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

Holistic Education


Displaying posts 241 - 267 of 267 in total
Fri, 10 Jan 2020 #241
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 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 486 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 486 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 486 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 486 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
Thu, 16 Jan 2020 #246
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 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
Fri, 17 Jan 2020 #247
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 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
Sat, 18 Jan 2020 #248
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

ELEVEN

K: You said you would sum up the whole thing... ?

DB : Well, I'd say the essential point about what we were discussing is that thought tends to move out of its own area, which is in some way limited, although you can't express its limits precisely. But roughly, thought should not try to get into the area which is called 'spiritual', or 'truth', or 'beauty', or 'love', in the attempt to control the equilibrium of the brain, of the nervous system...

K: Yes...

DB : And we said that perhaps the trouble began when man began to have increased this capacity to think, thought did not know that it was limited in this way and therefore it tried to think beyond its 'proper' limits- for example, to try to control the brain in order to make it always 'happy' or you know, to...

K: Do you think they didn't know, or they wanted to find something more than thought ?

DB : Well, it was both, but basically thought did not know it could not find something more than thought...But it also thought that it could control the state of the brain, you see ?
In other words the brain could get disturbed at times, in various ways...

K: But they have also have said - haven't they, sir ? - that 'meditation' is a form of (inducing?) silence which comes when thought is completely under control.

DB : Yes, that came later, but what I had in mind was that the thinking that man evolving and at some stage the brain must have become much larger ; man appeared and he had a new brain, but it didn't know how to use it and he still does not know how to use it...

K: Quite, quite...I understand...

DB : And that's probably where the trouble began. And what we are discussing now is probably how the brain should operate...

K: Yes, quite...

DB : Now, this question of 'meditation' seems to come much later, when man tried to deal with all this...And he came up with the idea of trying to control the brain, or to control the mind, but thought didn't know what we thought it was an important point, was a material process.

K: Quite...

DB : Only recently we came to know that fairly reliably... Some people may have suspected that a long time ago, but there was not firm knowledge. And therefore thought could think ( that at the core) there was a 'spiritual' thing which contained truth...for example if we're going into the question of 'good' and 'evil', thought could think that it could try be good and avoid evil, and there is the story – now, everybody knew that the (human) brain or mind was in disorder , but they 'explained it' by saying that Adam disobeyed God and had eaten the 'fruit of knowledge' - the knwledge of 'good' and 'evil' in particular, and therefore he was driven out of 'Paradise' and therefore you could say that was the 'sin' - as it was some spiritual sin of chosing 'evil' instead of 'good' - and that explanation would mislead people because then he would say : 'your problem is that you chose 'evil' instead of 'good'...and you can't do it of course ...

K: You see, sir, as far as I understand, they said thought can control matter...

DB : And that would put it as a spiritual principle beyond matter...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : Now we were discussing the other day that thought is...

K: ...matter...

DB : not only matter, but a ( stationary wave ?) 'form' on the matter of the brain, you see ?

K: Yes, yes...

DB :... and matter itself is a 'form' in the 'emptiness' ( of Space) which has infinite energy. Therefore we could say thought is an extremely 'tenuous ' thing because matter itself is on the emptiness and thought is a very tenuous form within matter and therefore it would be hopeless to think that thought could completely control matter, you see ?

K: Yes...

DB : It might control it in some ways – and now we know scientifically that we can control matter in certain ways – like producing atomic energy – but thought can not control the matter of the brain - that was the point I wanted to get across. In other words, thought may be able to control airplanes and space ships and atomic power plants, but it cannot control the brain's matter it may think it can, and first of all it will not be able to control it directly by trying to use its 'will-power' . You see, thought may think that by will power it can control the brain...but it actually can't.

K: I wonder if some of the traditional 'orthodox' hindus would accept that ?

DB : I don't know, but I would want to finish this point then we can discuss it. The other point is that in the scientific side some scientists are studying the structure of the brain and they might imagine that by their scientific study we can bring the brain to order. But I think that (on the long term) is also hopeless, because you could say that fundamentally the trouble is that brain seeks ( to upgrade a comfortable level of ) self-deception instead of correct thought...Now if you say  that some mental (wave) pattern in the brain represents a thought pattern that you could measure, then how could you find within that pattern the difference between 'truth' and 'falseness' ? There would be no hope scientifically in making that distinction (except for lie detectors?) . Therefore, all the avenues by which thought might hope to control the brain matter are impossible...And just to finish this point, the Christians and the Hebrews probably didn't even imagine that thought was material as they had a ( serious moral) problem with the 'original sin', that is, why man chose the wrong thing...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : But now, if you come to the Hindus, maybe there is another view...

K: I'm afraid I couldn't say that I know a lot about the Hindus, except that before Buddha there was a system of philosophy which denied everything, even thought...

DB : Yes... ?

K: And so, there was 'nothingness' (aka : the inner Void?) ...

DB : In that sense, you would agree with them, wouldn't you ?

K; Yes, yes...a little bit...

DB : Up to some extent...But of course there must be some difference between what you say and what they said... ?

K: I'm afraid I don't know fully what they said, but I was told that Buddha followed that system of going beyond all thought and 'nothingness' – it's called 'sankhya philosophy' ...So, (anyway) what we are now saying is that the brain in itself produces 'incorrect thought' …

DB : Yes, the brain produces incorrect thought and perhaps the trouble is that thought began by not knowing its own behaviour, its own nature...But if thought could 'see' its own nature, and give a proper account of its own nature, perhaps it could 'think correctly' (& only when necessary?) .

K: Yes, yes...

DB : That's the proposal, you see ? But since it has not began by seeing its own nature, it began to go off the correct action and began more & more confused and tangled up...

K: Yes. So the brain itself cannot 'see' the correct action...

DB : Well, let's say that it has not yet been able to see it.

K: Yes, or see what is the 'illusion', or that it can deceive itself …

DB : Yes...the brain engages in self-deception, in order to try trying to make itself feel better – that's basically what happens, you see ? The brain somehow moves and creates a disturbance in the way it is operating and wants to 'feel better' and it does not know how and finally it ends up in self-deception...

K: Quite.

DB : ...and that of course creates more disturbance and it gets worse .

K: And can this deception come to an end ?

DB : That's really the question, you see...I don't know if any of us can say much how the ancient Hindus arrived at this – perhaps there were some people among the ancient Hindus who actually understood this, but the whole thing is so poorly documented that we can never say. And even with regard to Christ, one can't never say exactly what he said and so on...

K: I know...

DB : But we also said that at present time we have at least one point in our favour- that there is a very clear knowledge that thought is a material ( mental wave) process...

K: Yes...

DB : Which is something very firm which would remove the speculation that thought might be all sorts of things...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : Now, that's one point...

K: You see, according to what Buddha had taught is 'right thinking' …

DB : Yeah...but that's somewhat ambiguous, because it could mean just a prescription for the 'right' way to think – now everybody says : We want 'right thinking' people - and what they mean is they want 'people who think like us'...

K: (laughing heartedly )...who think like ourselves ! Quite...

DB : But Buddha probably didn't mean exactly that, is that it ?

K: I shouldn't think so – it was much too alive, much too...So this is the question we are asking : can the brain free itself from all ( tendency of) self-delusion ?

DB : Yes...and also from self-centredness, selfishness...All that is involved...

K: All that...

DB : You see, I am still sumarising : so in going on from there, we said that thought , trying to bring the brain in order - and also trying to reach the Highest Principle - it began to hold the brain in order by organising an (identitary?) 'center' just as it organises the centre of the 'family' or of the tribe so thought is trying to bring the brain in order, you see , perhaps even an animal has that to some extent. Now, one of the points that occured to me in considering that was that maybe there is a 'functional center' which comes in operation in order to do something and then it retires...

K: It can be 'dormant'...

DB...dormant... You see, a 'functional center' which operates only from time to time, as needed...

K: And what happens when it is dormant ?

DB : Let's first consider what went wrong when thought tried to organise a 'center' in order to control itself, first of all, it forms the ( virtual) 'image' of a center' inside, and one gets the impression that there is some sort of (distance between) the 'periphery' and a 'center' – although the two are in some way related - what happens in one, happens in the other...

K: Quite...

DB : Now, our 'being' has both an outside and an inside ... There is a mental being and a physical being - the body and the visual perception which sees the body. And we know that what happens in the 'visual' perception happens in the body- they are actually the same, though we describe them as different...And there was a kind of extension of that, to form a 'mental body' and a 'mental' eye but it that got tied up with this temporary center. In other words, this little 'game' now producing the image of the 'center' , was tied up with the actual 'functional center'...

K: In our relationship ( within the world of reality?) we create a 'center' …

DB : An artificial, an 'imaginary' center...

K: An 'center' which is imaginary – made of 'images' – which is necessary to 'live happily together' .

DB : Or rather, which we 'think' it's necessary...But in addition there is another center – a 'functional' center which works and retires. And this 'imaginary' center would call up the 'functional' center in order to do what the 'image' says it should be done...And therefore the 'image' center obtains an apparent ...

K: …a 'reality' ?

DB : An 'effectiveness' as if it were a real being, by taking control of the 'functional center'... because if it were just a ( mental) image, we would soon discover that it was really quite weak or empty...

K: Sir, would you say – as all life is relationship - that thought creates the 'image' for ( its own safety) convenience...

DB ; In the beginning for convenience of function...

K:... and that creates the 'center'...

DB : That calls up the 'center of activity'.

K: ...of activity, yes...

DB : Yes...so there is the 'image' of the center which calls up the 'center of activity' which then (by fusing together) becomes 'centre'

K: So there is the 'image' in relationship and the 'image' which calls upon other series of ( practical) images to function ?

DB : It may even call for the an actual brain center to function - in other words, there are in the brain some mechanical centers and it may call on one of those, you see ?

K: Yes...

DB : Now, let's say that this (self-) image may be useful functionally or technically ; say, if you have to go from one place to another – then I form an 'image' of myself being here and the image of the place being there, then that 'image' helps to direct my function and my activity of going there but ultimately this gets extended to the ( psychological self-) 'image' which tries to control the whole state of mind, or which tries to control the human relationships …

K: Yes, I understand... But sir, if there was no self-deception, would there be any need for any image at all  - except in the functional action ? Why should there be a (psychological self-) 'image' in action ?

DB : Maybe there should, or there shouldn't, but let's say first why it seems it should : say it's a very simple action – like that of a man who wants to make a tool or who wants to take a journey : so he 'imagines' the tool he wants to make, or he 'imagines' the journey that he wants to make and then he makes his preparations and carries it out ; now, let's say that to make this journey he might make a series of preparations and so on...

K: I know it, unfortunately...

DB : (laughs) ...now he may form in his mind the image of that journey as a series of 'pictures' of what it's like...

K: No, no...

DB : Maybe he is wrong, but this is what he probably does ; I'm not saying it's right , I'm just exploring...

K: Quite, quite...exploring...

DB : Now therefore he begins to function that way by thinking of the image of what he's going to do and carrying out according to that image...

K: Would you call it 'image' or the 'necessity of doing something', of preparing...I'm leaving the day after tomorrow (and) I have to pack and get all the things together & so on... There is no (self-) 'image' forming at all. These things have to be done...

DB : Yes, but to go back to the primitive man – he has to take a long journey through strange places and he thinks of where he's going and what he may need and so on...Now some images may appear there - I expect such & such countryside, I need such & such clothing & so on...

K: Why do you call it 'image making' ?

DB : Well, merely because even a photograph is an 'image' – you refer to a photograph of the place you are going to , and that will help your preparation, right ?

K: Just wait a minute, I'm going to California...

DB : Well, because you know it already or other people know it...But suppose you've never been to California and nobody knows exactly – if you are an explorer for example, you'll try to prepare for the exploration...

K: Yes, yes.

DB : And you don't know exactly what to expect but people might imagine what is the nature of the country and what you may encounter so that you can prepare accordingly. Or also you may have a photograph of that country, which will give you some idea of what to expect, right ?

K: I see that the word 'image'...

DB...the word 'image' has a more general meaning based on the same limitation ; then I said there are different kinds of 'images' – there are photographic images as in television and so on...

K: I see...

DB : Now, some of them may have a 'factual' content and some images do not, you see ?

K: Yes, the 'images' that have a 'factual' content we can leave those aside .

DB : That's right ; however we are using 'technical images' quite frequently – which have a factual content and the mind begins to 'extend' these images into other areas where there is no factual content …

K: Yes, quite...so we come back to the question – if we can leave aside the 'factual' images with their content & so on – that's very simple & clear...

DB : Yes... but even the image of the 'self' seems to have a 'factual' content , but we're saying that it has not... ?

K: It has none !

DB : Yes, but if you ask people, they'll say it has, you see ?

K; Of course...

DB : So, we'll have to understand how this confusion and self-deception came about...

K: Aha … !

DB : You see, it was one of the basic things where mankind got caught - to form these 'images' which have no factual content but which very important and once that was formed...

K: Why does that 'self' (image) become important ?

DB : Yes, that's our question ; I think the beginning was to form the 'center' which tried to take control of the whole process – and a (mental) 'image' was basic in forming this center …

K: Or, would you say the 'center' was formed because everything ( in the field of reality) being in flux, everything being in movement... ?

DB : Now let's go slowly here ; you see, this movement implies uncertainty – the question is why is thought unwilling to stay with uncertainty ? Why doesn't it accept the 'fact' of uncertainty ? See, it's already a factor of self- deception.

K: There begins the deception.

DB : Yes... But why does it get caught in the deception ? You see, there may be thought which is functional, which is correct and so on …Now, if the thought process is functioning correctly, then if there is the fact that there is uncertainty, then it would just say : life ( on planet Earth?) 'is' uncertain – it doesn't try to pretend or make an image that there is 'certainty'.

K: One can't live ( forever?) in uncertainty !

DB : But let's go slowly : first of all, my knowledge is uncertain...and I say : exactly, I can't live in uncertainty : but now, there's some confusion there, you see ? Because you ( K) are also saying : ''You have to live in (psychological) uncertainty'' in some way...

K: Of course !

DB : But why did thought come to this 'false' conclusion ? You see, if it was functioning correctly it would have said 'life is uncertain'...

K: Wouldn't you say that in that there is a great fear (of what might happen to me tomorrow?)  ?

DB : I understand that, but where would this fear arise ? See, if thought is functioning correctly it would not produce fear ?

K: But it is not functioning ( objectively?) correctly !

DB : Thought began by not knowing its limits, so it was already trying to do things which it has no place to do ; it was trying to provide ( an overall sense of) security...

K: See, it entered in an incorrect direction when desire, sensation & thought became prominent...

DB ; Yes, that's just the point I was coming : that thought is moving into a 'wrong' area in trying to provide a security which it cannot provide. The question is : what is the motive power behind this incorrect action ? And I think the point was that there arose this question of desire. Let's try to put it that thought moving in a correct area may set a goal and you will try to achieve it ; but then, thought can project another kind of goal – to achieve a better state of mind, to 'feel better'...

K:...to feel better, right.

DB : ...if I feel bad it would be natural that I should feel better, and what can I do to feel better ? And of course, if you're ill, you go to a doctor & so on, but if you feel bad (inwardly) with ( a feeling of existential) sorrow & so on, it's not so clear...So, when thought said ''I want to feel better'', it anticipated some kind of feeling & tried to achieve it - that being a 'desire', right ?

K: That's right, a desire...

DB : Now, it seems to me that desire is the basic source of self-deception...

K: Yes, of course, obviously...

DB : And it is very clear, because thought cannot do anything to the brain matter in order to feel better, but of course, it can do something to disturb it... Now, when it tries to make the brain 'feel better', all it can do is to influence thought - to look for ( upbeat?) thoughts that can make it feel better …

K: Quite...

DB : So, even thoughts which are incorrect ( ethically wrong?) are accepted as 'correct' and you begin to go into distortion and self-deception just because it makes the brain feel better...

K: Right...That is, if 'desire' is ( an 'active' compound of) sensation & thought, then that very desire is a distorting factor.

DB : Yes, because that sensation coupled with thought is ( supposed to be) giving the brain a better sensation, and it distorts thought in trying to make it better - inevitably, you see ? But then, of course, nothing can satisfy fully that ( time-binding?) desire - because of its contradictory (mercurial?) nature and eventually several different other desires are already there... I have observed one thing : that when another desire comes in, ( the thinking brain ) does not know how to stop the first desire...

K: But sir, isn't all desire the same ( movement ?) , but the 'objects' of desire change ?

DB : Yes, the basic process is one and the same, but there is a superficial change of object which is confused, contradictory & self-deceptive... Now, desire includes 'belief' and 'hope' – 'belief' means accepting something as correct because you desire it to be so ; for otherwise you have no proof, you see ? And 'hope' is just simply the belief that whatever you desire is going to be realised...So all three are one and the same : I think that 'belief' is even more deceptive than plain desire...

K: So, can (the mercurial process of) desire be totally understood and therefore there's no more distortions taking place ?

DB : That is the point we'll ( finally) have to get to, because desire is so self-deceptive that it deceive itself about its own existence – you may desire to believe that there is no problem & so on...

K: Yes...but haven't all (organised?) religions said 'control your desires', because that is the very root of self-deception ?

DB : Yes, because they have understood very correctly that desire is destructive - but desire cannot be 'controlled' because when you try to control desire there will merely be one desire against another...

K: And because it cannot be 'controlled' they said : (try to?) identify yourself with something greater …

DB : Yes, but that's still desire...

K: Of course !

DB : And that may become a (subtler) form of self-deception : ''I believe that I am becoming something greater because I feel better ''…

K: Right. Then the problem arises : Can desire -which cannot be controlled – because the 'controller' is part of desire …

DB : Yes, that's a key point that should be brought up : that desire in itself is not an 'object' but a 'movement', sending a set of instructions' to the brain in order to get something and ( further down the line?) the one who sends the instructions is himself controlled by the instructions...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And therefore there's no actual separation between the 'controller' and the 'controlled'. It's not the same as some external object which can be separated from the brain, but desire is the very ( creator & beneficiary of its own?) movement...

K: And, as desire breeds illusion, can the mind or the brain relegate (the functioning of) desire to the 'functional' activity ?

DB : Well, it's not clear that it actually can, as desire itself is deceptive, it is not clear if the brain can keep desire at its place...

K: I think it can. Let's go into it.

DB : You see, one point could be added : ( any strong) desire may often be confused with passion, and they are obviously quite different ; one of the ways by which desire maintains itself is to create self-deception by saying it is 'passion'...

K: You've heard last night on television that the debate of the Conservative Party was 'passionate' …

DB : (both laugh) Now let's look into the 'functional' area – would you say there is a place for desire there ?

K: I think that if one can understand the whole movement of 'desire' an see whether it can't be 'dissipated' , then in the 'functional center' there is no desire...

DB : You see, that would make more sense than saying that the 'functional centre' would operate without desire and does what it has to do...Because if desire enters anywere, it's going to produce ( a tidal wave of ?) self-deception that would spread everywhere...

K: So the question is whether desire can be totally ( integrated or?) dissolved so that there is no possible deception at any level - at the 'functional' center and at the 'psychological' and all the rest of it...

DB : Yes...

K: Otherwise, one lives in a 'fool's paradise' ...

DB : Yes, I mean the point is : we can't go on (forever on the wings of?) desire, and if we do, our society will be destroyed.

K: Quite, so can desire have no place in ( the everyday?) action ?

DB : Or no place anywhere...

K: Intellectually we may admit that, but what is the 'insight' or the intelligence that will dissolve (or integrate the energy of?) this desire ? Can the brain 'see' the 'truth of desire' and therefore...

DB : What you mean seeing the actual fact of desire ?

K: Yes...I have watched it several times – I like ( to drive?) fast cars : their shape & the whole bussiness of it...There is the sensation, thought, and the desire arising. Can there be only sensation, thought and no ( the car buying ) desire ?

DB : That's the question...You see, it's sounding very 'rational' but desire arises when that desire includes the thought of the self – it's something that the 'self' needs or is missing...

K: Like the sense of power, sensation & all the rest of it... ?

DB : But when that sense of power extends to be the essence of your consciousness, then it creates some sort of overwhelming power -which we call 'longing' or 'yearning' or 'craving' & 'hankering' & so on, in other words...

K: The root of all that is desire !

DB : That is one thing given different names, but I think the root of this is a certain mistake of thought which is entering in the wrong area by trying to think of itself as the essence of your consciousness – or just trying to think that it can do something in that area...

K: Yes, yes ...we said the other day that the content of consciousness is consciousness...

DB : Yes , and thought tends to think that ( this temporal ) 'consciousness' is the manifestation of a 'being' or of an 'entity' who is deeper...and who is not only thinking correctly - more or less - but who is also 'seeing' – its thinking is often described as 'perception' – and who is also 'experiencing' I think that's important – because that gives the sense of reality – that this 'being' is the 'experiencer' who is experiencing the sensations...

K: Quite...

DB : And all that makes this (inward) thing to appear very real - a 'reality' independent of thought...You see, if all that would not be present, the sensations would not be regarded by thought as all that important...You see, thought is trying to produce a different set of sensations in order to make you feel better…

K: Better sensations... more & more sensations...

DB : That's right, more & better , that's what is worse !

K: (laughing) Yes...

DB : Now, that's an inherently a crazy activity, you see, because the only point of (sensory) sensations is to give you 'factual' informations ; if thought tries to make them 'better' , then it could no longer give you ( the correct) information, you see ? And the whole thing is self- contradictory because that very attempt cannot be kept under control and so on...

K: So, I'll come back to the point that the ( psyhological) 'content' of one's consciousness is the product of desire - apart from the 'functional' knowledge , the rest of it, is the movement and the accumulation of sensations and desire.

DB : It is like some sort of 'imprints' which contain the records of all that and the instructions to produce them again and their memory becomes stronger and stronger...

K: Can that movement of desire come to an end ? Should it come to an end ?

DB : Well, it seems from what we said that it should...

K: All the religions of the world said this...yet they become monks in order to identify with (their spiritual ideal?)

DB : You see, that's the self-deceptive nature of desire : when the brain begins to see the destructive nature of desire , it begins to desire a state of 'non-desire' ...

K: Yes, that's it - to desire a state of 'non-desire'...

DB : ...therefore the whole thing is silly because , desire has such a self-deceptive nature that I can desire 'not to be conscious that I have desire' – because it's the becoming the new content of my consciousness- the desire to have no desire...

K: So, our ( experiential) question is : can the ( psychological?) root of desire be dissipated ? I think it is only then that you see what is 'truth' …

DB : That is very clear to me, that as long as there is desire, nothing can be done in this regard.

K: ...nothing can be done, that's right....You see, sir, this is very difficult, because most people think that desire is necessary to live - that's part of our tradition... As this boy said to me after the talk : ''I like sex, but without desire, how can I have sex ?''...So, our conditioning is so strong that desire has become a ( dominating) part of our 'necessity to live'...

DB : Yeah, otherwise you might just become a 'vegetable'...

K: ...a 'vegetable' ; Now, let's see : is it possible to eliminate all desire ?

DB : Yes, if we can distinguish (the qualitative difference between?) 'desire' and 'passion' – because without (the predominance of?) desire there is place for real passion, which has far more energy - because desire wastes a tremendous energy because of its contradictions ; it is always moving in many directions and it's wasting ( one's intelligent) energy...

K: That's right. I was talking once to a monk and he said ''I have totally rid myself of all wordly desires and therefore I've taken to calling mysef a different name, put on a robe, I have only one meal a day so the worldly desire is completely out of my system ; however, I do desire to reach God or whatever it is''. He said, ''You cannot take that away from me because it's my life ! That is the very root of my ( spiritual?) essence''.

DB : Yes, that's what I was saying before, that thought is going into the wrong sphere and tries to guaranty its essence in some way, by 'thinking' (metaphysically?) ...You see, desire is the attempt of thought to make its essence right...

K: When I desire, I 'am'. You follow ?

DB : So, rather than what Descartes was saying 'I think therefore I am', it's 'I desire, therefore I am'... desire is ( the action of?) thought, of course, but I don't think Decartes had that kind of thought in mind...( both laugh)

K: You see, when you deny (flying on the wings of? ) desire, 'I' am not !

Db : Yes...I was thinking of a remark you made once in some talk, that '' Desire is the bedrock of the ego''...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : You see, it seems very solid, something which is not that easy to break up...

K: Yes...Now if this ( movement of) desire is the rock on which is built all our modern civilisation, all our 'individual' aspirations & all our culture, how can that be dissolved ; without 'control' – because then the 'controller is the controlled'- without any 'effort' - because 'effort' implies desire, without any 'goal' – which also implies desire, without any 'ideal'... ? ( Having the holistic insight) that the (temporal?) 'self' is based on the bedrock of desire and therefore on self-deception, suffering  & the whole thing that follows, would you say that if there is no desire, there is 'nothing' ( left ) ?

DB : Yes...

K: ...and therefore that 'no-thingness' seems a frightening thing ?

DB : Well, I would try to put it slightly diffently : desire is already involving fear - because desire is the sense that ''I need something for ( improving ) my essence'' and if it's not there then it would be very frightening ...

K: That's right !

DB : The very essence of desire is fear, it is sorrow, and it is (generating resentment & ) violence – because if I don't get what I want I become violent, you see ?

K; Yes, sir....How am I to 'explode' this tremendous ( bed)rock which society, tradition, everything sustains it, boosts it, makes this 'bedrock' more solid ?
When one sees that desire implies conflict, desire implies duality, desire is in itself 'fragmentation', when one 'sees' that factually, is there desire ?

DB : Well, what you say is ( holistically?) correct, but the difficulty is in actually 'seeing' this because desire is often a fast & violent process. I think that desire has been built up by tradition to such an extent that it pervades every movement of our consciousness...

K: I know... the desire to reach ... the desire to be good...

DB : ... the desire for the 'highest' , the desire for this & for that...The desire for security is probably a major one...

K: Would you say that knowing that there is no ( endless temporal ) security, the desire is (downgrading its expectations ?) for something else (more concrete?) ... ?

DB : Well, the desire for (psychological) security works entirely in a field of fancy imagination and that may give the apparent perception (a mirage?) of the thing desired, or of the thing which we have to reach... Without imagination I don't think there would be desire...

K: The other day on ( Catholic) TV the host was saying ''This is my blood and flesh, eat of it !'' That's pure imagination !

DB : Yeah, it's fancy...

K: ...fancy and yet millions accept it !

DB : Yes, because that's 'belief' - whatever suits your fancy, or makes you feel good , you 'believe' it ; and every different persons, has a different 'belief'...

K: So, realising all this, examining and exploring all this, can we narrow it down and ask whether it is at all possible to live without ( the 'psychological bedrock' of?) desire ?

DB : Well, if I see it as absolutely necessary...

K: It is, but now we come to the point where we both see it is essential that we exist without desire , and it's in the very structure of my ( memory rooted?) brain cells that desires to live, that desires to be happy, that desires to get rid of fear & all the rest of it- how can that brain, which is conditioned by the (subliminal process of?) desire to uncondition itself?
Do we ever ( have the leisure to?) ask this question ? And if we ask it, will it not be another form of desire to get rid of it ?

DB : Well, there is the danger of falling into that trap...

K: Of course ! But do we have to go through all this (endless analytical?) process ?

DB : Well, all of those things will not get us anywhere...

K: What prevents one from having an insight, a real insight, that is 'seeing the truth' of ( the process of thought-sustained ) desire and therefore 'end' it ? Is it that we have never asked this question ? I think it is a marvelous ( very significant) question that needs a tremendous intelligence – because if I desire a pair of shoes and I need it I won't call it 'desire' – or I may need a dozen pairs of shoes ( & trousers & kurtas & …) for various (PR) reasons & so on, but 'need' and 'desire' can they be kept separate ?

DB : Well, if it's a genuine need...

K: I'm talking of genuine need …

DB : But desire is a 'fancy' need in itself …

K: But ( for the more wealthy ?) there comes the 'pride' of posessions, vanity...

DB : That again it is an 'imagination'...

K: Of course ! So, can 'need' and 'desire' be kept separate ( in separate drawers?)  ?

DB : I think they can...

K: They can, but that requires ( an awakened?) intelligence – that intelligence that 'sees' that desire has no place (inwardly speaking?) ... Would you say the essence of ( transcendental?) intelligence is to be without desire ?

DB : Yes, we could say this is the essential requirement for intelligence...I wouldn't say it is the essence of the whole, but the essential requirement for intelligence is non-desire...

K: So a man caught up in ( the webs of thought driven ?) desire - however cruel, however subtle, however noble - is unintelligent !

DB : Yes, not basically 'intelligent'...

K: Of course ! Now, can one's needs be absolutely correct ? Never desire touching them ?

DB : That would mean no (selfish) thoughts for yourself ?

K: Of course...So then the human consciousness becomes something totally different.

DB : Well, let's go into that a little bit : when there is no thought of the 'self' or desire...The thought of the 'self' is desire, or at least a sustaining force...

K: Yes ; and therefore, what is the nature of a consciousness that is not put together by desire ?

DB : But there is still an action of knowledge...

K: But that's 'function' ( a real-world functionality?) – we'll keep that apart – it's understood we've locked it up...

DB : Now you're asking for an action beyond that?

K: Yes, of course...

DB : Could you say it's the whole function of the brain ?

K: Sir, what is the 'function' of the brain if there is no desire ? What happens to the brain if it has no desire ?

DB : Hmm... ?

K: Does it receive a shock with this ( inwardly challenging?) question ? Is it something startling ?

DB : Well, not exactly 'startling' ; but 'surprising' certainly …

K: Surprising, startling, therefore it is facing something a totally new (challenge) ....

DB : Yeah...

K: 'New' in the sense that if has not put this question ever -others may have put it to ourselves....

DB : Like Buddha... ?

K: So, what happens to the 'movement' (inner activity?) of the brain when there is no desire at all ? So, unless we understand the functioning of desire and leave it totally, this question may be terribly disturbing to the brain...

DB : You mean, the brain can't handle it ?

K: Yes, it is too immense !

DB : Well, the brain tends to leave it go, if it can't really deal with it...

K: You see, you were saying the other day at lunch – if I may repeat it again – that in ( the free inner) space there is a tremendous energy...

DB : Yeah...

K: Now we said that desire wastes this energy...

DB : Yes, that's correct...

K: Now, when the brain has no desire...

DB : Then it will have ( free access to?) all that ( unmanifested?) energy ?

K: That's right !

DB : Yes, I've observed that if you keep on watching ( the chaotic movements of) desire carefully, you'll find that the (level of inner) energy goes up...

K: That's what I'm trying to get at  !

DB : … So, there is a major waste of energy in ( flying on the wings of?) desire.

K: But you see, this is the 'danger' – the energy is going up - therefore control desire and make it a (highly lucrative) 'industry'...

DB : Yes, to 'keep it up'...

K: Keep it up and gain twenty millions of dollars of it...I don't know if you saw it the other day in the Herald Tribune : The Transcendental Meditation is a twenty million dollars industry...You follow ? This is what would happen...

DB : Hmm ...and what does the 'industry' produce ?

K (laughing ) ... more ( Rolls Royce) cars ! It's very interesting this...

DB : So, I think that it's useful to observe that this (hightening of energy) does happen, but definitely not to pursue it...

K: Now, wait a minute, sir : I function 'rightly' – that means a life that is really orderly- righteous, virtuous, unselfish and all that...Then only I can put this question legitimately... Otherwise I'll use that watching of desire – the arising of that energy- and use it for mischievous ( although highly lucrative?) purposes. The army will accept this ( ESP stuff) marvelously ...and the ( New Age?) politicians will play havoc with it ...Therefore I think it's essential that you must have that really religious, virtuous life – otherwise you can't come to the 'other' (holistic dimension of consciousness?) . Would you say that ?

DB : Yeah...

K: Then we can ask : what happens to the (meditating) brain that has no desire whatsoever. Which means no self-deception, no striving, no 'achievement', no 'going or coming'...nothing ! Totally no desire. Therefore, if it has no desire, there's no 'content'...

DB : ...Except the functional...

K: Therefore it's empty and as you said the other day, it has ( free access to ) a tremendous energy. Then, what is the point of my having no desire ?

DB : Because then I'm free of self-deception... ?

K: Alright, I'm free of self-deception and then, what ?

DB : Well, I think that's not the end of the matter...

K: That's just it !

DB : Freedom from self-deception is the essence of a (holistic) revolution in consciousness...

K: Revolution in consciousness...Would a (professional?) revolutionary accept this kind of 'revolution' wich brings tremendous energy to operate here ?

DB : Well, most revolutionaries would not, because they won't accept they are caught in self-deception. On the contrary, they feel they know what has to be done...

K: Of course...So, sir, at the end of it, what is the point of all this ( inward journey of self-discovery?) ? Say, one has come to this point – no 'desire' whatsoever...

DB : And ( has free access to?) a tremendous (pool of Mind ?) energy... ?

K: Not only a 'tremendous' energy'- it's something incredibly 'wild'- without limitations, without frontiers...it is 'infinite' – if I can use that word without being limited by that word, hmm ? If you have ( free access to?) 'that' then... what's the point of it ?

DB : All right...it has no (obvious?) place in the present order of things...I mean, except possibly to help to transform it...

K: Suppose you and I come to this – not as 'Dr Bohm' and 'K' – but two ( inwardly anonymous?) people have come to it. Then, what is their ( interacting?) relationship to the 'world of reality', the world of function, the world of relationship and so on... ?

DB : Which is really a world of self-deception ( created ) by desire...

K: What is their relationship ?

DB : You see, if you define all that as being the ( time-bound?) 'consciousness of the world' then there is no relationship except to ( try to) communicate, to get through that (smoke screen of self-delusion?) , you see?

K: To come to this -as we have spent hours of this – not just casually, you were ready and I worked at it, & so on, to come to this, we have to 'live rightly' and... who will 'listen' to us ?

DB : Well, I think there are ( qualitatively ?) different kinds of people - some are dis-inclined to listen and some are not, you now ?

K: But ( meditation-wise?) that means going into oneself at great depth, and watching everything like...

DB : Yes, I can see that most people won't want to do that - they may say they haven't the time...

K: Therefore they say to me :  ''That's only for the 'elite', so get the hell out of here !''

DB : Yes, but they haven't answered the question of 'what you do (regarding this strong current of?) self-deception ?'

K: They say, ''that's man's nature, it must go on''...

DB : Yes, but what will he do with the 'self-deception', you see ?

K: It begins with ''this is a self-deception , and that is another self- deception and ( by diligently working at it?) it will gradually improve''...

DB : Yes, but they won't admit that it's self- deception... You see, if somebody once admits it is deception I think they cannot go on with this... You see, at least this is the way I see it that if we can make so clear this point - that it is deception and the person can get out of it...

K I was talking once to a Catholic on a train in India and he said  to me: 'Oh, you are a Hindu...' I said ''I am sorry I am not a Hindu''...He said ' All they have got is a set of beliefs -in Krishna, in Rama, etc - a whole set of superstitious nonsense & all that ' and I said : ''What about yourself, sir, your belief in Christ ?'' And he said ''Ah, that is 'real' ! ''…. You follow ?
That's what I want to get at : If two people have got this (holistic quality of?) mind, this sense of a brain that has no sense of desire – what a marvelous thing that is, hmm ?

DB : Yes... ?

K: Then, what can they do ? What is the point of it ? It's like living in a desert !

DB : You see, I think we discussed something relevant to this before- when you compared the young man Krishnamurti to some sort of 'nucleus' which would help to transform the consciousness of mankind...

K: …the consciousness of mankind, quite right !

DB : Any person who is without desire is that 'nucleus'... Isn't that right ?

K: That's what I want to get at : I think it does affect consciousness here...

DB : Yes, because let's say, if there is one and he does affect it, then two will have more effect...

K: Of course...

DB : But consciousness is 'all-one' – you see ? The idea that it's all separated is wrong – it is flowing like a stream, and every person has some mixture of this consciousness...I think we once used the notion if 'ideosyncrasy' - Which I looked up and it means 'private mixture'...

K: 'Private mixture'...(laughing) yes, that's good !

DB : And everybody has his own 'private mixture' of the (trends of) general consciousness– he draws everything out of this general consciousness. So, there is no such thing as an 'ego', which is 'individual', you see ? Every 'individual' is a 'private mixture' of the ingredients of the general consciousness of mankid .

K: ( laughing) Quite...

DB : Now, that means that this consciousness is continuously flowing in a stream, into and out of each individual and if there is ( a revelation of?) 'truth' – truth as I said is 'truth in action' - that ( naturally?) flows into the ( holistically friendly consciousness of the?) other person...

K: Yes...So the point is that it affects the total consciousness of man.

DB : Yes...first only potentially and later actually, you see ?

K: Yes...It affects ( the total consciousness of) man.

DB : It affects mankind, right  ?

K: Mankind, yes...

DB : And obviously, if that man would be entirely isolated, it wouldn't actually affect other people, but once he is in contact with other (holistically minded?) human beings , that potential effect becomes actual.

