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

Holistic Education


Displaying posts 241 - 247 of 247 in total
Fri, 10 Jan 2020 #241
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 466 posts in this forum Offline

FOUR

DB : Last time there were a few points and consequences which I think they are interesting (to pursue) . Briefly it is this : over the years we have seen that thought moves in inevitable contradictions -from one to another- and then we said, let's try to keep 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'...
Because the moment it defines 'its own place' , it is already gone beyond that place – so, 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 and 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 is crooked !

DB : Now if that's the case, it seems to me that we need some other energy, some other movement that will carry out our practical functions. There might be another movement which will carry out the same functions but without becoming 'crooked'... And that would seem to me a good point to start.

K: Are we saying sir, that thought being in itself contradictory and when it tries to put order in that contradiction it creates further disorder and that thought can never have its right place ?

DB : Yes, even if we were to start out fresh, it would come to the same thing.

K: Yes...And we're asking : is there another ( source of intelligent) energy which will carry out these functions without becoming crooked ?

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

K: Quite... What is the new instrument which will discover that (new) energy ?

DB : Yes, we started looking at that op 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. And people have known this as 'dialectic' – according to the dictionary 'the art of discussion through questions and answers - it starts with accepting something which people think 'reasonable' – which may be an opinion and move from there to discover thought's inevitable contradiction. I've studied 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 (synthesising ) idea which will resolve the contradiction... 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 : Now, if we pursue that we can see that there's no much point in pursuing thoughts contradictions 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 ( the whole process of) 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, but I was told that a Buddhist scholar – Nagarjuna- went much further saying that in ending thought there is 'nothingness'.
So (to recap:) we've come to the point where thought being contradictory, and thought thinks that through 'dialectics' it resolve it, hoping that by a certain point thought can see its own 'absurdity'...

DB : Yes...

K: But can't (the time-binding process of) thought end and a new 'energy' operate in the field of reality and not bring about contradictions in the field of reality ? That's it , we got ( the general idea of?) it !

DB : Yes... and one more point that can be added is that intelectually we can see the contradictions and on the side of 'feeling' we can see them through ( the frustrations of?) desire. It comes to the same thing...

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

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

K: Sir, when you used the word 'desire' you used it in the sense of feeling, demand, and also in the ( original) meaning of this word : longing, clinging to, seeking the ultimate pleasure in different forms – surely, all that is in the field of thought  (within the field of the known?) ! Desire is one of the 'arms of thought' !

DB : Yes, it starts by producing feelings (& expectations?) ...

K: Would there be that 'feeling' if thought didn't enter into that area ? I desire this house – in that desire is included the longing for the (fulfiling of the ) 'image' of what thought has created as pleasurable... I don't think there is a difference between desire & thought !

DB : Yes... the contradictions of desire come in the same way as the inherent contradictions of thought...

K: When I am young I desire a woman, (then) I desire a house – I change the objects of desire, but desire remains !

DB : Desire remains, but its 'objects' are always changing - if you get the object it will move to another one...just the same as thought would not stay (in its 'right place'?) but move from one thing to another..

K: That's clear...

Dr P : Now this continuous movement of thought is a continuous 'projection' ( along a self-created 'time-line') so there is a continuous 'chasing' there...and one's life is between the projection and himself...

K: Quite..

Dr P : This is a process of conditioning that starts from feeling (and moving) to the 'image' formation...

K: What do you mean by 'conditioning' ?

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

K : I wonder if that is not ( still an incipient form of) 'thinking' - so it is a 'dangerous' ( over-simplifying ?) thing to say that the child has no thought but only feelings …

DB : Yes...Some psychologists (like Piaget) have sudied that and they say that the young child has a 'non-verbal' form of thinking - a 'motor' thought , like an animal...And he thinks that through his 'images' and through this 'motor activity'
the child is still 'thinking' in terms of pleasure & all that... But it seem the child doesn't think in terms of the 'I'

K: I cling to this toy and another child comes to take it and I want to 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 (self-) contradictory as thought is contradictory. Now we're saying ; is there a ( source of intelligent?) energy which operates in the field of reality without becoming crooked ( corrupted?) ?
You see, when I have discussed in India with all the local pundits & others, they have said : this 'energy' is ( of a ) divine (nature) – I'm using their words- and therefore it can never operate in the field of reality – but if it does, it can never go contradictory ( 'personal') –they assume the existence of an energy which is unconditioned – which is (called) Brahman, or Soul, or God.
Now, if we can 'erase' (put aside?) from our mind that process of 'imagining' -and one must if one really find out ( the actual truth?) - then what have we (to deal with?) We have only the (joint) 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' ( starting ?) position. I'd like to start that way, and I am ( identified with this self-centred) consciousness in which all movement is ( dominated by?) thought & desire. Right sir ?

DB : Yeah...

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

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

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

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

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

DB : Yeah...

K: That I see. Is this 'seeing' within the ( known?) content of the consciousness or outside ? When I say ''I see the contradictory' nature of thought '' Is that 'seeing' an intellectual perception ( the result of a ) verbal comprehension, or is it an actual perception ? Is this 'seeing' a movement of thought ? If it is, then I don't 'see' -there is no ( direct) 'seeing'. Then when does the mind (honestly) 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' (fact) is being seen – desire & the movement of  thought – that's the 'actual'. And 'who' is it that 'sees' it ?

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

K: That's what I want to get at... Somebody tells me that thought is everlastingly moving from pattern to pattern, in contradictory patterns, contradictory desires- when thought does that, 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 try to ) see it ! So, what do I see ? The verbal (intellectual) pattern ( of what he's saying?) The verbal description – and therefore I've got the 'colour' of the painting of his description ? Or  is it an intellectual grasp of what he's saying or it has nothing to do with all that but only ( direct?) perception ? I'm just asking : how does that (direct perception?) happen ? I 'listen' to him, I respect what he's saying : to me it seems logical, sane and actual – and then at the moment I see the whole of it ! Not the fragments put together, but the 'whole' movement of desire, thought, contradiction, the whole movement from pattern to pattern, the excuses & so on- I see it completely as a whole ; and my action of 'seeing as a whole' is totally different from thought's (highly knowledgeable?) action...How does it happen ?

DB : Well, when I looked at it and saw that thought cannot be made straight, I couldn't describe how it happened, 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 (getting entangled) in its movement in contradiction ?

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

K: What brought about this insight  ? If you say 'attention' – this attention implies that there is no 'center' and therefore I receive eveything he says without 'twisting' it !

DB : But isn't there a thinking without 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 ( a dualistic process of) 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 ? You see, if the essential function of thought is to 'reflect' – to create an 'image'...

K: Which becomes the 'centre'...

DB : Yes, but let's get this straight...It would seem from what you're saying that thought cannot exist without a 'centre' . Hmm.... ?

K: Yes, that's right...

DB : But if 'something' ( a different energy ? ) could awaken, then we wouldn't have the 'centre'... ?

K: That's right ! Pupul raised this question : ''Is the (insightful) seeing
within the field of consciousness ?'' That 'seeing' must have ( a free inward?) space – and therefore from that ( inwardly open?) space arises the total comprehension ?

DB : Yeah...But is it still part of ( the temporal?) consciousness ?

K: That's it ! It's part of the content of consciousness which has been conditioned ? If not, from where does that perception come ? 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: ( So, the holistic ?) perception is not (the result of ) the movement of thought... You can 'see' the truth (only) outside the field of ( your self-centred?) consciousness. ( The living spirit of?) Truth is not within ( the ego-centric ?) consciousness- and because you see it, thought' s 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' (the totality of?) it !

DB : I mean, just once is enough?

K: Absolutely !

DB : Hmm. .. ?

K: If I see it, 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 ! All thought's action is in the field of reality. And we're saying that truth's action in the field of reality is never contradictory. As there is a perception of truth, that ( holistic) perception operates in the field of reality. Would it be an (existential?) mistake when you take the wrong road ?

DB : Well, you simply by lack of information you chose one way of the road...

K: So, truth operating in the field of reality & not having sufficient ( real world?) information can take the 'wrong' direction... And you looking at him from 'out there' say : ''He's mistaken, therefore he's never seeen the 'truth'''

DB : That is one way of looking at it ...but then, 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 : he lives a very contradictory existence...

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

K: So, there is a perception of truth and I have to act in the (messy?) field of reality- do you make a 'mistake' (of judgement?) – something which is not truthful ?

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

K: Exactly...Truth being (something ) that thought cannot (actually) perceive, realise or express. The 'logic' that thought spins out becomes illogical

DB : I'd like to put it this way : there is an actuality which is independent on though and an actuality which is being created by thought and thought looses track that it has created those images – but that mistake can't be corrected – because thought lacks the information. Could we say that truth makes no such 'mistakes' ?

K: Once you have seen something actually 'dangerous', it's finished ! But thought can create a (potential) danger by creating an 'image' which is unreal and hold on to that image – and ( in time) this becomes a (psychological )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 ( such?) a mistake'...

DB : Except if it is given wrong information – it is like a ( dumb?) computer- if you give it wrong information...

K: That's it ! ( For instance if ?) you see that 'organised' religions has no truth in it and you 'see' it 'totally' (with all your intelligent being?), you can't go back & try to (re-) organise their religious stuff : it's finished ! And this action will be totally 'logical' – never contradictory (with no regrets?) right ?

DB : Yeah...Now several people asked me (to tell you?) that most human beings are not capable of such perfection...

K: I don't see it as 'perfection' ! I see it as ( the intelligent action of?) a man who is sensitive, attentive – and 'sees' the danger- and therefore doesn't touch it !

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

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

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

K: That's it ! The thickness of the ( self-protective) 'wall' that ( the self-centred) thought has created for itself.

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

K: There's no question of (intellectual ?) 'modesty', but one has to have a great sense of ( inner) humility to see Truth  !

DB : Yes, I understand that...

K: Let's go back to the question of Pupul : Is there a free 'space' in our consciousness which thought has not touched ?

DB : I should think it's impossible, because ( the 'self'-centred) thought is an ( all-controlling mental ) 'structure' and every part of thought touches any other part...

K: All 'fragments' in ( the 'self'-centred) 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 … I mean, anybody can tell immediately that a certain word doesn't exist in his native language....

K: Right, all words are inter-related ...So all fragments of one's consciousness are inter-related...and so there is no ( known?) space or hidden spot which thought hasn't touched...

DB : Or has the potentiality of touching.

K: Yes, as we said, all thoughts are related, all fragments are related. So, that being so, what brings about the 'act' of ( holistic) perception ?

DB : You frequently ask this kind of questions for which the ( experiential) answers are not clear...

K: I think here the answer is clear : when ( the 'self'-centred movement of ?) thought comes to an end...

DB : Yes, but then one asks : what ( exactly) brings it to an end ?

K: Does thought see the futility of all its ( 'self'-centred mental ) movement -and 'stops' ?

DB : Well, I shouldn't think that thought has that ( perceptive) 'power' – or at best, it might see this 'futility' in a fragmentary way...

K: So, if thought cannot see itself in its totality, is it (required) a (holistic quality ) in which must be a sense of 'no-thingness' ?

DB : But what is ( the source of this ?) 'attention' ?

K: Attention is the summation of all (one's ) energy. But that's not quite enough. So is it happening when the ( meditating?) mind comes to an absolute no-thingness  - not a 'thing' in it – and that is (releasing?) a 'super' energy !

DB : So we're saying that 'attention' is the summation of all the human energy and there is an energy beyond that ?

K: There's a 'danger' of self-delusion in (stating) this because I can 'imagine' that... So the ( truthful ?) mind has to see through all that...

DB : Now I would like to ask you a ( very personal) question : you were like this all your life ?

K: I'm afraid so...

DB : But what if for some odd reasons you were (born) this way and the rest of us are not...

K : I wouldn't like to sound conceited...

DB : But the combination of all ( collective) 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... We'll have to go into something entirely different. How does it happen that the other person doesn't get conditioned ? Is it due to 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 body wasn't healthy, therefore it (his mind) didn't receive anything... and therefore it (the self-centred conditioning ?) never entered it

DB : It didn't took hold.... Now there is a similar stage in the young children's development where they go through a tremendous opening, but then it closes down...

K: There are several ( occult?) theories about this : One theory is that this person has had ( a good set of previous ) lives and the other   that there is ( a reservoir of active ?) Goodness in the ( total consciousness of the?) world ?

DB : Well, this point has not been very clear...Perhaps we could discuss it ?

K: I mean, ( in the collective consciousness of mankind?) there are these two (trends) - 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' since the 'evil' (trend) is based on falseness …

K: So there are these two 'forces' and the asiatics believe that the Good
is with those who are advancing spiritually . Can that (Intelligence) of Goodness penetrate into a person who isn't 'selfish' (conditioned by self-interest?)  ? I have talked with those people who knew him as a child ( and they're saying he ) had a sense of 'vague', moronic. And when he got in the west...( the TS conditioning?) didn't penetrate either..

So, what brings about this ( immunity to ) conditioning ? (a) There must be a ( quality of) natural awareness and sensitivity, and ( b) 'no choice' - from there 'attention', affection & care (Hint :) the 'love' that exists in attention is different from the (sensuous) 'love' ( going on in the field of) of reality . ( c )  : If I ( have an authentic affection & ) 'love' for you, therefore I receive ( or listen to?) you profoundly...Therefore our communication is not verbal...But still, that is not enough : (d) Can this consciousness be completely empty ? Which means, there is nothing ( no-thing?) inside it ?

DB : But that still includes an awareness of the environment ?

K: Yes, of course ! Then there is this ( holistic quality?) – which didn't exist in ( the self-centred ) awareness, this attention has in itself this quality of (selfless ?) Love. And therefore isn't this a Consciousness which is totally different ?

DB : Then why would you call it 'consciousness' ?

K: The ( self-centred) consciousness – as we knowing it now - 'is' its content : the movement, wide or narrow of thought. In 'no-thingness' there is no 'movement' (of thought?) at all – but it has its own movement which can operate in the field of reality...

DB : We'll have to clarify what is this (timeless) 'movement '?

K: The 'no-thingness'  has a movement which is not the movement of thought, which is, not a movement of time.

DB : It occured to me about ( thought's projection of ) 'time' that when thought reaches a 'contradiction' (an existential impasse?) , then it jumps to another ( thread of) thought and that 'jump' is ( creating its continuity in?) time.

K: Right !

DB : It seems to me that the very essence of psychological time is contradiction...

K: Contradiction, I see that... Sir, we were asking : is there ( a dormant ?) 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 : But this is a view which I've heard  : that this energy does not exist in time, but it manifests itself in time, or reveals itself...

K: Which is the same thing... I'm only putting it differently...

DB : I mean, several different people have already said that – some of the ancient Indians in America...

K: Yes, yes ! And in India too they say 'That' manifests itself in the field of reality …

DB : Is that view acceptable to you ?

K: 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 would call him a 'manifestation'...

K: Yes, an 'avatar' - a sanscrit word...Now, would that be true ? That is you as human being, perceive truth and you manifest (speak up?) 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 ( quibbling ?) question : why should Truth operate in the field of reality ?

DB : Let's just put it that generally people accept it because we hope that we will have something from it – to keep us 'straight' (both laugh...)

K: To have a string of 'hope' ….We have accepted (this idea) - 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. But there is a ( psychological) 'danger' in assuming that in ( the consciousness of) man there is the highest principle (Brahman) and that it operates and we cling to that idea.
But if we do not cling to it, how is one to live in the world of reality to bring order to it ?

DB : Weren't you saying that truth cannot operate in the false... ?

K: Yes, but you follow sir ; I 'am' ( the?) 'false' ! Because 'psychologically' thought has created this 'false' ... And how can Truth operate in the 'false' ?

DB : Well, it doesn't...

K: Obviously it cannot ! But in the field of thought can there be order ?

DB : We can have some relative order...

K: So you're saying this order is relative ?

DB : Yes, we could bring a 'relative' order into the field of reality...

K: Ahh... but that is not good enough ! I want ( a sense of deep inner ) order here, in the world of reality, because (this) order means safety, security, protection...I must have that !

DB : Hmmm... ?

K: Thought cannot produce that (sense of inner order?)  . But why can't I have it without invoking or looking for truth ?

DB : Well, let's go into that, because what determines ( our sense of) reality is thought …And 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: Because you have explained everything rationally, thought itself says ''I will be orderly'' : I know that I jump from pattern to pattern but I will be very watchful ! And that 'self-recollected' watchfullness will have order without introducing 'outside agencies'...

