded in thought, there are two things, one is, if perception affects the physical structure of the brain, and this affect is somehow recorded in the content of memory and the memory takes...

K: Thats right, memory takes charge...

DB: Yes it holds it, and any such recording is a kind of 'imitation', you see, every recording machine is a kind of imitation, it's not mainly that thought is mechanical, but it contains a process of imitation, to record information 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.
You see, thought has the capacity to imitate whatever happens, because of this 'recording', right ?

K: Yes, that's right. Just a minute sir, I want to go back a little bit. You perceive totally something -like this total perception of greed, let's take this for the moment, and because of that total perception, your activity is non-mechanical - the 'mechanical' being the pursuing of greed as thought.

DB: But isn’t there another part of thought which is mechanical, which is 'necessary', like for example, the practical information contained by thought ?

K: I’m just coming to that, wait a minute. You perceive the nature and the structure of greed and because you perceive it, there is the 'ending' of it.

DB: Hmm...

K: What place has thought then?

DB: Well, it still has a mechanical place.

K: But you're not greedy anymore. That reaction, that 'momentum', that mechanical habit is over. Then, what place has thought?

DB: Well, thought has some place – like if you want to find your way ?

K: I use it when I need a coat, I get it, but there's no greed involved.

DB: So if thought has not identified itself with greed, you have a thought which is rational.

K: I don’t quite follow.

DB: Well, you see, greed is a form of irrational thought.

K: Yes greed is irrational.

DB: But now there’s rational thinking, for example if you want to figure out something, you know....

K: But when you perceived the totally of greed, something has also happened to 'you'.

DB: Yes. Are you saying there is no more thought?

K: But thought is not necessary.

B: Well then how do you find your way? How do you use memory?

K: I’m no longer greedy...

DB: Right..

K: I’ve no need for thought in the field of perception and therefore thought doesn’t enter into it at all.

DB: Not into perception, but it still has its place apparently. For example if you want to know the way from here to whereever you want to go…

K: I’m taking of greed : it has no place in greed. Where there is a total perception thought has no place.

DB: In the perception ?

K: Not only in that perception, but thought doesn’t exist any more with regard to that. You perceive that all belief is irrational , there is a perception of this total structure of
belief, and 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, if I perceive totally the nature of belief, with fear, all the rest of it involved, because there is total perception, 'belief' as such doesn’t exist in my thought, in my brain, nothing ! So, where does thought come into it ?

DB: Well, not at that part....

K: It's finished ; so thought has no place when there’s a total perception, Same thing with greed, same thing with fear, while thought operates only when there’s a necessity for 'food, clothes, shelter'. What do you say to that?

DB: Yes, that may be right... But let's look at what we started with , which was to understand why thought has done what it has done. In other words, when there is a total perception then there's no place for thought. You just 'see'. But when we come to practical affairs you could say that we don’t have a total perception - we depend on information which has been accumulated, and so on, 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 a total perception, thought doesn’t enter into the psychological process.

DB: Yes, it has no place in the psychological domain . Now, I’d like to come back to the other question raised by David Shainberg, which is: “Why has thought gone wrong, why has it done all these things, why has it pushed itself where it has no place”?

K: Could we say that thought creates illusions?

DB: Why would it want to do this ? But even more deeply, what makes it happen, you see?

K: Because thought has taken the place of perception.

DB: Why should thought assume that it 'sees the whole', or even that it 'sees' anything?

K: Does it happen, sir, that when there is a total perception that perception having no thought and all that, such a mind uses thought only where necessary and otherwise it is empty ?

DB: I wonder if we could put it differently : such a mind when it uses thought, it realises that this is thought, it never supposes it is not thought, is that right?

K: Yes, that's right, that it is thought and nothing else...

DB: But I think the danger is that there is a mind which does not realise that this is thought ; suppose someone has an experience of joy and enjoyment, but slightly later there comes thought which 'imitates' it by remembering it, and then, it's a very subtle imitation, and therefore it treats it as the same , you see what I mean, therefore it begins to get caught in is own pleasure which it mistakes it for joy and enjoyment.

K: Quite.

DB: Now after a while, it becomes a habit and when the pleasure is not there there's a reaction of fear and so on, and all this psychological trouble starts. So at some stage , there is this mechanical process which thought does not acknowledge, not knowing that it is mechanical...

K: Yes, would you say also, that man never realised until recently, that thought is a physical and chemical process and therefore it assumed a tremendous importance?

DB: Well, in general that is certainly true, it's only recently that science has shown the physical & chemical properties of thought. Now, suppose we go back to the past, would you say, that nobody, or perhaps some people understood this, but in general most people did not ?

K: Did not. All the 'saints' functioned on thought....

B: Well, what about Buddha?

K: Again according to the tradition, there’s the 'eightfold noble path', there’s 'right thinking'...

DB: Ah, but he may have meant thinking mechanically…

K: That's it, you can’t take anybody in the past.

DB: Why, because we can’t be sure...?

K: Can't be sure of what they meant.

DB: That was interpreted and so on and we can’t ask him what he meant...

K: (Laughing)… Is that the reason, because thought said I’m the only important thing.

DB: Yes, but how did it come to say that, you see?

K: Because there was no perception.

DB: No, but why wasn’t it there?

K: Man didn’t realise, or thought wasn’t told, that it was just a physio-chemical process.

DB: 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 it 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 an example : enjoying the sunset and there may be a small 'accompaniment' of thought, you know, which is harmless in itself.

K: Yes, it flutters around, quite...

DB: Flutters around, but now, as it builds up by habit, by repetition , it gets stronger, and it becomes comparable in intensity to the original experience , and then thought does
not see this as an imitation and it treats it as genuine.

K: Are we saying that man has never been told or realised, that thought is just a physio chemical process ?

B: That is not enough, because science has been saying long ago that thought is physical and mechanical, but that in itself hasn’t changed anything.

K: No, no, but if you 'perceive' that…

B: Yes, but it was not enough for science to know that thought is a just a mechanical process...

K: That's right, it's only recently... so the conditioning and the habit has been to consider thought as the primary thing in life.

DB: Yes, even when it was called 'non-thought' it was still thought, you see. There was some indication that, thought created 'imitations' of the primary thing in life and then it said that'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, 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, it is a basic structure in thought, we think in terms of 'centre', you see ? In physics for example each atom is a 'centre'.

K: That's why thought is fragmented.

B: Because we think through the 'centre' ?

K: We think through the centre. Ah, we're getting at it !

DB: Well let's get it more clear : you see , one of the basic theories of physics is to think that the world is made of atoms, each atom is a 'centre', a force which connects to
all the other atoms, and of course the opposite view is that there is a continuous field and no centre, those are the two views studied and are pursued in two different forms. Now, if you 'think through the centre', there is going to be fragmentation. You'll say the atomic view is fragmentary ?

K: Must be ! You see ,what were getting at is that the basic reason of fragmentation is that we function from a 'centre' .

DB: Yes, we must think in terms of 'centre' because that may be useful the sun is at the centre to the solar system. But psychologically we also function from a centre. You see, physically we are forced to function from a centre, because the body is the centre of our field of sensory perception. But psychologically we form an imitation of that, we have the thought at the centre which is probably 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: It has to... Because thought is from a centre of memory.

B: Well, let's explore why does thought have to be from a centre, you see, why couldn’t there be a memory without a centre ?

K: How can there be, just 'memory' like a computer?

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, and why psychologically it gave this 'centre' such importance?

K: Because thought never acknowledged to itself that it is mechanical.

DB: Thought was unable to acknowledge that it's mechanical and now why does that call for a 'centre'?

K: But thought has created the 'centre'...

DB: Yes, but the 'centre' was there just for practical purposes anyway, but thought used that idea, 'psychologically' for itself....now, why was it doing that?

K: For a very simple reason : thought said : I can't be mechanical, I must be something much more.

B: How does the centre make it 'more' then?

K: Because that gives itself a sense of permanency, as the 'me' ...

B: Well, we should make that more clear : why this centre gives a sense of permanency.

K: Why? Thought has created this microphone, that is apparently permanent, relatively, and 'in here' thought created the 'me' as a permanent entity.

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: So, not being able to realise it is mechanical, thought began to create its own products and seeing their instability, knowing their impermanence, it tried to establish something permanent and it found the 'centre' useful for trying to do that, because this 'centre' made a connection with everything.

K: Yes, that's right...

DB: in other words, you see, if it is a 'form' around which everything can be put together, and if everything is 'falling apart' - if left to itself, thought falls apart - but then it establishes a stable 'centre' which holds it all together ?

K: That' s right, 'my' family, 'my' house, 'my' country...

DB: And that's permanent, so you say, I have a permanent centre, in other words, thought has hit on the idea of a permanent centre to hold everything together and in fact
that's what we do all the time to organise to have a centre around which everything can be organised.

K: That's right, like a company executive...

DB: That's what we do all the time to have a permanent centre to hold it all together...

K: So when you perceive something totally, the 'centre' is non- existent and doesn't that perception includes everything?

DB: Right, lets go slowly here...

K: Isn’t that the central thing that holds, that connects everything?

DB: I see it differently : that the act of perception unites everything. And thought is imitating that by a 'centre' that unites everything.

K: That's right...

DB: And thought attributes the perception to this 'centre'

K: That's right, to the 'observer' and so on..

DB: And also the 'thinker' attributes its own origin to that centre and attributes truth to itself.

K: That's right. Is there sir, a perception of greed, of fear, or a total perception which includes everything ? So it isn’t just a perception of greed, perception of belief, but the perception of all these things.

DB: Let's say there’s a perception of 'that which is', right ?
And right now there is the question which we might clear up, because we said truth is 'that which is', right?

K: Yes...there is only perception, not the 'perceiver'.

DB: There is no 'perceiver', but only the perception of 'that which is', isn’t it?

K: Yes, and the 'perceiver' is the centre.

DB: Yes, thought attributes to the 'centre' the quality of being a 'perceiver', as well as a 'thinker' or an 'actor'. So, I think that it might be helpful to see that one of the functions of thought is to refer, or attribute and thought can attribute anything to any thing...

K: Yes, quite right.

DB: Therefore when thought has 'invented' the centre, then it may attribute various qualities to that 'centre', such as thinking, feeling , pain or pleasure, therefore it becomes 'alive'. Could we say that suffering arises there, when pain is attributed to the centre?

K: Of course, as long as there is a 'centre', there must be suffering...

DB: Because when there no 'centre' the pain is merely in thought.

K: Merely physical...

DB : Either physical or in memory ...But if the memory of pain is attributed to the 'centre' then it becomes something big.

K: So, we are 'seeing' something : if there is a total perception, thought has no place in that perception.

DB : And yet, that perception 'acts' and thought might be its action. That's what we were saying the other day...

K: Yes...let's get this clear. When there is a total perception in that there is no thought and that perception 'is' action.

DB: Yes and that will change the quality of thought, by changing the brain cells.

K: And so on.... we've been through all that. Thought has only a mechanical function.

B: By 'mechanical' you mean more or less, 'not intelligent' ? In the dictionary it's given more or less the opposite thing. So, thought is not creative, it's not intelligent ?

K: No. It'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, like the computer, but if the computer is to hold all this as your 'bucket' ... and later on we said it's not your 'bucket', it has no emotional...

DB: Well it's merely contradictory information.

K: Merely contradictory information ; similarly here. So we are giving tremendous importance to thought.

DB: Well, thought is giving importance to itself...

K: Thought is giving to itself tremendous importance ; 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, but let's make it more clear, why is it fragmentary? I mean it's gone wrong, you have to finish it, I mean, why is it, I mean to spell it out...

K: Because thought created the centre as a permanency and that centre forms as a unit to put everything together.

DB: Everything in the whole world, 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, that's 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 of thought, I am real and so on, and that is a fragmentation.

K: That's the basic thing.

DB: And from there follows the necessity for the rest of the fragmentation of life, because in order to maintain that those two are different, thought must then break up everything to
fit that, do you see ?

K: Of course.

DB: It only introduces confusion, you see, either it separates things that are not separate, or it puts together things that are different in order to maintain that fiction that the 'centre'
is separate from thought everything else has to be cut to fit that.

K: ... cut to fit that centre.

DB: Yes, you see for example, if somebody attributes to the 'centre' of being from a certain nation, he must then distinguish another nation, not belonging to the centre, he
fragments something that's one 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 let's go into that slowly, you see, if there’s total perception of the whole thing then what would there be left to do ? See, this raises my second question that David
Shainberg brought in. He says: you put it in the last discussion at Brockwood, that it was like Columbus discovering America, that someone else doesn’t have to discover it. But then what does one do that is creative, that is corresponding to what you did, you see?

K: Now, just a minute , just wait a minute, first let me answer this question. “Is perception whole”?

DB: A whole, there's only one perception.

K: ….therefore it's cleared the field.

DB: The entire field is cleared. Then what does he do ?

K: Wait, wait, let's see that is so, he hasn’t got to go through greed, belief, fear, pleasure,the whole things cleared the deck.

DB: Well you're saying man may perceive the whole nature of thought, is that what you are saying, or is it beyond that?

K: Beyond, a little more... Let's take that perception which sees the nature of thought, and because it perceives the nature of thought, it sees all this, all the fragments.

DB: All the fragments are in there.

K: All the fragments.

DB: And that brings up the question I wanted to ask for some time, You see, in the Indian book, Tradition and Revolution, you mention towards the end of it, the notion of
'essence' – the perception distills the essence- do you remember that?

K: No I don’t remember, sorry, it doesn’t matter...

DB: In some way there is a notion that there is a total perception being intelligence, and out of that came the 'essence', distilled like the flower.

K: Yes, yes...

DB: Is that essence anything like this 'whole'?

K: That's what that is, of course. Now wait a minute, I want to get this clear. Would you say there's is no perception of fear, greed, envy, belief but a total perception, of everything that thought has put together, and of the 'centre'?

DB: Well there a phrase that people sometimes use, ''to perceive the essence and totality'', does that seem appropriate ?

K: Hmm… I’m hesitating on the word 'essence'...

DB: Well, let's say you perceive the totality ?

K: Leave the word 'essence' for the moment. There is no partial perception of greed, envy and all that, there is a 'total' perception of all the things that thought has put together, and made itself separate, the 'centre'.

DB: Well now, we have to talk about total perception, we have to make it more clear, now, because 'total' may mean 'all these things', or it may mean something else... ?

K: To me is means something else.

DB: Well let's make that more clear.

K: Would a 'total' perception mean seeing thought attributing to itself certain qualities, thought creating the centre and giving to that centre certain attributes, and all the things from the 'centre' – the 'psychological' centre.

DB: Well that's the whole structure...

K: The whole structure.

DB: Yes, that is part of total perception, seeing the whole structure.

K: The whole of that.

DB: The entire structure, that's what we call the 'essence', the basic structure.

K: Yes, 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 is universal, quite. Now wait a minute, is such a perception possible? You said that is 'perception' - nothing else - because you tell me ''I see that, I feel that, I see
the truth of what you're saying, it is the truth, not mine or yours, it is the truth''.

B: Yes, now if you say it's the truth, it is 'that which is'...

K: That which is, the actual.

DB: Yes, well it's both... I’m trying to get it a little more clear, when we say there is 'truth' and there is 'actuality', the way we ordinarily use the word 'actual', is really the right way we use the word 'individual', it would seem to me that the (perception of) 'actuality' is individual, you see, undivided.

K: Ah yes, quite, 'individual' is undivided, quite...

DB: Actuality is undivided, but there is one moment of actuality and there may be another moment of actuality and so on, but now, when we 'see the essence', we see the
totality or the universal. So, what is necessary is seeing the universal, right, then that includes all that, right ?

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

DB: So that the truth goes beyond that 'individual' actual fact because it 'sees the total', it sees what is universal and the totality of the nature of thought.

K: The totality of the nature of thought, that's it.

DB: Right, so that every individual example of thought is in there.

K: That's right ; and when that is seen, thought is then seen as merely mechanical.

DB: Then thought acknowledges that it is mechanical ?

K: No, no thought doesn’t have to acknowledge it... It 'is' mechanical !

DB: Thought has changed, so it is mechanical and thought no longer attributes to itself, thought ceases to attribute to itself the 'non-mechanical'.

K: Yes, that's right. I think that's what actually took place...

DB: When ?

K: Probably from the beginning of this boy ….

DB: Yes... ?

K: It was there...

DB: It was implicit ?

K: Implicit, or whatever you’d like to say...

DB: Well alright, perhaps it was implicit in everybody when he’s born but …then it gets the position it takes ?

K: I question whether it was implicit with everybody...

DB: Well now lets get this clear ; that's what we were discussing the other day here ; so we could take the two views and consider them both : one view is, that it's implicit in everybody, and then the conditioning takes hold in most people, then it's lost, right ?

K: That's a very dangerous view !

DB: Why is it dangerous ?

K: Dangerous, because then you 'assume' there is something in you, which is unconditioned. It is an assumption to say that somebody was born like that, from the very beginning...

DB: Alright, so to assume there is in the child something unconditioned, that may be false ?

K: I think that is false...

DB: You are suggesting that the child is born with some conditioning, perhaps hereditary... ?

K: ...the genes and the hereditary, and the society, it's already there,

DB: And then it gets added to ?

K: Added to, encrusted, and it 'thickens'.

DB: Alright, so that's one view and you feel it is wrong ?

K: I wouldn’t accept it, because, that's a theory !

DB: Now, the other view is that 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 theosophists explanation of reincarnation, than the Maitreya, and the Brahmanical tradition of mustn’t kill, mustn’t do harm, karma...

DB: Yes... ?

K: I think it's much more, something else...

DB: Yes, you say there was something else, now of course this idea has also occurred to people in the past, you see there are people who felt that 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, it doesn’t prove that the notion is false....

K: Oh no, no , of course not. It may be misused, quite...

DB: But suppose now that we look at it from the other side, when you say that something mysterious happened, you know, which cannot be explained, which is beyond the order we can include in thought...

K: Beyond all explanation...

DB: So, it may be that thought cannot grasp...

K: Thought did not create a 'centre'...

DB: Yes, it did not create a centre but let us say thought is ordinarily conditioned to create a 'centre', over the ages...

K: Yes, perfectly...

DB: A person may be born according to you with the tendency to create the 'centre' ?

K: Yes...

DB: But now, in this case thought did not create the centre, is that what you say?

K: Yes, that's right.

DB: And you cannot say 'why' it did not,beyond this mysterious action ?

K: No, I wouldn’t know...

DB: So, in some sense you say the boy was protected, it's what you said last time...

K: Protected, guarded, they did everything to guard him, first of all...

DB: Yes well there was a combination of circumstances which helped, which were conducive to that...

K: Conducive, but it doesn’t explain …

DB: Now, there are several points that we could go on from there. You see, one point is to say : it occurred to me during the week, let's say, if man is to transfer away from this conditioned instance and if he is born conditioned then there is no way out of it, if that's all there is to it, in other words, from this conditioned mind there can be no way out. Therefore the only way out is 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, that it's just part of the universal order.

K: Yes, that's right.

DB: And if I can give you an example in physics, that is order to crystallise something - let's say something that is in a saturated solution - it may be cooled far beyond the point
of crystallisation unless there is a small 'nucleus', around which it can crystallise, otherwise it may remain uncrystallised, indefinitely.

K: Yes...

DB: And that 'particular nucleus' has no special significance other than, it was the place around which crystallisation took place.

K: Quite, absolutely !

DB: So you could say that perhaps mankind has reached a stage where it is ready, or has been ready for a change, right?

K: Yes, that's what they say...

DB: Many people have said that. Then this would be necessary, you see, it cannot change from the conditioned state...

K: There must be a catalyst, somebody, a nucleus...

DB: A nucleus, which is unconditioned.

K: 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 a perception of the totality of thought, consciousness must be something quite different.

DB: But you see, the word 'consciousness' would ordinarily involve the idea of thought, that is it still thought...

K: There’s no thought, can’t be !

DB: Then why do you call it 'consciousness' ?

K: I said it must be 'something totally different'. The consciousness which we have is with the 'centre' with all the content, with all the thought, with all that movement, and when there is a total perception of that, that is not !

DB: The 'centre' is not, and the whole order is different ?

K: Different.

DB: Yes, and there is something I was going to ask  about what you were mentioning many times about : that it might involve the brain cells working in a different way?

K: I don’t know, but I think it works differently...

DB: Yes.

K: Sir, may we discuss what is compassion? Is the 'centre' capable of compassion?

DB: Well I’d say the centre is not capable of anything real...

K: No, but can the centre attribute it to itself and 'be compassionate'?

DB: It certainly can do that, yes...

K: It can ( Laughs) Yes, but if there is no attribution at all, then what is compassion? Is total perception compassion?

DB: Well is has to be, include the feeling for all...

K: I should think one of the qualities of total perception is compassion.

DB: Hmm... If the centre can only have feelings, which are attributed to it, so it would have compassion for what ever it identified with...

K: Of course....I love you and I don’t love others...or, I love others but I don’t love you ( both laughing ) ..

DB: Anyway it would have no understanding and therefore it would have no meaning.

K: Very interesting this... Ah, we have got somewhere ! How would you convey all this to somebody in this (Saanen) camp? He’s sentimental, romantic, wanting illusions, myths, fanciful imaginations, has problems of sex , of fear, this, and you're
telling him something, and he won’t even listen. Here we’ve got leisure, we want to go into it, we want to find out, because were totally objective of oneself…. I think that's where compassion operates.

DB: That's why it's necessary...

K: That's right...

DB: Now considering what we were saying yesterday about the 'stream of human thought' and whatever is wrong there - it is universal, it belongs to everybody, right?

K: Yes.

DB: So, you may see something going wrong and thought attributes it to somebody else, but whenever something is going wrong, its going wrong in thought.

K: Yes, that's right...

DB: And therefore it's in everybody, right ?

K: Yes.

DB: But there is no such thing as 'my' thought, 'your' thought, it's thought, and it cannot stop ; you see, the minute you are thinking, even if there is not by an extra sensory communication of thought, just by ordinary communication. The structure of your thought is communicated to me, and if it's the wrong structure, then I’m in the wrong structure, of thought...

K: Yes, of course !

DB: Then my brain, my thought attributes the wrong structure to you...

K: To me right !

DB: To 'you', another centre.

K: Quite !

DB: This centre is 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'... This centre is resisting the other centre, the 'good' is in this centre, and the 'bad' is in the other centre and therefore there can be no compassion.

K: Yes sir.

DB: But you see, if it's 'all on thought process, one stream, then one cannot attribute this to a particular person and therefore, it seems you understand the nature of that thought and that is compassion...

K: Exactly. Quite right...

DB: Because you must see anyone thinking that way must be suffering. (Silent pause)

K: Yes sir.... We were going to talk, or discuss rather, about the mystery? What is the mysterious ? You see sir, all religions, have made the cathedrals dark, the temples are dark implying that God is mysterious, that there is something so mysterious that you cannot understand, and there have been secret societies, special initiations, you know all that which you went through in order to come upon the 'mysterious'. All that is not mysterious.

DB: Well, that is just imitation.

K: Imitation which thought, etc,etc. If there was no invention of the 'mysteriousness' created by thought, is there a mystery?

DB: Well, 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 people have said that myths were poetic means by which people grasped something true but at the same time, if you use this once as a metaphor, then it would be helpful but when you repeat it then it become a (routine ) but would it remain true in saying, that which is cannot be grasped in thought.

K: That's right, anything but the mystery of it !

DB: Yes...

K: We must discuss that some other time.

DB: Well perhaps there isn’t time now, it's a quarter past five ...

K: We’d better stop : we can go on this friday....

DB : It doesn't bother you as you have another discussion in the morning ?

K: The   discussions don't tire me so much as 'sustained talk'... Maybe leave it open ?

DB : Right, but we'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 !

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 15 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Nov 2019 #39
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

9-th K-DB Dialogue on Truth & Reality

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: in one discussions we were discussing whether the thought process – if it is 'straight & healthy' - may become aware of the action of truth and move in harmony with that ; and on the other hand, the thought process, when it is distorted and conditioned may not do that...

K : Yes, that's right...

DB : … but truth connects physically in the brain cells to bring it back ....

K: Sir, would that be accurate ?

DB : I don't know ; you see, we're trying to go into it...

K: I think that would be accurate !

DB : I know you think so...

K: I 'feel' that way !

DB : Yes, but we should discuss it a little while...

K: Yes, I think that too...

DB : Because it's a quite important point and is quite contradictory to the traditional scientific knowledge...

K: Nowadays, after reading that article on parapsychology...

DB : Perhaps not after reading psychology, because the scientific knowledge is changing too ; but anyway, we could say the brain is material and I think we're saying that matter 'exists' - it has an 'actuality' apart from thought, but we don't 'know' it ; you see, all we know is only some of it. In other words, the complete depths of matter are unknown to us and perhaps they'll never be known – you see, perhaps we can only know more & more. Now, as the brain is constituted of matter, we can never folow the depths from which thought arises, right ? But thought has become conditioned through the ages, part from heredity and part from tradition & culture...