K: A man who is here, in the world of reality, listens to you who say : As long as there is desire  there is deception and therefore there is no solution to society or to the individual. That is only possible when there is no (psychologically-motivated activity of ?) desire whatsoever. Then there is (the actual possibility for?) a total revolution and that will affect the total consciousness of man.

DB : Yes...

K: Now he is here, in the world of reality, and he listens to you, he says : Allright, I accept the logic of it, the reason of it, the explanation of it – I 'see' it. Now, how am I to move from the 'world of reality' to this ?

DB : Yes.. ?

K: So, he says : by systems & all the ( time?) traps that desire has created...

DB : So, you'll have to go into that and point out that any such systems...

K: But they haven't time, you follow ?

DB : They havent't time... ?

K: They want everything quick & with appeal...

DB : But it seems to me that the whole thing can be presented in such a way that it is becoming transparent that (following) any system is all self deception...

K: But for this man ( of good will, living?) in the 'field of reality', everything is ( or... seems to be???) against him ! His education , his upbringing, his family – everything is against him !

DB : But couldn't we say that no man is entirely (stuck?) in the field of reality ? In other words, he (the human psyche?) has some...

K: But that would (potentially) lead to another ( self-delusion) illusion – ''Yes, I've got this thing !'' …

DB : I don't say that, but the way it seems to me, is that somebody may get a ( flashing?) moment of (insightful?) perception , but then as thought comes in, it begins to tangle it up...

K: That means that even that moment of perception may be wrong (partial?)  ? For that moment of perception there must be leisure, he must have a 'time to listen' , a time to read ...

DB : You see, you are presenting an 'impossible' problem...

K: This is what's happening …

DB : I know it's the 'fact', but then we seem to reach a (verbally induced ?) impasse...

K: I mean, a man (from the 50's ) would give all his life to climb mount Everest...He'll go to hell to come there...

DB : Yes, but then it's the same story, because (his strong desire to reach the top of?) 'mount Everest' is still in the field of desire ...

K: Of course, but I think that the man who is without ( who is free of thought's time binding) ?) desire affects the total consciousness of human beings.

DB : But is there any ( realistic?) possibility that this effect will bring about the total 'revolution' ? You can't say, eh... ?

K: Of course in a school like here at Brockwood or others, this is the basic thing : the students are fighting - ''It's all very well, I agree, but how am I to earn my livelihood ? How am I to have any relationship if I consider that ?''

DB : Yes, and if I'm free of desire, then what will I do ?

K: So, they say, take it little by little -you follow, sir ? Don't 'swallow' the whole thing, take a little bit of it...Then they're 'lost' ( spiritually speaking?) by the time they've taken all the 'little steps' …

DB : Yes, well that can't be done because...

K : That can't be done, but the priests and the gurus supply the 'little bits'... We never put this question really, what an extraordinary thing it is for the brain to be free of 'desire' …

DB : Have you put it ?

K: I've never put it, but it is there.

DB : Implicitly... ?

K: I see I have no ( psychologically motivated?) desire, literally ! I am not deceiving myself, I'm not trying to pretend this – I have horror for all that... So, putting that very question has open something which was probably there. So the passion of desire and the passion of 'non-desire' are two different things...

DB : Yes...Could you say that the passion of desire is some twisting up of the brain's energy and the 'other' energy is entirely different ?

K: Yes.

DB : It's not the brain's energy -which we discussed the other day of truth ?

K: You see, (down) here intelligence has been the tool of desire.

DB : Well, how can intelligence... ?

K: We'll call it ( time-bound) 'intelligence'...

DB : Can we call it the 'brain function' ?

K: Yes. There we say 'he's an intelligent man', he works 'intelligently', etc...So, desire is identified with intelligence in activity here, but when there is no desire at all, that intelligence can function here.

DB : Yes, we discussed this the other time that for example when one is speaking, this intelligence may function and directly produces the words, rather than having them come from desire...

K: Yes...Sir, if I may ask, not being 'personal', when you heard that statement ''Can the brain be totally free of desire'', what effect had that question ?

DB : Well, I think the question was there implicitly but it sort of 'opens up' the brain to make it 'explicit' ...

K: Yes, that's what I was trying to find out...

DB : ...because in some way, I think you're right to say that our tradition is such that it would be very unlikely to put this question even if you have not felt it implicitly...

K: Yes...

DB : ...but it's unlikely to put it explicitly.

K: See, they have always said : 'control desire' ...

DB : I think that in the modern age it says 'don't even bother to control it ' !

K : Of course, the 'modern age'... You see, sir, I think this has to do with the 'process'...

DB : Your 'proces's, the one we were discussing the other time  ?

K: Yes...Because I was watching in the last few days - as I woke up very early and been very quiet - the intensity of the movement of (non-) desire is going on changing the whole nature inside...

DB : The nature of what ?

K: Of the brain. I mean, all this sounds ridiculous...

DB : I wouldn't say it sound ridiculous ; you're saying desire originates from (brain's ) conditioning and this conditioning leaves some imprint in the brain cells. Could you say that this 'movement' is changing the imprint, or... ?

K: No, it's something entirely different, much more...

DB : Much more than this... ?

K: Much more...

DB : In other words, it's doing something into the deeper layers of the brain, not just in the memory ?

K: Yes...

DB : So, you feel that, but you can't prove it... ?

K: No...this can't be 'proved' …

DB : What ?

K: ...what happens to a brain without desire …

DB : Yes...I've been reading what you call ''the Scaravelli manuscript'' ( the Notebook) about what happened with this process over six or seven months while you were travelling around the world...

K: I think this is what it is, sir : you can take purgatives to cleanse the body, or various herbs & so on to purify the body, the organism. Now is there a 'movement', an 'action' that keeps the brain completely pure or uncontaminated... ?

DB ; And this has to do with the 'process' ?

K: With the process and with 'this'....

DB ; What is 'this' ?

K: The ( desire-free functioning of the?) brain...You see, if there is no (time-binding?) desire then what is the function of the brain other than this?

DB : Except the ordinary function... ? Would you say there is another function ?

K: Why should it 'function' ?

DB : Let's say it doesn't function...then what happens ? Let me bring up another point : in this 'Scaravelli manuscript' you are refering quite often to this 'otherness' saying that it left an imprint on the brain. Why do you call it 'other' – is it 'other' to thought or 'other than' the odinary reality ?

K: Yes, 'other than'...

DB : But this doesn't imply there is a separation..... ?

K: No... I had to use ( common) words...Sir, when you 'hear' a statement of that kind : 'brain without desire' , does the brain undergo a revolution, a transformation  - like 'Compassion' -which is a mystery- and that very word 'compassion' is a word that has got a tremendous vitality...

DB : Yes... ?

K: When you hear ( holistically charged?) words like that, doesn't that affect your whole organism & so on ?

DB : Well, it may have, but you see, I think we use these words so frequently that they cease to affect us...

K: I know...And I think that's why it (man's aspiration for truth?) is remaining  such a 'mystery...

DB : Why ?

K: The word 'Compassion' …

DB : Why is it such a mystery ?

K: It is a mystery because it is so changing, and it's never the same...

DB : Yes... ?

K: It's really timeless...And therefore it is an extraordinary 'mystery' (of Life?) …

What time is it ?

DB : It's five minutes to five...

K : ( optional homework question ) Why aren't children supposed to see (the inward truth of?) 'facts' ?

DB : Maybe there are some, but in general they have a great deal of 'fantasy'...

K: Of course, and all that it's encouraged (in the field of reality?) ...

When do you go back ? Tomorrow ?

DB : In the afternoon.

K: I must return your dictionary...it's there. We'd better stop, don't you think ?

DB : Yes...(silent pause)

K: Two or three people have heard these tapes and said they are greately moved and they want some copies of them, or do you want lots of people to share it ?

DB : We can discuss this when we meet in California... But when you raised this question of the 'mind without desire' I think that it begins to open up ( the inward mystery of ) this whole thing...

K: To put in (truthful?) words a thing like that, I think it does something ...

DB : You see, at first it may seem like (it produces just ) an insignificant change, but it actually is very significant...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Jan 2020 #249
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

What do you actually mean by 'consciousness', 'thought' and... 'mind' ? ' a reader-friendly edited K dialogue with Mrs Pupul Jayajar (cca 1978)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Could we inquire into some of the key terms that you use, for through the years these words have been used by you 'holistically'  - in different senses, and with different meanings? The words I want to inquire today are ‘consciousness’, ‘mind’, the ‘brain cells’ and ‘thought’. For instance, you use the words ‘consciousness’ and ‘mind’ in various ways. Sometimes as if they were synonimous, other times you use the word ‘mind’ as synonymous with ‘thought’, and still at other times you seem to suggest that the ‘mind’ contains thought but that it is, itself, not thought.

J. KRISHNAMURTI (K): So, shall we begin with the word ‘consciousness’? What does the word and the content of that word mean to you?

PJ: It means the sense of existing, of being. You see, one only discovers the fact that one 'is' because of consciousness.

K: You are using the word ‘consciousness’ as synonymous with ( the sense of one's) existence, but I am using the word ‘consciousness’ in a wider way, to include the (psychological content creating ) turmoil in that existence. All ( personal?) troubles and anxiety, all the fears, the pleasures, the sorrow, the love, the hate, and the hurts that one receives—all that ( conent ) is implied in one's consciousness.

PJ: Yes. The sense of one's 'existence' means the total content of 'what is'.

K: But is one aware of the total (psychological) content of one’s life?

PJ: Not in the 'total' sense....

K: So one is only aware, at different times, of different parts of this consciousness?
(For instance) one is ( becoming painfully?) aware that one has been 'hurt' psychologically only for a certain period—say for a day or two—and then one moves away from that hurt to ( seeking a more self rewarding ? ) pleasure.

PJ: Yes...

K: So, you see, we are never (responsably ) concerned with the totality of consciousness; we are only concerned with parts of it.

PJ: But that is how these parts are revealed in the mind : as a fragmentary consciousness .

K: Does one's consciousness reveal its parts in the ( inward space of the ?) mind, or through (the self-centred operation of) thought – which in itself is fragmentary - ' in which case, we may only think that we) see the fragmentation of consciousness? Let us be clear about this (finnicky point?)

PJ: I don’t quite follow this...

K: Suppose that I am ( getting insulted or ) 'hurt', psychologically. The (residual memory of that ) hurt is ( becoming ) part of my (self-) consciousness.

PJ: Yes...

K: Now, let us go slowly : ( the self centred process of ?) thought is also an ( all-controlling ) part of my consciousness – and this limited movement, that 'fragment', says, ‘I am hurt’. So, remember, Pupul, thought being in itself a fragment (of one's total consciousness) cannot see the whole (of it)

PJ: Sir, when thought says, ‘I am hurt’...

K: No, ( the total process of?) thought doesn’t say, ‘I am hurt’. I say, ‘I am hurt’; I say, ‘I am jealous’, ‘I am anxious’....

PJ: Yes. But that moment of ‘I am hurt ’, is a thought formation.

K: We have to go very slowly into this : the ( self-conscious?) ‘I’ is put together by thought.
The ( mental identification with the ?) name, form & other personal characteristics, has been put together by thought ( to create for itself a safe mode of operation) . That 'major' (all controlling mental) structure - the ‘I’- has been put together (& cultivated) by thought.

PJ: Yes...

K: So when somebody says something brutal, I say, ‘I am hurt’; thought (the thinking brain?) doesn’t say that.

PJ: Who says, ‘I am hurt’?

K: The 'thing' (the self-identified mental entity ?) that thought has put together as the ‘me’. Let us say, for example, that X calls me a 'fool' and I am (feeling) hurt. And in (holistically?) exploring that hurt one discovers that ( the self centred) thought has built the ‘me’.

PJ: Yes... ???

K: So thought (the thinking brain?) is never ( directly ) aware that it is hurt.
( For obscure safety reasons?) thought thinks that 'I' ( one's self-image) have been hurt. Thought thinks that the ‘I’ is different from it. Thought actually (likes to?) 'think' that.

PJ: Yes, thought thinks that it is different...

K: ...different from the ( self-protective mental) structure which it has built (for itself) .

PJ: So, it's this ( imaginary mental ?) structure which is hurt... ?

K: Yes. So, thought ( functioning in 'safe mode'?) can never become aware of the total content of consciousness. It can only be aware of the various fragments.

PJ: Then, what is the 'total content' of consciousness?

K: We are ( hopefully?) going to find it out. I am looking for a word that will give a holistic meaning to consciousness.

PJ: Can you put it within a holistic ( global ?) situation?

K: I think one can. When someone uses (holistically) the word ‘consciousness’ it means the totality of life - not only of my life & your life, but the life of the animal and that of the tree; it encompasses the whole; it encompasses the totality of all that...

PJ: So it includes the ( consciousness of the ) insect, the bird, the tree...?

K: They have their own feelings and I have my own—you follow? You see, Pupul, I think that such (extended) consciousness is global but still limited ( within the boundaries of reality?) .

PJ: Global but still limited...?

K: Yes.... What do you say?

PJ: What you have just said is very, very new and I’d like to pursue it. You have always said that man's consciousness ( as we know it?) 'is' ( determined by?) its ( self-centred?) content...

K: Yes.

PJ: Now, this content is the ( residual memory of the ) past as ( accumulated) experience.
Are you saying that man's total 'consciousness' is ( including) the totality of life.

K: Yes...

PJ: Which is very different from my experience....

K: Isn't your experience of life the experience of every human being ?

PJ: Yes, but there are many aspects which are different. I have many experiences which are mine...

K: There may have a different (set of particular ) colours & sounds, but they are all ( flowing?) in the same direction.

PJ: You are implying that what is (going on?) ‘within’ myself may be the experience of all mankind ?

K: Yes. ( Inwardly speaking?) your life is he life of all humanity. Right?

PJ: Yes.

K: So, (consciousness-wise?) you are not different from the whole of humanity. You might have a different physical form, name, and so on, but I am not talking about all that. Basically you 'are' humanity; your consciousness is (undivided from) the consciousness of mankind. Mankind goes through all kinds of travail, all kinds of trouble. Every human being goes ( perhaps not consciously?) through the most terrible times...

PJ: Yes...

K: Now, doesn’t every living thing go through it also? Insects, birds, every animal and tree—all ( the world of) nature goes through various kinds of turmoil. I am using the word ‘turmoil’ in the sense of (a major ?) disturbance.

PJ: Do you mean by this, Krishnaji, that ( at its depths our) consciousness is ( including) the whole phenomenon of life?

K: What do you mean by the word ‘phenomenon’?

PJ: That which can be perceived by the senses... ?

K: By ‘perceived’ you mean touched, tasted, and so on ?

PJ: Yes, what is open to the senses.

K: But that’s only a part of it, isn’t it?

PJ: What is the other part?

K: All manknd's accumulated knowledge & experience, all the psychological agonies of man, which you cannot touch (with your senses) . This (global) psychological turmoil may affect the body, and then the organism tastes the pain of (an imponderable existential?) anxiety.

PJ: Yes, an anxiety shared by all mankind....

K: Yes, So, it's a global consciousness, it is the fate of man; it is what is happening in the world.

PJ: Why not use the word ‘cosmic’?

K: I think ( that in Greek ) the word ‘cosmic’ means 'order'—the 'cosmos' as opposed to 'chaos'.

PJ: But after all, sir, the cosmic order is including the totality of all this...

K: If we use the word ‘cosmic’, we have to be very careful because the word ‘cosmos’ apparently means order. And the human consciousness is not in order.

PJ: Yes, but now—apart from the superficial, fragmentary activities of the human mind—you have brought in many other elements. You have brought in the whole of the racial past, the whole of this accumulated (karmically actie?) movement....

K: And this consciousness is in ( a generalised state of?) disorder. Right?

PJ: Yes...

K: So it cannot be called 'cosmic'.

PJ: But then how do you bring into this ( globally disordered ?) human consciousness the total content of life?

K: I am just saying : this consciousness with all its content of confusion, conflict & all the rest of it, is shared by all mankind.

PJ: Yes...

K: This consciousness cannot be called 'cosmic' ( not 'cosmically integrated' ?) .

PJ: I agree; that cannot be called cosmic. But you have gone much beyond that when you said is not just an individual confusion...

K: You see, I question whether ( in this shared consciousness?) there is any ( integrated ) 'individuality' at all. ( To recap:) my ( exploratory?) point was: Can thought be aware of the totality of consciousness?

PJ: And you said that it cannot be aware...

K: Yes, it cannot be. So, now, what is the question you are raising?

PJ: My initial question was : what is the ( experiential) distinction between consciousness, mind, brain and thought ?
.

K: Right. So, for now, we have understood what we mean by 'consciousness'.

PJ: And also what we mean by 'thought'  ?

K: Wait a minute. If thought cannot be aware of the total content of consciousness, then what is it that’s going to perceive the totality? Do you follow? There must come into operation a factor that 'sees' the totality of consciousness.

PJ: Yes... ?

K: So, what is that ( holistically perceptive?) factor? Is it the 'mind'?

PJ: You mean that it is certainly not in the 'brain cells' ?

K: Let’s proceed slowly. I’m not a brain specialist, but I think that we can be sure when we say that ( ordinarily ) the brain's cells carry memory. Right?

PJ: Yes....

K: And these (residual imprints of) memories are part of ( the self-centred activity of) thought. Therefore the brain, as it is now, the brain that we are (currently ) using, cannot perceive the totality of consciousness. (In a 'holistic' nutshell :) the ( time-bound) activity of the brain, cannot comprehend the totality of Consciousness.
Now, can the 'mind' perceive its totality? But first, what is the 'mind'?

PJ: Yes, I really would like to know. You have used the word ‘mind’ in several ways.

K: Yes, I know. Is the mind the intellect? It is part of it, of course. Can the intellect perceive the totality of consciousness?

PJ: Is the intellect separate from thought, separate from reason?

K: No, it’s not; of course it’s not. But we ( generally) think that the intellect is the most extraordinary thing we have. So, the intellect is (only a ) part of the mind. Part of the mind are also the emotions & feelings. Right?

PJ: Yes.

K: Now, can the feelinfs &v emotions, perceive the totality?

PJ : No, but I would like to ask you whether the mind is an instrument or whether it is an (intelligenr energy?) field.

K: Are you asking whether the mind is a field?

PJ: Yes. Is it a field or a (perceptive ) instrument? That’s what I am asking.
I might see the mind as synonymous with thought. I might see it as such.
K: Wait a minute, Pupul. The feelings, emotions, sentiment, romanticism, imagination—all that is also a part of thought.

PJ: And what part do the senses play in all this? I mean, we know the process of sensory perception, sensation, and all that.

K: I don’t think that sentiment, emotion and sensation can ever offer a perception of the whole.

PJ: So you would rule out the senses as such?
K: No, no. I don’t rule out the senses. The senses exist...

PJ: Are they being wrongly used?

K: As I said, when thought identifies itself with the senses, then the ( mentally processed?) sensations becomes the ‘me’.

PJ: Yes, because then there is a movement towards.

K: Towards, yes. ‘I want’, ‘I don’t want’, and all the rest of it. So, the mind, you say, is a field. Is love part of this field of the mind?

PJ: The moment you bring in the word ‘love’, sir, you have (jumped 'holistically'?) ...

K: We’ll go into it because that is part of our consciousness. Love is part of our consciousness.

PJ: As we know it now, love is part of our consciousness.

K: Yes, as we know it. Now, what we call 'love' with its jealousies, antagonisms, quarrels, is based on sensation, desire, pleasure. I love you; I love something. So, love, as we know it, is part of our (self-centred) consciousness. Right?

PJ: Yes, but you didn’t use 'love' in that sense. Because if you did use it in that sense, then it would be no different from any other emotion.

K: So, is there a ( selfless ) quality ( of affection & love ) which is not part of consciousness?

PJ: You see, haven't the senses any other role?

K: Yes. When you observe with all your senses, there is no identification with a particular sense. Right?

PJ: Yes.
QUESTIONER (Q): Are you implying that the senses become one?

K: No, sir, I am asking whether you can look at something with all your senses awakened.

PJ: Isn’t it, sir, a question of whether you can look and listen in the same instant, the same moment, of time?

K: You see, the question is whether it is possible to observe with all your senses, and whether, in that state, there is not a single movement of thought. When there is a movement of thought, then it is a particular sense operating.

PJ: Yes...

K: Let us pursue this further because as human beings there is a natural urge, to find out if there’s a totally different dimension which is not the dimension of ( temporal) consciousness as we know it.

PJ: Yes....

K: And it becomes important to find that out ( as one's meditation homework) .

PJ: You see, you have examined and negated all the 'known' (available) n instruments that we have and with which we operate.

K: Yes.

PJ: The only thing which you don’t totally negate is the (holistic) quality of the sensory movement. So, that being quite independent of thought and having the capacity to be free of illusion...

K: That is only possible when there has been an awareness of the movement of thought, when there has been an awareness of the whole activity of thought. Then the senses do not produce the psychological structure as the ‘me’. That’s all.

( To recap:) As a (holistically minded) human being, one perceives that one’s consciousness is in a condition of ( almost?) total disorder. And any movement of thought away from that disorder inevitably leads to illusions. Now my question is: Is it possible to bring about order? Let us go step by step. (step one) my consciousness is in a state of disorder, but I am becoming aware of all the things that are going on endlessly in my consciousness: anger, hatred, possessiveness, attachment, domination.( two) I want to bring about order in my consciousness, because I see the necessity of order. Order means harmony. (three) What instrument or what quality is necessary to move out of this enchaining (time-binding) circle of consciousness?

PJ: You see, sir, this last question is very valid. The previous statement, namely, that I want to bring about order, is one of the things I have never understood.

K: Who is to bring that order? Will the mind bring order? Will feelings, sensations, imagination—all that—bring order? Will thought bring order? On the contrary, thought cannot.

PJ: All these are fragments (of one's total consciousness).

K: Yes, fragments. So, what will? Let’s discuss it; let’s go into it.

PJ: There is only one instrument that you leave free.

K: The ( integrated activity of the ) senses?

PJ: Yes, the senses. You have blocked (denied) every other instrument...

K: Yes, we have blocked every loophole that the human mind has invented. Have we also blocked the senses?

PJ: When the ( partial activity of the ) senses identified with thought operate, they only strengthen the structure which is the basic cause of confusion.

K: So, is there a separation between thought and the senses, so that thought is not active but only the senses?

PJ: Krishnaji, isn’t the nature of ( holistic) 'seeing' quite different from the optical thing which says, ‘This is a tree’? There is ( an integrated quality of ) 'seeing' or 'listening' per se, independent of what is seen or what is heard. That instrument is in itself not corrupted. It gets corrupted only when it gets identified with thought.

K: That’s right. It gets corrupted when it is identified with ( one's personal) opinions, with judgements, with evaluations. So, listening correctly, listening accurately, is incorruptible. Yes, that is so. But is this the instrument that will help human beings like us bring about order?

PJ: If you deny all the other instruments...

K: I must be careful here. Are you saying that the mind is an instrument, like thought is an instrument, if we are using the word ‘instrument’ in that sense I deny it. Because this very instrument has become corrupt and that which is corruption cannot bring about something which is incorruptible.

PJ: And yet you say that there is the ‘other’ (timeless dimension of consciousness?) .

K: Oh yes, definitely.

PJ: Then, what is actually meant by ‘being a light unto yourself’?

K: Actually it means: Don’t look to another; don’t rely on another; don’t depend on another; don’t ask another to help you.

PJ: Is the word ‘light’ at all significant?

K: ‘Be a light to oneself’ in the sense: Don’t live in the shadow of others. Don’t be a second-hand human being. I don’t rely on anything. But I rely on the common intention of man to find something beyond this ( ongoing?) chaos. So, to come back: What is to be done? We have abolished the activity of thought, we have abolished the activity of the brain which, as we know it now, is limited. We have also denied any pressure of the environment, of tradition, and we ask: How are we, as human beings, to discover the ‘other’?

PJ: But I cannot deny the fact that the senses in themselves are not corrupt ( by thought) .

K: Yes. When the senses do not identify with thought which builds the ‘I’—psychologically—then those senses are 'natural & healthy'; those senses are normal. Now, will those senses which are healthy bring about a different dimension?

PJ: I don’t know...

K: Is it possible for thought not to identify with the senses? It is possible, obviously. I see a beautiful object, can I observe it without saying, ‘I must have it’ ? Of course I can; there can be mere observation.

PJ: Yes, there is the possibility of such a ( time-free ) situation.

K: Oh yes, there is the possibility, but as a human being, my only problem is this: how to get out of this disorder. What is necessary to move from this dimension to a totally different dimension which is not the invention of thought? What is the action or non-action necessary to move from this to that? This has been the age-old problem, Pupul; it’s not something new. What is the action which is 'inaction' that will negate, completely, this disorder? Is there a total negation or is it always partial? Do you follow what I mean? Do I negate attachment, then negate jealousy, then negate all the hurt, and so on or is there a total negation of disorder? (Pause) Is there a denial of the whole ( psychologically motivated ) content of consciousness which is ( creating this) disorder?

PJ: Sir, the total denial disorder is a concept, as the 'total disorder' itself is a concept.

K: (Forcefully denying) It is not a concept.

PJ: Disorder as it operates within me - as it arises is fragmentary. But the disorder is not fragmentary; the way I meet it is fragmentary.

K: And all my life I’ve denied (the 'false') fragmentarily. We say that partial denial is contributing to ( maintaining the ) disorder. From there we ask: Is there a non-partial denial at all and, therefore, total order?

PJ: The ‘other’, namely, total order, one cannot even think of; so let us put it aside. Let us talk about whether it is possible to deny non-fragmentarily.

K: All right, let’s stick to that; it’s good enough. When the mind, when thought, when the intellect— which is itself fragmentary—says, ‘I deny disorder’, then it is still ( a cover-up of a deeper form of ) disorder. Right? Because the intellect, the reason—they are all fragments. Now what is the 'action' or ( rather the ) inaction that will say, ‘No partial denial at all’?

PJ: You use the word ‘inaction’. Is one capable of 'not doing' a thing about it?

K: Yes. That’s what I’m trying to get at. We have done everything possible to clean up the ( debris of the temporal) consciousness. Now, the question really is whether there is an action which (inwardly - wise ) is a 'non-action'. That is only possible when I really, totally negate everything ( in the psycholgical field of reality ?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Jan 2020 #250
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

 
Briefly revisiting the ENDING OF TIME series of K-DB Dialogues (cca 1980)

K: We were saying ( in our introductory discussion that thinking in terms of psychological ?) time is (creating both inner & outer ?) conflict.

DB: Yes... I think the religions have tried to discuss the eternal values beyond time but they don't seem to have succeeded.

K: Because to them it was an ideal, a principle, but not an actuality.

DB: Well some of them claim that for them it may have been an actuality...and if you were to consider all the religions, say the various forms of Buddhism, they try to say this very thing which you are saying, to some extent.

K: To some extent, but why haven't we said, let's end ( the mentality of?) conflict? Is it because through conflict we think there is progress ?

DB: Yes, it can be a certain source of stimulus to try to overcome opposition...

K: But if you and I saw the ( inward ) truth of this, not in abstraction but actually deeply, can we act in such a way that every issue is resolved instantly, immediately, so that time is abolished?

DB: The 'psychological' time ?

K: We are talking about ( man's thinking in terms of?) psychological time. And as we said yesterday, when you come to that point when there is nothing and there is everything, and all that is energy, and when ( this illusion of?) time ends, is there a beginning of something totally new?

DB: But if there isn't (a practical way to end it?) then the whole thing falls flat - it only drives you back into the ('real' ) world.

K: Isn't there ( a new) beginning which is not enmeshed in time? ( Hint : the 'psychological' time is identifying itself as ?) the 'me', of the ego ) and when that ( thought-projection) completely comes to an end, could we say ( metaphorically?) that, out of the ashes of time, there is a new growth? What is that?

DB: Well, essentially it is the possibility of creation.

K: Is it something new taking place inwardly ? We are trying to find out what happens when the 'I', which is time, has completely come to an end. I believe the Buddha is supposed to have said, Nirvana. And the Hindus call it Moksha. I don't know if the Christians call it 'Heaven' ?

DB: The Christian mystics have had some similar experiences …

K: Now when there is that absolute cleansing of the mind of the ( residual) accumulation of ( thinking in terms of psychological?) time, which is the essence of the 'me', what takes place?

DB: It seems that you are cleaning the movement of ( thought-driven) desire in its subtle forms.

K: In its subtle forms. So if that has been put away, there is only 'mind'.

DB: The universal mind  or the particular mind ?

K: If the particular ( self-centred) mind has come to an end, then there is only the Mind, the universal Mind. So, if that has completely come to an end, what is the next step? We said yesterday that there is a new beginning (but still deeper inwardly?) is there something which the mind cannot capture?

DB: You are saying the universal mind cannot capture it either?

K: I would say yes because the universal mind is part of that energy (of Creation ?) .

DB: And this energy is alive, and also intelligent?

K: Yes, yes... Now if that energy is intelligent, why has it allowed mankind to move away in the wrong direction?

DB: I think that that may be part of a ( learning) process, something that was inevitable in the nature of thought. You see if thought is going to develop (creatively?) thought has to have the capacity to make ( and learn from its own?) mistakes.

K: But if that Intelligence was operating, why did it allow this mistake?

DB: Well, we can suggest that there is an universal order, a law ; and it is part of the order of the universe that this particular mechanism ( of thought) can go wrong. If a machine breaks down it is not disorder in the universe, it is merely part of ( a more coprehensive) universal order.

K: Yes. In the universal order there is disorder, where ( the consciousness of mankind) is concerned.

DB: It is not a disorder at the level of the universe.

K: No, no. At a much lower level. And why has mankind lived in this disorder?

DB: Because man is still ignorant, he still hasn't seen the point.

K: But if he is part of the whole and in one tiny corner man exists and has lived in disorder. And this enormous ( universal) intelligence has not...

DB: Yes, well you could say that with the possibility of creation there is also the possibility of disorder. That if man had the possibility of being creative and there would also be the possibility of a mistake or something....

K: So is there something beyond the cosmic order, & the universal mind?

DB: Are you saying that the universal Mind which has created the world of nature has an order that is not merely just going around mechanically? It has some deeper meaning... ?

K: That is what we are trying to find out... (To recap) there is the ending of the 'me' as ( the vector of psychological) time, and in the ending of it there is that sense of (inward) 'no-thingness', which is ( the creative ground of) this whole universe...

DB: Just asking: what lead you to say that?

K: To put it very simply: the ( inward) division created by time, created by thought, created by this ( standardising?) education - because it has ended, the other ( dimension of universal consciousness?) is becoming obvious.

DB: You mean that without this (inner sense of 'psychological') division the 'other' is there to be perceived ?

K: Not to be perceived, 'It is' there.

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

K: I don't think 'you' become aware of It.

DB: Then what leads you to say it?

K: Would you say 'it is' (there) ?

DB: You could almost say that 'It' is saying it ?

K: Yes.... I am glad you put it like that!

DB: I mean it is implied in what you are saying.

K: Where are we now?
DB: Well, we say that the ( Mind of the?) Universe is alive and ( probably) we are part of it.

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

DB: No division ?

K: No division. We said (there the a sense of inward) 'nothingness' and that 'no-thingness' is (including) every thing and so it is an undiluted pure uncorrupted energy - right. Is there something beyond that? I feel there is something beyond....

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

K: Yes, but I must be awfully careful here - it must happen.

DB: Whatever you are saying must come from That ?

K: From That !

DB: It is not 'you' looking at it and saying 'that is what I have seen'.

K: Oh no. Then it is ( experientially ?) wrong.

DB: There isn't a division or anything. But of course it is easy to fall into (self-) delusion ( when going ) into this sort of thing....

K: Of course. But we also said that (self-) delusion exists as long as there is 'desire and thought'. That is simple. And 'desire and thought' is part of the 'I', which is ( projecting its own psychological) time and all that. When that is completely ended then there is absolutely nothing and therefore that is the ( Mind of the ) Universe, and that ( state of inward) emptiness is full of energy. We can put a stop there for the time being...

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

K: I think it is necessary.

DB: Yes ; we have to bring that out, why is it necessary?

K: Why is it necessary? Tentatively: there is something in us that is operating, there is something in us much more beyond that But.... how can we talk about it? You see ( the purely intelligent energy?) exists only when there is emptiness – right?

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

K: Yes...

DB: I think we can follow to the energy and the emptiness. Now if we suggest something other than the emptiness...

K: Oh yes, there is something other.

DB: Yes, then that other must be different from the emptiness. And what what seems to be implied: if it is not emptiness it is a 'substance'. It is energy but having the form of substance as well because it has a constant form and it resists change, it is stable, it maintains itself.

K: Yes. But when you use the word 'substance', beyond emptiness, does that word have a meaning then?

DB: Well, that 'something other' might have the quality of substance. That is the way I see it. Is that what you are trying to say? And... what leads you to say this?

K: Simply the fact that there is (such a transcendental thing) . And can that 'something' beyond emptiness come down to earth in the sense of being communicated ?

DB: Yes... Well then why hasn't it come down yet?

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

DB: Generally speaking, no.

K: No. And It demands that the 'I' end.

DB: I think we could look at it this way: that the 'ego' becomes an illusion of that substance. You see, the mind tries to create some illusion of that substance. And if the mind thinks it already has this substance then it will not be open to it.

K: Can that thing ever be put into words?

DB: I think that once something can be properly perceived then after a while the (right) words will come to communicate it.

K: Yes, but can that be ( sensorially) perceived and therefore to be communicable?

DB: This 'something beyond', would you say also it is alive?

K: Living, yes. Oh yes ! Sir, we have come to this point, but ...is it something that the mind can capture?

DB: Are you saying it can not?

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

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

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

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

K: Sir, could we say it is something 'absolute'?

DB: Well we could consider the word 'absolute'. It would have to be something totally independent, entirely self moving, as it were, self active.

K: Yes. Would you say everything ( in the field of reality?) has a cause but that has no cause at all?

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

K: You see the moment you said Aristotle, it is not that...There is something beyond all this. But probably it can never be put into words.

DB: Any attempt to put it into words makes it 'relative'....I think we have a long history of danger with the 'absolute'. People have put it in words and it has become very oppressive.

K: There is nothing beyond it...I feel that (Ground of Creation?) is the beginning and the ending of everything. Sir, just in ordinary parlance, in ordinary communication, the ending and the beginning are the same. Right?

DB: You mean in the sense that the beginning of everything as the ending of everything.

K: Yes. You would say that?
DB: Yes, if we take the Ground from which it comes, it must be the Ground to which it falls.

K: That's right. That is the Ground upon which everything exists, space, energy, emptiness, silence, all that is ( originating in this) Ground (of Creation). That is the beginning and the ending (of everything) . Does that convey anything to you?

DB: I think that that conveys something...

K: Something. Would you say further: there is no beginning and no ending?
Is that sir, that complete ending of everything?

DB: Well you see at first you would have said that the emptiness is the ending of everything (that one knows) , so in what sense is this more now?

K: Is this emptiness ( a 'psychological' form of?) death ? The death (ending) of everything the ( self-centred) mind has cultivated. That emptiness can only exist when there is death of the particular.

DB: Yes, when the particular goes, that is the ( state if inward) emptiness, but then you are saying that in this Ground (of Creation) that death goes further?

K: Oh yes, oh yes...

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

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

DB: ( Returning) into this Ground of Creation ?

K: I think it conveys something sir, doesn't it?

DB: Now if the particular and the universal die then that is ( the ultimateaspect of ?) death, yes?

K: Yes sir. After all, everything in the universe is (ultimately?) exploding, dying.
DB: I think we are moving. So first the particular (mind) 'dies' into the (inward) emptiness and then comes the universal mind...

K: And that dies too.

DB: Into the Ground, right?

K: Yes, sir.

DB: So you could say the Ground ( of Creation) is neither born not dies...

K: Everything is dying, except That. So That has no beginning and no ending.

DB: What meaning would have the ending (the dissolution?) of the Universal Mind ?

K: Why should it have a meaning if it is happening? But...what has that (Ground of Creation?) to do with mankind who is going through a terrible time ?

DB: Let's say that (the holistically minded) man feels he must have some contact with the ultimate Ground in this life otherwise there is no meaning.

K: But (as of now?) that Ground (of Creation) hasn't any relationship with (the temporal consciousness of?) man.

DB: Apparently not...

K: No. He is doing everything contrary to the ( timeless spirit of the?) Ground.

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

K: So I am asking, as an ordinary man : How will your talk help me to get over my ( inward  ?) ugliness?
DB: Well we went into this logically starting from the suffering of mankind, showing it originates in a wrong turning and that leads inevitably...

K: Yes but to put me back on the right path, you say, please don't become anything (inwardly) .

DB: Right. So, what is the problem then?

K: He won't even listen to you.

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

K: Obviously you can see what is the barrier.

DB: What is the barrier?

K: 'I'.

DB: Yes but I meant more deeply so that...