DB : So, you view is that it can be done ?

K: Thought says I have created this whole mess. And therefore it abstains to continue in that way : Therefore I will be intelligent ! Can that take place ?

DB : We'll have to look at this. Doesn't this imply that thought has the possibility of not being entirely mechanical ?

K: Something else must take place...

DB : What is it ?

K: Seeing the ( deadly inner ?) 'danger' that thought is bringing its own disorder ! So, when there is the perception of the 'real' danger, thought doesn't act ! The ( actual seeing of this?) danger is a shock to thought !

DB : Hmmm … 

K: So thought 'holds' ( itself quiet?) – and in that 'holding' of thought there is order

DB : Right... ?

K: Let's put it this way : we go to Gstaad and see all these marvelous mountains … and your thought is 'gone away'... The beauty of it drives away all the movement of thought... And it is the same when thought sees the tramendous danger...

DB : That is, with the aid of (inner) attention & awareness, thought 'sees' it ?

K: Though sees it. Like when I see a car rushing towards me, I jump away This 'jumping away' is order

DB: Yes, but you see, the perception of danger may not be maintained...

K: Or one may not see the danger at all ! When thought does not see the danger of (being attached to the concept of) 'nationality' when you had ten wars and you still repeating it- it is a neurotic movement !

DB : Yes, that's part of the problem that thought dulls perception...or prevents perception from operating...

K: Now you come along and ( try to?) educate me to see the danger of all this …And as you 'educate' me I ( may?) see the danger and I drop it !
So, why should ( the compassionate spirit of?) truth enter into the field of reality ?

DB ; But then what does 'truth' do – what is its action ?

K: What is its function, what does it 'do', what is its value -not in the sense of merchandised or 'employable ? You see, one way ( to look at it is) truth is 'supreme ' intelligence – as we said. And we're asking, can that intelligence operate in the field of reality ? If it does, then it can bring about absolute order. And we're saying ( the direct perception of?) truth is not something to be gained through education, through culture – through the medium of thought...Right, sir ?

DB : Yeah, but when you say ''truth does not operate in the field of reality'' it becomes ambiguous. 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. In the act of 'understanding' the action is 'under' reality, rather than being ( entangled?) 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: Has Goodness a (working?) 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: Evil will go on till one sees the ( inherent) contradiction of thought ...To show man thought can never solve his problems. Right sir ?

DB : Yeah...You could put it like this : as long as thought is going on, there 's no possibility to solve his problems...

K: As long as (the self-centred) thought – which is ( also projecting its own continuity in ?) 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 an action...

DB : And that 's the 'movement' which is beyond attention ?
K: Beyond attention...(If ) I have 'listened' to him it will operate, it will do something, as truth has its own vitality – but I don't have to do anything ( to end thought's time process ? ) Before I was accustomed to 'do' something – but he ( K ) says : Don't !
I'm taking an example :   listening to the ( inward truth of the ) statement ''hurting someone "psychologically' is evil" - if I receive it without any (mental) resistance, it has entered into my whole being and it operates !

DB : Yeah....

K: So, it's a 'wrong' (unproductive?) 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 then see that it's wrong, not merely to deny the question ...

K: I think it's enough...Can we get up ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Jan 2020 #242
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 466 posts in this forum Offline

FIVE

DB : One question that's worth discussing is (to clarify more ?) what we discussed last week : that Truth does not make direct contact with ( the world of) reality – perhaps we should discuss that...

K: If (the man-made ) reality is ( generated by ?) the activity of thought , with the cessation of thought, will (the inner clarity of) truth become apparent  ? First of all can thought be 'stopped' or can it 'naturally cease' ? And if that can take place, can truth exist ?

DB : Would truth be 'actual' then ?

K: I don't think it happens that way because thought is so cunning- it can hypnotise itself and think it is very quiet. And there are various (meditation) systems conceived to quieten thought. But ( these methods of thought) control is still not ending thought, as one ( thread of ?) thought superimposes on the other. Then how can thought ever be ( naturally?) silent ? I think something else should take place ...What do you say ?

DB : Well, perhaps we could clarify the difference between thought making a simple (honest) mistake and the kind of (self-delusive?) 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 due to lack of knowledge but it's (purposefully?) ignoring certain things in order to be more comfortable, to have more pleasure or not to disturb the (static?) equilibrium of its operation- because if it does, it thinks that everything will go to pieces...

K: Yes...

DB : Now that kind of positive 'ignorance' is thought positively ignoring ( potentially disturbing facts) And there is the 'negative' form of ignorance, due to the lack of information. But then it's sometimes hard to distinguish whether someone has done something foolish due to lack of (adequate ) information or due to the lack of some deeper & subtler information...

K: Are we trying to find out whether ( a mind established in ?) truth can make a mistake ?

DB : In a way, yes... In other words is there something more (involved ) than the mere lack of information ? We said 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, ( a mind established in?) truth cannot deceive itself, obviously !

DB : Now, is it possible – for instance in your case- that thought can go on for a certain time and then you see something and it will just end ? 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 ! Is truth an abstraction ?

DB : It better not be ! Then it would be still thought...

K: So, it is not an (abstract) term of thought calling itself 'truth'. It must be out of time, it must have no ( thought induced?) continuity. So it must have no relation to the ( memories of the?) past or to the ( projections of the ) future...

DB : Which implies, that (the perception of truth ?) 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 : … and which is always right, etc. But this is not necessarily continuous, though...

K: Cannot be !

DB : Of course not, but it may happen from moment to moment, right ?

K: Yes.

DB : But in between (two insights of truth) , is there a lack of complete attention? You see, I'm trying to get it clear...

K: Hmmm.... ! ( long pause) We'll have to go into this...

DB : And there would be one more point : if we can ever do without thought or what we can do or not do without thought
Or is there another function ( of the brain?) which will do the function of thought without 'twisting'. And there is the possibility that thought works (steadily at) 'twisting' (distorting the perception) and truth comes in a flash …

K: Could we approach it this way : what is ( the insightful ?) action ? We know the ( open & hidden?) activities of thought : changing patterns, each pattern creating its own disorder, mischief, pain, and moving all this (burden?) within the same area ( of the known?) . So what is the action that is not in that field ? It must be without a ( personal?) 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 ( psychologically loaded?) memory.

DB : But it may use memory ? Or perhaps it doesn't ?

K: Perceiving without the 'perceiver'- which is ( the self-identified psychological?) memory - the action of this ( transpersonal?) perception is instantaneous, and therefore it is truth. In that case, memory is not necessary.

DB ; Not at that moment...

K: Not at that moment. When is memory necessary ? To carry out that perception ?

DB : Well, it could be... (the back up of) memory may be necessary in all these activities, for example moving around..

K:Yes, yes...

DB : Now, I'm not sure that the ( truthful?) 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 ( the ongoing process of self-centred ? ) thought...

K: Yes, but for the moment we are considering what is the action of truth and what is its ( working?) relationship with memory in carrying out the action. We said that (the direct perception of?) truth is (happening) 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 (factual?) memory.
That action of memory is necessary in order to find your way around, in order to do the right job, etc
Now, that action of memory, insofar as thought is concerned, may become twisted, confused...

K: I don't think it can get twisted if there is a total integrity in thought itself....

DB : But that is almost the same as talking about truth in thought...

K: Ah, no, no...

DB : Then what is the relationship between integrity and truth ?

K: What is integrity ?

DB : It really means ( a state of inward) 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 ( a life of) truth without 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 thought ( the objectively thinking brain?) see its own fragmentation ?...

DB : Perhaps it could, but then why does it disintegrate ?

K: Because it is not aware of its 'fragmentary' (self-divisive?) character. And ( if &?) when it becomes aware of its fragmentary character, is that ( a perception of ?) truth ?

DB : Well, that is the truth regarding the nature of thought...

K: Right...But that is not (the whole?) 'truth', is it ?

DB : You see, there's the distinction between ( seeing) the 'truth of something' and ( living in the light of?) 'truth'...

K: I can see my thought being fragmentary and thought then realises the 'actuality' of its movement. It is (the seeing of ? ) the truth in the false. But that is not ( seeing the whole?) truth !

DB : Well, ( the whole perception of?) 'truth' itself is beyond what we could describe verbally ...

K: Yes...

DB : But we're still in this ( twilight?) area 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, but also I see that this 'truth' is not 'the' ( whole ? ) truth...

DB : I am not very clear what the distinction is...

K: Suppose I see that my thoughts are 'crooked'- that is the 'seeing' ( of the fact) that thought is crooked.

DB ; But that is not the (whole) 'truth' ?

K: Ah no ...! It was ( seeing) the truth in the false. There there is a division ( & an inner conflict between the ) the 'false' and the 'truth' .

DB : Yeah...

K: In (the realm of?) Truth there is no division !

DB : You see, it has been suggested by some ( science) 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: So, 'seeing correctly' the incorrectness of thought , you're saying is ( the whole?) 'truth ' ? Truth has nothing to do...

DB : Yes... Now 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 ( the practical awareness of?) a good businessman...

DB : That conscious awareness which ( if directed inwardly?) sees the properties of thought. In this case, it's not an inconsistency to say that thought 'sees something' . Thought is becoming '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 further question, if you say that truth is something entirely different....

K: Entirely different !

DB : Then... I'll bring a few more ( rather personal?) points if you don't mind : I've been reading Mary Lutyens book about you and I find it quite interesting...

K: Oh, Lord ! (laughs ) Rajagopal asked Allan Watts and someone else if they would help him to write a biography, and knowing that it will be one sided, I have asked Mary. Shiva Rao from India has collected through many years ( records of ) 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 Lutyens and he said 'Delighted !' And that's how it happened.

DB : I think it's a very well written book.
Now, this book ( called The Years of Awakening) discusses some ( mysterious?) 'process' you went through in this transformation – which always raises the question of the difference between the 'state of truth' and the ordinary state of mind – and which will help us if we got it really clear. It's never very clear whether this (psychological) transformation was sudden or gradual – or whether it took place at all...

K: I think sir, that several points are involved there : (a) 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. (b) The theory of reincarnation and Goodness - personified or not as Maitreya, if you accept that and so on. Then (c) there is this whole idea which exists in the East : the Hindu tradition has called it the 'serpent fire'...

DB : Or 'Kundalini' – as it was refered in the book...

K: And that 'kundalini' can be awakened and a different kind of energy comes into ( one's) being. But I'm beginning to question whether there was any transformation at all... Sir, I can tell you one thing : in that book, when the brother dies -actually I have no memory of that - either he 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 ( the psychological) 'transformation' never took place.

DB : Yeah... But what is interesting is that finally he made the step to 'Truth is a pathless land' ...In other words (back in 1929) you were saying more or less the same things you are saying now...

K: That's right.

DB : I was struck by the similarity - you were not discussing 'reality' then, but 'truth' was the same...

K: Neither ( the theory of) reincarnation, nor the disapperaing into worldliness – the money hasn't interesting him – but just disappearing into some kind of idiocy, all those did not take place... I think what probably happened was facing the truth of death.

DB : Do you feel that was a crucial step then ?

K: I don't think it was a crucial step, but facing the 'actuality' of ( his brother's?) death freed him from the ( illusory?) 'reality' of thought. Could we put this differently? Is there a state of mind which is free from all attachment ? The ( thoughtful ) thinking 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 it can say : I won't touch it anymore

DB : Yes, but let's try to go slowly as you refer to that young man...let's say that he was attached to the Theosophical beliefs …

K: I question it !

DB : Well, but wasn't there any attachment at all ? At least it appears to be -for example there were letters where he was saying he accepts it all...

K: Because he was just repeating...There was no ( deep?) conditioning but a 'dependent' state in which he was repeating the 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 actually happening there... 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 people 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' (Boddhisatva) – who is the essence of Goodness and that Goodness has to manifest in the world when the world is in a state of collapse, in a state of destroying itself- that's what the tradition says....

DB : Aside from the TS 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 (a certified?) 'Columbus' to discover America ?

DB : 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 being that it's 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 : Then 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 of malaria, which is very disturbing...

K: Malaria, a great deal of it...so there was a little 'dullness' and into that 'dull' (opaque?) mind nothing could enter – therefore that was one of the reasons he (remained) unconditioned.

DB : Not conditioned deeply ?

K: Not deeply conditioned. The other point is why
had he go through all this suffering ? Has it any relation to transformation ?

DB : Yes... ?

K: I say it hasn't...(but) I must go slowly since if I admit that is part of transformation, then it would imply that every human being has to go through it, which ( experientially-wise?) is a nonsense ! ( But still?) I think it releases a ( very special ?) quality of energy...

DB : The suffering ?

K: Yes, the physical pain of that kind brings about a certain quality of energy .

DB : Yes, but doesn't that imply that those who don't go through it, may not have ( free access to?) it !

K: No, no...I think I've got it : (suppose ) you're a scientist and you see something totally new – and you state that thing, verbally and actually. And another scientist picks it up from there and goes on...Here, this man saw (the) truth, he discovered something new and that 'new' thing enters into the human consciousness...

DB : Would you say it's totally new- I mean it had never been
seen before ?

K: I don't know....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... but this energy is not the energy of thought !

DB : Can't it be called 'kundalini' ?

K: I am rather shy of using that word- 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 ...

DB : 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 ( dealing with?) suffering ?

K: That's it ! If, in the world of reality I don't escape from suffering through various means & so on, that very suffering brings about a great energy (of passion?) . I think this is so ! But in this ( K) case, there was not the suffering of attachment, there was no actual psychological suffering except when the brother died- and then he looked at it and finished with it. But the energy of another kind- if we can go into it a little bit – is different .

DB : Yes, but it doesn't necessarily being awakened in the same way as in this young man – going through the spine and so on ?

K: That's what I'm actually trying to convey : I think that energy is competely different.

DB : From what ?

K: From this kind of energy, from the ordinary kind. And we say, must everybody go through all this in order to get that energy ? I say, no.

DB : But you're implying that everybody must go through some kind of suffering...

K: No, no, but...everybody does suffer !

DB : And 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, a physical suffering, a 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, (the awakening of?) 'kundalini' may be a very limited approach...

K: Wait a minute ; limited in what way ?

DB : Well, when somebody is purposefully trying to awaken kundalini, he obviously has in mind the (activation of the chakras along the ) spine in a certain order and all that...

K: I don't think it can be done 'purposefully' ! That's what they are trying to do now through various methods (of 'meditation') - ( the self-centred) thought is trying to do it !

DB : Wouldn't it be better to say that there is an energy (awakened by) not escaping suffering which doesn't necessarily show itself in various sensations in the ( spine... ?

K: That's right. A man who faces suffering and has a quality (of inner integrity?) in him. He's got that kind of 'psychological' passion

DB : Yes, and we need this quality of energy to see truth ?
With the ordinary sort energy we cannot actually have ( the insightful perception of ?) truth ?

K: No. We said that truth is unrelated to ( the field of ) reality...

DB : Reality being the ordinary (physical & mental?) energy...

K: That's right ! Like an ambtious man has got tremendous energy and his energy operates in the field of reality as correct and/or incorrect.

DB : Now let's say this man comes at a certain point where he sees the 'incorrectness' of the whole operation of thought ; but before anything more happens he needs a higher (level of) energy....Before perception can work, it would seem he needs the kind of energy we're talking about...

K: A-ha ! Yes, yes...

DB : Now, it almost seems - from what you say - that the issue of transformation seems irrelevant, because in the case of that young man (K) you seem to say that there was no transformation. Right ?

K: But sir, there must be a transformation, a radical or basic change in the field of reality.

DB : And what will become of the field of reality, then ?

K: Then there will be order in that field...

DB : So, ( this inner) transformation will bring order in the field of reality . It will still be thinking , but not twisted...

K: Yes, that's right, sir, it will be correct thought - logical, sane , healthy and all the rest of it. Now, sir, I think there are the energy of truth and the energy of reality - two different things, unrelated to each other.

DB : But could we say that truth works in 'actuality', and in some sense, reality is also an 'actuality'...

K: Yes, that's right...

DB : I think it helps to say that 'actuality' is a function within (the field of) reality – a function which includes thought and consciousness in the actions which are taking place... That is, as you said, the energy of an ambitious man is all in the field of reality which is part of 'actuality' …

K: Yes, part of what is actually going on . That's clear : reality is the movement of actuality.

DB : It is 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, while truth also acts or operates in actuality...

K: Yes...