K: ...tradition, culture, environment...

DB : ...environment & so on. And it has been conditioned to self-deception, to falsifying from the start. And this is in the material structure of the brain. And I would like to add a point : one can say that this conditioning constitutes a subtle kind of brain damage...

K: That's right...

DB : And I'd like to go on with that. You see, if we take a piece of delicate electronic equipment – such as an amplifier or a computer - if that is overloaded there is distortion and if you keep overloading it, you may break down the parts, and therefore it will distort more. So we could say that the kind of conditioning we're talking about – the conditioning which gives the greatest importance to thought and to the 'center' - overloads & gradually damages the brain in a way that is perhaps too subtle to be detected by the scientific instruments – except when it's gone very far-

K: Ah, yes...

DB : ...but still it's there, you see ?

K: Yes... Are you saying, sir, that when the brain is 'overloaded' – by environment, by economic conditions, socially...

DB : And by fear & sorrow...

K: ...sorrow and all the things that are going on in human beings, it does damage the brain cells ?

DB : Yes...

K: I think that is so ; that can be accepted...

DB : Yes, there is a physical & chemical damage to the brain cells and those damaged brain cells produce a thought that is really distorted ; therefore, as thought tries to correct that damage, because it is distorted it must make it worse.

K: Right, it makes it worse. Now from there, can there be a total perception which heals completely  ?

DB : Yes, that heals the brain cells. Now, one point is that the brain doesn't recognise this brain damage primarily, but atributes it to something else – for exmple it may atribute it to feeling uneasy as to some external circumstances...

K: It blames...

DB : ...it on anything else ; and I think that this kind of brain damage occurs in tradition, you see ? It occured to me tradition is a form of brain damage...

K: Quite, quite...I agree.

DB : ...because any tradition – good or bad- what it does is gets people to accept a certain structure of reality, very subtly, without realising thay are doing it by imitation or by example, or just by statements – so very subtly the child builds up an approach in which the brain atributes the things from the tradition to a 'reality' that is there independent of this tradition...

K: Certainly...

DB :... and gives it a tremendous importance.

K: Yes, you can see this in the oldest cultures, like in India, this distortion & damage due to tradition.

DB : I think that's in every culture ; I was just reading about the people who originally lived in Australia, the aborigenes, and they have a very different tradition, which they call 'dream time' , while in that dreaming there is also another time, which is also before being born or after dying...

K: I see...

DB : ...and they have a tradition of getting in the 'dream time' by means of a series of initiations and rituals at a certain age of adolescence ; and in that 'dream time' they can function very differently, like they can go into the desert and live there under conditions intolerable to ordinary people. So you see, it has a tremendous effect this tradition. It has real effects of all sorts, which may be valuable in some way, but at the same time it conditions the brain to a certain view of reality which is fixed. They say – I read somewhere- that people who don't share this 'dream time' are unreal – you see ?

K: Quite, quite...(both laugh)

DB : Now the same thing happens in our culture – and that is the point I want to come : 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 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 let's 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 you're a musician...

DB : Well, let's say a composer, a person who creates new music.

K: A composer, and all the composition – putting all the notes of music is the work of thought, isn't it ?

DB : Yes, anybody can do that...

K: That's what I meant- so that is the result of thought. And does he listen to that music before he puts it down ?

DB : Well , I don't know what kind of imagination he's got... Bethoven was deaf, but I think he could imagine some of the music he wrote...

K: But he must have 'heard' it !

DB : He heard it when he was not deaf, but he also made new music when he was deaf – he never heard it...

K: So, you're saying the hearing is not necessary ?

DB : Perhaps in the beginning it was, but …

K: In the beginning he heard it. And when he became deaf, he no longer 'heard' it ?
Therefore, how did he capture it ?

DB : I don't know... it went through some kind of inner perception, which we usually call 'imagination'...

K: Wait a minute, sir...

DB : He may have heard it inwardly...

K: Wait a minute, let's go slowly...When you are speaking now, do you think it out 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 memory...

DB : Oh, yes, yes...

K: And I use that memory in talk...

DB : You see, it's the same as learning to walk – to a certain extent that learning becomes part of you ; so in the same way, the speech becomes part of you...

K: So, you're saying that speech comes before thought ?

DB : Well, there is some evidence that it may...or else thought itself may be different from what we know – it may have a different structure from what is generally attributed to it...

K: So, we are talking about culture ; culture is growth – from childhood to manhood & so on. The expression of one's feeling must be through thought – putting down the words, notes & everything- and when you deliver a lecture you write it out or you express 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 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 perception is going on -that's where action takes place. Now, what is perception there ? Would you call it 'perception' ? I don't know... it's not insight

DB : Insight is perception. When you understand something you 'perceive' the meaning?

K: Sir, is it possible to say something without the operation of thought - except the usage of words...Ah... I can't get at it...

DB : Wouldn't it be possible that the movement of words might be just another movement ? You see, when you perceive an object and you start to move toward or away from it, it needn't involve thought except the storing up of information about the object, but it needn't fundamentally to think about it...

K: No.

DB : Could we say that when we talk the vocal chords respond in a similar way as it might to perceive the object ?

K: But it must be much more than that...

DB : Yes, it's more than that, but the action...

K: Either you 'see' the words and you read them...

DB : I don't do that...

K: You don't do that... Or, when you have talked so long, as I have talked so long, it becomes a habit...

DB : It becomes a skill ; there's a certain skill in it. The whole thing takes place without conscious direction.

K: Yes, but that doesn't answer it...

DB : Yes...Is there something relevant if we come to the 'unconscious' mind as well, since a part of this process seems to be 'unconscious' ? I mean, it may be just that 'unconscious' mind which must be only dimly lit or suppressed ? Because sometimes that is regarded as more than this – you said one time that you're 'sticking with the unconscious'...

K: Yes...

DB : ...which is a different kind of 'unconscious' ? And I just remind you something that perhaps you already know, that people studying the brain have found that the two sides- the left and the right- primarly one side is merely 'verbal' – I think it's the right hand side- and the other side is primarily 'non-verbal' - and they call that 'unconscious' ...When they are properly 'cut' one side doesn't know what the other side is doing and one person might say in words that he doesn't know anything about this while the other side might see something & respond to it, which is 'movement' – but if you ask him he would say that he doesn't know anything about it...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And so they have said that perhaps of the brain is 'unconscious' while the other side - the verbal side - is 'conscious'. But then, obviously there is a deeper part of the brain, the 'base' , which is common to both ; that's the part where the 'feelings' are, and that's the center of attention and the center of emotion and so on, which probably connects both sides...

K: Right...

DB : Now, would you say that perhaps there is an 'unconscious' mind which is not really forgot or repressed and which works when you talk ?

K: I can't quite... Look : you make notes and you read – that's one way- and if you have done that for a number of years, you get a certain ( 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...For instance there was this case when the brain was cut and they say that the perception of music is in the other side – which is the opposite of the word or the perception of visual things & so on...and there seems to be a function of the brain which is non-verbal, and that may be still a 'thought' of some kind, which is much less defined, a 'non-verbal' thought, that can be conditioned and memory may be still in it...Now, what we are doing is to make a connexion of these two, so that the words can also express the 'non-verbal' .

K: Sir, is there in the brain- a part untouched by culture, by anything ?

DB : Well, that is a question which science at present cannot consider and which is beyond what anybody could do, because we don't know what that would mean from the material point of view... In other words, in the present material structure of the brain there is no way in which we could tell – the present way of looking at it is too crude, you see ?

K: If I say something about it, would you 'listen' - not discard it, throw it out ?

DB : Yes...

K: We said consciousness is content and if that content be 'emptied' - in the sense of no longer conditioned- is there a part of the brain which nothing has touched – nothing has made an imprint on it ?

DB : You're talking of a particular part of the brain ?

K: Not only of a particular part of the brain, but of a particular part of the consciousness which is not this consciousness...

DB : Another consciousness ?

K: Another consciousness.

DB : Which may be another function or in another part of the brain ?

K: No... let's look at it : my brain is conditioned -tradition, culture, heredity...

DB : Would that mean it's damaged ?

K: Damaged, and it has healed itself completely...

DB : So, you're saying that it was damaged but it has 'healed' itself ?

K: I'm taking my brain ; healed itself, and is now 'unconditioned'.

DB : Yes, but the 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 consciousness which is totally different from this consciousness - which functions or operates when I am a great composer– and has that perception ?

DB : You see, let's discuss that 'composer' – for instance Bethoven has that perception although he is deaf - his brain is damaged , and also he's disturbed mentally...

K: Disturbed mentally, poor chap …

DB ; Yes, and we say that there is a part of his brain that could work anyway, despite that damage...

K: Despite that damage...If he was really damaged he couldn't have been a musician !

DB : Not damaged deeply. So you're saying that in general this damage – even if cultural- is not that deep ? It may appear 'deep' but in fact it isn't ?

K: Yes, I think it is not too deep. Would you say that ?

DB : Yes, I mean it works only at a certain level...

K: Of course, if my brain is damaged in tradition, I can 'step out' of it ! The brain says : rubbish !

DB : Yes...then the damage is only in certain functions of the brain which are based on memory ?

K: Yes...and you can put it aside.

DB : So it is not in a really deep function of the brain ?

K: No.

DB : But it may appear or present itself as 'deep' ?

K: That's right !

DB : It attributes it to itself as 'deep' …

K: If I am a Catholic and you talk with me & show all the... it's finished, I'm out !

DB : Well, in principle, I think it's right, a person may see this, but then a part of the damage attributes to itself it the property of being very deep and and beyond thought, therefore it escapes this 'insight', you see ?

K: Quite... right, right !

DB : You see, it doesn't mean that the damage is deep, but the damaged part attributes to itself a great 'depth'...

K: Yes, quite.

DB : So afterwards, a person who is a 'Catholic' you might explain it to him and he might see it at that moment, but...

K: Ah, wait a minute ! You say I am attached -for instance I'm attached to my wife or to something and because I respect you and I listen, I am fairly sensitive to what you are saying, then it's finished ! It's over - I'm never attached anymore !

DB : Well, it doesn't commonly happen that way, you see...

K: Why ?

DB : Well, that's what we want to find out...Supposing one reason is that this conditioning attributes to itself some significance which is very deep and not merely your memory and thought. You see, suppose I am a Catholic, and I have grown up in the Catholic tradition I've been exposed to it non-verbally & subtly, it has left a mark and when I become a little bit frightened it all seems so real, you see ? And therefore I 'forget' what you said …

K: Of course, of course...But that's too easy...

DB : But this is what actually happens...

K: But I think there's something deeper than that ; let's go into it a little bit. If I 'listen' to you – because you are serious, you have detached yourself and you show it to me, and you say : Look, listen ! And because I respect you, because I listen to you, because I'm attentive, what you say has a tremendous meaning and it is true – the truth of it, not the rationalisation of it, but the truth of what you're saying acts.

DB : Yes, even if there is a tremendous conditioning in this tradition to resist that truth...

K: Ah, I'm not resisting it ! Because, first of all, I want transformation - that's a basic necessity for me, as a human being...

DB : Yes, but then there is another basic necessity of security, you see ?

K: You show it to me that through this transformation there is a tremendous security ; you point out to me that if I transform myself totally, then you will be eternally safe, secure & all the rest of it, because you have 'seen' it, because you have got it. And when you say that to me it's a shock- I 'see' it ! But if I haven't transformed, if I am a crook, a phoney, then whatever I say...

DB : Right... But then how do you account for the fact that you've been talking for so many years and it has had so little...

K: I think that basically, people won't 'listen'.

DB : Yes, but then it comes to 'why not?'...

K: Why not ? Because I don't see they're interested. Why should they be interested ?

DB : Well, because life is such a mess...

K: Ah, but they have those 'little harbours' where they are sheltering themselves...

DB : Yes, but that's an illusion.

K: You say it's an illusion, but to them it's not !

DB : I know, but why does the brain resist seeing this illusion ? You see, very often people would get shocked when shown that something is wrong, but then...

K: ...they go back.

DB: They go back ; so we still have to go into this tendency to go back, because whatever the 'shock' may be, the brain will go back, even if -let's say- we listen to the person who 'sees' and there is a shock but then the brain will go back later...

K : You are asking : why does it go back ?

DB : Yes...

K: Oh, that's because of habit, this tremendous years of tradition & all that...Habit !

DB : Yes, but then that's still in the same...

K: Same circle ?

DB : Within the same circle. You see, the only answer which is adequate is the one which will stop it. As I see it, an explanation which doesn't end this thing is not a full explanation...

K: I said 'habit' , but that doesn't get anywhere...

DB : No...

K: So what brings about to the damaged brain a total...

DB : ...not going back ?

K: To not going back. Hmm...A man sees that the organisation of any 'spiritual movement' is useless and he drops it instantly – never goes back to it, never cultivates it, never organises it – now what has taken place in that man ? He perceives the truth of it, hm ?

DB : Yes, but let me say something : you said that man was not deeply conditioned in the first place. But we'll have to consider another man who was deeply conditioned in the first place. You see, the man who was not deeply conditioned in the first place has seen the truth & dropped it – so for him that was fairly easy because he was not deeply conditioned...

K: Yes. But the other man is conditioned...

DB : Yes, much stronger...

K: ...much stronger and he may temporarily 'see' it and then goes back to it...

DB : Perhaps unconsciously he 'slips back' ?

K: Can that man be 'shocked' ? I'm not talking about electric shocks...

DB : They don't really change much...

K: ...they don't change much. Can you 'shock' me psychologically ?

DB : Well at other times you said 'shock' is no use...

K: I know, I'm just asking...I can shock you but you may go back...

DB : It will only work for a while...

K: I know...Now, what is this thing that makes me 'see and end it' and not go back ? See sir, because we have not been able to do this we say ''it's only for the few''...

DB : Yes...Perhaps we can put it that way : the brain has been damaged too much... ?

K: Too much.. I don't quite agree with that – it's too easy !( both laugh) What is it ? You 'see' something and it's finished ; I don't 'see' it, but you point it out and then for a few months or days, I 'see' it...And then suddenly it disappears and I'm back...

DB : I think that it's better to say that it 'slips out'...

K: Slips out...

DB : Slipping into the old habit...

K: Old habit...Now, what is the thing that makes it... Sir, is 'attention' a conscious process ?

DB : Well, apparently we can say it's not...

K: Yes...

DB : That may be the 'unconscious' that we talked about ?

K: If it is not 'conscious' or 'unconscious' – that is, not a process of time, not a process of thought, which is conscious or unconscious - is there another kind of attention which 'acts' and it's over ? I'm just trying to find out...

DB : Would you say, as we said the other time, that it's something beyond attention that 'acts' ?

K: Yes, that's what we're trying to get at...If you explain me rationally, logically my attachment, I listen to it, but it's still in the field of thought. And within the field of that thought, whatever thought does cannot produce a radical transformation. Right ?

DB : Yes...

K: Now, you have explained to me rationally, and you say, ''That is not enough ; you won't change if you remain there you'll go back to it'' And you point out to me, you say 'Don't think ! Don't rationalise, just listen to me !' Don't control, don't resist, just 'listen' ! In that 'listening' you're not appealing to the normal rational process ; you are appealing to something that is beyond thought, beyond my usual consciousness. You're appealing to something much deeper in me ; you are 'touching' something - which has nothing to do with the movement of thought. Would that be right ? You are appealing to me at a level of which I am not conscious. You are appealing to me at a level which may be called 'compassion', which is not at the level of thought. If you appeal to me at that level, I can't go back to thought, to my habits – I can't go back ! Is that possible ?
Sir, is Love the factor of profound change ?

DB : Hmm... ?

K: Not all the movements of thought and all the explanations, all the 'pros' and... ?

DB : What you said previously it is 'truth' ?

K: Truth.

DB : But is there a distinction ?

K: No, of course not...It's the whole thing. Truth is love and compassion, everything. I just want to see if that is so. Can you, out of your compassion, out of your love , touch something in me that transforms me ? Because to you that is the truth ; you see truth and you live in the feeling of all that...And from 'that' you speak. And you say, well, my friend, you've tried to do it for fifty years and you haven't done it...And to that the ordinary answer is : the brains are too damaged ; therefore there are very few brains that are not damaged and perhaps you can affect them...That's all. But that is not the complete answer...Therefore we go back to the old thing : ''it's only for a few''...

DB : Well, one view of this is that these 'few' will spread and you are not accepting that...

K: That's back into culture, back into time, back in the whole 'bussiness' of tradition...And again you are damaged... This is what actually takes place.

DB : Are you saying that if we are using culture to bring order to the mind, then this will damage the brain ?

K: Yes.

DB : But then for what can we use culture ? Can we use it technically, or you can 'enjoy' it - you said that you are 'enjoying the music'... ?

K: No, sir, just a minute...What shall we do ? You speak out of the depths of 'that something' immense. And I listen to you and you affect me at that level, but it's only a temporal affair...And then I go back to my own 'damage'. You 'heal' me – not completely, but partially, and the old damage takes over, or can you 'heal me' – you can't 'heal me' but you are talking to me at such depth that your very listening is the whole thing.
Why doesn't it happen ? You tell me very clearly 'Don't be attached' And you explain it to me, and your explanation is out of that compassion, out of the perception of truth and I 'see' it, I have an insight into it, but I loose that insight...

DB : Yes, you see, I think that maybe there is some clue in the nature of the brain damage -what it does as soon as there is this perception – the whole thing depends of a correct perception, right ?

K; Yes...

DB : Now, this brain damage can produce what appears to be a perception, but the difficulty is that comes in slowly and 'unconsciously' …

K: But you are appealing to something much greater and I respond to it for a few days or for a few months and is gone...Or I say : ''Please remind me of it...'' ''Let me read books & keep on memorising all that''...You follow ? And I loose it ! Is it sir, that my brain is not only 'damaged' , but refuses to see anything 'new', because whatever you say might lead me to such 'danger' ?

DB : Well, the brain attributes 'danger' to seeing something ; it appears to perceive 'danger' – in other words, something happens which projects danger into that situation – that is thought, but it comes back as something 'seen' …

K: So, you talk about fear, you're talk about pleasure, you talk about 'suffering' … And you say, ''for God's sake please listen to this out of your heart !' And I listen to you, but...I go back !

DB : You see, you are continuing within your 'culture', which brings it back . You see, in any relation within that cultural frame of 'reality' that thought is already there...

K: Quite, quite... everything is already there. I wonder how this operates.. ? Are you appealing to me, talking to my 'conscious' consciousness ?
In that 'consciousness' there is no answer. Are you talking to me at that level ? Or are you talking to me not only at that level, but you also talk to me at a much deeper level ? And it may be that I am not used to that level ?

DB : Yes, that could be...

K: I think, sir, that it is more like it. I have always gone to the well with a little bucket and you say : ''Look, that little bucket won't do anything- it will quench your thirst only momentarily !'' So, you're not talking to me at the level which I'm used to ; you are talking to me at a deeper level which I'm not used to. And I get used to it while you're talking to me. But the moment you stop talking to me...it's gone !

DB : It's already in time – either at that moment or later...

K: Is it, sir, that I – the brain - wants to reduce everything into 'habit' ? What you say I see it at a deep level, but I have reduced that into a habit and therefore I lose it...And you tell me that at that deep level there is no time, there is no habit and you can't capture it by your brain – your brain will make it into a habit, into a tradition, into another damage. So you said : Don't do that !

DB : In the beginning thought seems to accompany everything that happens - making an imitation of 'accompany' everything that happens, which later builds up and that habit becomes the same as the original...

K: Right... but you tell me : 'See the whole structure of thought, be tremendously aware of it !'

DB : And it seems to be part of our tradition that there should be some thought, in other words, don't let thought stop...

K: Yes, yes !

DB : ...and in fact every tradition does demand that thought doesn't stop.

K: Yes, of course, quite ! The tradition is that.

DB : I was thinking that when children are brought up into tradition you can see that when they follow it they say 'Yes, that's right, you're good & so on' and when they don't follow it, ' You shouldn't do this, it's bad' – so that the child begins to feel very secure in tradition -he feels he's a good boy...

K: ...Good boy !

DB : ...and when he's not following it he's a 'bad boy' ... Therefore there may be a habit in going on with the tradition – either with the momentary one, or with the old one ; and also thought becomes disturbed of moving out of the tradition – the security of belonging to a community which decides what is real is much deeper than any personal gaining...

K: Of course, of course...

DB : Because the community gives a meaning to what is true and right and good and when you're in it, you feel it's all settled & safe and therefore getting out of it might mean 'chaos' , you see ? And I think it's not generally realised how significant is to be out of tradition – people may say 'I'm free of tradition, I'm not a Catholic anymore !'

K : ( laughing ) Quite...

DB : Or whatever... but tradition goes back to that feeling of belonging to a family and being 'approved of' because you are not only doing what you're supposed to do, but 'believing' what you're supposed to do, or in believing what is 'real'...You see, this 'tradition' includes the belief that we have a 'correct consensus' as to what is real – in other words, that we don't create our 'reality'...

K: Yes, quite, I understand all that...

DB : ...but in fact we do, you see ? Now all of that (psychological damage) goes against what we were to talk at the deep levels...

K: Yes, it goes against all that !

DB : ...and that works in very subtle ways and when you start working you got to reach all of that...

K: Sir, just a minute  - you, the speaker, are talking to me from that depth and I don't even talk about it, I have an insight into it, I feel it, I know it... Can you - not 'help' me - but can I sustain it ?

DB : You see, there is no man's tradition of 'mystery', of man's tradition of 'rationality' ; in other words, man's old tradition was one of mystery, but then came the modern tradition of 'rationality' and no...

K: ...no mystery...

DB : But to be free of all tradition...

K: Yes, sir, that's what you are asking me ! You say, look at every form of tradition...

DB : But at first sight you say that you can't do it, because you feel that your culture gives you the chance to look at these things...

K: ...it also gives you the safety, the security, a place in your community...

DB : And also an order of the mind & so on...Now the point is that all this is causing the damage & distorsion into the brain, you see ? I think that's the firmest point I could see...

K: Yes, you've explained to me all that as clear verbally, intellectually -in every way you've made it perfectly clear to me, hmm ? Fear is involved, pleasure is involved, security is involved, tradition , if I leave it...

DB : Yes all this distortion is making me believe in whatever would make me feel better...

K: Yes, all that....And you say : I'm not talking to that because if I talk to that, you'll merely go all around in circles...You are not talking to me at that level at all. You're talking to me at that level which is not this...

DB : And you say there is a function, or a part of the brain, that is not conditioned to this ?

K: I don't know, but there is a 'depth' which is not touched by the 'traditional brain', by the 'damaged' brain, by the brain which is conditioned & all the rest of it...A depth, a dimension which is not touched by thought. All that you've said about tradition – everything is a process of thought and that process of 'time' has not touched this...
You talk to me, and if there is an action of that, the brain cannot be damaged again.

DB : Hmm...

K: It may be that your talking to me at that level 'heals' the brain completely.

DB : You were saying last time that there is a 'direct action' on the matter of my brain.

K : …of my brain...I think there is something in it...

DB : Now, is this the only way ? You see, this seems to depend on someone who is not conditioned...

K: If you are 'healthy' you can talk to me.

DB : Yes, but I mean, if there are only conditioned people, they will never find a way out …

K: Absolutely no ; how could a damaged brain... ?

DB : You see, it goes against the modern tradition – even in what you say - that we must observe and discover and find the way out. Now if it's a brain that is not damaged, it could do that, but if it is damaged , then it cannot do it …

K: Ah, that's it ; you realise that you cannot do it ! Therefore you stop.

DB : You stop, but it needs one that is not damaged to communicate this...

K: Yes, yes....but wait...I realise by your talk that whatever action a damaged brain would do, whatever it does, will still be in that area...

DB : Yeah...But there is the tendency in this damaged brain to come to conclusions and present them as 'facts'...

K: Therefore I realise all the tricks that the 'damaged' brain does.

DB : Yes, and one of the 'tricks' is to say that nothing can be done...

K: Yes! Quite, quite...

DB : ...or else I'll keep on working at it...

K: I don't know if you saw it last night, a young man seeing these talks...thousands of people...

DB : I mean, it's the same attempt of the brain to heal itself, but in a false way...

K: ...in a false way, yes – to escape, to say it can't do anything socially, scientifically or artistically – you can go and listen to this rot all around the world... Can the 'damaged' brain – of course, if it's completely damaged it can't do anything...

DB : You see, there is also the feeling that if the brain has been physically damaged you can't do anything, but we don't know, right ?

K: We don't know...but if it's completely damaged, you can't do anything...But we are talking of a fairly 'not too damaged' brain...

DB : But even then, we cannot know whether the 'damage' can be healed or not...