K: More deeply, all your ( ego-centric) thoughts, one's deep (self- identifications &) attachments and all that is in your way. If you can't leave that then you will have no relationship with That. But (s)he doesn't want to leave all that.

DB: Yes, what he wants is the result of the way he is thinking.

K: What he wants is some comfortable, easy way of living without any trouble, and he can't have that.

DB: Well only by dropping all this (residual selfishness?) ….

K: There must be some relationship of the ordinary man with the (inward) Ground ( of Creation), otherwise what is the meaning of living?

DB: Well even going back in time , the ancient religions have said similar things that God is the Ground ( of all existence ) and they said seek God...

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

DB: Yes, you could say that God is an attempt to put this notion a bit too personally perhaps.

K: Yes. Give them hope, give them faith, you follow? Make life a little more comfortable to live.

DB: Well are you asking at this point: how is this (holistic message?) to be conveyed to the ordinary man? Is that your question?

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

DB: Yes, I meant exactly that.

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

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

K: And then if you had no ( psychological) conflicts, no 'I', there is something else operating.

DB: Yes, it is important to say that because the Christian idea of spiritual perfection may seem rather boring because there is nothing much to do

K: Sir we must continue this some other time, because it is something that has got to be put into ( a hyperbolical ?) orbit.

DB: It seems ( practically) impossible.

K: We have gone pretty far.

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 22 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 Jan 2020 #251
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

3RD ( 'reader-friendly' edited ) K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM, Ojai 1980

Krishnamurti: What shall we talk about?

B: One point relating to what we said before on the other days: I was reading somewhere that a leading physicist said that the more we understand the universe the more pointless it seems, the less meaning it has. And it occurred to me that science made an attempt to make the material universe the ground of our existence, and then it may have meaning physically but it does not have meaning. Now, the question that we might discuss is whether this Ground of Creation is as indifferent to the fate mankind, as the physical universe appears to be?

K: A good question.

B: Of course in the past people were more religious and felt that the ground of our existence is in something beyond matter - in God, or whatever they wished to call it. And that gave them a sense of deep meaning to the whole of our existence, which meanwhile has gone away. That is one of the ( psychological) difficulties of modern life, the sense that it doesn't mean anything. And people no longer believe in the religious meaning. Perhaps they never were able to believe in it entirely anyway.

K: So how does one find out if (in the total order of the Universe?) there is something more than the mere physical?

B: Yes, well what I was thinking about the notion of some Ground which is beyond matter and beyond the emptiness. If this Ground (of Creation) is indifferent to human beings then it would be the same as scientists' ground in matter. Now I think that people felt that God was not indifferent to mankind. You see they may have invented it but that is what they believed. And that is what gave them possibly...

K:... tremendous energy, quite.

B: Now I think the point would be: would this Ground you were talking about be indifferent to (the fate of?) mankind?

K: Quite. What is the relationship of this ground to man? What is its relationship with man and man's relationship to it? How would you show the Ground exists? In scientific terms as well as the feeling of it, the non verbal communication of it?

B: When you say 'scientific' you mean something that we can actually touch ?

K: Better than touch, sense. I think that it can be shown. Because we said from the very beginning that if half a dozen of us actually freed ourselves, etc. - but one must ( actually?) do it, not just verbally talk about it.
Now, (experientially contacting?) this Ground of Being has certain (very demanding... ?) demands: there must be ( in one's homework meditation?) absolute ( inward) silence, absolute emptiness, which means no sense of egotism in any form. Right? But... am I willing to let go all my ( highly cultivated ?) egotism ( just) because I want to find out if what you are saying is actually true ; so am I willing to say, 'Look, complete eradication of the self'?

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

K: So we go ( holistically?) through all that - is not a matter of will (power) , desire, or (mental) effort.

B: Yes but when you say 'willingness' it contains the word 'will' for example...

K: Willingness in the sense go through that door . And are we willing to go through that particular door ( of Selflesness?) to find that the Ground exists? So, what are the qualities, or the nature of 'self (lesness?) ? Not be attached, not have fear, not have 'beliefs' ( collective root assumptions?) , & being absolute rational ( in one's inner) observation. I think if ten ( holistically minded) people do it, then any ( open minded?) scientist will accept it. But there are no ten people. So one man (K' s) assertion becomes (hypothetical)...

B: I see. So, we'll have to do this together publicly so that it becomes a real fact.

K: A real 'fact' in the sense that people accept (the feasibility of?) it. Not based on (wishful thinking ?) and all the rest of that...The ( culturally standardised?) scientists may say that this is all nonsense, but there are other people ( who would listen to ?) 'X' saying ' there is ( within oneself such ?) a ( sacred?) Ground and if you do these things it will be there.'

B: Yes... But you see, some of the (revolutionary?) things that you're saying, may not entirely in the beginning make sense to the person you talk with...

K: Yes, because he isn't even willing to listen (with an open mind ?)

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

K: Ah, that's much more difficult...I wouldn't begin with time, I would begin at the (ideal ?) schoolboy level and say, look, do ( or consider?) these things.

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

K: No 'belief'....

B: A person may not be able to control what he believes, he may not even know what he believes.

K: Don't try to control anything- just observe that you cling to a ( self-projected assumption or ?) belief which gives you a (fake ?) sense of (psychological?) security and so on and so on. And that (any such?) belief is an illusion, it has no reality...

B: If we were to talk to a scientist he might say, 'I am not sure about that', because he says 'I believe in the existence (reality?) of the material world.'

K: Yes, you don't believe the sun rises and sets. It is a fact.
B: Yes, but you see scientists actually have ( very strong) beliefs. One will believe that this theory is right, and the other believes in that one.

K: I would start at the schoolboy level by saying, Look, don't accept ( fanciful?) theories, conclusions, don't cling to your prejudices and so on' That is the starting point.

B: Yes, well perhaps we had better say ''don't hold to your theories'' , because if you say you have no theories, they would immediately doubt that.

K: Why should I have theories ?

Q: You see Krishnaji if I am a scientist I would also also say I don't have ( any personal ) theories. But I may not see that my (virtual image of the ?) world which I construct for my scientific theories is also...theoretical. I would call it 'fact'.

K: So we have to ( spend some quality time with this holistically minded school-boy and) discuss what are 'facts'? A 'fact' is something which is actually happening. Would the scientists agree to that?

B: Yes, but I think that the scientists would say that 'what is happening' is understood through theories. You see in science you do not ( actually) understand what is happening except with the aid of instruments and theories.

K: Now, (are we talking about) what is happening 'out there', or about what is happening 'in here' ?

B: Let's go slowly. First what is happening 'out there'. The instruments and theories are needed to have the 'facts' about what is out there...

K: What are the ( human) facts out there? If the fact out there is conflict, why should I have a theory about it?

B: I wasn't discussing that. I was discussing (establishing the?) facts about (the world of) matter, which is what the scientists are concerned with.

K: Yes. Alright....

B: He cannot establish that fact without a certain minor theory (working hypothesis?) .

K: Perhaps. I wouldn't know that.

B: You see, because the 'theory' organizes the fact for him. Without that it would really fall into (belief?)

K: Yes. I understand you may have theories about that...

B: Yes. About gravitation, atoms - all those things depend on theories in order to produce the right 'facts'.

K: So you start with a theory... ?

B: A mixture of theory and ( observable) facts. It is always a combination of theory and fact. Now if you say we are going to have an area where there isn't any need for such combination...

K: That's it : psychologically (inwardly) I have no theory about myself, about the universe, about my relationship with another. I have no theory. Why should I have? The only fact is that ( the consciousness of?) mankind suffers, miserable, confused, in conflict. That is a fact. Why should I have a theory about it?

B: You must go slowly if you are intending this ( holistic enquiry) is to be scientific... The scientists might say yes, psychology is the science with which we try to look inwardly, to investigate the mind. And they say biased people have had theories such as Freud, and Jung and other people...Now we have to make it clear why it has no point to make these theories.

K: Because theory prevents the direct observation of what is actually taking place.
B: Yes, but outside it seemed the theory was helping that observation. Why is it that theories are useful in organizing facts about matter, outwardly and yet inwardly, psychologically they are in the way, they are no use at all ?

K: What is the meaning of the word 'theory' ?

B: Theory means 'a way of looking'.

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

B: Yes, but when we look at matter outwardly, to a certain extent we fix the observing. The relationship between the 'observer' and the ' fact which is being observed'?) is fixed, relatively at least, for some time. This appears to be necessary to study matter because it does not change so fast and it can be separated to some extent, and it can be held constant for a while.

K: Yes.

B: And we call that ( a working hypothesis or ?) theory.

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

B: It has the same root as 'theatre' in Greek, you see.

K: It is a way of looking. Now do we start with an ordinary way of looking, depending on ( the cultural background of?) each person - the housewife, the husband, the money-maker ?

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

K: The moved away from it ?

B: The moved away, they gave up some parts of it.

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

B: Yes, it is arbitrary, it depends on your background.

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

B: Yes, but when it comes to looking inwardly, the question is whether a theory of psychology would be any help in doing this. The danger is that the theory itself might become your new prejudice.

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

B: That would become a prejudice because we we have not yet observed anything to found it on.

K: So the common (inward observable) factor is that man suffers. Right? That is a common factor. I wonder whether ( the holistically minded) scientists would accept that as the most fundamental factor of human consciousness ?

B: Well they have argued about it.

K: Take attachment, (or the collective drive for ever more ?) pleasure, fear... ?

B: I think some (scientifically minded) people might object by saying we should find something more 'positive' - for example that rationality is a common factor.

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

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

K: No, they are not.

B: Though they might be they are not. So you are saying that is not a ( fool-proof inner?) fact.

K: That's right....

Q: I think ( that many holistically minded) scientists would say that the common factor for mankind is that they are all striving for happiness.

K: I won't accept that many human beings are striving for ( creative?) happiness. They are all seeking for some kind of ( psychological) gratification. Would you agree to that ?

B: Yes that is one ( psychological) 'fact' . The only reason I brought up rationality was that the very existence of science is based on the notion that rationality is common to all mankind... The very possibility of doing science depends on people feeling that this common goal of people finding the truth is beyond personal satisfaction because even if your theory is wrong you must accept that it is wrong though it is not gratifying. That is, it becomes very disappointing for people but they accept it, and say, 'Well, that is wrong'.

K: So, all scientists take for granted that human beings are rational ?

B: When they do science. They may agree that they are not very rational in their private life, but they say that at least they are capable of being (objective & ) rational when they do scientific work. Otherwise it would be impossible to begin.

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

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

K: But they may become irrational in their relationship with other human beings ?

B: OK, it is important to bring out this point: that rationality is limited and you say the fundamental fact is more generally they cannot be rational. They may succeed in some limited area.

K: That's right, that is a common (psychologicl) factor. That is a fact.

B: That is a fact, but we don't say it is inevitable or that it can't be changed.

K: It is a fact that (psychologically -wise?) the human beings have been (selfish & ) irrational. And their life has become totally contradictory and so on and so on, which is irrational. But... can ( a holistically minded?) human being change that?

B: Yes...but let's see how we could proceed from the (factual) scientific approach. Why is everybody irrational?

K: Because we have been conditioned ( by millenia of struggle for survival?) that way. Our education, our religion, our everything.

B: Yes, but following that line is not going to ( bring an experiential ) answer. For example we were saying the other day that perhaps man took a wrong turning that established the wrong conditioning.

K: Seeking security - security for myself, for my family, for my group, for my tribe, has brought about this ( mentality of?) division...

B: Yes, but if there had been any ( holistic?) intelligence it would have been clear that the whole thing has no meaning.

K: I think the 'wrong turn' was taken when ( the 'self'-centred thinking?) became all important.

B: Yes, but it would have to be made clear why thought is causing all the difficulties.

K: That is fairly simple...

B: Is it because thought became the equivalent of truth. You see people took thought to give what is always true. When we have (the proper) knowledge, this may hold in certain cases for some time, but I think ( the consciousness of) mankind has ( naturally) slipped into it because it did not see the danger.

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

B: But you see, if intelligence were operating he would not come to that conclusion. It is not 'rational' to say that all that I know is all that is important.

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

Q: But the step before that, isn't that thought has built up the (identitary concept) that I exist?

K: Ah, that comes a little later...

Q: But for the 'me', the only thing that exists is ( the self-centred) thought....

K: Now the 'religious' ( holistically minded?) man starts from ( the fact that inwardly?) 'I am irrational, I contradict myself ' and will have to clear up that ( psychological conditioning) step by step or... the whole thing at one blow. Right?

B: Well, there is a ( major experiential) difficulty: if you accept you are (inwardly) irrational, you're (stuck) because you say how are you going to begin. Right?

K: If I ( see completely the truth that inwardly-wise ?) I am irrational... I am ( becoming ?) rational (holistically-wise) !

B: You will have to make that more clear. I think you could say that man has been deluding himself into believing that he is already rational. And if you don't accept this delusion that (some) 'rationality' will be there.

K: The fact is ( that holistically wise?) I am irrational. And to find the ( creative) Ground ( of All That Is?) (one must realise that this) irrationality has been brought about by thought creating this idea of 'me' as separate from everybody else. So can one find (for oneself) the ( active) cause of this irrationality and 'wipe it out' ? ( Experiential hint:) this must be done without effort, without desire, without using will (power) , without any sense of ( outward pressure or ?) persuasion, otherwise you are back in the old (mind) game.

B: Let's try to put it like this: even in science you could not pursue the science fully unless you were somewhat rational, but eventually the ( inward) failure of rationality blocks science anyway. So we might as well look at the source of the whole irrationality.

K: That is what I am saying.

B: But you still have to make it clear how this can be actually done...

K: Oh yes, I am showing it to you : first realise or become aware that (inwardly) you are (holistically-wise?) irrational. First recognize it. Watch it. If you just assume there is some part of you which is rational, who wants to wipe away the irrationality...

B: But still there must be (at least some 'holistic) rationality' to understand what you are talking about.

K: Yes, of course...

B: So, I would rather say that one is dominated by one's ( self-centred) irrationality, that irrationality dominates (in the everyday existence) even though there is enough rationality to discuss the question...

K: Just a minute... a few of us begin to talk because we are willing to 'listen' to each other, to set aside any conclusion (root assumption ?) I have, and so we are willing to listen to each other.

B: That is part of ( any holistic) rationality.

K: With us (discussing here) because we are serious enough to find out if the Ground (of Creation) exists. And this gives us the rationality to listen to each other.

B: Yes. Well listening is essential for rationality.

K: If you and I and ( scores of?) 'X', 'Y', 'Z' are willing to listen to each other, this very (act of) listening is the beginning of rationality. A few of us can apparently throw off some part of their irrationality and become somewhat rational and start to find out why man lives this way, both the scientists and me, because he is a man, he is not just a scientist. So, (to recap:) what is the common, dominant factor in all human beings' lives ? Obviously (their self-centred) thought.

B: Yes, but many people might deny that and say that 'feeling' or something else is the major...

K: Many people might say that but ( a self-centred) thought is part of (any self-centred) feeling.

B: Right, but still we have to say what is do you mean by thinking?

K: Thinking is the movement (the mental activity of ) memory, which is the ( self-centred) experience & knowledge stored up in the brain...

Q: But you see Krishnaji at this moment we are also 'thinking' but nevertheless this ( investigative?) thinking is not just memory...

K: Oh yes, it is memory, sorry.

B: But (even a holistic) rationality must include rational thought...

K: Of course.

B: Is rational thought only memory?

K: Now wait a minute, careful! If we are completely rational there is the total (clarity of) insight. That (inward clarity of?) insight uses thought and then our thinking is rational.

B: You see, I see it this way : Ordinarily thought runs like a (thinking) machine on its own, it is not rational. But when thought is the instrument of insight then there would be a difference between...

K: Agreed, agreed. Then thought is not based on ( one's past) memory.

B: Memory is used, but ( a holistically friendly) thinking is not based on memory ?

K: That's right. Then what how are ( the holistically minded ) 'X', 'Y', 'Z', to have insight? Which is total rationality ?

B: Can we call it 'rationality of direct perception'.

K: Yes, rationality of perception.

B: Then thought becomes the instrument of that, so it has the same order.

K: Now how am I to have that insight? What am I to do, or not do, to have this immediate ( direct ) insight, which is not of time, which has no cause - right - which is not based on reward or punishment, it is free of all that. Now how do I in discussing with 'X', 'Y', 'Z', who want to come upon the ground, how does the mind have this ( perceptive quality of?) insight? Obviously it is possible to have that insight if your mind is free from time.

B: Right. Let's go slowly, because if we go back to the scientific point of view, even to the common sense, time is taken as the 'ground' of everything in scientific work.
K: Yes...

B: In fact even in ancient Greek mythology, Chronos the 'god' of time produces his children and swallows them. That is also what you said about the Ground of All Being , everything comes from the Ground and dies into the Ground. So in implicitly mankind took time as the 'ground' (of its existence ? )

K: Yes, that is right. And you ( K) come along and say time is not the (ultimate?) ground.

B: That's right. Up until now even scientists have been looking for the 'ground' somewhere back in time... Now you say time is not the ground.

K: Go on, this is very interesting (to chat about?) .

B: And of course somebody (solidly anchored in the field of 'reality'?) might say is nonsense but here we will stay open to that ( holistic proposition?) . Right?

K: Yes, we, 'X', 'Y', 'Z', are open to it.

B: We are going to be open to it but I am saying some ( hard boiled?) people might easily dismiss it right away. Now if you say time is not the ground, this seems to leave us (in the middle of nowhere?) ; let's say we don't know where we are.

K: I know where I am. We will go into it (...holistically?) .

Q: Is 'time' the same movement as this (memory based ) thought which we described first?

K: Yes, ( the mental projection of ) time 'is' ( a subliminal activity of?) thought.

B: Well, let's go slowly on that because there is the 'chronological' time...

K: Of course, that is ( a little too?) 'simple'.

B: So the process of thinking takes time chronologically but in addition it projects a kind of imaginary time...

K:... which is the (psychological) 'future'

B:... which is the 'future', (projected from the memory of the ) past as we have experienced it....So, this (psychological) time which is imagined, is also ( involving) a real process of thinking...

K: Which is a 'fact'.

B: It is a fact. So, this 'time' is not the ( actual) Ground (of Being) , perhaps not even physically, although we feel it to be the 'ground' (of our personal existence) because we feel that we exist in time. Without time there could be no 'me'.

K: That's it.

B: The 'I' must exist in time ; eternally being something or becoming something.

K: Becoming and being are in the field of time. Now can the mind, which has evolved through time...

Q: What do you mean by 'mind' then?

K: The ( mental activity of the ) brain, plus ( the activity of?) my senses & my feeling - all that is the 'mind'.

B: The particular mind, you mean?

K: Particular mind, of course, I am talking not the 'Mind' - I am talking of 'X', 'Y', 'Z',s' mind. This ( collective & personal ?) mind has evolved through time. Right?

B: Well even its 'particularity' depends on time.

K: Of course... Now we are asking: can this mind be free of ( its entanglement in?) time and have an (inward clarity of) insight which is totally rational, which then can operate on thought, which will be rational?

B: Right...

K: Now 'X's (mind) says : how am I to be free of time? I am talking about the time as (psychologically motivated ) becoming.

B: Or as 'being'.

K: Of course, becoming 'is' being.

B: And being something in myself, like being happier.

K: Now can my brain, can my whole mind (or consciousness?) be free of time? Which means can ( the 'time'-creating mechanism of ) thought come to an end?

B: Well could you make that more clear ?

K: Can 'time' as ( 'self'-sustained mechanism of ) thought come to a stop?

B: 'Psychological' time comes to a stop ?

K: Yes, I am talking of that.

B: But we will still have the capacity of rational thinking ?

K: Of course, that is understood .

B: So, we are discussing the thought of ( our self-) conscious experience.

K: And the retention of the memory of the past, as knowledge. Oh, yes, that can be done (as an optional meditation homework?) …

B: You mean the memory of all our past experiences?

K: The ( subliminal continuance of all our 'psychological') memory of experiences, hurts, attachments, the whole of it. Now can that come to an end? Of course it can when the (compassionate intelligence of the holistic ?) perception asks, ''what is damaged psychologically ?'' - the vey perception of it is the ending of it. Not carrying it over, which is the ( process of psycholgical) time. The very ending of it is the 'ending of time'. Is that clear ? Or... not clear? 'X' is hurt, wounded from childhood, for various reasons, you know all that. And by listening, talking, discussing with you, realizes that the continuation of the hurt is time. Right? And to find out the ground, time must end. So he says : can my (self-perpetrated memories of?) 'hurt' end instantly, immediately ?

B: Yes, but I think there are some (missing?) steps in that. When one becomes aware of the psychological hurt, the immediate experience is that it exists on its own.

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

B: What do you mean ?

K: All right. In the process of (self-) becoming I have created an image about myself. Right?

B: Well, thought has created that image.

K: Thought has created a (self-protective shield of ) images through experience, through education, through conditioning, and ( thinks) that this image is separate from ( the real) 'me'. (But actually) this image (shield) is actually 'me'.

B: Yes...

K: And (for reasons of psychological security?) we have separated this image (shield) and the 'me', which is ( a holistically ) 'irrational' (action ) . So in realizing that this image (shield) is ( an integral part of) me, I have become 'somewhat...more rational'.

B: Well ( your holistic explanation?) is not very clear because when the (average) person is hurt he feels he is actually hurt, not the image...

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

B: That's the point. So, the first feeling is the image is (an integral part of?) me, and the second feeling is that I ( surreptitiously?) draw back from the hurt image in order to operate on it. And that brings in 'time' because it will take time to do that.

K: Quite right. So by seeing that I ( suddenly?) become rational and the (directly perceptive ) action is to be free of it immediately.

B: Well, let's go into that. The first thing is that there has been a (major psychological shock or ?) hurt. That is, the ( self-protecting) image got hurt, but at first I don't separate from it. I feel identified with it.

K: I 'am' that.

B: But then I ( the thinker?) draws back and says : there must be an (intelligent part of?) 'me' who can do something about (fixing) that hurt...

K: Yes, that can operate on it.

B: Right. And ( thinking about how to do?) that takes time...

K: That 'is' time.

B: That is time, but thinking about how to deal with it takes ( some chronological) time . Now if I don't do that, you're saying that the hurt cannot exist ?

K: That's right.

B: But it is not obvious in one's experience that this is so.

K: The 'me' is ( trying to do something about it ) because it is ( engaged in a still deeper process of self-) becoming.

B: Yes, it projects itself into a future ( hurt-free?) state.

K: Yes. The 'me', which is always pursuing (the central thread of self-) becoming, says, 'I must wipe it out. I must act upon it, or ( optionally) I will be revengeful' - and all the rest of it. So this movement of (self-) separation is (generating its own continuity in?) time.

B: Yes, we can see that by , but there is something here that is not obvious. A person is thinking the hurt exists independently of me and I must do something about it. I project into the future the better state and what I will have to do for it. Why are you saying that there is no separation.

K: My ( holistic?) rationality discovers there is no separation (between seeing & acting) .

B: And the illusion that there is a separation helps to maintain the hurt ?

K: That's right. Because the (self-created) illusion is (that given enough time) 'I am becoming (totally hurt-free?) '.

B: Yes. I am this and ( hopefully?) I will become that. And (you're saying) that this very thought maintains the (residual memory of the ) hurt ?

K: That's right.

Q: But isn't that 'feeling of separation' already there from the moment I say, 'I am hurt'?

K: That is ( one's residual?) 'irrationality'.

B: The first thing that happens is a kind of shock, a pain or whatever which you ( ASAP?) associate with that shock and then you explain it by saying 'I am hurt' ( or my public image was hurt ?) and that immediately implies the ( observer's ) separation in order to do something about it .

K: Of course...If I am not ( feeling personally ) hurt I don't know anything about separation or not separation.
But I am irrational as long as I maintain ( the memory of ) that hurt and try do something about it, which is to become (hurt-free) . Then irrationality comes in. I think that is right.

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

K: Ah, that is quite a different matter. Which means I am no longer observing using ( the psychological process of ) 'time' as a (base for my) observation.

B: You could say that is not 'your' (particular) way of looking.

K: Yes...

B: It is not your theory anymore : we could say that (accepting the reality of psychological) time is a 'theory' which everybody adopts for (accomplishing some obscure ?) psychological purposes...

K: That's right. ( In a holistic nutshell:) That ( thinking in terms of?) time is the common (psychological) factor of man. And we are pointing out that ( thought's mental projection of ) 'time' is ( quite often?) an illusion...

B: You mean, the 'psychological' time ?

K: Of course, that is understood.

B: Are you saying that when we no longer approached through time then the ( disturbing memory of the ) hurt does not continue?

K: Does not continue, it ends.

B: It ends... ?

K: Because 'you' are no (more struggling to?) becoming anything.

B: So, in ( any psychological?) becoming you are ( surreptitiously?) continuing what you are ?

K: That's right. Continuing what you are, modified and...

B:... that is why you struggle to become.

K: ( To recap:) We are talking about 'insight'. That is, ( the perceptive action of?) insight has no time. That ( inner clarity of) insight being free of time acts upon memory, acts upon ( the self-centred process of) thought which is irrational. That is, insight makes one's thinking rational. But the (inward clarity of?) insight being free of time, it has no (need for ) thought.

B: We said that it may use thought...

K: It may use thought to explain but (essentially) it acts. ( the insightful seeing is simultaneous with the doing) Before ( one's perceptive?) action was based on thought, now when there is insight there is only (directly perceptive?) action. And because ( the holistic) insight is rational, therefore its action is rational. ( One's psychologically related ) actions becomes irrational only when one is acting from thought.
( In a nutshell:) Insight doesn't use thought.

B: Well we have to make it clear because in a the area (of physical reality?) it has to use thought. You see if for example you want to construct something you would use the thought which is available as to how to do it.

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

B: You may still need some insight in that area.

K: Partial. We said the other day that the scientists, the painters, the architects, the doctors, the artists and so on, they may have 'partial' ( specialised?) insight. But here we are talking of ( the holistically minded) 'X', 'Y', 'Z', who are ( inwardly) seeking the Ground (of Creation?) - they are becoming rational and we are saying insight is without time and therefore without thoughts, and that insight 'is' ( has its own timeless ?) action. Because that insight is ( holistically) rational its action is ( naturally becoming ?) rational. Forgive me (to use?) myself into an example : when that young man ( K) in 1929 dissolved the Order (Oo the Star of the East?) . There was no thought. He had an insight –& finished ! He dissolved it. Why do we need thought?

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

K: That is merely for convenience, for ( not hurting?) other people and so on...but the (insightful perception that ''truth is a pathless land''?) acts.

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

K: That is like moving a cushion from there to there.

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

K: It is like a (timeless?) wave.

Q: Does not all ( the self-centred process of?) thought undergo a (holistic) transformation in this process?

K: Yes, of course, of course. Because ( the inward clarity of) insight is without time ( 'thought & time' free?) therefore the brain itself has undergone a (holistical) change.

B: Could we talk about what you exactly mean by that?

K: Does it mean, sir, that every human response must be viewed, or must enter into ( the inward clarity of?) insight?
( Suppose that I realise?) I am jealous. Is there an insight which will cover the whole field of jealousy, so end all that is involved in it : - envy, greed, and all that. The (holistically?) irrational people would go step by step, get rid of jealousy, get rid of attachment, get rid of anger, get rid of this, that and the other. Which is ( involving a ) process of (negative self-) becoming. Right? But an insight which is 'totally rational', wipes all that away ( by a single perceptive stroke ?) . Right?

B: Right...

K: But...is that an (actual) fact - in the sense that 'X', 'Y' & 'Z', will never again be jealous, never !

B: Yes, we'll have to discuss that further because it is not clear how you could guarantee that (psychological miracle?)

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Jan 2020 #252
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

K: Could we approach this question from the point of view: is this Ground an idea? And why have ideas become so important?

B: Perhaps because ideas are often supposed to (describe very synthetically ?) the actual reality ?

K: That is what I want to find out: is this 'Ground' an idea, or a philosophic concept? Or is it something 'absolute' in the sense that there is nothing beyond it?

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

K: Do we (attempt to ?) investigate the Ground (of Creation) from a mind that is disciplined in knowledge?

B: Well fundamentally we said that this Ground is unknown inherently, therefore we can't begin with ( our previous ?) knowledge. Many years ago in London you suggested that we start with the 'unknown'.

K: Say for instance (Mr) 'X' (K?) says there is such a Ground. And Mr 'A', 'B', 'C' say "prove it, let it manifest itself". When we ask such ( dualistic) questions, is it with a mind that has the passion for truth, or merely we say let's talk (chat?) about it? How can an (intellectual) mind which has evolved through knowledge, which has been highly disciplined in knowledge, even touch That which is not put together by thought ?

B: Yes, as soon as you say, "prove it", you want to turn it into (a fixed?) knowledge. To be absolutely certain ( a culturally 'certified' ?) 'knowledge' is what you want, so that there can be no doubt. And still ( without any reliable knowledge?) there is also the danger of self-deception and delusion...

K: Of course, but right from the beginning we said this Ground cannot be touched ( experientially?) as long as there is any ( personal?) projection of desire, pleasure, fear and all that.

B: But isn't this person who says "prove it", trying to protect It against those illusions? But it is a vain hope.

K: So how do I perceive that '(Some)thing' with a mind which is trained, disciplined, (in the field of materialistic?) experience and knowledge, and can only function in that area. And you (Mr K) come along and tell me that this Ground is not something that can be perceived by thought.

B: Or 'understood' by thought ?

K: Yes...Then what am I to do?

B: Yes, but the ( holistically minded?) person says that I want to find That not only thought but also by (my personal ?) experience.

K: Of course. So what ( investigative instrument?) have I (to start with?) ? I have only this ( highly intellectual?) mind that has been conditioned by (operating exclusively in the field of?) knowledge. How is an ordinary man, educated, read, experienced, to touch it, or to comprehend it ?
You tell me ( as an experiential hint?) ''you must have a mind that is free from all knowledge'' - except the technological (& practical?) knowledge. And you are asking me an impossible thing, (because even ) if I say, I will make an effort (to transcend the field of the known?) that also is born out of my self-centred ( thought-sustained?) desire. So... ''What shall I do?'' - this is what most 'serious' ( holistically minded?) people ask.

B: At least implicitly. They may not say it (out loud) …

K: So ( metaphorically speaking?) you on the other side of the bank ( of the Stream of Thought & Time?) and tell me ''there is no boat to cross'' (Truth is a Pathless Land ?) You are asking this particular mind to eschew all (inward usage of ) knowledge.

B: In some sense the Christians would tell you to put your faith in God (or, optionally?) to give up all your personal (spiritual initiative?) to Jesus and let him (do the work?)

K: Yes, they have said that only through Jesus....

B: He is the ( officially certified?) 'mediator' between us and God.

K: Yes. But for instance (in the Hindu spiritual tradition) , ''Vedanta'' means the 'end of knowledge' …

B: It could also mean that I suppose. Veda meant the (sacred) knowledge.

K: It means the ending of ( all one's attachment to ?) that. But being a Westerner, it means nothing to me. Because from the Greeks on the culture in which I have lived has emphasised the paramount importance of knowledge. But when you talk to an ( educated?) Eastern mind they acknowledge in their religious life that a time must come when ( mind's relance on past) knowledge must end. Vedanta is the ( holistically friendly) way of looking, but it has also become a theoretical understanding...

B: I think there has been a similar Western (mystical) tradition, but not as common. In the Middle Ages there was a book written called 'The Cloud of Unknowing', but not in the mainstream of Western thinking .

K: That is what I am saying: it is not (allong the trodden) line of Western thought. So what shall I do if ( I see that experientially ?) coming upon this Ground (of Creation?) , can give an immense (true?) significance to my life.

B: Well people have used ( for a very similar purpose?) the notion of 'God' to give ( a higher) significance to their (time-bound) life.

K: No, no... 'God' is merely an idea.

B: Yes but the idea contains something similar to the Eastern concept that God is beyond our knowing. Most people would accept it that way. So there is some sort of a similar notion.

K: But you tell me this (Ground of Creation) is not created by thought. So you cannot under any circumstances come upon it through any form of manipulation of thought.

B: Yes, I understand what you are saying, but I am trying to say that there is this danger of self - delusion, in the sense that many people ( from the Bible Belt?) would say, 'Yes, that is quite true, it is through a direct experience of Jesus that we come upon it, not through thought'... Well those are my words, (maybe they mean through ) the Grace of God.... Anyway, it's something beyond thought, you see....

K: As a fairly educated man, fairly thoughtful man, I (would) reject all that...

B: Yes, why do you reject it?

K: Because it has become a 'common' (knowledge) - in the sense that everybody says that. And also because there may be in it a great sense of illusion created by desire, hope, fear. If they had never heard of Jesus, they wouldn't ( have that) 'experience' . I mean, in India, Jesus...

B: But it would be interesting if someone who had never heard of Jesus would have this same experience. That would be some sort of proof that there was more to it....

Q: But wouldn't you say that there are some serious people in all the religions who would say that essentially God, or the 'absolute', or the Ground (of All Creation?) is cannot be experienced through thinking or that it cannot be experienced at all ?

K: Oh yes, I have said It cannot be experienced. 'X' says it cannot be experienced.

Q: I think the essence of some religions would say that too.

K: All right, I don't know. Here is a person who says there is such a thing. And I listen to him and I see not only does he convey it by his presence, he conveys it also through the word. (Hint : he tells me, be careful, the word is not the actual thing!) . But he uses words to convey that there is this 'something' so immense that my thought cannot capture it. And I say, all right, how am I, whose brain is conditioned ( to operate mainly in the field of?) in knowledge, how is it to free itself from all that?

Q: By understanding its own limitation?

K: So you are telling me, that thought is limited. I understand all that, but I don't feel it. It is just a lot of ( holistically sounding?) words which you have told me.

Q: Doesn't it require some serious investigation ?

K: Intellectually I understand it. It is so obvious. But I have no ( gut?) feeling for it. There is no perfume (no living spirit of truth?) in it.

Q: But isn't it possible not to talk about the Ground, which at the moment is far too removed, but rather look directly at what the ( temporal ?) mind can do.

K: Which is 'thinking' (how to optimise one's survival within the field of the known?) . That is all I have. Thinking, feeling, hating, loving - you know all that. The activity of the (time bound) mind. I know that very well, you don't have to tell me.

Q: I would say you only think ( assume ?) you know it.

K: Oh no...I know it ( fragmentarily?) . And I am fed up with the ( self-introspective ?) investigation I have done it all my life. I go to the Hindu business and I say I have investigated, studied it, looked at it, Buddhism, and all the rest .... How do I as a human being have this extraordinary feeling about it? If there is no passion behind it, it is just...

Q: What does the ( compassionate ) feeling spring from?

K: I have built a ( self-protecting?) wall round myself, cultured, fairly respectable, educated, a wall which (has become part of?) myself. And I have lived with this (survivalistic limitation?) for millions of years. I have tried to get out of it by studying, by reading, by going to gurus, by doing all kinds of ( crazy?) things,But I am still anchored there.
And you talk ( so charismatically?) about the Ground because you 'see' something that is breathtaking, that seems so alive, extraordinary and so on. And I am anchored here (in the field of the known?) . You, who have 'seen' the Ground must ( be able to?) do something that will explode, break up this thing completely. At the end of a million years of evolution I am (inwardly speaking) still where I was at the beginning - only I have more experience, I have seen the world, I have painted, I have played music, I have danced, but have come back to the original starting point.

Q: Which is 'me' (vs the ) 'not me'.

K: Yes... Perhaps if I could establish a (working?) relationship (with the Ground ) it might break up this centre, totally. You follow? If the mind could establish a relationship with 'That' my mind has become ( one with ) That....
(To recap:) My ( survival oriented ) brain has lived for a million years. It has experienced everything, but the core of it is the same. Right? And you come along and say, look there is ( in mankind's inward neighbourhood?) a Ground which is - something. Are you going back to what you have already known? They are like ashes to me at the end of it.

B: Well, all of those 'things' were the attempt to create an apparent 'ground' by thought. It seems that through knowledge and thought, people created ( a highly knowledgeable home-base?) which they regarded as the 'Ground'. And it wasn't.

K: It wasn't. Because I have spent a million years at it.

B: So as long as knowledge enters the 'ground' (of human existence) that will be false?

K: Of course...I am just asking - is there ( the possibilty of an interactive ?) relationship between That and the human mind?

Q: And are you suggesting that this relationship cannot be made by you, but it must come (from the inward Ground of Creation ?)

K: I am asking : if the human mind has no relationship to It, and there is only a one way passage, from That to me...

B: Well that's like the Grace of God then.

K: I am rejecting this ( extraneous?) explanation - ''the Grace of God''. So is there a relationship at all? What is the relationship between Goodness and bad(ness) ? There is no ( cooperating) relationship.

Q: But Krishnaji, are we then saying that there is the Good and that there is the evil?

K: No, no... To use another (holistically friendly ?) words, 'between that which is whole', and 'that which is not whole'. Is there ( a working) relationship between these two? Obviously not.