DB : And it seems to me that truth has no direct connexion to the field of reality , but in some sense ( it can contact it ) through 'actuality' ...Insofar as it acts in actuality, there may be a connexion. Reality is only (the visible?) part of what is actually 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 But in addition there may be other aspects of the 'actuality' of the tree of which we may not think about.
In general 'actuality' goes beyond what we think about.

K: I understand, but when it goes beyond reality is that truth ?

DB : We don't know that, but at least it seems that truth acts in that (field of ) total action...Or...doesn't it act at all ?

K: Sir, that young man saw that 'Truth is a pathless land' and ( therefore ) 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  his ( insightful) perception wasn't involving time and that it was ( a complete) action. But from then on, he was 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 – to give back the (generously donated ) land...

DB : But it took some time to carry it out- so it seems that in some way ( his action in the field of) reality was affected by truth... ?

K: No sir, he 'saw' that 'Truth is pathless land'. And as a whole organisation was formed around him and as he saw it he said ( I'm?) 'out !' But because he was funded by the organisation...

DB : But doesn't thought become consciously aware of the implications of truth ? It's not very clear what happened to the young man : he's seen that (universal truth) and his actions have changed – so his thought has changed, because at one point he was thinking : I'm working together with these people and later he was thinking of dissolving the organisation …

K: No, not 'thinking' !

DB : But he has taken the steps in thought necessary for this.

K: Yes, but he 'saw' that truth is pathless and no organisation can lead man to it...That is finished.

DB : But to implement that …

K: The implementation of that took time.

DB ; 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 the ( false ?) things quickly- finished !

DB : Yes, but you still have to think how to do it without hurting 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 ( the actuality of?) that truth ?

DB : Yes, what were the implications.

K: He 'saw' it, acted and for him that was over. But he was funded by an organisation, by all the implications of it... He didn't want to hurt Dr Besant , so he told her before, but he was funded by a whole organisation.... so, what is your 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 ; 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 : So the perception of truth was active and thought could become aware of that action ?

K: That's right.

DB ; So,( the perception of?) truth takes a direct action in 'actuality' and that action now comes to ( thought's) consciousness through awareness ?

K: That's right ! And thought sees the (logical?) 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 had to put it in words...

DB : Yes, the action was to put it in words, but first there was an action (of truth) before thought 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' (the false?) and the seeing 'is' the acting ;

DB : Yes so the action ( of truth) was ( seeing that) the whole structure was dead...But ''truth is a pathless land'' is (just) words...

K: The (verbal) description.

DB : Alright so the whole thing (seen as false) was dead, then came a (more universal) perception that ''truth is a pathless land'' .

K: That was ( a timeless?) perception but we are merely describing it, and...how did that come to the word ? We said : the word is not the thing , the description is not the described ; so if I tell you : Look at that tree – and you actually look – you 'see' the tree.

DB : I see the actual tree, then thought becomes consciously aware of (the correctness of) what is described by the words. So, we have a perception that acts immediately and also contains something 'universal'- like in the perception that ''truth is a pathless land''...

K: Therefore, you are saying : truth is universal, global...

DB : So seeing that 'truth is a pathless land' is a (direct) action and the 'conscious (mental?) awareness' enables thought to pick that up...

K: But (the direct perception of?) Truth has nothing whatsoever to do with ( one's self-centred?) thought

DB : Yes, but still, thought can become aware of the action of truth …

K: Yes, yes...

DB : Alright, so we're ( finally?) coming at something...
We have discussed thought's 'conscious awareness' ; now is there any 'awareness' that is not '( verbally ) conscious' ?

K: Yes, there is another 'awareness ' that's not in the field of reality.

DB : Alright, 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 ...

K: I know, I know...Sir, would you put it this way : the 'center' – which is really the 'observer'- can become aware of itself, conscious of itself and operate within that field of reality  ; that 'awareness', that consciousness is limited, is enclosed. But there is a consciousness, an awareness, some other state ( of the mind?) which is not this ?

DB : Yeah, and this 'other' state includes awareness and attention. Hm ?

K: No....I must go slowly... That boy sees it non-verbally – that is the (perception of) 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 : So ( to recap:) thought is just a part of the whole physiological process and 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 (chakras) 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, but 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-

DB: I mean, couldn't we cansider kundalini as a side effect of truth ? I mean, if you consider truth, kundalini must be something more limited...

K: Of course, of course !

DB :... that cannot be the same as truth, but it might be a combination of physiological and psychological energy, which you say that for the young man (K) were helpful ?

K: Yes. I think that's right : truth is global and this (k-process ) is limited. 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...( long pause)

K: You see, sir, there's something much more than all this...

DB : Yes... ?

K: Would you accept the word 'mystery' ?

DB : Yes...

K: There's 'something' of which you cannot talk about – which doesn't mean that it doesn't exist ...(silent pause) I think 'truth' is that !

DB : Hmm... ?

K: Every religion has talked about that 'mystery'...Judaism said the Nameless, the Hindus have called it Brahman...and Christians haven't got very deeply into that matter and (for practical purposes?) called it 'God'...But there is something tremendously mysterious. And here 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 book...

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: 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...( 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 : It's 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 ( Sacred ?) Mystery which you cannot go beyond ; which you cannot touch – the 'saints' have said this. I'm not sure they've touched that mystery because they were 'Christians', they were worshippers of certain forms...

DB : I mean, you may say there is a 'mystery' because you don't want to penetrated deeper...

K: Yes, sir that's right.

DB : I think that to a certain extent the 'ego' makes a parody of this mystery in order to protect itself . Now, in the way the ego tries to present itself as the 'ultimate mystery' and therefore if it's identifying itself with the Christian 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 it for itself by imitation …

K: Quite, quite . Now would you a scientist - logically trained, logically trained to use your words (accurately)- would you admit that 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,
basically he was not.

DB : Can we go slowly here, as that raises the question of other (spiritually minded people?) who are conditioned ; could we understand a little what this 'conditioning' means ?

K: 'Conditioned' means greed, envy...

DB : Yeah, so it's not clear what the difference is...

K: I think there is a difference. You see, if you read that (ML's ) book - one of Dr Besant ( personal) suffering or mysery was  when she said to me : ( I don't know if it's put in the book) ''You're not interested in anything – not in women, in what I'm doing – you're only interested in clothes and cars 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 (inwardly ) 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: Deceiving himself in order to fit in society - that 's the deep conditioning we see for the moment – this didn't take in that young man, so there was never some self-deception .

DB : Yeah, neither was the false information which he accepted from that ( TS environment ?)

K: Yes, so there was never a conscious effort to see through this...

DB : So, you skipped a few steps in this,  but a person conditioned in self-deception may feel compelled to seek truth in order to compensate for this ?

K: A human being who is involved in self-deception in order to (adapt to society) – which is a deep (form of psychological conditioning) in this case...Why didn't it take place ?

DB : Because he wasn't absorbing it – the boy was somehow dulled by the environment...

K: By ill health...that's one of the reasons.... But there was never a moment when he was overtaken by self-deception. And so he saw directly through that 'pathless land'. Right ?

DB : Yes...

K: He stated it in words – and words are not the 'thing' – so the word being thought , thought had been operating  as a (communication) function, but that perception is gone, finished ! So, (the perception of?) truth is timeless – from moment to moment – it has no (temporal) continuity.

DB : Yes...

K: Then, suffering in the field of reality has a ( spiritual) meaning in the sense that if he doesn't escape , if he faces that suffering and therefore doesn't deceive himself then there's ( the awakening of?) 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 if that ( kundalini?) energy was released becaused he stayed with the physical suffering and didn't escape ?

K: That's right. But... that's only a part of it! You see, sir , to me all this is so simple. Because if you see (the ) 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 ( genuine ) perception – but there may be a 'resistance' to this perception in ( the field of) thought. Let's say that most people who heard this ( statement ''truth is a pathless land'') either didn't understand it, or rejected it...

K: Ah, of course ; because in him in that (K ) chap there was no resistance...

DB : Yes, but now we have to consider those who have this (psychological) resistance...

K: They will reject (or dismiss?) it.

DB ; Yes, but now it seems that the whole world has this kind of '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 (to seeing 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 still entered my consciousness...It is a 'seed' of truth 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' ( affect the totality of human consciousness?)  ! Now if the seed of truth is planted in me 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 and 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 (... but only for a while?) .

Dr B: Yes, but now we have a struggle between those two and
we cannot foresee the outcome of this struggle; we can't be sure of its the outcome.

K: You plant in me the seed that, "Truth is a pathless land".
He comes along and says "There is a way to truth, follow me". One is false, one is true. They are both embedded in my consciousness. So there is a struggle going on. Causing more confusion, more misery and a great deal of suffering, if I am
sensitive enough. And if I don't escape from (wisely remaining with?) that suffering what takes place?

Dr B: If you don't escape, then it's clear what will take place.
Then you will have the energy to see what is true.

K: That's right.

Dr B: But now let's take the people who do 'escape', who seem to be a large number.

K: They are out, quite right, millions are out. But still, the struggle is going on.

Dr B: Yes, but it is creating confusion.

K: That is what they are all doing.

Dr B: Yes, but we don't know the outcome of that.

K: Oh yes, we do - dictatorship, deterioration.

Dr B: I know, it gets worse. But now we want to get it clear. In
a few people who face the suffering, the energy comes to perceive the truth. And in a large number, who escape from suffering, things get worse.

K: And they rule the world...

Dr B: Now what is the way out of that?

K: They said there is no answer to that, get away from it.

Dr B: That also won't do.

K: They say you can't solve this problem, go away into the
mountains or join a (community of the wise?) but that doesn't
solve anything. All one can do is to go on shouting.

Dr B: Yes, then we have to say we don't know the outcome of
the 'shouting'.

K: If you shout in order to get an outcome, it is not the right
kind of shouting.

Dr B: Yes, that is the situation.

K: You just talk, you point out. If nobody wants to pay attention it's their business, you go on.
Now, to go further there is a 'mystery' (of Truth?) ; thought cannot touch it... What is the point of it?

DB: 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 realise that "What Is"
must be beyond that. "What Is" is the mystery.

K: Yes.

Dr B: I mean, you cannot live ( forever?) in this field of reality and thought, because of all we said.

K: No, of course not. But I don't mind, I have no fears.

Dr B: You don't mind because you have ( found your) 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 and I struggle and keep going in that field. And I can never touch the 'other' - 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 a self-deception. It is truth to you. And what you say makes a tremendous impression on me, because of your ( charismatic?) integrity. You point it out to me and I would like to get it. What is your ( human ) responsibility to me?
You understand the position? You say : thought cannot touch it, no (temporal?) action can touch it, only the action of
truth; perhaps it will give you a feeling of that. And I, an (inwardly) miserable human being, would like to get some of that. But you say, "Truth is a pathless land, don't follow anybody" - and I am left (on my own?)
I am consciously aware of the limitation of thought, of
all the confusion, misery, and all the rest of it, but somehow I can't get out of it. Is your compassion going to help me? You are compassionate, because part of Truth's extraordinary 'mystery' is Compassion. And you say, "Don't have any desire (for reaching Truth ?) it isn't your personal property". All you say to me is: put order in the field of reality.

DB: Yes, and not escape ( facing ) suffering....

K: If you actually put order into the field of reality then
something will take place. But...also you say to me, it must be done instantly. Is that mystery something everybody knows? - knows in the sense that there is something mysterious in one's 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: In some sense everybody knows it. Probably one is born with that sense and it gradually gets dimmed through one's (survivalistic) 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" ...( although there is a potential danger in assuming it !)

DB: ( Perhaps?) 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 (& less?) . You see, living in a modern ( overcrowded) 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. If you look at the (starry ) sky at night, for example.

K: But you see the scientists are explaining the (formation of the ) stars.... Captain 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, the perception of Truth has nothing to do with knowledge. Knowledge cannot contain the immensity of Life's 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 in all the details. The original impulse of science was to penetrate into this mystery. 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 but in talking about this 'something' we open a door.

DB: Yes. I think that my professional 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 cover only 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 ( the smart guys?) explaining everything, then I say, "There is nothing".

DB: That is the main point of distinguishing between (the silent mystery of?) 'truth' and 'reality', because we could say, in the field of reality we may explain more and more broadly without limit and there is limitless progress possible. But the 'essence' is not explained.

K: But in talking about this, do you have an intimation of that mystery ? Being a scientist, a serious person, perhaps you had an intimation long ago, but 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 the mind is silent, the truth of that mystery 'is'. When the mind is completely silent, not in use, not pre-meditated upon, and because it has put order in ( the field of ) reality it is free from that confusion and there is a certain silence as the mind is just moving away from confusion. And realizing that is not ( Truth's) 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 (in the field of reality?) Why is it necessary to produce the order first and then negate it?

K: To negate it is (opening the door to the authentic ) Silence. Realizing that is not the true silence I negate the false
silence, for the moment. (Hint:) in the negation of that silence I don't want any other silence. There is no movement for reaching a greater silence. Then this total Silence opens the door to That ( Mystery) . That is, when the mind, with all the confusion, is (like) 'nothing' - '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 ( this series of dialogues) by taking one 'actuality' after the other  - like suffering, death, fear... and penetrate that as deeply as we can ? Would that be worthwhile ?

DB : It's ( definitely) worth the try...

K: You and I only, or with anybody else ?

DB : It's easier just you and I ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 #243
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 466 posts in this forum Offline

SIX

DB : Last time we began by discussing the action of truth and then you broke off for short and raised 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''

K: Right...All the religions said there is something mysterious -something so vast that the human mind can't grasp... 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 this 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 (of the mystery) totally...Cause I've always felt there was 'something' so vast that all their ( ritualistic?) mysteries & initiations, had nothing to do with it. See, it can be either be so romantically idiotic (stuff?) , or it is something that ' is ( actually) there'...
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 (eventually?) be known.

DB : It can be known and set into the same kind of framework. But 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 an equipment which can probe the mystery- a telescope or a microscope or like this tremendous magnet in 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 comitted 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 the beauty will vanish, you see ? Perhaps he didn't believe that it can be explained...

K: Suppose you 'have participated' ( experientially?) in (the inwardness of) that mystery and you want to tell me about it, or you want to help me, or guide me or 'push me' towards it : what would you do ?
Would you say : settling all these things are necessary first ?

DB : Well, what are they ?

K: I don't want to use 'preparatory things' , but like ( having) a very sensitive body -not emotional, not sentimental, not mental, not neurotic, but 'sensitive', in the sense of having a quick insight and a quick comprehension – not a tremedous lot of explanations, a quick grasp of something which is true. Would you say that would be necessary ?

DB : Well that would be necessary, but obviously it would also be necessary for anything (of a creative nature)

K: No... but that means (having) a very sensitive neurological system and a 'psychological' (inner?) 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 (such path)way at all  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 ( open?) 'ears' to listen to you, I'll never capture it and I won't 'participate in it'... But my longing is to participate in it , because intellectually I see how important it is.

DB : But the longing is of no use...

K: Longing is of no use, but I 'perceive it', I 'see' with all my being how important it is to 'participate' in that mysterious thing which will give an enormous sense of beauty and all that. I see (all this) , but any effort I make ( to reach it) will spoil it -any desire, any action, any volition is still within the field of reality. So, how am I to participate into something which is so 'actual' ? What would you as a scientist say to it ?

DB : Well, my science has not really confronted that...

K: I know...after all sir, they are looking at (flying) 'saucers', but that's not mysterious

DB : Well, they hope it is. It has been called a 'mysterious universe'...

K: Would you call that 'mysterious' ?

DB : Well, not as long as it's still part of the same structure of reality...

K: Reality, yes that's right...

DB : But when you say there is an (inward) '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 you couldn't 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 (an actual) division exists at all ?

DB : Yes, but in the beginning you insisted that they are 'separate' …

K: I know, because 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 to be the case...

K: Let's accept that ( as a starting point?) for the moment.

DB : Once before, in a discussion on intelligence we raised the question whether there cannot be a ( creative) 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 a (living) truth or a 'reality'.
And another point where I was going wrong is that (thought's ) '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 becoming a barrier in trying to seeing this mystery...

K: Would you say, if thought is aware of its own limitations – not trying to expand itself , or trying to include the whole – sees its limitation and therefore moves beyond that limitation ?

DB : Yes, but 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, ( experientially?) I can't make it ; this room is full...

DB : In the very structure of the word 'limited' 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 if it stays there, and 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'd 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 (away) it is still the same thing (going on ) …

DB : Yes, I wonder why thought is trying to 'capture' the whole ?