K: Yes. But wait a minute- you talk, you explain all this and you say : whatever the 'damaged' brain – which is the result of tradition & all the rest of it- whatever it does will produce further damage. So because you pointed out that, I realise that. Hmm ?

DB : Yeah...

K: That is the first necessity – and I realise it. Then after I realised it, you talk to me at a depth which thought has not touched. You see, you planted a seed – cause I know all that's wrong...So my question, sir, is : why do I , after being talked at that depth, why should I go back to the old thing ? So, my question is : will I ever go back if you have pointed out that depth, I have an insight into that depth, I perceive that depth, can I ever go back to the other ? Will not your 'seeing' act as a tremendous shock, or a tremendous jolt ?

DB : Well, there is this point which we have been discussing, that the brain can get used to any shock or jolt ?

K: Yes, I know, therefore you have to be very, very clear of the structure of thought & all that. Absolutely clear ! Otherwise the depth becomes the habit !

DB : Yeah...

K: In your pointing out to me the whole activity of thought – because I'm very seriously concerned- thought does stop. And the 'feeling of the depth' can never become a habit. Because when 'depth' is becoming a habit, the 'depth' becomes tradition & all the rest of it- fear of losing it & all that. Now, is that 'depth' within consciousness ?

DB : You said before that there is another kind of 'consciousness'...

K: That's it ! It is not in that consciousness. That's what I want to get at.

DB : Perhaps we could say it's neither in the left side of the brain, nor in the right ?

K : I don't know about the 'right' or 'left', but it's not in the area of thought.

DB : Hmm...

K: Thought cannot 'capture' it !

DB : Now, if you say this is another consciousness, is it still another function of the brain ? Something that it's going on in the brain ?

K: Now, if you said 'brain' in the sense that it is a product of time...

DB : Well, I don't know it's a product of time, or not you see ?

K: ...a product of evolution, the product of great...

DB : You see, we still haven't made some of these points clear ... If we said nature is continuously growing then wouldn't you say there is a creation in nature as well ?

K: Yes...

DB : Now, would you say nature is the product of time ?

K: It is and it's not...

DB : That's what I'm saying... Because the brain is also part of the 'natural' things...

K: Aha ! Yes, yes...Or is it cultivated carefully... ?

DB : But I mean, if we take the natural evolution of all sort of things & animals, that seems to happen in time, no ?

K: Yes...

DB : One animal is born it dies, and the next one and the next one ? So you have growth...

K: Generation after generation of instinct, growth...

DB : But there is also 'change', there is a mutation and another growth occurs & so on... Now, wouldn't you say that's also a kind of creation ? I mean, by creation we mean what causes to grow...

K: Yes, creation in the sense of 'cultivate' & growth...Then what are you trying to say ?

DB ; That the brain has also grown as a result of in such a process...You see, we have to get clear about this 'time', because there were the various mutations in monkeys & other animals and there apeared creatures with bigger & bigger brains producing finally the modern man. Now, all this has taken time, you see...

K: Yes. Yes, it seems to have taken time...

DB : I don't know if you would agree on that you seem to say that it has and it hasn't...

K: I'm just asking myself, because it has, in one sense...

DB : Yeah...

K: The brain is not only the product of culture in time, but is there also a part of the brain or outside of that which is not of time ?

DB : Well, that's the thing we want to come to, because you see, there is a structure of the brain that has evolved in time...

K: ...in time, I grant it.

DB : And that structure may go beyond thought, you see ? For example it may involve attention, awareness...

K: Aha ! I see what you're trying to say. You're saying the brain evolves in time, and in that time there is an awareness, attention...

DB...beyond thought …

K: But it is still in that area of time.

DB : Yes, as all sort of species have appeared in nature ; so in some sense it seems like some sort of creation does exists in nature, which appears to involve time...

K: Yes.

DB : Although perhaps a very long time...

K: Yes, I understand this. Now, is attention...

DB : At least, the brain which can give attention to, it took time to evolve, right ?

K: Aha...

DB : That is, the brain which is able to have attention. You see, let's take a much smaller brain, of a smaller animal ; now its attention is somewhat less than it's possible to man. Would you agree ?

K: Of course...

DB : Now, the difference between these two - it took time to evolve...

K: Yes.

DB : So, the capacity for attention depended on time.

K: Yes, yes...But is there an attention that is not of time ?

DB : Now, is there, you see  ? The attention itself may not be dependent on time...

K: Yes, attention itself is not of time.

DB : ...but the ability of the brain to have attention is dependent on time...

K: Yes, the capacity, but the attention itself is not of time.

DB : But it may be taking place in the brain, not outside of it ...

K: That's right ! Attention itself is out of time, but the capacity to have attention involves time...

DB : ...it involves growth, culture...

K: Yes...

DB : And also you have also said that as the brain grows older, it gets more mature – so its capacity, in some way, improves – so, in some way, time is involved in producing the capacity...

K: Capacity means time...

DB : Yeah...But now, something might happen within that capacity which is not of time...

K: Yes, that's right : attention in itself is not time. But the capacity to have attention may involve time...

DB : It depends on growth – the young child may have a different capacity...

K: Right... so, we are saying : growth is time, time is necessary, but attention is not, right ?

DB : Yes, truth is not in time...And that compassion or truth may operate on the material structure of the brain – its time behaviour is changed physically ...

K: Yes...

DB : So, something new is introduced into time...

K: Yes, that's right.

DB : But I mean, while we are at it, we should get more clear on creation, because 'creation' means 'to cause to growth'...Now you say, perception is creation? - is that right ?

K: Perception is a 'cause to growth' ? No...

DB : No, but I'm trying to get it clear - you say that creativity is perception...

K: Yes...

DB : But we have to be clear about it ; because the ordinary meaning of the word 'creation' is 'to cause to growth' – you see, nature is 'created' because it causes new species to grow & so on...

K: Yes...

DB : Now, in what sense is man 'creative' ? Let's say Bethoven had an 'insight' which gave rise to a new music , so in that sense, it causes a new music to grow...

K: Right...

DB : But I want to be more clear about Creation...

K: But sir, the 'depth' which produced that music, that 'depth' is not of time...

DB : No, but perhaps we could say : that the nature of what produced that depth is not about time . The mechanical exploration of nature is limited it doesn't cover everything...

K: Agreed...

DB : So the creation of new forms in nature must also be beyond time...

K: Yes, may be...

DB : May be, we don't know, but...

K: But in the human mind one can see for oneself that Compassion is out of time, Truth is out of time...

DB : Yes...

K: And the depth from which comes that Compassion is out of time.

DB : Yes...

K: And therefore it's not 'cultivable'.

DB : No, it cannot be 'made to grow'...so we say that the origin of Creativity does not grow – is that what you're saying ?

K; That's right.

DB : But 'creativity' may cause something to grow in the field of time...

K: Yes, that's quite right.

DB : Because that's what we have in mind that a new perception should cause the growth of a new ( human) society, of a 'new' man...

K: Of a 'new' man, quite...

DB : But creativity itself, in essence doesn't grow, right ?

K: In essence, no...

DB : It is not 'created' …

K: (laughing) Yes, it is not 'created' ! That's right...But out of that thing which is not created, there can be a 'new man' , a new society.

DB : Yes, I mean, this creates a 'new' brain that is not damaged...

K: Sir, to go back to the point : Why do I 'loose it' ? I have an insight into that profound thing and it's lost after a few days or a few months...Or it is not lost at all, but it comes empty because all my tradition says : Hold on to it ! Hm ?

DB : Yeah...

K: ...make into a habit & all the rest of it...How subtle all this is !  

DB : Yes and that's why it's made into another tradition...

K: That's right, sir... 'Die' to all things that thought has built as 'creation'. ( long pause...) You speak from that 'depth' and I listen to you, and you explain all the movements of thought as 'time' – and that I understand very easily- and you say 'time' must have a stop, otherwise there is no depth. So I hunger after that & all the rubbish ; but if I see the truth of what you say - not the 'rationalisation' of what you say, but the truth of what you say – the 'truth' being the 'total perception' of what you say. I can only do that - against all the pressures of tradition, everything that says 'Don't do this !'...

DB : Or which also says 'Do it' but absorb it into the ...

K: 'Do it, in order to get something else !' - so I'm back...
What you tell me, I have to understand the subtlety, the depth of that reality - that thought is...etc... But you see, I won't 'listen' to you when you go to such extreme...- you follow ?

DB : Yes, it's hard to listen if you propose the banning of all tradition, all culture, of everything...

K: Exactly !

DB : And the brain may say 'Alright' but it still rejects it...

K: Or '' For God's sake, stop it !''...Yes, sir...

DB : You see, the Chinese are reputed to have said 'All the barbars that came in, all become Chinese '…

K: (laughing heatedly) Yes...

DB : All the new things become tradition, you see ?

K: That's what the Hindus did with the Moguls...

DB : And I think that's the most subtle feature – that the tradition absorbs the 'non-tradition'...

K: But you see, sir, I have to 'listen' to you or 'read you', or 'be entirely with you' on this... '' I can't because my wife is angry'' or...you follow ? Everything is against this ! I have no leisure...

DB : And also to communicate with people who use the traditional frame...which takes over...

K: It struck me this morning when I read that article on 'parapsychology'...

DB : Yes, I have read it the other day...

K: That's a new game they are going to go into...

DB : Yes, but it has already been absorbed into the 'new tradition'...

K: 'New tradition' – I was thinking of that this morning !
You know, sir, at Brockwood, how can you tell those students all this, and they will absorb the truth of what you're saying ? I'm probably a teacher there and I see the absolute truth of what you're saying and I want to tell them about it. I want them to be 'non-traditional' in the real sense... They come there conditioned, 'damaged' and the teachers are 'damaged' - so...what can you do ? The whole society is against this ! Everything is against this !

DB : You see, the student, or the child lives in a society of his own, which has its tradition which determines its own 'reality' and perhaps it's like the Australian for whom what you're saying was 'unreal' …

K: ( Laughing ) Yes...the tradition of reality, quite right !

DB: To him the 'real thing' is what he's doing with his friends and how they're getting together, their relationships and what he is going to do afterwards in society, so probably this must have seemed 'unreal' to him when he came first...It doesn't fit 'reality' …

K: Of course, but that's my job to see that they understand this ! Everything is against it ! Sex, pleasure, money...everything !

DB : All those things which people think are really important in 'real life' and so on... You see, it may seem to someone who first listens to all this, that it's some sort of abstraction, that is very distant from reality...

K: Of course...

DB : Unless he feels really unhappy with this...

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 15 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Dec 2019 #40
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

10-th K-DB Dialogue on Truth & Reality

DB : It occured to me that one thing that we should try to do is to wind up this discussion up by answering those questions that are outstanding – you know, those questions that would raise in the reader's mind. I have looked into some of these questions and at the very end I could prepare a summary and perhaps you would comment on it.

K: Good...

DB : Now, one of the points we discussed in several of our discussions was something that you call the 'process' …

K: Ah, ah...

DB : Now, I would like to clear up a few points about it, which have arisen in talking with several people. I think you made it clear that each person has his own suffering and he must stay with that until the end, then everybody it will be different - is that what you mean to say ? In other words, it was not necessary for other people to go through, but in saying that arose a few other points which have to be made clear. Let me bring them up one by one ; the first point was : you made the analogy of Columbus discovering America, saying that it was not necessary to repeat that discovery, now you can buy an airplane ticket and go to America. Now, I feel this analogy may be a little misleading because it suggests that everything has been made very easy...

K: (laughing) Yes...

DB : Now, what would you say ?

K: No, I wouldn't say anything like that...The analogy is rather misleading, you see...But how should we begin this thing properly  ?

DB : Let me bring up two more questions along the line of what you've been saying : in one of the discussions, comparing with the discovery of America - you said that others can carry on your discovery to discover something more. That's what you said. But in a later dialogue you seemed to deny that – you brought up the analogy with Newton & Einstein – Newton made a discovery and the fact that Einstein made another discovery, it doesn't mean that he built it just by denying a great deal of what Newton said, but still he went further...

K: Yes, sir...

DB :...now, in some way, you seem to deny that approach in this field...

K: I think that's right, sir, I deny that.

DB : Yes...although in another dialogue you seem to confirm that , because you said that others can carry on this- so in some way it becomes complex...

K: Yes, let's go into this... First of all, sir, I really don't know -basically- what's happening...

DB : In what sense ?

K: About this 'process' – that was your first question...

DB : Yes...

K: First of all, whether it's imaginative, an induced state, a traditional acceptance of something which has been said, or ill health, or something that is natural ? So these are the points...
I've gone into this question of whether it's imaginative - very carefully because I don't like personally to imagine anything about myself, or about anybody - I have no visual imaginative powers...

DB : Well, I'm not so sure, since some of your descriptions...

K: I see it and write it – that's quite different from 'imaginative' in the sense – let me explain it- thart I don't like to 'imagine' about myself...

DB : But would you ever 'imagine' something else ? In other words, would you use imagination to help you to figure something out – for example suppose you work in science, you might find it useful to imagine a certain state of affairs...

K: Might be, but I am not scientist...

DB : Yes, but I meant : would you ever do such a thing ?

K: To imagine ?

DB : Not imagine something about yourself – even say, to arrange the furniture in your room...

K: You were there when we discussed this afternoon the furniture in the dining room ?

DB : Yes...

K: It wasn't imaginative ; it was all so crowded. You were there this afternoon when I was discussing it with Mrs Simmons...

DB : But isn't that a form of 'imagination' ?

K: Is that imagination ?

DB : It is , because you imagine the parallel state of affairs …

K: No, I was describing to her the way I see it so that there is more room... That's not 'imagination'.

DB : Well, it's a very difficult point , because many people would call it 'imagination'...

K: I would't call it 'imagination' ; I said look, wouldn't it be more confortable to put that chair there or here ?

DB : Yes but wouldn't you 'imagine' how it would look like in doing that ?

K: Ah, no, no...

DB : You wouldn't ?

K: No, I can't do that.

DB : I see...

K: So I 've gone into this question whether I imagined the whole thing, an illusion which I have perpetuated to give me importance, to give me the feeling of something abnormal – not oly in the religious sense- because I've had that all life. I went into this and I don't think it's 'imagination'. I don't think it is a traditional acceptance of this whole question of 'kundalini' & all that. And I don't think it is ill health, because I'm very aware when it happens...

DB : Let me comment on that, because some people said it may be a form of ill health, because some people with ill health report similar happenings...

K: No... On the contrary, with me it only begins only when I am completely rested...

DB : Hmm...

K: When all the environment is right- when there is quietness and my body is completely at rest...I would really like to discuss this with you and say, Shainberg...

DB : Well, Shainberg has said that some of his pacients he observes have to go through something similar to what you described in being cured... You see, perhaps not exactly ....And other persons have said that some of the things you described might have been 'symptoms' which disturb people...You see, Shainberg works with mentally disturbed people...

K: I may be 'mentally disturbed'... ?

DB : I'm not saying that, but we should make it clear what the difference is...

K: Yes, quite, quite...

DB : Now, when I was asked about this difference I said that perhaps there may be some similarity but the 'mentally disturbed' people do not come up with a perception of truth...

K:Yes, quite...

DB : So that the difference is more important than the similarity...

K: (laughing) Quite ! So they end up in a hospital but I don't !

DB : Right...they may have an occasional flash of insight, but the whole of it is very confused, you see...

K: Yes, I understand that...

DB : So I say that there must be a fundamental difference...

K: I think there is a great deal of difference between mentally sick people and this person ! Not 'difference', but it is a totally different thing...

DB : That's what I meant- a fundamental difference- although there are some superficial similarities or physical...

K: You see, the other day, after the gathering and everything has quietened down – the whole house was quiet and I went to bed...and it began, very acute...

DB : It still goes on as before ?

K: Yes... Very acute and the next morning it gradually disappeared. Because this could only happen when the body is perfectly relaxed, when it's in very good health and the environment is 'right' – in the sense of 'quiet', not disturbed – it must have a certain sense of beauty and all the rest of it...
So I've gone into these questions – whether I 'imagined' it or it is a traditional acceptance & all that or whether it is a form of mental illness or a disease...

DB : Or at least a disturbance...

K: Yes...I don't think it is.

DB : Hmm...

K: And if you ask me what is it actually ? I can't tell...

Db : But do you feel it would be proper or likely that other people would have this...or that they will have to have it ?

K: People have come to me and said  we had exactly the same thing as yours... And I said, what do you mean? They said 'How kundalini is being awakened - we are doing this practice & that practice and I said : it is not the same...

DB : Well, let's take another case - like David Shainberg says that the word 'kundalini' is not important...

K: The word is unimportant.

DB : ...but that it is possible that some of his pacients in the process in which they are being healed, may be going through something a bit similar …

K: I wouldn't know ; say for instance a man came to see me in Gstaad who said he has had similar experiences. And I watched him very carefully and he was a rather coarse man, rather dull, and with a tremendous self-importance . I told him I'm very doubtful and when he left he said : Is that all ? Let me put it this way : I think this thing  can happen only when there is no 'self' in the matter...

DB : But you have no idea why there should be such acute pain ?

K: I couldn't tell...There are various theories about it, but I wouldn't indulge in those theories – I really don't know...

DB : Yes, I mean, the only thing I could think of is that there is some sort of intensity of energy that strains the nerves at a certain point...

K: That may be it !

DB : ...and if you are ready to stay with that pain then it would go on, but if you resist it...

K: I have never avoided it...

DB : I understand that, but the general condition is to avoid the pain and if you could have avoidedd it , then perhaps the whole perception would never happen...

K: That's right...I wouldn't do anything to hinder it...

DB : ...or invite it. But let's say it may turn out be an inevitable by-product of a very intense perception.

K: May be an inevitable by-product or... you want to know all that ?

DB : Since this is eventually intended for publication, it should be make it clear, so that people do not have questions in the back of their mind...

K : Or, this is what happens I wake up in the middle of the night very often, meditating- it's a peculiar form of meditation because it is totally uninvented - how shall I put it, un(pre)meditated – I couldn't have imagined that such a thing 'existed'...

DB : You say you wake up in that state of meditation - is that right ?

K: Yes...and that comes before or after this pain.

DB : Yes, and would you think that that state may be in your sleep as well  ?

K: Oh yes, most definitely !

DB : So this state is in your sleep and you wake up – I think you mentioned that somewhere...

K: Yesterday morning it happened ; I never talk about this ....

DB : And that state does not imply anything near a loss of consciousness or anything like that ?

K: A little bit.

DB : A little bit...the ordinary kind of consciousness is somewhat reduced, is that what you're saying ?

K: It is not 'unconscious'...

DB : No, but in some way it is not quite the ordinary state of consciousness ?

K: No, it is not...

DB ; Maybe in some way it is giving too much attention to the ordinary things of reality – that's what I mean...

K: I don't quite understand...

DB : Perhaps I'm putting it wrongly, but is it something that somebody could think of as a total loss of consciousness ?

K: I have lost consciousness – I was unconscious at least for three weeks...

DB : When was that ?

K: In Ojai, in the beginning...

DB : But after that, you didn't?

K: If given the right environment and no work, talks, and writing letters, perhaps it might happen again...

DB : Yes...in other words, being involved in the world of reality helps holding you in what we call 'consciousness', right ?

K : That's right !

DB : Therefore by not being totally involved in the world of reality , you might 'drift away' from it...

K: Drift away, right...I used to go for long walks in Ojai and I would would go on and when I deliberately made an effort to turn back and go home , I was completely lost...And it happen here several times...I go for a walk and I have to be very careful …

DB : So, you loose track with the ordinary reality...

K: I have to be very careful and say 'I must go back home'...

DB : You see, we have to make it very clear, because some people whose minds may be disturbed would do the same thing, but here there may be a difference...

K: It is quite different !

DB : It's quite different, because as I said before a disturbed mind may not produce anything interesting...But still the point I want to make is that when a person is seriously disturbed he might find the ordinary reality broken up...

K: Broken up...

DB ; While going into this might also 'break it up' in a very different way...

K: Quite...

DB : And you may have to face something that ordinary people might think of as a 'break down' of the mind, but it's really not...That was the point I was trying to get at, really...But it might be that people approaching this might have gotten a little bit frightened, thinking that their mind is breaking down , you see ?

K: I have no fear !

DB : No, but it could very readily induce fear...

K: ...after all these years I'm pretty sane, physically normal, I've got plenty of energy & so on... I think it is something out of the order of being 'abnormal'...

DB : Yes, but I think that when we were discusing 'reality' we said that our consciousness of reality is essentially based on thought and if we 'stir it up' we're bound to have that sort of thing, even if it's just stirred up violently psychologically by a violent reaction, but it may be necessary to 'stir it up' in an orderly way.

K: Yes …

DB : Now, before we get outside of our present 'motor consciousness'...

K: You see, also - if I allow myself, I can read people's thoughts -which I don't like to do because it's like reading a private letter - and I can very easily become 'clairvoyant' and I've done a great deal of healing, so it's all involved in all that - which is not 'abnormal' state.

DB : I don't want to say it's something abnormal, but it's not an ordinary state people are used to. But it's not 'ordinary' It may be neither 'normal' or 'abnormal'

K: Right, if we accept the word 'ordinary'...

DB : In the sense of the everyday consciousness – something people are used to...

K: But also I don't like to say it is 'abnormal'

DB : No, it might be that anybody who got free of conditioning might get into that area ...

K: Might be, that's right.

DB : Let's come back then to this question of suffering. I wanted to suggest what do we mean by suffering

K: You see, sir, I won't call it 'suffering'...

DB : No, but that's just the point that I wanted to might here. You see, there is a total intensity of a pervasing pain that penetrates the consciousness and 'stills' it and I ask what is the relationship of this physical suffering to passion ? If we stay with still this energy and passion then this may lead to the 'emptiness'. Now, I have one more question : let's say that there is an intense pain which fills consciousness. Now that may come for someone who is suffering, because he sees that his world is broken up. Would you say that the pain which comes with seeing the world has no meaning can be in the beginning of the perception of truth  and this perception of 'truth' acts as pain ? I mean, you suggested this thing by saying you 'are' the world , I mean the perception of truth may be something painful in certain cases...And otherwise I would like to know why this 'total' suffering takes place, you see ?

K: Wait a minute, sir. There is a physical pain, that is, I can get hurt in an accident -physical pain...

DB : Also, there might be a very intense physical pain under some conditions...

K: ...which are not the result of an accident, not due to a physical incident or...

DB : Let's say we come to the point when somebody who was close to you dies. And the person seeing this might feel some intense pain, right ?

K: That's a different pain.

DB : What kind is that ?

K: Suppose my brother dies ; that's quite a different kind of 'psychological' suffering. Then this pain which happens...

DB : I understand that, but what I was suggested when this pain happens, it fills your consciousness, and insofar as you don't avoid it...

K: I don't avoid it, I don't invite it...

DB : Yes, now insofar as you don't do anything about it, the mind is in order, because it has to stay with that tremendous pain - this is what is meant by 'not escaping' the fact ; is that right ?

K: Yes.

DB : So the mind which stays with that pain has a tremendous energy...

K: Yes, that's right !

DB : And therefore it may go very deep...

K: Yes.

DB : Whereas if it began to escape...

K: Of course, then it is gone.

DB : I think we understand this situation. Now let's consider the other one, when somebody dies. The way I look at it is that the same person perceives the fact of death and of the loss – and for the moment there is a very intense pain, right ?

K: Yes.

DB : In general he doesn't have to stay with that pain, but this first pain we can call it the action of truth, you see  ?

K: Aha !

DB : And an that, there is some similarity...

K: Yes, I understand ...Facing 'death' without escape and therefore remaining with that total suffering brings a totally different kind of energy which is 'passion'...

DB : Yeah...

K: That I understand. About this uninvited pain in the head, I really can't tell...I didn't go into it, then we'd go into guesswork...

DB : I understand that. But the thing that really interests me is : why there is such a total involvement of the consciousness ? You see, with suffering people are 'totally involved', much more than with pleasure or...

K: Yes, much more ! And when that happens, they 'escape'...

DB : Yes. But I wanted to ask the first question : why it is so total ?

K: Ah, that I think is because it 'paralyses' your whole nervous system...

DB : Yes, but why does it do that ?

K: Ah, 'why' it does ? I think I know : it is like receiving a great shock...

DB : Yes, but the shock has to do with something of a total significance to you...

K: Yes, it is of a total significance ; you loose somebody whom you love, you loose somebody on whom you depended, the whole involvement with that person...

DB : Yes, so you have an intense shock. Could we compare this intense shock with this intense pain ?

K: I don't think so....definitely the two are totally different.

DB : Alright, so it's good to clear that up....But anyway in the case of ordinary suffering there is this intense shock and the person begins to 'escape' by thinking of more pleasant ideas so he has to keep on 'running away'. Now, if he doesn't run away, then this will give him energy...

K: Yes.