B: Yes, well if you are saying that in some sense the 'centre' is an illusion - an illusion cannot be related to that which is true because the ( psychologically active ?) content of the illusion has no relation to 'what is true'.

K: That's it ! You see that is a great discovery. 'I', this petty little thing, wants to establish a ( working) relationship with 'that immensity'. It cannot.

B: Yes, it is not just because of its immensity but because in fact this ( self-identified) thing 'is actually not' - in the sense of being genuine and not an illusion. I mean something is acting (within it) but it is not the (egocentric?) 'content' which we know.

K: Do you see that?
Q: He (Mr X) says this 'centre' ( of selfishness) must explode. It does not explode because I don't see the falseness in it.

K: No, no, no.... The ( self-conscious?) mind wants to capture That or to have a (working?) relationship with It. And That says, Sorry, but 'you' can't have a relationship with me.'
(In a nutshell:) I realize at that there is no relationship between me and ( the living spirit of?) Truth. And that's a tremendous (psychical?) shock to me , because all my millions of years of ( outwardly oriented) experience says go after that, seek it, search for it, pray for it, struggle for it ! And suddenly Mr X says, you cannot have relationship with That. I have shed tears, left my family, everything for (reaching) It , and That (inward Ground of Creation) says, 'Sorry'. So what has happened to thehuman mind that has lived this way, done everything that man has done in search for that, and That says, one morning, 'You have no relationship with me'... ?

Q: It is a tremendous shock to the 'me', if you say that.

K: Is it a shock to discover that all your (inward?) knowledge is valueless? All my ( cultivated) virtue, my abstinence, my control, everything and at the end of it you say they are all valueless.'

B: It still has relative value within a certain framework (of real-life), but in itself it has no (true) value.

K: Yes, thought has relative value. But the Ground says : whatever you have done ( for psychological reasons?) on earth has no ( true?) meaning,. Is that an 'actuality' in the sense that I suddenly realize the (inward?) futility of all that I have done. So ( for optional meditation homework?) I must be very careful to see that I don't translate into a ( convenient) concept, but receive the full blow of ( the inward truth of) it!

(Silent Pause...)

Q: You see the dismissal of the pursuit of the ground has not had any shocking effect on most people.

K: No, no.... I 'am' the people, it has given me a tremendous shock to discover the truth that all the churches & prayers & books have absolutely no meaning -( in terms of finding the Truth?) except they have a meaning so that we can build a better ( politically & ecologically correct?) society and so on.

B: If we could manage to bring even this (field of reality?) to order then it would have a great meaning - to build a good society....

K: From there one can start creating a ( 'holistically friendly'?) society.

B: ...but as long as this ( selfishness generated?) disorder is at the centre we can't use that in the right way. I think it would be more accurate to say that there is a great potential meaning in all that but as long as it does not affect the 'centre' (of self-interest) and there is no sign that it has ever done so.

Q: You see, what I don't understand Krishnaji is that there are many people who in their life have never pursued what you call the Ground.

K: They are not interested...

Q: Well I an not so sure... How would you approach such a person?

K: I am not interested in approaching any (such?) person. I am interested in ( the inward realisation that ?) all the works I have done, good, everything I have done, the Ground says are valueless. But if I can drop all that, my mind is ( becoming part of ? ) the Ground. Then from there I move. From there I can create a new society.

B: Well as long as you are looking for the Ground ( of Creation) by means of knowledge then you are getting in the way.

K: So sir, to come back to earth: why has man accumulated this burden of (psychologial?) knowledge which (sadly enough?) continued for so long?

B: Because man has been trying to produce a solid ground ( of his existence) through knowledge. That is one of the things that has (really) happened.

K: Which means what?

B: It means 'illusion' again...

K: ( In a holistic nutshell:) Knowledge has only crippled me from seeing truth. It hasn't cleared me of my illusions. Knowledge may be illusory itself.

Q: But it has cleared up some illusions.

K: I want to clear up all the illusions that I hold - not some. I have got rid of my illusion about nationalism; I have got rid of illusion about belief, about Christ, about this, about that. At the end of it I realize my mind is ( still caught in) illusion. Sorry! You see to me, who has lived for a thousand (of thousands of ) years, to find it is absolutely worthless, it is something enormous.

B: When you say you have lived for a thousand years or a million years, does that means in a sense that all the experience of mankind is...

K:... is ( enfolded in) me.

B: Do you feel that?

K: I do.

B: And how do you 'feel' it?

K: 'I am all humanity'', is an absolute, irrevocable fact to me.

B: Well perhaps we could share that ( totally holistic?) feeling. You see, that seems to be one of the steps that is missing, although you have repeated it quite often as an important part of the whole (body of Teachings ?) .

K: Which means, sir, that (in ) love there is no 'me', it is 'love'. In the same way, when I say I am humanity, it is part of me.

B: Well let's say it is a feeling that I have gone through all that....

K: Human beings have been through all that.

B: So, if others have gone through it then ( by the Law of Universal Compassion?) I also have gone through it.

K: Of course... But one is not (yet?) aware of it. If we admit (or realise?) that our brains are not 'particular' brains but the human brain that has evolved through millennia...

B: Well, let me say why this doesn't communicate so easily: everybody feels that the content of his brain is in some way individual, that he hasn't gone through all that. Let's say that somebody thousands of years ago went through the study of science or philosophy. Now how does that affect me? That is what is not clear.

K: Because I am ( still) caught ( or strongly attached to ?) this self-centred narrow little cell, which refuses to look beyond. But you come along and tell me, as a scientist, or as a (holistically minded?) man, that ( the consciousness matrix of?) my brain is ( the same as that of?) the brain of all mankind.

B: Yes and all my knowledge is the knowledge of all mankind. So that in some way we have all (free access to this vast pool of ?) knowledge.

K: Of course. So you tell me that, but I come to ( the inward truth of ) that only when I have given up ( the psychological attachments to ) ordinary things like 'nationality' & so on …

B: Yes when we have given up the ( false mental ) divisions we can see that our experience 'is' ( subliminally shared by?) all mankind.

K: It is so ( holistically?) obvious sir. You go to the most primitive villager in India and he will tell you all about his personal problems - his wife, children, poverty. It is exactly the same thing, only here he is wearing different trousers, a kimono, or whatever it is. For Mr 'X' , this is an indisputable fact, it is so. And he says, after a million years, I suddenly discover, or that (this self-centred existence) is empty. We don't see a simple fact. And when Mr 'X' comes along and says, 'See it, it is there', immediately the whole machinery of thought begins. So they say, be silent. So I practise silence. I have done that for thousands of years. It has lead nowhere.
So there is only one thing and that is to discover all that I have done (for psychological purposes?) is useless. They are ashes. You see sir that ( realisation) doesn't depress one. That is the beauty of it. I think it is like the Phoenix (Bird)

B: Rising from its ashes ?

K: Born out of (its own ) ashes.
B: Well, in a way it is (the ultimate?) freedom to be free of all that...

K: Something totally new is born.

B: And what you said before is that ( subsequently?) the mind 'is' (become one with?) the ground, it is the 'Unknown'.

K: Yes. But not the (old ) mind. If I have been ( meditating?) through all that and come to a point when I have to 'end' all that ( continuity of thought-time process ?) , it is ( already) a 'new' mind.

B: That's clear. The ( self-conscious core of the ) mind 'is' ( constantly refreshing & displaying ) its (residual psychological ?) content, and without that (burden of time-binding?) knowledge it is (born as ?) a 'new' mind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Jan 2020 #253
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

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

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

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

B: But how can the human brain change?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: To the past, to the content.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Yes...

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

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

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

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

K: Quite, quite...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: No sir, Love cannot act on hate.

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

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

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

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

B: Peace, order, or harmony, right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: The total human activity. Right sir?

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

K: That's right sir.

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

K: It has no cause.

B: But it is a real energy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Why do you differentiate flash from light?

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

K: It is not like that...

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

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

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

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

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

K: The content is darkness.

B: Then that light has dispelled that ignorance.

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

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

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

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

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

(Intermission )

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

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

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

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

K: I don't believe that.

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

K: Yes...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B: Some have had it ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B: There is ( an all-)one mind ?

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

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

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

Q: They only appear to be different ?

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

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

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

B: I think it is a question of insight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Which means ...?

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Jan 2020 #254
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B: Yes... ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Just a minute....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B: Yes....

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

B: Yes...

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

B: Well, intellectually it's clear …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Yes sir !

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

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

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

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

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

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

B: Yes....

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

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

K: Right.

B: Which means to say that there is neither ?

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

B: Non-dualistic means what? No division?

K: No division...

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

K: Movement, of course.

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

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

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

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

B: Yes... ?

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

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

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

B: Yes. It flows without division...

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

B: Enveloping... ?

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

B: The Universe ?

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

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

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

B: Yes...

K: What am I trying to say?

B: Well that only this movement 'is'.

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

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

K: You understand what I am saying?

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

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

B: Then it is not important ?

K:... death has no meaning.

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

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

B: Yes.... ?

K: You have abolished totally the fear of death.

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

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

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

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

B: Yes....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B: Yes... ?

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

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

K: I question it.

B: How can we know that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B: Yes...

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

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

K: Go into this slowly...

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

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

B: That we can understand.

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

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

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

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

K: Poor devil!

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

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

Q: 'Psychological' time?

K: Of course, that is understood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 31 Jan 2020 #255
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

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

K: Without division, quite right...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B: Well how should we know?

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Is that it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: As I am doing... ???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B: Yes... ?

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

B: Yes, what will he do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Tremendous. That's right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: The deeper is the Ground.

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

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

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

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

B: Yes, so...?

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

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

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

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

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

B: Yes, at other levels... ?

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

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

K: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

K: ...it sounds so silly.

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

K: Yes, that's it...

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

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

B:... is making something possible?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: No...

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

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

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

K: Must have. He necessarily must...

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

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

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

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

K: No, he apparently is not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: That is all.

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

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

B: Well perhaps he does nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: I know...

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

K: Yes sir...

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

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

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

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

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

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

B: What do you mean?

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 01 Feb 2020 #256
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B: Trying to become something better ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Yes. You look sceptical!

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

K: Yes.

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

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

N: Temporarily...

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

N: He slips back into time.

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

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

K: Yes...

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

K: Of course.

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

K: Yes, sir, absolutely.

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

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

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

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

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

K: Of course.

B: Although it is not obvious in the beginning.

K: I wonder if you see that.

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

K: ...located and divided.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Can that momentum stop?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

N: Who has this insight?

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

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

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

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

K: Quite, quite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B: Well, is there a way?

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

B: The word has been used so often..

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

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

K: Meditation IS insight !

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

K: Yes, insight is a 'flash'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

N: How about in the past?

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

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

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

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

K: Yes, sir, that's right.

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

K: Of course.

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

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

B: Well, my mind has silence...

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

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

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

B: Some other kind?

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Feb 2020 #257
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Of course. All those are gone.

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

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

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

K: Prepared to listen - but how deeply?

N: To the extent my listening takes me to.

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

N: No, not necessarily.

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

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

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

B: Without a conscious intention ?

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

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

K: It is in a state of meditation.

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

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

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

K: And also to measure ?

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

K: No...

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

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

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

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

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

K: Oh, much more.

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

K: That is contemplation..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B: I would say "no"...

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

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

K: Entangled, all right...

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

K: I agree...

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

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

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

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

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

K: Yes, sir. Would you accept that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Feb 2020 #258
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B: Yes, but then what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B: Yes, I think so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Of course, that's impossible.

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

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

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

K: Because their own egotism... ?

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

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

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

K: Yes...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: That is the very source of disorder.

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

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

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

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

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

K: Everything.

B: Like religion ?

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

B: How about the human mind ?

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

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

K: Tremendous potential....

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

K: That's right.

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

K: Yes... (pause)

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

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

B: You mean, through the limited stuff ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B: Yes. We discussed that the previous time.

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

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

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

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

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

B: Yes, that insight does not take time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B: Of course that's a paradoxical statement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

K: This mind is raising the question.

B: Which is what?

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

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

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

B: He's free of desire ?

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

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

K: Now, then what is that mind?

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

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

B: Yes... ?

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

B: If you feel like it...

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

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

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

B: ...is part of the man-made structure.

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

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

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

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

K: Now has That any relationship to this?

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Feb 2020 #259
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

12TH ( reader-friendly edited ) K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM
(1980)

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

Bohm: If you like, yes...

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

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

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

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

K: But the deeply religious people, if there are (any left?) , who are totally free from all organized religions and beliefs, rituals, dogmas - they have said it can be done. Very few have said this.

B: Well, of course there are many millions those who have said it is done through reincarnation. And that group say it will take a very long time...

K: Yes, they say you must go through various lives and suffer all kinds of miseries, but ultimately you will come to that. But (here?) we are not thinking in terms of time. We're asking, a human being (becoming responsibly) aware?) that he is conditioned, deeply so that his whole (psychological) being is that, can it ever free itself ? And if it does, what is beyond?

B: Right...

K: Would that (transcendental aspect of the?) question be valid, unless the mind has really finished with all the travails of life? As we said the other day, our mind is 'man-made' (culturally formatted?) . Is it is possible that it can free itself from its own man-made mechanical mind ?

B: I think there's a kind of (verbal) tangle here : if the human mind is totally man-made, totally conditioned, then in what sense can it get out of it? Perhaps we could say that it had at least the possibility of going beyond (its temporal conditioning )

K: Then it becomes a psychological reward, a temptation, a thing to be...

B: I there seems to be an inconsistency in saying that the mind is totally conditioned and yet it's going to get out...

K: I understand, but if you admit, if one admits that there is a part ( of the human consciousness?) which is not conditioned, then we (may?) enter into quite another...

B: ...(potential?) inconsistency ?

K: Yes, into another inconsistency. But in our discussions, we've said (that even if ) the mind is deeply conditioned, it can free itself through ( a time-free inward perception aka :?) 'insight' - that is the real (homework?) clue to this. Would you agree to that?

B: Yes...

K: That 'insight' we went (+/- holistically?) into what it is, the nature of it, and can that 'insight' uncondition the mind completely, wipe away all the illusions, all the desires and so on ? Or is it a partial (one particular conditioning at a time?) ?

B: Well, I think the first point ( to have an insight into?) is that the human mind is not static, and when one says it's totally conditioned it suggests something static, which would never change.

K: Yes...

B: Now, if we say the ( time-bound human) mind is always in movement, then it becomes impossible to say 'what it is' at this very moment, so we couldn't say it has been 'totally conditioned'....

K: Let's say it's in movement, but its movement is within a certain field.
And the (center of that) field is very definitely marked out, it can expand it and contract, but the field is, the boundary is very, very limited, definite.

B: Yes... And even if we try to move freely within that structure, we stay within the same boundary.

K: So, it is always moving within that ( survivalistic self-) limitation. Can it 'die away' from that?

B: That's the point, that ( 'ending' is?) another kind of movement, I mean, it's a kind of moving in another dimension...

K: Yes. And we say it is possible through ( an inward flash of?) insight, which is a totally different kind of movement.

B: Yes, but then you were saying that this ( timeless?) movement does not originate in the individual mind, nor in the general mind ?

K: Quite right, yes. That's what we discussed the other day. It is not an insight of a particular, or of the general (mind)... We are then stating something quite outrageous.

B: Yes, I think that it violates the traditional logic that people have been using, that either the particular and the general should cover everything, in terms of ordinary logic.

K: Yes...

B: Now if you're saying there's something beyond both, this is already a question which has not been stated, at least not (explicitly) . And I think it has a great importance.

K: How do we then come to it?

B: Yes, well, I've been noticing that people divide themselves roughly into two groups, one group feels the most important thing is their concrete particular daily activity. The other group feels that the general, or the universal is the ground (of human existence) . You see, the one is the more 'practical' (pragmatical?) type, and the other the more 'philosophical' type. And this division has been visible throughout our history, but also in the modern everyday life, wherever you look.

K: But, sir, is the 'general' ( condition of human consciousness ? ) separate from the 'particular' ?

B: It's not, and I most people would agree with you , but people tend to give emphasis to one or the other. Like some people give the main emphasis to the particular. They say the 'general' is there but if you take care of the particular the general will be all right. The others say the 'general' is the main thing and the universal and getting that right you'll get the particular right.

K: Quite...

B: So there's been a kind of unbalance to one side or the other, a bias in the mind of man. Now what's being raised here is the notion that neither the general nor the particular (are the 'ground' of human existence?)

K: That's just it. So ( for starters) can't we find out if the general and particular ( consciousness) are not divided at all ?

B: Also that there's to be no bias to one or the other.

K: Quite....not laying emphasis on one or the other. Then what is there?

B: Well, we did discuss in California about the Ground (of Being) . We could say the particular mind 'dies' (returning?) to the general & universal mind or to the emptiness, then we were saying that ultimately the emptiness and the universal mind 'die' (returning ) into the Ground.

K: That's right, we discussed that. Would an ordinary person, fairly intelligent, 'see' all this? Or would he say, 'What nonsense all this is !'

B: Well, if it were just thrown at him, he would reject it as nonsense - it would require very careful presentation (from Mr X?) and some people might see it. But if you just say it to anybody, they would say, ''Whoever heard of that ?''

K: So where are we now? We are neither the particular nor the general mind.

B: Well, ordinarily thought is caught on one side or the other.

K: That's the whole point, isn't it? Ordinarily the 'general' and the 'particular' ( consciousness ) are in the same field (of the man-made reality?) . And thought is the movement between the two.

B: Yes, it has created both and it moves between in that area.

K: Yes, in that area. And it has been doing this for millennia.

B: Yes, and most people would feel that's all thought could do.

K: Now, we are saying, that when (this constant movement of) thought 'ends', that ( continuous?) movement which thought has created also comes to an end, therefore 'time' comes to an end.

B: We should go more slowly here, because it's a ( 'holistic'?) jump from thought to 'time'. As we were discussing (before) thought has a ( knowledge?) content which is about time, and besides that we said thought is a movement which is ( generating a sense of continuity in?) time : it could be said to be moving from the 'past' into the 'future'. Right?

K: But, sir, thought itself is the outcome of (mankind's long evolution in?) time.

B: Yes, but if you say that thought is based on time, then time is more fundamental than thought - is that what you want to say?

K: Yes...

B: So time was there before thought, or at least is at the origin of thought ?

K: Time was there whenever there is an accumulation of ( memory & ) knowledge.

B: Well, that has come out of thought to some extent.

K: No (not necessarily?) I act and learn. This original action is not based on my previous knowledge, but I do something, and in the doing I learn.

B: Then that 'learning' is registered in the memory ?

K: In the memory and so on. So is not thought essentially the movement of time?

B: Well, we have to say in what sense is this 'learning' a movement of time ?
We can say, when we learn it is registered (in the memory) . Right? And then that same learning operates in the next experience, as what you have learned before....

K: Yes. The ( experience of the?) past is always moving into the present.

B: Yes, and mixing, or 'fusing' with the present.

K: Yes...

B: And the two together are again registered as the next experience.

K: So are we saying, time is not different from ( the movement of?) thought, or (in holistic idiom ?) time 'is' thought.

B: Yes, well, this movement of learning and the response of memory into experience and then re-registering, we say that is ( giving the brain the sense of its continuity in ) time, and that is also thought.

K: Yes...is there a time apart from thought?

B: Well, that's another question... Would we say that physically or in the cosmos that time has a significance apart from thought?

K: Physically, yes, I understand that.

B: Right... So then we're talking about the significance of time within the human mind, or 'psychologically'.

K: Psychologically, as long as there is psychological accumulation as (personal) knowledge, as the 'me' and so on, there is ( the sense of one's psychological continuity in?) time.

B: Yes, so we're saying that wherever there is accumulation there is time ?

K: Yes, that's the point.

B: Which turns the thing around because usually you say time is first and then in (the course of) time you accumulate.

K: No, personally I would put it round the other way,

B: Then, suppose there is no (psychologically motivated?) accumulation, then what?

K: Then - that's the whole point - there is no 'time'....But as long as I am accumulating, gathering, becoming, there is the process of time. But if there is no gathering, no ( self-) becoming, no accumulation, does psychological time exist?

B: Well, probably you could say even the physical time must depend on some kind of physical accumulation.

K: Of course, but that's quite a different matter.

B: That we are not denying - we're denying the significance of the 'psychological' accumulation.

K: That's right. So thought is the outcome of (brain's) psychological accumulation, and that accumulation, that gathering, gives it a sense of (its own ) continuity, which is time.

B: Well, it seems that whatever has been accumulated is responding to the present, with the projection of the future and then that is again registered. Now the accumulation of all that's registered is in the (linear) order of time, I mean, one moment of time, the next moment of time and all that.

K: That's right. So we're saying, thought ( the thinking brain?) 'is' (creating its own sense of?) time.

B: Yes, or time 'is' thought.

K: ...one way or the other.

B: Right - that the two mean the same thing

K: So the psychological accumulation is thought and time.

B: Yes, we're saying that we happen to have two words when really we only need one.

K: One word. That's right.

B: But because we have two words we look for two different things.

K: Yes. There is only one movement, which is time and thought, time plus thought, or 'time-thought'. Now can the human mind which has moved for millennia in that area free itself from that (subliminal process ) ?

B: Yes, now why is the mind bound up? Let's see exactly what's holding the mind.

K: Accumulation.

B: Yes, but why does the mind continue to accumulate?

K: I think that is fairly clear because in accumulation (personal experience) there is safety, there is an apparent security.

B: That needs a little discussion , because in a certain area that is even true, that the accumulation of physical food may provide a certain kind of security.
And since no distinction was made between the outer and the inner, there was the feeling that one could accumulate inwardly either experiences or some knowledge of what to do.

K: Are we saying the outward necessity of physical accumulation for security is necessary and that same movement, the same urge moves into the 'psychological' field ?

B: Yes.

K: There you accumulate ( indiscriminately?) hoping to be secure.

B: Yes, inwardly accumulating present memories, or relationships, or things you could count on, principles you could count on.

K: So this psychological accumulation is ( providing a very realistic sense of?) safety, protection, security.

B: The illusion of it, anyway...

K: All right, the illusion of security and in this illusion it has lived (for ages)

B: Yes, so man's first ( psychological ?) mistake was that he never understood the distinction between what he has to do outside and what he has to do inside, right?

K: It is the same movement ( mental atitude ?) , outer and inner.

B: But now man carried the movement, that procedure which was right outwardly he carried inwardly, without knowing, perhaps entirely ignorant, not knowing that that would make trouble.

K: So where are we now? The (meditating ?) human being, realizes all this, has come to the point when he says, 'Can I really be free from this accumulated security and thought and time, psychological time?' Is that possible?

B: Well, if we see where it had this origin, then it should be possible to dismantle it, but if it were built into us, nothing could be done...

K: Of course not, it is not inbuilt in us.

B: Most people act as though it was....Now, if it's not inbuilt in (our brain) then the possibility exists for us to change. Because in some way we said it was built up in the first place through ( a long evolution in?) time.

K: So I have come to that point,where as a human being, I'm ( becoming) fully aware of the nature of this, and my next question is: can this ( awakening ?) mind move on from this field altogether, and enter into a totally different dimension? And we said, this can only happen when there is insight - that we've been through.

B: Yes, and it seems that (the inner clarity of ) insight arises when one questions this whole thing very deeply and one sees it makes no sense.

K: Now having had insight into this and seen its limitation and therefore go beyond it, what is there 'beyond'? This we talked about a little bit, not only at Ojai, also here.

B: I think it's very difficult to even bring this into words and many people might feel we should leave this ( going beyond?) entirely non-verbal.

K: Can we say (use the 'holistic' disclaimer?) that ''the word is not the thing'' ?
The (verbal) description is not the truth, however much you embellish or diminish it ; recognising that, then what is there beyond all this ? Can the ( meditating) mind be so desire-less, so it won't create an illusion, something beyond?

B: You see, desire must be (involved) in this time process...

K: Of course, desire 'is' time. After all, (the psychologically motivated process of) 'being & becoming' is based on desire.

B: Yes. They are one and the same, really.

K: Yes, one and the same. Now, when one has a (comprehensive) insight into that whole movement of desire, and its capacity to create illusion, it's (psychological mechanism is) finished.

B: Yes, but we should try to say a little more about desire, how it's intrinsic in this accumulating process, how it comes out in many ways. For one thing you could say that as you accumulate ( ever more personal experiences) there comes a sense of 'something missing'. I mean, you feel you should have something more to 'complete' it , since whatever you have accumulated is not complete.

K: So, could we go into the question of ( self-) becoming first, then desire comes into it. Why is it that all human beings right through the world have this urge to become (something better ) ? Outwardly we can understand that, it's simple enough getting a better job, more comfort and so on. But why is there this need in the human mind of trying to become something more or better ?

B: Well, there must be a sense of dissatisfaction with what's in there already, that's one thing.

K: Is it dissatisfaction?

B: Well, you know, a person feels he would like it to be complete. For example he has accumulated memories of pleasure, but these memories are no longer adequate and he feels something more is needed.

K: Is that it?

B: Well, eventually he feels that he must have the whole, the ultimate.

K: Isn't the word (the mentality of?) 'more' is not the real thorn ? ''I will have more, I will become something more'' - this whole movement of gaining, comparing, advancing, achieving – 'psychologically'.

B: The word 'more' is implicit in the whole meaning of the word 'accumulate' : if you're accumulating you have to be accumulating more, there's no other way to do it.

K: So why is there this seed (of psychological greed) in the human mind ?

B: Well, probably mankind didn't see that this more is wrong, inwardly. Man started outwardly to use the term 'more', then he carried it inward ; and for some reason he didn't see how destructive it was.

K: Why? Why have fairly intelligent 'philosophers' and 'religious' people who have spent a great part of their life in 'achieving' you know - why haven't they seen this very simple fact that where there is accumulation there must be (the greed for?) more.

B: Well, they didn't see any harm in it. They're saying, we are trying to get a better life - you see. During the nineteenth century it was the century of progress, of improving all the time.

K: All right, ( the technological) progress outwardly.

B: But they have also felt that man could be improve himself inwardly.

K: But why haven't they ever questioned this?

B: Well, what would make them question it?

K: Obviously ( the accumulated frustration involved in?) this constant struggle for the more.

B: But they thought that was necessary for ( their spiritual) progress.

K: But is that ( an authentic) progress? Is that the same outward urge to 'become something better' moved into the psychological realm?

B: Yes. Now, why it does harm in the psychological realm ?

K: The very nature of accumulation brings about a division between you and me, and so on.

B: Could we make that point more clear, because it is a crucial point.

K: Yes : I have accumulated psychologically as a Hindu. Right?

B: Yes.

K: Another has accumulated as a Muslim.

B: There are thousands of divisions.

K: Therefore accumulation in its very nature divides people. And therefore the division creates conflict... Man has sought psychological security, and that (illusory inward sense of) security with its accumulation is the factor of human division. So, you said that's why human beings have accumulated, not realizing its consequences. But now, realizing that, is it possible not to accumulate (psychological stuff?) ? I mean, that's tremendous.

B: Yes, because it seems the human mind automatically accumulates.

K: For the very clear and simple reason, in accumulation, as outwardly, it feels safe, secure.

B: Yes...and having got on into this trap it was very hard for the ( temporal) mind to get out, because it was already (pre-) occupied with this process of accumulation and it becomes very hard to see anything (inwardly )

K: Yes, suppose my mind is filled with this constant occupation, which is (gathering & processing?) psychological knowledge, can all that (subliminal process?) 'end'?

B: Yes... ?

K: Of course it can !

B: But only if the mind will get to the root of it.

K: Of course it can see it's an illusion ( a self-delusion?) that in accumulation there is ( real psychological ?) security.

B: Well, at a certain level one has drawn a map of this whole process. Then the question is, when you have a map you must now be able to look at the country. The map may be useful ( for one's general orientation?) but it's not quite enough. So, we are saying that desire is what keeps people going on with it.

K: Not only desire but this deep-rooted instinct to accumulate.

B: Like the squirrel ?

K: Like the squirrel, yes. For the future, for safety. That and desire go together. Right?

B: Well, it builds up into an intense desire...

K: So desire plus accumulation is the ( generating) factor of division, conflict and all the rest of it. Now, I'm asking, can that ( momentum of thought & desire?) end ? And does the mind become free of accumulation?

B: Yes, I think that...

K: Yes sir, I think it can, with us (two) . That is, have no 'psychological' knowledge at all, knowledge is accumulation, and so on and so on.

B: Yes, I think that we have to consider that knowledge goes very much further than is ordinarily meant. Not just book knowledge or...

K: ...( knowledge accumulated through) experience - of course.

B: But, I think that in accumulating, for example if you're getting knowledge of yourself then you build up an image, a ( mental) picture of yourself and everything goes into that and one expects it to continue. Right?

K: Can one have ( a complete?knowledge of oneself?

B: No, but if one thinks that there is ( an accumulated) knowledge about what sort of person you are (and what you have achieved?) that builds up into a self-image with all its expectations..

K: But after all, if you have ( accumulated ) knowledge of yourself, you have built an image already.

B: That's right, yes, but that's the same, the tendency is to say that there's a transfer of what you do with the outside, saying, as you observe this microphone you build up knowledge, that enters into your picture of it, your perception of it, then you say I do the same with myself. That I know the sort of person I should be or I am and it builds up, there's a lot of accumulation that builds up in forms that we don't ordinarily call 'knowledge', for example, preferences, likes and dislikes.

K: But once you realize the accumulation of 'psychological' knowledge is an illusion and destructive and causes infinite pain and misery, when you see, it's finished.

B: I was trying to say that very often the word 'knowledge' does not convey all that has to be included. I could say, OK, I know certain things in (scientific) knowledge and it's foolish to have that kind of knowledge about myself, but then there may be other kinds of knowledge which I don't recognise as knowledge, I say that's...

K: What kind, what other kinds of knowledge does one have? Preferences, likes and dislikes, prejudice.

B: Habits ?

K: Habit. All that is ( contained ) in the (self-) image that one has created of oneself ...

B: Yes, and that ( self-identified) image seems extraordinarily real and its qualities don't seem to be just ( the result of accumulating) knowledge.

K: All right, sir. So ( in a nutshell:) we have said, accumulation is time and accumulation is security, and where there is psychological accumulation there must be division. And thought is the movement between the particular and the general, and thought is also born out of the ( self-) image of what has been accumulated. All that is one's inward state. That is deeply imbedded in me.

B: Yes, physically and mentally.

K: All round. Physically it is somewhat necessary...

B: Yes, but it is overdone even physically.

K: Of course, but (inwardly or?) 'psychologically' , how does that movement come to an end? That is the real question.

B: Yes...

K: Does intelligence play a part in all this?

B: Yes. Well, there has to be intelligence to see this.

K: Is it the 'ordinary' intelligence, or some other ( quality of) intelligence, something entirely different? Another ( inwardly perceptive quality is necessary. Is that quality intelligence? I'm trying to move away from 'insight' for a while.

B: Yes, not to repeat the word so much.

K: Too much. Is this ( quality of directly perceptive) intelligence associated with thought? Is it the outcome of very clear precise, exact, logical, conclusions of thought.

B: You're suggesting this intelligence is of a different quality ?

K: Yes. Is that Intelligence related to Love?

B: I'd say they go together.

K: I'm asking : is this intelligence associated or related, or part of love? One cannot accumulate love. Right?

B: No, ( although some) people might try...

K: It sounds silly!

B: People do try to guarantee love.

K: That is all romantic nonsense... You cannot accumulate love, you cannot associate it with hate, all that. So that Love is something entirely different, And has that Love its own intelligence? Which then operates and ' breaks down the wall' ?

B: Yes... ?

K: All right, sir - I've come to the point where this ('self'-enclosing) wall is so enormous that I can't even jump over it. So I'm now 'fishing around' to see if there is a different (inwardly open?) 'movement' which is not a man-made movement. And that movement may be (the compassionate intelligence of?) Love.

B: So, you are saying it is a movement, not just a feeling?

K: No. So is that ( intelligent movement of Universal?) Love the factor that will break down or dissolve this 'wall'? It's not personal or particular, it is something ( from?) beyond. Right?

B: Yes, but that (holistic quality) has never been part of the background, a man tends to make love particularized, a particular thing or individual, but...

K: I think when one 'loves' with that intelligence, it is ( an inner) ' light'. Now, if that is the factor that'll break down the 'wall' which is in front of me, then I don't know that Love. As a human being, having reached a certain point, I can't go beyond it to find that love - what shall I do? What is the state of my mind when I realize any ( mental) movement on this side of the wall is still strengthening the wall? And I realize there is no movement through meditation or whatever (else) you do, but the mind can't go beyond it.
But you (MrX) come along and say, 'Look, that 'wall' can be dissolved, broken down, if you have ( access to) that quality of Love with its Intelligence.' And I say, 'Excellent, but I don't know what it is.' I realize I can't do anything (about it) , Whatever I do is still within this side of the wall.
So (wisely?) realizing that I cannot possibly do anything, any movement, what takes place in my ( meditating) mind? What has happened to the quality of my mind, which has always moved either to accumulate, to become, all that has stopped. The moment I realize this, no movement. So is there in my mind ( a silent?) revolution - in the sense that (the thought-time) movement has completely stopped ? And if it has, is Love still something beyond the wall?

B: Well, the wall itself is the product of the ( thought-time) process which is illusion.

K: Exactly, I realise the (inwardly perceptve ) 'wall' is ( created by) this movement. So when this (mental) movement ends, that (universal) quality of intelligence, love and so on, is ( present?) there. That's the whole point.

B: Could one say the movement ( of thought-time) ends when it sees that ( at the deeper levels ) it has no point ?

K: It is like, the (instinctive?) skill to see a danger.

B: Well, it could be...

K: Yes. Any danger demands a certain amount of awareness.

B: Yes...

K: But I have never realized that the (inwardly) accumulating process is a tremendous danger.

B: Yes, because this process seems to be the essence of one's security.

K: Of course. Now, you point it out to me, and ( if ???) I'm listening to you very carefully I actually perceive the danger of that. And ( this direct inward?) perception is part of Love, isn't it?

B: You're suggesting that Love is a kind of ( purely spiritual?) energy and that it may momentarily envelop certain things ?

K: So ( an inward) perception without any motive, without any direction, etc., perception of the ( smoke?) 'wall' which has been created by this movement of accumulation, the very perception of that is (an action of) Intelligence and Love.
We'd better stop ( on a 'good ball'?) - it's half past twelve. When do we meet again?

B: It's on Thursday, in two days.

K: Thursday. Right, sir.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 #260
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

 13-th ( 'reader-friendly' edited) K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (1980)

Krishnamurti: The other other day we came to the ( critical) point when after one has been through all kinds of travail, (self-) investigation, and insight, one comes to a 'blank wall', and that 'blank wall' can only wither away or be broken down when there is Love and (its insightful ?) Intelligence. That is where we came to the other day. But before we go (deeper) into that I would like (to take a detour and  ?) ask: why do human beings, however intelligent, however learned, however philosophical and religious, they always fall into this 'groove' ?

Bohm: Yes, well I think the groove is inherent in the nature of the accumulated knowledge.

K: Are you saying then that knowledge invariably must create a (time-binding?) groove?

B: Perhaps not 'must', but it has in the way it has developed in mankind. The 'psychological' knowledge that is...

K: We are talking of that, obviously.

B: But this 'psychological' knowledge I would agree must create a ( self-centred) groove.

K: But why does the mind not see the danger of it, see its mechanical repetition, that there is nothing new in it and it keeps on doing it.

B: You see I think when we were discussing this accumulation of knowledge which really constitutes a groove because the knowledge accumulated ( for psychological purposes?) seems to have a significance far beyond, what its real significance is, that it carries a (vital) necessity. If we say we have knowledge of some object, like the microphone, that knowledge has some limited significance. But the knowledge about the nation to which you belong seems to have immense significance.

K: Yes, yes. So is this ( psychological) 'significance' the cause of this narrowing down of the mind?

B: Well, it 'holds' the mind, this knowledge has a tremendous value beyond all other values. It makes the mind stick to that because it seems the most important thing in the world.

K: In India, there is this philosophy saying that knowledge must end - you know it, of course, the 'Vedanta' ( ending the knowledge of the Vedas) . But apparently very, very, very few people do end ( their own 'psychological'?) knowledge and talk from freedom.

B: You see, this knowledge about the 'self' seems to be extremely important, worth holding on to. So, although a ( Vedanta) person may verbally say it should end..

K: You mean I am so 'stupid' (inwardly blind?) that I don't see that this psychological knowledge has very little significance and my mind clings to it?

B: Yes, I wouldn't quite put it that a person is that 'stupid' but rather to say that the (subliminal attachment to this) knowledge 'stupefies' the brain.

K: Stupefied, all right, but it doesn't seem able to extricate itself.

B: Because it is already so 'stupefied' (put to sleep inwardly?) that it can't see what it is doing.