K: Because it is aware of its own ( 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 (the self-enclosing activity of ?) 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 it, why should it suffer ? If I can't become the (next in line after the?) Queen of England, then that's the end of it...
Is it possible for the thought (process ) that is (operating) in me – to (honestly?) 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 ( the 'thinker'?) am confined in this ( inner) prison with its ache and I cannot get out...all that I include.

DB : But also, perhaps thought has seen that 'wholeness' is good and has got into the habit of trying to 'achieve wholeness'...In other words, thought has seen it's not whole and it is looking for wholeness...

K: I include all that when I use the word 'limited' ..

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 ( unknown?) 'mystery', it can only reflect on 'reality' …

K: That's right ! Reflect what is going on in reality...

DB : Yes, it can reflect and define and determine and measure...

K: And (when?) thought realises this, there is no movement within that field...

DB : Yes, well, but still there may be, because of a lot of lifetime unconscious movements...

K: Alright...Let's go into that ! My unconscious desire for ( grsping) 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 un-conscious.

DB : Now, being sensitive of the 'un-conscious' (stuff) – 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, one's 'unconscious' may be only dimly aware of those movements...

K: Dimly aware.

DB : But not absolutely, totally unaware...

K: No, no...Dimly aware.

DB : And therefore by being sensitive to all the hints and implications...

K:...dreams, to everything. To me the 'unconscious' is not really important...

DB : I don't think it is important, except that it may do things that may make a bigger fact...

K: My mind is very aware of all this – aware of the intimations of the 'unconscious' of the hints, the hidden motives, which - if one is ( inwardly) alert one can very easily 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' ( brain activity?) tries to make the 'conscious' ( mind) not so active.

DB : It tries to anesthetise, to tranquilise it...

K: That's right ; therefore when I see all that and I'm ( becoming) 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.
You see, that's what the 'orthodox' (traditionalistic) 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 the traditional meditation implies some movement in the field of reality to control thought which may usually involve concentration, contemplation...

K: But it's still a (thought-controlling?) '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 that 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 (merry?) disciples- is that sound has a peculiar effect on the brain. And those 'sounds' ( the inward vibrations of mantras ?) are given only to people who have lived with the master for a number of years, and the master has studied them -seen their character, their tendency & all the rest of it. Then, they give a certain 'mantra'....

DB : Yes, who would be suited to that person...

K: To that person and to nobody else !

DB : Yes ; now assuming they do that, that 'sound' is still thought...

K: Yes.

DB : That's because it's defined in some way...

K: No, there's something much deeper. At first you repeat it aloud, then you repeat it silently...

DB : Yeah...

K: Then, you listen to the ( non-verbal?) sound only.

DB : Hmm...And they believe that would go beyond thought ?

K: Yes...

DB : But you say it's not beyond ?

K: It's not beyond.

DB : Because that ( silent?) sound is produced from memory ?

K: Yes. It's all ( part of) the structure of thought – which is, of the a desire to achieve ( inner peace & ) 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 that any desire of 'achievement' must always produce a (psychological) illusion, thought then says 'there is no movement'.

DB : Yes, but even when it says that, there is already a 'movement' ….

K: No....I mean, it ( the thoughtful mind ?) realises, it knows, or it is aware (that) it 'is' so ! That is the truth. (Which implies that?) the moment thought has said ' I cannot move' , that's the fact !

DB : Yes...but this sounds a little troublesome, because you seem to be saying that thought has ( free access to?) the truth...

K: No, no ! The moment it stops 'moving' then that is so !

DB : Then 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 (becoming) 'consciously aware' of its own limitation  it comes to an end, when there's no more 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'... Can I put it the other way ? Can the mind, which is (self-centred ) consciousness with its thought -all that we have discussed- can that (meditating mind) 'empty' itself ?

DB : Now, what does that mean 'empty itself' ?

K: (Empty itself) of the 'things' that thought has created.

DB : What are these things ?

K: Like ( the self-centred drive for?) 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 (self-consciousness?) ?

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 (temporal?) consciousness – that is the field of reality and thought is always active there.

DB : Yes, but I think that the traditional thought is always seeking to go beyond the field of reality...We pick up this tradition from the society. Now, would you say that your thinking is entirely without a 'center' ( of self-interest ) ?

K: Yes...'Center' being desire, achievement...

DB : But there is also the sensation of the 'center'...

K:...a sensation as 'being' (located ) in the solar plexus or in the heart.... No 'center', that is definite !

DB : I can see (intellectually?) 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 this (psychic?) 'center' is one of the basic causes of illusion, because once the 'center' is established, the next thought atributes itself to the 'center' (aka : the 'thinker') , therefore it becomes the (personal) 'truth'. In other words, thought then seems 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 (self- identity ) 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, this microphone, although made by thought is an objective reality. Now there is another 'reality' which is created and sustained by thought – the 'center'.

K: The 'center', that's right ! The 'center' is created by thought...

DB : And sustained by thought. And it doesn't have the same kind of (objective) 'reality' as the mountain...

K: Of course...

DB : So, part of the confusion comes from our inability to make a clear distinction between that which is sustained independently of thought and that which is thought-sustained. And it occurred to me that when something happens, thought thinks something, but the root of thought is not perceived, and suddenly the content appears as having a certain (solid) reality, which is then taken by the next thought as an existing independently...And we loose track of that, you see ?
Now, 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 on, the thought of the 'center' is built up systematically by the thought which goes beyond (the field of) reality -

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 (objective as?) is this microphone...

K: That's it...And thought 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 : thought 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 (pursuing) 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, if one is totally aware of this there is no movement as time and measure outside this (field). Because thought, as we said, cannot comprehend or apprehend the whole, and it is not a verbal acceptance, but an 'actuality' – thought sees as objectively as that.

DB : Yes, I understand, but I think there is still a slight residue, almost a physical movement of thought which seems still to (go on ?) ..

K: I don't quite understand...

DB : Well, I can't explain, but there are still waves...

K: Aha... ! No sir, that's what I want to (clarify) : when there is the realisation, or the comprehension, that thought is a movement in time & measure, ( and how) thought creates the center and sustains the 'center' (aka : the 'thinker' ) 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-consciousness, dim-consciousness – everything. Because you know, - we have talked a little bit of this yesterday : thought is movement in time, ( while truth's) 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 (surreptitiously?) 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 (real) time, and you say you're not ( inwardly living?) in time. Probably then there was a feeling that everything exists in time ; you see, this is something which is in every tradition and is very deeply ingrained...

K: Yes ( that) everything is (living ) 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 – as 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 un-conscious movement.

DB : I think tradition is the source of all this movement.

K: That's it !

DB : And the tradition – how it's handed down – I've looked up in the dictionary – that it's not only handed down verbally, but also by example, and that's much more difficult (to see). The point is that when the child sees the parents or the other children behaving in a certain way - which implies a certain way of thinking – the child begins to think that way...

K: Quite, quite, quite...

DB :...and it seems that he's picking it up as it were an independent reality, because it's not his thought, it's somebody else's thought – he doesn't see that all thought is one - it doesn't matter whose thought it is...But you see, when you learn from tradition somebody is guided by thought, but h's implying that it's not thought but it's the way things have always been necessarily & objectively so...

K: I don't know if you've seen that (in modern italian) tradition has the same root as 'betrayal'

DB : Yes, but 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 ( ground zero ) experience- so in some sense you are also passing something over , but not in the same ( authoritarian?) way...

K: 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 now 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 ''there's no moving on''... ?

K; No ! There's no movement beyond that.

DB : Yes, alright...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 ( from it) and discovers something else...And that makes a series of discoveries which make some 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 (an inward realisation which 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 because there seems to be an intrinsic difference between science and what you're talking about ; I can't imagine (the progress of) 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 ( perception of truth) 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 (mental?) movement beyond its limitations, beyond its 'reality'...

DB ; When you 'see' there is no movement – this requires some clarification...
You say that you have no tradition, but I come from (a cultural) tradition. With my parents & friends I have ( implicitly ) communicated 'non-verbally' and by example, that I live in time, that time is the essence, the most important element and your life depends on time and time is flying and you have only a limited time to live so make good use of it...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : So everybody has communicated in millions of ways how important time is from very early. And that ( subliminal?) communication was picked up as it were an objective reality 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 (stream of time?) 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 ( being or becoming in ?) 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 (to arrive) ...But the 'psychological' factor of time has never played any part  (in my life?) ; that is, there was never been a question of 'becoming' something...

DB : Well, maybe it's not a question of 'becoming' (something or other) , but time comes under different forms, And I feel that through (the passing of) 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 the connexion between 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 moment & 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 I had about it a moment ago is lost, you see ?
Lost to my 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 (new?) 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 (perceived as part of ?) reality and not as just my 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
not-thought...

K: I know, that's delusion and all the rest of it.

DB : Yeah, and I think time is involved 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, the 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 thought 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 separate...

DB : ...and also changes in thought that separate...

K: All that is (part of?) the movement of thought.

DB : Yes... But the point I was trying to make was that the movement of thought is very deceptive and has many aspects of which one has to be aware...

K: Of course, of course...

DB : Now, one of the things that arises is that when one is trying to do something, or when you're in relation with somebody, thought rises to such intensity that it will mistake itself for a reality that is independent of thought...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And therefore it looses track at that moment. You see, everything you say was understood, more or less, but at a certain stage thought looses track of what thought (actually) 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 (being) a movement in time.

DB : Yes, I am sure that is so, but I'm trying to say...

K: ( An insight) into the whole of that, of what is implied ! Do we really 'see' the whole movement of thought as a movement , have an insight into it and then describe all the details of it ? With me -I don't know if I am odd or peculiar - I 'see' and then explain ; not ( start with ) the explanation and then 'see'.

DB : Hmm...

K; Sir, are we saying there is always ( a streaming of?) time, there is no ending to time ; it is a constant steady moving ?

DB : That's the way it appears...

K: ...in which we live ; which expresses itself as yesterday, today & tomorrow, which expresses itself as the 'center' and acting from the center and the intervals between thoughts and the thought changing from yesterday's thought...

DB : ... as gradual change...

K: All that is the movement of time : attachment, detachment, all that is the movement of time. Now, can thought see that and stop ? Can time, in the sense of ( a subliminal thought ?) movement stop ? Time must have a stop...(silent pause)
You see, if there is no ending for thought's (self-projected continuity in time ?) there is no radical revolution. 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 (in the case of?) '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 inward perception of the ) the fact that 'time must have a stop' is an extra-ordinary thing and I'm grasping after that. (When ) I realise it I am becoming totally conscious of the whole ( psychological ?) content of my consciousness.

DB : Yes, let's try to put it like this : one can see the necessity of this( realisation) -that time must have a stop. Now once again we come back to the (personal & collective?) 'unconscious' to deal with, because I see there are (overlapping) layers and they move in time...

K: A tremendous block !

DB : You see, in our whole ( racial & cultural) tradition there are instincts in that direction and you are implying they are not...

K: For me they never were a major factor...

DB : Hmm....yes. You also said that any explanations we gave before (regarding the 'process'?) 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 ( & girls who are ?) frail, vague and who still get conditioned and drop off, millions of them : this (K) boy, why it didn't happen to him ? You follow, sir ?

DB : Yes... ?

K: I can give you half a dozen explanations, and 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 what was taking place in him.

DB ; Even before he was discovered by...( CWL ?)

K: I think the 'seed' of it was already operating, because when I saw that picture of the two young 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 but the (logical?) 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 ( really?) '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: Look there's something more simple : millions of boys go through this illness -malaria- and recover, being conditioned and go off -in the sense that they become 'ordinary', 'normal' or whatever you'd like to call it. Here was a boy who had that illness, who had malaria – given quinine by the doctor & all the rest of it, so mentally he was retarded, therefore he was unconditioned...

DB : Yes, he was less impressionable. But I mean, beyond a certain age the (cultural) conditioning doesn't ( take) 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, but 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 ( seriously?) 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 ( illness) might be ( only) slightly favorable...Now, can you say anymore ?

K: (Laughs) Can we talk simply, frankly ?

DB : Yes...and we'd better record it, unless you don't want to...

K: He felt always 'protected'....

DB : But I think many young children feel protected (by their parents)

K: Non, no, till much later... till age twenty, thirty...

DB : And would that feeling (of heavenly protection?) 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 it happen with this one person ?

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 feel I can't enquire. There's something in the mind which thought cannot penetrate. But that thing is there !

DB : Would you then say that somewhere within this 'mystery' there is a (divine?) order which involves all that  and 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, not 'psychologically' trained – because they said he is the 'Vehicle of the Lord (Maitreya ?) ', therefore you can't interfere - psychologically.
You follow, sir , he never went through all the things he talks about - jealousy, never been attached to property, money & all that. Never ! I never thought of a position , a status, a hyerarchical outlook...except when I get into Mrs Simmons (row) 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( higher ?) 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 ? It doesn't prove it can't be done – it only proves that you can't do it...

K: It proves that I can't do it and I don't want to.

DB ; But this may be the other way around : you can't because you don't want to, or you don't want to because you can't ?

K: No. I think I can, but I don't want to.

DB : I see, that's it...And your feeling is you can't explain that ?

K; No. I think it is something 'mysterious' in the sense we are talking, which you cannot penetrate by thought.

DB : Yes, but does that mean it cannot be penetrated in some other way ?

K: Maybe...but I don't think so.

DB : Probably not … ?

K: After all, the Catholic church also 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 'something' of what we're talking about is not capable of ( self-) analysis...

K: That's it !

DB : It is a wholeness which is not analysable...But are you implying that thought can only analyse ?

K: Of course !

DB : Yes...so if you don't try to analyse it, all you can do is to 'participate' in it...

K: And also there is the enormous danger of deceiving oneself.

DB : Yes, because so many people had this idea...

K: I've been through all that !

DB : I mean you could argue that the fact that so many people had thought this way doesn't necessarily prove it's wrong ; it may be that people get a glimpse of it and then they go astray because desire gets hold of it and...

K; No ! If they go astray I question whether they 'see' it.

DB : I didn't say they see it- but that they can get a glimpse of it...

K: I don't think they can 'get a glimpse' of it ! They think they have a glimpse .

DB : Let's put it this way : that thought is not satisfied with the known and therefore projects the 'mysterious'.

K: That's it !

DB : And at the same time if some people have perhaps seen it, that becomes part of tradition and so on...

K: You see, sir, that's why, in a way, I'm glad that Mary (Lutyens) 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 by analysis as the ( actual beauty of the ) 'flower' is destroyed, but all that is possible is to 'participate' (in it)

K: That's all I was going to say. If you (K) have ( access to?) this 'mystery'
I will participate when I listen to you completely. You follow ? When you say, for instance : 'Truth is a pathless land' - 'it is so' for me ! Therefore no guru, no...- the whole thing goes. The moment I 'hear' ( the truth of?) it, it's finished ! (long silence...) What time is it ?

DB : About five o'clock...

K: I have never gone into these things as deeply as we have done here …

( Story time:) I was staying in Bombay and I don't speak any Indian language. There's a knock on the door and Mrs Jayakar's servant opens the door, and there are three sannyasi ( wandering) monks who asked if they can come in, and Mrs Jarks brought them into the room- I was in my room- and she brought in the three sannyasi who want to meet you. One was a very old man, he had lived eleven years by himself in the Himalayas and he was making a pilgrimage going south to the various temples. And he was so...I held his hand and he began to cry – because probably nobody held his hand. And we sat around and he said in Hindi to her : 'We were passing by, and we felt that there was a great man here and we wanted to meet him'. Whether he had been totd or whether it was a fact, I don't know....I'm skeptical about this kind of things... So we spoke to the various people in the room telling them the truth about themselves. Then he said : May I wash my hands, please ? So they brought him a basin and a jug of cold water from the ice box and towel and he washes his hands. Then ofter cleaning his hands the same water he washed himself he poured it into his hands and passed it to the others – that's the Hindu tradition that when a sannyasi offers his blessings, he does it that way - who touched it with the tongue and it went all around. And then he said again, may I wash my hands and again he passed it around and I tasted it because I was the last. The first time it was tasting like water, but the second time it tasted sweet. I said, is he playing a trick on us ? I haven't seen anything. And he left- but before he said to Sunanda : ''you're not married, you have no children. You want children ? If you do, take this''. And he gave her something, a nut. And he left. And after he left I asked the others : ''Did you taste that water , because it tastes like coconut water, or some sweet water''
And the others said 'yes' and I said, this poor old man he couldn't have put in it some sacharine or sugar... You understand, sir ? How did it happen ? Probably he was unaware of it himself ! There are strange things in the world, sir …

DB : Yeah...