DB : But still, there seems to be some similarity : this pain is also giving him energy ; or do you think otherwise ?

K: This pain, if you don't escape from it, gives you great energy...

DB : Which pain ?.

K: Of losing... of the death of someone. There is compassion & all the rest of it. I understand that ; now you're talking about the other that gives you great energy. It only happens when you have physical energy...

DB : What is it ? I didn't understand...

K: When the body is rested it has its own energy, its own vitality, its own health, then only it happens....

DB : Hmm...

K: And in that 'happening' it's not a further energy.

DB : I see, it's part of the same energy...

K: Yes.

DB : So we can't regard that as a form of suffering...

K: That's right, it's certainly not 'suffering' .

DB : Alright, so anyway, if anything it might be a by-product of that intense energy you suggested. But now let's go into this question of suffering ; you said that when your brother died you had intense suffering.

K: That's right, that was about fifty years ago when he died - the man who was in the cabin with me when the telegram came – Dr Besant told him to remain with me, and not leave me - so he described to me what happened – otherwise I don't remember. But he did say one thing : that when it happened, at the end of it, he said he never asked any help from anybody...He just remained with death, with that pain or suffering, with that total 'fact'. And I think that's probably one of the things that played probably an important part. So I think that 'suffering' which the human beings generally go through – when they are faced with that total fact, they seems to be incapable to remain with it – they escape, they avoid it, they do all sort of things

DB : Yes, and that's really part of a deep conditioning …

K: Yes, that's a part of a deep conditioning.

DB : Now that brings us to this point that we have to be very clear about this depth of conditioning, because you said that for various reasons you said you were not deeply conditioned

K: No.

DB : And we said this deep conditioning might be the result of self-deception, of running away from sorrow which is also a form of self- deception. Now the question is that you had some conditioning, including the conditioning including this 'sorrow' at the death of your brother, right ?

K: Yes, surely.

DB : But you say that was not 'deeper'?

K: You see, if I am very fond of you, that's not conditioning...

DB : No, but I meant that the 'feeling' sorrow which comes...

K: Wait a minute, sir : if I'm very fond of you – in which there is no form of dependency or attachment – that's not conditioning - when that 'physical' entity ends, there is a shock...

DB : Yes...but why is there a shock ? Let's get it very clear.

K: Because he was part of me, part of my existence...

DB : Alright...

K: That is not 'conditioning' ...And when that ends there is a tremendous feeling of ...not loss, but a sense of total aloneness - let me put it that way, of total isolation – which is not conditioning.

DB : Hmm...So, if there is any sorrow after that...

K: Ah, that's it !

DB : Then that would be a conditioning  ?

K: That's it ; a rememberance & the whole bussiness.

DB : Yes, and would you say there was absolutely none ?

K: No, I would not say absolutely, because when I 'came back' I felt that he wasn't there but very quickly the whole thing was over.

DB : So, let's say there was some 'conditioning' but...

K: ...not deep.

DB : But ordinarily it is so deep that the person 'escapes' (facing ) it for years...

K: Yes, because when that happens you could have become very bitter, hmm ? You could have become 'accepting' reincarnation, or accepting all kinds of things... But he didn't become any of those things ; he didn't accept anything...

DB : Hmm...

K: On the contrary he didn't accept the whole system of their belief.

DB : Yes ; so now we have this boy or this young man who was not deeply conditioned – and you said before that all the explanations about it are inadequate...

K: I don't think they are adequate.

DB : ...and that fundamentally it's a 'mystery' - you said it might be a hidden destiny that allowed this boy not to be conditioned …

K: Yes.

DB : Which would be the beginning of...

K: Sir, like Mozart, Bethoven or Einstein...

DB : Yes...

K: And it was 'there', you know... ? Or it might be yourself...

DB : Yes...So, let's clear one more point then : just for the sake of the record, I think you once said that all the series of the Masters you didn't take it like some kind of fairy tale, but that it could have some core of mystery...

K: Sir, I think there is a 'simple' explanation : he was a young boy rather vague, moronic, uncertain not totally ' all there' – he was told so he repeated it !

DB : Yes, like a child being told a fairy story...

K: Yes.

DB ; But sometimes even in a 'fairy story' there is some part of the story which is right - like the 'morale', right ?

K: (laughing) Yes ! I think- to go in the question of Masters, you know the whole theosophical idea...

DB : Yes...

K: Not really 'theosophical' – it is really a westernised Hindu, Tibetan tradition. They made it so 'materialistic' : they lived in such & such a house, you know...all that kind of idiotic … I think there is something like – I've never talked about it...may we go into it ?

DB : Oh, yes...

K: Would you accept that there is an 'evil' (in quotes) that exists in the air, in the atmosphere... ?

DB : Alright, I understand that, if you say it exists in the environment, in society...

K: That's why I'm very careful... Alright, let's put it this way : this constant killing, this constant violence, the brutality is part of our environment...

DB ; Well, that's a view you could tke – I mean, it's not commonly accepted, but one might say that, because of the subtle properties of matter, unknow to us...

K: Yes, put it that way... 

DB ; ...this could be somewhat 'recorded' in the environment...

K: Yes, recorded in the environment, as 'goodness' can be recorded in the environment...

DB : Yes, but woud you say that's more than a speculation ?

K: Yes, I think it's more than a speculation...

DB : Why do you think this ?

K: I don't know if you have noticed, if you're going into an ancient temple – I have been into several of them- I've tested this out : you go there during the day there are pilgrims, the worship & all the noise, garland, incense cockroaches & all that, there's a atmosphere ; and if you go there when there is nobody there is a totally different atmosphere, a sense of 'danger', a sense of -I don't know if we could call it 'evil' -I'll put it in quotes - a sense of 'threat' …

DB : Hmm...

K: This has happened very often to me when I go into woods by myself...

DB : Going into woods... ? Why should woods have that sense ? Is it because what people have done ( to nature ) ?

K: It my be ; there is that feeling of 'We don't want you here !'

DB : Hmm...

K: And after a few days of going there that feeling is dissipating. It may be some superstition, but I've tested this out very often... Now, there is that 'evil' in the air, in the atmosphere …

DB : Yes...People wrote of this metaphorically in literature as a 'sense of darkness' foreboding the atmosphere...

K: Yes, yes ! Foreboding...

DB : But usually we take it as that's the way it struck him …

K: Now, if that thing is constantly added to, it becomes something 'real' !

DB : Hmm...That's providing that there is in matter some way of recording...

K: Yes.

DB : Would you say also that maybe what we call 'spirit phenomena' – somebody who lived in a house for a long time , his would be recorded in the house  and then somebody else would pick them out ?

K: Yes. So there must be 'in this house' – the recording of violence, brutality & selfishness, and in another 'house' the recording of Goodness... hmm ? And the people who come describe both things 'physically' !

DB : I mean, these are part of our 'physical' environment, right ?

K: Yes, and they reduce it to all kinds of things...

DB : And how is that related to the Masters ?

K: That's what I'm saying : they reduced them to that... Goodness was represented by the Masters.

DB : I see...And 'evil' ?

K: And 'evil' by all those who are basically selfish...You must have come across in an Indian village – in the old days I've seen it when I was there- they take clay, mold it in the shape of man, and they put pins into it  and then affect that human being ; you must have heard of that...

DB : Yes, I have heard of that...

K: Like the voo-doo - there are all kinds of it - this is one of the superstitions- it may be real or not real...

DB : Yes, but I think that part of the story of the Masters is that at some stage, some person comes who is going to be the World Teacher, right ? And I wonder if you couldn't say that in the whole story of the Masters there was a great deal which is fanciful, and possibly some core which is right, but became very distorted over the years ?

K: I agree...

DB : And possibly it gets more distorted with time, and people change it and eventually it comes out very confused, but the core, which might be right – we have discussed this in Saanen- is that somebody appears which is not pre-conditioned for reasons which are difficult to probe and which becomes the nucleus or the ore of a world transformation...

K: Of course...That is the Indian tradition : that there is a manifestation of that Goodness & all that, which happens very rarely.

DB : What do you feel about that tradition ?

K: What do I feel about that tradition... ? I don't know what that tradition implies but I feel there is such a thing happening...

DB : So that may come either from the Masters or from that (gathering of ) Goodness by good acts of the past ?

K: No, no...

DB : But it may come from some source that is totally unknowable... ?

K: Unknown– I think so, that's what I feel...

DB : That is beyond what we can fathom...

K: You see, because I tried to go into it myself, by talking with you or with others, especially in India where I go for about fifty or sixty years - I can't get to the root of it...

DB : Hmm...

K: ...so I don't even try to penetrate it.

DB : I think that the only thing I tried to do here is to clear up some impressions that people have about it. And the other point is  : let us say that when this comes to one individual who is not deeply conditioned for reasons which we cannot probe and he could communicate to others the truth …

K: The truth, right...

DB : This truth operates and now...the point is your analogy with the discovery of America – it is not as easy as one can take it...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : Now, let's go into it more carefully, because one can get the impression that there's nothing much left to do ...

K: (laughing ) You know, you can't run analogies to death !

DB : No, but I mean, you said it in one of the discussions here...But the point is : is there something creative in that for each individual to discover ?

K: You see, when you use the word 'each individual' or person...

DB : Alright, so in other words we put the question wrongly when we say ' one individual' to whom it happened, so then it may happen to another...

K: Yes, that's wrong...

DB : Well, as it is not correct...Now, let's try to see if we can put it another way : truth does not belong to an individual, right ?

K: Ah, it does not !

DB : But in a communication that may be acting ; is that right ?

K: Yes, yes...If you have 'seen' it, you can communicate it to me verbally or non-verbally... But I have to work at it, I can't say ' I've got it !' …

DB : Yes, that's what you have to get hold, because the second person may think that there are two people : one who has seen the truth and who may communicate it, so the other person has got to 'listen' to the very end, you see ?

K: Yes, quite...

DB : So then he has to work it out...

K: He's got to live it !

DB : Live it, right...

K: Otherwise it's 'just once'...

DB : Right...so he's got to perceive in his own life all that is implied, right ?

K: Yes sir, that's right.

DB : Now, you see, I'm trying to ask another question  David Shainberg raised...

K: Just a minute, before we go to Shainberg...You perceive and I don't ; so, I have to listen to you...

DB : Yes...

K: ...read or listen, it doesn't matter – and when I listen to you I have the feeling that this is the absolute truth, is something 'real' – more than 'real' – it is so clear, obvious and so penetrating – I feel that. But then, what happens generally is that I want to 'work that out' in my life...

DB : Yes...

K: What I've heard you say, I want to 'work it out'...

DB : Yes... ?

K: ...and I think that's wrong : I hear what you're saying and I see that what you say is 'true' and I have to work it out in my life, not...

DB : Yes, that's right...But it seems like a verbal contradiction because you said before that one has to work at it...

K: I know... I hear you and what you say is truth ; but it becomes truth to me only when I have 'washed away' all my selfishness, when I put that away. It is not that I accept or that 'I become' your truth...

DB : Yes...so let's get it right : my own 'self-centred' structure has to wash away...

K: That's right !

DB : So, in some way the 'truth' won't do that, won't it ? You see, ''what do I have to do ?'' -that is the question...

K: A–ha...I understand...Oh yes, I see what you mean : I 'hear' you and that truth is so penetrating and as I'm a 'serious' man, that truth washes away all my selfishness...That's one point.

DB : Yes...

K: I hear you and I see what you're saying is 'true'...but I am still selfish, hmm ? Will the hearing of you, seeing the truth of what you, said help me to wask away my selfishness ? Or does truth reveal my 'selfishness' ?

DB : Right...and if it reveals my selfishness, then what ?

K: Then, if I stay with that, then it's washed away, right ?

DB : Yes, so then all that each person has to 'stay with it' ?

K: Stay with – not with the word , not with the (verbal) description, not with the person, but stay with that penetrating truth.

DB : So then it's the same as remaining with sorrow ?

K: Exactly, that's what I said, it's the same thing !

DB : But then we come to the next question : why he doesn't, you see ?

K: Ah, that's very simple why he doesn't : it's too much ! The world is too much for him ; his wife nags him, he's got his appetites...you follow ?

DB : Hmm...

K: He sees it for the moment and can't remain with it !

DB : Yes, but if there are these two people : one sees the truth and the other is 'listening' and you say the responsability of the person who listens is to stay with this, then the person who sees the truth, it is his responsability to communicate it inspite of the 'resistance' …

K: Of course, yes !

DB...so that he can't accept that the other person 'runs away' from it ….

K: ( laughing) Right...If one stays with suffering as we talked , this brings a certain passion if one stays with the perception of truth...

DB : But even staying with that suffering it's the same because the truth shows that the entire structure is 'false'...

K: Ah... ! If truth shows me that the entire structure is false, does it bring suffering ?

DB : Not in the beginning, but if I 'escape' …

K: If I see completely that what you say is true, I have no suffering : it is so !

DB : I understand that, but let's try to develop it in another step : it may happen that I see it as something quite far and there is a movement of 'escape' right ?

K: Yes, there is a movement of escape...

DB : Now that movement will bring about some suffering …

K: Of course...

DB ; ...and that 'movement' will be like a thorn...

K: Truth will be like a poison ; like a thorn, yes...

DB : In combination with the 'escape' some suffering comes about, right ?

K: That's right. I see what you have said is true, but my selfishness is much too vibrant, much too alive...and that perception is imbedded in my consciousness...

DB : Yes...

K: And that's 'poking a pin' all the time...

B; Yes and the other consciousness is resisting and that produces suffering …

K: Yes.

DB : So if that is the case, to stay with that suffering is what is needed, right ?

K: Of course !

DB :... but you see, our whole tradition is that we should not stay with suffering, but we should find a way out of it...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : ...and seek 'happiness'. Shainberg's question also emphasised the importance of suffering but with some important differences ; I don't quite understand the Christian doctrine regarding suffering - it seems they regard it as as necessary too, but not exactly as...

K: What exactly is the Christian view of suffering  ?

DB : Well, the only thing I could understand is that Jesus Christ saved mankind through his suffering...

K: How can somebody 'save me' from my suffering ?

DB : Let me put it the way : I think it means  He was free of suffering, & faced all this pain without running away from it and in a certain way – some people say ''you must live in the imitation of Christ''- but I've talked to many people who said that Christ has suffered in order to save them...

K: Save them from what ?

DB : I don't know...to save them from sin, or from whatever it is, from the state of man which we were discussing – you know, from this wrong state of evil...

K: Which is, you see the truth and you 'are' that ; you convey it to me, and if I can remain with that without any movement...

DB ; Yes, I see it is very different from the Christian doctrine.

K: Yes, so do I...

DB : There are some superficial similarities as both are emphasisising the importance of suffering but some...

K: Hasn't the Christian idea of 'sin' got into it ?

DB : Well, it's not clear what is meant by 'sin' in the Christian doctrine – they may say that sin is the cause of this suffering...

K: Yes...

DB...but it's not clear what they exactly mean by 'sin' – they may say probably that the original sin was Adam's 'eating the apple' ...

K: ...of knowledge ? So, first you invent 'sin' and then you say 'someone must free you from that sin'...

DB : Well, you could also say that the 'sin' was going away from the correct action and therefore man suffers and finding no way out of that suffering, Christ came to 'redeem' him. And only when Christ came there was a 'way out' of suffering ; that's what I understand by what's said- I can't say that I understand it deeply but I think one can see there are some important points of difference and they are very basic because what you're saying implies 'staying with suffering'...

K: Yes, that's it !

DB : But you see, the similarity I was trying to get at is : you are saying that you are not in a special role because you're a special individual- but you came first to communicate a few points, and one of the points you communicate is 'staying with suffering'. Now, they say that Christ also came at a certain point in time and he was able to communicate in his nature. Now, this is the similarity, but the difference is that we don't know in fact what he was trying to communicate or even whether he actually lived, but at least from what's written -which may have been different- it was not made very clear the need or the importance of 'staying with the suffering' ; while the idea that got across is that 'by going through suffering' you improve...

K: (laughing) ... Right...that you 'improve' !

DB : There may be some of the early people saw this but it was lost...I don't know... Anyway, I think that makes a few points clear ; it is something for each people to do, it is not just a question of 'sitting and listening' what you're being told...

K; No, but would you say that if I listen to you as a human being listening to another human being who has seen truth, if I listen so completely, the 'miracle' takes place in me...

DB : Yes, that's the point : if the listening were total, there's no need for anything ; it would be exactly like for the first person : it would be a miracle like for the first one  - it 'happens'...

K: That's right !

DB : It's part of the same thing, because if it didn't happen for what the first one did, it wouldn't happen for the second one...Now, on the other hand, because there is 'resistance' and selfishness & so on, then comes the suffering and then comes the need to 'stay with it', do you see ?

K: Yes, quite, quite...The need to stay with it or 'escape' from it and keep on with this endless suffering ...Would the Christian doctrine say this endless suffering is put an end by believing in Christ as the Son of God who 'is' truth ?

DB : Well, I can't speak for the Christian doctrine, but my impression is that they say that if you believe in Christ, you will be 'saved' – which means more of less that. Now, on the other hand I've talked with some people who say well, that is only the 'official' doctrine, and there are other Christian saints & mystics who didn't think that the 'belief in Christ' was the important point...

K: No, no !

DB : Therefore you can't actually define this thing very well - there are different versions of it...

K: Which is, sir, if one lived in some village, far away from all the Christian bussiness, he would have the same problem - must he believe … ?

DB ; Yeah...but the only point about Christ is to say that Christ communicated the truth – some people look at it that way – for all we know...

K: Yes, for all we know, quite...

DB : ...and therefore , perhaps, that would have been alright, you see ?

K: If the priest didn't come into it, quite...

DB : The only weak point is that all the information we have about Christ comes from other people, over the ages and we don't know how accurate it is ; and therefore that makes the whole thing a little doubtful... I have another point then : we don't think that this - whatever it is that we are talking about - is an individual creative act … ?

K: No, no, no.. !

DB : And this is important …

K: Absolutely. It is totally impersonal, totally non-national, it has nothing to do with the human being...

DB : But it does put us in this position : the person who 'sees' it and the other who doesn't...Now we have the person who doesn't 'see' , but has the feeling that there is some truth in it , and he can't begin with 'faith' but with truth ; he must see it for himself...Let's say the person who doesn't see has to 'listen' and live the whole thing – to listen completely - he should not begin with belief or faith ...

K: Oh, that destroys it...

DB : In other words, he can say : here's something that looks very interesting and may be the truth, it sounds right...

K: ...and 'let me listen'...

DB :.. and see if it's the truth- and if it's not the truth, I must drop it... and if it is the truth, then I must stay with it, is that right ?

K: Of course.

DB : So it is not a question of faith or belief at all...

K: Yes sir, that's right …

DB : I think this more or less clears the subject, as far as I can remember. Now, I have another point : we once discussed 'intelligence' and obviously it is in some connexion with truth and with wisdom...I think that somebody told me once that ''wisdom is the daughter of truth and intelligence is the daughter of wisdom''...

K; Yes, yes...

DB : So it might be good if we could discuss that a while...

K: What time is it ?

DB : A quarter to five – perhaps we might discuss this another time ?

K: Yes, let's do that next saturday...

DB : Right...

K: You see, sir, the other day I've received a letter from a man who's been practising 'transcendental meditation' ; he came to the talk and he wrote that thing  : ''You know nothing of transcendental meditation - you deny it, but I have experienced what it does''...And that' s the case with what's happening all over the world- not only TM, but various forms of going out of the body – that is, you practice certain states, till you can 'slip out' of the body and carry messages 'astrally' from one person to another, & all that kind of stuff...You see, what we are trying to say is : truth is not an 'experience' …

DB : Yes, it is 'that which is'...

K; You see, that I think is really quite important in this matter...

DB : I think it is very clear that truth is not an 'experience' – we should discuss some time what is an 'experience'- I don't know if we have time now- truth is an 'action' – an action which in some sense is more real than reality...

K: Yes... ! I think someone has said 'Anybody who is not with us is a reactionary'. I feel that anybody who is not with truth, is a reactionary (explosive laughter)

DB : I mean, truth is something which does not belong to an individual – it is not 'particular' – and it acts - you see, we don't have such a good word for it  but I would like to say it is 'global' and universal...

K: Yes, universal.

DB : ...and of the 'essence' - I think you put it somewhere that ''perception is the essence of the world'' …

K: Yes, that 's right, sir...

DB : And it's both perception and action – in a way it is both that which perceives and that which is perceived... I think we should discuss truth & wisdom- I think that for myself wisdom is quite important …

K: Very important, quite. What does 'wisdom' mean ?

DB : I think the main meaning in the dictionary is ''the capacity for sound judgement''... and I would add to that 'clear perception' and the third point I would add is the 'ability of thought to know its own nature, and to take it into account'... In other words, that the 'judgement' – which is thinking- is 'sound ' only when the judgement has found its own...

K: ...limitation, quite, quite...

DB : You see, we need some ( sound) 'judgement' in every phase of life, but within that limited area where judgement applies.

K: Did I ever told you about a man I met once met in India – he was a judge – and one morning he woke up and said '' I'm passing jugement on people - sending them to jail, punishing them for doing this or that thing- but I really don't know what truth is...Otherwise, if I don't know what truth is, how can I judge ?'' So he called his family and said : I'm finished with all this, I'm going into the woods, disappear and find out what truth is...And he'd been away for twenty five years – this is a fact, it all happened to him – and somebody brought him to a talk about meditation- and next morning he came to see me & said 'You're perfectly right, I have been for twenty five years mesmerising myself into a state, thinking that it will reveal truth''... You know, for a man to acknowledge after twenty five years that he was deceiving himself …

DB : Yes...

K: ...and trefore he said ''I must wipe away from my mind every idea of what truth is''... You follow ?

DB : Hmm...

K: And I have never seen him again... Finished, right?

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 15 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Dec 2019 #41
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

11-th K-DB Dialogue on Truth & Reality

K: What shall we talk about ?

DB : Last time, at the end, I suggested to discuss these three: truth, wisdom & intelligence and possibly their relation to 'experience'...

K: That's right... Did you ever hear of Kayserling ?

DB : Is it an economist or... ?

K: No, no, no...He was a philosopher from Germany. He started a 'school of wisdom'...

DB : Oh...

K: In Darmstadt or some place like that...And also in India there was a 'school of wisdom' and they asked me once to talk there and I said I wouldn't go because you can't teach wisdom...there 'wisdom' was to study lots of books...

DB : Well, that's one of the ideas- to accumulate the ''wisdom of the ages''...

K: That's it. Where does that word come from ?

DB : Well, I looked in the dictionary and 'wisdom' has the same root as 'wit', and has the same root as 'seeing' – like the latin 'vide'...

K: Ah...but has it any root with 'veda', the sanscrit word ?

DB : Yes, and 'wit' has the same root word...

K: 'Wit'...oh yes...

DB : ...witness probably, and...'wisdom'. There are some others but I forgot them...

K: First of all, how does one approach it ? Can 'wisdom' be learned ?

DB : Well, it is a difficult question- it can't be learned in the usual way, but the question is : is there any way of 'imparting' wisdom, or of conveying it ? But one of the definitions that's stuck into my mind was 'the capacity for sound judgement' …

K: Oh... capacity for 'sound judgement'... ?

DB : That's one of the phases of it, in this area where thought can properly function and thought be capable of 'sound judgements'...But I made a mistake regarding the roots of the word wisdom : it comes from the aryan word 'wid' meaning to see, or to know...

K: Ahh... ! Arya...

DB : The same root as 'vide' in latin , or 'idea' in greek...and for 'wisdom' the dictionary says 'the quality of being wise' – that's not of much help... ( laughter), sound judgement, sagacity- and then the second meaning, archaic, is learning knowledge & science, the wisdom of the ancient – you see, there is the meaning of accumulating wisdom, but that's not what we mean …

K: Is it a confusion between knowledge and wisdom ?

DB : Well, there has been such a confusion during the ages, but clearly from the meaning of the word it means not so much knowledge, but the act of seeing or knowing...

K: That's the 'act of seeing'...

DB : The 'act of seeing' – that's the basic root, but it also came to me as the capacity to make sound judgement, which depends on perception...

K: Yes...

DB : In other words, a judgement which is not made from thought...

K: ...but from accumulated knowledge ?

DB : No, but from perception ; You see... ?

K: A-ha !

DB : In other words a 'sound judgement' is the expression in thought of a perception...

K: Yes...

DB : 'Judgement' means originally 'to divide' – the german word ' urtail' originally means division – you make a distinction or discrimination – so a 'sound judgement' is a perception, not according to knowledge or tradition...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : You see, the traditional judgement is to divide between 'good' and 'evil', 'right' and 'wrong', 'true' and 'false', or it means simply to divide, in a 'technical' way, between cause and effect, between relationship and non-relationship ; you see, for example you made a division saying that 'truth and reality are not related' – which is a judgement...

K: Ah, I see...