K: I have been watching this for many years, why human beings think or attempt to become free from certain things, and yet this is the root of it. You understand? This 'psychological' accumulation (& processing of one's personal experience) which becomes ( the 'blank wall' of?) psychological knowledge and so it divides and all kinds of things happen around it and within it. And yet the mind refuses to let go.

B: Yes...

K: Is it that it doesn't see (its implicit danger?) ? Or it has given to knowledge such immense importance because there is ( a very realistic illusion of) safety or security in it?

B: It seems to be a source of ( temporal) security but in some way this kind of knowledge has taken on the significance of the 'absolute', you see, when knowledge should be properly 'relative'...

K: I realize all this and I realize the significance and the value of knowledge at different levels of human existence , but deeper down inside one, this accumulated (& cvasi-crystallised?) knowledge is very, very destructive.

B: That is true, but this (psychological) knowledge deceives the mind so that the person is not normally aware of its destructive nature....

K: Is that why human beings cling to it?

B: Well, we don't know exactly how they got started on it, but once it gets started the mind is generally functioning in a (self-protected?) state in which there is a tremendous defensive mechanism to avoid looking at the whole question.

K: Why?

B: Because it seems something supremely precious (one's identitary 'self'?) might be at stake.

K: One is strangely (inventive and/or ?) 'intelligent' in other directions, capable and efficient, having a great deal of (money making?) skill, but here, where the root of all this trouble is, why don't we comprehend it fully? You must know this...

B: I think once this has happened there is ( an inwardly blind self- protective mentality ?) that resists ( or objects to any holistic action of ?) intelligence.

K: So what shall I do as a (holistically minded?) man, with all this ( self-protective) knowledge which I have accumulated, which is divisive, which is destructive and yet I hold on to it... I realize I must let it go but I can't? I think this is the average person's problem - a problem which arises when we are a little bit serious about all this. Is it due to the lack of energy?

B: Not primarily. You see the (existing intelligent?) energy is being dissipated by the process.

K: Having dissipated a great deal of energy (in the outer world?) I haven't got the energy to grapple with this.

B: The ( necessary mental?) energy is constantly being dissipated and the average person may be a little worn down but he could recover it, if only this wastage would stop. I don't think it is the main point.

K: So my next ( experiential) question is: how am I to break down this (self-protective) 'blank wall' ?

B: Well, I am not sure that it is clear in general to people that ( functioning efficiently in the field of ?) knowledge is doing all this. You see this knowledge is experienced as some (identtary) entity, this knowledge creates the (temporal?) 'me' and the me is now experienced as an actual entity which is not knowledge, but some real being. Right?

K: Are you saying the (identitary sense of one's?) being is different from knowledge?

B: It certainly appears to be different ...

K: But is it?

B: It isn't, but it has a very powerful ability.

K: But that has been my ( ages old survivalistic ?) conditioning...

B: That is true. Now the question is, how do we get through that (psychologically active firewall) to break down the (highly knowledgeable?) groove (of thought-time) - because it creates an imitation or a pretension of a state of being.

K: It seems so utterly hopeless. And realizing the (statistically based?) hopelessness I sit back and say, I can't do anything. But if I apply my mind to it then the question arises: is it possible (just for myself?) to function without ( the screen of?) 'psychological' knowledge in this world?

B: That is right. But if you would tell this to somebody he may say : it looks reasonable perhaps, but let's say that his status is threatened. It doesn't seem to him that it is just (a matter of) knowledge but something more. Knowledge seems to be at first sight something passive, something which you know, which you could use if you wanted to and which you could fail to use if you don't want to, just put it aside... But when the moment ( a personal crisis) comes, this ( identitary psychological ) knowledge no longer appears to be just simple 'knowledge' (but a ' knowing attitude' ?)

K: Now, a ( holistically minded?) human being, I ( begin to?) see how important it is not to be caught in the (time-binding?) process of this 'psychological' knowledge, but...it is always dodging me, it is like a 'hide and seek' (mind game ? ). ( Anyway...?) this is the 'blank wall' that has to be broken down. And we said that it can be 'broken down' through Love and (its own ?) Intelligence. Aren't we asking something enormously difficult? I am behind this side of the wall, and you are asking me to have that love and intelligence which will destroy the wall. But I don't know what that love is, what that intelligence is, because I am caught in this, on this side of the wall. I realize what you are saying is accurate, true, logical, and I see the importance of it, but the wall is so strong and dominant and powerful that I can't get beyond it. And we said the other day that the wall can be broken down through insight... ( Unfortunately...?) that 'insight' becomes a (new intellectual) idea, not an actuality. When you (Mr X) describe the ( nature of this) insight, how it is brought about and so on, I immediately make a (mental) abstraction of it, which means I move away from the (potentially disturbing) fact and the abstraction becomes all important. Which means ( remaining in the field of) knowledge. So I am back again.

B: Well, I think the (experiential) difficulty is that this ( psychological) knowledge is not just sitting there as a form of information but it is extremely active, meeting every moment and shaping every moment according to one's past knowledge, so even when we raise this issue, this knowledge is all the time waiting and then acting. My point is that in our whole cultural tradition knowledge is not active but passive, while in fact it is really active (in many obscure ways?) but people don't generally think of it that way.

K: Of course...

B: It is waiting to act, you see. And even before you try to do something about it, this knowledge is already acting. By the time you realize that this is the problem it has already acted...

K: Yes...But do I realize it as an idea which I must carry out? You see the difference?

B: Yes, the first point is that (the knowledgeable attitude of this psychologically active) knowledge automatically turns everything into an idea which you must carry out (or...not) . That is the whole way it is built. Right?

K: That is the whole way I have lived. How am I to 'break ( through') this (all- knowing attitude?) even for a second?

B: It seems to me that this would be possible only if this knowledge could become aware of itself at work, but the point is that this ( core of) knowledge seems to work unawares, you see, it is just simply waiting there and then acts and by that time it has disrupted the natural order of the brain.

K: I am very concerned about this because wherever I go this is what is happening. Would you say the capacity to listen is far more important than any of these explanations, any logic, (just) to listen?

B: It comes to the same problem.

K: No, it doesn't. When I listen to ( the inward truth of) what you (Mr X) are saying, the wall ( of self-centredness?) has 'broken' down...

B: So, if it's a matter of capacity to listen then...the (time-bound ) mind of the ordinary man is full of ( personal problems & ) opinions, so... he can't listen.

K: You can't 'listen' ( to truth?) with opinions, you might be just as well dead.

B: You see, I think (the psychologically motivated?) knowledge has a tremendous number of defences, it has evolved in such a way that it resists (the deeper truths) , is built so as to resist seeing this, so it has opinions which also act immediately.

K: I understand that, sir. But there must be a communication between you (Mr X) and me who is the ordinary man, a communication that is so strong that the very act of listening to you and you communicating with me operates. You follow?

B: Yes, but then you have to break through this opinion, through the whole structure.

K: Of course, of course. That is why I have come here. As an ordinary man I have come for that. I have left all the churches and all that stuff, I have thrown them years away, I have finished with all that. I have just come here and I realize all that has been said here is true and I am burning to find out. When you communicate with me your communication is so strong, so real. You follow? You are not speaking from knowledge, you are not speaking from opinion and all the rest of it. You are really a free human being who is trying to communicate with me.

B: Right...

K: And can I listen with that intensity which, you the communicator, is giving me?

B: Well, we would have to ask, is the ordinary man full of that (passion for truth?) ?

K: No, I said I am an ( 'ex-) ordinary' man but I have moved away from all that, I have come here. I have left all that behind and I want to listen to somebody who is telling the truth and in the very telling of it something is taking place in me. You are telling me about something which I know must be enormously important because you have given your life to it, and as a student I have given up so much just to come here. Is it the fault of you (Mr X) who are communicating with me that I don't receive it instantly? Or is it my fault that I am incapable of really 'listening' to you?

B: Well, whichever it is, but suppose the difficulty is that I am incapable of 'listening', then what can be done?

K: Nothing can be done. If I am incapable of 'listening' (non-verbally?) because I am full of ( my own ?) prejudices, opinions, and judgements, defences and all the rest, then, of course, I won't listen to you.

B: Well let's say there is somebody who comes along who has got through some of these defences and so on, but perhaps there are others that he is not aware of, you see ? There is something not quite so simple as that.

K: I think it is dreadfully simple somehow : if I could listen with all my being, with all my attention, it takes place. I think it is as simple as that...
But you see, sir, if there is a (time) interval between my telling and your absorbing, in that interval is the danger (of incomprehension?) . If I didn't listen to it with all my being, it is finished ('game over'?) . Is it because you are not offering me any pleasure, any gratification ? You are saying : ''it is so, take it !''. But my mind is so (surreptitiously ) involved in ( seeking the ultimate?) pleasure, I won't (really) listen to anything that is not completely satisfactory. I realize too the ( spiritual?) danger of that...

B: Danger?

K: Of seeking satisfaction and pleasure and all that. I say, 'All right, I won't, I see what I am doing' - so I put that aside too. No pleasure, no reward, no fear of punishment in my listening - only pure observation.
So is this pure observation, which is actually 'listening', is that pure observation (the act of?) Love? The (direct) perception without any motive, direction, pure perception is Love. And in that perception (of) Love is intelligence. They are not three separate things, they are all one thing. I have a feeling for it. Because you have lead me very carefully - not lead me - you have pointed out very carefully step by step, and I have come to that point, I have a feeling for it and say, 'By Jove, that is so !' But... its (inward clarity) goes away so quickly. Then begins, 'How am I get it back?' Again the 'remembrance' of it, which is knowledge, blocks.

B: Well what you are saying is that every time there is a communication, knowledge gets to work in many different forms.

K: So you see, it is enormously difficult to be (inwadly) free of (one's 'self'-identified?) knowledge.

B: Could we ask why doesn't knowledge (stay put &?) wait until it is needed?

K: Ah, that requires to be psychologically (inwardly) free of knowledge, and when the occasion arises you are acting from freedom, not from knowledge.
To put it rather succinctly, that is freedom from knowledge (or the freedom from the known?) , and from this freedom one actually communicates, not from knowledge. That is, from 'emptiness', and from that state of complete freedom there is communication.

B: Yes...

K: Now, sir, can I communicate with you from freedom? Suppose I, as a human being, have come to that point where there is complete freedom from knowledge and from that freedom an (authentic) communication takes place. Can I be in such a state of mind to receive that communication?

B: Well, it seems that knowledge itself does not ordinarily see that knowledge is not free.

K: It is never free.

B: No, but at first sight, you are free to use your knowledge...But (if the mind isn't free from the known?) any activity of knowledge is part of the un-freedom.

K: Of course... If I am going to understand myself (in real time ?) there must be (the inner ) freedom to look at myself.

B: And knowledge has ( a lot of expectations & ) pressures in it to prevent you.

K: Knowledge prevents me from (directing ) 'looking', that is so obvious !

B: Well I mean it may be obvious at this stage (of insightful meditation?) but generally people don't see that...

K: To 'look' I must be somewhat free of opinions, (value) judgements and evaluations ... So, how will you communicate with me who have come to a certain point when I am really burning to receive what you are saying, so completely it is finished? Am I, having come here in that state really? Or am I fooling myself?

B: Well that is the question: ( the psychologically motivated?) knowledge is constantly deceiving itself. I would say it is not even that I am deceiving myself but knowledge has a 'built-in' tendency to deceive itself...

K: So, sir, is my ( time-bound) mind always deceiving itself?

B: The tendency is constantly there when knowledge is operating psychologically.

K: So what shall I do?

B: Again I think it is the same point: (take all the necessary leisure ) to listen.

K: Why don't we listen, sir? Why don't we immediately understand this thing, instantly, immediately, why? One can give the reasons why - old age, conditioning, laziness, ten different things.

B: Well, these are only superficial cause ... But would it be possible to give the deep reason for it?

K: You see, sir, is it that this (psychological) knowledge (identifying itself as ) the 'me' is so tremendously strong as an 'idea', not as a 'fact'?

B: Yes, I understand it is a (crystallised?) idea. That is what I tried to say, that this idea has ( gathered around itself) a tremendous significance and meaning. For example, suppose you have the idea of 'God', this takes on a tremendous power.

K: Or like I am British, or French, it gives me a great energy...

B: ... and it creates a (self-identified mental ?) state which seems to be the very being of the 'self'. So, the person doesn't experience it as mere knowledge but feels it's something very powerful which doesn't seem to be just knowledge. Is there anything that could be communicated about this overwhelming power that seems to come with knowledge.

K: And with identification !

B: Identification... that seems to be worth looking into.

K: What is the root meaning of 'identification'?

B: Well, it is 'always the same'...The 'self' is always the same. At least, it tries to be always the same in essence if not in details.

K: Yes, yes.

B: I think this is the thing that goes wrong with knowledge : that knowledge tries to find what is permanent and perfect and 'always the same'. I mean even independent of any of us... you see. It seems in-built in the brain cells..

K: From this arises a question: is it possible to diligently attend? 'Diligence' in the sense of being accurate.

B: Literally it means to take pains...

K: To take pains, of course...to take the whole if it. Sir, there must be some other way round all this intellectual business. We have exercised a great deal of intellectual capacity and that intellectual capacity has led to the 'blank wall' . I approach it from every direction and eventually the 'wall' is there, which is the 'me', ( thought's self-identification?) with my knowledge, my prejudice, and all the rest of it - 'me'. And the 'me' then says, 'I must do something about it' - which is still the 'me'.

B: Well the 'me' wants to be always the same at the same time it tries to be different...

K: Put on a different coat. But it is always the same. So the mind which is functioning ( identifying itself ) with the 'me' ; is always the same mind !

B: You see, (thought) being 'always the same' gives a tremendous force. Now is it possible ( for the mind) to let go that 'always the same', you know?

K: You see, this comes back to the fundamental question: what will make this 'wall' totally disappear? I think, sir, that it is only possible when I can give my total attention to what you (Mr X) are saying. There is no other means to break down this (psychological) wall - not the intellect, not the emotions, not any of these things. When somebody who is beyond the wall, has gone beyond it, broken down the wall, says, 'Listen, forGgod's sake, listen !' (Clue:) When I ( truly) listen to you, my mind is empty. So it is finished.

B: I think that something will actually happen, but... in its own time.

K: ( If the totality of the ) mind is empty and therefore 'listening', it is finished !
To put it differently : in order to discover something new as a scientist, you must have a certain (state of inward) 'emptiness' ( the humble state of 'not-knowing' ?) from which there will be a different perception.

B: Yes, but I think there is a difference in the sense that the scientist's mind may be 'empty' with regard to that particular question, allowing for discovery and insight into that question.

K: But without any 'specialization', doesn't this ( inward state of) 'emptiness' hold in it everything ? It is most extraordinary when you ( meditatively?) go into it...

B: If a person can take this scientific attitude and question the whole of knowledge..

K: Oh, of course, of course...

B: But some (more thoughtful?) people would feel they must keep knowledge in one area in order to be able to question it in another. You see with what ( background of) knowledge do I question that (psychological) knowledge?

K: Yes, quite...

B: In a way we do have some knowledge because we have seen that this whole structure, we have gone through it logically and rationally and seen that the whole structure makes no sense, that it is inconsistent and has no meaning. The structure of psychological knowledge has no meaning.

K: Would you ask then from that 'emptiness': is there a Ground or a Source from which all things begin? Matter, human beings, their capacities, the whole movement starts from there.

B: We could consider that (possibility in our meditation homework?) But let's try to clarify it a little. We have the 'emptiness'...

K: Yes, ( a state of inward) emptiness in which there is no movement of thought as knowledge...

B: As 'psychological' knowledge ?

K: Of course, and therefore no time.

B: No 'psychological' time ?

K: Yes, no psychological time.

B: Though we still have the (chronological time indicated by the ) watch...

K: Yes. We have gone beyond that, don't let's go back to it.

B: These ( holistically used?) words are often confusing, they can carry wrong meanings...

K: There is no 'psychological' time, no movement of thought. And is there in that emptiness the beginning of all movement?

B: Well, would you say the 'emptiness' is the Ground then?

K: Let's go slowly into this. Shall we postpone this for another day?

B: Well perhaps it should be gone into more carefully... ? In California we were saying there is the 'emptiness' and beyond that is the Ground.

K: I know, I know...

B: So, we'll leave it for the time...

K: When do we meet again?

B: It is two days from now, on Saturday.

K: The day after tomorrow ?

B: Yes.

K: Right, sir.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 06 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Feb 2020 #261
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

 
14-th ( 'reader-friendly' edited ) K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM 1980

Krishnamurti: We talked the other day about the (meditating?) mind that is entirely free from all ( thought-time) movement, from all the things that thought has put there, that thought has brought about, has experienced, the past and the future and so on. But before we go into that I would like to (take a brief detour & ?) ask, what is the nature of 'materialism'?

B: Well, consider first of all materialism is the name of a certain philosophical ( mentality asserting ) that matter is all there is.

K: I want to go into that a little bit. That is, all nature, all human beings react physically and this reaction is sustained by thought. So ( thought's mental) reaction as in nature, in animals, in human beings, is the 'materialistic' response.

B: Well, I think the word materialistic is not quite right. It is the 'response of matter'.

K: All right, the response of matter. That's better...
We were talking about having an empty mind and we have come to that point when the wall has been broken down and this emptiness and what lies beyond it, or through it, and so on, we will come to that, but before I begin with that, as I said: are all thought's reactions of a matterial nature ?

B: Well, there is a lot of evidence in favour of that  - science has found a tremendous number of reactions which are due to the nerves.

K: Yes...so would you call 'material movement' the reactions which exist in all organic matter?

B: Yes, all ( forms of living) matter go by the law of action and reaction. Every action has a corresponding reaction.

K: So 'action and reaction' is a material process, as thought is. Now to go beyond it - that is the point.

B: Yes. Now some ( materialistically minded?) people might say it has no meaning to go beyond it. That would be the whole philosophy of materialism.

K: But if one is merely living in that area ( one's existence) it is very, very shallow. It has really no ( universal ?) meaning at all. But if one recognizes that thought is a material process and its ' actions & reactions ' are a material movement...

B: Yes...but some ( thought addicted ?) people have said that matter is not merely 'action and reaction' but it may have a creative movement. You see,( within the field of reality ) material life may create new forms.

K: Matter may create new forms, but it is still within that area...

B: Yes, but let's try to make it clear what is the difference, as there are some very subtle forms of materialism which might be difficult to pin down.

K: Let's begin: would you consider, or see that thought is a material process ?

B: Yes, although some people might argue that it is both material and something beyond material.

K: I know, but it is not.

B: How can we say that simply to make it clear?

K: Because any 'movement' (mental activity of?) of thought is a material process, whether it is here or 'beyond'...

B: Well we have to make it more clear so that it is not a matter of ( accepting Mr X's) authority. From observation one sees that thought is a material process, now how would one see it's only that?

K: How would one be aware that it is a material process. I think that is fairly clear. There is a particular experience or an incident, which is being recorded, which ( being processed by thought) becomes 'knowledge', and from that knowledge the next movement of thought ( & time ?) arises and ( the subsequent ?) action takes place....

B: Yes... So you're saying that thought is (only?) that ?

K: Any assertion that it is ( something) beyond is still ( the operation of?) thought.

B: It is still coming from (brain's memory ) background. So anything new coming in there is not part of this process, is that what you are saying?

K: Yes, if there is to be something ( really?) new, (the mental activity of?) thought, as a material process, must end. Obviously !

B: And then it may take it up later ?

K: You see what happens later. So could we say that all (forms of mental) action and reaction and the next action ( resulting ) from the subsequent reaction is ( are?) a movement of matter.

B: A very subtle movement of matter ?

K: Yes, a very subtle movement of matter. So as long as one's mind is ( moving) within that area, it must be a movement of matter.

B: Well, let's proceed from there then....

K: So is it possible for the ( meditating ? ) mind to go beyond ( its personal ) reactions ? That is the next step obviously. As we said yesterday morning in our group discussion, one gets irritated and that is the first reaction. Then the reaction to that is 'I must not (get so nervous about that ?) '. Then the third (thinker-level?) reaction, 'I must control it ', or justify it. So it( the self-centred mind ) is constantly (engaged in a chain of) actions and reactions. Can one see this is a continuous ( thought-time?) movement without an ending?

B: This (mental chain of action &) reaction is actually continuous, although it seems at a certain moment to have ended, and the next moment appears to be a 'new' moment...

K: But it is still ( a 'time & thought' ?) reaction.

B: It is still the same, but it presents itself differently.

K: That's right...

B: It is always the same (mental process but?) it presents itself as always different, as always new.

K: That is just it. You say something, I get irritated, but that irritation is a reaction.

B: Yes, but it seems to be something suddenly new.

K: But it is not...(since the 'thinker' entity is the same?)

B: Yet, one has to become aware of that....

K: Of course, of course...

B: But generally the mind tends not to be aware of it.

K: But after discussing a great deal ( with Mr X) and talking (in various discussion groups ?) one can (become aware of it?) .

B: We are 'attentive' to it.

K: Yes, we are sensitive to it, alert to the question. So there is an ending to (thought & thinker's) reaction if one is watchful, attentive and by having an insight into this reacting process, it can ( of course?) come to an end. It is very important to understand this (generally ignored point ?) , before we discuss ( the meditation related question of?) what is an empty mind and if there is something beyond, or in that very emptying of the mind there is some other quality. So is (one's attempt of emptying the ) mind a reaction to (one's endless existential) problems of pain and pleasure and suffering, along with the reaction to escape from all this into some ( problem-free?) state of 'nothingness' ?

B: Well the mind can always do that, if it fails to notice ( that it is constantly driven by the principle of ) 'pain and pleasure'...

K: Of course, it can (just) invent it and that becomes an illusion. ( We went at another time) into the question and said that desire is the beginning of illusion) Now we have come to the ( Meditation 'Check-?) point' where this quality of ( inward) 'emptiness' ( or of 'nothingness') is not a ( psychologically motivated?) reaction. So, is it possible to have a (meditating?) mind that is really completely empty of all the things that (the self-centred process of ) thought has put together?

B: When thought ceases to react ?

K: That's it.

B: Thought being ( basically?) a material process, perhaps we could say that its reactions ar due to the (unpredictable) nature of matter which is continually reacting and moving, but then... is (brain's ) matter affected by this insight?

K: Does insight affect the cells of the brain which contain all the memory (of the past )?
B: The ( brain cells' ) memory is continually moving, as does the air and the water, everything around us. Now if nothing (extraneous would) happen, why would it ever stop?

K: Quite. ..After all sir, if I don't react physically I am paralysed. But (mentally) reacting continuously is also a form of paralysis (or senility?)

B: Yes, the (mental) reactions around the psychological structure...
But now assuming that this (kind of) reactions around the psychological structure have begun in ( the distant past of) mankind why should it ever stop, because one reaction makes another and another...

K: It is like a ( cause-effect) chain, endless.

B: Yes, and one would expect it to go on for ever, unless something will stop it. Right?

K: Only ( a global) insight into the nature of reaction ends ( the karmic chain of) psychological (actions &) reactions...

B: Yes... then you are saying that (brain's ) matter is affected by 'insight', which is beyond matter ?

K: Yes. So, is this (state of inward) 'emptiness' within the brain itself?

B: Yes, although no matter what the question is, thought ( the thinking brain?) feels it can always make a (positive?) contribution.

K: Quite....

B: In the past thought did not understand that there are areas where it has no useful contribution to make, but it keeps on ( trying) by saying ( this state of inner) emptiness is very good, therefore I will try to help bring about (more?) 'emptiness'....

K: We have been through all that, but I have come to a point: is this emptiness within the mind itself, or beyond it?

B: What do you mean here by the 'mind' ?

K: The mind being the whole (mental structure, including?) emotions, thought, (self-)consciousness & the ( thinking) brain - the whole of that is ( holistically called?) the 'mind'.

B: This word 'mind' has been used in many ways. Now you are using it in a (holistical ?) way as representing the whole material process - thought, feeling, desire and will... ?

K: Yes, the whole material process.

B: Which many people have called 'non-material'.

K: Quite...But the ( temporal ?) mind is the whole material process...

B: ...which is going on in the brain and the nerves ?

K: The whole of it. And one can see ( for meditation homework that ?) this process of material ('action & ) reaction' can (come to a natural?) ending . And the next ( bonus?) question I was asking is: is that 'emptiness' within or ( coming from ) elsewhere ?

B: Where would it be?

K: It is (from with)in the mind itself. Not ( from) outside it. Right?

B: Yes...

K: Now what is the next step? Does this (inward state of?) emptiness contain nothing, 'not-a-thing'?

B: Well, 'not a thing' , means anything that has form, structure, stability ?

K: No form, structure, capacity, reaction - all that (kind of 'things') . It contains none of that. Is it then total energy?

B: Yes, ( a free?) movement of ( Universal) energy. The 'real world' can be regarded as made up of a large number of 'things' which react to each other and that is one kind of (material) movement. But we are saying it is a different kind of energy movement.

K: Entirely different.

B: Which has no 'things' in it ?

K: No 'things' in it and therefore it not of time - right? That (state of inward) emptiness has no 'centre' as the 'me' with all (its psychologically motivated ) reactions and so on. ( In a nutshell:) In that (inward) 'emptiness' there is a movement of timeless energy.

B: Yes, when you say 'timeless energy' - we have already said that time and thought are the same.

K: Yes, of course.

B: Then you were saying that time can only come into a material process.

K: Time can only come into a material process, that's right.

B: Now if we have an energy that is timeless but nevertheless (alive  & moving ) … what is this movement?

K: Is there an (inwardly creative ) 'movement' which has no beginning and no ending? That is, thought has a beginning and thought has an ending. There is a movement of (brain's) matter as reaction and the ending of that reaction.

B: Yes, within the brain...

K: In the brain. There are various kinds of 'movements' (within the field of reality?) . That is all we know, and someone comes along and says there is a totally different kind of (timeless?) movement. But (one's mind) must be free of the movement of the material process of thought, and of its movement in time, to understand a (living ) movement (of Creation) that is not...

B: ...that has no beginning and no ending, but also which is not determined as a series of (causal) successions from the past - it is not a series of causes & effects one following the other.

K: Of course. No (time binding) causation.

B: You see, (the material world) can be looked at as a series of causes & effects , but you are saying that this (inwardly creative ?) 'movement' has no beginning and no ending, meaning that it is not the result of a series of causes, one following another without end...

K: Sir, do we want to understand, verbally even, a 'movement' that is not a (material) movement ?

B: Then why you call it a 'movement' if it is not a movement?

K: Because it is 'active'.... It has a tremendous (life-creating ?) energy, but in that energy (there is ) a stillness (an inner peace ???) .

B: Well, the ordinary language does not convey it properly, but this energy (of Creation) itself is still and is also 'moving' (alive?) …

K: Yes, within that movement it is a movement of stillness.

B: This movement (of Universal Creation?) can be said to emerge from stillness ?

K: That's what it is, sir. And is the (meditating?) mind capable of that extraordinary stillness without any movement? And when it is so completely still, there is a ( creative?) movement ( born ) out of it...

B: Well , some people have had this notion in the past - such as Aristotle, who talked about the 'unmoved mover' - that is the way he tried to describe God.... but I think that since then (this concept ) has gone out of fashion,

K: Was it an intellectual concept or an actuality?

B: This is very hard to tell because so little is known (about his life) but I wanted to point out that other very respectable people have had ( the vision of) something similar. ..

K: And is that 'movement out of stillness', is that the movement of Creation? ( Hint : ) This creation is not expressed in form... And would you say, sir, that this movement (of Creation) is eternally new?

B: Yes. It is eternally new in the sense that the creation is eternally new ?

K: Creation is eternally new. You see I think that is what the artists are trying to find out. Therefore they indulge in all kinds of various absurdities, but to come to that (Meditation Check-?) point where the mind is absolutely silent, completely silent, and out of that ( inward peace & ) silence there is this movement which is eternally new. But the moment when that movement is expressed...

B: ... then it gets fixed ( crystallised ) and it may become a barrier.

K: I was told, once by an Indian scholar, that (in the ancient times) before they began to sculpture a head of a god, or whatever it is, they had to go into deep ( state of contemplation & ) meditation. At the right moment they took up the hammer and the chisel...

B: To have it coming straight out of that (state of creative) emptiness... ? Actually thought could be also looked at that way. You see the marble is already too static, (although) it stays ( in museums?) for thousands of years. So although the original sculptor may have understood (the true meaning of it?) , the people who follow see it as a fixed form.

K: Sir, what relationship has all that (meditative endeavour?) to my daily life? What way does that act through my everyday actions, through my ordinary physical responses to noise, to pain, various forms of physical disturbances. What relationship has one's physical existence to that 'silent movement (of Creation?) ?

B: Well in so far as the mind is silent then (one's thinking) is orderly.

K: Yes, it is orderly. And would you say that silent movement with its unending newness, 'is' ( reflecting?) total order of the Universe?

B: Yes, we could consider that the (Cosmic?) Order of the universe emerges from this silence and emptiness.

K: So what is the relationship of one's mind to the ( Order of the?) Universe?

B: The human mind in general ?

K: Beyond the particular and the general mind there is the Mind.

B: Well would you say that Mind is universal?

K: I don't like to use the word 'universal'... Can't we find a different word? A mind that is beyond a particular...

B: Well, it has been called the 'absolute'.

K: I don't want to use that word absolute either...

B: The word 'absolute' means literally that which is free of all limitations, of all dependence, right?

K: All right, if you agree that absolute means freedom from all dependence, from all limitations. Let's use that word for the moment for our convenience, in our dialogue. There is this absolute stillness and in that stillness or from that stillness there is a movement and that movement is everlastingly new. And what is the relationship of this ('absolute' ) mind to the ( creative order of the?) Universe?

B: To the universe of matter?

K: To the whole universe. Matter, trees, nature, man, the heavens.

B: Well that is a very interesting ( academical?) question...

K: The Universe is (functioning?) in order, whether destructive or constructive, it is still order.

B: Well, this ( Cosmic) order has the character of being absolutely necessary. In the sense that it cannot be otherwise. The order that we usually know is not absolutely necessary, it could be changed, it could depend on something else, any ordinary order is contingent, it depends on something. But in considering the order of the whole universe, it cannot be otherwise.

K: Quite. Now in the universe there is order and this mind which is ( in peace with itself & ?) still, is completely in order.

B: The deep mind, the absolute ?

K: The absolute mind. So is this mind (an integral part of the order of) the universe?

B: In what sense ?

K: It means sir, is there a division, or a barrier, between this 'absolute' mind and the ( intelligent Order of the?) Universe? Or are both the same?

B: Both are the same, right...

K: That is what I want to get at. I want to be quite sure we are not treading on something which really needs a very, very, subtle (approach), great care, you know what I mean?

B: (To recap:) We have said the body is physical, it is material. And we said the mind which is in the body - thought, feeling desire, the general and the particular mind is a part of the material process. And therefore what we usually call the mind is not different from what we usually call the ( psychosomatic?) body.

K: Quite, quite...

B: Now you are making this much greater in considering the order of the whole universe. And we say what we call the mind in the universe, is it different from what we call the universe itself?

K: That's right. You see, that's why I feel in our daily life there must be ( a holistically friendly?) order, an order that is...

B:... free of limitations ?

K: Free of limitations, yes. In terms of one's daily life this means no conflict whatsoever, no contradictions, and all the rest of that. So if in my daily life there is complete order in which there is no disturbance, what is the relationship of that order to the never ending order (ofthe Universe?) ? Can that silent movement of ( Cosmic) order, of that extraordinary something, can that affect my daily life when I have a deep inward psychological order?

B: Yes, if the (inward) order human being in his daily life can be similar.

K: Obviously. So that ( Intelligent Order of the ) Universe, which is in total order, does affect my daily life...

B: Yes....although some brain scientists might ask 'how ?'. You see, it is not so clear how this absolute Mind affects their daily life.

K: Ah! What is my daily life? A series of reactions and disorder...

B: Well, inwardly it is mostly that.

K: Mostly. And thought is always struggling to bring order within that.

B: Yes...

K: And even when it does that, it is still disorder.

B: Because thought is always limited by its own contradictions.

K: Of course. Thought is always creating disorder because it is itself limited.

B: Yes, even the highest order you can produce is limited.

K: Limited. And the ( meditating?) mind realizes its limitation and says, let's go beyond it.

B: Let's try to make it clear what is wrong with thought's limitation?

K: In that limitation there is no freedom, it is (at best a?) limited freedom.

B: Yes. So eventually we come to the boundary of our freedom... Something not known to us makes us react and through reaction we would fall back into ( man's existential) contradiction.

K: Yes, I am always moving within a certain area (within the field of the known?)

B: Therefore I am under the control of (its inertial?) forces...

K: The (creative human) mind inevitably rebels against that.

B: That is an important point. You see the mind wants freedom. Right?

K: Obviously.

B: Yes, it says that is the highest value...although some people get used to it and say, 'I accept it'.

K: I won't accept it. My mind says there must be freedom from this (inner) prison (of the known?) . The prison is very nice, very cultured and all the rest of it, but it is still limited and it says there must be freedom beyond all that.

B: Yes, but which mind says this? Is it the particular mind of the human being?

K: Who says there must be freedom? Oh, that is very simple (to explain holistically?) . The very pain, the very suffering, the very all that, demands that we go beyond.

B: So, the particular mind even though it accepts limitation, finds it ( frustrating & ) painful and feels somehow that (something) it is not right... It seems to be a necessity of freedom...

K: ( In a nutshell:) Freedom is necessary and any hindrance to freedom is retrogression. (Inwardly-wise?) this means there must be freedom from reaction, freedom from the limitation of thought, freedom from all the movement of ('thought-) time'. There must be 'complete' (inward ) freedom from all that, before I can really understand the empty mind and the ( intelligent?) order of the universe is then (reflected) in the order of the mind. Am I willing to go that far ( in my meditation homework) ?

B : In asking this (excellent rhetorical) question: ''am I willing to go that far ?'', it seems to suggest that there may be something attractive in doing this... ?

K: I am sure, (but) to come to that point and 'let go' ( one's psychological attachments) without conflict, demands its own discipline, its own (inward clarity of) insight. That's why I said (for) those of us who have given a certain amount of time, thought and investigation into all this, can one go as far as that?

B: We went into that.

K: Yes, we have been through all that so I refuse to enter again into all that. Now I say is that ( Intelligent Order of the?) Universe and the mind that has emptied itself of all this, are they one?

B: Are they ?

K: They are not separate, they are one. (However?) we must be very careful not to fall into the trap ( of assuming) that this Universal mind is always there.

B: Yes, well how would you put it then?

K: They have said that God, or Brahman, or the Highest Principle, is always there and all you have to do is to cleanse yourself and arrive at that. Do all kinds of ( strongly recommended?) things to come there. Which is also a very dangerous ( slippery?) statement because then you say, there is the eternal in me.

B: Well, thought is projecting it ; there is a logical difficulty in saying it is always there, because that implies time and it is there every minute, while what we are discussing here has nothing to do with time.

K: Nothing to do with time.

B: So we can't place it as being here, there, now, or then.

K: Sir, we have come to a point, that there is this universal mind, and the human mind can be of that when there is ( inward?) freedom.
I think that is enough, isn't it?

B: Well that should be enough. You want to continue next week, on Saturday?

K: We will see...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Feb 2020 #262
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

15TH ( reader-friendly edited) K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (1980)

Krishnamurti: Sir, I would like to have a dialogue about something which we were talking about the other day : We have cultivated an (outwardly directed?) mind that can solve almost any technological problem ; but apparently (the inner) human problems have never been solved. Human beings are drowned by their problems: the problems of communication, the problems of knowledge, problems of relationship, problems of heaven and hell - you know, the whole human existence has become a vast complex problem. And apparently throughout history it has been like this. And in spite of his (practical) knowledge, in spite of his centuries of evolution man has never been free of problems.

Bohm: Yes, well really of insoluble problems.

K: I question if human problems are insoluble.

B: Well, I mean as they are put now...

K: As they are, of course, now these problems have become so complex, and so incredibly insoluble, as things are. No politician, or scientist, or philosopher is going to solve them... So what are the things that prevent the solution of these problems, completely? Is it that we have never turned our minds to it because we spend all our days and probably half the night in thinking about (practical &) technical problems that we have no time for the 'other' (inward dimension of human consciousness ?) ?

B: Well, many people feel that the 'other' should take care of itself. I think many people don't give a lot of attention to these problems.

K: I am asking in this ( 'all-purpose' final) dialogue, whether it is possible to have no (psychologically generated?) problems at all. These human problems seem insoluble – but why? Is it due our ( superficial) education? Is it due to our deep rooted mentality to accept things as they are?

B: Yes, well that is certainly part of it. These problems accumulate as civilization gets older, people keep on accepting those very things which make problems...

K: Of course. We are talking about human problems of relationship, of lack of inward freedom, the sense of constant uncertainty, fear, & all the human struggle. The whole thing seems so extraordinarily wrong...