K: When I used to live in the theosophical society (compound ) because I was one of the heads there, there were several of us in the room and a 'sannyasi', a '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 (lands ?) over there. He had no strings, no ropes...

DB : Well, there are a lot of people talking of strange things...and 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 something unknown to us now, but it might be understandable later.

K: They explain it - by leading a certain kind of ( ascetic) 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 there a man sitting in the middle of a rose bed 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 : I mean, that's something strange, but which might be ( eventually) explained...

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 in whatever happened to you there was behind it some ( Powers of?) Destiny or ( of universal) 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 Tue, 14 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 14 Jan 2020 #244
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 466 posts in this forum Offline

SEVEN

Bohm: I had a letter from David Shainberg, and he raised one major question : " If thought is inherently fragmented and yet thought has to be consciously aware of its own fragmentation, then we could ask whether the thought which is aware of its own fragmentation, is also fragmented?"

Krishnamurti: Why do we accept (without questioning ?) that 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 more deeply into the nature of thought... 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 then it is becoming a 'reflexion'. Now on the basis of ( the past knowledge stored in ) memory thought creates an 'imitation' of certain actual things that happen independently of thought. For example it may imitate the appearence of a feeling, or of a sound, or something else. But as it is not possible for a ( mental) reflection to capture the whole of what is reflected, 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 : Yes, it reflects the content of memory...

K: And therefore, as it reflects, it's (creating) an abstraction...

DB : ...Which doesn't reflect all - 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 in his letter, 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 ( the field of) 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 ( thought's ) awareness recorded in memory and then reflected, right ?

K: Right...So memory is fragmented therefore its reflexion as thought is fragmented.

DB: But the whole experience 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 it's a (mental) 'abstraction' as you’ve just said. But I think there is another deeper 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: If you move your hand there is a sense organ that tells you that it is moving. If you move your head, the image (of what you're seeing) also moves but it is corrected ( by the brain) 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 ( further brain) sensation- people may be conscious while they are operated, but it does not disturb them. 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, a (simulated mental) imitation. And while they (the brain cells) 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 that result an independent existence.

K: So, thought is a reflection of memory, that's one point. The brain has no (internal) feeling apart for the sensory organs of the body, and therefore the brain stores up memory, and memory is partial, and therefore thought is partial... ?

DB: Yes and also thought is not fully aware of itself.

K: Now, is all that the complete answer?

DB: Well I don’t know...

K: I don’t know (either) we’re investigating .

DB: But to finish what I was saying, there is an inherent (risk of inner ) fragmentation here, because thought not being aware of itself, and then suddenly becoming aware of
its ( action's) 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 due to something else''.

K: Its like this, quite...

DB: And therefore, thought has broken itself 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 ( coming ) from reflecting upon our personal experience ; we ( can logically?) 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 the words, symbols & reflexions of memory, but what is actually the substance of thought? Is it a material process, an (electro-) chemical process...?

DB: Well, I would say yes...

K: Alright, if it is a material process, why should it be fragmented? Is ( the verbal) perception a fragmentary process?

DB: Why should it be fragmentary ?

K: If ( the 'recognition-based ' ) perception is the activity of thought, then this 'perception' cannot see the whole.

DB: I think thought contains some kind of imitation of perception, which we call 'reflection'...

K: Yes, so thought imagines that it perceives ; it supposes that it sees (the actual facts)

DB: It produces a certain result which it supposes it sees.

K: But yet, why is it broken up? There must be a deeper thing,
isn’t there? Is it because thought is always seeking a ( self-rewarding?) result?

DB: Well, it may be seeking a result...

K: An 'end' to be achieved, to be gained, something with which it can fulfil itself and feel satisfied...And why has mankind given such terrific importance to thought?

DB: When you talked yesterday (in Saanen) 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 the material security.

K: Yes. But ( the self-centred process of) thought in itself is not secure.

DB: Well thought cannot be secure – it is just a reflection (of memory ?) .

K: Therefore as it cannot be secure in itself, it seeks 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, ( the movement of) 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 a constant ( self-projected) 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 ( the movement of) nature. It would say : well, I’m here today, and tomorrow I'll be something different, right ?

K: Ah, but it is not satisfied with that.

DB: Well why not?

K: Is it because there is ( a self-identification?) or  'attachment'?

DB: But then, , what is there ( self-identification & ) attachment, you see? I mean, why should thought 'attach' itself to anything? Why shouldn’t it say ''well I’m just (a transient ) thought'', I’m just a reflection ?

K: But you're giving to thought, a considerable (degree of?) intelligence if you say ''I’m like nature I just come & go in a constant (state of) flux, you follow ?

DB: So, now your saying thought is (essentially a) mechanical (process) and that's why its doing this, but then we have to see why this 'mechanical' process should necessarily seek security? I mean a machinery doesn’t seek anything in particular, you see, we can set up ( or program ) the machinery and it just goes on & on...

K: Of course, as long as there is ( the right supply of) energy it goes on working.

DB: And then it breaks down and that's the end of it.

K: And that's the end of it... Quite, So, why does thought seek ( temporal) security?

DB: Why should any mechanism want to be secure?

K: But does thought realise that it is 'mechanical' ?

DB: No, but here comes the point that thought has made a mistake, you see, something incorrect (is recorded in?) in its (identitary ?) content ; thought even thinks that it is not mechanical...

K: Now wait a minute, let's come back : do I think I’m mechanical?

DB: In general thought does not think it is mechanical, but the other thing is, does it definitely think that it is beyond the mechanism, does it think it is intelligent ?

K: Sir, a mechanical thing doesn’t get hurt . It just functions.
It may stop working, but that doesn’t mean it is hurt.

DB: No...

K: Whereas (the identitary core of ?) thought does get hurt.

DB: And thought also has the factor of pleasure, pain and all the rest of it.

K: Let's stick to one thing : it gets hurt. Why does it get hurt? Because of the 'image' and all the rest of it. It has created the a (self-?) 'image' and in ( projecting its) continuity (in time) 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 ( self-protective?) mechanism there was no reason.

K: Ah, but it never realised that it was mechanical.

DB: Yes alright, but a mechanism doesn’t know that it is mechanical either, you see ? I mean like a tape recorder just functions mechanically, you see, it doesn’t want to be hurt you know.

K: Rather interesting... Why does thought not realise that it is mechanical? Why does it suppose that it's something different from a machine?

DB: Yes, it may in some sense suppose it (the animal brain) has intelligence, and feeling and that it is a living thing, rather than 'mechanical'.

K: Mechanical (repetitive, programmable & predictable?) , I think that's the root of it isn’t it ? It 'thinks' it is a living (entity) and therefore it attributes to itself, the quality of a 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 : 'I’m living'.

DB: And then it might try to react, to respond accordingly, but why thought doesn’t do that ?

K: Thought is clever ( far more versatile?), giving itself qualities, which it basically has not.

DB : To some extent you did not consider David’s question, you were saying that thought somehow can realises it is mechanical, which would imply that it had some (native animal ?) intelligence, you see.

K: Now let's see, does thought realise that it is mechanical, or ( the direct?) 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 an (insightful?) perception that thought is mechanical, then it means that ( some quality of holistic ?) intelligence is (involved ) in the perception.

K: Are we saying, sir, let's get this clear, that thought has in itself the quality of (transpersonal?) intelligence, perception, and therefore it perceives itself as (being essentially?) mechanical ?

DB: Yes, but that would seem strange...

K: Or, there is ( an insightful ? ) perception and that perception says thought is mechanical.

DB: Yes, and we can call that 'truth', isn't it ?

K: Yes, there are two things involved, isn’t there ? Either thought in itself has ( potentially) a sense of intelligence and therefore realises it is mechanical, or there is a (direct inward) perception, which is truth. And that perception says 'thought is mechanical'.

DB: Yes. Now the first idea seems to be a contradiction.

K: Yes, but does this ( endless questioning?) 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: This point is not very 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 (intellectually?) , or there is pure perception without thought which then says says : thought is mechanical.

DB : But then, how does thought know what to do ? We were discussing also the other day that when there is a perception of truth...

K: ...action takes place.

DB: Action takes place, and thought becomes aware of that action.

K: Yes, that's right...Lets get at it.

DB: 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 that's 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 (we can see that) thought can change.

K: Yes thought does change.

DB: But I mean can it change fundamentally ?

K: Lets get at it. I’m beginning to see something. We
say that total perception is truth, and that perception operates in the field of reality, and therefore...

DB: Well, we didn’t say that the perception of truth operates directly in the field of reality, we said the other day, it operates in 'actuality' (in the area of 'what's going on now'?)

K: Wait a minute, there is perception which is truth, and that can only act in ( the field of) that which is 'actual'. Actual being 'care' for 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 that the perception of danger acts immediately without thought. But then thought may become aware of the action...

K: Thought then becomes aware of the action and translates it into words...

DB: And into further ( mental) 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, ( the process of?) thought has undergone a ( qualitative?) 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 perception of the whole is (qualitatively) different... ?

K: Because that perception is not fragmented.

DB: No, no it's one whole.

K: One whole, yes, and it acts. That ( 'wholistic'?) 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 on the brain cells. Now, the action of ( 'wholistic'?) 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, functions in grooves, it lives in habits, memories...

DB; Yes...

K: And a total (inward?) perception does affect this whole structure…..

DB: Yes that's right, but after, as a result of this (insightful) perception, thought is different, right ?

K: Yes, thought is 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 ( dumb?) machine, it would not cause trouble, but for some odd reason thought it's trying to do more than behave like a machine...

K: Yes, thought is trying to do more than a ( self-programable ?) machine.

DB : And now, if we could look at it again, if there’s perception and awareness and this may be recorded in ( the psychological memory of ) thought, there are two things, one is : if perception affects the physical structure of the brain, and this affect is somehow recorded in the content of memory and the memory takes...

K: That's 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 you see, it's not mainly that thought is mechanical, but it contains a process of imitation, to record the information - like a tape recorder records some sort of 'imitation' like the structure of sound in a magnetic form, which again when it is recreated as sound is imitating the original sound. Now you see thought has the capacity to imitate whatever happens, because of this ( subliminal) 'recording', right ?

K: Yes that's right. Just a minute sir, I want to go back a little bit. You perceive something totally -like this total perception of greed, let's take this (example) for the moment- and because of that total perception, your activity is ( becoming) non-mechanical - the 'mechanical' being the (hapless?) pursuing of greed as thought.

DB: But isn’t there another part of thought which is mechanical, but which is necessary, you see for example, the practical information contained by thought ?

K: I’m just coming at it, wait a minute. You perceive the nature and the structure of greed and because you perceive it, there is the 'ending' of ( the blind continuation of?) it.

DB: Hmm...

K: What place has thought then?

DB: Well it still has an (useful) mechanical place.

K: But you're finished (with greed) - you're not greedy anymore. That ( instinctual) reaction, that 'momentum', that mechanical habit is over... Then, what place has thought?

DB: Well thought has some place – like if you want to find your way (home) ?

K: I use it when I need ( to buy?) a new coat, but there's no greed involved.

DB: So if thought has not identified itself with (the momentum of) 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 (inwardly) to 'you'.

DB: Yes. Are you saying there is no more thought?

K: But thought is not necessary (here ?) ( Inwardly) I’m no longer greedy.

DB: Right..

K: I have no need for thought in the field of (inward ) perception and therefore thought doesn’t enter into it at all.

DB: Not into perception, but it still has its place apparently. For example if you want to know the way from here to
whereever you want to go…

K: No... I’m taking greed, greed ! It has no place in (dealing with) greed. Where there is a total perception thought has no place...

DB: In the perception ?

K: No, only in that perception, thought doesn’t exist any more with regard to that. You perceive that all belief is irrational , there is a perception of this total structure of belief, and its out. Belief has no place in your thought, in your brain, so why do you want thought there?

DB: I’ll not say I want it, but I say there is a tendency that thought may interfere...

K: No it won't, if I perceive totally the nature of belief, with ( its collateral ?) fear and all the rest, 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 an actual 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 your words, when there is a total perception then there's no place for thought - you just 'see'. But when we come to practical affairs we don’t have a total perception as we depend on information which has been accumulated, and so on, right, and therefore we need thought.

K: There, yes. I need it to build a house, I need to…

DB: So, you depend on the accumulated information, you see, you cannot directly 'perceive' how to build a house, right ? But for 'psychological' matters...

K: That's it. Psychologically when there is total perception, thought doesn’t enter into the 'psychological' process.

DB: Yes, it has no place in the psychological domain . Now, I’d like to come back to the second 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 ( direct) perception.

DB: Why should thought assume that it sees the whole, or even that it sees anything?

K: Doesn't 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 (remaining leisurely?) 'empty' ?

DB: I wonder if we could put it differently, such a mind when it uses thought, it realises that this is (just) thought, it never supposes it is not thought, is that right?

K: Yes, that's right, that it is thought and nothing else...

DB: But I think the danger is that there is a mind which does not realise that this is ( just) thought ; suppose someone has an experience of joy and enjoyment, but slightly later there comes thought which 'imitates' it by remembering it, and then, it's a very subtle imitation, and therefore it treats it as the same , you see what I mean, therefore it begins to get caught in is own pleasure which it mistakes for joy and (genuine) enjoyment.

K: Quite...

DB: Now after a while, it becomes a ( thinking) habit and when the pleasure is not there there's a reaction of ( frustration or?) 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 just a physical and (bio-)chemical process and therefore it assumed a tremendous importance?

DB: Well, in general that's certainly true, it's only recently that science has shown the physical & ( electro?) 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 ( inward ? ) perception.

DB: Why wasn’t there?

K: Man didn’t realise or thought wasn’t told that it was just a physio-chemical process.

DB: Yes, well thought does not know it's a material process therefore thought mistook itself for the actual intelligence. And suppose there's ( some sensory ?) enjoyment, thought creates from memory a (very realistic?) 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 is just an imitation.

K: That's it, and also because thought from the beginning said I’m the only 'god' (in charge?) .

DB: I wonder if that come a little later, you see ? At first thought mistook itself for joy and intelligence , goodness and so on. 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 example the enjoying of 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 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 a (virtual simulation or ) 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 (actually) 'perceive' that (for yourself?).

B: Yes, but for (the world of?) science it was not enough to know that thought is a just a (physio-chemical) mechanical process...

K: That's right, but it's only recently, so the conditioning and the habit has been ( the root asumption that?) thought is the primary thing in life.

DB: Yes, and 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 itself is the primary thing.

K: That's right, yes.

DB: So, (the 'old' brain?) never knew that thought 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 ( an intrinsically) limited (mental process?) . Thought never realised that which it created was a (bio-) 'chemical & physical' thing. Is that what we are saying?

DB: Part of it, yes.

K: And we are saying also, that when there is a total perception, a ( qualitative?) change in thought takes place.

DB: And what happens to thought then ?

K: Thought doesn’t interfere (inwardly?) , & 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, or something new comes into thought's field of reality, and that might be a ( holistic) perception. And because of ( the inner clarity produced by?) that perception thought is functioning differently, it remains ( basically) mechanical but (is qualitatively?) different.

K: Yes, that's exactly what we are saying.

DB: Yes, therefore the 'creativity' is not in thought itself but in the ( holistic quality of?) 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 (safety features of?) thought, is the 'psychological' structure, while ( a global) perception can only take place when there is no 'me'.

B: Well, we could try to make it more clear. You see, the 'me', this 'imaginary' ( mental) structure, is 'real', as the 'me' involves some sort of ( identitary?) 'centre' doesn’t it ?
This 'centre' is a very old form of thought, its one of the most fundamental forms, and it goes to the behaviour of the animals, most probably.

K: Yes sir, like the ( tribal or?) family centre and so on...

DB: Yes, and also the 'geometric' centre, when people use the centre with the rays emanating out, is a very powerful symbol, you see the sun with its rays, it had a tremendous effect. So the concept of (having a ) 'centre' has a tremendous ( psychological) affect on thought as it has the meaning of totality, you see, one (radiating) 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 (empirically?) in thought : the 'self' is perceiving everything. The 'self' is determining everything...

K: So there is a 'centre', but is this centre independent of thought?

B: Well the centre 'is' thought, it is a basic structure in thought, we always think in terms of ( everything having a?) '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 (finally?) getting at it !

DB: Well, then let's get it more clear ; one of the basic (& very old) 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 - but of course the opposite view is that there's a continuous energy field, and no centre - these are the two views studied and pursued in two different forms. Now, ( inwardly-wise?) if you think through the centre there is going to be fragmentation. You'll say the atomic view is fragmentary, then ?