DB : The form of thought is a judgement, but if that's just based on knowledge you have no meaning...

K: Quite, quite...

DB...but if that 'judgement' expresses or communicates the perception...

K: And also 'discerning' – to discern between 'essential' knowledge, and 'non-essential', 'truth' and 'false' and so on...

DB : That's right, that's a 'perception'...

K: Is perception 'dualistic' ?

DB : No, but the way of expressing it is 'dualistic'.

K: Ah, that's it !

DB : You see, this is a point which is hard to explain : our language inevitably divides...

K: Language divides, yes...

DB : And it wants to express something which is whole, the 'judgement' is dividing, but it is nevertheless one. This is the way I had it in mind : our thought has to give an intelligible account of the perception at work...

K: ...of perception, quite...

DB : And part of the 'intelligible account' is in the form of judgements . But as you were saying, ''the description is not the described'', the account is not what is accounted for...

K: Right...So, is wisdom the perception that discernment (judgement) exists when there is duality ? Would that be wisdom ?

DB : Yes, but why is there 'duality', you see ?

K: When there is discernment.

DB : Yes but there is a certain area where 'discernment' is called for, which is, in that area where thought belongs...

K: Yes, in the area where thought belongs...and to see where thought belongs is 'wisdom'.

DB : Yes...that's the key to wisdom, really...

K: Yes !

DB : ...if thought can see, or it is aware of where it belongs, then it will make 'sound judgements'...

K: Yes, 'sound judgements', but that's not wisdom. If thought knows its place and functions within its own limits, then that is the operation of thought...

DB : Yes, that's not wisdom, but we have to make it clear, because that is generally one of the signs of wisdom...You see, it's not necessarily the essence of wisdom, because that may be the outward form of an act of a man who is wise, hm ?

K: Quite...So would you say that 'wisdom' is the perception of the limitation of thought and its operation in that limited area ?

DB : Yes, that's the essence of wisdom – to perceive the limitation of thought - therefore the act of such a man will take the form of a 'sound judgement' , you see ?

K: A-ha ! Quite, quite... You see, about 'discernmnt' – you must have heard of Shankara, the Indian philosopher ; I believe he lays a tremendous emphasis on this 'capacity to discern'...

DB : Yes, the dictionary says this is the capacity to make a jugement 'sound'...

K: It can be a very logical, sane, clear thinking that can make a sound judgement...

DB : Yes, but if thought goes outside of its proper area, you won't have that...

K: No, of course not, but very few realise the limitation of thought...

DB : Yes, that's the point, but if you merely put it in outward terms, it's misleading. You see, the 'sound judgement' is merely the outward manifestation of wisdom, and if you emphasise that then it's already wrong...

K: That's right, quite...

DB : Because then you're treating it as it were the essence...

K: Quite...

DB : ...but the essence is the perception which allows one to see that thought is limited, and also the readiness of thought to 'move' with that perception – the way I put it is : 'to give a correct account of its limits' and to take that account into account in 'moving'. This is something I was observing : let's say there is a perception, then thought may give an account of that perception, but that is not the perception...

K: No...

DB : But still thought has to give the account...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : In some sense you can compare thought to the 'witness' of what is observed ; And if the 'witness' gives a correct account of what is observed, that's good, but if he puts it in terms of 'its own thought' as part of the account, then it's wrong, you see ? The difficulty is that this 'witness' is always putting forth its own conclusions, its own ideas as if they were actual perceptions...

K: It is distorting...

DB : ...distorting, because it is putting them not by saying 'this is my conclusion' but by saying ; 'this is what I see'...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : Now, that's not 'wisdom', you see ?

K: And what's the difference then between 'wisdom' and 'intelligence' ?

DB : That's what we wanted to come to, you see, these are very different words and one wonders if there is not some different shade of meaning between these terms. You see, there are three words- 'wisdom', 'intelligence' and 'truth'... Now, we have discussed 'intelligence' once before and at that time I think we have treated it as containing 'wisdom' and 'truth' – you see, using one word to cover the whole...

K: ...and now we have separated it – truth, wisdom & intelligence...

DB ; Yeah...Now, you see, truth is first, and from 'truth' may flow 'wisdom' and from wisdom 'intelligence' – is that it ?

K: Sir, would a man who perceives truth be foolish ?

DB : No... you see , 'foolishness' is the opposite of 'wisdom', but you see, there would be no point that truth would not lead a man into 'following', right ?

K: No. If one sees what is true, he acts according to that...

DB ; Yes...

K: And that action, would it be a wise action ?

DB : It would inevitably be a wise action...

K: Yes, and therefore not foolish, and therefore an 'intelligent' action...

DB : Yes. But we want to see why you use two words 'wise' & 'intelligence' – either that one of the words is 'superfluous', or there is a different 'shade of meaning' we have to explore, right?

K: Quite, quite...

DB : Now we say there is a difference between 'truth' and 'wisdom' : we said truth is 'that which is', right ?

K: Yes...

DB :...now 'wisdom' seems something more limited – as being primarily the perception of the limitations of thought, right ?

K: Yes...

DB : ...so that thought is not doing anything 'foolish' - I mean, if thought doesn't know its limitation, then it does all sorts of foolish things, right ? So the perception of 'that which is' seems to me, goes far beyond the perception of the limits of thought...

K: Why have we then divided 'truth', 'wisdom' and 'intelligence' ?

DB : Well, we don't know ; it may be part of tradition, of our culture, but there may be some reason behind that...I think we have to look at it...

K: Look at it, quite...

DB : Now, it seems to me that 'wisdom' has emphasised the true perception of of the limits of thought. Now what is 'intelligence' ?

K: The dictionary meaning of the word - according to the dictionary- is ' to read between' …

DB : But it also has many other meanings – 'legere' means also to pay attention, it could be the same as 'reading' , it also means to 'gather' or to 'collect' and also it means 'to choose', you see ?

K: A-ha ! You see, we come back to  : is 'intelligence'  the capacity to choose?

DB : Now, the point is to see what is this 'capacity to choose' – unless somebody would say, it's either arbitrary or he might choose intelligently...

K: But 'choice' ...?

DB : Choice itself, you see, in practical things you would choose one thing over another with the help of intelligence ; now, what kind of choice do you have in mind ?

K: Is there in 'perception' a choice ?

DB : Oh... that's the question – or in awareness or in attention  ?

K; In awareness, in perception, in attention, is there any choice ?

DB : You see, that's the same as to say there is no discrimination, right ? That is, you could not choose as long as there is no discrimination to choose from...I mean, if there is no 'discrimination' there is no place for 'choice' to operate, right ?

K: That's right, there's no choice...

DB : The other question is why this word 'legere' has such a wide range of meanings ? It seems to be some deep confusion when people confuse between 'attention' and 'choice'...In other words, the same word can mean 'to pay attention' and it can also mean 'choose' - I don't know how that came about ?

K: If there is 'attention', would there be 'choice' ?

DB ; No, there wouldn't be ; but many people may think that it would...in our tradition there may be a wide spread belief that attention would contain choice ?

K: I know... Attention, awareness, perception – in that there is no choice at all – you just 'perceive '! And 'act' accordingly !

DB ; I know, but if somebody thought that we actually perceive the discriminations, then you can think that awareness contains choice...you see, I'm trying to say : what mistake allowed people to come to this belief that there is 'choice' in awareness ?

K: Is it the outcome of the feeling, or the idea that because there is choice, there is freedom ?

DB : That's a part of it, perhaps , but say, the idea of choosing between 'good' and 'evil' is one of the favourite choices...

K: Yes, take choosing between good and evil...

DB : ...yes, but you wouldn't be able to choose between good & evil unless you could discriminate good & evil – right ? That is, you could probably be able to discriminate good and evil...

K: No, but to a man who 'perceives' , there is no choice...

DB : No choice, but he also 'discriminates' in that perception... ?

K: No ! And therefore he acts acording to that 'perception  …

DB ; Yes, but that 'perception' contains the 'whole' as I see it...and the implications of the necessary action are all undivided, right ?

K: Yes...

DB : And therefore it is not necessary to say 'this side is evil and this side is good', so I ( choose to) go to this side...

K: The 'good guys and the bad guys'...right !

DB : So, you see, there is some confusion in our tradition about the nature of perception...

K: Perception implies a choiceless action...

DB : Yes...

K: Not a 'discriminating' action or a 'choosing' action – just 'perception' !

DB : Yes, and also the description may make it look like a choice...

K: The description, yes...

DB : A person may see the whole of 'good and evil' and take the right action, but when describing it it took the 'good action' and the 'evil action' – and that's only a description, you see ?

K: Description...and the description is not the described and all the rest of it...

DB : So the point is that in the description we only use the 'dualistic' language in order to communicate something that is not dualistic...

K: So, let's begin ; to 'see' is to 'act', and in that action there is no choice...and that perception 'is' truth...

DB : The perception that (inwardly) there is no choice.

K: And that is the truth ; now in translating that into words, does it imply that it is dualistic ?

DB : No, it doesn't – the words are 'dualistic' in form, but the actuality is not dualistic. You see, the mere perception that 'that is true' – there is a dualism in the way you use the words, because it would imply that that is not false or wrong & so on...You see, I'm trying to say that there is some (cultural?) background in language which has 'dualism' built into it...

K: Of course...

DB : But nevertheless, knowing that this is the case, it is possible to communicate free of dualism  ?

K: Quite, quite...Can one communicate 'love' without the implication of jealousy, anger, hate ?

DB : Yes, as long as we realise that the words are only a description ; that it's part of the language that 'love' is not 'hate', but perhaps one can see that one has nothing to do with the other...

K: Is 'wisdom' the negation of its opposite ?

DB : The opposite of 'wisdom'  is 'folly', you see...

K: Folly...

DB : But you see, wisdom is of course the denial of folly, but that denial doesn't need opposition...

K: Quite...

DB : But in that 'denial' we have to be very careful, because to actually 'deny' means that the other is not there at all...

K: At all, quite...

DB : Not that it 'opposes' it.

K: Is 'intelligence' different from 'perception' ?

DB : Well, it can't be really different from perception...

K: Why has man divided truth, wisdom, intelligence, perception , 'good & evil' and all the rest of it ? Why ? How has this division come about ?

DB : Well, are we really clear that there is no use for this division at all ? You see, 'Intelligence' might have many different shades of meaning...

K Would a man who perceives truth have this division in himself ?

DB : There would be no point to it...

K: ...no point to it. So, who has divided it ?

DB : Well, it's clear that thought has divided it...Thought appears to divide – we have different words and in some sense that they mean something different...

K: Thought has divided it, or we have been educated to do it ?

DB : Yes, but through thought. Thought has been conditioned to divide -to use different words and to give different meanings & so on...and even to give 'intelligence' the meaning of some sort of 'skill in thought' …

K: ( laughing) 'Skill in tought'... ! Quite...

DB ; People have to talk about 'artificial intelligence'...you see, when they talk about computers that will be 'artificial intelligence'...I was talking to a man who works with computers and he finally saw that it would be 'artificial thought', not 'artificial intelligence' …

K: Right... Then what are we trying to do ? We are trying to find out what is the relationship between 'wisdom' and 'truth' , between intelligence and wisdom and all that...

DB : Now, if we could explore whether there is any meaning of intelligence that we haven't looked at ? Or do we say it's all contained in truth ?

K: Yes, I was just beginning to question that...

DB : What ?

K: Whether in the word 'truth', all these are not included... We said the other day that there is 'reality' and 'truth'. Reality is all that thought has created, all that which chooses, which discriminates and functions within that field...We said all that is 'reality'...

DB : I would try to put that it's not only what thought has done, but there is also an 'actuality' which thought can only describe ; you see, the tree can be described as part of a 'reality' where thought discriminates...

K: Yes...

DB : And the tree exists independently of thought, but thought 'knows' the tree and that form...

K: Yes, thought 'knows' the tree, but the tree is not thought...

DB : Yes, the tree it's not thought - it is an 'actuality'...but still, reality is not only what man has produced or what he 'knows', but all the 'unknown' reality which he could know – like what's going on on Mars, which still would be known to thought.

K: Yes, yes...

DB : So everything that could be known for thought, is 'reality'..

K: We went through all this...

DB : Yes, that may just cover everything.

K: Yes, that's right...Can a thoughtful man be a wise man ?

DB : What do you mean by 'thoughtful' ?

K: Thoughtful in the sense of (someone) who sees the world is degenerating, who sees that various form of 'revolution' are taking place, and through thought says : 'I must find an answer' and relies on thought to find that out...

DB : Now, you see, aside from all the criticism you can make about the lack of perception the major point here is that thought is moving outside its proper area...

K: But he says 'I only know thought and I know nothing else'...And since thought has created this awful confusion relies on thought to find an answer...

DB ; Yes, that's one of the points : that wisdom is to understand that thought cannot possibly find an anwer to that which itself produces – when thought produces contradictions it cannot find an answer...

K: So a 'thoughtful' man is not a wise man...

DB : Well, if he depends on thought, he is not wise.

K Of course ! A thoughtful man is not a wise man. Nor is he an 'intelligent' man...

DB : No...

K: We are condemning a 'thoughtful' man ( laughing) !

DB : Well, if that's what you mean by 'thoughtful', but very often 'thoughtful' also means 'wise'... The words can be used differently, you see ?

K: I know, but a 'thoughtful' man is not a wise man !

DB : Not in the sense in which we defined it...

K: Would you take a 'thoughtful' man - even if you wouldn't define it - as a wise man  ?

DB : Not if he depends on thought, you see ? But sometimes by the word 'thoughtful' you mean something different : the person who is not 'thoughtful' usualy is not observing his thought...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : You see, there is a great degree of ambiguity in the common language and words are used in different sense, but one can see that if a man depends exclusively on thought, then he cannot be 'wise'...

K: Let's limit it to that, yes...the man who depends entirely on thought is not a wise man...

DB : Yes...

K: Then, what is the 'wisdom' which is not a movement of thought ? Is it a living thing or is it an accumulated experience ?

DB ; Well, it's clear that it is a living thing, but since you brought in the word 'experience' we must discuss it, because that is another one of this ambiguous words...Now, the word 'experience' has many meanings, but one of the meanings is 'to put to the test' and another meaning is 'to go through it' . But it seems to me that there are two aspects of 'experience' : if you are working in a practical domain you need some experience to get the work done ; now we're saying that 'experience' is thought- basically- and there was one one interesting definition of 'experience', given by some philosopher - Immanuel Kant. He said that ''experience is a combination of sensation and thought'' – which seems good to me, and this 'thought' is of the basic category of 'discrimination' ; in other words, you not only have 'sensations' but there is an immediate thought about what is seen, in which there is a 'discrimination' or a 'categorising' -like 'cause and effect' , good and bad', 'pleasant & not pleasant' and therefore you could say that is experience. In some sense, experience is the contact with reality – I mean, proper experience in practical affairs – is what is generally meant by 'experience'.

K: Can you 'experience' truth ?

DB : No, but you can experience 'reality'...

K: Ah, quite, quite !

DB : That's what I wanted to say ; 'reality' is what can be experienced – and the 'sense of reality' is important in experience. You see, you have a sensation, or a contact with reality gives the feeling of 'reality' – this is real, I am real and all this thing is 'real'... Now, on the other hand, if you try to 'experience' truth or love or beauty, then it has no meaning ; so, the 'experience' goes wrong when thought tries to go out of its place...

K: Out of its limits...

DB : You see, you could say you 'experience' pain or pleasure, or experience desire - 'experiencing' desire would be a case of thought goes out of its limits , hmm ?

K: Quite... To 'see' the whole of that- the operation of thought, the limitation of thought -sensation and thought accummulating knowledge about the future & so on, and seeing the inter-relationship between intelligence, wisdom and truth – seeing all that would you call that 'wisdom' ?

DB : I don't know if you could call that 'wisdom' or you can call it 'truth', but to me the notion of 'intelligence' gets across something more detailed, in the sense of meeting the individual situation.In other words, we could say that 'truth' meeting the actual individual situation is intelligence- I don't know whether that makes sense... ?

K: Aha, aha...

DB : In other words, truth is universal or global and it is all-one, but it occured to me that when it meets the actual situation, we call that 'intelligence' . In other words, intelligence is what keeps everything in order...

K: ...in order, quite...

DB ; It's not really different from truth, but it is calling attention to a different action, to a different way of looking...

K; Seeing the whole is wisdom, is truth...

DB : Seeing the whole is truth...and I think that the action of the man who is seeing the whole, or of the 'wise' – as I'd like to put it- the very root of 'wise' is based on seeing – that's the original meaning in the dictionary : 'wise' means 'seeing'- the same root as 'vide' – and intelligence is also 'seeing' - I think it is merely giving different names to the actions of truth, emphasising what they are dealing with. Intelligence it seems to me is dealing with the actual case, from the 'seeing' and not from memory or from knowledge...

K: That's right...

K: People might think that 'wisdom' consists in accumulating a great deal of knowledge, and it gets so much knowledge that it could deal with every possible situation. But that's wrong...

K: The other day on TV Lord Clark was talking about Egypt and he shown pictures of Sacchara, Luxor & the Valley of the Kings – where civilisation began...

DB : Yes...as far as we know...

K: I know, this may be much older... Is civilisation the product of thought ?

DB : It seems to me that it is...

K: And then, culture is also part of thought...

DB : Yes, the root is 'to cultivate', 'to make something grow'...

K: So, our civilisation is based on thought...

DB ; Yes, that seems obvious...I mean, also Bronowski was making that very clear in the TV series ''The ascent of man''...

K: Oh...

DB : I mean, in saying that the 'ascent of man' is the ascent of his knowledge...

K: So, knowledge is in the field of reality...

DB : Yes...

K: Now you see, we're getting at it... And we are operating in it or not...

DB : Yes...in using experience to acquire knowledge..

K: Then has knowledge any relationship to truth ?.

DB : Now, at first sight it might have, but actually...

K: ...actually not.

DB : You see, to say that it has no relation is a very 'hard' thing to put it – this comes to a question we were considering some time ago, ''where did thought go wrong ?'' and we suggested thought did not know its limitation – when thought first appeared in man, it did not know it was limited, you see ? It tried to behave in the 'unlimited'...and before realising it was limited it had already created so much chaos...Now it's very hard for thought to discover that it's limited – not only because of all this chaos, but also because there is an inherent difficulty in language, in thought to express its limitation – there is a paradox there : if you are trying to say that 'thought is limited' – thought first of all establishes its limits – all limits come from thought : you see, the very word 'determined' has in it 'to terminate' , or to limit – so if we say 'thought itself is limited', that becomes difficult to say it's not paradoxical because thought not only makes limits but it also transcends every limit it makes..

K: Yes, yes ! It draws a line and goes beyond the line !

DB : That's right. It's the character of thought to set a limit an then to 'transcend' the limit. So, if one said 'I am limited' ; it will instantly try to transcend the limit ; then perhaps it hasn't done the right thing ! Therefore there is another way to put it : by sayng that the whole process of setting up the limits and then 'transcending' it – which is thought – doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on truth.

K: Obviously.

DB : It doesn't matter that it's limited or unlimited but thought has nothing to do with this...

K: Right ; thought has no relationship to truth.

DB : Yes, it has no relevance to truth, no bearing to truth or anything ; therefore it cannot even state that 'truth is unlimited' or anything like that...

K: No, no...

DB : And therefore when thought sees that, it's obvious that the right action for thought is to 'not attempt' any of those questions where it has no bearing, you see ?

K: Yes. You see, sir, I was looking at those TV pictures of Sacchara where they show those extraordinary ancient buildings -three thousand years old – it was (all) put together by thought...

DB : Yes...

K: Thought became an instrument of perception.

DB : Why do you say 'an instrument of perception' ?

K: I'm just enquiring... The architect who (conceived) them he had the 'imagination' to see what those buildings should look like ...

DB : Yes... that brings us back to what we discussed last week on 'imagination' - you said you don't 'imagine' anything...

K: Yes, I don't personally...

DB : Now let's take an architect – he has plans and he has to 'visualise' what this looks like – what would you say about that ? Suppose you want to make a building from your drawings, you'll have to 'visualise' ..

K: Yes. But I can't do it...I can only do it if I see an architect drawing a plan -then I can say 'this is not right' – but I can't draw it like this...I can only correct what is wrong///

DB : Why is that ?

K: I have no visual capacities to see something 'solid'.

DB : You mean, no imagination ?

K: No imagination...

DB : Is this any peculiarity of yourself ?

K: May be a peculiarity...

DB : Or does it mean something more, in the sense that there is something wrong with 'imagination' or... ?

K: I don't think 'imagination' plays a part in meditation, in truth, in perception...

DB : I understand that...I mean, I agree with all that – but I'll say imagination may have a limited part to play – let's say in visualising some buildings like these...

K: Yes, of course, and in painting...

DB : But one thing that occured to me is that 'imagination' also contains the 'imaginary' of the person who is looking but he's imaginary – like in a dream, the 'dreamer' is not there...So the imaginary is 'imagined'...

K : Ah, talking of dreams, has it happened to you that when you're dreaming there is an interpretation of that dream going on ?

DB : That is another kind of dream - one kind of dream is when you are identified with the 'dreamer' – with the one who dreams, or with some character in the dream...

K: We won't go into dreams now...

DB : Yeah...But there might be another kind of dream in which you're not identified...

K: Yes...

DB : But could that be some kind of 'imagination' when you're not identified – you used when you compared this to Columbus discovering America, there is an 'image' there...

K: Yes...

DB : Now, there was no 'image maker' , but the 'image' was merely a visual expression of a certain perception...Somebody might call this a kind of 'imagination'...

K: No, that's a 'statement'.

DB : It's a statement, but there is an image in there – the image of Columbus on his boat going ...

K: I didn't imagine that.

DB ; Yes, allright, but to some extent it communicates that...

K: But I mean, that's a fact – Columbus did discover America – if previously it had not been discovered by vikings...but apparently Columbus discovered it – that's a fact !

DB : Yes, it's a fact, but I think it's a matter of language – there is a kind of imagination which is 'fancy' or fantasy...

K: Fantasy, yes...

DB : And in this may appear as a thing which is being looked at and which is taken as one is actually looking at it – and that's an 'illusion' . But a person might have an image – like this thing, Columbus discovering America is a metaphor...

K: Yes.

DB : ...and there are many other metaphors which take the form of images – I can't remember them now, but I think that you used others ; that use of imagery is like the use of language...

K: I understand... So in the field of reality there is imagination, there is the artist, the musician...

DB : ...and they may use the images in a constructive way rather than as a pure fantasy...

K: ...yes, and so on. Now, can a musician or an artist see truth ?

DB : Not as a 'musician' anyway...As a human being he might see truth, but there is no reason art would make a person more perceptive to truth than...

K: That's it !

DB : Although among artists there is a wide spread belief that it could...

K: I know...

DB : ...that culture could put things in order. In other words that by means of a good culture the mind is brought to a certain order which will be helpful.

K: Which means, throught time, order.

DB : Yes, that's really it. And I think it's a wide spread belief, you see ?

K: Yes, of course ; through evolution there is 'order'...

DB : Yes, or through cultivation, or...

K: Yes ; which means- through time, order...

DB : Yes... even the Egyptians who thought more timelessly - they believed that through cultivation of the mind they would bring a certain order- I mean, it's obvious that they did try it...So that I think this is a case where thought has gone beyond its proper limits, you see...

K: Yes....

DB : ...when thought tries to put the brain in order -as it were- or to put the mind in order...and therefore trying to do what it could never do...

K: Of course...But you see, the whole (endeavour) of the political field and the economic bussiness is to bring about order in the field of reality...

DB : Yeah...

K: ... and they can never do it !

DB : No...so it would be important to see why not...

K: Oh, that's simple...

DB ; ...because they are all too limited...

K: It's not global...

DB : ... it doesn't go into the deep source of the human actions.

K: Yes, quite...So ( laughing) we are 'eliminating' altogether the artist, the musician, the archaeologist, the politician, the economist...

DB : Yes ; none of these can bring about order...science also cannot bring order in the field of reality, because whatever knowledge it gains, it depends on the human beings, of what is done with it...

K: Yes...So only those who perceive truth can bring about order...right. Did you read about the 'revolutionaries in America'?

DB : You mentioned it to me...

K: All of them are saying the present structure of society is distructive ; it is not giving man the opportunity to be free, to be happy & so on...And all these 'revolutionaries' want to upset what they call the 'capitalism' and bring about a 'world state', or a state in America where all the big corporations are not in power.

DB : Yes...

K: All that is in the field of thought...

DB : Yeah...

K: ...and they have a tremendous appeal...

DB : Is that what the article said  ?

K: No, no ; I'm saying it. They have a tremendous appeal ; because of what is taking place in India - putting the cap on everything (in the hope) to bring order...So, the revolutionaries want to bring order, the Communists want to bring order ...everybody is trying to bring order in the field of reality...

DB : Yes...