B: Yes, well I think people have lost sight of that. Generally speaking they accept the situation in which they find themselves and try to make the best of it, like trying to solve some little problems to alleviate their situation. They wouldn't even look at the (psychological implications of the?) whole situation very seriously.

K: ( Inwardly speaking ?) we live in 'chaos' (in a chaotic condition?). What is the root of all this? What is the cause of all this human chaos?

B: We have been discussing this (rather academically?) for a long time...

K: I am trying to come to it from a different angle: whether there is an ending to problems. You see personally I refuse to have problems.

B: Well, we'll have to make it clear what you mean because I don't know without an example.

K: I mean by ( psychologically motivated ) problem something that you worry about, something you are endlessly concerned and questioning, answering, doubt, uncertain, and taking some kind of action at the end which you may regret.

B: Let's begin with the technical problem : you have something which needs to be done, and you say that is a problem. Now the word 'problem' is based on the idea of putting forth something, a possible solution and then trying to achieve it.

K: Or I have a (more complex) problem but I don't know how to deal with it. I (may) go (online?) asking people & getting more and more confused...

B: And if you (Mr X) say it is my problem to give up my ( personal) opinions, it doesn't really make sense since it may not seem like an opinion at that point, people may feel it is true. ..

K: They call it 'fact'....

B: Well some ( more thoughtful?) people might say that we have got not only opinions, but self-interest : if two people have self-interests which are (conflicting) as long as they maintain that, there is no way that they can work together. Now how do you break into this (conundrum?) ?

K: That is what I want to discuss.

B: Let's discuss it. Ordinarily when we say 'I see the importance of doing something and I have the intention to do it', I just go and do it. But ( in Mr X's schools ?) there is a new factor coming in : a person sees something is important and he intends to do it, but... he can't 'do it'.

K: That's it, and that creates a (major psychological) 'problem' to him...

B: And to everybody... So, why is it that we cannot carry out our ( bestest?) intentions? It seems puzzling...

K: One can give many reasons for that but one's ( holistic?) explanations don't actually solve the problem. Take for instance : ''what will make a human mind change?'' One is seeing it is necessary and yet one is incapable or unwilling to change. What factor is necessary in ( solving) this? Some new factor is necessary.

B: Well I feel it is the ability to observe ( inwardly) whatever is 'holding' the person, preventing him from changing.

K: So is the new factor 'attention'?

B: Yes, that is what I meant, 'attention', but what kind of attention do you mean?

K: Now without making attention into a problem, what do we mean by that? So that I understand it, not verbally, not intellectually but deeply, in my blood I understand the nature of ( an integrated state of ) attention in which no (psychological) problem can ever exist. Obviously it is not ( mental) concentration, it is not a (premeditated?) endeavour, or a struggle to be attentive. But you ( Mr X) show me the nature of ( the problem-free?) attention : when there is attention there is no (thought controlling?) 'centre' from which I attend.

B: Yes, but isn't that a difficult thing ? I have been trying that for a long time and the difficulty is that when the person is looking, the ( self-identified?) content of thought may think he is attending.

K: No, in this state of ( holistic) attention there is no (interference of) thought.

B: But then...how do you stop thought ? You see, while (the process of self-centred) thinking is going on there is an impression of ( paying) attention which is not 'attention'. One just supposes that (s)he is paying attention.

K: No, no.... When one supposes one is paying attention, that is not the (observer-free ?) 'attention' (Mr X is talking about?) .

B: But that is what often happens. So how do we communicate what is the true meaning of attention?

K: To find out what is 'attention' could we discuss what is inattention and through the negation (of the false ?) come to the positive. What takes place when I am (inwardly?) inattentive? In this ( generic state of) 'inattentiveness' I ( may?) feel lonely, depressed, anxious and so on...

B: The mind begins to 'break up' (or...'break down'?) and go into confusion.

K: ( An inward?) fragmentation takes place. Or in my lack of attention I identify myself with so many other things.

B: Yes, and it may also be pleasant (temporarily?) .

K: Of course. It is always pleasant....

B: But then, it may be painful too.

K: I find later on that what seemed to be pleasing becomes painful. So all that is a 'movement' ( a condition of mental activity ?) in which there is no attention. Are we getting anywhere?

B: I don't know...

K: I feel that ( an inner state of holistic ) attention is the real solution to all this. A mind that is really attentive, has understood ( & negated) the nature of inattention and moved away from it.

B: Now, what is the nature of inattention?

K: The nature of inattention? Indolence, negligence, self-concern, self contradiction, all that is the nature of inattention.

B: Yes... a person who has (who is driven by?) 'self-concern' may feel that he is attending to the concerns of himself. He feels he has got problems, but he is paying attention to ( solving) them.

K: Ah, I see...if there is a self-contradiction in me, and I pay attention to it in order not to be self-contradictory, that is not attention.

B: But can't you make it more clear because ordinarily one might think that that is attention.

K: No, that is not, it is merely a process of thought, which says, 'I am this, but I must not be like that'.

B: Then you are saying this ( psychological) attempt to become ( something else?) is not attention.

K: Yes, that is right. This 'psychological' becoming breeds inattention ( a mental imitation of attention?)

B: Yes, the person may think he is attending to something but he is not (holistically attentive ) , when he is engaged in this ( dualistic ) process.

K: Isn't it very difficult sir, to be free of (the desire of 'becoming' or of ?) 'not becoming'? That is the root of it (of holistic attention?)  : to end becoming.

B: Yes... That is the question, to stop it. The difficulty is that the ( self(centred) mind plays tricks dealing with this and it does the very same thing again.

K: Of course, of course. So let's come back to this mind coming to a (blank wall?) point where it finds that it can't move on.

B: There is nowhere for it to move, yes.

K: So, what would we tell to the (meditating?) person who has come to that point and wants to break through it ? Can one look (directly) at this whole complex issue of myself?

B: Well, we did not look at the whole process of becoming : part of (the self-centred mind) seemed to slip out and became the 'observer'. Right?

K: Sir, look, ( in a nutshell) 'becoming' has become the curse of man- psychologically speaking. A poor man wants to be become rich and a rich man wants to be richer, and it is this movement all the time of becoming, becoming, both outwardly and inwardly. And this sense of (self-) becoming, fulfilling, achieving has made our life into all that it is. Now I realize that but I can't stop it.

B: Yes, why can't one stop it?

K: Partly because there is (the subliminal expectation of?) a reward at the end of it and/or the avoidance of pain or punishment. And in that cycle (of inner inaction?) I am caught. That is probably one of the reasons why the mind keeps on trying to become something. And the other perhaps is deep rooted fear that if I don't become something, I am lost, and I am uncertain, insecure. So the mind has ( subliminally) accepted these illusions and says ''I cannot end that''.

B: Then we have to go into the question that there is no meaning to (indulge in) these illusions.

K: Can you convince me that I am caught in an illusion? You can't, unless I see it for myself. And I cannot see it, because that illusion (of self-becoming?) has been traditionally cultivated by religion, by family and so on , it is so (psychologically recomforting &?) deeply rooted that I refuse to let that go.

B: Well then it seems impossible...

K: That is what is taking place with a large number of people. They say, 'I would really want to do this but I cannot'. Now given that situation, what is a (holistically minded educator?) to do? (Will Mr X's ?) explanations of all the various contradictions, and so on, will that help him? Obviously not.

B: Because it all gets absorbed into the structure (of listener's past knowledge ?) .

K: Obviously not. So what is the next thing?

B: Well I would question if he says, 'I want to change', there is also the wish not to change...

K: Of course. The man who says, 'I want to change' has also at the back of his mind 'Really, why should I change?' (The desire to become or not to become?) go together.

B: So we live inwardly in a (major existential?) contradiction....

K: That is what I mean : I have accepted living in this contradiction.

B: And why should I have accepted it ?

K: Because ( the inner inattention is a cultural) habit.

B: But I meant, when the mind is healthy it will not accept such a (contradictory existence?) .

K: But our mind isn't healthy. Our minds are so (fragmented?) , so confused, that even though you point out all the ( psychological) 'dangers' of this, it refuses to see it. So, suppose I am a man in that position, how do we help him to see clearly the danger of psychologically becoming, which implies identification with a nation and all that. Or, I have had an experience, it gives me tremendous satisfaction, I am going to hold on to it. I have had knowledge - all that. How do you help me, such a person, to be free of all that? Your words, you explanations, your logic, everything says, quite right, but I can't move out of that. I wonder if there is another way of communication, which isn't based on words, knowledge, explanations and reward and punishment. I think there a ( more direct) way of communicating which is not verbal, which is not analytical ? Is there such a communication? My mind has always communicated with another with words, with explanations, with logic, with analysis, either compulsive, or with suggestion and so on. There must be another element which breaks through all that, otherwise it is impossible.

B: To break through the inability to listen ?

K: Yes, the inability to listen, the inability to observe, to hear and so on. There must be a different method. You see, I met a man once, who have been to a place with a certain 'saint' (holy person?) and in his company he said that all his problems are resolved. ( Except that) when they go back to their daily life, they are back to the old game.

B: Well, perhaps there was no 'intelligent communication' in it.

K: I the very presence of that man who was being quiet, non-verbal, in his they feel quiet and feel all their problems are resolved.

B: But it is still ( a silence induced) from the outside.

K: Of course. Like going in a good ancient church, or in a cathedral, you feel extraordinarily quiet. It is the atmosphere, it is the structure, you know, all that, the very atmosphere makes you be quiet.

B: Yes, it does communicate what is meant by quietness, but it gets across the communication which is non-verbal.

K: It is like incense, it evaporates! So if we push all that aside, what is there that can be communicated, which will break through the wall ( of knowledgeable self-interest?) which human beings have built for themselves?
As we said sir, is ( the compassionate intelligence of?) Love the factor that will break through all this clever analytical approach, is that the element that is lacking?

B: Well, as people resist listening (to Truth) , they will resist 'Love' too...

K: Of course. That is why I said it is rather a risky (slippery) word.

B: But we meant by 'Love' that ( Universal) energy which also contains intelligence and caring...

K: Will that ( non-verbal intelligence of Love ?) act? If not we human beings are (spiritually?) lost. I think that is the (missing) factor sir. Attention, perception, intelligence and love. You ( Mr X) bring it to me and I seem incapable of receiving it. And I can't hold it because the moment I go outside this room I am lost (in a 'reality-based ' world ?)

B: Well that really is the problem...

K: Now, is this Love something outside (oneself) – like a 'Saviour' is outside, and Heaven is outside and all that ( church ) stuff ? Is Love something which you bring to me, which you awaken in me, which you give me as a gift; or it is in my darkness, in my illusion, suffering, is there that quality? Obviously not, there can't be.

B: Then where is it?

K: That's just it. It must be 'in here' – but this ( compassionate intelligence of?) love is not something that belongs to this person, and doesn't belong to the other...

B: This is an important point. It is a common ground for all of us. But if somebody is looking for love and he is saying, this must be my love, you have got it and I haven't - that is (the general) way of thinking.

K: No, no... ( the Compassionate) Intelligence is not personal...

B: But again it goes contrary to the whole of our thinking. Everybody says this person is intelligent and that one is not. So this may be one of the barriers to the whole thing, that behind the ordinary everyday thinking there is deeper thinking (mentality ) of mankind that we are all divided and these various qualities either belong to us or they don't belong to us.

K: Quite, quite. It is the 'fragmentary' (survival-oriented?) mind that invents all this...

B: It has all been invented (thousands of years ago?) and we have picked it up verbally and non-verbally from childhood and by implication, therefore it pervades all our thoughts & of all our perceptions. So this (non-holistic mentality?) has to be questioned.

K: We have questioned it, we have said that (sorrow &) grief is not (only?) my grief, but ( a general) human (feeling) .

B: But how comes that a person who is caught in grief feels that it is his ( personal) grief ?

K: I think it is partly because of our ( non-holistic ) education, partly our (whole cultural) tradition.

B: But isn't it also implicit in our whole way of thinking ?

K: Yes, quite right....

B: So, we have to jump out of that (self-isolating mentality?)

K: Yes... so what am I to do?

B: Perhaps we can see that ( the Compassionate Intelligence of?) Love is not personal, love does not belong to anybody any more than any other human quality. I was thinking of an example in physics: if the scientist or chemist is studying an element such as sodium, he does not say it is 'his sodium' and somebody else studies theirs and they somehow compare notes.

K: Quite...

B: Sodium is sodium, universally. So we have to say love is love universally.

K: When you say sodium is sodium, it is very simple, I can see that. But when you say to me, grief is common to all of us...!

B: Well, it took quite a while for mankind to realize that 'sodium is sodium'.

K: That is what I want to find out sir: isn't ( the compassionate intelligence of?) Love something that is common to all of us?

B: Well, in so far as it exists, it has to be common. It many not exist but if it does it has to be common.

K: I am not sure it doesn't exist. Like, compassion is not 'I am compassionate' ( the human sense of) compassion is there...

B: Well if we say compassion is the same as sodium, it is universal, then every person's ( free inward access to?) compassion is the same ?

K: Compassion, love, and intelligence. There can't be compassion without intelligence.

B: So we say Intelligence is universal too ?

K: Obviously.

B: Well, this may be a holistic way of thinking, but...we are not yet in it.

K: Yes. So, this 'holistic thinking' is not (plain ) thinking, it is (pervaded by?) some other factor....

B: Some other factor that we haven't gone into yet ?

K: If love is common to all of us, why am I blind to it?

B: Well, I think partly because the (average thinking) mind refuses to consider such a fantastic change of concept in its way of looking.

K: But you said just now that sodium is sodium...

B: Well, that (insightful realisation) was built up through a lot of work and experience ; now we can't do that here with love...

K: Oh no. Love isn't (approacheable through) knowledge.

B: You can't go into a laboratory and prove that ''love is love''...

K: Why does one's mind refuse to accept a very ( holistically ?) obvious factor, why? Is it the fear of letting go one's old values, standards, opinions & all that?

B: I think it is probably something deeper. It is hard to pin down but it isn't such a simple thing. I mean that is only a partial explanation...

K: That is a superficial ('holistic' ) explanation. I know that. Is it the deep rooted anxiety, or the longing to be totally secure?

B: But that again is based on ( thought's mentality of) fragmentation. If we accept that we are fragmented we will inevitably want to be totally secure. Right? Because being ( inwardly) fragmented you are always (feeling) in danger.

K: Is at the root of it this longing to be totally secure in my relationship with everything, to be 'certain'?

B: Yes, but even so, the real security is found in 'no-thingness' – isn't this is what you have said before ?

K: Of course, in nothingness there is (a sense of) complete (inward) security.

B: So, it is not the demand for security which is wrong but the demand of the fragmentary mind be secure. The fragment cannot possibly be secure.

K: That is right. Like each country trying to be secure, it is not (really) secure.

B: But the way you have put it (in your public talks?) sounds as if we should live eternally in insecurity.

K: No, no... We have made that very clear (that Mr X was talking 'psychologically'?) ...

B: So, it makes sense to ask for security, but we are going about it the wrong way ?

K: Yes, that's right... So, how do you convey ( the holistic feeling?) that love is universal, not personal, to a man who has lived completely immersed in the narrow groove of personal (and/or collective ) achievement?

B: Well, will he agree to question his (apparently) 'unique' personality?

K: They (kind of …?) question it, they (think they) see the logic of it and yet... So what shall we do (educationally-wise?) ? (Suppose?) I have a brother who refuses to see all this. And as I have a great affection for him, I would want him to move out of it. But in pointing out that this 'flame' can be awakened in himself, this also means he must 'listen' to me.

B: Yes, well... ?

K: But my brother refuses to listen.

B: It seems that there are some actions which are not possible. If a person is caught in a certain thinking ( mentality) such as fragmentation, then he can't change it because there are a lot of other thoughts behind it – the ones he doesn't know. He is not actually free to take an action there because of the whole structure of thought that 'holds' him. So we have to find some place where he is free to act, to move, which is not controlled by the conditioning...

K: So how do I 'help' my brother? It is the responsibility of intelligence which asks that...There is a tradition in India, and probably in Tibet, that there is one ( spiritual entity?) called the Maitreya Buddha who took a vow that he would not become the ultimate Buddha until he has liberated human beings too...

B: Altogether?

K: Yes. You see, the tradition hasn't changed anything (until now?) . So, if he has that intelligence, that compassion, that love, can the purity of that be transmitted to another? Or living with him, talking to him - you see it all becomes mechanical. It has not been solved but our intelligence says : these are the facts and perhaps some will capture it...

B: Well it seems to me that there are really two factors: one is the preparation by reason to show that it all makes sense; and from there possibly some will capture it.

K: We have done that sir. You (Mr X) have laid out the map very clearly and I have seen it very clearly, the conflicts, the misery, the confusion, the insecurity, the becoming, all that is very, very, very clear, but at the end of the chapter I am back at the beginning. Or I have got a glimpse of it and that becomes my craving to capture that glimpse and then that becomes a memory. You follow? And all the nightmare begins.
In your showing me the map very clearly you have also pointed out to me something much deeper than that, which is ( the universal Intelligence of?) Love, and I am (actively) seeking after that. But the weight of my body, my brain, my tradition, all that draws me back. So it is ( becoming) a constant battle. But I think the whole thing is so wrong....

B: What is wrong?

K: The way we are living is so wrong...

B: Well I think many people must see that by now. At least a fair number.

K: I remember talking in Ojai whether man has taken a wrong turning, entered into a ( dead?) valley where there is no escape. That can't be sir, that is too depressing, too appalling.

B: The very fact it is (looking ) appalling does not necessarily make it untrue. You would have to say some stronger reason why you feel that to be untrue. Do you perceive in the human nature some possibility of a real change?

K: Of course sir, otherwise we'd be (just clever?) monkeys, or ( programable bio-?) machines. But that faculty for a radical change is attributed to some outside agency and therefore we look to that and get lost in that (sweet illusion?) . If we don't look to anybody and (try to?) be completely free from all that, that ( inward) solitude (of All-Oneness) is common to all of us.

B: Yes... ?

K: It is not (the loneliness of?) isolation, it is an obvious fact that when you see all this and say, this is so ugly, unreal, so stupid, you are naturally alone( free of all influences) . And that sense of 'all-oneness' is common.

B: Yes, one could say that all the fundamental things in life are universal and therefore you are saying that when the mind goes deeplly (into itself) it comes into something universal.

K: Universal, that's right. So, that is the problem (of any holistic education?) to make the mind go very, very deeply into itself.

B: Yes, it occurred to me that when we start with ( trying to solve ) our particular problem it is very shallow, then we go to something more general - the word 'general' has the same root as (genus) the depth of what is generated.

K: That's right, sir.

B: And going from that, still further, trying to solve the 'general' ( human problem) is still limited because it is ( the creation of) thought...

K: Thought, quite right. But sir, to go so profoundly it requires tremendous, not only courage, but the sense of constant pursuing the same stream. That goes with a religious ( holistic?) mind which is diligent in its action, in its thoughts, in its activities and so on, but that is still limited. If the (meditating) mind can go from the particular to the general and from the general...

B:... to the absolute, to the universal ?

K: Move away from that.

B: Well, many people would say that is all very abstract and has nothing to do with their daily life.

K: I know (but on the long term?) it is the most practical thing. Not that it is an abstraction.

B: But you, most people would want something that really affects us in daily life, we don't just want to get ourselves lost in talking. Now I mean it is true that it must work in daily life, but the daily life does not contain the solution of its problems.

K: No. The daily life is the 'general' life.

B: The general and the particular ?

K: And the particular.

B: The problems which arise in daily life cannot be solved there, as the human problems.

K: From the particular level move to the general, from the general level move still deeper (inwardly) , and there perhaps is (to be found?) this ( Universal) purity of compassion, love and intelligence. But that means giving your mind to this (homework meditation?) , your heart, your mind, your whole being must be involved in this.
We had better stop. Have we reached somewhere?

B: Possibly so.

K: I think so.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #263
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

A ('reader-friendly' edited ) K DISCUSSION WITH BUDDHIST SCHOLARS (cca 1985)

KRISHNAMURTI (K): I would like to ask several ( meditation related ?) questions. Is there (within the human consciousness?) a line of demarcation, where the self-interest ends and where a state which is not self-interest begins? We all have self-interest; it is (implicit our self-centred?) knowledge, in language and in every part of our life. And in our everyday life, where do we draw the line and say: here it is necessary, there it is not necessary at all?

Q: This question is very difficult to answer if you lay down certain conditions, like the difficulties we meet ( in interacting ) with society; but if you do not lay down conditions, then I shall try to answer.

K: I am not laying down the way you should think, but ( the facts of?) life show me that in every work in every part of the world self-interest is dominant. We play with religion, we play with K as ( if he were ) a plaything, we play with all kinds of things, but the ( central) thread of self-interest is very, very strong, and I ask myself, where does it begin, and, is there an end to it ? I come to you to solve the (central) problem the human brain has, which may be linked with 'self-interest'.

Q: Creating or receiving problems and trying to solve them has become a rule of life for us, and this way of doing things nurtures my (inner) being.

K: Therefore your (inner) being (dominated by self-interest?) is the problem. Your (inner) being is (fueled by?) the identification with this country, with its literature, with its gods; you are identified, therefore you have taken root in a place, therefore that becomes the ( time-bound ?) being. Why have you made the human life, which is meant to be lived like a tree growing beautifully, into this? You have destroyed ( the holistic quality of human) living by knowledge, by science, by computers - you have destroyed my living. Sex becomes a problem, eating becomes a problem, everything is a problem. And if I don't want to have ( psychologically based?) problems, does not mean that I deny life. From birth to death, our life is treated like a problem: school, college, university, then job, marriage, sex, children and then death becomes ( the ultimate?) problem. Why can't one's brain be simple enough, free enough to say this ( time-bound way of living) is the problem and solve it? That is, the brain is free ( of the 'known'?) to solve it, not add another problem to it.

Q: If I may say so this (existential) problem does not come from outside; the problem arises in this brain, which creates this problem. Why doesn't it immediately destroy it at that very instant?

K: Because it has not solved ( completely ?) any (human) problem.

Q: Doesn't the brain have that capacity of ending (its own problems) ?

K: Yes, but I must make clear one (fina holistic?) point. The brain is the ( physical ?) centre of our ( self-centred) consciousness, and that consciousness we treat as 'mine' . But (fundamentally) it is not mine; it is not personalized as 'K'. And it is not 'yours' either because every human being on earth (does eventually?) go through this (psychological?) torture - sorrow, pleasure of sex, fear, anxiety, uncertainty, hoping for something better and so on; so this consciousness is (the time-bound consciousness of all ?) humanity. I 'am' humanity.
( On the other hand?) the 'mind' ( the timeless matrix of human consciousness?) is different from the ( survival-oriented consciousness of the?) brain - totally dissociated - has no relationship whatsoever. Love has no relationship with self-interest. The fact is that 'love' may exist. We may have sympathy, empathy, affection, pity - but that is not Love, so I leave that aside. Love and self-interest cannot exist together and therefore (mankind's psychological ?) problems have no meaning if the 'other' (the universally integrated mind?) exists. If the other is, problems are not.

Q: I am not sure if they cannot co-exist...It seems to me that we know two kinds of action: one which is 'thought out' by the brain, calculated, and which therefore invariably is motivated by self-interest. ( I don't think the brain is capable of doing anything that does not contain in it the seed of self-interest, because it is the ( survival-programmed ) instrument meant for that purpose. But there is also a spontaneous action which we experience occasionally, which is not born as a product of (our brain's self-centred?) thinking. But because man does not know what to do with this kind of action, he has cultivated what his brain can do well : to calculate, (to stay focussed on?) what it can achieve, and the whole ( modern) world is therefore filled with such activity. And this has become our ( standardised mentality of) life. While the 'other', which is the vital (& spontaneous action ) , is only occasional. I think that even a person who has self-interest and who has (collateral) problems, occasionally acts without the interference of the brain - out of love. So I would not say that the ( conditioned ) existence of the brain denies love completely.

K: Sir, I say it is like having occasionally (at breakfast?) a bad egg. I want a good egg every day - not 'occasionally'. So I am asking you all, is there an end to self-interest or is all action born out of self-interest? Don't tell me, 'occasionally'; occasionally I may look out of the window, but that window is very narrow (since inwardly?) I am ( living ) in a (self-created?) prison.
Please follow me for a minute : there is a tremendous ( timeless?) order in the universe. ( Even ) a 'black hole' is a part of that (cosmic) Order. But wherever man's (mentality of self-interest) enters he creates disorder. So can I, as a ( holistically minded?) human being who 'is' the rest of humanity, create order in myself first? Order means no self-interest.

Q: Sir, the problem is, it is not easy to deny on the basis of ( the realisation that we're ) having a common consciousness, the nucleus that comes to shape itself as the limited self, the acquisitive self, for which all the problems are 'real', not imaginary. I mean I have disease, I have death - in what way could these be considered as 'no problems'?

K: Are we saying that (thought's ) 'self (identification' ?) is 'the' (central) problem? Why don't we look at the problem ? If the 'self' is the problem, why don't we say : let me understand it, let me look at this (potential?) 'jewel' without condemning it ? The very condemnation is the problem. Do you follow what I mean? Let me first look at it (with the intelligence of Compassion?) .

Q: Sir, consider a person who has a thorn in his body and is feeling pain. The pain of the thorn is similar to the constraints and problems impinging upon the self.

K: No, sir. If I have a thorn in my foot, I look at it first and ask myself, why wasn't I aware of it? So my (inward?) observation is at fault. So I say, what happened to my brain which didn't see that? Probably it was thinking of something else. Why was it thinking of something else when I am on the path?

Q: Because in the case of our psychological ( inward?) problems, the observer and what is observed are hopelessly entangled ?

K: Let us stick to one issue : where does self-interest begin and where does it end, and if it ends, what is that state?

Q: To my mind the very notion of 'self' begins with the coming into being of this body, and then the self and self-interest go together. Self-interest can only end when the self ends. And a part of the self remains so long as the body remains. So, in an ultimate sense, it can only end with death. Short of that, we can only refine self-interest with the gradual perceiving of it, but we cannot wholly deny it so long as the body exists. That is how I see it.

K: I understand. They are discovering that when the baby is born and suckling, it feels secure and it begins to learn who are the friends of the mother, who treat her differently, who are against her; it begins to feel all this because the mother feels it. It comes through the mother - who is friendly, who is not friendly. The baby begins to rely on the mother. So there it begins. It felt very safe in the womb, and suddenly, put out in the world it begins to realize that the mother is ( providing ) the only safety. There it begins (the psychological dependency in terms of) feeling secure. And that's our life. And I question whether (for a holistically integrated mind?) there is ( such a 'psychological ?) security' at all.

Q: : Sir, the ( survivalistic) instinct of self-preservation is present in the animal world too, but when it has evolved into man, it started creating (psychologically motivated?) problems. If we believe that man evolved from the animal, then he has all the instincts which the animal has. The essential difference is that man has in addition the ability to think, and this ability to think has also created all those ( collateral) problems. And what you are asking is, can we use this ability (of intelligent thinking ?) not to create problems but to do something entirely different?

K: Yes, sir that's right.

Q: You suggest that the brain can end these problems. Then what is the difference between that brain which has ended and the mind?

K: See, you are asking a question that involves ( the psychological) 'death'. We know what is birth, how the baby is born and ( eventually?) goes through this extraordinary tragedy (of the time bound existence?) . It is a tragedy; it is not something happy, joyous, free. It is a bigger tragedy than any Shakespeare ever wrote. Now, what is death?

Q: When we were discussing 'time' the other day, you spoke of a 'Now' in which was contained all time, both living and death. The brain, having the capacity to see the flow of living, also has the capacity to reveal that ending which is death. That is the answer.

K: I said, (that man's temporal) living is attachment, pain, fear, pleasure, anxiety, uncertainty, the whole bag, and death is (waiting) 'out there', far away. I keep a careful distance (especially if I ?) have got property, books & jewels; I keep it ( safely locked in) here and death is 'out there.' I said , bring the two together, not tomorrow, but 'now' - which means 'end' (relying on?) all these ( time-bound attachments ?) now. Because that's what death is going to say : 'You can't take anything with you'; so invite 'death' and live with it. ( The 'psychological' experiencing of?) death is 'now', not 'tomorrow'.

Q: There is something lacking in this. I may be able to 'invite death' now and the brain may be still for a time, but the whole thing comes back again; then the problems of my daily life comes back.

K: Not (necessarily?) : suppose I am attached to a good friend of mine, I have lived with him/her , we walked together, we played together, (s)he is my companion, and I am attached to him/her . Death says to me, You can't take him(or her?) with you. So (why not?) free yourself ( of this psychological dependency ?) now, not ten years later. And I say, Quite right, though I am still his/her friend, I am not ( inwardly) dependent on him(or her?) at all. What's wrong with that? You are not arguing against that?

Q: Which means, sir, you have to end all ( expectations for further ?) gratification...

K: I am not saying that. I said, (end) attachment.

Q: ( Ending?) all my attachments... ?

K: That's all.

Q: Sir, isn't it that the ( attachment) problem comes because you (surreptitiously?) begin to use that pleasure as a fulfilment for yourself, and therefore you want a continuity of that and ( ultimately ) you want to possess that person?

K: Yes. Therefore, what is ( the right approach to ) relationship? I won't go into it as we have no (more?) time.
(To recap:) I asked you where the 'self-interest' begins and ends. Isn't its ending more important than anything else? - ending? And what is then that state in which there is no self-interest at all? Is it ( the inward peace of?) death? ( The inward significance of?) death means 'ending' – ending (one's attachments to) everything. So 'it' says, 'Be intelligent, old boy, live together with death.'

Q: Which means die (to all psychological attachments ) but keep the body. The other death is coming anyway (in its own time?)

K: (The death of the?) body? Give it to the birds (burn it?) or throw it into the River. But psychologically, this tremendous structure (of mental attachment ?) I have built, I can't take with me.

Q: Is it an instinct, a the genetic inheritance ?

K: Don't reduce it to an instinct, sir.

P8: What was the 'joke' you were going to tell us?

K: A man dies and meets his friend in heaven. They talk and he says, 'If I am dead, why do I feel so awful?'

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 10 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Feb 2020 #264
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

2-nd (reader-friendly edited) K DISCUSSION WITH BUDDHIST SCHOLARS ( 1985)

Q : As we have understood from you, there is no Path ( leading man ?) to Truth . Therefore each person is faced with every moment by itself. If this ( "all time is now" ?) moment is to be understood, then it is (a holistically integrated ?) moment of "action, knowledge and desire". Is this understanding correct?

KRISHNAMURTI (K): Sir, this is a subject that requires a great deal of (self-) inquiry.... I don't say, 'That is right, this is wrong', but together we are going to go into it.

Q: How can there be a ( holistically minded ) human being who does not decide what is correct or incorrect, what is good or not good?

K: I don't say there is no Goodness, but it may be entirely different from your (concept of?) goodness and from my (concept of ) goodness. So let us find out which is really the 'Good' - not yours or mine, but that which is 'Good'...

Q: ...in itself. But don't you introduce an element of uncertainty into one's way of looking at things or one's philosophical outlook ?

K: Yes, but if you start with certainty, you ( might well) end up with uncertainty. So, sir, because you raised a question which implies time, thought and action, could we begin by going into the question of what is 'time'? Could we, for the time being, put aside what other people have said, , including what I have said or haven't said - wipe all that out - and say, 'Now, what is time?' Isn't this the only ( major ?) problem we have in life : we live in time. Acquiring book knowledge implies time, our hope to become enlightened also implies time and the whole of living from birth to death is a problem of time. So what is it that we call 'time'?

Q: You have spoken about this many times, but I want to say that the moment which is knowledge, action, as well as desire, is a moment in which there is no time.

K: Wait, wait.... Can you divide this ( timeless?) instant from the rest ( of your existence?) ?

Q: In the instant of ( undivided?) 'attention' or observation, there is no time.

K : If we are to understand each other we must be clear about the meaning of these two words - "attention" and "observation". What takes place actually when you observe? - not theoretically. Could we start, both of us, as though we know nothing? Leave your moorings (in the field of the known) and let us float together.

Q: How can we do it together when we are at two different levels?

K: I don't admit that we are at two levels.

Q: We have a complaint against you that you are a poor physician ; there are all the ( existential) difficulties and conflicts outside but the physician is not able to say how to cope with those things which are outside and solve the difficulties there.

K: So you want to solve first the difficulties 'out there', and then approach the problems in here. Is that it?

Q: No, I want to solve them both together.

K: I do not admit the division. The (collective consciousness of the?) world 'is' me, I 'am' ( responsible for?) the (consciousness of the?) world. I see what is happening in the (outer) world - all the appalling things that are actually happening. Now, who created it?

Q: The human beings.

K: Do you admit that we all of us have created that?

Q: Yes, of course.

K: All right. So, if all of us have created it, then we can ( together endeavour to?) change that. Now, in what manner will you bring about the change? I met the other day in New York, a doctor who has become a philosopher. He said this is all talk, but the real question is: can the cells in the brain bring about a (qualitative?) mutation in themselves ? Can the brain cells themselves see (the global mess?) they have created and say: This is wrong – mutate!

Q: But you have recently distinguished the brain from the mind...

K: Yes, because the brain is the very centre of our (physical?) sensations.

Q: And should we wait for that mutation?

K: You can't. It ( the collective momentum of self-interest?) will go on.

Q: Will ( this qualitative mutation) come automatically?

K: No.

Q: So we should try for that.

K: Now, what will change that in the brain's cells which contain all the (fragmentary ?) memories of the past. Can those cells, without ( Mr X's ?) pressure, without influence say: That is the end of that; we will change (ASAP?) ?

Q: If there is no ( Mr X's?) influence, no pressure, it means (this psychological mutation ) is taking place by itself.

K: No... Listen to it. The brain cells hold all the memories, all the pressures, all the education, all the experience, everything - it is loaded with ( man's survivalistic?) knowledge of two and a half million years. So I ( Mr X?) say to myself, why does this ( time bound human?) brain (have to?) depend on all these (artificial incentives?) - chemicals, persuasion, pleasure? Is it waiting to be ( miraculously?) released? I ( the 'holistic physician' ?) say, 'No, sorry, that is another form of escape. So, can the brain cells (themselves?) , with all the past memories, put an end to all that ( time-binding condition?) now? That is my question (left for your homework meditation ?) . What do you say, sirs?

Q: I have to teach my students and I do it through a logical process - rationally so many things are (very easily?) explained. But at the same time I realize the ( experiential) limitation of that, especially having come into contact with your (teachings) - that this is all artificial, theoretical, very limited. Then, when we come to you, we hear what is good, and we go from one fine point to another, but we find at the end of it all that we are still nowhere near the Truth. So it just means that instead of going round in that circle of logic we go round in this ( holistic approach?) , but it makes no difference.

K: Yes, sir, these are all just explanations and we move from that ( linear) logic to this (holistic) logic. Now, can I leave that logic without going to another logic, because I see at the very beginning that ( any knowledge based?) logic has its own limitation - whether it is a refined logic or plain common sense?

Q: But here it is not just logic, as we get bits of insight, bits of (inner) light; but if we keep moving around with these little bits, there is no ( total) comprehension.

K: All right. If that is so, is it that you want a 'complete insight'?

Q: We should be satisfied with what we are getting, but we need that (holistic quality of?) happiness which shapes thought. We get little bits of insight, not the whole.

K: I am not talking of happiness; I am talking of insight. Will you listen to it? I will present the whole, but...will you 'listen' ?

Q: We need to understand this point . What is a 'full insight'? Is it an (inwardly enlightening?) experience?

K: No, I doubt if it is a (personal?) experience and you cannot lay down laws about it...

Q: You have just said that you were going to tell us how all this will be a whole.

K: ( For starters, putting together?) the partial insights does not make the whole (insight) . I am just saying, you are approaching it wrongly : it is not based on ( one's previous?) knowledge. What is based on knowledge is (called) "invention", not ( the direct action of?) Creation. I don't understand your ( experiential) difficulty. (Suppose that?) somebody comes along and tells me a Story (of Knowledge) . I listen to it with rapt attention and it goes on and on day after day, and I am consumed by the story. So ( eventually) the story ends by saying, 'It stops here.'

Q: The story (of Knowledge ) doesn't end for us; the ( imbedded?) problems continue...

K: I want to tell you ( the 'real life' story ?) that people have limited insight. Your ( 'insight - doctor'?) friend here says, I will tell you in what manner you can have the whole insight. But will you listen (with an open mind & heart?) to him? You give (a bowl of) rice to the beggar; in the same way, he is giving me a gift and he says, 'Take it, don't ask me why you are being given it, or who is giving it; just take it.' So I am telling you that ( a total ?) insight is not dependent on (one's previous ) knowledge or on any form of remembrance, and it is not dependent on time. Enlightenment is not dependent on time. When ( brain's subliminal process of thought-projected ?) time, memory, remembrance doesn't exist (in one's meditation?) ; then you have a complete insight.