K: Must be ! You see what were getting at ? That the basic reason of fragmentation is that (inwardly) we function from a 'centre' .

DB: Yes, (outwardly) 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 brain is the centre of all the sensory perceptions. But 'psychologically' we form an imitation of that, we have the thought ( impersonated as the 'thinker'?) at the centre which is probably what Jung called it an 'archetype' which may be millions of years old, going back to the animal ( behaviour ? )

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 : thought is (functioning) 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 ( dead) memory like a computer?

B: Its not clear to me why there cannot be ( an objective) memory, you see, just as information. You see, it is not clear to me, why thought had to form a 'centre' and why (inwardly) thought gave this 'centre' such importance?

K: Because thought never acknowledged to itself that it is a mechanical (process)

DB: Thought was unable to acknowledge that it's mechanical but why does that call for a 'centre'?

K: But thought has created the centre (for its own safety purpose?)

DB: Yes, the centre was there just for practical ( survival-related) purposes anyway, but then thought used that same idea, psychologically for itself - why was it doing that?

K: Because for very simple reasons : 'thought' (the thinking brain???) said I can't be (just a) mechanical (process) I must be something much more.

DB: How does the centre make it 'more' then?

K: Because that gives itself a sense of (temporal?) permanency, as the 'me' ...

DB: Well, we should make that more clear why this centre gives ( the brain?) 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' (of self-interest?) to be permanent?

K: Perhaps it picked it up because ( as the Sun was considered for ages the centre of the universe) the (life-giving rays coming from this ) 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 ( inwardly wise?) that 'centre' becomes totally unnecessary when there is a 'complete' perception.

DB: Although it is necessary, when there is no such complete perception...

K: That's what's happening : it is not 'necessary' ( theoretically?) but this is what's ( actually) happening in the world...

DB: ( So, to recap:) Not being able to realise it is 'mechanical', thought began to create its own (by-) 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 ( mental) connection with everything.

K: Yes, that's right...

DB: In other words it's a ( stable mental?) 'form' around which everything can be put together, so if everything is falling apart, if thought falls apart, 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', I have a permanent centre, in other words thought has hit on the idea of a permanent centre to hold everything together and in fact that's what we do all the time to organise (our life ) by having a centre ( of permanency) 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 (selfless?) perception include everything?

DB: Right, but let's go slowly here...

K: Isn’t that the central thing that holds, that connects everything?

DB: I see it a little differently : that the act of perception unites everything. And thought is imitating that by ( creating) a ( virtual mmental?) 'centre' that unites everything.

K: That's right.

DB: And thought attributes the ( quality of) perception to this 'centre'

K: That's right, to the 'observer' and so on..

DB: And also the 'thinker' attributes a (timeless?) origin to that centre and attributes truth to itself.

K: That's right... Now, is there a (center-free ?) perception of greed, of fear, or a total perception which includes everything ? Not ( a separate ) perception of greed, belief & so on, but a (global ) perception of all these things ?

DB: Let's say there’s a ( global) perception of ( all) 'that which is', right ? But right now there is ( a puzzling?) question which we might clear up, because we said truth is 'that which is', right?

K: Yes...when 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 ( thought's self-identification with?) the 'centre'.

DB: Yes, thought attributes to the 'centre' the quality of being a 'perceiver', as well as a 'thinker' or an 'actor'. So, 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 attributes to the centre?

K: Of course, as long as there is a 'centre', there must be (a personal?) 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 (psychologically overloaded?) .

K: So, ( to make a very long story, short?) we are 'seeing' something : if there is a total perception, thought has no place in that perception.

DB : And yet, when that perception acts, thought might be (or implement?) its action. That's what we were saying the other day...

K: Yes...But let's get this clear. When there is a total perception in that there is no thought ( no 'thinker' involved ?) and that perception 'is' ( has its own?) action.

DB: Yes , and that will change the quality of thought, by changing the (inner priorities of the?) brain's cells...

K: And so on, we've been through all that.
( In holistic 'nutshell ? ) thought has only a 'mechanical' function....

B: By 'mechanical' you mean more or less, 'not intelligent' ? In the dictionary it's given more or less the opposite thing. It’s not creative, it's not intelligent ?

K: No - it is 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 - if the computer is not hold all this as your 'bucket'? And we said its not your 'bucket', it has no emotional (content) … So why are we giving tremendous importance to thought ?

DB: Well, ( surreptitiously?) thought is giving importance to itself...

K: Thought is giving to itself tremendous importance ; but when ( a wholistic?) perception takes place thought becomes mechanical.

DB: When thought acknowledges it is mechanical...

K: When it acknowledges it is mechanical, then there is no ( psychologically motivated?) problem.

DB: Yes, this was one point  ; and the other ( question) was to understand fully how thought went along the 'wrong track'.

K: Yes sir, one can see how its gone on the wrong track : ( by identifying with ?) the 'centre'.

DB: Well, I think that 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: …. 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 (and assigning a solid reality to ) its own 'imitations' for enjoyment, intelligence, love and so on and then by seeing that this (mental structure) was impermanent, it naturally wanted to make it permanent, and therefore it found the ( identification with the) centre as the ( empirical?) way 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: Well, thought is fragmentary , but it's not quite clear why it is fragmentary ?

K: Because it has separated itself (as an independent 'thinker'?) from the things it has created.

DB: Yes, now that's the point - that thought 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, it attributes to that centre the property of 'I am real' and (not my thoughts) , and that is a fragmentation.

K: That's the basic thing.

DB: And from there follows the necessity for the (inner) fragmentation of one's life, because in order to maintain that those two as different, thought must then break up everything to fit that (pattern of mental separation) do you see ?

K: Of course.

DB: It introduces confusion either when 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, so everything else has to be cut to fit that.

K: Fit (one's ) existence, cut to fit that centre.

DB: Yes, for example, if thought attributes to the 'centre' ( the quality ) of being from a certain nation, he must then distinguish another nation, not belonging to the centre, he
fragments something that is one mankind in order to hold the ( 'individuality' of the?) centre together.

K: Quite right sir, that's it very clear now.

DB: And therefore the entire ( consciousness of the?) world is being fragmented, indefinitely shattered into fragments.

K: I want to get to something else too. Is ( the inward) perception from time to time, from moment to moment ?

DB: From moment to moment... ?

K: If I perceive the ( illusory) nature of belief, it's finished, or if there is a total perception of fear, that's finished, and there is total perception of greed, that's finished - are these perceptions one after the other, or is there a total perception of the whole ?

DB: Well, lets go into that slowly, because 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 : in the last discussion at Brockwood you said it is like Columbus discovering America, that someone else doesn’t have to discover it. But then
what can ( this other person) 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 the first question. “Is ( one's inward) perception whole”?

DB: A whole, there's only one (global) perception.

K: ….therefore it's cleared the field.

DB: The entire field is cleared. Then what does one do ?

K: Wait, wait, let's see whether the ( perception of the ) whole thing has cleared the deck ; then he hasn’t got to go through ending greed, belief, fear, pleasure...

DB: You're saying man may perceive the whole nature of thought, is that what you are saying, or is it beyond that?

K: Beyond, a little more... Let's take that perception sees the nature of thought, and because it perceives the nature of thought, it sees all this, all the fragments.

DB: All the fragments are in there. 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 that ( the insightful?) perception distills the essence, right, do you remember that?

K: No I don’t remember, sorry, but it doesn’t matter...

DB: In some way there is a notion, there is perception, total perception being intelligence, out of that came the (spiritual) 'essence', distilled like the ( perfume of the?) flower.

K: Yes, yes...

DB: Is that essence anything like this ( perception of the ) 'whole'?

K: That's what that is, of course. Now wait a minute, I want to get this clear. Would you say there's is no (separate ) 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 the totality, you see ? 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 the 'total perception', because 'total' may mean 'all these things', or it may mean something else ?

K: To me is means something else.

DB: Yes , well let's make that more clear.

K: Would a 'total' perception mean (seeing) thought attributing to itself certain qualities, thought creating the centre and giving to that centre certain attributes, and all the things from the 'centre' – the psychological centre.

DB: Well that's the whole structure...

K: The whole structure.

DB: Yes that is part of total perception, ( seeing) the whole structure.

K: The whole of that.

DB: The entire structure, that's what we call the 'essence', the basic structure.

K: Yes, alright, if you call that 'essence', I say I agree.

DB: Yes, that structure which is universal, would you agree that its not just this thought or that thought or this problem or that problem or …

K: ...it's universal, quite. Now wait a minute, is such a perception possible? You said that is the 'perception' of 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 it's both, but I’m trying to get it a little more clear, since when we say there is 'truth' and there is 'actuality', now the way we ordinarily use the word it would seem to me that the '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 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 totality', 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 (contained?) in there.

K: That's right ; and when that (universal totality) is seen, thought is then ( perceived as ) merely mechanical.

DB: Then thought acknowledges that it is mechanical ?

K: No, no thought doesn’t have to 'acknowledge' (this fact ) - it 'is' mechanical !

DB: Thought has changed, so it 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, perhaps it was implicit in everybody when he’s born ?

K: No ! I question whether it was implicit with everybody...

DB: Well now lets get this clear ; 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 a '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 every new born child something unconditioned, that (presumption?) may be false ?

K: I think that is false...

DB: Alright. You are suggesting that the child is born with some conditioning, perhaps hereditary ?

K: ...the genes and the hereditary, and the society, it (some basic conditioning) is already there,

DB: And then it gets added to ?

K: Added to, gets 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 ( hypothetical ?) theory !

DB: Alright... then 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 than (the common explanations of) disease, of reincarnation, than what the theosophists… the Maitreya, and the Brahmanical tradition of (having a good) karma...I think it's something else...

DB: You say there was 'something else', now of course this idea has also occurred to other people in the past who felt that some mysterious force was working in them, and ( at least some of them?) may have been fooling themselves, right ?

K: Absolutely...

DB: Yes, like, if you take Alexander the Great, you know, he thought he was a living 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, so it was obviously false...

K: False, obviously, Napoleon felt that too....

DB: Yes, Napoleon felt it, perhaps others felt it, you know...

K: Like Mussolini and Stalin...

DB: Yes and first I wanted to put it, just to try to make it clear, that this feeling may liberate tremendous energy - either falsely or not.

K: Yes...

DB: Now it therefore has a (potential) danger in it which we must recognise, right ?

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

DB: Yes, but nevertheless you cannot discard that because this energy may still be necessary inspite of the ( potential) danger in it. In other words if we recognise that there is danger in this notion, but it doesn’t prove the notion is false....

K: Of course not... It may be just misused, quite...

DB: But suppose now that we look at it from the other side, when you say that something mysterious happened (in your life?) which cannot be explained, which is beyond the order of thought...

K: ( Beyond) all ( knowledgeable?) explanation...

DB: So, it may be that thought cannot grasp...

K: ( In that boy's case ) thought did not create a 'centre'.

DB: Yes, it did not create a centre, but let us say thought is ordinarily conditioned to create a 'centre', over the ages...

K: Yes perfectly...

DB: A person may be born, according to you, with the tendency to create the 'centre' ?

K: Yes...

DB: But now, in this case thought did not create the centre, is that what you say?

K: Yes, that's right.

DB: And you cannot say 'why' it did not, beyond this mysterious action ?

K: No, I wouldn’t know...

DB: Now you say that in some sense, the boy was ( heavenly?) protected, - it's what you said last time...

K: Protected, guarded, they did everything to guard him, first of all...

DB: So there was a combination of circumstances which helped, which were conducive to that...

K: Conducive, but it doesn’t explain it's ( mysterious nature ?)

DB: Now, there are several points that we could go on from there. You see, one point is to say : if man is born conditioned then there is no way out of it, if that's all there is to it, in other words, from this ( collectively?) 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, it does not have any 'personal' significance - 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 (from a saturated solution) - it may be cooled far beyond the ( theoretical) point of crystallisation, or solidification, but unless there is a small 'nucleus', around which it can crystallise, it may remain uncrystallised, indefinitely.

K: Yes...

DB: So that particular nucleus (of crystalisation) has no special significance other than, it was the place around which the (overall) crystallisation (process) took place.

K: Quite, absolutely !

DB: So you could say that perhaps (the consciousness of) mankind has reached a stage where it is ready, or has been ready for a (major qualitative) change, right?

K: Yes, that's what they say...

DB: Many people have said that. But then (this nucleus ) would be necessary, you see, it cannot change (automatically?) from the conditioned state...

K: There must be a catalyst, somebody, a 'nucleus'...

DB: …. a nucleus ( of holistic consciousness?) which is unconditioned ( by mankind's past) . 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 : why until very recently, you have not been talking in these (wholistic?) terms, but rather emphasising ( the importance of a choiceless?) 'awareness' of the (existing) conditioning and so on... ? It seems that now you are saying something more and ( qualitatively?) 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 - in italian : ) '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 ( conditioning ) 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 ( the context of) a total perception – and total perception can only exist when the 'centre' is not (around...?) , then ( the human ) consciousness must be totally different.

DB: Alright, then what would you say about its nature ?

K: What would be its nature... ? See sir, when this 'centre' (of selfishness?) is not (around?) , which is ( the direct outcome of a?) perception of the totality of thought, ( the human) consciousness must be something quite different...

DB: But you see, the word 'consciousness' would ordinarily involve that is it still ( a part of) thought...

K: There’s no thought (in it) , can’t be !

DB: Then why do you call it 'consciousness' ?

K: As I said, it must be 'something totally different'. The ( temporal) consciousness which we have is that of the centre with all the content, with all that ( time-binding) movement of thought, and when there is a total perception (or 'ending'?) of that, this (centre of self-interest ?) is not !

DB: The 'centre' is not, and the whole order (of the mind?) is different ?

K: Different.

DB: Yes, and this ( ending) might involve the brain's cells working in a different way?

K: I think it works differently...

DB: Yes.

K: Sir, may we (discuss?) what is ( the intelligence of?) Compassion? Is the 'centre' capable of compassion?

DB: Well, I’d say the centre is not capable of anything really (authentic?) ...

K: No, but the centre can 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 compassion (the true nature of ? ) total perception?

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 whatever it's 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 heartedly ) ..

DB: Anyway it would have no ( intelligent?) understanding and therefore it would have no meaning.

K: Very interesting this... Ahh... we have got somewhere ! (...pause....)
How would you convey all this to somebody in this (Saanen ?) camp? (S)he’s sentimental, romantic, wanting (to be fed with?) illusions, myths, fanciful imaginations, has problems of sex , of fear, all this, and you're telling him/her something, and (s)he won’t even (bother to) listen). Here (in this dialogue) we’ve got all the (necessary) leisure, we want to go into it, we want to find out, because we are totally objective of oneself…. I think that's where ( the 'wholistic' intelligence of?) compassion operates.

DB: Now considering what we were saying yesterday about the 'stream' of ( collective) human thought and whatever is wrong there - it is something 'universal' – it belongs to everybody, right?

K: Yes.

DB: So, you may see that something is going wrong and thought attributes it to somebody else's ( doings) , but whenever something is going wrong, it's going wrong in ( mankind's collective ) thought.

K: Yes, that's right...

DB: And therefore it's ( subconsciously going on?) 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 not ( received ) by some extra sensory communication of thought, but just by ordinary communication. The structure of your thought is ( subliminally?) communicated to me, and if it's the wrong structure, then I’m ( sharing ) that 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: And if we're feeling that this centre is alright, or we’ll try to make it alright, and the other centre is wrong, obviously there can be no ( acting intelligence of?) compassion, then I’m hostile and feeling I must fight the other 'centre'...

K: That's right, sir.

DB: This centre is resisting the other centre, the 'good' is in this centre, and the 'bad' is in the other centre...

K; ( laughs)

DB: ...and therefore there can be no compassion.

K: Yes sir...

DB: But you see, if it is an 'all one' thought process, one stream, then one cannot attribute this ( or that quality?) to a particular person and therefore you ( holistically?) understand the nature of that thought and that is ( the intelligent ) action of compassion...

K: Exactly. Quite right.

DB: Because you see that 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'. But all that (human endeavour) is not (really?) mysterious.

DB: No, it is just an 'imitation'....

K: An imitation which thought, etc,etc. But if there was no invention of the 'mysteriousness' created by thought, is there a mystery?

DB: Well, if you're saying that this 'mystery' is something that cannot be explained, or grasped by thought, then…

K: Yes, and also the myths...