K: And we are saying that's impossible.

DB : Yes and that might discourage lots of people...

K: I know...but I mean : it's a 'fact' !

DB : It's a fact, yes...

K: Would this 'revolutionary' accept this as a 'fact' ?

DB : Not as he is now...I mean this 'revolutionary' doesn't see this fact...

K: Yes, but then what relationship has the one who perceives truth has to the 'revolutionary' who says ' We must change the world' ?

DB : Well, it's again the same point : that truth has no relation to this 'reality', you see ? So, the only possibility would be to find a way to communicate...

K: Yes ; therefore this man says : 'you have no place in this, you are irrelevant'..

DB : Yes, the revolutionary says 'you are irrelevant' unless you find a way to communicate with him

K : Ah, but you can't communicate with him because he's enclosed himself totally within the field of 'reality' !

DB : Yes, there's not much one can do...

K: ...anymore than he can do with Brezhnev...I mean, he won't even tolerate you ! So, what place has the man who perceives truth in this world of 'reality' ?

DB : Well, it's clear that his perception of truth has no place in this world of 'reality'...

K: I'm not sure...

DB : Well, let's see what place he would have, other than communicating to break through this 'field of reality' ?

K: If the man in the world of reality is a real 'revolutionary' – I don't mean the 'blood-bath revolutionary' – but the man who has the strong feeling that this corrupt society must be changed- could the man who has perceived truth talk to him ?

DB : Yes, that's what I meant, that all he cand do is to 'communicate' truth with him - if this 'revolutionary' is not completely engulfed in the field of reality, but he's still able to 'listen' because he sincerely wants a better society and therefore if the other man can put the thing rightly, in the right way...

K: Can this 'revolutionary' ever see truth ? Or must he realise the limitations of thought ?

DB : That's what I mean- this must be 'communicated'...If this man is able to listen to something, then he may be able to 'listen' the fact of the limitation of thought, if it's put in a way that 'gets to him' …

K: Yes, I understand that...

DB : ...although he may start to resist it very quickly, but that means that the other fellow has to be very fast and very succint & so on...

K: So, to put this clearly, we are saying  in the world of reality there is 'choice' – every thing is in the field of reality- and the man who perceives truth can only operate or function upon reality...

DB : Well, what we said is that he can't actually...

K: ...in the sense it can 'communicate'.

DB : Yes...so he doesn't 'communicate' with reality...

K: Ah, no, no...He cannot communicate 'truth', but he can 'communicate' to this man who is in the field of reality – he can say : look, see the limits of that...

DB : Yes, so he can 'communicate' by showing the inconsitencies, showing the limits & so on...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : So, within the field of reality – if the man is not totally engulfed, there is certain area where he can accept it...

K: Sir, why is it that all the leaders of the world are dominating this world of reality ?

DB : Well, because nobody has any idea in that world of what to do...You see, I think we made it clear that nothing can be done and probably deep down there is a sense that nothing can be done- so we leave it to somebody else to do it – I mean, if we knew what to do it we might try to do it, but the other fellow seems to know what to do, perhaps we can go along with him...You know, that's the sort of thinking that might go on...

K: One of the revolutionaries says : order your own life...

DB : Yes, but then we're back in the same story – what is going to order it ; you see ? In my view it's important to 'communicate' this in different ways and to see if this thing will come across...My own feeling is that the 'communication' itself has to be very orderly, both verbally and non-verbally...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : But the 'order' of the communication itself is part of the communication...

K: If there is a perception of the truth, the truth will bring order in words...

DB : Yes, that's it, and that brings us to a point that we were discussing before – it would bring order in words and also a non-verbal action. And that order itself would be seen by that man- not only the content of what you say, but the whole order of it would be seen, and that 'seeing' already will be beyond the field of reality ...

K: Quite...

DB : We were discussing 'words' a few times ago and one question that rose was that it's not clear how words are formed : you can't see yourself making the words and suddenly start saying them. Without any visible account, you can't account for what comes about...

K: No...

DB : And one of the questions that occurred to me is that I could see two ways of forming words : one would be from memory, from habits - all stored up phrases would just come out from the record and be combined in various ways...

K: Isn't the English language very confusing ?

DB : Well, not when you get to know it, I suppose...

K: Like the word 'see' – seeing with the eyes, seeing with the mind, seeing with the intellect, seeing with feeling, 'seeing'...and when you use the word 'see' all these are implied...

DB : Yes ; but I think that most languages...

K: Is it so in Sanscrit ?

DB : I don't know Sanscrit, but most of languages like Italian or French, probably do much the same...

K: But I believe in Sanscrit there are different words for them...

DB : Well, as you know, Sanscrit was a language specifically constructed for philosophical and religious purpose...

K: The word 'Sanscrit' means ''that which has been made perfect''...

DB ; But it is so that in our common language – I think the word 'prakriti' means common language - it is the same as our language here, has always some confusion...And we had the same trouble here in trying to see what words like 'intelligence', 'wisdom' , and 'truth' & so on...But I don't think that language is our main trouble ; I mean, a confused language is probably the product of a confused mind, but...

K: Yes, quite ; the language is not the main problem...

DB : But I am interested in the way the language forms and the other idea of how the words are forming is what you once discussed of the drum vibrating from the emptiness within : so the words can form directly from the 'emptiness' ( of truth.. .

K; Yes, yes !

DB : So, you're not 'thinking' the words and in that case you're saying that truth can act directly on the physical structure of the brain in some way...

K: Yes, that's right !

DB : Now, one thing that occured to me is that if you say that, then you must say that at its depths matter is non-mechanical, you see ? It may be 'mechanical' in a certain way, but...

K: Matter is not mechanical.

DB : Because truth could not act on that matter if it would be just mechanical...

K: Quite.

DB : So you'll have to say that the 'mechanical' aspects of matter are circumsised to a certain area of matter which thought can handle - and thought is also material...

K: I think there is a part of the old tibetan and indian tradition that matter is living...

DB : Yes, and that's also implied in what you're saying...

K: Yes.

DB : Because if truth can operate in matter, then matter must be intelligent somehow in the way we're living- intelligible …

K: That's what I was saying - that he who perceives truth can operate on the consciousness, or on the mind or brain of the man who is caught in the world of reality.

DB : Yes ; that's a very interesting point, and we have to see this very clearly : first of all, truth operates on his own brain...

K: Yes, of course...

DB : ...clearing away the confusion ; sometimes it occurred to me the idea of a fog which could be cleared away either by the sun or by the wind or a storm – in other words, rather than trying to arrange everything with thought, it's all cleared away, so all the questions arising in the fog are irrelevant...

K: Would you say, sir, from that 'arising', that when you remain totally with suffering that's the 'storm'

DB ; Yes, that's the storm that clears away the 'fog'...And it's like a real, material storm ?

K: Yes...

DB : ...not 'real', but actual or genuine ...But I think that we should look a little bit at this notion that matter is fundamentally non-mechanical...

K: Not mechanical, quite...

DB : But it has a 'mechanical' area...

K: Yes.

DB : Which is also what thought can handle. So we could say that is a right area for thought – which is also mechanical, and thought itself is 'mechanical' which can bring order in other mechanical areas but it cannot bring order into itself...

K: And thought is trying to go beyond it...

DB : Yes, it tries to transcend its limits. Because when thought tries to transcend them it does not know that there are some areas it cannot go into, and therefore thought tries those limits too, you see ? Either it tries to understand the 'truth' or 'spirit' or love, or it tries to take over the brain matter and keep it in order, but it cannot reach these depths...

K: So, we are saying that the mind is not 'mechanical' ?

DB ; Yes and also that matter is not mechanical, although it has a 'mechanical' part or side...

K: Yes, that's it. Therefore, Truth can touch the non-mechanical part in the matter of the brain.

DB : Therefore we are saying that Truth operating in one brain can clear that brain and then, being communicated, it may clear another brain...

K: Quite, quite !

DB : Now, when that brain is clear, it can operate in order...

K: Quite...

DB : Then you could say the brain is both 'material' and 'non-material'...

K: That's right.

DB : The 'mechanical' side will operate in order only if Truth keeps it clear, in other words, some 'non-mechanical' thing is needed to keep the 'mechanical' clear...

K: Yes...

DB : Otherwise it will be pushed from the past in that 'mist' or 'fog' …

K: Are you saying that in man, or in matter, there is intelligence ?

DB : I'm trying to proceed from where we started – that truth operates in the brain- if it does, then it follows that there must be something like 'intelligence' in matter – at least, something 'non-mechanical', you see, which... ?

K: Then we'll have to be awfully careful because we are saying ( implying?) that God is in you...That's what I want to avoid...

DB : We don't say that, but we got to be careful because thought is here trying to transcend its proper limits...

K: Right...( laughing ) We'll catch Him that way !

DB : We are not saying that God is anywhere , but we are questioning whether matter is mechanical or not and all we could say is that matter can respond to intelligence -as it were. Whether there is intelligence or not we don't know  - one view is that in some sense it might be- but I think we can say that we got to the point where matter is not (fundamentally?) mechanical, and it is capable of responding to intelligence. Whether it actually has this 'intelligence' or not, we don't know, but it has a property that I would call 'intelligentibility' which may have some relation with 'Intelligence' - the possibility of being 'acted upon' by Intelligence...

K: Why has religion been associated with Truth ?

DB : Well, in a way it is 'natural', if you think of the deeper meaning of the word religion : apparently the best meaning this dictionary gives is 'to gather together' or to 'pay attention to the whole ', or something like that...

K: ...or like being 'diligent' & so on...

DB ; If 'religion' was originally 'gathering the whole' …

K: Yes...

DB : Then 'truth' is that too , you see ?

K: Yes. That's what I want to make clear. That's right.

DB ; But then, when religion became corrupted by being defined as 'reality', then it went wrong...

K: Quite...

DB : If one reads the Bible – the old Testament – the hebrews were constantly falling into 'idolatry' by making God 'real', you see ? Making 'images' which were turning Truth into 'reality' …

K: Like last night ( on TV ?) there was a Roman-Catholic priest talking about devil he said : ''I actually believe that there is devil'' …

DB : Yes, if he believed there is God...

K: ...who now has been having a marvelous time ! (both laugh)...

DB : It seems only 'natural' - if you believe that God is real, he must believe that Devil must also be real...

K: Sir, we are saying something which is terribly revolutionary, right ?

DB : In what sense ?

K: Revolutionary in the sense we are denying 'evolution' in the field of thought's reality -

DB : We are denying that 'evolution' has anything to do with 'That Which Is' – it may happen in the field of reality. I think that we can put it carefully that in the field of reality you may observe evolution taking place, like an animal becoming bigger and so on. But that is only in the field of reality, not even at the depths of matter, much less at the depths of Mind.

K: Yes. We are now saying that whatever is in the field of reality- a conclusion, or thought moving beyond its limit and creating another reality, is still within the field of reality – all of that we say, is unrelated to Truth.

DB : Yes...

K: And Truth is something that is only perceived when the mind acts as a whole.

DB : Yes...but in addition you're saying that truth acts about this 'wholeness' by dissolving in the brain the 'mist of reality', the confusion, or whatever we may want to call it...

K: That's right.. The other day we were talking at lunch about the 'emptiness' having great energy, hmm ?

DB ; Yes...

K: You were saying 'space'...

DB : Yes, I was saying that the empty 'space' - this is a calculation that was made – that according to modern Physics, the 'empty space' is full of a tremendous energy which is inaccessible ; people don't take it very seriously, but if you actually do the calculation there is an unlimited energy in each part of space.

K: You see, the other night – you know I have a peculiar kind of meditation : I wake up meditating- the other night I woke up with this feeling of a tremendous energy in 'emptiness' …

DB : Yes... ?

K: This whole brain was completely 'empty' and therefore there was an extraordinary quality of energy... And when you said at lunch time that according to scientists & according to you, in the empty space there is a tremendous energy...

DB : Unlimited...

K: Unlimited, I felt the same thing. So, mustn't be 'emptiness' - which is 'no-thingness'- for the perception of Truth ?

DB : Yes, but the point about this energy is that the perception of Truth 'is' the action of this energy...

K: Yes, that's it !

DB ; You see - you may find this interesting- the way modern Physics treats the atoms and the particles of matter is to say they are created out of 'empty space' and dissolve into empty space and a particle is a 'manifestation' of that 'energy of the whole', a form which is transient...do you see what I mean ?

K: Yes, I understand.

DB : And you could say that thought is perhaps a similar 'form' of matter as we know it -the mechanical side of matter – but Physics disregards the energy itself and pays most attention to matter and tries to ignore the rest of the energy ; but that's what thought does, it only pays attention

K: From this arises the question : how is a man to empty his mind ? How is a human being who sees the world of reality and knows its limitation- how can that man perceive this immense thing ? They have tried in the religious field – as little as I know about it- they have tried every method to get to this...

DB ; Yes, one can see te problem with 'methods' – that every method is part of the conscious content of thought...

K: ...of thought, quite.

DB : ...therefore in using a method you're not 'doing it' !

K: But that has become - not only the fashion, but that seems to have been right from the beginning : ''Do something to get That''...

DB : Yes, that again is thought not seeing and trying to transcend its limits. In other words 'That' is something in which thought cannot be...

K: Then, how can one communicate or awaken this extraordinary energy of 'emptiness' which is truth and all the rest ? If you as a professor & scientist who has gone into the question of space, time , matter, energy and if you perceived that truth, how would you communicate to me, both verbally & non-verbally  ? Through verbal communication I will never get it, because the description is not the described & all the rest... If it is my serious concern to understant that 'emptiness' , how would you 'help' me to come to that extraordinary 'emptiness' ?
This has been one of the problems of a man who 'sees' it and wants to tell somebody about it...

DB : Yes, somehow I see the problem as...

K: In telling it, 'that' is destroyed.

DB : It is destroyed because thought takes it over …

K: And the 'priests' get into it, and then the whole thing is gone !

DB : The point is to communicate it to thought so that thought doesn't move outside its field.

K: But I only know thought !

DB : We know that, but it's not entirely so- if we consider this (spiritual revolutionary) we said that there is still something in him more which …

K: But there are very few really profound 'revolutionaries' – most of the 'revolutionaries' are only concerned with changing the environment... And therefore they say : a Guru is necessary – you follow ?

DB : Yes, but I mean, it's of no use...

K: Of course not...He is supposed to help me to realise that – which is impossible.
So everything has been made so corrupt, so impossible...
So you who have access to that 'emptiness' and you want to show it to me, what do you do with me ? (... long silence...)

DB : You see, I think maybe we're going a little too fast, in the sense that there is a great deal of things we haven't yet gone into, that may be getting in the way...

K: I have jumped to that, sorry...

DB : You see, the point is that there is a tremendous movement of thought involved in self-deception and thought does not handle the whole of what it produces...you see, it produces a lot of movement and it tries to stop only a little bit of it...

K: (laughing) Quite !

DB : It is incapable of getting to its own root and stopping it all...

K: And that's why they said : 'Control it!'

DB ; Yes, but that has no meaning because...

K: That's right...

DB : Then there is the question of 'time' : in other words, we see that chronological time has been invented by thought and that it is useful and correct and gives us insight into matter, and then it has been extended to 'psychological' time...

K: That's right, that 'psychologically' we evolve .

DB : 'Evolve' to become better...Now, in the beginning thought did not invent time – it did not know that time is limited – it only started to extend it chronologically and just using it 'psychologically' as well because it didn't know any reason not to....

K: Sir, could I say something  which may be totally irrelevant : in that 'emptiness' there is no time...

DB : There's no time there, but you see, 'time' appears when a 'center' is produced with the memory of the past and the expectation of the future- and the attempt to make the future better & so on. Now, there is the belief – due to our whole tradition and background and experience, that 'time' is a solid & genuine reality. In other words, it appears to be so in matter and it appears to be so 'psychologically'...

K: Yes, for the small plant to become for tree …

DB : Yes...and it seems that 'psychologically' we must also exist in time. Now, the point in trying to communicate this is that there is no 'fact' of psychological time – it is entirely 'imagination'...

K: ... imagination is the work of thought.

DB ; The work of thought : the person 'imagines' this whole stretch of time and this 'imagination' produces a real result in the brain, which it takes as a proof that the thing is there...So this thing has no real ground beyond thought, it is an imprint in memory. Now, the thing is that this 'time' is not actually observed – it is only imagined and we imagine that we observe time ...you see, that's what I was trying to say by '' an imaginary 'observer' imagining that he observes time'' ...so if it didn't imagine that it observes time, then we would see it for what it really is only thought. You see, in the imagination that we are observing- that's where some of the confusion arises...

K: Yes, quite right...

DB  You see, if thought is going on , if you realise it's thought then you evaluate it and see if it is at its place or not and then there's no problem ; but if you think that it's perception, then you take it as truth...The same thing happens in 'experience' - when you experience the 'reality' of psychological time, because the sensations which are supposed to be connected with 'time' are imagined to be real and independent of thought, you see ? So apparently you're looking at time, experiencing the 'reality of time' and apparently have knowledge of the correctness of time , and so on...Now, you see, none of this is a 'fact' …

K; None of this is a 'fact', that's right. There is no 'tomorrow'...

DB : ....'psychologically'. There is no 'next moment'...

K: No 'next moment', that's right...

DB : ... and there is no past 'psychologically' – it is all memory – what is 'present' now is memory and an expectation in thought...

K: Yes... and all reactions from that is only mechanical.

DB ; And memory is also mechanical, because it's in the brain ...the only difficulty is that memory is given an importance of something transcendent- it's your own existence- so the reaction from this is enormous, if you see what I mean...

K: You see, all that is in the world of 'reality' and there is no relationship between this and truth. To abandon all this can only take place throught suffering – is that it ?

DB : Well, that can be only a way – I can't see this as the only possibility - in staying with suffering...

K: That's what I mean.

DB : But this whole process creates suffering...

K: Yes, this whole process creates suffering.

DB : And must do so. Now if you 'escape' this suffering, you are not actually perceiving the process . So you see, you have have to stay with suffering because suffering does...

K: You have to stay with 'reality'.

DB : You have to stay with reality, and reality is very unpleasant when you stay with it...

K: You have to stay with reality ; you are staying with the limitation of thought and not move from that...

DB ; But suppose you find that you are nevertheless moving ? Then what ?

K: Then still it is thought moving. The perception of all that is 'truth'.

DB : Yes...

K: But people can't perceive that... Therefore '' the word is not the thing''...and so, there is no understanding...

DB : Well , I think there is a certain understanding, but the trouble is something like this -many people are listening to this and understand up to a certain point, but the difficulty is that the whole of thought produces a movement which is beyond what thought can be conscious of
and therefore this 'understanding' is applied to a partial consequence of thought. In other words there is a tipical experience that most people have when they are listening to you: they say : 'all this is very clear, but... it doesn't quite work', you see ?

K: Quite...

DB : I think there are quite a few people who want it – up to a point...

K: Up to a point...

DB : Then the question is : if you find that you are going only up to a point...

K: ...it isn't good enough...

DB :...it is not good enough, but the reason is probably that one is escaping suffering ; you see, if they go a little further they might come to this 'suffering' …

K; Thought is so extraordinarily subtle ...it 'thinks' it is still, it 'thinks' that it knows its limitation, but it is always putting out a tentacle, waiting, waiting, waiting...

DB : Yeah, it's ready to transcend itself...I wonder if you could not look at 'desire' - that there is a desire in thought to do all this ?

K: Yes, of course ! Desire being sensation and thought.

DB : Yes, sensation and thought, along with an 'instruction' to carry out what it wants to achieve. You see, if you get a pleasant sensation, then thought says ''That's a very pleasant sensation'' and sets an 'instruction' to get hold of it and if it's unpleasant, then get rid of it....
But of course, desire has this sense of longing and craving or yearning- something which is very powerful and overrides any other understanding...

K: The other day at the talk, a man came up to me and said : 'If I have no desire, I can 't have sex !'

DB : Yeah...

K: You follow what is related ? Desire, sensation, thought and...sex.

DB : Yes...  sensation, thought and achieving the satisfaction of the desire...
K: Of course....But is it posible – I'm putting a most 'absurd' question- not to have any desire at all ?

DB : That's what we're coming to : what is desire and why do we have to have it ? You see, I was trying to find out what is the 'real' object of desire – because it is often very hard to know because it changes...

K: It is desire, sensation, thought – it is still in that 'field of reality' .

DB : Yeah, and it seems to me that what desire is trying is to achieve basically better a state of consciousness. And that is inherently meaningless...

K; Yes, in the field of reality.

DB ; ...in the field of reality, because it is trying to do something where thought has no place. Thought 'thinks' that it can improve into a better state of consciousness by some activity  - that goes back to the ancient times when thought didn't know its limits - so one of the things thought thinks it can do, is to make an improved state of consciousness...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : Possibly because it has the feeling that ( self-) consciousness is the essence of our existence. You see, we are taking 'reality' as the essence of our existence, or as the essence of our consciousness ; and then thought is trying naturally to 'improve' it -you see ?

K: Quite...naturally

DB : ...and now it experiences a 'desire' – I mean, an intense sensation, a wish or a longing to carry out that 'improvement', which it can never do...

K: Consciousness is in the field of reality.

DB : Yes, that's what we are trying to say, but tradition says that it's not, you see...

K; Right...And truth is not 'consciousness'.

DB ; No, truth is not consciousness ; the (self-)consciousness is not the essence of our existence, or of our 'being', right ? But if anything, truth is.

K: Yes... Would you say that the 'self' is the essence of consciousness ?

DB ; Well, that's a question. Certainly our consciousness as it is now...

K: I'm taking it 'as it is now', not as something 'glorious' or anything... As it is now.

DB : Well, the very word 'self' – I've looked it up and one of its meanings is 'quintessence', you see ?

K: Quintessence...

DB : Like the essence of all essences...

K: Right, it's the 'essence' of consciousness .

DB : Yeah...

K: And 'truth' is the essence of 'non - consciousness'.

DB : Or the essence of 'That Which Is' … ?

K: Yes...

DB : But then, why would you say 'non-consciousness' ?

K: The 'self' is the essence of consciousness, as we know it ...

DB : Yes, 'as we know it ', but one of the other times, we have also discussed another kind of consciousness that might not be conditioned, right ?

K: Yes, but can that 'consciousness' ever be conscious of itself ?

DB : The other kind ?

K: Yes.

DB : Oh, I see...

K: if it is, it cannot come to Truth.

DB : Why is that ? Because in being conscious of itself , first of all it must be dividing itself, right ?

K: Right, you got it !

DB : Yeah...now we said there is another kind of consciousness which is without thinking it is unconditioned ? In some of you writings you imply there is another kind of thought or 'something like thought'...

K: Like thought...but it is not thought...Keep to this for the moment ; the 'self' is the essence of consciousness – this 'consciousness' is in the field of reality...

DB : Yes, it's an activity of the brain...

K; And is an activity of the brain which has been conditioned...

DB : Yes...

K: With memory and all the rest of it...And we said : that 'consciousness' can never come upon Truth.

DB : No ; first of all, no 'real' structure can give Truth, you see ?

K: Of course. So, this is 'nothingness' ...

DB ( That ) 'nothingness is Truth'...

K: Nothingness is Truth. Not-a-thing !

DB : Yeah...

K: And in that ( empty inner?) space there is a tremendous energy, there is peace and is not identified with any consciousness...

DB ; Not even with a 'higher' consciousness... ? You see, we discussed this kind of 'unconditioned' consciousness and I wonder if we can make this thing clear ; first of all we could say that we have thought which is a conditioned activity of the brain and which is only a very small part of the operation of the brain...

K: Yes, yes.

DB : Then we have the whole operation of the brain, which includes attention and awareness and we can say this other consciousness is there ?

K: Would you call that 'consciousness' ?

DB ; Well, you did it at one stage... ?

K: I know, that's why I want to make it clear...

DB : Well, I don't quite get it, but I can see this much : thought, which is only a small operation of the brain, and when it gets out of its sphere it tends to be 'everything'...

K: Sir, did you not say the other day at lunch that in space there is tremendous energy ?

DB ; Yeah....

K: That energy is not 'conscious' of itself.

DB : No. Let's say 'it does not know itself'...

K: That's it...

DB : But that energy 'perceives'...

K: It is not the perception of the 'self' .

DB : Yes ; let's get that clear, because as I said, this energy may perceive and that perception is action , and this perception can take its own action into account – you see, it is not confused by that, but it doesn't do that by seeing itself acting.

K: It is not self-conscious !

DB : It is not self-conscious but it is conscious of action – including its own action, right ?

K: Yes. I don't want to use the word 'consciousness' here...

DB : No, no...The 'self'-consciousness -as I see it- it involves the notion that consciousness has an essence – and that may be a false notion. In other words, when this consciousness discovers that it is rather 'changeable' , the whole of thought reacts seeing

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 15 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 Dec 2019 #42
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

( Here's the ending of Dialogue 11)

(...)