He ( Mr X ?) tells me this ( holistic clue ?) and disappears. He has left with me a (potentially?) tremendous jewel saying : 'Take it, my friend, live with it, and if you don't want it, throw it (or...give?) it away.' I am enthralled by the (inward beauty of this ) 'jewel' and ( the timeless light generated by ?) that jewel begins to reveal things I have never seen before, and if you hold it more closely, you will see much more.' But as you put it on the table and come back in the evening, when you look at it, the (inner light of the) jewel is fading, so you have to hold it, you have to cherish it, love it, watch it, care for it... ( The illusory value of one's 'psychological' ?) knowledge may be the poison in all of us.

Q: Does ( the 'meditator'-free?) meditation have a place in all this?

K: Yes. Sir : a meditation which is not contrived, which is not deliberate, which does not say "Practise, Practise & ...(more) Practise", which had nothing to do with all this (process of self-centred becoming) ? Because, if I practise to become an (inwardly -) rich man, I have a deliberate purpose. Therefore it can't be the ( commercialised ?) 'meditation' we're doing now. So, perhaps there is a ( 'self-interest' free?) meditation which has nothing to do with all this - and I say there is.

Q: Shall we stop here?

K: Yes, we stop - like the story (of knowing ?) .

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 11 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Feb 2020 #265
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

3-rd (reader-friendly edited) K DISCUSSION WITH BUDDHIST SCOLARS (1985)

Krishnamurti (K): Is there 'still ?) something sacred in this part of the world, in India ? Something long-lasting, not conditioned by (the rampant?) commercialism ?

Q: There is certainly 'something' in this country which is not influenced by external factors.

K: That was not my (full ?) question. Is there something here which does not exist anywhere else - not influenced, not corrupted, not made ugly by all the circus that goes on in the name of religion? Is there something already here, for which - if it exists - one has to give one's whole mind and heart - to preserve?

Q: I cannot say, because in some sense I have not experienced this in a tangible way; nor can I say whether other people have. But my study of ancient texts gives me a certain certitude that there is 'something' (of a timeless nature ?) which can be experienced in a clear way.

K: I'm asking, Panditji, if there is something enduring, which is not bound by time, evolution and all that. It must be very, very sacred. And if it exists, then one must give one's life to it, give vitality to it - not by doctrines and knowledge, but by the feeling of it, the depth of it, the beauty of it, the enormous strength of it. That's what I'm asking.

Q: We desire to find such a thing, but have not been able to do so. And we find ourselves tangled in many theories, in many traditions, many systems. Occasionally we hear a clear voice that speaks about this in a compelling way. That 'voice' comes from you, but we are in some way unable to reach it. The whole phenomenon is like some huge fair with a lot different chaotic voices offering solutions.

K: You're not answering my question: is there or is there not? Not the historical process of ancient culture being destroyed by commercialism, but the great impetus which was set going by some (original) power, by some intelligence? That power, that intelligence - does it exist now?

Q: If I have to answer your question, then I would say that this thing - is life itself .

K: I'm asking a very simple question : (the spirituality of) India 'exploded' over the whole of Asia, like (the culture of the ancient) Greece 'exploded' over the whole of Western culture. It spread like wildfire. And it had the tremendous energy of something original something enormous; it had the power to move things. Does that exist here, or is it all in abeyance? Does it exist at all now?

Q: Sometimes it appears ( to manifest itself?) and it is always fresh, but the contact with ( individual persons is not always there....But why do you want to connect it geographically with this part of the world?

K: I'll tell you. All ancients, as far as I understand, worshipped mountains. The gods came from there for the Greeks; and also for the ancient Sumerians, the sense of something holy there. Then you come to the Himalayas - ( generations of?) monks meditated there. Is ( that spirit) still ( present) there or is it being commercialized ?

Q: It cannot be commercialized. The commercialization is something else.

K: Is it ( still alive?) there?

Q: Yes, from the beginning I was saying that it is there, but the relationship, the contact, with the masses...

K: I'm not talking about the masses. ..

Q: ...with individual persons, is diminished.

K: Why has it diminished, why has it become something small?

Q: ( The younger generations ?) are not interested. They're more interested in commerce...

K: Yes, so it's gone. Is it ( due to) this tremendous ( stream of) self-interest - self-interest in the form of knowledge, in the form of Buddhism, Hinduism? And this ( Stream of) Self-interest is increasing tremendously in the (modern) world, that is the ( revolving?) door which shuts the 'Other' out...

Q: The question which you just posed calls for a counter question : How are we, in today's society, going to find it, experience it, and share it?

K: You can't 'experience' it (as a self-centred entity?) . To 'experience' it there must be an 'experiencer'. He has had a thousand experiences; and he wants to add another to it - that's my whole point. It's not something to be experienced – it is ( simply) there like electricity.

Q: Human beings have only one gift, that is the ability to experience, and you are snatching that away. After that what are we to hold on to?

K: I'm not 'snatching away' anything, but I see that ( its personal) experience is a very small affair. We depend on (our physical) experience, but that 'thing' can't be experienced. You can't ( have the ) experience of water - it is there.

Q: Water is there, but I only know it through experience of it.

K: What you call 'experiencing' is based on sensory perception. And our sensory perceptions are partial, never complete. Now, to observe with all your senses alert - that's not a (personal) 'experience'. The brain is always conditioned by its past experience, by its sensory responses – (by its ability ) to argue, to deny and all the rest of it. Therefore, when you say experience, or you must learn this or do that, it's all from a brain which has become small, conditioned.

Q: We come again to the ('poor physician' issue ) we discussed before. We understand about conditioning, self-interest, and so on. There is the (theoretical) possibility of moving away, and then we just stop there.

K: Why, sir?

Q: Or should I say that the 'moving away' is not absolutely possible?

K: Why not remain where you are and see what happens. ? That is, sir, you never ( wholly) abide with 'what is'. I am this, but I (hope to) be that - it's a movement away from 'what is'.

Q: Either we stay where it is, or stay out of the movement.

K: What is that movement? We have to enquire what is ( the movement of (thought-) time - by which we live daily: time as past, time as present, time as future. So what is time? Everything we do ( in the physical world) requires time. But (inwardly-wise) what is time?

Q: The real problem of time seems to hinge on how it works within the human psyche. There is something unresolved that we want to resolve.

K: Sir, if I may humbly suggest, what is the brain?

Q: The brain is possibly the physical base of the mind.

K: The brain is the centre of all our sensory responses; it is the centre of all thinking. What is the quality of the brain that is asking the question: 'what is time? ' How do you receive the question?

Q: We have understood after discussing with you that it is only a total attention that will bring about a total transformation. That's where the problem begins.

K: Time is the ( momentum of the ) past : the 'now' is shaped by the ( stand-by memory of the?) past. And the 'future' is a modification of the present. So, if all (the movement of psychological ) time is contained in the 'now' - the past, the present and future - then what do we mean by change?

Q: The word 'change' does not have any meaning ?

K: If that's a fact - that all time is contained in the now, this is the future, this is the present. There is no ( mental) movement towards or from (something) . When there is no such movement, I am what I am: ( for instance?) I am greedy, and I say 'yes'.

Q: How can we break this stream (of 'thought-time'?) in which we flow?

K: I'll show you : all time is contained in 'now', at this second. It is a most extraordinary thing to see that all the future & all the past, 'is' (are present) now. Is that a fact ?

Q: If all time is in the 'now', then there is nothing else.

K: That may be the most extraordinary thing, if you go into it. That may be the essence of compassion. That may be the essence of an amazing, undefinable intelligence. If all ( the psychological) time is contained in the now, there's no ( further mental) movement. What I do now, I'll do tomorrow. So, what am I to do if (my psychological) future - tomorrow - is now? If I'm greedy, envious, and I'll be envious tomorrow. Is there a possibility of ending that (momentum of?) greed instantly?

Q: That seems very difficult...

K: It's not (experientially) 'difficult' (providing) I see that if I am greedy & envious today, tomorrow I'll be still greedy and envious unless something happens now. It is very important that something happens now. So can I change, mutate, now? If there is a radical (psychological) mutation now, there is ( the awakening of?) a movement which is not of time. You understand, sir? Two and a half million years ago we were barbarous. We are still barbarous; wanting power, position, killing each other, envious, comparing, all that. You've put me this ( homework meditation?) challenge: If all ( thought-projected?) 'time' is now, I say to myself: My god, if I don't change now, tomorrow I will be the same, or in a thousand tomorrows. So, is it possible for me to totally mutate now? I say ''yes''...

Q: Can you tell us how?

K: The moment you ask 'how', you are already (projecting yourself) in another process of ( thought-) time. If I tell you : do these things , and you say I will do all this to get to 'that'. But 'you' ( the self-centred entity ?) can't get it, because you are what you are now.

Q: That means that in the listening to that statement of yours, 'All time is now', there is a ( subliminal) quality of acquisitiveness ?

K: Of course.

P6: So the 'listening' has to be purified.

K: Then, sir, there is no knowledge, there is no meditation, there is no discipline. Everything stops.
May I put the question ( more dramatically?) ? Suppose for instance I know I'm going to die. There is a ( two months ?) time interval between now and the time of my death: that is, I will die on the first of January. If all time is now, my ( encounter with?) death is now. Can the human brain live with death all the time? You understand? If I realize the (inward truth of the?) fact that all time is now - that means the dying and living are together; they are never separate. So it is only the 'knowing' that I'm going to die at the end of January that makes me frightened; I say, Please, please, wait, wait, wait, I've got to leave a will, I've got to do this, I've to do that. But if I am constantly living with death, I am dying now, that means I'm living (a new life ) - there's no divorce or separation between living and dying.
Can you do this ( for meditation homework?) ? That means, death says, 'You can't take anything with you.' Your ( psychologically motivated attachments to ? ) knowledge, wife and children, money, and all that you've built up for yourself - 'everything goes' at the end with death. You may say there's a possibility you'll ( eventually?) reincarnate. But I'm asking you: Can you live now without the least attachment to anything? Why postpone this ending of attachment - until the sickbed? Be free of attachment now.

Q: May we sit silently with you?

(K assents...)

Q: You had started the discussion with the question: What is this thing, and, is there this thing in this country? Is this that thing?

K: (nods, then after a long silence) See, it's not difficult if you can start at this level...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Feb 2020 #266
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

16-th (reader-friendly edited ) K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM (1983)

J.Krishnamurti: We were going to talk about the future of ( the consciousness of?) humanity ?

DB: Of the whole of mankind. Our future is all interlinked anyway.

JK: As things are ( as of 1983) , from what one observes the world has become tremendously 'dangerous'... Terrorists, wars, national divisions and racial divisions, and so on & on. But also religiously there is tremendous separation.

DB: Yes, not to mention the (looming?) ecological crisis.

JK: Problems seem to multiplying more and more. So, what is the (predictable?) future of not only the present generation but the coming generations?

DB: Well, it looks pretty grim... Is there something you would suggest?

JK: You see, I don't think in terms of 'psychological' evolution at all.

DB: I think I understand to some extent what you mean. But I think that people who are new to these teachings are not going to understand ...

JK: Why are we concerned about the future when the whole future is ( unfolding right ?) now.

DB: Yes, in ( a holistic) sense the whole future 'is' (co-present) now but we'll have to make this point more clear as it goes very much against the whole traditional way of thinking of the whole mankind... So, what objections do you have to thinking in terms of an evolution (of human consciousness ) in time ?

JK: Of course, we are talking 'psychologically'....

DB: Well but also it took a lot of time to improve the ( capacity of the human) brain. You see if the brain started out small and then it got bigger and bigger, that took a million years.

JK: Yes, it became much more complex and so on. All that needs time. All that is ( the result of manknd's evolutionary ?) movement in space and time.

DB: Yes. So you will admit (the reality of) physical time and neurophysiological time ?

JK: Of course. Any sane man would...

DB: Now most people also admit a 'psychological' (evolution in ) time...

JK: Yes, that is what we are talking about. Whether there is a 'psychological' 'tomorrow'....

DB: Now at first sight this may sound strange, because I can remember 'yesterday', and also there is a 'tomorrow' that I can anticipate. So we have the objective experience (of a conscious continuity in?) time, from yesterday to today to tomorrow – right?

JK: Of course. That is simple enough.

DB: So, what is it that you are denying?

JK: I deny that I will ( actually ) become something better by 'tomorrow'...

DB: Now, there are two ways of looking at that : one way is will I intentionally become (inwardly) better because I am trying it, and secondly, some people feel that there is a natural, long lasting, but inevitable process, in which we are being swept along in a current (of collective consciousness?) and we are perhaps becoming better, worse, or something (unexpected) is happening to us... And this process takes its own time - which may not be the result of my trying to become better. So, are you denying that there is a natural psychological evolution as there is a natural biological evolution?

JK: I am denying that, yes....

DB: Now why do you deny it?

JK: Because first of all, what is the human 'psyche' - the ( self-centred) 'me', the 'ego', what is it?

DB: The word 'psyche' has many meanings...For example it may mean the ( soul or the spiritual essence of the ?) mind ...

JK: I am talking of the ( temporal) 'ego', the 'me'...

DB: Yes. ..Now some people are thinking there is also be a (spiritual) evolution (of mankind) in which the 'me' is transcended. That is, that it will rise to a higher level of consciousness, a transcendence...

JK: Yes, but does this transition need time? That is my whole question.

DB: So there are two questions: one is : will the 'me' ever be ( ready, able & willing?) to improve? And the second is : even if we really want to get beyond the ( limitations of the self-centred?) 'me', can that be done in time?

JK: That cannot be done in time.

DB: Well, why not ?

JK: What is the 'me' (the self-centred consciousness?) ? The 'me' is the (self-identified core of the ?) whole movement which thought has brought about.

DB: Now why do you say that?

JK: The 'me' is ( identifying itself with the content of ?) one's consciousness, name, form and all the various experiences that one has had in the past. The whole structure of the 'me' is put together by (the 'survival-oriented ' activity of?) thought.

DB: Well, that again would be something which some ( more thoughtful?) people might find it hard to accept because the first feeling is that the 'me' is there independently and that the 'me' is the one who is (doing all the ) thinking.

JK: Is the 'me' independent of my thinking?

DB: Well, my first feeling is that the 'me' is there independent of my thinking, and it is the 'me' that is thinking, you see ? Now, is that an illusion?

JK: No, but my contention is that thought is at the basis of all this (self-identified entity?)

DB: Now, what you mean by 'thought' is not merely the intellectual ( activity?) ?

JK: No, of course not....

DB: But what more ?

JK: The whole movement of (brain's past) experience, knowledge & memory ....

DB: It sounds to me as if you mean the ( leading activity of the?) human consciousness ?

JK: As a whole, that's right.

DB: And you are saying that that movement is ( impersonated by?) the 'me' ?

JK: The whole ( self-identified?) 'content' of that consciousness is the 'me'. This 'me' is not different from 'my' consciousness.

DB: Well, one could easily say that I 'am' my consciousnes, for if I am not conscious I am not here....

JK: Of course...

DB: Now is my consciousness nothing but say what you have just described, which includes thought, feeling, intention...

JK:...(personal) aspirations, memories, beliefs, the rituals that are performed, the whole, like an (ages old) 'computer' that has been programmed.

DB: Now, all this (psychological content) certainly is in (our temporal) consciousness, but many people would feel that there is more to it than that. Namely, that (one's) consciousness may go beyond that.

JK: Let's go into it (holistically?) The content of our consciousness makes up the consciousness

DB: I think this requires some (deeper) understanding. The ordinary use of the word 'content' is quite different. If you say that the content of a glass is water – right?

JK: Yes...

DB: So, the word 'content' would suggest that something contains it – right?

JK: All right... ( mankind's time-binding ) consciousness is made up of all that has been remembered (stored throughout the ages?) beliefs, dogmas, rituals, the nationalities, fears, pleasures, sorrow....

DB: Yes, now if all that were absent would there be no (self- ) consciousness?

JK: Not as we know it.

DB: But there would still be a kind of 'consciousness'?

JK: A totally different kind.

DB: Well, then you really meant to say that ( man's time-bound ) consciousness, as we know it now, is made up...

JK: Our (self-centred) consciousness - as we know it – is (made up of?) all that. And that (residual content) is the result of multiple activities of thought - the reactions, the responses, the memories, the remembrances, the extraordinary complex intricacies, subtleties, all that is the - makes up (one's self-) consciousness.

DB: Now, does this consciousness has a past?

JK: Of course. Remembrance.

DB: Then, why do you say it has no future ?

JK: Its ( psychological ?) future it will be exactly the same kind of activities, the same ( self-centred) thoughts, ( updated or) modified, but the pattern will be repeated over and over again.

DB: Yes. Are you saying that thought can only (recycle & ) repeat (the psychological memory of the past) ?

JK: Yes, if you admit that ( our available) knowledge will always be limited...

DB: Well yes, that again might require some discussion. Why do you say knowledge is always limited?

JK: Because you as a scientist, you are experimenting, adding ( new knowledge) but after you some other person will add more. So knowledge, which is born of ( man's outward ?) experience, is limited.

DB: Well some ( science) people hope to obtain an absolute knowledge of the laws of nature.

JK: The (physical) laws of nature are not ( necessarily ?) the laws of human (consciousness?) .

DB: So you want to restrict the discussion then to ( the 'psychological') knowledge about the human being?

JK: Of course, that's all we can talk about.

DB: All right. So we are saying that man cannot obtain unlimited knowledge of the ( human) psyche, since there is always more that is unknown.

JK: Yes, that's right. There is always more and more unknown. So if once we admit that (one's psychological?) knowledge is limited then thought is limited.

DB: Yes, because thought depends on knowledge and one's knowledge does not cover everything.

JK: That's right...

DB: Therefore thought will not be able to handle everything that happens (inwardly?) . Therefore, when you lack the adequate knowledge of what you are dealing with, you create confusion.

JK: Yes. So then as thought is limited, our ( self-centred ?) consciousness, which has been put together by thought, is limited.

DB: Yes. Now, does that mean that we can only stay in the same circle (of the existing knowledge ?) .

JK: ( Within ) the same circle. The Unknown, the Limitless, cannot be captured by ( a self-centred?) thinking. (…) And I say there is another way of looking at the whole thing without time. Which is, when the observer 'is' (not dividing itself from what is?) observed. (when the brain is not locked in a self-protected mode?)

DB: Yes... ?

JK: In that observation there is no (interference of 'thought-) time'.

DB: Now in what sense can we make it clear that in this (thought-free observation?) there is no 'time'?

JK: ( In a nutshell:) Time is division, as thought is division. That is why thought 'is' time.

DB: One can see that thought makes divisions of all kinds, and that it also divides up intervals of time, 'past', 'present' and 'future'. But it doesn't follow from that ( generic observation) that thought 'is' time.

JK: The 'psychological' time is a (thought-projected ) movement of becoming.

DB: Now when we talk of a 'psychological' movement, do you mean just a change of content?

JK: Change of content?

DB: Well, what is 'moving' in this psychological movement?

JK: I am this, and I am attempting to become something else...

DB: So that (is a mental ?) movement in the content of your thought, you see ?

JK: Yes...

DB: So if you say 'I am this' and 'I am attempting to become that', I feel I am (engaged in a mental  ?) 'movement'.

JK: Yes...say for instance that I am greedy. Greed is a (psychologically motivated mental ?) movement.

DB: What kind of a 'movement' is it?

JK: To get what I want.

DB: To get more (of it?) , yes.

JK: To get more, more. It is a (time-binding?) movement.

DB: All right...

JK: And (if eventually?) I find that 'movement' (activity of greed ?) painful, I may try not to be (so ) greedy. The attempt ( to control myself in order ) not to be greedy is another movement of becoming in time.

DB: Yes but also the ( initial ) greed was ( a primitive form of) becoming...

JK: Of course. So that is the real question, is it possible not to (indulge in the illusion of pychological ?) becoming ?

DB: Well it seems that that would require that you should not 'be' ( identified with?) anything 'psychologically'. That is, as soon as you define yourself as 'greedy', I am this, that, then either I will want to become something else or remain (stuck with?) what I am – right?

JK: Now, if greed 'is' me  can I remain with what I am ?

DB: Your saying that I 'am' my ( psychological) attributes, suggests that the thought of attribution creates the sense of 'me'.

JK: All the qualities, the attributes, the virtues, the judgements, the conclusions and opinions, 'are' (creating the temporal?) me.

DB: Well, this would have to be perceived immediately as obvious ?

JK: That is the whole ( experiential) point : to perceive the totality of this whole movement instantly. Then we come to the point of (direct) perception: whether it is possible to perceive something directly without the word, without the reaction, without the (usual interference of collateral ) memories entering into perception.

DB: Well, that is a very big question because memory has constantly entered perception. This it would raise the question of what is going to stop memory from entering perception?

JK: Nothing ( pre-calculated ?) can stop it. But if I see (that) the (thinking) activity of my memory is limited, the very perception that it is limited, (acts) and you have moved out of it into another ( perceptive) dimension.

DB: It seems to me that you have to perceive the whole limitation of memory...

JK: Yes, not one part.

DB: One can see in general that our memory is limited but there are many ways in which this is not obvious. For example many of our reactions may be ( the mechanical response of) memory but we don't experience them as 'memory', you see. You experience the 'me' as being there presently and not memory. That is the common experience. Say, suppose I say I am becoming. I want to become less greedy, so I experience greed and I experience the urge to become ( non-greedy) as an actuality - which may be the result of memory, the 'me' is the one who remembers, not the other way around, that memory creates me – right?

JK: Sir, ( in a holistic nutshell) all this really comes down to: can humanity live without conflict? Can we have peace on this earth?

DB: Yes, well....

JK: And the ( mechanistic) activities of thought never bring it about.

DB: Yes, well it seems clear from what has been said that the activity of (man's self-centred) thinking cannot bring about peace, as it is inherently, bringing about conflict.

JK: Yes, if we once really see (the inward truth of?) that, our whole activity would be totally different.

DB: Are you saying there is an activity which is beyond thought?

JK: Yes.

DB: And which is not only beyond thought but which does not require the cooperation of thought? So it is possible for this to happen when thought is absent?

JK: That is the real point. We have often discussed this, whether there is anything beyond thought – an activity which is not touched by thought? We are saying there is. And that activity is the highest form of intelligence.

DB: Yes, now we have brought in 'intelligence'...

JK: I purposively brought it in! This (compassionate ) intelligence is not the activity of cunning thought.

DB: Yes, but this intelligence can use thought, as you have often said.

JK: Intelligence can use thought.

DB: And then thought can be the action of intelligence - would you put it that way?

JK: Yes.

DB: Or it could be the (mechanical) action of memory?

JK: That's it. The action born of memory and our memory is limited, therefore thought is limited and it has its own activity which then brings about conflict.

DB: I think this would connect up with what people are saying about computers. You see every computer must eventually depend on some kind of memory, on memory, which is put in, or...

JK:...programmed ?

DB:...programmed. And that must be limited – right?

JK: Of course.

DB: Because when we operate ( mechanically?) from memory we are not very different from a computer; or perhaps the other way around, the computer is not very different from us.

JK: A (traditionalist) Hindu has been programmed for the last five thousand years to be a Hindu, or in this country you have been programmed as British, or as a Catholic or as a Protestant. So we are all programmed up to a certain extent.

DB: Yes, now you are bringing in the notion of an intelligence which is free of the programme, it is creative perhaps and...

JK: Yes, that's right. That ( holistic ) intelligence has nothing to do with memory and knowledge.

DB: Yes. It may act in (the field of) memory and knowledge but it is has nothing to do with it.

JK: That's right, but to come to that one has to go into the whole question of human suffering, whether there is an ending to suffering, since as long as suffering and fear and the pursuit of pleasure exists there cannot be (the compassionate intelligence of?) Love.

DB: Well, there are many questions there. The first point is that ( this global sense of human ) suffering is including pleasure, fear, loneliness and we could include anger and violence and greed in that.

JK: Of course, otherwise (...it would be so much easier?)

DB: We could say first of all that all those are the response of (mankind's ancestral) memory and as long as they are going on it seems to me that intelligence cannot operate through thought.

JK: That's right. So (for starters?) there must be freedom from ( this psychological burden of human) suffering.

DB: Yes, that is a key point....

JK: That is really a very serious and deep question (left for optional homework?) : whether it is possible to end suffering, which is the ending of (thought's identification with the ) 'me' .

DB: Yes, but the general feeling is that I am there and I either suffer or don't suffer. I either enjoy life or... I suffer.

JK: Yes, I know that (existential objection ?) …

DB: But I think you are implying that suffering arises from thought, it is thought...

JK: ...identified.

DB: So what is it that suffers ? It seems to me, that memory may produce ( a continuance of) pleasure and then when it doesn't work, or when it is suppressed, it produces pain and suffering.

JK: Not only that. The human suffering is much more complex, isn't it?

DB: Yes... ?

JK: The ( experiential ) meaning of the word is to have pain, to have grief, to feel utterly lost, lonely...

DB: Well, it seems to me a very pervasive sense of total ( existential) pain …

JK: But suffering is (also caused by?) the loss of someone.

DB: Or by the loss of something very important to you...

JK: Yes, of course. Loss of my wife, or loss of my son, brother, or whatever it is, and the ( subsequent ) desperate sense of loneliness.

DB: Or simply the fact that the whole world is going into such a state...

JK: Of course sir. I mean, all the wars...

DB: It makes everything meaningless you see.

JK: What a lot of suffering the (recent) Falkland war has created...

DB: Well all these wars.

JK: And wars have been going on for thousands of years. That is why I am saying we are carrying on with the same pattern (mentality?) of the last five thousands years or more, of wars....

DB: Now one can easily see that all the violence and hatred (involved in these ) wars will interfere with (the holistic) intelligence. But you see, some ( 'old school' ?) people have felt that by going through suffering people become purified, like going through the crucible – right?

JK: I know - that through suffering you 'learn' (the hard way, the lessons of Life?)

DB: Or you are being purified in some way.

JK: That through suffering your 'ego' is dissolved...

DB: Yes, dissolved, or... refined ?

JK: It doesn't (really?) . People have suffered immensely. How many wars, how many tears and the destructive nature of ( autocratic?) governments only multiply them - unemployment, ignorance...

DB:...ignorance, disease, pain, everything. But you see, what is suffering really? Why does suffering prevent intelligence? What is going on really?

JK: Suffering is a ( psychological) shock : - I suffer, I have pain, it is the essence of the 'me'.

DB: Yes, and the ( dualistic) difficulty with suffering is that it is the 'me' that is suffering. And this 'me' is really being 'sorry for itself' (in the first place ).

JK: 'My' suffering is different from 'your' suffering... We don't see that suffering is shared by all humanity...

DB: Yes, but suppose we see it is shared by all humanity?

JK: Then I begin to question what is (the cause of this ) suffering. ( For starters?) it is not my suffering...

DB: Yes, well that is an important (experiential point) . In order to understand the nature of suffering I have to get out of this idea that it is 'my suffering' because as long as I believe it is 'my' suffering I have an illusory ( subjective ?) notion of the whole thing...

JK: ...and I can never end it.

DB: If you are dealing with an illusion you can do nothing with it. But to come back : why is suffering the suffering of many? At first it seems that I feel pain in the tooth, or I have a loss, or something has happened to me, and the other person (on the street?) seems perfectly happy.

JK: Happy, yes.... but also he is (or he will be eventually ?) suffering too in his own way.

DB: So, at the moment he doesn't feel it, but he has his (psychological) problems too (which will manifest in time...) .

JK: Suffering is common to all humanity.

DB: Yes but the fact that it is common is not enough to make it 'all one'.

JK: It is actual.

DB: Yes, but aren't you saying that the suffering of mankind is 'all one', inseparable?

JK: Yes Sir. That is what I have been saying.

DB: As is the consciousness of man?

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: So, when anybody suffers, the whole ( consciousness?) of mankind is suffering ?

JK: The whole point is that we have suffered from the beginning of time, and we haven't solved it.

DB: It is clear that it hasn't been solved. …

JK: We haven't ended ( the whole causation of ? ) suffering.

DB: And the reason we haven't solved it is because we are treating it as personal or as in a small group where it cannot - that is an illusion ?

JK: Yes...

DB: Now any attempt to deal with an illusion (or with something which is not understood?) cannot solve anything. Now, we would like to make it very clear...

JK: ...that thought cannot solve anything psychologically ?

DB: Yes because thought itself divides. Thought is limited and is not able to see that this suffering is all one - right? And that way divides it up as 'mine' and 'yours' which creates illusion which can only multiply suffering. Now it seems to me that the statement that suffering of mankind is one, is inseparable from the statement that consciousness of mankind is one.

JK: We said that suffering is part of our (time-bound?) consciousness.

DB: But one doesn't get the feeling immediately that this suffering belongs to the whole of mankind, you see.

JK: Sir, ( consciousness-wise?) the world 'is' me, I 'am' the world.

DB: By the world you mean the physical world, or the world of society, or..?

JK: The 'psychological' ( mentality of the?) world primarily, chiefly.

DB: So, when I say 'I am the world', what does it mean?

JK: The ( total consciousness of the?) world is not different from me.

DB: The world and I are one - right? We are inseparable.

JK: Yes. But ( to see the inward truth of?) that requires a real meditation - it is not just a verbal statement, it is an 'actuality'.

DB: Yes, now many religions have said that.

JK: That is just a verbal statement, but they don't 'do it' in their hearts.

DB: Perhaps some have done it but in general it is not being done - right? I mean there may have been a few (who were seeing & doing it?)

JK: I don't know if anybody has done it – but (generally speaking the ?) human beings haven't done it. Our religions actually have prevented it.

DB: Because every religion has its own beliefs and its own organization?

JK: Of course. Its own 'gods' and its own 'saviours'... So, is that intelligence actual? To me it is an actuality. Because the ending of suffering means ( the beginning of a new consciousness based on compassion &?) love.

DB: Yes now before we go on, let's clear up a point about the 'me'  ; You just said ''it is to me''. In some sense it seems that you are still defining an (integrated) individual - is that right?

JK: I am using the word "I" as a means of ( experiential?) communication.

DB: Yes but what does it mean? Let's say there may be two people, Mr 'A' who is the way you see (it) and Mr 'B' who is not ( holistically minded?). So this seems to create a division between Mr A and Mr B.

JK: That's right. But Mr B creates the division.

DB: Yes, Mr B' is creating the division by saying, "I am a separate person" but when Mr A says "It's not that way to me", it may confuse Mr B still further- right?

JK: Sir, that is the whole point : you feel that you are not separate and that you really have this sense of ( intelligent) love and compassion, and I haven't perceived it or gone into this question (as experiential homework) . What is your relationship to me?

DB: Well... ?

JK: That's what I am saying: you (Mr A) have a relationship with me but I (Mr B) haven't any ( authentic ) relationship with you.

DB: Well, one could say that the ( Mr B) person who hasn't seen is inwardly living a world of ( self-becoming?) dreams and therefore the world of dreams is not related to the world of being awake.

JK: That's right.

DB: But the ( Mr A) fellow who is awake can try to awaken the other fellow ?

JK: You are awake, I am not. Your (holistically responsible) relationship with me is very clear. But I (Mr B) have no relationship with you as I insist on division and you don't.

DB: In some way we have to say that the consciousness of mankind has divided itself - it is all one- but it has divided itself by thought – right?

JK: That is why all the problems that humanity has now, psychologically as well in other ways, are the result of ( a survivalistic ) thought. And we are pursuing the same pattern of (self-divisive?) thought, and thought will never solve any of these problems. So there is another kind of ( holistically perceptive?) instrument, which is intelligence (aka: 'insight'?) .

DB: Yes, well that opens up an entirely different subject. But you have also mentioned Love & Compassion ?

JK: Without Love and Compassion there is no (holistic?) Intelligence. But you cannot be (intelligently?) 'compassionate' if you are attached to ( psychologically dependent on ?) some 'religion', and think (that your action ?) is compassionate.

DB: Well, as soon as your (temporal?) 'self' is threatened then it all vanishes, you see ?

JK: Of course. But this 'self' hides behind...

DB:...other things – like ( following some) noble ideals....

JK: Yes, it has an immense capacity to hide itself.... So what is the future of ( the consciousness of?) mankind? From what one observes it is leading to (self-) destruction... ?

DB: Yes, that is the way it seems to be going...

JK: ( Pretty?) gloomy, grim, dangerous and if one has children what is their future? To enter into all this and go through all the misery of it all ? So ( a holistically friendly?) education (for both children & parents?) becomes extraordinarily important. (Hint:) But for now, 'education' is merely (focussed on) the accumulation of ( technological skills & book ) knowledge.

DB: Well, every instrument that man has invented, discovered & developed has been ( eventually?) turned toward destruction.

JK: Yes sir, they are destroying nature...

DB:... they are destroying forests and agricultural land...

JK: ( Not to mention the?) over population... and nobody seems to ( really) care.

DB: I think there are two things: one is that (most?) people are immersed in their own problems, but there is also a tendency toward despair - in the sense that many people don't think anything can be done...

JK: Yes... And even if they think something can be done they form little groups, ( propagating their ) little theories.

DB: Well there are those who are very confident in what they are doing, but most people haven't much confidence in what they are doing...

JK: I know, I know. So, sir, what is the future of (the consciousness of ) humanity - I wonder if anybody is (seriously?) concerned with it? Or each person or group are only concerned with their own ( economical) survival?

DB: Well, I think the first concern (of mankind) has been always with survival either the individual or the group. You see, that has been the (unwritten?) history of mankind...

JK: Therefore perpetual wars, perpetual insecurity...

DB: Yes, but as you said, this is the result of a thinking ( dominated by self-interest?) which being incomplete, makes the (elementary) mistake to identify itself with the group and so on....

JK: You happen to 'listen' and 'see' the truth of all this, but people are asking: what is the point of you and I seeing something to be true and what effect has it (on the total consciousness of mankind) ?

DB: Well if we think in terms of the effects...

JK: ...it is a ( holistically?) 'wrong' question.

DB: ...because we are bringing in the very thing which is behind the trouble, 'time'. That is the first response : ''We must quickly get in and do something to change the course of events.''

JK: Therefore form a Foundation and all the rest of it....

DB: But you see our mistake is that we must 'think' about something (that has to be done) , while our own thinking is incomplete. We don't really know what is going on ( within man's consciousness) - people have made theories about it but they don't really know....

JK: But if that is the wrong question, then as a human being, who 'is' mankind, what is my responsibility?

DB: Well I think it is the same as with 'Mr A' and Mr B : suppose 'Mr A' sees something and most of the rest of mankind does not. Then one could say ( the total consciousness of?) mankind is in some way day-dreaming...

JK: It is caught in illusion.

DB: Illusion. And if somebody sees something then his responsibility is to help awakening the others up - right? To get out of the illusion.

JK: That is just it. That is why the Buddhists have projected the idea of the (Maitreya ) Bodhisattva, who 'is' the essence of all compassion, and is waiting to save humanity. It is a happy feeling that there is somebody (is actually ?) doing this. But (as long as our thinking is functioning in the 'self-locked' mode?) we won't do anything that is not comfortable, (profitable?) satisfying & secure, both psychologically and physically.

DB: Well that is the source of the illusion, basically....

JK: They (pretend they) haven't time, they haven't the energy, they haven't even the inclination. They want to be 'amused' (culturally entertained ?)... How does one make Mr B see this whole thing so clearly that he says, "All right, I have got it - I am responsible so, I will (get to) work. I think that is the ( educational?) tragedy of those who 'see' and those who don't....
Is it over Sir? We have talked an hour...

DB: An hour and a half...

JK: We will wait now, sit quietly.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Feb 2020 #267
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 486 posts in this forum Offline

2ND (reader-friendly edited) K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM
(1983)

J.Krishnamurti: Sir, last time we were talking about the (psychological?) future of man. Are the (modern?) 'psychologists' (& other psycho-activists?) really concerned with the future of (the human consciousness?) ? Or are they concerned with ( making a living from 'helping' ) the human beings conforming to the present ( state of?) society ?

David Bohm: Well, most psychologists evidently want the human being to conform to this society, but some psychologists, (including) some of whom will be listening to us, are thinking of going beyond that to transform the consciousness of mankind.

JK: Can the consciousness of mankind be changed through time? That is one of the questions we should discuss this evening.

DB: As we have discussed last time, with regard to consciousness time is not relevant, that it is a kind of (sleek thought-projected?) illusion. We discussed the illusion of ( self-) becoming.

JK: Can we put it much more simply: there is no ( holistic ?) evolution of the human 'psyche' (in terms of time) ?

DB: Yes. And since the ( global) future of mankind depends on the ( condition of the human?) psyche it seems then that its future is not going to be determined through actions in time. But then that left us with the (unanswered) question: what can we do?

JK: Let's proceed from there. Shouldn't we first distinguish between the 'brain' and the 'mind'?

DB: Well, this distinction is not very clear. (Are you implying that?) the mind and the brain are two different things ?

JK: Yes, I think they are two different things. First let's consider the 'brain' - one can observe one's own activity of the brain, that it is really functioning like a (biological?) computer that has been programmed (for collective & individual survival ?) and 'remembers'...