DB: Well, the 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 produces something which then it says its not thought but, the 'ultimate' mystery.

K: Quite...

DB: And some (holistically inclined ) people have said that myths are poetic means by which people can grasp something (which is universally ) true – and maybe it would be helpful if you use this once (in a while) as a metaphor, but when you repeat it then it become a ( piece of literature ? ) but what would remain true is saying that it cannot be grasped in thought.

K: That's right, ( thought can convey) anything but but the mystery of it !

DB: Yes...

K: We must discuss that some other time.

DB: Well perhaps there isn’t (much) time now , its quarter past five...

K: We’d better stop (silent pause) we can go on this friday....

DB : It doesn't bother you as you have another (Saanen) discussion in the morning ?

K: Now, these discussions don't tire me so much as the 'sustained talk'... So we can do it on sunday afternoon at 3 : 30. Bene !

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Jan 2020 #245
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 466 posts in this forum Offline

EIGHT

DB : Perhaps we should go on with what we were 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, I think that would be accurate !

DB : Yes, but we should discuss it a little while, 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 : Anyway we could say the brain is material and I think we're saying that ( any form of living) 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 human 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 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: Yes... Are you saying, sir, that when the brain is 'overloaded' – by environment (pressures) , by economic conditions, socially...

DB : And by fear & sorrow...

K: ...sorrow and all the things that are going on in human beings, this 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 ; and 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 (the brain) completely  ?

DB : 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 due to some external circumstances...

K: It blames...

DB : ...it on anything else ; and I think that this kind of brain damage occurs in ( following any given cultural ) 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 ( authoritative) 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 to : 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 just 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 (psychological) '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 ( subliminal?) 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 may want 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' has 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 (time-line of) 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 : 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 ( a more omplex) 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 ( inwardly?) 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' (visualise?) 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... 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 ( mental) 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 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 written down. 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 ( improved?) 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 the English language to tell you something – the use of English is memory...

DB : Oh, yes, yes...

K: And I use that memory in talking...

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 were 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 it 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 when I 'see' something, I let it walk out as I talk. So, is there not a state when thought is not in operation and (direct) perception is going on -that's where action takes place. Now, what is the '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...

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 (speaker's?) habit...

DB : It becomes a skill ; there's a certain skill in it. The whole thing takes place without a 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 a non-verbal '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 this side of the brain is 'un-conscious' 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 forgotten 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 free 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 verbal part or of 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 human 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 (undissociated from its psychological ?) content and if that content be 'emptied' - in the sense of no longer being 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 (total) human 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 a (holistic?) insight, a (transpersonal?) perception which is not a perception of the damaged brain …

DB : I understand ; so, you're saying that the brain is not totally damaged, but there's still a ( healthy ) 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 Beethoven had that perception although he was deaf - his brain was damaged , and also he was 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 (blindly following a particular?) tradition, I can 'step out' of it ! The brain says : rubbish !

DB : Yes...then the (psychological) damage is only in certain functions of the brain which are based on memory ?

K: Yes...and you can put it aside.

DB : So it is not in a really deep function of the brain ?

K: No.

DB : But it may appear or present itself as 'deep' ?

K: That's right !

DB : It attributes it to itself as 'deep' …

K: If I am 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, any decent 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 (to the healing action of) this 'insight', you see ?

K: Quite... right, right !

DB : You see, it doesn't mean that the damage is deep, but the damaged part attributes to itself 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 atributes to itself some (very personal?) 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 (of the world of 'reality' yourse?) lf 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 (an inner) 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 (psychological) transformation there is a tremendous security ; you point out to me that if I transform myself totally, then you will be (feeling?) 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 (spiritual) shock- I 'see' it ! But if I haven't transformed, if I am ( psychological?) crooked, 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 ( be willing, able & ready to?) '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 (safe) 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' ( the spiritual impact?) may be, the brain will go back, even if -let's say- we listen to the person who 'sees' and there is a (momentary) 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 ( the inertial force of?) habit, this tremendous ( amount of) 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 ( experiential) answer which is adequate is that which will stop it. As I see it, any ('holistic'?) 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 go 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 this (K) 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 (more seriously ?) conditioned...

DB : Yes, much stronger...

K: ...much stronger and he may temporarily 'see' it ( have a glimpse into 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...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'' ( a self-seleted elite?) ...

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 (that state of Grace?) 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 (stay?) ... ?
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 ( self-centred) 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 (the intelligence of?) '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. ( The perception of?) Truth 'is' ( the expression of Universal ?) Love and Compassion, everything ! Can you, out of your Compassion, out of your Love , touch something in me that transforms me ? Because to you that is the ( action of?) 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 (so) 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 ( optimistic?) view of this is that these 'few' will spread (the Teachings?) but you are not accepting that...

K: That's back into culture, back into time, back in the whole 'business' of tradition...And again you are ( getting) 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: Just a minute, sir... You speak out of the depths of 'that 'immense something' . 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 ( mentally comfortable form of ?) '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 (doing?) 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 ('holistic'?) explanation is out of that compassion, out of the perception of truth and I 'see' it, I have a (momentary?) insight into it, but then... I loose that insight...

DB : 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 (within myself?) and I respond ( enthusiastically) to it for a few days or for a few months and is gone...Or I say : ''Please remind me of it (more often?) ...'' or ''Let me read (your)n books & keep on memorising all that''...You follow ? And I loose ( the individual initiative for?) 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 ( unknown?) '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 ( try to?) 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 the 'conscious' part of my consciousness ?
In that (time-bound?) 'consciousness' there is no ( experiential) 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 (live at?) that level ?

DB : Yes, that could be...

K: I think, sir, that it is more like it. I have always gone to the well (of Universal Truth?) 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 may get used to it while you're talking to me. But the moment you stop talking to me...it's gone ( with the wind …?) !

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 ( holistically friendly?) habit and therefore I lose it...And you tell me ( as an experiential hint?) that at that deep level there is no (thinking in terms of?) 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 'accompanying ' everything that happens, which later builds up and that habit becomes the same as the original...

K: Right... but you tell me : 'See this 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 (based on?) that.

DB : I was thinking that when children are brought up into tradition you can see that when they follow it they (the well intentioned parents & educators?) 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 ; but also thought becomes disturbed of moving out of the tradition – the security of belonging to a community which decides what is real ( good & useful?) 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 (spiritually ) 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 even 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 ( own subjective?) '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 (as a holistically minded educator?) you got to reach all of that...

K: Sir, just a minute  - (suppose that) 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 (on 'u-tube'?)

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 (cultural dependency ) 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 : So, you're saying 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' (in the human consciousness?) 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'( of compassion & truth?) 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 (in one's neighbourhood?) , they will never find a way out …

K: Absolutely not... 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' (the self-conscious thinker?) cannot do it ! Therefore you stop.

DB : You stop, but it needs one that is not damaged to communicate this...

K: Yes, yes....but I can 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 ( nice sounding personal?) conclusions and present them as 'facts'...

K: Therefore ( for extra-homework?) I ( have to?) 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 (such) '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 (of insight?) becomes the (activistic?) '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' (of Truth?) within (the temporal?) 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 a great (accumulation of survivalistic experience ?) ...

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 ( the world of?) 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 (a lot of?) time, you see...

K: 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 ( confined ?) in that area of time.

DB : Yes, as all sort of species have appeared in nature, 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 ( brain's) 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 : ( the quality of holistic?) 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 temporal 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 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 Beethoven 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 (the intelligence of?) 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 (inward) 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 ( the inward source of) 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 becomes 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' (without mental resistance) 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 ( hapless?) 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 (student?) 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 'reality'...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
2 days ago #246
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 466 posts in this forum Offline

NINE

DB : We should try 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. 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 (share of) suffering and if he would stay with that until the end, then everybody will be different - is that what you mean to say ? In other words, it was not necessary for other people to go through ( a similary 'process' ) , 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 :

(a) You often 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. And I feel this analogy may be a little misleading because it suggests that everything has been made very easy...Now, what would you say ?

K: 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 : (b) in one of the discussions, comparing it with the discovery of America - you said that others can carry on your discovery and 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. Now, in some way, you seem to deny that (kind of additive ) approach in the 'psychological' field...

K: I think that's right, sir, I deny that.

DB : Yes...although in another dialogue 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 (regarding) this 'process' – that was your first question...

DB : Yes...

K: 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 that I don't like to 'imagine' ( stuff?) 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 (mentally visualise?) a certain state of affairs...

K: Might be, but I am not scientist...

DB : Yes, but I 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 ; the room 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 (really an) 'imagination'.

DB : Well, 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. So I 've gone into this question whether I imagined the whole thing (about the process) , an illusion which I have perpetuated to give me importance, to give me the feeling of something abnormal – not only in the religious sense- because I've had that all ( adult?) life. I went into this ( analytically?) 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 due to ill health, because I'm very aware when it happens...

DB : Let me comment on that, 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, with 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, although 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 ( mental) 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 ! 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. But if you ask me what it is 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, but isn't it possible that some of his (mentally disturbed ) 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 air of 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 (psychical?) 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 avoided 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 that it may turn out be an inevitable by-product of a very intense perception.

K: May be an inevitable by-product or... you really want to know all that ?

DB : Since this (series of dialogues) is eventually intended for publication, it should be make it clear, so that people do not have such questions in the back of their mind...

K : 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 uninvited, 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 this state may be( going on) in your sleep as well  ?

K: Oh yes, most definitely !

DB : So this state is ( starting on) 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 an 'unconsciousness'...

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 not 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 (in the 20's) ...

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 (the waking) '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 go on & on...and when I deliberately made a (mental?) effort to turn back and go home , I was completely lost...And it happened even 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 ( really) 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 that his ordinary ( perception of?) reality is 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 'breaking down' of the ( conscious?) mind, but it's really not...That was the point I was trying to get at, really...But it might be that other people approaching this ( sense of being lost?) 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 ( an inner sense of panic or ) 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 ( considered) '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 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 ( psychological) 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 ( psychological) 'suffering' - a total intensity of a pervading pain that penetrates the consciousness and 'stills' it ; and I wanted to 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 that (state of inner) 'emptiness' ? And I have one more question : let's say that there is such an intense pain which fills your consciousness. Now that may come for someone who is suffering because he sees that his (inner) world is broken up. Would you say that the pain which comes with seeing the 'world has no meaning' can be in the beginning the perception of a truth  and this perception of 'truth' acts as pain ? I mean, you (kind of?) suggested this thing by saying ''you 'are' the world'' , I mean the perception of this (inner) truth may be something painful in certain cases...And if 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...like 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 personal 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: A-ha... !

DB : And in that, there is some similarity...

K: Yes, I understand ...Facing ( the fact of) '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. Now, 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 the suffering people are 'totally involved', much more than with pleasure or...

K: Yes, much more ! But when that happens, they (generally) 'escape'...

DB : Yes. But I wanted to ask the first question : why it is so total ?

K: Ah... I think it 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 this 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 ('psychological') shock. Could we compare this intense shock with this intense pain (of your 'process'?)  ?

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 (psychological form of?) 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 you 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 the body is rested and it has its own (natural ) energy, its own vitality, its own health, then only it happens....

DB : Hmm... ?

K: But 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 a 'suffering' .

DB : Alright, so if anything, it might be a by-product of that intense energy you suggested. But now let's go into this question of ( psychological) 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 described to me what happened – otherwise I don't remember. And he did say one thing : that when it happened, at the end of it, he said (that K) never asked any help from anybody...He just remained with ( the fact of his brother's) death, with that pain or suffering, with that total 'fact'. And I think that's probably one of the things that played an important part. But I think that the (psychological) 'suffering' which the human beings generally go through – when they are faced with that total fact, they seems to be incapable ( or just unwilling?) 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 still had some 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 a (psychologically loaded?) conditioning – (but still?) 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 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', the sense of total isolation – which is not conditioning.

DB : Hmm...So, if there is any sorrow after that...

K: Ah, that's it !

DB : Then, what would be a 'conditioning'  ?

K: The 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 (residual?) 'conditioning' but...

K: ...not deep.

DB : But ordinarily it is so deep that the person 'escapes' 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 young man who was not deeply conditioned (inwardly) – 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 (work of?) destiny that allowed this boy not to be conditioned …

K: Yes.

DB : Which would be the beginning of...

K: Sir, like Mozart, Beethoven or Einstein...

DB : Yes...

K: And it was 'there', you know... ? Or it might be (in) 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 story 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: It's not really 'theosophical' – it is really a westernised Hindu or Tibetan tradition. But they (the TS people) made it so 'materialistic' : the (Masters ) 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 (collective karmic ?) environment...

DB ; Well, that's a view you could take – I mean, it's not commonly accepted (in the western world?) , 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 our (psychical ?) environment...

K: Yes, recorded in the environment, as 'goodness' can be recorded in the environment...

DB : Yes, and would 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 Hindu 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 (certain) atmosphere ; but 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 the 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: But 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 ( residual) '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 (a poetical metaphor ) 'that's the way it struck him' …

K: Now, if that thing is constantly added to ( by mankind's 'evil' thoughts & actions) , 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 thoughts would be recorded in the house  and then somebody else would pick them out ?

K: Yes. So there must be in this 'house' ( psychological space?) – the recording of violence, brutality & selfishness, and in another ( more heavenly?) 'house' the recording of Goodness... hmm ? And the people who come ( visit them astrally ?) describe both things 'physically' !

DB : I mean, these are part of our ( psychic ?) 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 ( as personified?) by the Masters.

DB : I see...And 'evil' ?

K: And 'evil' by all those who are basically (ignorant & ) selfish...Like the voo-doo - there are all kinds of it - this is one of the ( traditional?) 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 very special?) 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 core 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 (homework of the?) Masters or from that ( Reservoir of ) Goodness created by man's good acts of the past ?

K: No, no...

DB : Or... it may come from some Source ( or Ground of Being ?) 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 the only thing we 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 (visitation of the Unknown?) comes to one ( selfless ) 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 ( living spirit of?) 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 (for the rest of us ) ...

K: (laughing... ) You know, you can't 'run to death' these ( metaphorical) analogies !

DB : No, 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 (holistically?) 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 an ( insightful ?) 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 still have to work at it, I can't say ' I've got it !' …

DB : Yes, that's what you have to get hold (as optional homework) , because the second person may think that there are two people : one who has seen the truth and who may communicate it, and the other person has got to 'listen' to the very end, 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: … but I think that's wrong ( holistically-wise ?) : 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 ( a living?) truth to me only when I have 'washed away' all my selfishness, when I put that away. It is not that I accept your truth...

DB : Yes...so let's get it right : my own 'self-centred' structure has to be washed away...

K: That's right !

DB : So, in some way the (listening to) 'truth' won't do that, won't it ? You see, ''what do I have to do ?'' -that is everybody's question...

K: A–ha ! 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, it's the same thing !

DB : But then we come to the next question : why he doesn't?

K: Ah, that's very simple why he doesn't : the world is too much for him ; his wife nags him, he's got his ( sensory?) 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 ( a bitter medicine?) ; like a thorn, yes... I see that what you have said is true, but my ( natural?) 'selfishness' is much too vibrant, much too alive... but that perception (of truth) is ( remaining) imbedded in my consciousness and it'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 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 also regard it as necessary, 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 : I think it means that 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 many people think 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: ..( from the tree 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 this same 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 ( as meditation homework?) , it is not just a question of 'sitting and listening' what you're being told (by others) ...

K; No, but if I 'listen' to another human being who has seen truth, if I listen so completely, the 'miracle' ( of inner transformation?) takes place in me...

DB : Yes, that's the point : if the 'listening' were total (totally selfless ?) , 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 just '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 that is only the 'official' doctrine, but there are other Christian 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 ; Yes, but the only ( similarity) 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 (particular) 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 ( blind) 'faith' but with ( his own perception of) truth ; he must see it for himself...Let's say the person who doesn't see has to 'listen' and ( for homework?) 'live the whole thing' - 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... ! Some (well known?) revolutionary 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: (Story time;) 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 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?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
10 hours ago #247
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 466 posts in this forum Offline

TEN

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: Where does this word 'wisdom' 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 as witness and (probably as) '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 (cummulative) way, but the ( real?) question is : is there any way of 'imparting' wisdom, or of conveying it ? One of the definitions of 'wisdom' 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 (ancient concept of ) wisdom – you see, there is the meaning of accumulating wisdom, but that's not what we mean …

K: Isn't it a ( wide spread) confusion between ( accumulating lots of ?) 'knowledge' and 'wisdom' ?