DB: No, no...The 'self'-consciousness -as I see it- it involves the notion that consciousness has an essence – and that may be a false notion. In other words, when this consciousness discovers that it is rather 'changeable' , the whole of thought reacts seeing these changes by saying 'there must be some essence beneath it' ; you see, that's a very basic form of thought ; so when we see how changeable this consciousness is, we say : there must be an 'essence' which produces this consciousness and which is permanent. But then, that may be entirely false, you see ? In other words this 'essence' will be called the Self.
Now what you have said is that consciousness is only its content , and therefore it is not some movement taking place in the essence, and therefore it is only memory acting – there is no other essence behind it acting, which makes it rather trivial thing

K: What is the nature of this energy behind 'nothingness' or 'emptiness' ? Has it any 'consciousness' – as we know it ?

DB : Well, let's try to put it : consciousness 'as we know it' may begin by becoming conscious of a certain content – like a book or this microphone, and later it begins to think about itself and begins to think about its 'essence' ; now, if this consciousness did not attempt to think of its own 'essence', then would it be another kind of consciousness... ?

K: Yes, put it that way, but I don't like to use the word 'consciousness' because it implies 'self-consciousness'...

DB : Yes, it generally does, but if there is no 'content'...

K: ...if there is no 'content' there is no consciousness 'as we know it'.

DB : But why do you put in the phrase 'as we know it' ? You see, that's puzzling because it implies that there is another kind of consciousness...

K: When the content is not, there is no (self-) consciousness...

DB : Yes...I mean, that is very clear  - when we 'think' about something beyond consciousness is it is still consciousness...You see, when we think about the 'content' of this microphone, that content can bring us in contact with the 'actuality' of the microphone, but when we think about the essence of consciousness there is no 'actuality' behind it – there is only 'content'...

K: Yes...and when you empty that content...

DB : So, now it's becoming clear : you 'empty' that content...because when you put it the first time it sounds crazy, because one may say 'I must have a 'content' to get on with life' – you see ? Now, besides the 'practical' content -like the 'scientifical' or technical content, we say : there is a content of the 'self' , an 'essence' which includes the 'psychological time' – since we think that the essence exists in 'psychological' time...

K: Yes...

DB : Now we say consciousness may have a content, but no essence.

K: ( laughing) Quite !

DB : There is nothing but appearence, you see ? It is nothing but 'moving memories'...I mean, with instructions to act & so on...

K: There is 'nothingness'.

DB : Yeah...

K: In that 'nothingness', everything is contained.

DB : Yes...Now we should go into that a little – in what sense is it contained ?

K: Is 'reality' contained in that ?

DB : That's the question...Let's try to put it : you say truth acts in matter, right ?

K: Yes...

DB : So matter is 'contained' in it .

K: That's right. Keep to that !

DB : And thought is nothing but a form...

K: ...of matter.

DB : It's an empty form of matter – a very, very unsubstantial form of matter which may be useful in certain domains...

K: You see, in this there is no division.

DB : Yes, this becomes very clear and it possibly it will tie up with with some scientifical ideas. We say in truth and emptiness is energy and this contains all matter – but of course, this energy may go beyond matter, as we know it...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : Now, in matter is the brain, and in the brain is a form, a very 'unsubstantial' form called 'thought'...

K: Thought, quite...

DB : ...which is also matter. All that is the truth...

K: Yes...I nothingness everything 'is' .

DB : Yes.

K: But that is a difficult statement...

DB : I think we can understand that and we can say thought operates as something 'real' in the brain...

K: You see, thought thinks it is 'independent'...

DB : Yes, the self-deception, or the illusion, is that thought thinks it exists independently of matter ; and that thought again does not know its relationship with matter – that was one of its weak points, so it begins to think it is independent and eventually it could think it is the essence of everything.
Perhaps the young child when it first begins to think, he may think that he creates everything by thinking, because all the forms of everything appear in consciusness through thought...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And later he learns that he doesn't create everything, but he doesn't learn it properly...He sort of denies that idea in some part, but he does not deny the whole of it...

K: You see, I've been told by the Indian 'pundits' – Indian scholars- that they have said this...

DB : Said what ?

K:  When there is 'nothingness' everything 'is' ; which is, to put it in vulgar terms- ''In God, everything 'is''. You see, in itself that statement is wrong...

DB : Yes, let's try to see exactly what is wrong with it : I think that the trouble with that statement is that thought is trying to transcend its limits which is a form of consciousness– in other words we form a picture – this is also a problem in which philosophy gets into – which is to give an explanation for everything...

K: Of course...

DB : Which is still only thought, and once you take that as an explanation, then the thing is wrong, because then you're saying : the essence is this which I'm thinking about...

K: Quite, quite...

( What time is it?)

DB : Twenty past five...

K: Oh, oh oh...

DB : Perhaps we should finish it at this stage and there's one more...

K: We'll 'conclude' it...

DB : Perhaps next time I'll try to make a summary of what we were doing

K: Not a 'summary', but we'll perceive & go on...

DB : Perhaps just going over the basic ideas and then go on, right ?

K: Yes...You see, when one says '' In nothing everything is'', that's a wrong statement.

DB : Yes, and how would you put it then ?

K: I don't put it ! ( both laugh)

DB : Well, it's the same as wih the 'judgement' – the judgement divides what is actually undivided – the perception is undivided, but the 'judgement' expresses it as divided, you see ? The judgement always puts a division...

K: Of course...You see , the man listening to that ''In nothingness everything is'' says ''In me is God, I am God'' and he's lost it.

DB : Yes, because he is thinking...

K: I think in the Judaic religion it is said ' Just don't name It !'

DB : Yes, but that doesn't help either...( both laugh...)

K: Of course not, imagination went rampant...

DB : I think there is a point here to see the limits of philosophy ; you see, every thought is limited and even that thought is limited – and therefore if we take that description or as an indication of something...

K: Of course...That's why it is very important to see that thought can not transcend itself. That is the basic thing.

DB : You see, thought has this tremendous impetus to 'transcend' itself...

K: Of course, that's the root of it !

DB : ...and thought is trying to reach for...

K: ...reach for heaven. Quite....We'll go on the next time.

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 15 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 Dec 2019 #43
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

12-th K-DB Dialogue on Truth and Reality

K: You said you would sum up the whole thing... ?

DB : Well, I don't know if we should do that exactly, but I could try it a little bit...

K: Would you do that ?

DB : I will start up something : I'd say the essential point about what we were discussing is that thought tends to move out of its own area, which is in some way limited, but you can't express its limits precisely. But roughly, thought should not try to get into the area which is called 'spiritual', or 'truth', or 'beauty', or 'love', or the attempt to control the equilibrium of the brain, of the nervous system...

K: Yes...

DB : And of course, it would be difficult to define it exactly beyond that...And we said by one stage that perhaps the trouble began when man began to have increased this capacity to think, thought did not know that it was limited in this way and therefore it tried to think beyond its 'proper' limits- for example, to try to control the brain in order to make it always 'happy' or you know, to...

K: Do you think they didn't know, or they wanted to find something more than thought ?

DB : Well, it was both, but thought did not know it could not find something more than thought...But it also thought that it could control the state of the brain, you see ?

K: Yes...

DB : In other words the brain could get disturbed at times, in various ways...

K: But they have also have said - haven't they, sir ? - that 'meditation' is a form of silence...

DB : Hmm...

K: ...which comes when thought is completely under control.

DB : Yes, that came later, but what I had in mind was that the thinking that man evolving and at some stage the brain must have become much larger ; say it was the monkey & the chimpanzee, and at some stage, maybe a hundred thousands years ago, man appeared and he had a new brain, but it didn't know how to use it and he still does not know how to use it...

K: Quite, quite...I understand...

DB : And that's probably where the trouble began. And what we are discussing now is probably how the brain should operate...

K: Yes, quite...

DB : Now, this question of 'meditation' seems to come much later, when man tried to deal with all this...And he came up with the idea of trying to control the brain, or to control the mind, but thought didn't know what we thought it was an important point, was a material process.

K: Quite...

DB : Only recently we came to know that fairly reliably... Some people may have suspected that a long time ago, but there was not firm knowledge. And therefore thought could think there was a 'spiritual' thing which contained truth...for example if we're going into the question of 'good' and 'evil', thought could think that it could try be good and avoid evil, and there is the story – now, everybody knew that the (human) brain or mind was in disorder , but they 'explained it' by saying that Adam disobeyed God and had eaten the 'fruit of knowledge' - the knwledge of 'good' and 'evil' in particular, and therefore he was driven out of 'Paradise' and therefore you could say that was the 'sin' -as it was some spiritual sin of chosing 'evil' instead of 'good' - and that explanation would tent to misled people because then he would say : 'your problem is that you chose 'evil' instead of 'good'...and you can't do it of course ...

K: You see, sir, as far as I understand- I'm not a Hindu scholar or anything of that kind - but they said thought can control matter...

DB : And that would put it as a spiritual principle beyond matter...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : Now we were discussing the other day that thought is...

K: ...matter...

DB : not only matter, but a 'form' on the matter of the brain, you see ?

K: Yes, yes...

DB :... and matter itself is a 'form' in the 'emptiness' which has infinite energy. Therefore we could say thought is an extremely 'tenuous ' thing because matter itself is on the emptiness and thought is a very tenuous form within matter and therefore it would be hopeless to think that thought could completely control matter, you see ?

K: Yes...

DB : It might control it in some ways – and now we know scientifically that we can control matter in certain ways – like producing atomic energy – but thought can not control the matter of the brain - that was the point I wanted to get across. In other words, thought may be able to control airplanes and space ships and atomic power plants, but it cannot control the brain's matter it may think it can, and first of all it will not be able to control it directly by trying to use its 'will-power' . You see, thought may think that by will power it can control the brain...but it can't.

K: I wonder if some of the traditional 'orthodox' hindus would accept that ?

DB : I don't know, you see, but I would want to finish this point then we can discuss it. The other point is that in the scientific side some scientists are studying the structure of the brain and they might imagine that by their scientific study we can bring the brain to order. But I think that is also hopeless, because you could say that fundamentally the trouble is that brain seeks self-deception instead of correct thought...Now if you say  that some electrical pattern in the brain represents a thought pattern that you could measure, then how could you find within that pattern the difference between truth and falseness ? There would be no hope scientifically in making that distinction. Therefore, all the avenues by which thought might hope to control the brain matter are impossible...

K: Quite, quite, I understand...

DB : I just wanted to finish that point, but now, of course, the Christians and the Hebrews probably didn't even imagine that thought was material as they had a problem with the 'original sin', that is, why man chose the wrong thing...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : But now, if you come to the Hindus, there is another view – I don't know it exactly...

K: I'm afraid I couldn't say that I know a lot about the Hindus, except that before Buddha – I was told that and I may be totally mistaken – there was a system of philosophy which denied everything, even thought...

DB : Yes... ?

K: And so, there was 'nothingness'...

DB : In that sense, you would agree with them, wouldn't you ?

K; Yes, yes...a little bit...

DB : Up to some extent...But of course there must be some difference between what you say and what they said... ?

K: I'm afraid I don't know fully what they said, but I was told that Buddha followed that system of going beyond all thought and 'nothingness' – it's called 'sankhya philosophy' or something similar – I have forgotten the exact name of it...
So, what we are saying, sir, is this : that the brain in itself produces 'incorrect thought' …

DB : Yes, the brain produces incorrect thought and perhaps the trouble is that thought began by not knowing its own behaviour, its own nature...And if thought could 'see' its own nature, and give a proper account of its own nature, perhaps it could think correctly .

K: Yes, yes...

DB : That's the proposal, you see ? But since it has not began by seeing its own nature, it began to go off the correct action and began more & more confused and tangled up...

K: Yes. So the brain itself cannot 'see' the correct action...

DB : Well, let's say that it has not yet been able to see it.

K: Yes, or see what is the 'illusion', or that it can deceive itself …

DB : Yes...the brain engages in self-deception, in order to try trying to make itself feel better – that's basically what happens, you see ? The brain somehow moves and creates a disturbance in the way it is operating and wants to 'feel better' and it does not know how and finally it ends up in self-deception...

K: Quite.

DB : ...and that of course creates more disturbance and it gets worse .

K: And can this deception come to an end ?

DB : That's really the question, you see...I don't know if any of us can say much how the ancient Hindus arrived at this – perhaps there were some people among the ancient Hindus who actually understood this, but the whole thing is so poorly documented that we can never say. And even with regard to Christ, one can't never say exactly what he said and so on...

K: I know...

DB : But we also said that at present time we have at least one point in our favour- that there is a very clear knowledge that thought is a material process – we said that sometime in the past...

K: Yes...

DB : Which is something very firm which would remove the speculation that thought might be all sorts of things...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : Now, that's one point...

K: You see, according to what Buddha had taught is 'right thinking' …

DB : Yeah...but that's somewhat ambiguous, because it could mean just a prescription for the 'right' way to think – now everybody says : We want 'right thinking' people - what they mean is they want 'people who think like us'...

K:(laughing)...like ourselves ! Quite...

DB : But Buddha probably didn't mean exactly that, is that it ?

K: I shouldn't think so – it was much too alive, much too...So this is the question we are asking : can the brain free itself from all self-delusion ?

DB : Yes...and also from self-centredness, selfishness...It's all that involved...

K: All that...

DB : You see, I am still sumarising in a way by presenting the situation...So in going on from there, we said that thought , trying to bring the brain in order - and also trying to reach the Highest Principle - it began to hold the brain in order by organising a 'center' just as it organises the centre of the 'family' or of the tribe in order, so thought is trying to bring the brain in order, you see , perhaps that came even before the order of a family...Perhaps even an animal has that to some extent. Now, one of the points that occured to me in considering that was that maybe there is a 'functional center' which comes in operation in order to do something and then it retires...

K: It can be 'dormant'...

DB...dormant... You see, a 'functional center' which operates only from time to time, as needed...

K: And what happens when it is dormant ?

DB : I don't know what happens, but I meant, let's first consider what went wrong when thought tried to organise a 'center' to control itself, first of all, it forms the 'image' of an 'center' inside – which might be felt in the solar plexus or in the head or somewhere and also the sense of some broad expanse outside. That is, one gets the impression that there is some sort of a 'periphery' and a 'center' – and the two are in some way related - what happens in one, happens in the other...

K: Quite...

DB : Now, is it our 'being' which has both an outside and an inside ?... There is the 'mental' being and we have our 'physical being' – there is a mental being and a physical being - the body and the visual perception which sees the body. And we know that what happens in the 'visual' perception happens in the body- they are actually the same, though we describe them as different...And there was a kind of extension of that, to form a 'mental body' and a 'mental' eye but it that got tied up with this temporary center. In other words, this little 'game' now producing the image of the 'center' , was tied up with the actual 'functional center'...

K: In our relationship we create a 'center' …

DB : An artificial, an 'imaginary' center...

K: An 'center' which is imaginary – made of 'images' – which is necessary to 'live happily together' .

DB : Which we 'think' it's necessary...But in addition there is another center – a functional center which works and retires. And this 'imaginary' center would call up the 'functiona' center in order to do what the 'image' says it should be done...And therefore the 'image' center obtains an apparent ...

K: ...'reality'.

DB : An 'effectiveness' as if it were a real being, by taking control of the 'functional center'...I don't know if that makes sense – that's the way it appeared to me ; because if it were just a image, we would soon discover that it was really quite weak or empty...

K: Sir, would you say – as all life is relationship - that thought creates the 'image'

for convenience...

DB ; In the beginning for convenience of function...

K:... and that creates the 'center'...

DB : That calls up the center of activity.

K: ...of activity, yes...

DB : Yes...so there is the 'image' of the center which calls up the 'center of activity' which then becomes 'centre'

K: So there is the 'image' in relationship and the 'image' which calls upon other series of images to function.

DB : It may even call for the an actual brain center to function - in other words, there are in the brain some mechanical centers and it may call on one of those, you see ?

K: Yes...

DB : Now, let's say that this image may be useful functionally or technically ; say, if you have to go from one place to another – then I form an 'image' of myself being here and the image of the place being there, then that 'image' helps to direct my function and my activity of going there but then this gets extended to the 'image' which tries to control the whole state of mind, or which tries to control the human relationships …

K: Yes, I understand... But sir, if there was no self-deception, would there be any need for a image at all  - except in the pattern action ?

DB : Yes, but there is an image even in the pattern of the functional action insofar as it's 'conscious' – if you can think about...

K: Why should there be a (self-) 'image' in action ?

DB : Maybe there should, or there shouldn't, but let's say first why it seems it should : say it's a very simple action – like that of a man who wants to make a tool or who wants to take a journey : so he 'imagines' the tool he wants to make, or he 'imagines' the journey that he wants to make and then he makes his preparations and carries it out ; now, let's say that to make this journey he might make a series of preparations and so on...

K: I know it, unfortunately...

DB : (laughs) ...now he may form in his mind the image of that journey as a series of 'pictures' of what it's like...

K: No, no...

DB : Maybe he is wrong, but this is what he probably does ; I'm not saying it's right , I'm just exploring...

K: Quite, quite...exploring...

DB : Now therefore he begins to function that way by thinking of the image of what he's going to do and carrying out according to that image...

K: Would you call it 'image' or the 'necessity of doing something', of preparing...I'm leaving the day after tomorrow (and) I have to pack and get all the things together & so on... There is 'image' forming at all. These things have to be done...

DB : Yes, but when the time comes to decide what has to be done...let's see – to go back to the primitive man – he has to take a long journey through strange places and he thinks of where he's going and what he may need and so on...Now some images may appear there - I expect such & such a countryside, I need such & such clothing & so on...

K: Why do you call it 'image making' ?

DB : Well, merely because even a photograph is an 'image' – you refer to a photograph of the place you are going to , and that will help your preparation, right ?

K: Just wait a minute...I would like to see – I'm going to California...

DB : Well, you know it already and other people know it...But suppose you've never been to California...

K: Then some other people will tell me : you need to take this & this...

DB : But suppose nobody knows exactly – if you are an explorer for example, you'll try to prepare for the exploration...

K: Yes, yes.

DB : And you don't know exactly what to expect but people might imagine what is the nature of the country and what you may encounter so that you can prepare accordingly. Or also you may have a photograph of that country, which will give you some idea of what to expect, right ?

K: I see that the word 'image'...

DB...the word 'image' has a general meaning based on the same limitation ; then I said there are different kind of 'images' – there are photographic images as in television and so on...

K: I see...

DB : Now, some of them may have a 'factual' content and some images do not, you see ?

K: Yes, the 'images' that have a 'factual' content we can leave those aside .

DB : That's right ; however we are using 'technical images' quite frequently – which have a factual content and the mind begins to 'extend' these images - the image making faculty – into other areas where there is no factual content …

K: Yes, quite...so we come back to the question – if we can leave the 'factual' images with their content & so on – that's very simple & clear...

DB : Yes... but the image of the 'self' seems to have 'factual' content , but we're saying that it has not... ?

K: It has none !

DB : Yes, but if you ask people, they'll say it has, you see ?

K; Of course...

DB : So, we'll have to understand how this confusion and self-deception came about...

K: Aha …

DB : You see, it was one of the basic things where mankind got caught - to form these 'images' which have no factual content but which very important and once that was formed...

K: Why does that 'self' become important ?

DB : Yes, that's our question ; I think the beginning was to form the 'center' which tried to take control of the whole process – and an 'image' was basic in forming this center …

K: Or, would you say the 'center' was formed because everything being in flux, everything being in movement ?

DB : Now let's go slowly here ; you see, this movement implies uncertainty – the question is why is thought unwilling to stay with uncertainty ? Why doesn't it accept the 'fact' of uncertainty ? See, it's already a distortion, deception.

K: There begins the deception.

DB : Yes... But why does it get caught in the deception ? You see, there may be thought which is functional, which is correct and so on …

K: That's simple...

DB ; Now, if the thought is functioning correctly, then if there is the fact that there is uncertainty, then it would just say : life is uncertain – it doesn't try to pretend or make an image that there is 'certainty'.

K: One can't live in uncertainty !

DB : But let's go slowly, you see, because you say : first of all, my knowledge is uncertain...

K: Yes, that's right...

DB : And I say : exactly, I can't live in uncertainty : but now, there's some confusion there, you see ? Because you are also saying : ''You have to live in uncertainty'' in some way...

K: Of course !

DB : But why did thought come to this 'false' conclusion ? You see, if it was functioning correctly it would have said 'life is uncertain

K: Wouldn't you say that in that there is a great fear ?

DB : I understand that, but where would this fear arise ? See, if thought is functioning correctly it would not produce fear ?

K: But it is not functioning correctly !

DB : Then this was aleady off because it was already functioning in a different area, you see ? In other words, thought began not knowing its limits, so it was already trying to do things which it has no place to do ; it was trying to provide security...

K: See, it entered in an incorrect direction when desire, sensation & thought became prominent...

DB ; Yes, that's just the point I was coming..

K: Sorry !

DB ; But that's good. The point is that thought is moving into a 'wrong' area in trying to provide a security which it cannot provide. The question is : what is the motive power behind this incorrect action ? And I think the point was that there arose this question of desire. Let's try to put it that thought moving in a correct area may set a goal and you will try to achieve it ; but thought can project another goal – to achieve a better state of mind, to 'feel better'...

K:...to feel better, right.

DB : ...if I feel bad it would be natural that I should feel better, and what can I do to feel better ? And of course, if you're ill, you go to a doctor & so on, but if you feel bad 'psychologically', with sorrow & so on, it's not so clear...So, when thought said ''I want to feel better'', it anticipated some kind of feeling & tried to achieve it - that being a 'desire', right ?

K: That's right, a desire...

DB : Now, it seems to me that desire is the basic source of self-deception...

K: Yes, of course, obviously...

DB : And it is very clear, because thought cannot do anything to the brain matter to feel better, but of course, it can do something to disturb it... Now, when tries to make the brain 'feel better', all it can do is to influence thought - to look for thoughts that can make it feel better …

K: Quite...

DB : So, thoughts which are incorrect are accepted as 'correct' and you begin to go into distortion and self-deception because it makes the brain feel better...

K: Right...That is, if 'desire' is sensation & thought, then that very desire is a distorting factor.

DB : Yes, because that sensation coupled with thought is giving to the brain for a better sensation, and it distorts thought in trying to make it better -inevitably, you see ? And then, of course, nothing can satisfy fully that desire -because of its contradictory nature- so it changes from one to another 'route' and eventually several different desires are already there... I have observed one thing : that when another desire comes in, does not know how to stop the first desire...

K: But sir, isn't all desire the same, but the 'objects' of desire change ?

DB : Yes, there is a superficial change of object, but the basic process is one and the same, it is confused, contradictory & self-deceptive... Now, desire includes 'belief' and 'hope' – belief means accepting something as correct because you desire it to be so ; for otherwise you have no proof, you see ? And 'hope' is just simply the belief that what you desire is going to be realised...So all three are one and the same : I think that 'belief' is even more deceptive than plain desire...

K: So, can desire be totally understood and therefore there's no more distortions taking place ?

DB : That is the point we have to get to, because desire is so self-deceptive that it deceive itself about its own existence – you may desire to believe that there is no problem & so on...

K: Yes...but haven't all religions – I don't know about Christianity, but certainly the Hindus- said 'control your desires', because that is the very root of self-deception

DB : Yes, I understand that all religions have implied or said ' Control desire' because they have understood very correctly that desire is destructive - but desire cannot be 'controlled' because when you try to control desire there will merely be one desire against another...

K: And because it cannot be 'controlled' they said : identify yourself with something greater …

DB : Yes, but that's still desire...

K: Of course !

DB : And that may become a form of self-deception : I believe that I am something greater because I feel better …

K: Right. Then the problem arises : Can desire -which cannot be controlled – because the 'controller' is part of desire …

DB : Yes, that's a key point and perhaps it should be brought up - that as you try to control the desire, the point is that desire in itself is not an 'object' but a 'movement', sending a set of instructions' to the brain in order to get something and the one who sends the instructions is himself controlled by the instructions...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And therefore there's no separation between the 'controller' and the 'controlled'. It's not the same as some external object which can be separated from the brain, but desire is the very movement...

K: And, as desire breeds illusion, can the mind or the brain relegate desire to the 'functional' activity ?

DB : Well, it's not clear that it can, as desire itself is deceptive, it is not clear if we can keep desire at its place

K: I think it can. Let's go into it.

DB : You see, I thought that one point could be added : desire may often be confused with passion, and they are obviously quite different ; one of the ways by which desire maintains itself is to create self-deception by saying it is 'passion'...

K: You've heard last night on television that the Conservative Party was 'passionate' …

DB : (both laugh) Now let's look into the 'functional' area – would you say there is a place for desire there ?

K: I doubt it...

DB : But you seemed to imply it was so before...