DB: Well certainly a large part of the activity is that way, but one is not certain that all of it is that way.

JK: No. But it is conditioned by ( the self-centred experience of the?) past generations, by the society & by all the activities and pressures from the outside.

DB: What do you exactly mean mean by this 'conditioning'?

JK: It is programmed to conform to a certain pattern of life, it lives entirely on its ( experience of the?) past, modifying itself with the present and going on.

DB: Yes, now we have agreed that some of this conditioning is useful and necessary, but the conditioning which determines the self, which determines the...

JK: ...the 'psyche'.

DB: The 'psyche'... you call it the psyche ?

JK: Let's call it for the moment the 'psyche'. The self (-centred conditioning) .

DB: So, it is this 'self' (-centred ?) conditioning is what you are talking about. That may not only be unnecessary but harmful.

JK: Yes … Giving ( primary ) importance to this 'self' (-centred' consciousness?) , is creating great damage in the world because it is separative and therefore it is constantly in conflict - not only within itself – but with the society, with the family and so on and so on...

DB: Yes. And it is also in conflict with (the world of?) nature.

JK: With nature, and with the whole universe....

DB: And I think we discussed last time that the conflict arose because...

JK: ...of division...

DB: and the division arising because thought is limited...

JK: ...thought is limited. That's right.

DB: Being based on this conditioning, on knowledge and memory, it is limited.

JK: Limited, yes. And (as the human) experience is limited, therefore knowledge is limited, memory and thought. And the very structure and the nature of the 'psyche' (the temporal self?) is the movement of thought in time.

DB: But (regarding) this 'movement of thought'... it doesn't seem clear to me what is moving... It seems to me we are discussing something which is a kind of illusion because you have said becoming is the movement of thought...

JK: Becoming is entirely (the self-projected activity of thought ?) That is what I mean, the movement in becoming.

DB: But this (mental ) movement you are saying is in some way illusory, aren't you?

JK: Yes, of course, of course.

DB: It is rather like the movement on the screen which is projected from the...

JK: ...from the camera...

DB: ...from the video-projector . We say that there are no objects moving across the screen but the only real movement is the turning of the projector. Now can we say that there is a real movement in the brain which is projecting all this (psychological) conditioning?

JK: The constant assertion of the 'self' is the (psychological ) movement, is the conditioning.

DB: But there is some real movement happening for example, the brain is doing something. It has been conditioned physically and chemically...

JK: Yes...

DB: And something is happening physically and chemically when we are thinking of the 'self' – right?

JK: Are you saying the brain and the self are two different things?

DB: No, I am saying the 'self (- centred' consciousness?) is the result of conditioning the brain.

JK: Yes. The ( temporal) 'self' is the conditioning the brain.

DB: Yes. But does this 'self' (really?) exist ?

JK: No, no...

DB: So, the conditioning of the brain, as I see it, is 'involving' (itself) with an illusion which we call the self.

JK: That's right.... Can this ( self-identified?) conditioning be dissipated?

DB: Yes... ?

JK: That's the whole question.

DB: So, it really has to be 'dissipated' in some physical and chemical and neurophysiological sense...

JK: Yes.

DB: Now the first reaction of any scientific person would be that it looks unlikely that we could dissipate it by the sort of thing we are doing here . You see some scientists might feel that maybe we will discover drugs or new genetic changes or acquire a deeper knowledge of the structure of the brain. In that way we could perhaps help to do something. I think that idea might be current among some (science) people.

JK: Will that change the human behaviour?

DB: Well why not? You see I think some people believe it might.

JK: Wait a minute, that is the whole point. 'It might', means in the future.

DB: Yes. It would take time to discover all this.

JK: To discover all this. In the meantime man is going to destroy himself.

DB: Well then they might hope that he will manage to do it in time. You see because they could also criticize what we are doing, the same point saying what good can it do? It doesn't seem to affect anybody and will it affect mankind in time to really save (the civilised world?)

JK: Obviously not...

DB: Then why should we be doing it?

JK: Because this is the 'right' thing to do.

DB: Independently ?

JK: Independently. It has nothing to do with reward and punishment.

DB: We do the 'right thing' even though we don't know what the outcome will be – right?

JK: That's right.

DB: Are you saying there is no other way ?

JK: We are saying there is no other way, that's right.

DB: Well we should make that clear. For example some psychologists would feel that by enquiring into this sort of thing we could bring about an evolutionary transformation of consciousness.

JK: We come back to that point that through time we hope to 'change' ( bring about a holistic change in the human?) consciousness. We question that...

DB: We have questioned that and are saying that time will inevitably involve that we are all caught in (self-) becoming and illusion and we will not know what we are doing ?

JK: That's right. That's right.

DB: Now could we say the same thing would hold even for those scientists who are trying to do it physically and chemically or structurally, that they themselves are still caught in this ( same mentality?) that through time they trying to become better?

JK: Yes, that's right. That's right.

DB: They will not know what they are doing really...

JK: Both 'experimentalists' and the 'psychologists' and (possibly most of?) ourselves, they are all trying to become something.

DB: Yes, though it may seem that they are really just unbiased observers working on the problem, but underneath you feel there is the desire to become better on the part of the person who is doing it.

JK: To become, of course, of course...

DB: He is not free of that...

JK: That is just it. They are not free of that.

DB: And that desire will ( eventually?) give rise to self deception and illusion, and so on...

JK: So where are we now? That any form of (psychologically motivated?) becoming is an illusion and that for the (human) psyche to change, time is not necessary.

DB: Now, that ties up with the other question of the difference between the 'mind' and the 'brain'. You see, the brain can be understood as an activity in time, as a complex physio-chemical process...

JK: I think the 'mind' is separate from the 'brain'.

DB: Well what does it mean 'separate'?

JK: Separate in the sense the brain is conditioned and the mind (the content-free consciousness?) is not.

DB: Well what you are saying is that the mind has a certain independence of the brain. Even if the brain is conditioned...

JK: ...the other is not.

DB: It need not be... ?

JK: ...conditioned.

DB: Now, on what basis do you say that?

JK: No... let's not begin with ''on what basis do I say that ?''.

DB: Then, what makes you say it ?

JK: As long as one's brain is conditioned, it is not free.

DB: Yes... ?

JK: And the 'mind' is free.

DB: Yes, so that is what you are saying... Now, the brain not being free means it is not free to enquire in an unbiased way.

JK: I will go into it (experientially?) Let's enquire: what is freedom?

DB: Yes... ?

JK: ( The inner?) freedom to enquire, the freedom to investigate, and it is only in freedom there is a deep insight.

DB: Yes, that's clear because if you are not free to enquire - or if you are biased - then your enquiry is limited...

JK: Limited.

DB: In an arbitrary way.

JK: So as long as the brain is conditioned its relationship to the 'mind' is limited. But the mind being free (of thought & time ?) has a relationship to the brain.

DB: Yes...so you're saying the mind is 'free' in the sense it not subject to the ( timr-binding) conditioning of the brain ?

JK: Yes.

DB: Now one could ask a question: what is the nature of the 'mind'? For example I could ask is the 'mind' located inside the ( psychosomatic?) body, or in the brain?

JK: No, it has nothing to do with the (physical) body or the brain.

DB: Has it to do with space or time?

JK: It has to do with (inner) space and silence. These are the two factors of the 'mind'.

DB: But not time, right?

JK: Not time. ( The active memory of?) Time belongs to the brain.

DB: You say (inner) 'Space' and Silence, now what kind of 'space' is that ? It is not the ( the outer ) space in which we see life moving.

JK: Let's look at it the other (negative?) way. Thought can invent (create its own mental ?) space...

DB: So, in addition to the outer space that we can see ( outwardly ), thought can invent all kinds of space...

JK: And the space ( distance ?) from here to there.

DB: Yes, the space through which we move ( in the physical world ) is that way.

JK: ( Then there is also a ?) space also between two noises.

DB: Between two sounds ?

JK: Sounds...

DB: Well they call it the interval between two sounds.

JK: Yes, interval between two noises...

DB: Two noises, eh... ?

JK: (The silent interval between ?) two thoughts (or between two freight - trains of thought... ? )

JK: Space (or psychological distance?) between two people and so on. But that kind of space is not the (inward?) space of the 'mind'.

DB: You say (this inward space ) is not limited ?

JK: That's right. I didn't want to use the word 'limited'...

DB: It is not being bounded by something ?

JK: No, it is not bounded by the (temporal ?) 'psyche'.

DB: But... is it bounded by anything?

JK: No.

DB: You're saying the psyche is (time-) bounded because we have said it is limited and so on... Right?

JK: So can the (physical) brain with all its ( survival-) conditioned cells, can those cells radically change?

DB: Well, it is not certain that all the cells are conditioned. For example some people think that only a small part of the (brain's) cells are being used, and the others are just rather being dormant.

JK: Not used at all, or just touched occasionally.

DB: Just touched occasionally. But those ( active) cells that are conditioned, evidently dominate our consciousness now – right?

JK: Yes, and can those cells be changed?

DB: Yes... ?

JK: We are saying that they can ( change qualitatively?) through insight.

DB: Yes... ?

JK: Insight being out of time, it is not the result of ( one's mental ?) remembrance, or desire, or hope, -( in a nutshell:) it has nothing to do with any ( self-centred movement of ?) time and thought.

DB: Yes, so this 'insight', is it of the mind, is (the timeless?) activity of mind?

JK: Yes.

DB: Therefore you are saying that (the compassionate intelligence of the?) 'mind' can act in the (living?) matter of the brain ?

JK: Yes, we said that earlier...

DB: Yes, but you see, this is a difficult point, how this 'mind' is able to act in brain's matter ?

JK: It is able to act on the brain. Say for instance, take any crisis, or any human problem : generally we meet it with all the remembrance of the past, with a (cultural) bias and so on. And therefore the (inward causation of the ) problem multiplies itself. Now to have (a global or 'holistic' ?) perception of the problem without any past memories and thoughts projecting themselves in the perception of the problem...

DB: Now, this implies that (such a holistic) perception also is of the mind ?

JK: Yes, that's right...

DB: Are you more or less saying that the brain is a kind of ( physical) instrument of the mind? Is that what is being said?

JK: (It can be an) instrument of the mind when the (inner activity of the ?) brain is not self-centred.

DB: Well, if we think of all (brain's time binding) conditioning, it may be thought of as the brain exciting itself and keeping itself going just from the ( traditional self-centred) programme. And this occupies the whole capacity of the brain. It is rather like a radio receiver which due to its (background) noise, it would not pick up a ( useful) signal. Would this ( technical) analogy be at all...

JK: Not quite...

DB: It is not very good but...

JK: Not very (meditation-friendly?)... You see sir, ( brain's temporal ?) experience is always limited... And so our knowledge is always limited. And this knowledge is operating in the brain. This knowledge 'is' the ( natural activity of the?) brain. Right? And ( its response as ) thought is also part of the brain and that thought is limited. So the brain is operating in a very, very small area (of what was previously experienced or known ?)

DB: Yes...so what prevents it from operating in an unlimited area?

JK: Thought.

DB: Thought... But the brain seems to be running on its own, from its own ( temporal) programme.

JK: Yes, like a computer that is running on its own programme.

DB: So, essentially what you are asking is that the brain should really be responding to the ( compassionate intelligence of the?) mind ?

JK: And it can only so respond if it is free from the ( self-identified activity of ? ) thought which is limited.

DB: Yes, so (that its survival-oriented) programme does not dominate it. But you see, we may still need that programme.

JK: Of course. We need it for...

DB: ...for many things. Yes but is ( the quality of holistic) intelligence (coming?) from the mind then?

JK: Yes, intelligence 'is' the ( perceiving action of the?) mind.

DB: 'Is' the mind... ?

JK: Because there is no intelligence without compassion. And compassion can only be when there is ( a selfless quality of ?) Love which is completely free from all remembrances, personal jealousies and all that kind of thing.

DB: Now is all that 'intelligence', 'compassion' and 'love', also of the mind?

JK: Of the ( universal?) mind. And you cannot be ( intelligent, loving & ) compassionate if you are attached to ( relying on?) any particular experience, or any particular ideal.

DB: Yes, well that is again the programme that is...

JK: Yes. Say for instance, there are those ( missionary) people who go out to various poverty ridden countries and work, work, work, and they call that compassion. But (inwardly) they are attached to a particular form of religious belief and therefore that is merely empathy but it is not compassion.

DB: Well I understand that we have here two things which can be somewhat independent. There is the brain and the mind, though they make contact. Now then intelligence and compassion we say come from beyond the brain. But I would like to go into the question of how they are making contact ?

JK: Ah! The contact between the mind and the brain can only exist when the brain is (inwardly) quiet.

DB: Yes... that is the requirement for making it - the brain has got to be quiet.

JK: But this is not a trained quietness. Not a self-conscious, pre-meditatated desire for silence, but the natural outcome of understanding one's own conditioning (of thought's intrinsical limitation ?) .

DB: Yes and one can see that if the brain is ( naturally ) 'quiet' it could listen to something deeper – right?

JK: Deeper, that's right. Then if it's quiet it is related to the mind. Then the (compassionate intelligence of the Universal ?) mind can function through the brain.

DB: I think that it would help (our listeners & readers) if we could see whether the brain has any activity which is beyond thought. For example, one could ask is awareness part of the ( holistically -friendly?) function of the brain?

JK: As long as it is an awareness in which there is no ( personal) choice ( as in:) 'I' am aware and in that awareness 'I' choose...

DB: Well that may cause (a major experiential) difficulty. You see, what is wrong with (using inwardly one's freedom of ) choice?

JK: Choice (when applied inwardly) means confusion.

DB: It is not quite obvious... if I choose which colour I want to wear I don't see why that choice has to be confused.

JK: There is no confusion there.

DB: But the choice about the (inner qualities of your ?) 'psyche', it seems to me is where the confusion is.

JK: That's all, about the 'psyche'.

DB: You see, the ( holistic use of) language tends to carry one away...

JK: We are talking of the 'psyche' that chooses...

DB: ...that chooses what it wants to become...

JK: Yes. That chooses (what it wants?) to become and such choice exists where there is confusion.

DB: Yes. Well you are saying out of confusion the psyche makes a choice to become one thing or another - right? Being confused ( unhappy with its inward and/or outward condition ?) it tries to become something better.

JK: And this choice implies a duality...

DB: Yes but at first sight we have another ( metaphysical) duality which you have introduced, which is between the 'mind' and the 'brain'.

JK: No, that is not a ( psychologically motivated?) 'duality'.

DB: That is important to get clear - what is the difference?

JK: Let's take a very simple example. Human beings are ( inclined to be ?) violent and the (ideal of) 'non-violence' has been projected by thought and that is a (psychologically motivated?) duality – between the 'fact' and the 'non-fact'.

DB: Well, you are saying there is a (conflicting) 'duality' between a fact and some mere projection which the mind makes ?

JK: Between the 'ideal' and the 'fact'.

DB: Yes. The ideal is non-real and the fact is real.

JK: That's it. The ideal is not actual.

DB: Now, the division of those two you call duality. Why do you give it that name?

JK: Because they are divided and we are struggling to achieve those ideals, which are the outcome of thought, which is limited and this is creating havoc in the world...

DB: Yes. So we are trying to divide something which cannot be divided. We are trying to divide the ( nature of the?) 'psyche'. And the psyche cannot be divided into violence and non-violence – right?

JK: It is 'what it is'.
DB: It is what it is, so it can't be divided into a violent and a non-violent part.

JK: That's right. So - that is very good! So can we (quietly?) remain with 'what is', not with 'what should be', 'what must be' and invent ideals and all the rest of it?

DB: Now, to return to the question of the mind and the brain. You are saying that is not a division ?

JK: Oh no, that is not a division.

DB: Because they are in contact, is that right?

JK: We said there is contact between the mind and the brain when the brain is silent and has (free inner?) space.

DB: Yes, so the mind can still have a certain independence of the conditioning of the brain.

JK: Now careful Sir, careful, careful! Mind obviously has no relationship with that conditioning.

DB: You are using the word Mind, it means it is not my mind.

JK: Oh, 'mind', it is not mine.

DB: Universal or general ?

JK: Yes. And it is not 'my' brain either.

DB: But there is a particular brain, this brain or that brain. Would you say there is a particular mind?

JK: No.

DB: That is an important difference. You are saying Mind is really universal ?

JK: Mind is universal - if you can use that ( often abused?) word...

DB: Unlimited and undivided ?

JK: It is unpolluted, not polluted by thought.

DB: But for most people there will be an (experiential) difficulty in saying how do we know anything about this mind. I only know 'my mind', is the first feeling – right?

JK: You cannot call it 'your' mind. You only have 'your' brain which is conditioned. You can't say, "It is my mind".

DB: Well, whatever is going on inside ( myself) I feel is mine and it is very different from what is going on inside somebody else.

JK: No, I question whether it is different.

DB: At least it seems different.

JK: Yes. I question whether it is ( actually) different, what is going on inside me as a human being and you as another human being, as we both go through all kinds of (personal) problems, suffering, fear, anxiety, loneliness, suffer, and so on and so on. We have our own dogmas, beliefs, superstitions, and everybody has this...

DB: Well we can say it is all very similar but it seems as if each one of us is isolated from the other.

JK: By (the self-centred mentality of?) thought. My thought has created that I am different from you, because my body is different from you, my face is different from you, so we extend that same thing into the 'psychological' area.

DB: We have discussed that this division is an illusion perhaps.

JK: Not 'perhaps', it 'is'...

DB: It is an illusion, all right. Although it is not obvious when (the average) person first looks at it...

JK: Of course, of course...

DB: Now then, we say the brain & mind are really connected - right? And beyond all that is an (universal?) Mind which has no division at all.

JK: It is unconditioned.

DB: Yes...so it seems to imply then that in so far as a person feels he is a separate being he has very little contact with the Mind – right?

JK: Quite right. That is what we said it is very important to understand ( in the first place?) not the Mind but my ( self-isolating?) conditioning. Then whether that human conditioning, can ever be dissolved. That is the real issue.

DB: Yes. So, when we have (free access to a ) a mind that is universal, that is in (happening in?) some kind of (inner) space, or is (existing in ) it its own space?

JK: It is not ( located?) in me or in my brain.

DB: But it has a space ?

JK: It lives in Space and Silence.

DB: It lives in a space and silence, but it is a space of the Mind. It is not a space like this physical space?

JK: No. That Space (of the Universal Mind) is not invented (or imagined?) by thought.

DB: Yes, now is it possible to perceive this space when the mind is silent, to be in contact with it?

JK: Not 'perceive'....You are asking a question whether the Mind can be perceived by the brain.

DB: Or at least a sense of awareness ?

JK: Yes. We are saying 'yes', through Meditation. You see, the ( experiential) difficulty is that 'meditation' is generally understood as a 'meditator' meditating. Meditation is really a 'non- ( self) conscious' process.

DB: Then how are able to say that meditation takes place then if it is un-conscious?

JK: It is taking place when the ( totality of the?) brain is quiet.

DB: There is still a kind of awareness, isn't there?

JK: Oh yes. Depends what you call 'awareness'. Awareness of what?

DB: Possibly an awareness of something deeper... ?

DB: You see, there is a kind of 'unconsciousness' which we are simply not aware of at all. A person may be unconscious of some of his problems, conflicts.

JK: Let's go at it a bit more. If I do something (self-) consciously it is the activity of thought. Right?

DB: Yes, it is thought reflecting on itself.

JK: Yes, it is the activity of thought. Now if you are ( self-) 'consciously' (deliberately?) practise ( the art of?) meditation, then you are making the brain conform to another series of patterns...

DB: Yes, it is more self-becoming. You are trying to become better at it …

JK: There is no illumination by ( the ways of self-) becoming. You can't get illumined by saying I am going to be a 'cheap' (for profit?) guru .

DB: But now, it seems very difficult to communicate (verbally about) something which is not 'conscious', you see ?

JK: Let's put it that way: ( the self-) conscious meditation, the conscious activity to control (one's wandering ?) thought, or to free oneself from ( one's psychological) conditioning, is not 'freedom'.

DB: Yes, that is clear, but it becomes very unclear how to communicate what else can one do ?

JK: Wait a minute... Can I tell you what lies beyond thought ?

DB: Or what happens when thought is silent...

JK: Quite, silent. What words would you use?

DB: What about the word 'attention'?

JK: Attention is (sounding) better for me. Would you say in this attention there is no (thought controlling?) centre as the 'me'?

DB: Well, in the kind of attention you are discussing. But usually we pay attention because of what interests us.

JK: The (holistic?) attention is not ( the result of mental) 'concentration'...

DB: Yes that (the self-motivated attention) is (a mental) concentration. But we are discussing a kind of attention without this 'me' present which is not the activity of the conditioning.

JK: ...not the activity of thought.

DB: Yes... ?

JK: In attention thought has no place....

DB: Yes, but could we say more about what do you mean by attention? Now would the derivation of the word be of any use? It means 'stretching the mind' - would that help?

JK: No, no. Would it help if we say (negatively) that concentration is not attention, (making a ) mental effort is not attention. (In a holistic nutshell) attention can only come into being when the 'self' is not (around?) .

DB: Yes but that is going to get us in a (vicious ) circle because we are starting ( to meditate ) when the 'self' is (still there...) .

JK: Let's put it that way : as long as there is a (psychologically motivated?) measurement, which is ( part of self-) becoming, there is no Meditation.

DB: Yes. We can discuss ( endlessly ?) when there is not meditation...

JK: Through negation (of the false approach to meditation?) the 'other' is.

DB: So, if we succeed in negating the whole ( self-centred) activity of what is not meditation the ( authentic?) meditation will be there ?

JK: That's right. That's right...As long as there is ( a psychologically motivated?) measurement, which is the ( self-centred) process of thought, meditation or ( inner peace & ) silence cannot be.

DB: So this undirected attention is it of the Mind ?

JK: The (thought- free?) attention is of the Mind.

DB: Well, and it contacts the brain, doesn't it?

JK: Yes...as long as the brain is ( meditatively?) silent, the 'Other' has contact.

DB: That is, this true attention has contact with the brain when the brain is silent...

JK: Silent and has 'space' (the sense of 'spaciousness'? ) .

DB: What is this 'space' ?

JK: The brain has no 'space' now because it is self-centred and it is limited.

DB: Yes, the Mind is (existing) in its (unlimited) 'Space', but doesn't the brain have its (own inner) 'space' too?

JK: Limited. Thought has a limited space.

DB: But when thought is absent doesn't the brain have its (natural ) space?

JK: That's right. The brain has ( its natural inner) space, yes.

DB: Unlimited?

JK: No. It is only Mind that has an unlimited Space (spatiousness?) .

DB: Unlimited... ?

JK: My brain can be quiet over a problem which I have thought about and I suddenly say, "Well I won't think any more about it" and there is a certain amount of ( problem-free inner?) space. In that 'space' you solve the problem.

DB: So, if the (thinking brain) is silent, is not thinking of a problem, then its space is still limited, but it is open to...

JK: ...to the 'other'.

DB: ...to the attention. Would you say that through attention, or in 'attention', the Mind is contacting the brain?

JK: When the brain is not 'inattentive'.

DB: So what happens to the brain?

JK: We said (that Mind's Universal ) Intelligence is born out of Compassion and ( selfless?) Love. That Intelligence operates when the brain is quiet.

DB: Does it operate through ( this holistic?) attention?

JK: Of course, of course...

DB: So attention seems to be the (result of this ) contact.

JK: ...contact, naturally. But this (universally open ?) attention, can only be when the 'self' (- centred consciousness) is not ( interfering ?) .

DB: Yes. Now you say that love and compassion are the 'ground', and out of this comes the intelligence through attention ?

JK: Yes, it functions (freely) through the ( meditating?) brain.

DB: Now, about this (insightful) 'intelligence' there are two (open ended?) questions: what is the nature of this intelligence, and what does it do to the brain, you see?

JK: Again, we must again approach it 'negatively'. Love is not ( what is generally associated with?) jealousy and all that. Love is not personal, but it can be personal.

DB: Well if it is (coming?) from the Universal Mind...

JK: That is why I say (that this universal ) Love (sense of unity with All That Is ?) has no relationship to thought.

DB: Yes, it does not originate in the particular brain.

JK: Yes, it is not 'my' love....When there is that ( selfless quality of?) love, out of that there is compassion and there is intelligence.

DB: Now what is this intelligence able to do ? Could one say that it understands deeply ?

JK: No, not 'understand'...

DB: Then what does it do? Does it perceive?

JK: Through perception it acts.

DB: Yes. Perception of what?

JK: Perception - now let's discuss (the insightful?) perception. There can be perception only when there is no interference from the ( all-knowing) movement of thought – then there is a direct insight into a problem, or into a human complex(ity) ….

DB: Yes, now this ( insightful?) perception originates in the Mind?

JK: Yes, when the brain is 'quiet'.

DB: We used the words perception and intelligence ; how are they related, or what is their difference?

JK: Between (a totally insightful) perception and intelligence?

DB: Yes... ?

JK: None.

DB: So we can say that ( the action of this) Intelligence is the perception of 'what is' - right? And the contact is made through attention... ?

JK: Sir, let's take a ( common psychological ?) problem, like the problem of suffering. Human beings have suffered endlessly, through wars, through every kind of disease, physical disease, and (especially?) through their wrong relationship with each other. Mankind has suffered a great deal. Now can that ( psychological condition?) end?

DB: Well I would say that the difficulty of ending it that is that its (causation is already recorded on) on the 'programme'. We are conditioned to (accept ?) this whole thing – right?

JK: Yes, and that has been going on for centuries.

DB: Yes, so it is very deep, somewhat... ?

JK: Very, very deep. Now can that suffering end?

DB: It cannot end by any action of the ( survival oriented ) brain because it is caught in (the implicit acceptance of) suffering and it cannot take an action to end its own suffering.

JK: Of course, that is why thought cannot end it. ( The self-centred) thought has created it....Thought has created the wars, the misery, the confusion, and thought has become prominent in all human relationships.

DB: Yes, you see I think people might agree with that, but still think that as thought can do bad things, it can do good things....

JK: No, (psychologically-wise?) thought cannot do good or bad. It is ( self-centred) thought, limited.

DB: Thought cannot get hold of this suffering. That is this ( residual ) suffering being (enfolded?) in the physio-chemical conditioning of the brain, thought has no way of knowing what it is even. I mean that (just) by thinking I don't know what is actually going on inside me. I can't change the suffering inside because thinking will not show me what it is. Now you are saying it is (the compasionate action of?) Intelligence (that can do it?) .

JK: After all, we are asking can ( the ongoing causation of this ) suffering end? That is a problem....

DB: Yes, and it is clear that thought cannot do it because...

JK: That is the point : if I have an insight into it...

DB: Yes, and this insight will be the action of the Mind (through) intelligence and attention.
JK: When there is that (total?) insight, intelligence wipes away ( the causation of?) suffering.
DB: Yes, so you are saying there is a contact from Mind to ( brain cells') matter which removes the whole physical chemical structure which keeps us going on with suffering.

JK: That's right. In that 'ending' there is a (qualitative?) mutation in the brain cells.

DB: Yes and that mutation just wipes out the whole structure that makes you suffer.

JK: Yes. Therefore it is like I have been going along a certain tradition (of self-cetred mentality ?) and if I suddenly change that (psychological?) tradition there is a ( qualitative) change in the whole brain, which has been going North, now it goes 'East'.

DB: Of course this is a radical notion from the point of view of traditional ideas in science because if we accept that Mind is different from matter then people would find it hard to say that mind would actually...

JK: Sir... would you put it that ( the nature of ) Mind is pure (intelligent?) energy?

DB: Well we could put it that way, but say matter is energy too.

JK: Therefore matter is a limited (form of energy) , as thought is limited.

DB: So, we are saying that the pure energy of ( the Universal) Mind is able to reach into the limited energy of ( the consciousness of?) mankind ?

JK: Yes, that's right. And change (its time-binding?) limitations.

DB: Yes to remove some of the limitations....

JK: ...when there is a deep human issue, or a challenge which you are facing.

DB: Yes, and we could also add that all the traditional ways of thought trying doing this cannot work because thought cannot get at the basis of its own physical & chemical basis in the cells, and do anything about those cells.

JK: Yes Sir, we have said very clearly that thought cannot bring about a change in itself.

DB: And yet practically everything that mankind has been trying to do is based on thought. There is a limited (technological) area, of course, where that is all right but we cannot do anything about the future of (the consciousness of ) mankind from the usual approach.

JK: Sir, we mustn't reduce all this to a (righteous) intellectual argument. But as (responsible) human beings, facing all the confusion of the world, can there be a solution to all this?

DB: Yes, that comes back to the question that there are a few people who are talking about it, and perhaps meditating and so on, but how is that going to affect this vast current of (the selfishness of) mankind?

JK: It might, or it might not. As for the question: '' what is the use of it?'' I think it is a wrong question.

DB: But the first instinct is to say, "What can we do to stop this tremendous catastrophe?"

JK: If each one of us, whoever 'listens', sees the truth of this (psychological fact) that thought in its activity both externally and inwardly has created a terrible mess, great suffering, then one must inevitably ask is there an ending to all this? And if thought cannot end it, what will?

DB: Yes... ?

JK: What is the new instrument that will put an end to all this misery? You see, there is a new ( holistic) instrument of the Mind, which is Intelligence. But the difficulty is (that most) people won't 'listen' to all this. They have come to definite conclusions, both the scientists and the ordinary laymen, they won't 'listen'.

DB: Yes, a few people don't seem to have much effect...

JK: Of course, but after all the 'few people' have changed the world.

DB: Well they didn't change it fundamentally.

JK: No, changed the world superficially if you like. The physical revolutions have never changed 'psychologically' the human condition...

DB: Well do you really think it is possible that a certain number of brains coming in contact with the Mind in this ( meditative ?) way will be able to have an affect on ( the whole consciousness of) mankind which is beyond the immediate obvious effect of their communication?

JK: Yes, that's right...

DB: I mean obviously whoever does this may communicate in the ordinary way, it will have a small effect but now this is a possibility of something entirely different – right?

JK: You see - I have often thought about it - how do you convey to all this rather subtle and very complex issue, to a person who is steeped in tradition, who is conditioned and won't even take time to listen, to consider?

DB: You see, one point is that this conditioning cannot be absolute, you know an absolute block or else there would be no way out at all. But the conditioning may be thought to have some sort of permeability. Is it possible that every person has something he can 'listen' to, if it could be found?

JK: If he takes a little patience....So, who will listen? The idealists won't listen, the deeply steeped religious people won't listen. So perhaps Sir that is the whole point, a so-called 'ignorant' person, not highly educated and conditioned in his professional career, the man who says, "I am suffering, please let's end that."

DB: But even he doesn't listen either, you see. He wants to get a job.

JK: Of course...So perhaps it is like a wave in the world - it might catch somebody...

DB: Well, are you proposing that it affects ( the whole consciousness of?) mankind through the Mind directly, rather than through...

JK: Yes, yes... It may not show immediately in action.

DB: So, you are taking very seriously what you said that the mind is universal and is not separate...

JK: Yes. You see Sir there is an (implicit) danger in saying that the Mind is universal, that is what some people say of the Mind, and it has become a (cultural) tradition.

DB: You can turn it into an idea, of course.

JK: That is just the danger of it, that is what I am saying.

DB: Yes. But the (experiential?) question really is the we have to come directly in contact with this (Mind) , to make it real – right?

JK: Of course, that's it. They can only come into contact with it when the 'self' (-identified consciousness?) is not (active?) . To put it very, very simply, when the (time-bound) 'self' is not, there is beauty, there is silence & space (a silent spaciousness?) , then that Intelligence which is born of compassion operates through the brain. It is very simple...

DB: Yes. Would it be worth discussing the question of the 'self', since the 'self ( -identified' consciousness?) is widely active...

JK: I know, that ( self-centredness?) is our long tradition of many, many centuries...
DB: Now is there some ( practical) aspect of Meditation which can be helpful here when the 'self' is acting. Suppose a person says, "OK, I realise that I am caught in the self but I want to get out. What shall I do ?" What would you tell him or her?

JK: That is very simple. Is the 'observer' different from the ( conditioning which is being ?) 'observed'?

DB: Well suppose one says, "Yes, it appears to be different", then what?

JK: Is that an 'actuality'?

DB: What do you mean?

JK: It is an actuality when there is no division between the 'thinker' and the 'thought'.

DB: But ordinarily one feels the 'observer' is different from the 'observed'. I'll say we begin there....

JK: Look at it. Are 'you' (the 'observer') different from your anger, from your envy, from your suffering? You are not.

DB: At first sight it appears that I am, and that I might try to control it.

JK: You 'are' that.
DB: Yes...and how will I see that I 'am' that?

JK: You 'are' ( identified with?) your name. You 'are 'your form, body. You are the belief, you are the fear, you 'are' the suffering and pleasure. You are all that.

DB: Yes but the first experience is that I am here first and that those are (psychological) qualities which I can either have or not have. I might be angry or not angry, I might have this belief or that belief...

JK: But (the bottom line is that ?) you 'are' (openly or subliminally identified with?) all that.

DB: But you see, it is not obvious. When you say I 'am' that, do you mean that I am ( stuck with all) that and cannot be otherwise?

JK: No. At present you 'are' that. It can be totally otherwise.

DB: Yes, OK. So ( as of now?) I am all that...but I feel that I as the observer, am not angry but an unbiased observer who is looking at anger.

JK: Of course...

DB: So, are you telling me that this unbiased observer is the same as the anger he is looking at?

JK: Of course. Like when I analyse myself, the 'analyser' is the (inward stuff being) analysed.

DB: So if I watch anger for a while I can see that I am very biased by the anger, and at some stage I realise that I am one with that (personally biased reaction of) anger – right?

JK: Not 'I am one with it' - you are it !

DB: But that ( reaction of) anger and 'I' arereally the same ?

JK: Yes. ( In a holistically friendly meditation ?) the observer 'is' the observed. And when that actuality exists you have really eliminated altogether conflict (the inner) . Conflict exists when 'I' am (feeling) separate from my 'quality'.

DB: Yes, if I believe myself to be separate then I can try to change it, but since I 'am' that, it (the observing 'self' ) is not trying to change itself and remain itself at the same time, right?

JK: Yes, that's right. When the quality 'is' me, the division (the self divisive mentality of?) has ended. Right?

DB: Yes, when I see that the quality 'is' me then there is no point to (fight?) the whole thing...

JK: When the ( inwardly observed) quality is not me, then in that there is conflict, suppression and all the rest, which is a wastage of ( intelligent) energy. When that quality 'is' me, all that energy which has been wasted is (present) there to look, to observe.

DB: But why does it make such a difference to have that quality being me?

JK: It makes a ( qualitative) difference when there is no division between the quality and me.

DB: Yes, well then there is no perception of a difference, the mind does not try to fight itself.

JK: Yes, yes. It 'is so'.

DB: While if there is the illusion of a difference, (the thinking) mind must be compelled to fight against itself.

JK: The brain.

DB: The brain fights against itself.

JK: Yes, that's right.

DB: On the other hand when there is no illusion of a difference the brain just stops fighting ( its own shadow ?) .

JK: Stops fighting, and therefore you have a tremendous energy (to be integrated?) .

DB: The brain's natural energy is released, eh?

JK: Yes, yes. And (this newly awakened & integrated ) energy means attention.

DB: Wait a minute... we said before that attention was a contact of the Mind and the brain.

JK: Yes sir...

DB: So, the brain must be in a state of high energy to allow that contact.

JK: That's right.

DB: I mean, a brain which is 'low energy' cannot allow that contact.

JK: Of course not. But most of us are ( functioning in a ) 'low energy' (mode) because we are so conditioned.

DB: So, essentially you are saying that (eliminating the 'observer' vs 'observed' conflict?) is the (right) way to start ( meditating?) ?

JK: Yes sir... Start simply.

DB: Yes... ?

JK: Start with 'what is', with 'what I am'. That is why (the correct understanding of ) self knowledge is so important. Self knowledge is not a process of accumulating knowledge (about oneself ) , which then looks (knowledgeably?) at (what is) , but a constant learning about oneself.

DB: Yes, well if you call it 'self knowledge', it is not the knowledge we talked about before, which is conditioning (time-binding?)

JK: That's right. Knowledge (the inward mentality of 'knowing' ) conditions.

DB: But you are saying that self knowledge of the ( 'not-knowing' ? ) kind is not conditioning (not time-binding ?) . But why do you call it 'knowledge'? Is it a different kind of knowledge?

JK: Yes, yes....the 'self knowing', which is to know and to comprehend one's self -which is such a subtle complex thing, it is living.

DB: It's essentially 'knowing yourself' in the very moment in which things are happening.

JK: Yes, to know what is happening (inwardly in real time?) .

DB: ...rather than store it up ( as static knowledge) in one's memory ?

JK: Of course. Through ( observing my personal ?) reactions I begin to discover what I (really?) am, and so on & on...

(I think we had better stop, right?)

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 16 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 241 - 267 of 267 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.)