DB : Well, there has been such a confusion during the ages, but clearly from theroot meaning of the word it means the act of seeing or knowing (what's going on in real time?) ...

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 ( the integrity of direct ) perception - a judgement which is not made from thought...In other words a 'sound judgement' is the expression in thought of a perception...

K: Yes...

DB : 'Judgement' meant originally to make a distinction or discrimination – so a 'sound judgement' is a ( holistic?) perception, not according to knowledge or tradition... You see, the traditional ( concept of) 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 your saying that 'truth and reality are not related' – is a judgement...

K: Ah, I see...

DB : The form of thought is a judgement, and if that's just based on knowledge it has no true meaning...

K: Quite, quite...

DB...but if that 'judgement' expresses or communicates an (insighful?) 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: Now, is ( such a discriminating) perception 'dualistic' ?

DB : Not (necessarily?) but the way of expressing it is 'dualistic'. You see, this is a (subtle) point which is hard to explain : our language inevitably divides as our thought has to give an intelligible account of the perception at work...

K: ...of perception, quite...

DB : But as you were saying, ''the description is not the described'', the (verbal) 'account' is not 'what is accounted for'...

K: To see where thought (actually) belongs is ( a sign of?) 'wisdom'.

DB : Yes...that's the key to wisdom, really : if thought is aware of where it belongs, then it will make 'sound judgements'...

K: Yes, 'sound judgements', but that's not (necessarily?) wisdom. If thought knows its place and functions within its own limits, then that is (still) the operation of thought...

DB : Yes, that's not ( a transcendental?) wisdom, but it is generally one of the signs of wisdom...You see, it's not necessarily the essence of wisdom, because that may be just the outward form of the act of a man who is wise, hm ?

K: Quite...So would you say that 'wisdom' is the ( holistic) perception of the limitation of thought and (to keep?) its operation in that limited area ?

DB : Yes, that's the essence of wisdom – to (insightfully?) perceive the limitation of thought - therefore the action of such a man will take the form of a 'sound judgement' , you see ?

K: A-ha ! Quite, quite... You see, about 'discernemnt' – 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 (actual) limitation of thought...

DB : Yes, that's the point ; and if you merely put it in outward terms, it is misleading. You see, the 'sound judgement' is merely the outward manifestation of wisdom, and if you emphasise that then it's already ( holistically?) 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 (insightful) perception which allows one to see that thought is limited, and also the readiness of thought to 'move along ' with that perception – the way I would put it is : 'to give a correct account of its limits' and to take that into account in its 'moving'. In some sense you can compare thought to the 'witness' of 'what is observed' - if the 'witness' gives a correct account of what is observed, that's good, but if he puts it in terms of its own thinking 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 personal conclusion' but by saying ; 'this is what I see'...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : Now, that's obviously not 'wisdom', you see ?

K: And what's the difference then between 'wisdom' and 'intelligence' ?

DB : That's what I wanted to come to : one wonders if there is not some different shade of meaning between these terms '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 (the perception of?) 'truth' may flow 'wisdom' and from wisdom 'intelligence' – is that it ?

K: Sir, would a man who perceives truth act foolishly ?

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 one of the words is superfluous, or there is a different 'shade of meaning' we have to explore, right?

K: Quite, quite...

DB : Now when 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 (true) 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 ( obscure?) 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 the limits of thought. Now what is 'intelligence' ?

K: The dictionary meaning of the word - according to the dictionary- is ' to read between' (the lines) …

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' (to make smart choices?) ?

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 is there in ( the insightful?) 'perception' a choice ?
In awareness, in perception, in attention, is there any (element of personal?) 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' (in one's perception) there is no place for 'choice' to operate, right ?

K: That's right, there's no choice...

DB : The other question is that it seems to be some deep confusion when people confuse between 'attention' and (their personal) 'choice'...

K: If there is ( a quality of holistic) 'attention', would there be 'choice' ?

DB ; No, there wouldn't be ; but in our tradition there may be a wide spread belief that attention would contain ( a capacity for making an intelligent?) choice ?

K: ( To sum it up:) 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 (the necessity for a personal) 'choice' in awareness ?

K: Is it the outcome of that (gut?) feeling that because there is ( the possibility of personal?) choice, there is freedom ?

DB : That's a part of it, perhaps , but say, the (wide spread ? ) idea of choosing between 'good' and 'evil' is one of man's favourite (philosophical) 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 the good and the evil – right ?

K: No, but to a man who ( holistically?) 'perceives' (what is?) there is no choice...And therefore he acts acording to that 'perception  …

DB ; Yes, but that (holistic) 'perception' and its implications in terms 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 ( will 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 (holistic) nature of perception...

K: ( Such) perception implies a choiceless action...

DB : Yes...

K: Not a 'discriminating' action or a 'choosing' action – just 'perception' !

DB : Yes, although the verbal 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 verbal description we can only use the 'dualistic' language even if we try to communicate something that is not dualistic...

K: So, let's begin ( from the holistic 'square one') ; to 'see' is to 'act', and in that action there is no choice...and that perception 'is' ( a perception of?) truth...

DB : Like the perception that (inwardly speaking ? ) there is no (personal?) choice... ?

K: And that is the truth ; now in translating that into words, does it imply that it is (becoming) dualistic ?

DB : Not necessarily – 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 ( our everyday) 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: 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 ( the 'self'-identified ) 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... (educated ) 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 heartedly ) 'Skill in tought'... ! So, 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 further 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 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 ( the thought created ?) 'reality'...

DB : Yes, there is also an 'actuality' which thought can only describe ; you see, the tree can be described as part of a (wider field of) 'reality' where 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 ( the creation of) thought...

DB : Yes, the tree is a (living) 'actuality'... therefore '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 planet 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 ( holistically friendly ) who sees that the world is degenerating, who sees that various form of ( fake?) 'revolutions' are taking place, and who says : 'I must find an answer' ( but...) relies on thought to find that out...

DB : Now, you see, 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, he relies on thought to find an answer...

DB ; Yes, that's one of the points : that 'wisdom' is to understand that when thought produces ( conflicts & ideological ) contradictions it cannot find an answer...

K: So a 'thoughtful' man is not ( necessarily?) a wise man...

DB : Well, if he depends ( exclusively?) 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 the '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 ( holistically?) 'wise' man !

DB : Not in the sense in which we defined it... But sometimes by the word 'thoughtful' even 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 these 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: But...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, if 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' ( a non-material?) 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 ( the living spirit of?) 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( visualise ) something 'solid' (in 3-D) .

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 the perception of truth, ..

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' (as the 'dreamer')...

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 : So, there was no 'image maker' , but the (metaphoric?) 'image' was merely the 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 a (metaphoric) image in there – the image of Columbus on his boat going ...

K: I didn't imagine that.

DB ; Yes, alright, but to some extent it communicates that...

K: I mean, that's a fact that Columbus did discover America – if previously it had not been discovered by vikings...but apparently Columbus discovered it – that's a fact !

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 a few others ; so that use of imagery is like the use of language...

K: 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, that (a good level of ) culture could put things in order. In other words 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 ( harmony & ) 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, 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: ( ...because their vision ) is not global...

DB : ... as it doesn't go into the deeper 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, science also cannot bring order in the field of reality, because whatever knowledge it gains, it depends on what the human beings are doing with it...

K: Yes...So only those who 'perceive truth' can bring about order...right.

DB : Yes, but that might discourage lots of ( 'action' minded ) people...

K: 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 other place in this world of 'reality' other than communicating to break through this 'field of reality' ?

K: If the man in the world of reality is a real 'revolutionary' – a 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, providing 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 (outward?) 'revolutionary' ever see truth ? Or must he realise (first?) the limitations of thought ?

DB : This ( very subtle ) point must be communicated' and the other man is able to 'listen' to something, then he may be able to 'listen' to 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 upon reality in the sense that it can 'communicate' the limits of that...

DB : Yes, 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: One of the (K) revolutionaries says : order your own life...

DB : Yes, but my feeling is that the 'communication' itself has to be very orderly, both verbally and non-verbally as 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 his words...

DB : Yes, this would bring order in words and also a non-verbal action. And the whole order of it would be seen, and that 'seeing' already will be beyond the field of reality ...
And I don't think that language is our main trouble ; you were once discussed of the drum vibrating from the emptiness within : so the words can form directly from the inward 'emptiness'

K; Yes, yes !

DB : So, 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 the (living ) matter is non-mechanical, you see ? It may be 'mechanical' in a certain way, but...

K: ( The living) matter is not mechanical.

DB : Because truth could not act on that matter if it would be just mechanical...So we'll have to say that the 'mechanical' aspects of matter are circumsised to a certain area of matter which thought can handle - as 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, 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, 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 ; ...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 : Although it has a 'mechanical' area, which thought can handle. So we could say that this is a right area for thought's action, 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, but does not know that there are some areas it cannot go into, and therefore thought tries ( to transcend) those limits too, you see ? Either it tries to 'understand' the 'truth' or 'spirit' or 'love', or tries to take over the brain matter and keep it in order, but it cannot reach the depths (of Creation) ...

K: So, we are saying that the 'mind' (the content-free consciouness) is not 'mechanical' ?

DB ; Yes and also that matter is not mechanical, although it has a 'mechanical' part or side...

K: Yes, therefore, Truth can touch the non-mechanical part in the matter of the brain.

DB : So, we are saying that Truth operating in one brain can clear that brain and then, being ( properly?) 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 ( a dormant ) intelligence ?

DB : If truth operates in the brain, it follows that there must be something like (a natural) 'intelligence' in brain's matter – at least, something 'non-mechanical', you see, which... ?

K: Then we'll have to be awfully careful because we may ( assume ?) that ( a spark of?) God is already in you...That's what I want to avoid...

DB : We got to be careful because thought is always trying to transcend its proper limits... Whether there is that intelligence or not we don't know  - in some sense it might be- but I think we can ( capitalise on?) the point that ( any form of living ) 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 'intelligentability' 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' : 'to gather together' or to 'pay attention to the whole '… If 'religion' was originally 'gathering the whole', then 'truth' is that too , you see ?

K: That's right....

DB ; But then, when religion became corrupted by being defined as (a mass controlling instrument in the field of?) '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'' - who should having had 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, ( to wrap it up?) 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' – although it may happen in the field of reality. I think that we can put it more carefully because in the field of reality you may observe evolution taking place in time , like an animal becoming bigger and so on. But that is valid only in the field of reality, not at the depths of the human Mind.

K: Yes. We are now saying that whatever is happening 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 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 ( state of inward ) 'emptiness' having great energy...

DB ; Yes...

K: You were saying ( the empty) 'space'...

DB : Yes, I was saying that the empty 'space' - this is a calculation made according to modern Physics, that the 'empty space' is full of a tremendous ( unmanifested?) 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, I felt the same thing. So, mustn't be ( an inward) '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 the 'empty space' and dissolve into empty space and a particle is a 'manifestation' of that (intelligent ) 'energy of the whole', in a form which is transient...do you see what I mean ?

K: Yes, I understand...

DB : And we 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 (to the material reality ?)

K: From this arises the question : how is a man to empty his ( 'self'-centred ?) mind ? How is a human being who sees the world of reality and knows its limitation- how can that man perceive this immense ( inward?) 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 the problem with (the meditation?) 'methods' – that every method is ( soon becoming) part of the conscious content of thought...

K: ...of thought, quite.

DB : ...therefore in using a method you're not 'doing it'  (right) !

K: But that ( methodical tendency) 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... 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, so how would you 'help' me to come to that extraordinary (inward) 'emptiness' ? This has been one of the (major 'holistic education'?) problems of a man who 'sees' it and wants to tell somebody about it (using common words ?) : in telling it, ( the living spirit of?) 'that' is destroyed (or lost?) .

DB : It is destroyed because thought takes it over …

K: And the ( new age?) 'priests' get into it, and then the whole thing is gone !

DB : The point is to communicate ( the actual feeling of) it so that thought doesn't move outside its field.

K: But I only know thought !

DB : It's not entirely so- if we consider this ( holistically minded 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 (eventually for a material profit?) ... 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 (unless one sees it for oneself?) . 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 : The point is that there is a tremendous movement of thought involved in self-deception and thought does not actually 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 ( the concept of) chronological time has been invented by thought and that it is useful and correct and gives us insight into matter...but then it has been extended to (thought projecting its own ) 'psychological' time...

K: That's right, ( the concept ) 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 : in that ( state of inward) 'emptiness' there is no time...

DB : There's no time there, but you see, 'time' appears when a 'center' is produced (by identification 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' (inwardly) ...

K: Yes, (the chronological time necessary) 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 (edcationally?) is that there is no 'fact' of psychological time – it is entirely 'imagination' : 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 (psychological) 'time' is not actually observed – it is only imagined and we imagine that we observe time ... 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 ( self-projection of?) thought. You see, in imagining 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 just thought then you evaluate it and see if it is at its place or not and then there's no (psychological) problem ; but if you think that it's a genuine perception, then you take it as truth...The same thing happens in (the field of inner) 'experience' - 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 experiencing the 'reality of time' and apparently have knowledge of the correctness of time , and so on...Now, you see, none of this is an actual 'fact' …

K; None of this is a 'fact', that's right. There is no 'tomorrow'...

DB : ....'psychologically'. There is no 'next moment' and there is no past moment ('psychologically') – it is all ( an extension of?) memory – what is 'present' now is ( an updated ) memory and an expectation in thought...

K: Yes... and all reactions from that is only mechanical.

DB ; And this ( self-refreshing function of ?) memory is also mechanical, because it's happening in the brain ...the only difficulty is that memory is given an importance of something transcendent- it's (the memory of) 'your own existence'- so the reactions arising from this are enormous...

K: You see, all that is (happening) in the world of 'reality' and there is no (working) relationship between this and truth. To abandon all this ('gut attachment' to the field of reality?) can only take place throught suffering – is that it ?

DB : Well, I can't see this as the only possibility - in staying with suffering...

K: That's what I mean.

DB : But this whole process ( of self-centred thinking) 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 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 ( on with thought?) ? Then what ?

K: Then still it is thought moving. The perception of all that is 'truth'.

DB : Yes...

K: But (most?) 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 - many people are listening to this and understand up to a certain point, but the difficulty is that the whole of 'thought' ( the thinking brain?) produces a ( self-sustaining?) 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 typical 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 ( to do?) 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 :...and it is not good enough, 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 to get rid of it....
But of course, desire has this ('gut?) 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 (reality-wise) - 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: Desire, sensation, thought – it is all in that 'field of reality' .

DB : Yeah, and it seems to me that what desire is trying is to achieve is basically a better 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 (in an area ) 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 ( the temporal ) 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: ( The self- centred) 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...

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 (man's temporal) consciousness .

DB : Yeah...

K: And 'truth' is the essence of 'non (temporal?) - 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 (transcendental?) 'consciousness' ever be conscious of itself ?

DB : The other kind ?

K: Yes.

DB : Oh, I see...

K: if it is (self-conscious?) , 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 ( time-bound) consciousness – this 'consciousness' is in the field of reality...

DB : Yes, it's an activity of the brain...

K; An activity of the brain which has been conditioned 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 ( the open door to?) 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 ( survival-based) 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' (dimension of) 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 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 : But that energy 'perceives'...

K: And 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 ( action-conscious?) – 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 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 ( man's temporal) consciousness is only ( displaying?) its content , and therefore it is only ( the past) 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 'self-consciousness' – as we know it ?

DB : Well, let's try to put it : the 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 (spiritual ) '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 (the same ) 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 ( self-centred) content...

DB : So, now it's becoming clear ( experientially-wise?) : 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 this 'essence' exists in 'psychological' time...

K: Yes...

DB : Now we say ( the temporal?) 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 ( inward space of?) '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 (subtle?) 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 possibly it will tie up with with some scientifical ideas. We say in truth and emptiness is energy and this (inward energy field ) 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 ( mental?) form, a very 'unsubstantial' form called 'thought'...

K: Thought, quite...

DB : ...which is also matter. All that is the truth...

K: Yes...In ( the inward space of) 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 his consciousness 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... but 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 mental 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 a (final) 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 'nothingness' ( in the inner Void?) everything is'', that's a wrong statement.

DB : Then how would you put it then ?

K: I don't put it (in words?)  ! ( both laugh) You see , the man listening to that statement ''In nothingness everything is'' says ''In me is God, I am God'' and he's lost ( the living spirit of?) 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.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 241 - 247 of 247 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.)