K: I know, but I just brought it out because I question it altogether...I think that if one can understand the whole movement of 'desire' an see whether it can be 'dissipated' , then in the 'functional center' there is no desire...

DB : You see, that would make more sense to say that the 'functional centre' would operate without desire and does what it has to do...

K: Yes, I had to go to California the other day, now it's finished...

DB : Because I think that if desire enters anywere it's going to produce self-deception that would spread everywhere...

K: So the question is whether desire can be totally dissolved so that there is no possible deception at any level -at the 'functional' center and at the 'psychological' and all the rest of it...

DB : Yes...

K: Otherwise, one lives in a 'fool's paradise' - because your belief in Heaven or Hell is totally unreal...

DB : Yes, I mean the point is : we can't go on with desire, and if we do, our society will be destroyed...

K: Quite, as the world is....So can desire have no place in action ?

DB : Or no place anywhere...

K: No place...We admit that, but how can this desire be dissolved ? What is the 'action', what is the process, what is the 'insight' or the intelligence that will dissolve this desire ? Can the brain 'see' the nature of desire or the 'truth of desire' and therefore...

DB : What you really mean is the actual fact of desire ?

K: Yes...I have watched it several times – I like fast cars : their shape & the whole bussiness of it...There is the sensation, thought, and the desire arising. Can there be only sensation, thought and no desire ?

DB : That's the question...You see, it's 'rational' to say that we sense something and we think from that and see what to do, but desire arises when that thought includes the thought of the self – it's something that the 'self' needs or is missing...

K: Like the sense of power, sensation & all the rest of it...

DB : But when that sense of power extends to be the essence of your consciousness, then it creates some sort of overwhelming power -which we call 'longing' or 'yearning' or 'craving' & 'hankering' & so on, in other words...

K: The root of all that is desire !

DB : That is the one thing, given different names, but I think the root of this is a certain mistake of thought which is in the wrong area – which is trying to think of the essence of your consciousness – or it is trying to think that it can do something in that area...

K: Yes, yes ...but we said the other day that the content of consciousness is consciousness...

DB : Yes , but then, one mistake is that thought tends to think is it is not ; in other words, thought tends to think that 'consciousness' is the manifestation of a 'being' or of an 'entity' who is deeper...and who is not only thinking correctly - more or less - but who is also 'seeing' – its thinking is often described as 'perception' – and who is also 'experiencing' - I think that's important – because that gives the sense of reality – that this 'being' is the 'experiencer' who is experiencing the sensations...

K: Quite...

DB : And all that makes this thing very real - a 'reality' independent of thought...You see, if all that would not be present, the sensations would not be regarded by thought as all that important...You see, thought is trying to produce a different set of sensations in order to make you feel better…

K: Better sensations... more & more sensations...

DB : That's right, more & better , that's what is worse !

K: (laughing) Yes...

DB : Now, that's an inherently crazy activity, you see, because the only point of sensations is to give you 'factual' informations ; if thought tries to make them 'better' , then it could no longer give you information, you see ? And the whole thing anyway is self- contradictory because that very attempt cannot be kept under control and so on...

K: So, I'll come back to the point : the 'content' of one's consciousness is the product of desire - apart from the 'functional' knowledge , the rest of it, is the movement and the accumulation of sensations and desire.

DB : It is like some sort of imprints which contain the records of all that and the instructions to produce them again and their memory becomes stronger and stronger...

K: Can that movement of desire come to an end ? Should it come to an end ?

DB : Well, it seems from what we said that it should...

K: But all the religions of the world they say this...yet the become monks in order to identify with (their spiritual ideal?)

DB : You see, that's the self-deceptive nature of desire : you see, one thing that the brain begins to see when it sees the destructive nature is : I'd rather not have desire, but it begins to desire a state of 'non-desire' ...

K: Yes, that's it - to desire a state of 'non-desire'...

DB : ...therefore the whole thing is silly because , desire has such a self-deceptive nature that I can desire 'not to be conscious that I have desire' – because it's the content of my consciousness- that I have no desire...

K: So, our question is ; can desire which brings illusion, self-deception and all the complications of objective complications the objective changing desires  ; can the root of desire be dissipated ? I think it is only then that you see what is 'truth' …

DB : I mean, that is very clear to me, that as long as there is desire, nothing can be done...

K: ...nothing can be done, that's right....You see, sir, this is very difficult, because most people think that desire is necessary to live - that's part of our tradition... As this boy said to me after the talk : ''I like sex, but without desire, how can I have sex ?''...So, our conditioning is so strong that desire is part of our 'necessity to live'...

DB : Yeah, otherwise you might just become a 'vegetable'...

K: ...a 'vegetable' ; Now, let's see : is it possible to eliminate all desire ?

DB : You see, just simply to finish the other point- that if we distinguish 'desire' and 'passion' – because without desire there is place for real passion, so there is no 'being a vegetable', but rather this has far more energy - because desire wastes a tremendous energy because of its contradictions ; it is always moving in many directions and it's wasting energy...

K: That's right. I was talking once to a monk and he said ''I have totally rid myself of all wordly desires'' ...

DB : Hmm, but what other thing he got left ?

K: ...and therefore I've taken to calling mysef a different name, put on a robe, I have only one meal a day so the worldly desire is completely out of my system ; but I do desire to reach God or whatever it is. He said, ''You cannot take that away from me because it's my life ! That is the very root of my essence''.

DB : Yes, that's what I was saying before, that thought is going into the wrong sphere and tries to guaranty its essence in some way, by 'thinking' ...You see, desire is the attempt of thought to make its essence right...

K: When I desire, I 'am'. You follow ?

DB : I think that's clear, rather than what Descartes saying 'I think therefore I am', it's 'I desire, therefore I am'... desire is ( the action of?) thought, of course, but I don't think Decartes had that kind of thought in mind...( both laugh)

K: You see, when you deny desire, 'I' am not !

Db : Yes...I was thinking of a remark you made once in some talk, that '' Desire is the bedrock of the ego''...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : You see, it seems very solid, something which is not that easy to break up...

K: Yes...Now how is this desire, which is the rock on which all our civilisation, all our 'individual' aspirations & all our culture are based, how can that be dissolved ; without 'control' – because then the 'controller is the controlled'- without any 'effort' - because 'effort' implies desire, without any 'goal' – which also implies desire, without any 'ideal'... ? The very question that the 'self' is based on the bedrock of desire and therefore self-deception, suffering  & the whole thing that follows, would you say that if there is no desire, there is 'nothing' ?

DB : Yes...

K: ...and therefore that 'nothingness' is a frightening thing ?

DB : Well, I would try to put it slightly diffently : desire is already implicitly fear...

K: Yes, of course !

DB : ...because desire is the sense that ''I need something for my essence'' and if it's not there then it would be very frightening ...

K: That's right !

DB : The very essence of desire is fear, it is sorrow, and it is violence – because if I don't get what I want I become violent, you see ?

K; Yes, sir....How am I to 'dynamite' ( laughing), 'explode' this tremendous rock which society, tradition, everything sustains it, boosts it, makes this 'bedrock' more solid ?
When one sees that desire implies conflict, desire implies duality, desire is in itself 'fragmentation' …

DB : Yes... ?

K: When one 'sees' that factually, is there desire ?

DB : Well, what you say is correct, but the difficulty is in 'seeing' this because it is such a fast & violent process. I think that desire has been built up by tradition to such an extent that it pervades every movement of consciousness...

K: I know... the desire to reach ... the desire to be good...

DB : ... the desire for the 'highest' , the desire for this & for that...The desire for security is probably a major one...

K: Would you say that knowing that there is no security, the desire is for something else... ?

DB : Well, the desire for security works entirely in a field of fancy imagination...

K: Yes...

DB : ...and that gives the apparent perception of the thing desired, or of the thing which we have to reach... Without imagination I don't think there would be desire...

K: The other day on TV, the host was saying ''This is my blood and flesh, eat of it !'' That's pure imagination !

DB : Yeah, it's fancy...

K: ...fancy and yet millions accept it !

DB : Yes, because that's 'belief' - whatever suits your fancy, or makes you feel good , you 'believe' it ; and every different persons, has a different 'belief'...

K: So, realising all this, examining and exploring all this, can we narrow it down and ask whether it is at all possible to live without desire ?

DB : Well, I'll say it's absolutely necessary...

K: It is, but now we come to the point where we both see it is essential that we exist without desire , and it's in the very structure of my brain cells that desires to live, that desires to be happy, that desires to get rid of fear & all the rest of it- how can that brain, which is conditioned by the desire to uncondition itself?
Do we ever ask this question ? And if we ask it, will it not be another form of desire to get rid of it ?

DB : Well, there is the danger of falling into that trap...

K: Of course ! But do we have to go through all this process ?

DB : Well, I mean, all of those things will not get us anywhere...

K: What prevents one from having an insight, a real insight, that is 'seeing the truth' of desire and therefore 'end' it ? Is it that we have never asked this question ? Or we dared to ask this question - if it is possible to live totally without desire ? I think it is a marvelous question that needs a tremendous intelligence – because if I desire a pair of shoes and I need it I won't call it 'desire' – or I may need a dozen pairs of shoes for various reasons & so on, but 'need' and 'desire' can they be kept separate ?

DB : Well, if it's a genuine need...

K: I'm talking of genuine need …

DB : Desire is a 'fancy' need in itself …

K: But there comes the 'pride' of posessions, vanity...

DB : That again it is an 'imagination'...

K: Of course ! So, can 'need' and 'desire' be kept separate ?

DB : I think they can...

K: They can, but that requires intelligence – that intelligence that 'sees' that desire has no place... Would you say the essence of intelligence is to be without desire ?

DB : Yes, we could say this is the essential requirement for intelligence...I wouldn't say it is the essence of the whole, but the essential requirement for intelligence is non-desire...

K: So a man caught up in desire - however cruel, however subtle, however noble - is unintelligent !

DB : Yes, not basically 'intelligent'...

K: Of course ! Now, can my needs or one's needs be absolutely correct ? Never desire touching them ?

DB : That would mean no thought for yourself ?

K: Of course...So consciousness becomes something totally different.

DB : Well, let's go into that a little bit : when there is no thought of the 'self' or desire...The thought of the 'self' is desire, or at least a sustaining force...

K: Yes ; and therefore, what is the nature of a consciousness that is not put together by desire ?

DB : But there is still an action of knowledge...

K: But that's 'function' – we'll keep that – it's understood we've locked it up...

DB : Now you're asking for an action beyond that?

K: Yes, of course...

DB : Could you say it's the whole function of the brain ?

K: Sir, what is the 'function' of the brain if there is no desire ? What happens to the brain if it has no desire ?

DB : Hmm... ?

K: Does it receive a shock with this question ? Is it something startling ?

DB : Well, not exactly 'startling' ; but surprising certainly …

K: Surprising, startling, therefore it is facing something totally new....

DB : Yeah...

K: 'New' in the sense that if has not put this question ever -others may have put it to ourselves....

DB : Like Buddha... ?

K: So, what happens to the 'movement' of the brain when there is no desire at all ? So, we're asking something which may be incorrect, or something 'illusory', because unless we understand the function and leave it totally, this question may be terribly disturbing to the brain...

DB : You mean, the brain can't handle it ?

K: Yes, it is too immense !

DB : Well, the brain tends to leave it go, if it can't really deal with it...

K: You see, you were saying the other day at lunch – if I may repeat it again – that in space there is a tremendous energy...

DB : Yeah...

K: Now we said desire wastes energy...

DB : Yes, that's correct...

K: Now, when the brain has no desire...

DB : Then it will have all that energy ?

K: That's right !

DB : Yes, I've observed that if you keep on watching desire carefully, you'll find that the energy goes up...

K: That's what I'm trying to get at  !

DB : … there is a major waste of energy in desire.

K: But you see, this is the 'danger' – the energy is going up - therefore control desire and make it an 'industry'...

DB : Yes, to 'keep it up'...

K: Keep it up and gain twenty millions of dollars of it...I don't know if you saw it the other day in the Herald Tribune : Transcendental Meditation is a twenty million dollars industry...You follow ? This is what would happen...

DB : Hmm ...what does the 'industry' produce ...

K (laughing ) ... more cars ! It's very interesting this...

DB : Now, I think that it's useful to observe that this does happen, but definitely not to pursue it...

K: Now, wait a minute, sir : I function 'rightly' – that means a life that is really orderly- righteous, virtuous, unselfish and all that...Then only I can put this question legitimately... Otherwise I'll use that watching of desire – the arising of that energy- use it for mischievous purposes. The army will accept this marvelous...and the politicians will play havoc with it ...Therefore I think it's essential that you must have that really religious, virtuous life – otherwise you can't come to the 'other' . Would you say that ?

DB : Yeah...

K: Then we can ask : what happens to the brain that has no desire whatsoever. Which means no self-deception, no striving, no 'achievement', no 'going or coming'...nothing ! Totally no desire. Therefore, if it has no desire, there's no 'content'...

DB : ...Except the functional...

K: Therefore it's empty and as you said the other day, it has a tremendous energy. Then, what's the point of all this ?

DB : We can't define a 'point'...

K: No, I'm just asking : what is the point of my having no desire ?

DB : Because then I'm free of self-deception... ?

K: Alright, I'm free of self-deception and then, what ?

DB : Well, I think that's not the end of the matter...

K: That's just it !

DB : Freedom from self-deception is the essence of a revolution in consciousness...

K: Revolution in consciousness...Would an actual revolutionary 'in here'...

DB : In...where ?

K: In the 'function'...

DB : Yeah... ?

K: ...accept this kind of 'revolution' wich brings tremendous energy to operate here ?

DB : Well, ordinary most revolutionaries would not, because they won't accept they are caught in self-deception. On the contrary, they feel they know what has to be done...

K: Of course, you've heard them...So, sir, at the end of it, what is the point of all this ? Say, one has come to this point – no 'desire' whatsoever...

DB : And a tremendous energy... ?

K: Not 'tremendous' energy'- it's something incredibly 'wild'- without limitations, without frontiers...it is 'infinite' – if I can use that word without being limited by that word, hmm ? If you have 'that' then... what's the point of it ?

DB : All right...it has no place in the present order of things...I mean, except possibly to help to transform it...

K: Suppose you and I come to this – not as Dr Bohm and K – but two people have come to it. Then, what is their relationship to the 'world of reality', the world of function, the world of relationship and so on... ?

DB : That is really the world of self-deception by desire...

K: What is their relationship ?

DB : You see, if you define all that as being the 'world' then there is no relationship except to communicate, to get through that, you see?

K: To come to this -as we have spent hours of this – not just casually, you were ready and I worked at it, & so on, to come to this we have to 'live right' and what is the point of it ? That's what I want to get at : who will 'listen' ?

DB : Well, I think there are different people - some are dis-inclined to listen and some are not, you now ?

K: No, but that means going into oneself at great depth, and watching everything like...

DB : Yes, I can see that most people won't want to do that - they may say they haven't the time...

K: Therefore they say to me :  ''That's only for the 'elite', so get the hell out of here !''

DB : Yes, but they haven't answered the question of 'what you do against self-deception ?'

K: They say, ''that's man's nature, it must go on''...

DB : Yes, but what will he do with the 'self-deception', you see ?

K: It begins with ''this is, and that is deception and it will gradually improve''...

DB : Yes, but they won't admit that it's deception... You see, if somebody once admits it is deception I think they cannot go on with this... You see, at least this is the way I see it that if we can make so clear this point - that it is deception and the person can get out of it...

K I was talking once to a Catholic in a train in India and he said  to me: 'Oh, you are a Hindu...' I said ''I am sorry I am not a Hindu''...He said ' All they have got is a set of beliefs -in Krishna, in Rama, etc - a whole set of superstitious nonsense & all that ' I said : ''What about yourself, sir, your belief in Christ ?'' And he said ''Ah, that is real ! ''…. You follow ?
That's what I want to get at : If two people have got this mind, this sense of a brain that has no sense of desire – what a marvelous thing that is, hmm ?

DB : Yes...

K: Then, what can they do ? What is the point of it ? It's like living in a desert !

DB : You see, I think we discussed something relevant to this before- when you compared the young man Krishnamurti to some sort of 'nucleus' which would help to transform the consciousness of mankind...

K: …the consciousness of mankind, quite right !

DB : Any person who is without desire is that 'nucleus'... Isn't that right ?

K: That's what I want to get at : I think it does affect consciousness here...

DB : Yes, because let's say, if there is one and he does affect it, then two will have more effect...

K: Of course...

DB : But consciousness is 'all-one' – you see ? The idea that it's all separated is wrong – it is flowing like a stream, and every person has some mixture of this consciousness...I think we once used the notion if 'ideosyncrasy' - Which I looked up and it means 'private mixture'...

K: 'Private mixture'...(laughing) yes, that's good !

DB : And everybody has his own 'private mixture' of the general consciousness– he draws everything out of this general consciousness. So, there is no such thing as an 'ego', which is 'individual', you see ? Every 'individual' is a private mixture of the ingredients of the general consciousness.

K: ( laughing) Quite...

DB : Now, that means that consciousness is continuously flowing in a stream, into and out of each individual and if there is 'truth' – truth as I said is 'truth in action' - that flows into the other person...

K: Yes...So the point is that it affects the total consciousness of man.

DB : Yes...first only potentially and later actually, you see ?

K: Yes...It affects man.

DB : It affects mankind, right  ?

K: Mankind, yes...

DB : And obviously, if that man would be entirely isolated, it wouldn't actually affect other people, but once he is in contact, that potential effect becomes actual.

K: A man who is here, in the world of reality, listens to you who say : As long as there is desire  there is deception and therefore there is no solution to society or to the individual. And that is only possible when there is no desire whatsoever. Then there is a total revolution and that will affect the consciousness of man.

DB : Yes...

K: Now he is here, in the world of reality, and he listens to you, he says : Allright, I accept the logic of it, the reason of it, the explanation of it – I 'see' it. Now, how am I to move from the 'world of reality' to this ?

DB : Yes.. ?

K: So, he says : by systems & all the ( time?) traps that desire has created...

DB : So, you'll have to go into that and point out that any systems...

K: But they haven't time, you follow ?

DB : They havent't time...

K: They want everything quick & with appeal...

DB : But it seems to me that the whole thing can be presented in such a way that it is becoming transparent that any system is all self deception...

K: But for this man in the 'field of reality', everything is against him ! His education , his upbringing, his family – everything is against him !

DB : But couldn't we say that no man is entirely in the field of reality ? You see, there is probably some mixture again... In other words, he has some...

K: But that would lead to another illusion – ''Yes, I've got this thing !'' …

DB : No, not to say that, but the way it seems to me, is that somebody may get a moment of perception , but then as thought comes in, it begins to tangle it up...

K: That means that even the moment of perception...

DB : ...is wrong ?

K: ..may be wrong ? For that moment of perception there must be leisure, he must have a 'time to listen' , a time to read ...

DB : You see, you are presenting an 'impossible' problem...

K: This is what's happening …

DB : I know it's the 'fact', but we seem to reach an impasse...

K: I mean, a man would give all his life to climb mount Everest...He'll go to hell to come there...

DB : Yes, but then it's the same story, because 'mount Everest' is in the field of desire ...

K: Of course, but I think that the man who is without desire affects the total consciousness of human beings.

DB : But is there any possibility that this effect will bring about the total 'revolution' ? You can't say, eh... ?

K: Of course in a school like here at Brockwood or others, this is the basic thing the students are fighting - ''It's all very well, I agree, but how am I to earn my livelihood ? How am I to have any relationship if I consider that ?''

DB : Yes, and if I'm free of desire, then what will I do ?

K: So, they say, take it little by little -you follow, sir ? Don't 'swallow' the whole thing, take a little bit of it...Then they're lost by the time they've taken all the 'little bits' …

DB : Yes, well that can't be done because...

K : That can't be done, but the priests and the gurus supply the 'little bits'... We never put this question really, what an extraordinary thing it is for the brain to be without 'desire' …

DB : Have you put it ?

K: I've never put it, but it is there.

DB : Implicitly... ?

K: I see I have no desire, literally ! I am not deceiving myself, I'm not trying to pretend this – I have horror for all that... So, putting that very question has open something which was probably there. So the passion of desire and the passion of 'non-desire' are two different things...

DB : Yes...Could you say that the passion of desire is some twisting up of the brain's energy and the 'other' energy is entirely different ?

K: Yes.

DB : Is not the brain's energy -which we discussed the other day of truth ?

K: Yes...You see, here intelligence has been the tool of desire.

DB : Well, how can intelligence... ?

K: We'll call it 'intelligence'...

DB : Can we call it the 'brain function' ?

K: Yes. There we say 'he's an intelligent man', he works 'intelligently', etc...So, desire is identified with intelligence in activity here, but when there is no desire at all, that intelligence can function here.

DB : Yes, we discussed this the other time that for example when one is speaking, this intelligence may function and directly produces the words, rather than having them come from desire...

K: Yes...Sir, if I may ask, not being 'personal', when you heard that statement ''Can the brain be totally without desire'', what effect had that question ?

DB : Well, I can't remember ; I think the question was there implicitly but it sort of 'opens up' the brain...I mean, to make it 'explicit' ...

K: Yes, that's what I was trying to find out...

DB : ...because in some way, I think you're right to say that our tradition is such that it would be very unlikely to put this question even if you have felt it implicitly...

K: Yes...

DB : ...but it's unlikely to put it explicitly.

K: See, they have always said : 'control desire' ...

DB : I think that in the modern age it says 'don't even control it ' !

K : Of course, the 'modern age'... You see, sir, I think this has to do with the 'process'...

DB : Your 'proces's, the one we were discussing the other time  ?

K: Yes...Because I was watching in the last few days - as I woke up very early and been very quiet - the intensity of the movement of desire is going on changing the whole nature inside...

DB : The nature of what ?

K: Of the brain. I mean, all this sounds ridiculous...

DB : I wouldn't say it sound ridiculous ; you're saying desire originates from (brain's ) conditioning and this conditioning leaves some imprint in the brain cells. Could you say that this 'movement' is changing the imprint, or... ?

K: No, it's something entirely different, much more...

DB : Much more than this... ?

K: Much more...

DB : In other words, it's doing something into the deeper layers of the brain, not just in the memory ?

K: Yes...

DB : So, you feel that, but you can't prove it... ?

K: No...this can't be 'proved' …

DB : What ?

K: ...what happens to a brain without desire …

DB : Yes...I've been reading what you call ''the Scaravelli manuscript'' ( the Notebook) about what happened with this process over six or seven months while you were travelling around the world...

K: I think this is what it is, sir : you can take purgatives to cleanse the body, or various herbs & so on to purify the body, the organism. Now is there a 'movement', an 'action' that keeps the brain completely pure or uncontaminated... ?

DB ; And this has to do with the 'process' ?

K: With the process and with 'this'.

DB ; What is 'this' ?

K: The brain without desire...We're entering into something...You see, if there is no desire then what is the function of the brain other than this?

DB : Except the ordinary function... ? Would you say there is another function ?

K: Why should it 'function' ?

DB : Let's say it doesn't function...then what happens ? Let me bring up another point : in this 'Scaravelli manuscript' you are refering quite often to this 'otherness' saying that it left an imprint on the brain. Why do you call it 'other' – is it 'other' to thought or 'other than' the odinary reality ?

K: Yes, 'other than'...

DB : But this doesn't imply there is a separation..... ?

K: No... I had to use ( common) words...Sir, when you 'hear' a statement of that kind : 'brain without desire' , does the brain undergo a revolution, a transformation  - like 'Compassion' -which is a mystery- and that very word 'compassion' is a word that has got a tremendous vitality...

DB : Yes... ?

K: When you hear words like that, doesn't that affect your whole organism & so on ?

DB : Well, it may have, but you see, I think we use these words so frequently that they cease to affect us...

K: I know...And I think that's why it is remaining  such a 'mystery...

DB : Why ?

K: The word 'Compassion' …

DB : Why is it such a mystery ?

K: It is a mystery because it is so changing, and it's never the same...

DB : Yes... ?

K: It's really timeless...And therefore it is an extraordinary 'mystery'...
What time is it ?

DB : It's five minutes to five...

K: Why aren't children – at least some of them – supposed to see 'facts' ?

DB : I didn't know about that...

K: I was told that...

DB : Maybe there are some, but in general they have a great deal of 'fantasy'...

K: Of course, all that it's encouraged...

When do you go back ? Tomorrow ?

DB : In the afternoon.

K: I must return your dictionary...it's there. Better stop, don't you think ?

DB : Yes...(silent pause)

K: Two or three people have heard these tapes and said they are greately moved and they want some copies of them, or do you want lots of people to share it ?

DB : We can discuss this when we meet in California... But when you raised this question of the 'mind without desire' I think that it begins to open up this whole thing...

K: To put in words a thing like that, I think it does something ...

DB : You see, at first it may seem like an insignificant change, but it actually is very significant...

The END

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 15 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 43 of 43 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.)